Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Shirley Knott]

...
Why not use the whole leaf and use conventional dating if what Dr. V is saying is true?

Gee, dave, one would think you don't read the posted responses to your twaddle. This has been answered, accurately and conclusively.
And the answers have included challenges on the topic of which you remain oddly [sic] silent.
I wonder why, oh, wait, I know.

...
But I've been told by many of you that good scientists are skeptical so I think I would be letting you down if I wasn't :-)

dave, dear, you've let us down, you've let humanity down, you've let common decency down.
We'd hardly recognize you if that trend stopped, although I suspect more than a few would applaud.
Your scepticism is a fraud, just like every other aspect of that festering malignancy you call a personality.

...
Why do the [piston, not drill] cores disagree? (Kato SGP-12 vs. Kitagawa SG-2)

Again with the questions that have already been answered, conclusively and accurately, and with challenges on the topic of which you remain, as expected, silent.

dave, here's a clue, free gratis from me to you: silence is your friend, probably the only sincere friend you have. Indulge it more.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[Faid]

DR. VAN DER PLICHT ON SAMPLE SIZE AND AMS VS. CONVENTIONAL RADIOCARBON DATING
I don't have much time this week as I am traveling but I will post as I can. I found this from J. Van der Plicht and it seems relevant. Keep in mind as you read this that the leaves dated by Kitagawa weigh about 1000 mg but only a small ~2mg fragment of each leaf was used for AMS dating. Why not use the whole leaf and use conventional dating if what Dr. V is saying is true? It would have been much cheaper and more accurate. Now there may be a good reason that I'm not aware of and if so, that's great.

Dave, you are LYING by pretending you don't already know the answer to that. Kirk Bertsche at Theology Web has explained it thoroughly to you.
Shall I quote him, and your lack of response, and show everyone what an unbelievable HYPOCRITE you are? It's only a few clicks away. I'm bored, but I'll do it if you ask for it.

At the end of my investigation, I may find that Kitagawa's C14 dating is perfectly valid. But I've been told by many of you that good scientists are skeptical so I think I would be letting you down if I wasn't :-)

If that's the case, then remind me to keep a nice woolen sweater for when I'm fuinally cast in the Lake of Fire, after that day... 'Cause that will be the day when Hell freezes over.

Quality Control of Groningen 14C
Results from Tel Rehov
Repeatability and intercomparison of
Proportional Gas Counting and AMS
Johannes van der Plicht and Hendrik J. Bruins

Another important matter related to sample selection is the respective choice of ‘conventional dating versus AMS’. There can be a temptation to collect and submit all isolated seeds and tiny flecks of charcoal. The dating of such isolated samples by AMS should be discouraged, if larger samples (seed or charcoal clusters) are present in the same layer. If sufficient material is available, samples can be dated more cheaply and often more accurately by conventional means. The possibility of dating erratic post-depositional influences is considerable when isolated small fragments of charcoal or seeds are used, which are liable to movement by faunal or human digging activity. Such tiny samples have to be derived from a clearly defined context or association to justify dating. Lanting and van der Plicht (1994) presented a detailed discussion about these issues, including examples. It is a ‘myth’ that AMS is better than conventional radiocarbon dating: standard deviations are usually not smaller.
http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publicati...el%20Rehov.pdf

Hmm. When you think you can post ONE SINGLE WORD to explain what the hell this has to do with the issues we are discussing (dating PART of a SINGLE leaf), get back to us. Until then...

OK, LD ... there's some work on my part. Your turn. How about answering my latest question ...

Why do the [piston, not drill] cores disagree? (Kato SGP-12 vs. Kitagawa SG-2)

Dave, you are LYING for pretending not to have received an answer already. See the posts in the pages before this one. I won't even bother to link to them, as your attempt to evade and hide from this is so pathetically obvious, it's actually sad to watch.

Why didn't you own up to your promise, Honest dave?

[Ved]

Why do the cores disagree?

Let's just say that this question did not haunt my dreams last night, just as I thought it wouldn't. But what's the answer? Isn't it in the very title of this thread? Isn't it due mostly to...

F L O C C U L E N C E ?

Why do the [piston, not drill] cores disagree? (Kato SGP-12 vs. Kitagawa SG-2)

Now look at this. Same question, a little more clarified... But Dave, if the piston cores "disagree"... wait for it...

Why do the drill cores agree?

Why do the cores agree, Dave? Why does everything but the very top of the cores agree?

[Wolfhound]

At the end of my investigation, I may find that Kitagawa's C14 dating is perfectly valid. But I've been told by many of you that good scientists are skeptical so I think I would be letting you down if I wasn't :-)

Dave, why do you lie so? Why do you pretend that you can change your mind when we all know, as do you, that you will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER accept any data as valid which contradict your ridiculous notion that the earth is 6k years old? As has been demonstrated here and elsewhere, you will go to herculean effort and taffy-esque twisting to try to make reality fit your mythology and attempt to "poke holes" in universally accepted scientific methods. Pathetic.

[Lasting Damage]

even different types of poston corer will pick up different amounts of sediment. Didn't I mention ages ago that the bottom is very difficult to find because of the softness. Additionally, different weights of corer will pick up soft sediments more or less well. The reason that different people use different weights is to pick up cores of the areas they are most interested. kato for example was not interested in data as far back as the glacial, and so used a lighter corer than others, who were interested in deeper sediments.

Furthermore, to expect no variation between cores would be rather strange. Recall that the lake has a sloped floor. When turbidites are dumped into the lake, they come via Mikata in general, and hence will be more predominant at the end of the lake closest to the inlet (private correspondence, but it's also probably in the papers if you look at the thicknesses of the turbidite layers), particularly as the lake has become more shallow over the years. The circulation will not be perfectly even all over the lake every year. This is why suigetsu is particularly useful, because one gets to (shock!) count the varves between the different layers in order to understand variations over the area of the lake.

I don't really know why dave expects identical cores anyway. The fact of the matter is that the cores are in agreement when one looks at the key details, particularly looking at numbers of varves between key events, the presence of the same turbidite layers across the lake bottom through the different cores (you can tell from looking at the materials, for example the volcanic ash, which has a very specific signature).

[Dave Hawkins]

Sorry if I missed the answer to "Why do the cores disagree?"

What page was it on and whose post? I will have a look. I am mostly on my blackberry while travelling so I might miss some things. I am trying to pay particularly close attention to LD's posts.

LD ... As for more details on a creationist model, I don't have much yet. All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all.

The global flood which you ignore and the episodic catastrophes which would have inevitably followed in the subsequent 4500 years change everything and until geologists acknowledge these, explanations will be no better than ancient mythmaking.

Thankfully, some of the braver geologists ARE acknowledging catastrophic events more and more. A recent Science article spoke of the budding discipline of "geomythology." Look for an article on that at my blog later this week.

I predict that it will not be long before mainstream geologists make a full return to the pre-Lyell (a slick lawyer who sold his bill of goods to Darwin) view of geology ...

That is ... Flood Geology.

[improvius]

Sorry if I missed the answer to "Why do the cores disagree?"

What page was it on and whose post? I will have a look. I am mostly on my blackberry while travelling so I might miss some things. I am trying to pay particularly close attention to LD's posts.

Dave posts this half an hour after and directly following a post in which LD explains why core samples can differ. Brilliant.

[improvius]

The only explanation I can think of is that Dave actually sees something like this:

even different types of fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord sediments.

Furthermore, to expect no fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord the lake.

I don't really know why dave fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord (fnord signature).

[VoxRat]

...
Thankfully, some of the braver geologists ARE acknowledging catastrophic events more and more.

Maybe that has something to do with the accumulated actual evidence pertaining actual catastrophes. But you'll notice that none of this actual evidence points to anything like your biblical fantasy.

A recent Science article spoke of the budding discipline of "geomythology." Look for an article on that at my blog later this week.

No thanks.
I think I'll stick with real-world science, where real-world scientists discuss real-world evidence and engage other real-world scientists in a real-world dialog, where they not only acknowledge pertinent questions, but actually attempt to answer!

I predict that it will not be long before mainstream geologists make a full return to the pre-Lyell ... view of geology ...

That is ... Flood Geology.

Yeah, right.

But let's make a prediction that can actually be tested:

What's "not long"?
A year?
A decade?
Anytime in your lifetime?

Or is this a "Nostradamus-like" prediction, where you're telling us that in a thousand years you'll be vindicated? (Except, of course, being a complete nonentity having left no trace in the scientific literature, you will also be completely forgotten).

And how will we gauge a "full return"?

I'm not that picky, really. I'll make you a bet:

If any mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal makes any mention of your global flood as a serious possibility any time in the next 5 years I'll donate $1000 to Kids4Truth - provided you commit to donating $1000 to NCSE if that doesn't happen.

What do you say?

Let's see how much confidence you have in your "prediction".

[Lucretius II]

.

LD ... As for more details on a creationist model, I don't have much yet

Now there's a surprise !

All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all

Only to you and others ignorant and/or lying about reality Dave

The global flood which you ignore.

Quite rightly ignored as there IS NO EVIDENCE OR TRACES OF IT AT ALL

and the episodic catastrophes which would have inevitably followed in the subsequent 4500 years change everything.

Ditto

and until geologists acknowledge these, .

There is NOTHING to acknowledge Dave that's why they don't do it
They also ignore other creation myths as well Dave, when they don't have any basis in reality

explanations will be no better than ancient mythmaking..

You mean like the collection of ancient myths in your "fabulous Bible"

Thankfully, some of the braver geologists ARE acknowledging catastrophic events more and more.

Name 3

A recent Science article spoke of the budding discipline of "geomythology." Look for an article on that at my blog later this week.

I presume you mean this sort of thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomythology

1968 is hardly cutting edge state of the art now is it reallyDave ?
Yet another example of Creationists dredging up old stuff and claiming that it's new I think .

I predict that it will not be long before mainstream geologists make a full return to the pre-Lyell (a slick lawyer who sold his bill of goods to Darwin) view of geology ...

That is ... Flood Geology.

You Creationists really have it in for Lyell don't you ?

And Dave what "Flood Geology " ?
I mean of course what Geology that relates to the "Ye Olde Bigge Fludde " that didn't occur.

[Faid]

LD ... As for more details on a creationist model, I don't have much yet. All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all.

Honestly, what does that remind you of?


Something like
"I don't know much about the plausibility of Walt Brown's Hydropants theory, but all I know is that the conventional model for the formation of asteroids does not look convincing to me, no siree. Why not embrace this new exciting theory? Here are some quotes that I can distort enough to pretend that scientists actually do that already!"

???

We all remember how that went down, don't we dave?

[improvius]

LD ... As for more details on a creationist model, I don't have much yet. All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all.

Honestly, what does this remind you of?

Really, it's been Dave's mantra all along. Dave just knows we're wrong. He doesn't know why, and he doesn't have his own alternative theory, but he is 100% certain that mainstream science is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Lasting Damage]

I predict that it will not be long before mainstream geologists make a full return to the pre-Lyell (a slick lawyer who sold his bill of goods to Darwin) view of geology ...

That is ... Flood Geology.

lol.

[Coleslaw]

Dave has misunderstood geomythology the way he misunderstands every bit of science that comes his way. This is what geomythologists think about Noah's flood

Geologists have found that Middle Eastern flooding myths, including the story of Noah, could be traced to the sudden inundation of the Black Sea 7,600 years ago.

ie, that several flood myths, of which the Noah one is merely one example, can be traced to a sudden flood in one large area, not a global flood.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...ticle_continue

Apparently, geomythologists think that all mythological disaster stories have as much likelihood of being based on fact as Biblical ones. But Dave of course filtered that information out. Quelle surprise.

[improvius]

Thankfully, some of the braver geologists ARE acknowledging catastrophic events more and more.

Name 3

Well, obviously scientists recognize "catastrophic events" have happened. The Suigetsu cores are an excellent example, as they include evidence of multiple catastrophic events that match up with historical records. Dave's contention that Kitagawa and Kato are somehow "brave" for acknowledging these events is, of course, ludicrous.

[Febble]

Sorry if I missed the answer to "Why do the cores disagree?"

What page was it on and whose post? I will have a look. I am mostly on my blackberry while travelling so I might miss some things. I am trying to pay particularly close attention to LD's posts.

LD ... As for more details on a creationist model, I don't have much yet. All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all.

The global flood which you ignore and the episodic catastrophes which would have inevitably followed in the subsequent 4500 years change everything and until geologists acknowledge these, explanations will be no better than ancient mythmaking.

Thankfully, some of the braver geologists ARE acknowledging catastrophic events more and more. A recent Science article spoke of the budding discipline of "geomythology." Look for an article on that at my blog later this week.

I predict that it will not be long before mainstream geologists make a full return to the pre-Lyell (a slick lawyer who sold his bill of goods to Darwin) view of geology ...

That is ... Flood Geology.

Firstly: what do the cores "disagree" about? Certainly not about the time interval between known episodic events, such as volcanic eruptions. Certainly not about the relationship between varve count/depth and radiocarbon dating.

Secondly: it's not that you don't have "much" of a model - you don't have a model at all. Your yellow line doesn't work. And to say that: "All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all." is simply to say "I am not convinced by the conventional model". IOW it says something about you, not about the model.

Thirdly: The global flood that you say we "ignore" - we also ignore the turtles on which the earth is propped. In other words, we ignore things for which there is no evidence. What you seem to be implying is that IF we were to postulate a Global Flood and several subsequent catastrophes, this would somehow make more sense of the data.

But as we have pointed out several times, this does NOT make sense of the data, because if it were true, we would see VERTICAL portions of plot when radiocarbon values are plotted against depth.

This would be the case REGARDLESS of the date represented by each of those values. And we simply do not see vertical segments of curve.

Fourthly: None of this has anything do with whether or not geologists consider catastrophes. They do. There is a huge amount of research into the role played by catastrophes in shaping the earth, and its inhabitants. Continuing to allege that geologists ignore catastrophes in general, just because they find no evidence for that biblical catastrophe in particular, is a straw man. They ignore that particular catastrophe because there is no evidence for it (and a large amount of evidence against it). On the other hand there are many other catastrophes for which there is copious and converging evidence.

(NB: I have taken care NOT to interleave this post with the post of yours that I have cited, as you requested. I hope you appreciate this.)

[Febble]

Really, it's been Dave's mantra all along. Dave just knows we're wrong. He doesn't know why, and he doesn't have his own alternative theory, but he is 100% certain that mainstream science is wrong, wrong, wrong.

And yet he maintains that science supports his view.

[Lucretius II]

Thankfully, some of the braver geologists ARE acknowledging catastrophic events more and more.

Name 3

Well, obviously scientists recognize "catastrophic events" have happened. The Suigetsu cores are an excellent example, as they include evidence of multiple catastrophic events that match up with historical records. Dave's contention that Kitagawa and Kato are somehow "brave" for acknowledging these events is, of course, ludicrous.

You are of course quite right, I was probably a little hasty in my response,however in my defense I would say that Dave then usually goes on the claim that this means everything must have been caused by just one catastrophe i.e "Ye Olde Bigge Fludde " and its' aftermath .
The typical confusion that Dave has between the definitions of "some " and "all" .

[RAFH]

This forum, being a sort of anarchists' playground, seems to lack any mechanism for officially declaring a discussion dead (and closed).

So while Dave's whole Suigetsu argument is stone cold, metabolism has long since ceased, even the saprophytes have lost interest, there seems to be no one to sign the death certificate.

I'll sign, just show me where. However, I am sort of enjoying the dissection of the TGBd mind and personality.

And yes, Vox, it does appear we have hit upon a similar note. I really didn't remember that post of yours, but it may have been there in my subconscious because I did follow your rather thorough dissection of the Bergman piece (note TGBd has barely mentioned it, if at all, whereas before it was nearly every other post) very closely. What's amusingly ironic is I learned a great deal more about the various subjects from your posts then I did from the original article.

And yes, if I do say so myself, it is a good analogy for the TGBd thought process.

[damitall]

Hawkins obviously thinks "geomythology" means the study of the myths that CAUSED geology)- a very creationist way of thinking, and one which will eventually lead to explosive decerebration.

[Lasting Damage]

Really, it's been Dave's mantra all along. Dave just knows we're wrong. He doesn't know why, and he doesn't have his own alternative theory, but he is 100% certain that mainstream science is wrong, wrong, wrong.

And yet he maintains that science supports his view.

yeap, and this is the really bizarre bit. When we look at the claims that he makes regards the suigetsu sequence and YECism, they are quite frankly utterly crap. his suggestions as to how the varves formed are variously physically impossible, chemically impossible and biologically impossible. He posits suggestions from completely inappropriate and irrelevant sections of science (such as his grain sorting experiments and rapid flow experiments) can't back up his own allegations regarding labs fudging data, can't explain how the labs fudge data to fit results that haven't even been seen yet and so on.

and he claims that science supports his view, and that ultimately flood geology (with his snide little stab at lyell) will win.

[VoxRat]

The global flood which you ignore and the episodic catastrophes which would have inevitably followed in the subsequent 4500 years change everything and until geologists acknowledge these, explanations will be no better than ancient mythmaking.

I just noticed this little escape hatch Dave has introduced into his fantasy.

Now he'll claim that every volcano, every meteor-strike, every tsunami, every glaciation event... all the "catastrophes" for which there actually exists evidence, all "inevitably follow from" (and therefore constitute evidence for) the Amazingly Incredible SuperCatastrophic Adventure Ride known as Noah's Flood.

See if he doesn't!

Of course the fact that the timing makes no sense at all is pre-emptively dealt with by Dave's pre-emptive rejection of any and all dating technology.

[Wolfhound]

LD ... As for more details on a creationist model, I don't have much yet. All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all.

Dave-To-English-Translation: "I don't have a plausable model yet and can't come up with one but I just KNOW that the reality-based, universally accepted scientific consensus (the one with all of the empirical evidence on its side) is wrong because it doesn't support my dogmatic, biblically-based worldview."

Scumbag.

[RAFH]

DR. VAN DER PLICHT ON SAMPLE SIZE AND AMS VS. CONVENTIONAL RADIOCARBON DATING
I don't have much time this week as I am traveling but I will post as I can. I found this from J. Van der Plicht and it seems relevant. Keep in mind as you read this that the leaves dated by Kitagawa weigh about 1000 mg but only a small ~2mg fragment of each leaf was used for AMS dating. Why not use the whole leaf and use conventional dating if what Dr. V is saying is true? It would have been much cheaper and more accurate. Now there may be a good reason that I'm not aware of and if so, that's great. At the end of my investigation, I may find that Kitagawa's C14 dating is perfectly valid. But I've been told by many of you that good scientists are skeptical so I think I would be letting you down if I wasn't :-)

Quality Control of Groningen 14C
Results from Tel Rehov
Repeatability and intercomparison of
Proportional Gas Counting and AMS
Johannes van der Plicht and Hendrik J. Bruins

Another important matter related to sample selection is the respective choice of ‘conventional dating versus AMS’. There can be a temptation to collect and submit all isolated seeds and tiny flecks of charcoal. The dating of such isolated samples by AMS should be discouraged, if larger samples (seed or charcoal clusters) are present in the same layer. If sufficient material is available, samples can be dated more cheaply and often more accurately by conventional means. The possibility of dating erratic post-depositional influences is considerable when isolated small fragments of charcoal or seeds are used, which are liable to movement by faunal or human digging activity. Such tiny samples have to be derived from a clearly defined context or association to justify dating. Lanting and van der Plicht (1994) presented a detailed discussion about these issues, including examples. It is a ‘myth’ that AMS is better than conventional radiocarbon dating: standard deviations are usually not smaller.
http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publicati...el%20Rehov.pdf

OK, LD ... there's some work on my part. ... ...

Wow TGBd, that's one of the lamest attempts at quote-mining I've ever encountered. This quote you present is nothing but a discussion of quality control and the why's and how come's of using the relatively expensive AMS vs the relatively inexpensive standard 14C methodology. It's an admonition against assuming the AMS method is more accurate and precise than the standard method, which it is not in the case of having large samples which are clearly well within the dating ranges of the standard methodology. AMS is able to utilize much smaller samples and it has an extended range but as for quality, it is not much if any better, given the availability of large, well preserved samples well within the range of standard 14C dating procedures.

As the underlined portion of your quote

It is a ‘myth’ that AMS is better than conventional radiocarbon dating: standard deviations are usually not smaller.

AMS is not more accurate, it's standard deviations are normally the same.

The reason for the admonition is to deter the potential tendency of researchers to sample every little iota of organic matter they find in the hopes of getting more and more dates. The fact is, smaller samples are more likely to have been displaced from their original location and they are much more likely to be contaminated, so all you get for your hard won research dollars are uncertain (because of potential displacement and contamination) outliers that do nothing but throw doubt into the entire process.

Sort of like doing a study on scientific methodology and including twits like you, supersport and your ilk. You add nothing to the discussion, being displaced and contaminated outliers.

There's more than enough doubt in any research, there is no need to add to the noise in the system. That is precisely what small isolated, most likely displaced and contaminated samples do.

Yes, of course, if that's all you have, well, then by all means, use them, with appropriate discussion of their size and how that brings into the discussion possible displacement and contamination issues.

TGBd, Teh Great Buffoon davey, you really are just a miserable little puffed up buffoon. This quote does nothing for your argument, you really are just grasping at any straw you think might help out. If anything it hurts your case, by reaffirming the accuracy and dependability of the various 14C methods, given appropriate sample selection, handling and treatment.

Your problem, because you are so set on 'proving' some predetermined 'fact', is you can't understand these researchers are not trying to 'prove' anything, they are trying to see how reality works. In most cases, they really don't care how an experiment turns out, as long as it gives reliable results. A successful experiment is not one that vindicates a particular theory but one that gives clear, reliable and accurate results. Yes, it's nice if a particular theory which is already well supported is once again supported, because it means the researcher is still on the right path and hasn't wasted valuable resources. But it's more important to know about mistakes than it is to be 'right'. This is where you simply don't understand science. Many people do not. Scientists aren't interested in supporting one paradigm over another, at least ideally, they simply want to know which is the correct paradigm.

Given two paradigms, A and B, they should not care which is real and which is false, they should only care to know the difference. It is the knowledge that is important, not what the knowledge is. A good researcher should be just as pleased to have an experiment result in a complete denial of a given paradigm as have it support that paradigm. It doesn't matter if it turns out A is real and B is false, or if A is false and B is real. What matters is knowing which is the case.

[RAFH]

Sorry if I missed the answer to "Why do the cores disagree?"

What page was it on and whose post? I will have a look. I am mostly on my blackberry while travelling so I might miss some things. I am trying to pay particularly close attention to LD's posts.

LD ... As for more details on a creationist model, I don't have much yet. All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all.

The global flood which you ignore and the episodic catastrophes which would have inevitably followed in the subsequent 4500 years change everything and until geologists acknowledge these, explanations will be no better than ancient mythmaking.

Thankfully, some of the braver geologists ARE acknowledging catastrophic events more and more. A recent Science article spoke of the budding discipline of "geomythology." Look for an article on that at my blog later this week.

I predict that it will not be long before mainstream geologists make a full return to the pre-Lyell (a slick lawyer who sold his bill of goods to Darwin) view of geology ...

That is ... Flood Geology.

You really are detached from reality.

You state

All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all.

The important word there is "I". It is that "I" that qualifies the whole statement and indeed your entire world view. What it means is "YOU", davey hawkins, doesn't find it convincing. YOU, davey hawkins, tyro extraordinaire, complete and utter buffoon, holder of no relevant degrees (signifying an education in the matter), non-practitioner, not even on an amateur level (preferring to read his babble from his easy chair), don't find it convincing. That's the equivalent of stating a sack of hammers doesn't find it convincing, that a nest of newts doesn't find it convincing.

You have your predigested reality in a 3000 year old myth cobbled together by some backwater goatherders, which has been preserved solely by accident of history. That's your 'science'. Well, that and the famous glass of water and sand. Go on, buffoon, spout your STOOPID. The world will leave you behind.


ETA: I love the ToMesque personal note about TGBd traveling and being handicapped because he's limited to his Blackberry. Yeah, damn technology, it's always getting in our way. And yeah, TGBd is so important cause he travels and uses a Blackberry. What, davey, you limit yourself to Blackberry, harrrumphhhh. And decent researcher has a full WiFi connection for their flying atomic powered Laptopmobile.