Tas Walker debunked again.

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Tas Walker debunked again.

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:41 pm

Rather like continental drift (plate tectonics) YECs denied it until the evidence against it became untenable Ham was rejecting continental drift as late as 1997, but they accept it now albeit in a time frame of a few thousand years. Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics is obviously the key here, though they still haven't solved the heat problem.

As I have said, my level of expertise in geology is not advanced enough that I can comment on Walker's highly technical gobbledegook, but I do know that evidence for glacial activity are U shaped valleys, raised beaches, deposits of boulder clay, and of course glacial erratics etc.

Doesn't the presence of chalk tell us the Antrim plateau was once a shallow marine environment and not a raging global flood ?

We also have wind blown deposits laid down in arid desert environments e.g. old red sandstone at Red Bay (not far from the causeway). I'm not sure how this fits in with Walker's watery catastrophe.

It really is a pity no one from the Belfast Geological Society attended the field trip, if only to make them aware of YEC claims on the Causeway and how to deal with them should any politician try to implement them at the visitor's centre.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Tas Walker debunked again.

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:45 pm

One YEC once asked me how we knew there were multiple ice ages rather than a single post flood event. I wasn't quite sure how to answer the question, but I assume it has to do with depositional evidence ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Tas Walker debunked again.

Postby Steve660 » Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:21 pm

I have just posted my reply to the latest Walker nonsense. In case it is rejected, here it is:

Readers should be aware Dr Walker’s claims re Giant’s Causeway & Interbasaltic Bed (IB) have been examined & shown to be nonsense(1). An inadequate reply to the latest critique was posted on this website (23 Nov). It largely missed the points of the criticisms & made further errors.
The IB presents particular difficulties as Walker has no plausible chemical mechanism for its formation, cannot account for its composition & compositional profile(2), isotopic signature(3), & fossil evidence(4, 5). All of which indicate a slow surface origin. So he ignores these. He also makes multiple errors of fact, eg. denying it has horizons (it does – ref 2), denying it is baked at the top (it is – refs 3 & 6), denying there is burnt vegetation (there is – ref 4), & not knowing the difference between weathering & erosion.
His dismissal of the “long-age” explanation for the Causeway and IB as “subjective speculation” is outrageous. There is extensive literature on the local geology detailing evidence proving to any objective observer that the “long-age” explanation is correct. Walker just ignores it. The “long-age” explanation is neither subjective, nor speculation, but is strictly evidence-based, unlike Walker’s “explanation” which ignores key publications, defies chemistry, & imagines “problems” where none exist.
1. Earth Science Ireland, issues 6 & 15, free on-line.
2. Hill et al, 2000, Chemical Geology, 166(1-2), 65-84
3. Tabor & Yapp 2005, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 69(23), 5495-5510
4. Cole et al 1912, The Interbasaltic Rocks (iron ores and bauxites) of North-East Ireland” Mem Geol Surv Irel
5. Bell & Jolley 1997, J Geol Soc Lond,154, 701-8.
6. Eyles, V.A. 1952, The Composition and Origin of the Antrim Laterites and Bauxites. Mem Geol Surv

Note that posts are restricted to 1800 characters, so I had to leave a lot out. There is much more literature (that Walker ignores, of course) than just the few items cited here. There is already a comment from a YEC saying that he had questioned one of the guides and got him to admit there were "problems" with the long-age explanation, and that the guide could not answer some of the questions, questions which, it seems, were based on Walker's previous rubbish. Of course the poor guide could not answer them. What are the chances that a guide is relevantly qualified, let alone has read the technical literature describing the palynology, chemical & mineralogical compositions, isotope ratios, Ar-Ar dates & palaeomagnetism, etc, etc.? This just shows it is easy to bamboozle the uninitiated with bullshit. It takes a basic background knowledge, coupled to a lot of tedious, time-consuming fact-checking, to refute the bullshit. I doubt if any guides would be in a position to do this. At least my articles provide a resource for anyone interested. I did e-mail the Causeway people with a link to my earlier one on the Giant's Causeway, when the fuss was going on about the new visitor centre. I got no reply.
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Tas Walker debunked again.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:29 pm

Walker has allowed the comment and attempted to muddy the waters. He calls Stephen's statements "just your opinion". Yet he provided footnotes to scientific articles apparently backing them up. Thus YEC interpretations must be pseudo-science (starting with the Bible not the evidence) that casually rejects mainstream scientific theories that it cannot tolerate for doctrinal reasons, rather than merely for reasons to do with an 'alternative competing interpretation' of the available evidence.

PS The alternative viewpoint to the YEC tales:
https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/201 ... s-process/
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8541
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:48 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:One YEC once asked me how we knew there were multiple ice ages rather than a single post flood event. I wasn't quite sure how to answer the question, but I assume it has to do with depositional evidence ?


Ice cores essentially I think such as the Antarctic EPICA Dome C ice core (though of course the more recent ice age glaciations at least will have more dramatically shown their hand in the northern hemisphere where there is more land at higher latitudes):
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/rese ... reenhouse/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8541
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Tas Walker debunked again.

Postby Steve660 » Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:29 pm

I am still waiting for my reply to Walker's last response to appear on Creation.com. He acknowledged it in a private email on Tuesday 16th saying he agreed with some of it, saying that there is much we don't know and it could all be overturned by a new fact, all scientific knowledge being tentative. This all misses the point that he has simply ignored masses of evidence, and the "evidence" he does cite is either irrelevant or false. That has not changed. In case it does not appear, here is the reply:

My criticisms of Dr Walker’s claims re Causeway geology & Interbasaltic Bed (IB) are not just about how one interprets evidence. A necessary prerequisite to any meaningful interpretation is to look at as much evidence as possible & to check one has got that evidence right. It is easy to demonstrate that Walker has ignored masses of evidence – look at my reference list, it contains key publications about the IB that are not in Walker’s articles, & which include evidence from chemical analyses, pollens, isotopes etc. There are others I hadn’t space to include. My criticism here isn’t just about interpretation. Walker is not “interpreting” evidence, he is ignoring it. It is also straightforward to show that much of the “evidence” he does present is either false or irrelevant (ref 1 in my post above). These criticisms are valid regardless of what interpretation one puts on the evidence. An “interpretation” that ignores most of the evidence, uses “evidence” that is demonstrably false or irrelevant, & which lacks a plausible chemical mechanism (in fact defies chemistry) can be confidently dismissed. The “long-age interpretation” is based on masses of evidence, from multiple independent sources, matches observations of laterite forming today, & is chemically plausible. This is not just opinion. It really is evidence-based & one can easily verify this by just reading the literature & seeing who has taken into account all the data, & who hasn’t. I invite readers to read, in chronological order, Walker’s articles (links above), then mine (ref 1 above) then Angus’ reply, then mine. Then, however one interprets the evidence, they will see who has the most evidence, who has ignored the most, & who has presented demonstrable errors of fact & irrelevancies as “evidence”.
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Tas Walker debunked again.

Postby Steve660 » Wed Dec 24, 2014 9:17 am

I emailed Tasman Walker asking if my latest post was going to be used. I got the reply:

"we do not plan to post your additional comment under the article. You already have one comment posted and your second comment is more of the same."

Pathetic! Read my reply (above) and decide for yourselves. Obviously this man knows he has been trounced and exposed, and is now engaged in damage limitation.

Most of the rest of the email was religious waffle of no scientific relevance. Apparently he is praying for me.

I see Issue 16 of Earth Science Ireland is now available from their website. Scroll to page 16, Angus K has been given over a third of a page, more than his nonsense deserves, and readers are invited to look at his letter on the creation.com website if they wish.

Have a merry solstice/Saturnalia/New Year festival everyone.
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Tas Walker debunked again.

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:00 pm

"we do not plan to post your additional comment under the article. You already have one comment posted and your second comment is more of the same."


You seem to intimidate them Steve :)

Apparently he is praying for me.


To become what ? A YEC or a compromising Christian ????????

A person's faith is irrelevant to geology. :roll:

I see Issue 16 of Earth Science Ireland is now available from their website. Scroll to page 16, Angus K has been given over a third of a page, more than his nonsense deserves, and readers are invited to look at his letter on the creation.com website if they wish.


It's a travesty this even appeared in the first place.

Geologists have been aware of the concept of deep time for over 200 years. In that time nothing has changed and no new evidence has been presented to suggest otherwise.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Have a merry solstice/Saturnalia/New Year festival everyone.


and you Steve.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Previous

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron