Geologists (HALP)

[Baggins]

Not a wise hope.

Even I do have something, I won't tell you. The reason is obvious.

Yes, you don't know what you are talking about and you don't want to get into a detailed discussion and have your appaling lack of knowledge exposed to the lurkers on this thread.

It is like your posts about the creation of the moon and zircons. All hints that you have great knowledge and insights, but when it comes down to it nothing that a mediocre mind and wikipedia couldn't cook up in 5 minutes flat.

Do you actually have anything to say about the relative dating of the earth, the moon and zircons? Or is it a sort of "intellectual" dance of the seven veils?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, you don't know what you are talking about and you don't want to get into a detailed discussion and have your appaling lack of knowledge exposed to the lurkers on this thread.

It is like your posts about the creation of the moon and zircons. All hints that you have great knowledge and insights, but when it comes down to it nothing that a mediocre mind and wikipedia couldn't cook up in 5 minutes flat.

Do you actually have anything to say about the relative dating of the earth, the moon and zircons? Or is it a sort of "intellectual" dance of the seven veils?

Why should I tell you my knowledge to exchange for your cynical comment? I do not see sincerity in any of your post.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That is what does the MT 24:34 mean.

Clever, but not really accurate. I mean it says this generation "shall not pass" before all these things be fulfilled (the list of things to occur including stars falling from heaven, Son of Man (Jesus) coming as lightning, the greatest tribulation ever seen, famines pestilence, earthquakes, and these are in response to the disciples request for information as to "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" So it really isn't about the kind of waiting you say. But your point is rather interesting from a philosophical stance.

(Hope that's "positive" enough for you.

I am a little bit tired of your argument. Could you say something positive (even from the atheistic point of view)

You know, Juvenissun, I think you need to reasses your honest view on these things. You'll note that when I first started interacting with you I was positive (note here, here, here, and here). It was after being told I was part of a group who weren't real scientists, or didn't know how to learn, or that you would simply not respond even though you had something important you could respond with.

You see, I wonder if you actually care about you "Great Commission". If you believe Jesus wanted you to minister to the heathens what right have you to withold information?

You wish it were so simple.

If true, there will be no atheist. (take it back. there will still be. )

(emphasis added).

[bible]Matthew 28:19[/bible]

So if you have this wondrous information, please pony it up! I should think you would have no choice but do so!

Even I do have something, I won't tell you. The reason is obvious.

So we see your true aim and goal in your "ministry".

But then, again, I'm not the committee you need to worry about, am I?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I am definitely serious. One could not see the geological possibility hidden in Genesis until one has a geological background and think A LOT about what Genesis says.

But what is it about Genesis that would require a lot of thought? You risk interpretting signal in the noise.

But then you're vast knowledge of science surely has acquainted you with that concept hasn't it?

Even that, there is no data or anything which can be found in the Book.

Quoted for TRUTH.

What it gives you is a direction of research.

Really? Or do you mean "once you accept that God is real on pure faith, then you are given the task of lining up the stories told about him with the paucity of data in the stories and the jarring mismatch to the data in the actual rocks"?

That's not a really robust "direction" for your research.

And, it is the most important thing in any scientific learning.

Well, the thing you seem to fail at, Juvenissun, is understanding how to go about presenting your research. You present virtually no supporting evidence for the fundamentals that your "research" is based on (that's usually the "background" section in a scientific paper) and you never really "flesh out" the details for scientists who earnestly ask for them.

You may wish that I was nasty and disrespectful, but early on I was actually quite interested to learn the details of what you were thinking. But you strangely never provided them, or started "frequency hopping" onto a vast array of different and unrelated topics, and ultimately, when pressed hard enough for the details you resorted to nastiness and bile.

Again, this shows to anyone that has actually gotten an advanced degree that you have likely never had to defend a thesis or dissertation. If you had even part of that discipline you'd know how the game is played. How the dance is danced.

But you stumble onto the floor and flail about as if you are only parrotting what real scientists do.

And sadly all of us who actually have done real science see it for what it likely is.

And that seems to annoy you greatly.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Why should I tell you my knowledge to exchange for your cynical comment? I do not see sincerity in any of your post.

Tell you what. Since I haven't been cynical, insincere, rude, etc etc blah, and this is my thread, maybe you should go ahead and give up your information to me. It's ok, I'll accept it in PM form, if that makes you happy. But you're falling into the classic creationist stance of "I've got lotsa info that I'm not sharing with you! nanner nanner nanner!" THis, as has been noted countless times, is not an effective or acceptable debating technique OR method for proving your scientific worth.

If you have something to say, or an argument to make, or some evidence to present, please do it. If not, why not just quit posting?

 

[juvenissun]

Tell you what. Since I haven't been cynical, insincere, rude, etc etc blah, and this is my thread, maybe you should go ahead and give up your information to me. It's ok, I'll accept it in PM form, if that makes you happy. But you're falling into the classic creationist stance of "I've got lotsa info that I'm not sharing with you! nanner nanner nanner!" THis, as has been noted countless times, is not an effective or acceptable debating technique OR method for proving your scientific worth.

If you have something to say, or an argument to make, or some evidence to present, please do it. If not, why not just quit posting?

I don't know any Creationist has the attitude as you described. And I certainly do not do that, even at here. For example, you communicated in a decent manner, and I always share what I know with you in openness.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't know any Creationist has the attitude as you described. And I certainly do not do that, even at here.

---------------------------------------------

Even I do have something, I won't tell you. The reason is obvious.

Why should I tell you my knowledge to exchange for your cynical comment?

It is VERY EASY to explain that what you said above does not apply to the situation of a global flood. But I am NOT going to tell you why this time.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

I don't know any Creationist has the attitude as you described.

Then you do not know many creationists, as their favorite ploy is 'I base my response on evidence that I have but will not share with you' every single day, and in many posts.

And I certainly do not do that, even at here.

You said you have evidence, yet you haven't posted it yet. So yes, you do do that here.

For example, you communicated in a decent manner, and I always share what I know with you in openness.

Please start this now.

 

[juvenissun]

Then you do not know many creationists, as their favorite ploy is 'I base my response on evidence that I have but will not share with you' every single day, and in many posts.


You said you have evidence, yet you haven't posted it yet. So yes, you do do that here.


Please start this now.

What evidence? My memory is sort of short.

 

[Molal]

I'm with Baggins and Thau - the references they recommended are good references that have lots of information.

Rudnick, R.L., Fountain, D.M. (1995) Nature and composition of the continental crust: a lower crustal perspective. Rev. Geophys. 33, 267-309

This recommended by Juvenissun is also an excellent book. All these references will provide additional referenced material in the bibliographies.

I'll have a look through my Geological Society Journals for more recent references.

 

[Molal]

Just found this in a quick review of my journals on my desk. Suggest you pop to the library to view:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

[thaumaturgy]

What evidence? My memory is sort of short.

-----------------------------------

Even I do have something, I won't tell you. The reason is obvious.

 

[Baggins]

Why should I tell you my knowledge to exchange for your cynical comment? I do not see sincerity in any of your post.

And I do not see any evidence of understanding of the earth sciences in yours.

You are a one trick pony; you do a bit of superficial reading of a geology text, make a post with a few technical terms in it, hint that you have some revelation, and run away when anyone challenges you on it.

As I said, one trick pony, and you have been rumbled

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Hey guys! Now I know that none of you are petrologists (other than BobByers ), but I'm writing a paper on granitic continental crust differentiation (focusing on the arguments of the two main camps, the steady-staters and those that believe the evidence supports a progressive increase in total continental crust, and deciding which one I think is more viable). I've had a little trouble finding sources, and I was wondering if any of you knew any good articles off-hand that you could provide me links to, or maybe journal volumes that would contain an article.

I'm not asking you to do any research, just wondering if you had anything readily at hand that might help me out. So far all i've got is the two special volumes that Tectonophysics did on the subject, and I'll be scouring the Eos database tomorrow.

Thanks for the help, guys.

It is not that simple, I have worked on oceanic plateaus and the evidence suggests the accretion of these plateaus onto continental crust is a more significant continental building process.

Here a link to some papers on the subject.

Link

 

[juvenissun]

What is the origin of the oceanic "plateaus"? Are they submerged hotspot islands? I wonder how effective they could be in pushing the shelf sediments during the process of subduction.

I need to read the article, but, thanks for your reply in advance.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

It is not that simple, I have worked on oceanic plateaus and the evidence suggests the accretion of these plateaus onto continental crust is a more significant continental building process.

Here a link to some papers on the subject.

Link

If you read the post you quoted, you'll see that this is a petrologic paper, focusing on the differentiation of continental crust from a mantle source. Plutonism and mantle vulcanism are obviously not the only continent-building processes, but they are the ones that are being addressed.