• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
View attachment 277102
Here's the research discussed in your link. I'm not going to bother reading it because it is discussing archean geology, which is vastly vastly different than Paleozoic geology with orthocones.

I understand that I talked about brachiopods which drug us slightly into another topic, but this archean research is taking us into a completely different world of geology.
How could that article posted in 2020 be the research linked to a ten year old article?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Basically, to explain, teams of scientists gather what they consider evidence of something and they generate a preliminary abstract, which is why it says "abstracts with programs". The research is then basically fleshed out by the authors, then it goes through peer review, then it gets published.
Ok then if your scared of it just admit it and say you have no refutation other than saying they didn't finish the peer review process. You really cannot refute it like you thought you could and now are back tracking and checking qualifications. Ok point noted.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
They're all orthocones. This is what you have been asking me for.

But sure, I'll post more details just for you.
Different animals entirely sir. Animal types change at the genus level by and large.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Here is the article in reference to the telescoping conical cephalopods with perpendicular geopetal structures.

View attachment 277105
View attachment 277106
View attachment 277107
Again just post a picture of said organism, if it's comparable then we will go to step 2. But flooding someone with 20 to 30 page documents is not an honest form of debate. It's on partner with.....if I flood you with too much information. Then you can't reply. Again literally the first 4 papers you posted had nothing to do with my topic. My trust in your ability to stay on topic has vanished. So we can change topics ulif you wish but you must admit you have no info to refute the grand Canyon fossils.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And again, this article above also clearly describes information that is actually similar to what Steve Austin described in that around 15 percent are either oblique or perpendicular to bedding.

Which goes back to what I've been saying since the beginning. It seems reasonable to suggest that most would be buried sideways, but we can't expect all of them to do so. Especially when they're among coral and sponges and in environments where they may be jostled around by currents.
Didn't read your post because you didn't post a picture of organism. You know it does not apply. So instead you keep posting non sequitur evidence.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Didn't read your post because you didn't post pictures of organisms. Well I suppose if you cannot post peer reviews refuting it, with all the valid refereed subscriptions then it must be a good and solid valid argument. Thanks for the debate. I have given you ample pages to refute directly the fossilk in grand canyon. And you cannot so I guess we are done with this debate. Let me know if you wish to go to another topic of Evidence for catastrophy.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Didn't read your post because you didn't post pictures of organisms. Well I suppose if you cannot post peer reviews refuting it, with all the valid refereed subscriptions then it must be a good and solid valid argument. Thanks for the debate. I have given you ample pages to refute directly the fossilk in grand canyon. And you cannot so I guess we are done with this debate. Let me know if you wish to go to another topic of Evidence for catastrophy.

Do you not recognize your own source when you see it?

I've posted several pictures now of oblique oriented orthoconic nautiloids, similar to those described in Steve austins paper (I'm not sure how you missed them in post 127 figures 3, 4 and 5, and post 135 are pretty explicit).

And it's interesting. You were all about asking me to find peer reviewed articles (suggesting that non peer reviewed were not good enough for you), but when it came time to look at Steve Austin's non peer reviewed article on nautiloids, all of a sudden, no peer review is ok for you? I actually have both addressed Steve Austin's ideas and noted his lack of peer review at the same time.

And indeed, the fact that Steve Austin made an abstract, but then never actually published a peer reviewed paper on it, really is telling of his failed idea. When people make abstracts and present them at gsa, typically they're intended for later publication. But this never happened for Steve Austin, I wonder why?

You mentioned research being irrelevant if it were not of the same genus of orthoconic nautiloid. It seems dishonest to do so, given the similar shape of other orthoconic nautiloids. It's like saying you won't accept research on burial of house cats because they're too different and smaller than tigers. But there is no logical or applicable difference between the two in this subject matter. If a small shell of a 5-1 dimension can stand, so can a big one and vise versa. Just as a small pencil (1 foot) and a large pencil (4 foot) can both get stuck in mud in a similar manner.

You asked for nautiloids with body ratios of 4-1 or 5-1, but when I provided such, it immediately was disregarded for being of another species (though in truth, dimensions of these species probably couldn't be distinguished by either of us, given their near identical shape).

I'll give you more time to work through my posts, thus far I am entertained by your responses.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
??

The flood article ? Just saying many scientists believe a catastrophe happened. That is all.

Yes, a flood article. Are you not aware that Steve Austin was making a case for a global flood? Are you aware that he is a young earth creationist that believes a worldwide flood made the entire canyon from scratch?

Of course all scientists believe that a catastrophe happened. Indeed, an endless number of catastrophies happened (several mass extinctions, asteroid impacts, large floods (though nothing on a global scale), mile high walls of ice, hurricanes, tsunamis, avalanches etc. But know that countless regular everyday casual events happened in the past as well. The earth is extremely old with countless events of many scales. Just like in today's time.

And in this particular instance of redwall limestone and nautiloid deposition, the stratigraphy does not suggest a catastrophe, nor do the oblique oriented nautiloid shells. They are no more an evidence of catastrophe than the graptolite comet is.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do you not recognize your own source when you see it?

I've posted several pictures now of oblique oriented orthoconic nautiloids, similar to those described in Steve austins paper (I'm not sure how you missed them in post 127 figures 3, 4 and 5, and post 135 are pretty explicit).

And it's interesting. You were all about asking me to find peer reviewed articles (suggesting that non peer reviewed were not good enough for you), but when it came time to look at Steve Austin's non peer reviewed article on nautiloids, all of a sudden, no peer review is ok for you? I actually have both addressed Steve Austin's ideas and noted his lack of peer review at the same time.

And indeed, the fact that Steve Austin made an abstract, but then never actually published a peer reviewed paper on it, really is telling of his failed idea. When people make abstracts and present them at gsa, typically they're intended for later publication. But this never happened for Steve Austin, I wonder why?

You mentioned research being irrelevant if it were not of the same genus of orthoconic nautiloid. It seems dishonest to do so, given the similar shape of other orthoconic nautiloids. It's like saying you won't accept research on burial of house cats because they're too different and smaller than tigers. But there is no logical or applicable difference between the two in this subject matter. If a small shell of a 5-1 dimension can stand, so can a big one and vise versa. Just as a small pencil (1 foot) and a large pencil (4 foot) can both get stuck in mud in a similar manner.

You asked for nautiloids with body ratios of 4-1 or 5-1, but when I provided such, it immediately was disregarded for being of another species (though in truth, dimensions of these species probably couldn't be distinguished by either of us, given their near identical shape).

I'll give you more time to work through my posts, thus far I am entertained by your responses.
again sir I don't have time as you do to sit for hours on one forum debating one guy all day, so if you wish to debate me you will have to use the format I ask. I ask for graphics of animals you wish to compare to nautiloids. If you are quoting steve austins work, then state so in the first sentence. IF you are posting nautiloids, the state so. This is how I wish to debate going forward. I am afraid if I let you run things we will be all over the place with nonsequitur articles left and right. Steve austins work was in a recognized geological organization and it was important enough to print on the geological associates website. So for me that is good enough. If you think that because it's not peer review that you don't wish to accept it, that is fine we can move on. For myself, I don't accept articles from uniformitarians that are not peer review. Because of the host of articles out there, I simply want the facts of the matter. Now if you posted nautiloids from another peer review that were found upright and you have a natural explaination for why they are upright, then present it. I presume you cannot. Or you would have. I am glad you are entertained. But from my perspective your arguments are not very organized. It's like you have diarrhea of the peer review websites, and post anything that even remotely resembles a shellfish. But again that is not good enough. So if you can provide 5 to 1 ratio length to width, images then I would love to see them. I will not read your posts again, again I don't have as much time as you seem to have, so if you wish for me to address something I missed repost it.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Alright, another honerable mention.


The "graptolite comet".

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vojtch_Turek

Turek, Vojtch, a PhD and expert on fluid dynamics of orthoconic nautiloids, peer reviewed with diagrams and images of the vertical pencil like nautiloids.

View attachment 277143
View attachment 277144
View attachment 277145
View attachment 277146
View attachment 277147
View attachment 277148
I didn't see any upright nautiloids in any of the pictures. They were all lying down. Again to make my life easier, simply quote the sections you wish to present as evidence. But posting a 20 page article as evidence just seems to me, like they are trying to hide something. When I was debating theology one way I would hide contradictions is I would quote as many commentaries I could on it, and maybe explaining it with 100 different viewpoints, would make them forget there was a contradiction. Slowly I just accepted that there was a contradiction and changed my theology accordingly. I posted a direct contradiction to your evolutionary theology and you seem to be upset about it, and have literally posted half a dozen articles since then. Nothing I have seen has refuted anything, you have posted about shellfish but nothing that was a long as a nautiloid. So honestly after the fourth peer review I stopped reading. So I am getting to the point where the writer of the OP go to. Which is giving up on you. I don't do that often. But simply put your too much work for me. You don't do your part of the debate posting your quotes, researching the degrees of the peer review writers, when I find your article I have to do all that work. So when you post six of them, I am just over loaded. So anyway, I don't think you can post one that actually proves what you are saying, and I will give you another day or so to formulate your last arguments. But before I leave I will allow us to change the topic once on this discussion to another topic. For instance the 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs that were buried rapidly in montana. Which you refused to respond to. Or the fact that scientists are saying the earth was covered by water at one point. Geologic columns have a lot of errors, simply because dating methods are not absolute, for instance they date a fossil by the rock it's embedded in, and they date a rock by the fossil embedded in it, that sir is circular reasoning, yet every geologist does it. So again dating methods are not what I call evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"I didn't see any upright nautiloids in any of the pictures."

I'm sorry, but this is just pure denial.

How do you not see them? @createdtoworship

When you saw the images of the graptolite comet, what do you see?

I'll post the one image again:
View attachment 277236
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Screenshot_20200517-171051.png
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And while we are at it, let's look at Steve Austin's video too and compare.


At 30 seconds in, we see the same drawing that you showed me.

And at 1:12 seconds, they look at something that looks like a circle. Similar to the picture in my last post, where the body is exposed perpendicular to bedding.

So...perhaps I should ask, if these perpendicular exposures to bedding planes, aren't enough for you, then how do you even know such a thing exists? Because Steve Austin himself and in his non-peer reviewed paper, at best, only displays the very same images.

Don't be confused now, Steve Austin didn't pull out a saw, climb on top of the bed, saw a square down 3 feet in depth to pull out a 9 square foot block of limestone, then saw the rock on half vertically to.expose the nautiloid.

No. He did the logical thing and simply looked at a cross section of the exposed nautiloid as it was present on a bedding plane.

Do you understand this?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Steve Austin even goes as far, as to describe the vertical nautiloids in the exact position as described as the graptolite comets. We could not hit the nail more on the head of this one.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"I didn't see any upright nautiloids in any of the pictures."

I'm sorry, but this is just pure denial.

How do you not see them? @createdtoworship

When you saw the images of the graptolite comet, what do you see?

I'll post the one image again:
View attachment 277236
again, listen to my words....."I do not see any upright nautiloids." I see a rock, yes. I see lines in the rock, yes. A nautiloid, I don't see. It could be there, it could not be there. I am not a professional.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Steve austins work was in a recognized geological organization and it was important enough to print on the geological associates website. "

But he never published it, which means that it was never peer reviewed. Or rather, more than likely he attempted to publish, and it was rejected.

Would you rather Creationists be rejected from even speaking at any event?

No, it's called giving them freedom of speech.

Anyway...the bottom line is that you're asking me for more than you can even find in your own sources.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
again, listen to my words....."I do not see any upright nautiloids." I see a rock, yes. I see lines in the rock, yes. A nautiloid, I don't see. It could be there, it could not be there. I am not a professional.

Ok. Well let me help you. The nautiloid is the black circle in which the graptolite is being entangled around.

Come on friend and brother in Christ. I have worked hard just for you. To reach this moment.

But I need you to work hard to reach this moment too.

When a nautiloid is perpendicular to bedding, it's body is exposed as a circle. And so, in these papers I am providing, these people, including Steve Austin, they're going to bedding planes (where the land was historically flat) and what they see are nautiloids at many different angles. And of those nautiloids, some, around 10-15% are in oval or circle or elongated circular position with respect to their exposure on the bedding plane.

This is what it is.

Nobody is out taking X rays and doing geophysical testing to display these animals. Nobody is sawing massive blocks of rock out of the wall to get the perfect cross section.

They're simply looking down at the bedding plane, almost like a floor, and looking at the nautiloid bodies exposed in a horizontal cross section, at the bedding plane.

And that's it.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And while we are at it, let's look at Steve Austin's video too and compare.


At 30 seconds in, we see the same drawing that you showed me.

And at 1:12 seconds, they look at something that looks like a circle. Similar to the picture in my last post, where the body is exposed perpendicular to bedding.

So...perhaps I should ask, if these perpendicular exposures to bedding planes, aren't enough for you, then how do you even know such a thing exists? Because Steve Austin himself and in his non-peer reviewed paper, at best, only displays the very same images.

Don't be confused now, Steve Austin didn't pull out a saw, climb on top of the bed, saw a square down 3 feet in depth to pull out a 9 square foot block of limestone, then saw the rock on half vertically to.expose the nautiloid.

No. He did the logical thing and simply looked at a cross section of the exposed nautiloid as it was present on a bedding plane.

Do you understand this?
sorry sir I don't understand what a perpendicular exposure to a bedding plane is, and I am going to go out on a limb and say, no one else here does as well. Again, post peer reviews. Include images of upright nautiloids, not rocks with lines in them that you need a PhD to interpret. Provide evidence that a typical reader of this thread can interpret. If you can't, then this appeal to authority that you are using....."I am a professional, and here let me prove it and confuse the heck out of you, so you back down." Is revealed for what it is. I do some programming at work, and when I train people I do so in a way where they will understand. I don't use the terms in the programming manual. People don't understand sequencers, and all the different technical instructions, I just show practically how to do it. That is because I am desiring to actually teach. Now if I didn't want to teach I would hide the knowledge, I would use big terms, and instead of using shortcuts, I would teach the long way to do things But that is not my personality. I desire everyone to learn everything. You seem to not want this. You seem to want everyone to come up to your level instead of simply making your arguments in words that a typical reader of the thread could use. And it is for a few reasons. Either you don't have the evidence, and when simplified, this become apparent. Or you simply don't want to teach. I think it is the prior, you are hiding behind scientific terms so that people can't follow your arguments, because they are not there.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,691.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
sorry sir I don't understand what a perpendicular exposure to a bedding plane is,

Ok. I'll explain, as the geologist here, who has looked at probably thousands of bedding planes, and as a person who has published research on fossil exposures on bedding planes, I am exceedingly able to understand the material. And I'm not appealing to authority, I'm just doing what I do and have experience doing through my education, my career, through past research and as just as hobby of mine as well.

But you have to be willing to listen and to learn.
 
Upvote 0