Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,224
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Now again I am not saying older scientists are disqualified, but if person with newer credentials says something different, we can use that as leverage."

Paleontologists have been pretty consistent at large, certainly in the past 50-100 years in our understanding of the history of planet Earth. There are probably none, beyond at best maybe one or two Creationists who might disagree. I mean honestly, what are Steve Austin's credentials? He doesn't really even have any. But if we bothered to, we could literally pull up thousands of paleontologists who recognize gradual depositional rates of the past.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,224
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
https://creationwiki.org/Steve_Austin

According to this link, Steve Austin literally does not have even 1, not even a single article published in a scientific journal, let alone one of Paleontology. He is basically rejected as a scientist by the scientific community and I think this discussion highlights why that is so.

It looks like he presented a non-peer reviewed abstract, and in doing so it looks like he annoyed some scientists at the meeting. But that's about it.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,224
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And what I'm showing you literally is the consensus. This idea of gradual deposition through time is not something debated.

Yes, there are cases of avalanches or large floods in a local scale, obvious massive super volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts, but the gross consensus is from a uniformitarian position. And in large part, consists of gradual depositional events, much like those described in the paper.

And you won't really find any credentialed dispute with this. With good reason.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
He has a czech equivelant of a doctorate degree similar to a PhD and Masters it is a high level doctorate degree, indeed the highest level academic degree of the Czech sciences.

- Národní muzeum

His title is literally a doctor of natural sciences.

His doctorate research is in Paleontology from Charles University.

This guy, of all the people on planet Earth who study nautiloids, he's probably top 50 in experience and education pertaining to them. Based on the massive list of publications he has, the organizations he is a part of and has published through and his life long experience and career with them.

He is certainly far more experienced than Steve Austin.

As I've said in my last post, this guy eats, sleeps and breathes nautiloids. He's grown up collecting, he's has many years of experience with nautiloid experts, his doctorate degree is in Paleontology, the guy has some 30+ publications mostly on cephalopods, his publications are in very prestigious journals.

There really isn't any excuse not to view his credentials as anything but highly successful and very specific to the topic.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3RMrXP5WR9Ga1W24VFPIgZ
again sir you must prove that a faculty of science is a PhD equivalent. I looked here, and only one country was offering all faculty of science students, a PhD and that was Thailand I believe. So I hope you can see that difficulty here. Good luck proving sources. Again just because he has a job as a professor, does not meen he has a PhD in related field. For example a university can be stretched to fill a teaching position and give in and hire a less qualified person for the job. That is why I presume they do not put qualifications on their sites.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
https://creationwiki.org/Steve_Austin

According to this link, Steve Austin literally does not have even 1, not even a single article published in a scientific journal, let alone one of Paleontology. He is basically rejected as a scientist by the scientific community and I think this discussion highlights why that is so.

It looks like he presented a non-peer reviewed abstract, and in doing so it looks like he annoyed some scientists at the meeting. But that's about it.
so a scientist can reject another scientist as valid? Sounds like communism. I though that is what grauate schools do, in fact I think they specialize in making people qualified doctors.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,224
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
so a scientist can reject another scientist as valid? Sounds like communism. I though that is what grauate schools do, in fact I think they specialize in making people qualified doctors.

Who is the scientist first speaking and who is the one being rejected?

Steve Austin can be easily rejected because he doesn't actually have any peer reviewed research to reject to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,224
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
again sir you must prove that a faculty of science is a PhD equivalent. I

You're not reading again.

He has a czech equivelant of a doctorate degree similar to a PhD and Masters it is a high level doctorate degree, indeed the highest level academic degree of the Czech sciences.

- Národní muzeum

His title is literally a doctor of natural sciences.

His doctorate research is in Paleontology from Charles University.

This guy, of all the people on planet Earth who study nautiloids, he's probably top 50 in experience and education pertaining to them. Based on the massive list of publications he has, the organizations he is a part of and has published through and his life long experience and career with them.

He is certainly far more experienced than Steve Austin.

As I've said in my last post, this guy eats, sleeps and breathes nautiloids. He's grown up collecting, he's has many years of experience with nautiloid experts, his doctorate degree is in Paleontology, the guy has some 30+ publications mostly on cephalopods, his publications are in very prestigious journals.

There really isn't any excuse not to view his credentials as anything but highly successful and very specific to the topic.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3RMrXP5WR9Ga1W24VFPIgZ

The paper also has been cited at least 20 times:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15152371107241146660&as_sdt=5,39&sciodt=0,39&hl=en

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.researchgate.net/profile/Vojtch_Turek/amp
In the above link if you click on the "research" tab, you will find a massive list of peer reviewed publications of his on cephalopods.

This is pretty robust.

He has the highest degrees, he has lifelong experience, he is part of the most prestigious scientific organization of Eastern Europe, he has some 30+ publications in all of the big name journals including palaios and bulletin of geosciences, journal of paleontology, Paleontology, journal of Czech geological sciences and many more.

This guys credentials are exceptionally prestigious and strong and are strongly focused on nautiloids
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You're not reading again.
please quote JUST THE PART THAT LINKS FACULTY OF SCIENCE TO A PHD. You have a problem posting a billion images and get mad when people "are not reading again."
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Who is the scientist first speaking and who is the one being rejected?

Steve Austin can be easily rejected because he doesn't actually have any peer reviewed research to reject to begin with.
so a scientist that just gets out of college, is not a scientist because they have no peer reviews? Wow, I guess the people with the peer reviews like that rule I bet. And the article you posted about Steve austin was peer reviewed by an ID organization BTW. So it is possible to be peer reviewed by a non conformitarian viewpoint. So if you deny that as biased, I can deny yours too as biased, and we get nowhere.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,224
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
so a scientist that just gets out of college, is not a scientist because they have no peer reviews? Wow, I guess the people with the peer reviews like that rule I bet. And the article you posted about Steve austin was peer reviewed by an ID organization BTW. So it is possible to be peer reviewed by a non conformitarian viewpoint. So if you deny that as biased, I can deny yours too as biased, and we get nowhere.

I'm comfortable if you think that the creation or ID institute is as comparably credentialed as the thousands of scientists and their respective academies.

If that is how you feel and you would rather take Steve Austin's word over, in this case literally thousands of scientists, that's your choice.

Personally, as a scientist myself, I am comfortable concluding that Steve Austin simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Based on our prior discussion of the vertical nautiloids. And I'd be happy to review.

I don't think it makes any sense to suggest instantaneous burial in instances where crinoids are attached to the cephalopod shells, or where there are graptolite comets which need time of partial burial to pass, or where the stratigraphy and fine, flat and smooth laminations of shales are present suggesting a calm depositional environment (in contrast with something brecciated or scoured), or where telescoped shells have laminations in varying directions which also demands the passage of time, or where bryozoans or bivalves have grown on the shells, or where bryozoans have grown on internal moulds of nautiloids. Indeed, collectively in this discussion we have probably looked at between 10-15 scientists who reject Steve Austin's ideas (though they may not even know who he is).

And based on what I've seen in the world of fossils, I would tend to agree. And that's how I make my choice on which party to be a part of.

In contrast, i would say that all of the above more accurately depicts gradual deposition of a shallow marine continental shelf. I think that the position of the scientific community makes more sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,224
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So let's recap some ideas.

1. The biostartigraphy of the environments discussed in my papers and in Austin's paper as well, note The presence of things such as briozoans crinoids, bivalves, gastropods and cephalopods. Which are all animals that we would find in shallow marine continental shelf environments. Which are calm and regular depositional environments. Research suggests that deposition at continental margins occurs at rates of up to 1cm a year, so it really wouldn't take long for a Nautiloids burial in a vertical position.

2. Stratigraphy is described as finely laminated planar silts. Nothing brecciated. Homogenous. Nothing that would indicate any sort of chaotic occurance.

3. One paper described telescoped shells in which internal shells had laminations of fine sediment perpendicular to external shells. Another case for gradual deposition.

4. Graptolite comets demonstrate the passage of time of vertical nautiloids shells. Which is the opposite of what Steve Austin was suggesting, which means that austins video is wrong in it's presentation of this idea that a nautiloid couldn't stand vertically in a gradual depositional environment.

5. Graptolite comets were listed in at least 2 of my presented papers. Here is another:
Error - Cookies Turned Off

Of these papers there is Turek Vojtech RNDr., Jiri Kris PhD, RNDr. and Annalisa Ferretti PhD., Peter storch PhD., Stepan Manda RNDr., PhD, David Loydell PhD.

If we wanted to, we could easily find plenty of strongly credentialed paleontologists who reject this idea of Steve Austin's rapid burial and instantaneous deposition as being necessary for vertical nautiloids burial. As far as credentials go, Steve Austin is well outmatched.

So we have logical reasons to reject Austin's ideas, even without any peer reviewed research (how could this instantaneous burial result in graptolite comets in an environment in which crinoids grew from empty nautiloid shells? Austins ideas are obviously wrong). We have peer reviewed research behind us and we have a large body of experts.

And you can doubt what these people are saying, you can doubt their credentials, you can doubt that these articles are peer reviewed. You can doubt that they even exist if you want to. But that's kind of just on you. It's your own choice and I won't stop you if that's what you want to believe.

And if you completely disregard the scientists (including myself), you're still left with the logical problems of Austin's ideas. But if you want to believe Austin despite all this, I suppose that's your choice.

It's a 2 part issue. You placed a lot of emphasis on credentials, but Austin is way out of his league. So all we can do is turn away from the discussion of credentials and focus on the logical ideas in the papers, but that's where we began and Austin's ideas are just clearly wrong for the reasons mentioned above. There's not really anywhere else to go. Except perhaps a new topic.

You could otherwise just keep doing what you're doing and asking more and more questions which is good to do, But the progress that is being made has continually been in an opposite direction of the conclusions that you're trying to reach. The answers we keep digging up, one day at a time, keep driving the point back to what I've been telling you the whole time.

At some point you just have to come to a conclusion that you're wrong. Unless you want to go your whole life in limbo.

All the papers I've listed are peer reviewed and published in prestigious journals, but if you want to deny that too, that is your choice.

To review Dr. Turek Vojtechs credentials, see the following prior post:
Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

The subject article has been posted in the prestigious peer reviewed journal known as journal of Czech geological sciences. If you have eyeballs, you can see for yourself:
View attachment 277475
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm comfortable if you think that the creation or ID institute is as comparably credentialed as the thousands of scientists and their respective academies.

If that is how you feel and you would rather take Steve Austin's word over, in this case literally thousands of scientists, that's your choice.

Personally, as a scientist myself, I am comfortable concluding that Steve Austin simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Based on our prior discussion of the vertical nautiloids. And I'd be happy to review.

I don't think it makes any sense to suggest instantaneous burial in instances where crinoids are attached to the cephalopod shells, or where there are graptolite comets which need time of partial burial to pass, or where the stratigraphy and fine, flat and smooth laminations of shales are present suggesting a calm depositional environment (in contrast with something brecciated or scoured), or where telescoped shells have laminations in varying directions which also demands the passage of time, or where bryozoans or bivalves have grown on the shells, or where bryozoans have grown on internal moulds of nautiloids. Indeed, collectively in this discussion we have probably looked at between 10-15 scientists who reject Steve Austin's ideas (though they may not even know who he is).

And based on what I've seen in the world of fossils, I would tend to agree. And that's how I make my choice on which party to be a part of.

In contrast, i would say that all of the above more accurately depicts gradual deposition of a shallow marine continental shelf. I think that the position of the scientific community makes more sense.
so I take it that you cannot refute it with proper peer review. If that is the case then we are done. If you have a logical case regarding the find let me know. But I will conclude this discussion and will not adress further comments. Again quoting unprofessionals is not a valid case against a peer review of a phd geologist. Again check your sources and then come back and talk. I will adress logical evidence at this point only. If you address any of the existing unverified material, I will be able to tell and will exit this debate, as that is just speculation.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I see you marked my post as funny, so that in a way is goading my comment that you disagree. And as such is sort of a way of revealing that you have nothing else logical to add, if you did you would have and not goaded. So I think that concluded our debate, thanks. Again I have lots to talk about regarding proving catastrophy theories, I have several more peer reviews to share. Also I can refute any aspect of evolution that you wish as well. But I can see that your debate tactic is sort of to overwhelm a debater with documents that are unverified, and treat them as objective, then act like you won. Which is sort of dishonest, so if you don't mind I think I will refrain from any more debate with you. So take care, and thanks for the debate.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,224
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
. Again quoting unprofessionals is not a valid case against a peer review of a phd geologist.

So let's recap some ideas.

1. The biostartigraphy of the environments discussed in my papers and in Austin's paper as well, note The presence of things such as briozoans crinoids, bivalves, gastropods and cephalopods. Which are all animals that we would find in shallow marine continental shelf environments. Which are calm and regular depositional environments. Research suggests that deposition at continental margins occurs at rates of up to 1cm a year, so it really wouldn't take long for a Nautiloids burial in a vertical position.

2. Stratigraphy is described as finely laminated planar silts. Nothing brecciated. Homogenous. Nothing that would indicate any sort of chaotic occurance.

3. One paper described telescoped shells in which internal shells had laminations of fine sediment, perpendicular to laminations observed within External shells. Another case for gradual burial.

4. Graptolite comets demonstrate the passage of time of vertical nautiloids shells while only partially buried. Which is the opposite of what Steve Austin was suggesting (instant complete burial), which means that austins video is wrong in it's presentation of this idea that a nautiloid couldn't stand vertically in a gradual depositional environment.

5. Graptolite comets were listed in at least 2 of my presented papers. Here is another:
Error - Cookies Turned Off

So now we've migrated away from the subject of the papers to the authors of these papers:

Of these papers there is Turek Vojtech RNDr., Jiri Kris PhD, RNDr. and Annalisa Ferretti PhD., Peter storch PhD., Stepan Manda RNDr., PhD, David Loydell PhD.

If we wanted to, we could easily find plenty of strongly credentialed paleontologists who reject this idea of Steve Austin's rapid burial and instantaneous deposition as being necessary for vertical nautiloids burial. As far as credentials go, Steve Austin is well outmatched.

So we have logical reasons to reject Austin's ideas, even without any peer reviewed research (how could this instantaneous burial result in graptolite comets in an environment in which crinoids filter fed from empty nautiloid shells? Austins ideas are obviously wrong). We also have peer reviewed research behind us and we have a large body of experts as well.

And you can doubt what these people are saying, you can doubt their credentials, you can doubt that these articles are peer reviewed. You can doubt that they even exist if you want to. But that's kind of just on you. It's your own choice and I won't stop you if that's what you want to believe.

And if you completely disregard the scientists (including myself), you're still left with the logical problems of Austin's ideas. But if you want to believe Austin despite all this, I suppose that's your choice.

It's a 2 part issue. You placed a lot of emphasis on credentials, but Austin is way out of his league. So all we can do is turn away from the discussion of credentials and focus on the logical ideas in the papers, but that's where we began and Austin's ideas are clearly wrong for the reasons mentioned above. There's not really anywhere else to go.

You could otherwise just keep doing what you're doing and asking more and more questions which is good to do, But the progress that is being made has continually been in an opposite direction of the conclusions that you're trying to reach. The answers we keep digging up, one day at a time, keep driving the point back to what I've been saying the whole time.

All the papers I've listed are peer reviewed and published in prestigious journals, but if you want to deny that too, that is your choice.

To review Dr. Turek Vojtechs credentials, see the following prior post:
Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

The article in question on Nautiloids was published in Casopis pro Mineralogii a Geologii, which is now superceded by the Czech Journal of Geological Sciences and is now known as the Journal of Geosciences.

Časopis pro mineralogii a geologii. (Journal, magazine, 1956) [WorldCat.org]
View attachment 277502
Časopis pro mineralogii a geologii in SearchWorks catalog
Journal of geosciences in SearchWorks catalog

If you have eyeballs, you can see for yourself (top left corner):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1TyzaSlLA0sjCPbSs5iDDV

So let's see

Turek Vojtech: RNDr. In Paleontology
Steve Austin: PhD. In geology

Good for Steve Austin he has a PhD., His degree isn't in paleontology however. Just to note.

Turek Vojtech: of the 31 articles authored by Turek Vojtech in the following link, at least 20 articles are published specifically on cephalopods.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vojtch_Turek

What about Steve Austin?
Dr. Steve Austin Articles | Answers in Genesis

According to Answers in Genesis, of the 9 magazine and "in depth articles" Steve Austin has written, 0 are on cephalopods. Let's try another source.

The FAST Project
In the above link, 20 articles are listed, only 1 has to do with cephalopods and it's presented in the "creation science fellowship".

Turek Vojtech has lifelong experience studying cephalopods and is active in several academic circles related to paleontology.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3RMrXP5WR9Ga1W24VFPIgZ&cshid=1590259618685

Steve Austin? He is more or less unknown in the world of paleontology, he has little to no known experience with fossils.

Where are Turek Vojtech's articles published? :
He has some 30+ publications in all of the big name journals including the bulletin of geosciences, journal of paleontology, Paleontology, journal of Czech geological sciences and he even served as reviewer of Palaios.
PALAIOS 2011 Reviewers | PALAIOS | GeoScienceWorld
And in case you aren't familiar with these journals, they are all peer reviewed and some are quite prestigious.

Even if Steve Austin were actually accepted and published in non-creationist scientific journals, he would still be far out-credentialed. And that's just after looking at just one paleontologist. I could easily name several paleontologists who would counter Austin's claims. If I really wanted to, I could probably come up with hundreds of paleontologists who have published contrary to Austin's ideas.

So I must ask, how have you come to the conclusion that anyone I've listed is an "unprofessional"? Do you honestly think that Turek Vojtech is an unprofessional? Steve Austin has 0 credentials associated with paleontology and much less cephalopods, Turek Vojtech has some 20 peer reviewed publications specifically on cephalopods.
Austin's degree isn't in paleontology either. So why would his credentials be considered more credible than Turek Vojtech's?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
These “experts” argued against Harlen Bretz for years because his ideas led to catastrophic beliefs instead of uniformitarianism.

J Harlen Bretz - Wikipedia

“Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Agewas better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated.

Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejected.”

The “experts” have done nothing since then to garner any trust except the same thing over and over again. Arguing the same argument that has already been shown to be wrong.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums