Darwin began his scientific work from a highly abstract and speculative base. He made some critical assumptions about geology that served as the foundation of ten peer-reviewed geology papers published by the Geological Society of London. These papers prove his professional development as a geologist. The geology done by Darwin has been shown, in this video and elsewhere, to be deficient because of Darwin's presuppositions. This video shows the serious error that Darwin made in Argentina.
@geferlek3 There was nothing abstract about Darwin's work at all. Darwin's training came from England and Scotland's leading geologist, at a time when geology was still embedded as a natural science. His work, as Strelin noted. stuck to the evidence he had at hand and he did not allow his immagination run away from him. Darwin was a player, but he also admitted making mistakes, if you bother to read his autobiography. He eventually accepted the impact of glaciers.
Probably Darwin, like the rest of us, was wrong about a lot of things. However, that takes nothing away from the breakthrough work he did regarding evolution and natural selection. True, he did not get all of that right either, but his remarkable insights have been demonstrated overall accurate to a dazzling degree. If he misinterpreted a geological feature in this case, which I am not sure he did, it is unrelated to his body of work which is truly profound.
'There is a myth promoted by Austin et al that "catastrophists" were supported a young-earth and Noah's Flood and "Uniformitarianism: developed slow rates and long ages. This always have been false. By 1830, no geologist - Neptunist or Vulcanist (to use the actual labels) - thought the Earth was 6K. Noah was harder to pinpoint. Curvier had multiple catastrophes, which many agreed. Then came the glacier theory and that put an end to Noah's Flood. Setting the record straight.
Short, but it shows the power of paradigm and how it affects our interpretation of the facts or evidence. There are many other geological formations around the world that suffer from this same problem. Thank you for this real-life excellent example of this problem.
@jimangmay Thanks for the kind words about the video. Yes, the video is short. It was the early design requirement that this video not exceed 10 minutes. The video shows the primary depositional features at "Camp Darwin," where Darwin camped with the crew of the Beagle on April 26, 1834. Darwin knew about flood deposits from his mentor Adam Sedgwick. Darwin should have appreciated the evidence of a major flood at "Camp Darwin."
Those who want their words posted here should verify information (thereby eschewing gossip, rumor and hearsay), cite public information (not confidential matters), and be polite (don't use invectives or pejoratives). That's how to get posted. Displayed below the YouTube comment box: "Comments may be held for uploader approval."
@WhereDarwinWentWrong - No you wish to silence me. My position and opinions has been expressed many times on this debate and they are not subject to change. So don't gve me your crap. If you do not wish for me to me play the role of crumungeon anymore, then just simply block me. Othewise, I insist that I may name is no longer invoke by the other regular members of this debate. No point to include me if I am not allowed the right to defend myself.
It has become painfully obvious WWDW does not want me to participate in this discussion. Therefore I want all discussions about me to cease and negative comments about me removed. If I am not going to be allowed to defend myself, I want this discussion to cease.
@lawilson200 You can defend yourself, but don't do it by introducing hearsay or confidential information. Please employ courteous speech. Certainly don't respond with invectives or pejoratives. You are not the only one to have postings deleted. Posters are free to comment on any other postings, including yours. We can't tell others that they can't comment on your postings.
Lawilson200's "position" appears to have changed again!! He hasn't claimed "no evidence for a megaflood" lately! I encourage discussion of these recent Lawilson200 quotes: "I am flexible, always have been.... But Austin is clearly wrong." "So are you saying that one cannot have their mind changed as new information materialize?... However, I have yet to see a formal calculation, so I am only calling what happened in the SCR has a possible megaflood, Until I see more, that is my position."
@fossilguy9 Is Lawilson200 flexible and teachable? Remember when Superrockman33 said he attended a public megaflood lecture by Dr. Vic Baker on 10/31/2010 where Baker mentioned that megafloods occurred on the Santa Cruz River? Lawilson200 said Superrockman33 was a liar. Remember when I gave my predictions for 2011 suggesting Jorge Strelin would endorse megafloods on the Santa Cruz River? Lawilson said I am a liar and a fraud.
@fossilguy9 "Is Lawilson200 flexible and teachable?" 2 years ago Lawilson200 called the bouldery feature seen at time 3:00 in this video a "lateral moraine" (glacier-produced feature). Then, without apology, he called it a "landslide deposit". That was short lived. For a long time, he claimed it to be a river deposit ("San Fernando Terrace"). Is he changing his mind? Is he calling the feature a "possible megaflood" deposit? Lawilson200 is absolutely certain that Austin has it wrong!
@fossilguy9 You have pointed it out. Lawilson200 appears to be changing his mind again. This time his change of mind appears to have some assistance from geologists Pacifici, Carling, Baker and Strelin. Good to see he is flexible. Sorry, however, to learn he insists for certain that Austin's size of megaflood is outrageously wrong.
@fossilguy9 6 months ago I said: "My prediction is that Lawilson200 will be changing his mind soon on what Jorge Strelin is saying about megafloods. It seems that lawilson200 is very teachable, if we endure with complex argument, he slowly agrees. Lawilson200 has not reaffirmed, "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood" during the last three weeks....Will he be telling us of his change?" I think he has.
@fossilguy9 All that Austin advocated in the video was a Santa Cruz River flood hundreds of feet deep through the channel which is 6 miles wide. Austin's video shows evidence from deposits. That flood appears to exceed one million cubic meters per second and so meets the minimum requirement of a megaflood. There is no discharge calculated in the video. Because Lawilson has not seen a discharge calculation, he remains not completely convinced. He calls it "possible megaflood."
@fossilguy9 Interesting that we have witnessed two unlikely words being linked. Those two words are "possible megaflood." Maybe we will see a "probable megaflood."
@fossilguy9 This video is convincing to me. Through the on-location video where Darwin camped, I can see how the present river might create a sand/pebble bar. A cobble/boulder bar would require water moving much faster than the present river. The idea of a catastrophic flood caused by a ruptured ice dam makes much sense. The evidence for the megaflood conclusion is substantial. It is more than just a "possible megaflood."
@fossilguy9 Lawilson200 stated his "position" to me one year ago, "And it is a position that I am largely still hold. The evidence does support a catastrophic flood occuring in the Santa Cruz River during the middle to late Pliocene. The work of Jorge Strelin supports this much.... A flood yes, but no megaflood." That is what Lawilson200 was saying to me. He used Strelin's works to support his "position." If his "position" has changed, he should tell us why it has changed.
@SuperRockman33 Did you read the recent postings where lawilson200 requested that we not discuss lawilson200's position on megaflooding on the Santa Cruz River? Evidently, he wants us to stop quoting him, and he wants us to stop asking what he now believes. It must be a sensitive issue to him. He's been posting here for 3 years, but he wants us to quit discussing what he has said! What do you think?
@fossilguy9 Fortune cookie for lawilson200 would say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Maybe lawilson200 needs to admit that his major position statement about "no megafloods" he has developed over the last three years is weak. I think he should admit like Paul Carling that there is "probable evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River." Admitting that would make a major part of this controversy go away. If he does not, posters will keep reminding him.
@SuperRockman33 I hate to be the target, when I am not permitted to defend myself. Frankly though, your fixation on me is petty, considering you haven't presented anything new or relevant in 3 years. Pointing to anceint postings I made, is the only thing you got.
@fossilguy9 I have submitted 3 postings, none were approved, So it is hard to present a counter argument when you are not even permitted to speak.
Now I do grow tired of this. When I review the written records on the Santa Cruz River Valley, it is by established geologists. The only tangible thing Austin has provided was his 2011 GSA poster and even that was repudiated. I am calling a possible MF only because Strelin thnks it possible. As far as I am concern, Ausin is a nonplayer.
@lawilson200 You say, "I am calling a possible MF only because Strelin thinks it possible." Just six months ago you were arguing with me that the data of Dr. Jorge Strelin was incompatible with the notion of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. I was arguing with you that Strelin's evidence WAS compatible with a megaflood, and that Strelin believed in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. During the last six months you have been munching on a giant "crow sandwich."
@SuperRockman33 Lawilson200 says, "I am calling a possible MF only because Strelin thinks it possible." I think Dr. Jorge Strelin has more commitment to megafloods on the Santa Cruz River than just thinking its "possible." Strelin is well beyond just "thinking." Strelin has studied a suite of structures, including the gravel hills, that make megafloods very probable.
@lawilson200 You say,"When I review the written records on the Santa Cruz River Valley, it is by established geologists." You reviewed the publications of Jorge Strelin six months ago improperly. He was not arguing against megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. Which Strelin publication argues against megafloods? He believes in megafloods! Strelin is a very smart and observant Argentinian geologist. Crow sandwich anyone?
@SuperRockman33 False. It was you who misrepresented Strelin. If you want me to agree with you then you need to repudiate Austin;s claim. It is false. He used the Santa Cruz River to make a false argument against Charles Darwin, If Austin truly advocated for a megaflood, he would have done a better job presenting the information and he would followed establsihed guidelines, But that is the problem when you support a theological cause over rationality, It your motives I suspecf,
@grodge61 Sadly no, the boulders are too well organized and sorted for it to be glaciation. If glaciation caused this, you would see glacial erratics strewn all over the valley. The only feasible way to explain this is as a massive flood caused by the melting of glaciers, as Dr. Austin is claiming.
@golfer435 You know this how? have you visited the region Austin is referring to? Strelin and Rabassa has mapped the area and we do know that glaciers reached as far as the Condor Cliffs, which is more than 150 miles from the Andes. We also know the location of Paleolake Argentino. According to Strelin, it was retained by an old moraine and not glacier ice.It was water overflowing the moraine and not rapid melting of the glacier that triggered the flood.
@golfer435 I can tell you were paying attention to the video. You probably recognized the extraordinary texture of the boulder and cobble deposit at 3 minutes into the video. I think you appreciate that this texture is not like a glacial deposit. It shows marks of the sorting action by a very powerful flood.
a certain size rock, to me it is obvious that this river was at one time much larger than it is today. Secondly, bringing in the point about stream competency, it is blatantly obvious to me that, given the size of the valley, the river had to have grown to proportions only possible in situations of catastrophe. This, combined with the proximity to glaciers and the existence of glacial eratics, is what led Dr. Austin to come to the conclusions that he came to.
For everyone who does not give this video any credence, hear this. Dr. Austin is an extremely well respected geologist in both creationist and conventional circles. Here he makes some very astute observations and points that almost anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of geologic processes would understand. For instance, the stream is way too small to transport boulders of that size into that valley. There is a little thing called stream competence, the ability of a stream to carry
@golfer435 I can see Austin is popu;lar among creo's, but many of the geologists I know working at the Cascade Volcano Observatory are friends of mine. They never heard of Austin,
@lawilson200 If they haven't heard of Dr. Austin, then that's more than a little surprising. You know the little volcanoe called Mt. St. Helens? Well Dr. Austin was one of the leading geologists researching the effects of that eruption. He is also credited with the creation of the Floating Log Mat Theory for the formation of charcoal. So the fact that your friends have never heard of Dr. Steven Austin is really quite surprising to me.
@golfer435 I am sorry, but you did not answer my question. Frankly I am not interested with your hero worshipping of Steve Austin. I know who he is. I have even met with him when he paid a visit to the Seven Wonders Museum operated by Lloyd Anderson. My question to you was: What do you mean when you wrote "Sadly no, the boulders are too well organized and sorted for it to be glaciation" How do you know this? Is this through personal knowlege or a cited source?
@golfer435 Since you opened this door, I will respond. Most of this work is credited to Harold Coffin, who wrote the actual papers. Austin merely assisted. You insult me about Mount St Helens. I camped at SL when I was a kid. I lived in Portland, OR on May 18, 1980, I had a front row seat and I became a geologist because of that eruption. Flooting log mat - wrong. About the closest analogy to Spirit Lake is Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. Coffin's had zero impact.
@lawilson200 I am sorry if I insulted you, I seriously did not think you knew who Dr. Austin was. and about the floating log mat, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens proved that theory to be correct.
A reminder of two undeniable facts. FACT 1 -- Dr Vic Baker and Dr Jorge Strelin (megaflood geology authorities) have now in public endorsed megafloods on the Santa Cruz River in Argentina. FACT 2 -- Frequent poster here on this YouTube channel Lawilson200 has been stridently asserting for over two years on this posting area that there is no evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. I just want to remind visitors here, again, of these two undeniable facts.
@SuperRockman33 Is that why you keep lying about my position? One more time. I am oppossed to Aiustin's exaggerated version of a megaflood. I have yet to see anything from Strelin or Baker supporting the claim that Paleolake Argentino once dominated the modern locations of Argentino AND Viedma. I have yet see anything from Strelin or Baker supporting Austin's claim of 5,000,0000 m/s-1. How come after two years, you still cannot get it right?
@lawilson200 I'm not lying. FACT 2 is proved by your post here on the Santa Cruz River: "...there are no reputable geologist have argued in favor of a mega-flood and there is no evidence which supports a mega-flood." You wrote me that both Vic Baker and Jorge Strelin do not believe in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. You disputed megaflood evidence I & others presented. Have you stated there IS geologic evidence of megafloods on the Santa Cruz River? Did you change your mind?
@lawilson200 Lawilson200 postings here on Santa Cruz River: "However, there are no reputable geologist have argued in favor of a mega-flood and there is no evidence which supports a mega-flood." Other Lawilson200 postings, "The real issue here, was there a mega-flood? While the evidence does support a flood on a much smaller scale, there is no evidence to support a mega-flood." and "There were certainly some flooding in the past, but no mega-flood." Context is Santa Cruz River.
@lawilson200 You are on record here with postings that "there is no evidence of a megaflood" on the Santa Cruz River. You need to admit that has been your position. It is not just Austin's evidence of megaflood, you discounted all evidence of megaflood on Santa Cruz River! Now, if you change your mind about your opinion of megaflood evidence, you should tell us. If Baker and Strelin have now endorsed megaflood evidence, it would be nice if you could recognize them and tell us.
@WhereDarwinWentWrong I am flexible, always have been. Austin version of megaflooding was always wrong. Based on his two lectures, Austin hypothesis never met with reality (or those great geological maps of Strelin and Rabassa). The only other reference to megaflood is from Pacifici, which consist of 1/2 of a paragraph. I am still waiting on Baker. The best material is from Strelin. I have yet to see numbers based on what we know. But Austin is clearly wrong.
@lawilson200 We restated your position a year ago: "I believe we have your position stated: "...there is insufficient data to call the catastrophic release of the paleolake a megaflood." We understand your position to be that all the data on the Santa Cruz River valley leads you to believe that catastrophic floods have occurred on the Santa Cruz River, but it is your belief that nobody has yet documented any "megaflood" (flood flow of 1 million cubic meters per second or bigger)."
@WhereDarwinWentWrong Yes you did. So are you saying that one cannot have their mind changed as new information materialize? I suppose if geology was governed by your standards, we would never get anywear. But that is the problem with creos, its politics with you, Never about the science.
However, I have yet to see a formal calculation, so I am only calling what happened in the SCR has a possible megaflood, Until I see more, that is my position.
Wikipedia entry "Santa Cruz River (Argentina)" follows Austin's thoughts: "One wonders how Darwin's thinking may have been different had his ship reached the glacial lake and the geology paradyms of Lyell seen as not always reliable, a paradym Darwin would extrapolate from the realms of geology to biology. The Santa Cruz river valley is one of many valleys once thought to have been cut slowly over millions of years but today recognized to have been made quickly by catastrophic glacial flooding."
@WhereDarwinWentWrong I like the last sentences of the Wikipedia article: "The Santa Cruz river valley is one of many valleys once thought to have been cut slowly over millions of years but today recognized to have been made quickly by catastrophic glacial flooding. Catastrophic deglaciation flooding has also been suggested related to glacial Lake Missoula in the Northwestern United States and although initially ridiculed is now accepted as the prevailing view."
@WhereDarwinWentWrong You do realize this is completely meaningless. Wikipedia is not like the Enclycopedia Britanica, especially since any one and every one can place an entry, update and change a previous entry. I would be more impressed if Enclycopedia Britanica supports "Austin's thought."
I am still waiting for the peer reivew papers. It is time for Austin to stop being lazy and actually produce somehting more than a poster.
@lawilson200 Your spelling tells us about you. You wrote,"Wikipedia is not like the Enclycopedia Britanica, ... if Enclycopedia Britanica ...." Are you referring to Encyclopedia Britannica? My English teacher told me "Spelling is important!"
@fossilguy9 An "enclycopedia" is a new digital reference that lawilson200 invented. "Enclycopedia" is pronounced en-CLICK-o-pe-de-a. You find this resource online, and simply "click" on the topic that you want. Should lawilson200 try to sell the idea to Britannica?
@geologyeducation1 I tend to be multi-tasking when working on a computer and I am not always paying attention to my entries. Tell you what, I will endeavor to spell correctly, but this does not take away the issue.
Wikipedia is open source, making it unreliable.
Isn't past time fpr Austin to publish something? Anything? It's been three years now. What's the problem?
lol this video is perfect for people with a god complex. IMO I think free thought is better than continueing a religious tradition of believing evolution isn't real. I am spiritual and acknowledge God/nature, but I am not going to hold on to religious dogma's like all these creationists do. Philosophy took a huge hit when people closed their minds to questioning the creation of the universe because they were too loyal to the church's dogma.
@H4z3y420 Although we could talk about religion and philosophy here, we have focused our attention on Charles Darwin as a geologist. Many geologists are ready to admit that Darwin was wrong in his interpretation of the erosion of Santa Cruz River valley. What is most interesting is that Darwin had access to what we now believe is the "correct" way of thinking about the erosion of the valley. Darwin deliberately rejected that good way of thinking, and followed the idea of Charles Lyell.
I am really growing tired of you constantly making this false accusation. It shows that you have not bothered (after 3 years) to actually understand history, including life of Charles Darwin and geology during the 19th Century. First, Darwin role in all this is strictly historical. Second, Darwin admitted in his autobriography, that his position on the Ice Age and Glen Roy in particular, were wrong. Catastrophism is a bogus argument as are you!
After three years, please tell us. how did "Darwin ... access to what we now believe is the the 'correct' way of thinking ..." has anything to do with anything? Darwin's theory of evolution is still regarded as the best idea ever and it has expanded far beyond what Darwin could possible have known. How does the Santa Cruz River change this? Stop with the innuendos and actually produce something. Darwin or megefloods, you can't have it both ways,
@WhereDarwinWentWrong "Darwin deliberately rejected that good way of thinking" What does that suppose to mean? Charles Lyell based Prinicples of Geology on Isaac Newton, James Hutton and John Herschell. Are you saying Newton and Hutton had bad thoughts too?
It is time you end this lie. that all it is. A lie. It a line of arguments developed by Austin that never had support of history, philosophy or even reality.
2011 was a good year to talk about Darwin being wrong. There were good comments posted here, and not so good comments posted. Any nominations for "best posting" of 2011? Any nominations for "worst posting" of 2011?
@fossilguy9 My "worst posting" nomination goes to Lawilson200 for his comment about Paleolake Argentino (PLA), "Enough! You have been speculating on Strelin for 2 years now! Put up or shut up! Produce the location and size of PLA that could support a megaflood or end this line of nonsense!" It was not nonsense to propose a megaflood from Paleolake Argentino. Lawilson200 figured out the size of PLA and answered his own "put-up or shut-up" challenge with next quote, my best posting nomimnation,
@fossilguy9 My nomination for "best posting" goes to Lawilson200 for recognizing the size of Paleolake Argentino (PLA): "According to Strelin, the PLA was 30 Km (E to W) and 20 Km (NS) with a maximum depth of no more than 75 m. This is close to a paleolake in Germeny called the Munsterland Embayment and reported in Meisnsen (2011). based on calculations the max peak flow was 1.3 X10(6) m3/s-1. Enough to a megaflood...." For his PLA quote, Lawilson200 has my commendation for best posting in 2011.
@fossilguy9 Carrmike1's words at 1st of year gets my vote for best posting: "2010 was a good year for megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. It was the year Dr. Victor R. Baker (world's megaflood authority) wrote, "...megafloods in the Santa Cruz River system (Argentina) emanated from the Patagonian Ice Sheet,..." My prediction is that 2011 will be even a better year. 2011 is now open for other geologists to speak in public and even publish papers on megafloods on the Santa Cruz River."
@fossilguy9 My nomination for "worst posting" of 2011 goes to Lawilson200. Writing of Carrmike1, Lawilson200 posted, "Regardless of anything else, you are still a fraud and a liar!" I did a word search of postings here for the words "fraud", "liar" and "dishonest". I found that lawilson200 uses these words often of others who believe in megafloods, not just Carrmike1.The predictions made by Carrmike1 for 2011 were excellent.
@fossilguy9 My nomination for "worst posting" goes to lawilson200 when he commented on the Santa Cruz River of Argentina saying, "... there are no reputable geologist have argued in favor of a mega-flood and there is no evidence which supports a mega-flood." Of course reputable geologists do affirm megafloods on SCR. We have not seen lawilson200 repeat this statement in the last 6 months, so some suppose he is a secret believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River!
@fossilguy9 My "best posting" vote goes to carrmike1 for his uncanny prediction made to lawilson200: "What if my prediction for 2011 comes true? I believe a "major player" in the geology of the Santa Cruz River will go public about megaflood evidence. That's when I would stop posting if I were you! You will not "bet" on what I believe will happen, but you should drop out when it happens. The debate is not over, it has just begun! Watch and see."
@fossilguy9 "Worst Posting" nomination geos to Lawilson200 for, "Since it is you who is making these exaggerated claims on the works of Jorge Strelin, the burden falls on you to prove. All you need to do is give us the name of the paper, the page number and the exact quote supporting 1) A massive lake; 2) megaripples and 3) flood erratics. I am all ears." See Austin & Strelin, 2011, "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River..." Geol Soc Am. Abstracts with Programs, vol 43, no 5, p. 249.
@fossilguy9 "Best Posting" vote of 2011 clearly goes to Carrmike1,"What if my prediction for 2011 comes true? I believe a "major player" in the geology of the Santa Cruz River will go public about megaflood evidence. That's when I would stop posting if I were you! You will not "bet" on what I believe will happen, but you should drop out when it happens. The debate is not over, it has just begun! Watch and see."
Now that it nearly 3 years since this was first posted on you tube, arn't you getting tired playing the role of censor by having to approve everything first? Isn't time to move one? You can do this either by closing down future entiries or by allowing submit without approval. You Tube does give you this option.. Frankly I don't know why you continue? In the real world, you can always delete enteries you find inappropriate, but it would allow for an unfretterred free exchange.
Wow, we are approaching three years into this story and we are no closer to a resolution now then when we started.
The usual suspects have proposed a new mechanism to save Austin calulated megaflood; that is Shaw's rapid melting of glaciers. Interesting, but was does the evidence show? According to Strelin the flood was tiggered by a collapse moraine and not the rapid melting of a large ice field.
Why can't the usual suspects accept a smaller megaflood? Austin was wrong on size.
@lawilson200 You said, "...smaller megaflood?" You are on record with numerous postings at this site that there is "no evidence of a megaflood" on the Santa Cruz River! You argued that no geologist supports a megaflood on the SCR. You argued on this site strenuously against all megaflood evidence on the Santa Cruz River. I am not aware of any posting by you about there being any evidence of a megaflood in Argentina. Are you a secret believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River?
@fossilguy9 You asked if lawilson200 is "a secret believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River." Very good question. I am not aware of a posting that lawilson200 acknowledges any geologic evidence favoring a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. He posted for our viewing enjoyment repeatedly that no reputable geologist (Baker, Pacifici, Carling, or Strelin) endorses evidence of megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. Is lawilson200 a secret believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River?
@fossilguy9 On a natural disaster list a "smaller megaflood" ranks just above a "tiny tsunami." If you are going to choose a natural disaster to die in, you should select without hesitation a "smaller megaflood" over a "tiny tsunami."
@geferlek3 I'd rather die in a "tiny tsunami" because my body would be washed up and deposited on shore where my next of kin would find it. That would allow them to know I'm dead, and greeve appropriately. In a "smaller megaflood" my body would be washed out to sea and never be found. If my body were washed out to sea, my next of kin might not believe I was dead, and, therefore, expect that I could return.
@fossilguy9 - Incorrect, I support the evidence and the work of actual geologists like Jorge Strelin. My opposition in this manner was always directed against Steve Austin. When he first presented this video 3 years ago, it was not with the intention of addressing a previously unknown geological process, but instead to fabricate anothr false argument against Charles Darwin. Austin tries to play the field both ways. He needs to decide, is he a geologist or a politician.
@lawilson200 You posted, "I support the evidence and the work of actual geologists like Jorge Strelin." Strelin supports the identificatioin of "gravel hills" interpreting them as "dune bedforms" that were sculpted by megaflood. So, you support Strelin's hills as large bedforms, interpreting them as megaflood features. Do I have your view stated?
I am not sure how your response relates to Austin's grandiose misrepresentation of the actual evidence. How does this draw Austin's conclusion of a megaflood flowing at 5,000,000 m3 s-1. In what manner does this statement drum up the much more massive lake necessary to support a megaflood of this size? If you wants to adopt Austin, then present the evidence supporting Austin and quit wasting my time on manutia.
@fossilguy9 lawilson200 is a "secret believer in megafloods." I think he knows there's excellent evidences on the Santa Cruz River best interpreted in terms of megafloods bigger that one million cubic meters per second. I think he knows that reputable geologist know about this evidence, and he knows these geologists have stated their belief in megafloods on the SCR. After three years of postings here, he may be able to admit geologic evidence of megafloods on SCR. Any progress?
@lawilson200 "According to Strelin the flood was triggered by a collapse moraine..." You could have posted "According to Strelin the megaflood was triggered by a collapse moraine..." If you posted "Strelin ... megaflood," you might want to revise your earlier post to me, "...so far, you have no reputable geologist independently declaring there was a megaflood in the Santa Cruz River Valley." Isn't it true that Baker & Strelin believe in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River?
This is so silly. People like this think that if they can discredit Darwin, then evolution just goes away. What if I discredited Thomas Edison or Nikola Tesla, would you stop believing in electricity? Apparently you would proceed to tell me that believing in electricity is pagan and immoral. Darwin simply made discoveries about evolution. After him it has been supported thoroughly and has revolutionized biology. Discrediting him will not undo his major discovery. The cat is out of the bag.
An excellent paper: "Subglacial floods beneath ice sheets." G.W. Evatt, A.C. Fowler, C.D. Clark and N.R.J. Hulton. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. A, 15 July 2006 vol. 364, 1769-1794.
"Subglacial floods (jökulhlaups) are well documented as occurring beneath present day glaciers and ice caps. In addition, it is known that massive floods have occurred from ice-dammed lakes proximal to the Laurentide ice sheet during the last ice age...."
@geologyeducation1 Here we go again. Why is this article relevant? I am not suggesting that it is bad or wrong in anyway, but please explain how is this article relevant to Austin's problem. The paper is great on theory and I do enjoy the math, but it is time for you to get to work Was the SCR flood triggered by conditions described in Evatt? What's your evidence? Are you disputing Strelin reported size of PLA? Remember the disagreement is not over floods, but Austin'sf
Another Lawilson200 posting: "Come on people, this is basic geology 101
1. The boulder bar you are obsessed over has a name; its called San Fernando Terrace 2. If you bother to do your homework, you will discover it was reported by Strelin in 1999.
3. Strelin writes that it is a dissected alluvial terrace.
Sorry guys but it is not a boulder bar similar to the Hagerman, unless you care to explain how Strelin was wrong."
Lawilson misquoted Strelin. Strelin and Austin are right! Megaflood!
@carrmike1 Yes, you found another Lawilson200 big blooper! His statement is very sad. There is evidence that "boulder bars" and "gravel hills" on the Santa Cruz River are evidence of megafloods. Strelin admits it. If I were lawilson200, I would post the following, "Oops, I really goofed again! This time I need to affirm that Dr Jorge Strelin is a believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River!" I have not seen any Lawilson200 postings admitting Strelin is a believer in megafloods.
Blooper? So what is your source supporting this claim? My comments are drawn directly from the only reports available on the Santa Cruz River. Each of them were written by Strelin. If you claim I am making a blopper, then you are saying the only research geologist who spent decades studying the Santa Cruz River region is wrong. I love to see your source that proves me wrong.
What else was Darwin wrong about? Gee, let me guess. Oh, I know. Just because he was wrong about gradual change with erosion by the Santa Cruz River, he must also be wrong about gradual evolutionary change? Is that your argument against evolution?
@prschuster If you would have met Charles Darwin in the 1840's, he might have talked with you at length about geology. Geology was on his mind. Darwin showed himself to be great at observation. Darwin was not very good at interpretation. What you see in reading Darwin's geology publications is his use of observations to make interpretations--that is his methodology. His methodology of doing geology was not very good. That reflects on Darwin as a scientist.
@WhereDarwinWentWrong - When are you going to let this already exposed lie of yours to finally go to the trash heep where it belongs? Your arguments was exposed 3 years ago? Why do you persist using it?
Evolution survives, thrives despite your false allusion to Darwin use of uniformitarian prinicples. This is because Darwin's control of the theory ended, the moment it was published!
Meanwhile you blind use of SCR denies historical events! Admit you are wrong, liar!
Many scientists make mistakes during the process of theorizing and experimenting. That's how we learn. However, in regards to evolution, the premise that Darwin came up with has been scrutinized countless times by some of the best minds in the world. And through independent observations, they still consider it to be a valid theory, and the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life.
@carrmike1 I read some technical papers on how and why meltwater floods break out directly from beneath glaciers. It seems like a very potent force. Most people are unaware that glaciers have abundant water. Sometimes this water is supercooled inside the glacier being liquid below 32 degrees Fahrenheit and remaining liquid because of the pressure at the base of the glacier. This water can break through cracks within a glacier. Lake Missoula's ice dam could have failed this way.
@geologyeducation1 Baker said, "...megafloods on the Santa Cruz River eminated from the Patagonian ice sheet." Notice that Baker did not write, "...megafloods on the Santa Cruz River eminated from a lake in front of the Patagonian ice sheet." Evidently, Baker likes subglacier meltwater source for many megafloods. Pacifici also sketched that idea to explain his "diluvial dunes" on the Santa Cruz River west of Condor Cliff. I'm just pointing these things out to help discussion.
@carrmike1 Yes, subglacial water is a potent reservoir for megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. This kind of water within or under a glacier is a very potent source for a megaflood. Also, it is possible that subglacial water is recharged through vertical cracks from supraglacial lakes. This could involve significant pressure and catastrophic outbreak floods. The piedmont glaciers upstream on Santa Cruz River could have had enormous quantities of subglacial water. Long live megafloods!
Strelin has sent me photos of the "fluvial" dunes that is currently being relied on by geologyeducation1 and others. Austin has been supplied a copy of these same photos. I have compared the Strelin photos with photos I have personally taken in Camas Parrie, Montana, West Bend, Washington and Red Rock Pass in Idaho. These areas have known fluvial dunes from previous megafloods. While I am not denying a flood formed these features shown in Strelin, they do not support Austin claim of 5 m/s.
Let's look at Austin's claim on the size of the flood. First, he claimed that PLA covered today's Lake Viedma and Lake Argentino. He has not presented evidence to support this and Strelin does not agree the PLA was as large as Austin suggested. Without it, Austin cannot justify the claim of 5,000,000 m3/s-1. That figure also is not based on fluvial dunes but instead on boulders which we know from Strelin are Glacial erractics. No one denies a flood, but Austin specific claim is still weak.
GSA poster text of "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River" by Austin & Strelin (2011), says, "These spillover cobbles indicate that one megaflood was 100-m deep and 10-km wide. Flood discharge can be estimated from the Manning Equation using channel cross-sectional dimensions, channel roughness, and channel slope. The Manning parameters at Rincon Grande allow us to estimate this megaflood's mean flood flow velocity at over 5 m/sec and discharge at 5 million m3/sec."
@WhereDarwinWentWrong Austin and Strelin are saying that they estimated discharge of one of the biggest megafloods on the Santa Cruz River from the elevation of spillover deposits and from the parameters of the spillway. Both methods they report seem to sgree on the size of the megaflood. I can go to bed tonight believing that Austin and Strelin have not made an error in estimatting the flood volume.
@WhereDarwinWentWrong There are two ways to estimate megaflood discharge once you have data about flood depth in a channel. There are 1D and 2D ways of estimating the discharge. 1D uses a single channel profile, roughness and slope. 2D uses elevation change through multiple channel profiles. 2D estimate is done on a computer by the stepped-backwater method and requires more input data. 1D is easier to do. 2D may be a more accurate estimate. I did 1D in an engineering class.
@geologyeducation1 - So you are telling me that you prefer the less accurate 1D model over the more accurate 2D. Tell me, how can you have a megaflood discharge of 5 million cubic meters per second, from a lake that was only 20 KM X 30 KM and 75 meters deep? Compared to known large megeflood sights like Agassiz, Bonneville and Missoula, the lake size is very small. Even the elevation change is no help. After 2 years don't you thing it is time to end all speculation?
GSA poster text of "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River" by Austin & Strelin (2011), says,"Eastward of the spillway, within the widening valley, paired terraces are covered by abundant 'gravel hills' (longitude 71.1 to 70.7 west)…. along 20 km of the river terrace surfaces west of Condor Cliff. These hills are composed of 0.3-m-diameter boulders displaying dune bedforms with lengths of more than 10 m and heights of up to 3 m." Austin & Strelin say "dune bedforms" are evidence of big megafloods.
@WhereDarwinWentWrong Lawilson200 wrote 3 months ago about Strelin: "Strelin makes clear that most of the deposits at the Condor Cliffs were the product of the largest glacial maximum, dated by Mercer as 2 ma. Carling reports the so-called ripples are barely discernable from the surrounding terrain. Strelin reports the boulders as glacial erratics." Thus, lawilson200 believes that Strelin is a doubter of megaflood evidence in boulders at Condor Cliffs. Lawilson200 reads Strelin wrong.
@geferlek3 - Actuallly, I agreed to not reveal e-mails, so I will concede that I am a disadvantage at the moment. However, I will go to bed tonight, satisfied with the knowledge that Austin was wrong when measured the megaflood at 5,000,000 cubic meters per second. At best, this flood was only between 300.000 to 1,000,000 cubic meters per second.
Second, the deposits at Condor are glacier deposits. It is you who is wrong.
@lawilson200 I can go to bed tonight satisfied that Lawilson200 has been wrong about no geologists favoring a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River, and wrong about there being no geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River.
@fossilguy9 Sweet dreams! Also, go to bed tonight satisfied this Lawilson200 quote is wrong: "As much respect I have for Dr Baker, he has not visited the SCR. Carling has been to the SCR. He has examined the area identified by Pacifici as bearing fossilized fluvial dunes. He has stated that when he was standing on top of the Condor Cliffs, he had a hard time seeing the dunes. There is evidence of a catastrophic flood. But it wasn't a megaflood. If Baker continues, he is using other evidence."
@WhereDarwinWentWrong Strelin now understands his "gravel hills" on the terraces west of Condor Cliff to be giant bedforms sculpted by megaflood. SCR gravel dunes were recognized to be deposits of big flood when Pacifici (2009) related them to flood features on Mars. When Carling (2009) saw them, he styled them as "probable" megaflood landforms. Notice that now everybody (except Lawilson200) is attributing "gravel dunes" to megaflood processes. Nobody is saying dropstone.
@WhereDarwinWentWrong The dune wavelength can be used to estimate the flood depth and the flood velocity. Dr. Paul Carling's publications tell us how to estimate the flood flow parameters. Also, the boulder size can suggest the flood velocity. Carling is an authority here.
lawilson200 wrote me over a year ago: "...so far, you have no reputable geologist independently declaring there was a megaflood in the Santa Cruz River Valley." Just a few days later on 10/31/2010 I posted on this site that I listened to Dr. Vic Baker (world authority on megafloods) affirm at Geological Society of America meeting a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. Recently, on 10/10/2011, both Austin and Strelin presented a GSA paper "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River, Southern Argentina."
@SuperRockman33 Are you going to conitnue to whine, or are you going to actually contribute something? For the last year, all you have done is obsessed over entries I made one and two years ago. You have not provided nothing except cry and cry some more over how I have been unfairly treated. Well enough! You have not earned my respect and you do not deserve my respect. Now bring something new to the table or move on!
@lawilson200 My question for you: "Is there a reputable geologist that is declaring that there is geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River?" I would appreciate a "yes" or "no" answer. Your declaration to me, "...so far, you have no reputable geologist independently declaring there was a megaflood in the Santa Cruz River Valley." Is there a reputable geologist that is declaring that there is geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River? Yes or No answer?
@lawilson200 Whether I have earned or deserve your respect is immaterial. I want to get closure on the question we have been discussing for over a year. "Is there a reputable geologist that is declaring that there is geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River?" I am bringing something new to the table. I am asking for a simple "yes" or "no." Is there a reputable geologist that is declaring that there is geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River?
WDWW -- Please be aware that Lawilson200 and I have a bet (posted here) made months ago about megaflooding on the Santa Cruz River. The bet centers on whether geologists will begin endorsing evidence and interpretations of megafloods on the Santa Cruz River and whether Dr. Austin's notions of megaflooding on the Santa Cruz River will receive recognition. Both have happened recently fulfilling the bet. Therefore, Lawilson200 should refrain from posting on this site for a period of one year.
@SuperRockman33 - Incorrect. The bet was for one of the principles to publish in a peer review journal and Austin's YEC paper had to be specifically cited. Excluded were absracts and posters. Those were the terms you had agreed to. Since none of the principles have published a peer review article and Austin's YEC paper has not formally been cited, it is perhaps you who should refrain from posting here for a year. It is you who have lost.
@lawilson200 5 months ago I wrote "I can accept your bet. You say, 'The geologist must specifically mention Austin by name and citation (specific, no personal communications) and state an affirmation to Austin's hypothesis. If there is no mention of Austin at all, then you lost.' These terms are acceptable to me." I did not agree that any publication of Austin must be cited, only that Austin be mentioned by a geologist endorsing a megaflood. Strelin coauthored with Austin on megaflood evidence!
@SuperRockman33 I believe Lawilson200 lost his bet with you. Lawilson200 affirmed, "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood." You persisted in saying you believed Strelin is a believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. If I were lawilson200, I would post the following, "Oops, I really goofed again! This time I need to affirm that Dr Jorge Strelin is a believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River!"
On Monday October 10, 2011, at the Geological Society of America meeting in Minneapolis, I attended the poster "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River, Southern Argentina." The paper was coauthored by Drs. Steve Austin and Jorge Strelin. Dr Austin described the Pleistocene glacial landforms and the sedimentary deposits on the Santa Cruz River. I learned many new things about geology of Argentina. I found the presenter to be very gracious and respectful. The poster paper was very well attended.
@SuperRockman33 I also attended the Austin & Strelin megafloods paper at Geological Society of America. There was good response from geologists at the meeting. The paper was very well done. Darwin's name was mentioned.
"Some major geologist like Dr Jorge Strelin will identify publicly with the megaflood on the Santa Cruz River."
Lawilson200 posted here one year ago: "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood."
Lawilson200 posted here 10 months ago:
"However, Jorge Strelin - who has studied the area - conclude there was a catastrophic release, but it wasn't close to a megaflood."
@carrmike1 There are some thing about the association between Austin and Strelin that I am not a liberty to discuss. However, I can say this. According to Strelin, the PLA was 30 Km (E to W) and 20 Km (NS) with a maximum depth of no more than 75 m. This is close to a paleolake in Germeny called the Munsterland Embayment and reported in Meisnsen (2011). based on calculations the max peak flow was 1.3 X10(6) m3/s-1. Enough to a megaflood, but nowhere near as big as Austin reported.
@lawilson200 You asked me 7 months ago: "Which if the geologists we have been discussing endorses the Austin model? No quote mines, no fabricating historical events to "pown" one of history's most famous scientist. Just provide the name of the geologist (Pacifici, Strelin, Baker or Carling) have declared their support for the Austin model. A reply is expected." Here is my reply to your question. The name of a geologist who supports Austin's model is Dr. Jorge Strelin. My reply is correct!
@lawilson200 Your question to me 7 months ago: "You did not answer the question. The question is simple. Out of the geologists discussed, which one have expressed support for the Austin model. Since you seem to be unable to be honest with your answer, I will take your evasion as an admission that none so far has supported Austin. Now answer the question." My answer to your question is Strelin has expressed support for the Austin model. I am honest with my answer and I am not evading a reply.
@lawilson200 Do you remember your most deplorable post of 2010 on this YouTube channel? You posted here about the Santa Cruz River: "... there are no reputable geologist have argued in favor of a mega-flood and there is no evidence which supports a mega-flood." Has there been anything that has happened lately that challenges your statement? Did both Vic Baker and Jorge Strelin prove you wrong? Baker and Strelin both endorse megafloods on the Santa Cruz River.
@lawilson200 Another posting I saw in days gone by from lawilson200: "The debate on the Santa Cruz River, as far as I am concerned is over. You have failed to demonstrate that a megaflood had occurred and none of the mainstream geologists support you."
@lawilson200 Lawilson200 posted 2 months ago, "Since it is you who is making these exaggerated claims on the works of Jorge Strelin, the burden falls on you to prove. All you need to do is give us the name of the paper, the page number and the exact quote supporting 1) A massive lake; 2) megaripples and 3) flood erratics. I am all ears." The paper is S. Austin & J. Strelin, 2011, "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River..." Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol 43, no 5, p. 249.
@lawilson200 You wrote me two months ago, "Enough! You have been speculating on Strelin for 2 years now! Put up or shut up! Produce the location and size of PLA that could support a megaflood or end this line of nonsense!" I did not need to provide the location and size data for Paleolake Argentino from Strelin that you need to argue for megaflood. You had Strelin's data all along! It is good to see that you know now that it can be used to argue for megaflood. You've shown that I was right!
@lawilson200 You have been arguing vigorously for two years that the Plaeolake Argentino data of Jorge Strelin is incompatible with the idea of a megaflood. Now you are arguing Strelin's data IS compatible with a megaflood. You've changed your mind again! Remember you said Arroyo Verde glaciation was not on the Santa Cruz River? Remember saying that this video shows a lateral moraine deposited by ice? Remember saying that Baker and Strelin do not believe in a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River?
@SuperRockman33 I posted 6 months ago despite Lawilson200's protest, "2010 was ... the year Dr. Victor R. Baker (world's megaflood authority) wrote, "...megafloods in the Santa Cruz River system (Argentina) emanated from the Patagonian Ice Sheet,..." My prediction is that 2011 will be even a better year. 2011 is now open for other geologists to speak in public and even publish papers on megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. Geologists will be speaking more about megafloods." Jorge Strelin did.
@SuperRockman33 Dr. Austin was first to advocate in public a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River (February 2009). Then, later in 2009, Dr. Carling supported megaflood in a published paragraph (Paul A. Carling et al, 2009, page 44). Then, at the GSA meeting on October 31, 2010, Dr Baker stated his opinion favoring multiple megafloods. Now Drs. Austin and Strelin on October 10, 2011, gave "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River..." at GSA meeting (GSA Abstracts with Programs, vol 43, no 5, p. 249).
I hate to break up this little love fest, but don't you have anything useful to post? Jesus! You waste time on the most stupidest stuff!
"Dr. Austin was first to advocate in public a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River (February 2009)." No, he was not. Strelin wrote on flooding of PLA in 1995. This was followed by Pacifici in 2009. Austin 2009 contributions are not considered because he Acts and Facts is not recognized. His bad move. He should have known better.
I like how this video shows us the field evidence that Charles Darwin saw. Those big boulders in the river valley still challenge our ways of thinking. It is almost like I was standing there in Argentina. Viewers should be enlightened. Well done.
National Creation Science Foundation? That must be a real scientific group. Despite my lack of fundamental knowledge on the subject (no pun intended, fundamentalists) I must ask what Darwin's error on the river valley has to do with evolution? He may have beaten his children for all I know. What is the strict relationship to the issue of evolution?
@opptynox Millions of years supposedly makes evolution more plausible. Or put another way, if Darwin is shown to be lying about something verifiable, he is probably also lying about something unverifiable.
Lawilson 2 weeks ago: 1. "Strelin imagines a very big lake..." False. Strelin reports younger glaciers erased the lake boundaries and does not speculae on a size
2. Strelin discovered the boulders in the "gravel hills"False. Strelin reports the terraces as glacial moraines. Strelin never suggest finding "megaripples"
3. ""Strelin investigated really big boulders "- Strelin assigns the erractics of Condor as glacial erractics. Only one site is attributed to release of PLA by iceberg drift
@SuperRockman33 My prediction is that Lawilson200 will be changing his mind soon on what Jorge Strelin is saying about megafloods. It seems that lawilson200 is very teachable, if we endure with complex argument, he slowly agrees. Lawilson200 has not reaffirmed, "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood" during the last three weeks. Something must be happening inside his brain. Will he be telling us of his change?
@SuperRockman33 If I were lawilson200, I would post the following, "Oops, I really goofed again! This time I need to affirm that Dr Jorge Strelin is a believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River!"
2. Strelin still have not reported finding megaripples at the Condor Cliffs. However, he does indicate the presence of small fluvial dunes near Site 1 (Fig 4).
3. And they are still glacial erratics.
It you who was doing the speculating. I simply was following the written documentation and I am still following the written documentation.
@lawilson200 You said of me, "It was you who was doing the speculating.... I am still following the written documentation." Your postings here say that Strelin does not believe in a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River, and you are on record here as posting Strelin's data is inconsistent with megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. You have something very important that you need to tell us here! You don't need to tell us that I was speculating. Post your very important announcement here, right now!
@lawilson200 I was telling you what I believe about Jorge Strelin's position on megaflooding. You told us what you believe about Strelin's position on megaflooding. I would not say I was "speculating," and I would not say you were recounting published facts. We were both reading between the lines to infer Strelin's position. Now, what is the truth on this matter? You have something very important to say. Post it here!
@SuperRockman33 - Your claim on the size of Paleolake Argentino is based on the assumption that the glacier retreated back into the Andes. You described PLA with depth of 250 m, extending out to 125 km. The evidence show the depth to be 75 m and the length still largely undefined. You called the gravels at Condor, megaripples. Finally the erratics as flood deposited. Just where do the glaciers, which the evidence support, fit in your claim? Glaciers played a major role.
@lawilson200 SR's words over 1 month ago were,"Paleolake Argentino ,,, was a huge lake at 250 to 260 meters elevation in the upper Santa Cruz River drainage basin. Strelin mapped part of the lake's shore. How big this lake was is unknown because it extended out of the area of Strelin's map. This lake could extend up the drainage basin in the modern topography about 125 km from the Arroyo Verde glacial dam westward to the foothills of the Andes Mountains, being about 25 km wide and 70 m deep."
@lawilson200 SuperRockman33 got the lake's correct elevation and depth (elevation of 250 m and depth of 70 m). He also said the extent of the lake is "unknown." He told us of its possible size. SuperRockman thinks you have something important to say about Strelin's view regarding the presence or absence of megaflooding on the Santa Cruz River.
I would like clarification on Lawilson200's statements. From 9 months ago, "However, Jorge Strelin - who has studied the area - conclude there was a catastrophic release, but it wasn't close to a megaflood." 11 months ago Lawilson200 posted: "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood." Is Lawilson200 saying that Dr. Jorge Strelin has specified that no megafloods occurred on the Santa Cruz River?
@SuperRockman33 Just 3 weeks ago lawilson200 clarified his position on Dr. Strelin again. He responded to me 3 weeks ago, "Strelin papers support a large flood event (but not a megaflood event)...." Lawilson200 has stated his position on Strelin very clearly. The big question is will lawilson200 be changing his position again? He might be changing his position on Strelin very soon. I understand Strelin has written an abstract "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River..." Never a dull moment!
@SuperRockman33 - I go with valid scientific fieldwork. If new information is presented that changes the dynamics of a given area, then I will update my own views. To bad the same is not true with most creationists.
I have recently been in communication with Jorge Strelin. He sent me a wonderful PowerPoint presentation and a copy of the abstract that is to be submitted at the GSA Convention. The rest, you just need to ask him for yourself.
@carrmike1 "Dr Austin's megaflood ideas will continue to inspire debate and critical view of uniformitarian geology"
Another fabrication. YECs has been lying about the meaning of uniformitarianism for 5 decades now and I am sick of it. Strict gradualism has been abandoned long ago, if you had the most basic geological education, you would know this! Today, uniformity is the rule of simplicity. Nothing more. Regardless of anything else, you are still a fraud and a liar!
@lawilson200 Should WDWW have posted your words about fraud and liar? Here is what I posted to you here 4 months ago, "You also believe the only evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River is a misidentified terrace. You are predicting an abysmal failure of all efforts to associate geologic evidence with a megaflood event on the Santa Cruz River. I have a very different understanding. I believe there is excellent megaflood evidence." Do you need to stop namecalling and admit megaflood?
Darwin began his scientific work from a highly abstract and speculative base. He made some critical assumptions about geology that served as the foundation of ten peer-reviewed geology papers published by the Geological Society of London. These papers prove his professional development as a geologist. The geology done by Darwin has been shown, in this video and elsewhere, to be deficient because of Darwin's presuppositions. This video shows the serious error that Darwin made in Argentina.
geferlek3 2 days ago
@geferlek3 There was nothing abstract about Darwin's work at all. Darwin's training came from England and Scotland's leading geologist, at a time when geology was still embedded as a natural science. His work, as Strelin noted. stuck to the evidence he had at hand and he did not allow his immagination run away from him. Darwin was a player, but he also admitted making mistakes, if you bother to read his autobiography. He eventually accepted the impact of glaciers.
lawilson200 1 day ago
Probably Darwin, like the rest of us, was wrong about a lot of things. However, that takes nothing away from the breakthrough work he did regarding evolution and natural selection. True, he did not get all of that right either, but his remarkable insights have been demonstrated overall accurate to a dazzling degree. If he misinterpreted a geological feature in this case, which I am not sure he did, it is unrelated to his body of work which is truly profound.
teaohar2 6 days ago
'There is a myth promoted by Austin et al that "catastrophists" were supported a young-earth and Noah's Flood and "Uniformitarianism: developed slow rates and long ages. This always have been false. By 1830, no geologist - Neptunist or Vulcanist (to use the actual labels) - thought the Earth was 6K. Noah was harder to pinpoint. Curvier had multiple catastrophes, which many agreed. Then came the glacier theory and that put an end to Noah's Flood. Setting the record straight.
lawilson200 1 week ago
Short, but it shows the power of paradigm and how it affects our interpretation of the facts or evidence. There are many other geological formations around the world that suffer from this same problem. Thank you for this real-life excellent example of this problem.
jimangmay 1 week ago
@jimangmay Thanks for the kind words about the video. Yes, the video is short. It was the early design requirement that this video not exceed 10 minutes. The video shows the primary depositional features at "Camp Darwin," where Darwin camped with the crew of the Beagle on April 26, 1834. Darwin knew about flood deposits from his mentor Adam Sedgwick. Darwin should have appreciated the evidence of a major flood at "Camp Darwin."
WhereDarwinWentWrong 1 week ago
@jimangmay The term Camp Darwin is completely fictional. Considering that Darwin spent about 3 weeks exploring, there are lots of "Camp Darwin's."
Darwin was in constant communication with Sedgwick and even sent him letters on the SCR.
Sedgwick thought one study area might be diluvial, but he was one of the first to reject Noah's Flood.
Lastly, large floods was not appreciated until the 1920's and even then it took awhile to be accepted. Darwin was dead by then.
lawilson200 1 week ago
Those who want their words posted here should verify information (thereby eschewing gossip, rumor and hearsay), cite public information (not confidential matters), and be polite (don't use invectives or pejoratives). That's how to get posted. Displayed below the YouTube comment box: "Comments may be held for uploader approval."
WhereDarwinWentWrong 1 week ago
follow the truth and it will lead you to God
lynnethc 2 weeks ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong - No you wish to silence me. My position and opinions has been expressed many times on this debate and they are not subject to change. So don't gve me your crap. If you do not wish for me to me play the role of crumungeon anymore, then just simply block me. Othewise, I insist that I may name is no longer invoke by the other regular members of this debate. No point to include me if I am not allowed the right to defend myself.
lawilson200 2 weeks ago
It has become painfully obvious WWDW does not want me to participate in this discussion. Therefore I want all discussions about me to cease and negative comments about me removed. If I am not going to be allowed to defend myself, I want this discussion to cease.
lawilson200 2 weeks ago
@lawilson200 You can defend yourself, but don't do it by introducing hearsay or confidential information. Please employ courteous speech. Certainly don't respond with invectives or pejoratives. You are not the only one to have postings deleted. Posters are free to comment on any other postings, including yours. We can't tell others that they can't comment on your postings.
WhereDarwinWentWrong 1 week ago
Three ways to get your comments posted here quickly deleted:
1. Hearsay -- an item of idle or unverified information or gossip or rumor.
2. Confidential information -- like quoting emails without author's permission.
3. Invectives -- vehement denunciation, reproach or railing accusation.
WhereDarwinWentWrong 3 weeks ago
Lawilson200's "position" appears to have changed again!! He hasn't claimed "no evidence for a megaflood" lately! I encourage discussion of these recent Lawilson200 quotes: "I am flexible, always have been.... But Austin is clearly wrong." "So are you saying that one cannot have their mind changed as new information materialize?... However, I have yet to see a formal calculation, so I am only calling what happened in the SCR has a possible megaflood, Until I see more, that is my position."
fossilguy9 3 weeks ago
@fossilguy9 Is Lawilson200 flexible and teachable? Remember when Superrockman33 said he attended a public megaflood lecture by Dr. Vic Baker on 10/31/2010 where Baker mentioned that megafloods occurred on the Santa Cruz River? Lawilson200 said Superrockman33 was a liar. Remember when I gave my predictions for 2011 suggesting Jorge Strelin would endorse megafloods on the Santa Cruz River? Lawilson said I am a liar and a fraud.
carrmike1 3 weeks ago
@fossilguy9 "Is Lawilson200 flexible and teachable?" 2 years ago Lawilson200 called the bouldery feature seen at time 3:00 in this video a "lateral moraine" (glacier-produced feature). Then, without apology, he called it a "landslide deposit". That was short lived. For a long time, he claimed it to be a river deposit ("San Fernando Terrace"). Is he changing his mind? Is he calling the feature a "possible megaflood" deposit? Lawilson200 is absolutely certain that Austin has it wrong!
geologyeducation1 3 weeks ago
@fossilguy9 You have pointed it out. Lawilson200 appears to be changing his mind again. This time his change of mind appears to have some assistance from geologists Pacifici, Carling, Baker and Strelin. Good to see he is flexible. Sorry, however, to learn he insists for certain that Austin's size of megaflood is outrageously wrong.
geologyeducation1 3 weeks ago
@fossilguy9 6 months ago I said: "My prediction is that Lawilson200 will be changing his mind soon on what Jorge Strelin is saying about megafloods. It seems that lawilson200 is very teachable, if we endure with complex argument, he slowly agrees. Lawilson200 has not reaffirmed, "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood" during the last three weeks....Will he be telling us of his change?" I think he has.
geologyeducation1 3 weeks ago
@fossilguy9 All that Austin advocated in the video was a Santa Cruz River flood hundreds of feet deep through the channel which is 6 miles wide. Austin's video shows evidence from deposits. That flood appears to exceed one million cubic meters per second and so meets the minimum requirement of a megaflood. There is no discharge calculated in the video. Because Lawilson has not seen a discharge calculation, he remains not completely convinced. He calls it "possible megaflood."
geferlek3 2 weeks ago
@fossilguy9 Interesting that we have witnessed two unlikely words being linked. Those two words are "possible megaflood." Maybe we will see a "probable megaflood."
carrmike1 2 weeks ago
@fossilguy9 This video is convincing to me. Through the on-location video where Darwin camped, I can see how the present river might create a sand/pebble bar. A cobble/boulder bar would require water moving much faster than the present river. The idea of a catastrophic flood caused by a ruptured ice dam makes much sense. The evidence for the megaflood conclusion is substantial. It is more than just a "possible megaflood."
fossilguy9 2 weeks ago
@fossilguy9 Lawilson200 stated his "position" to me one year ago, "And it is a position that I am largely still hold. The evidence does support a catastrophic flood occuring in the Santa Cruz River during the middle to late Pliocene. The work of Jorge Strelin supports this much.... A flood yes, but no megaflood." That is what Lawilson200 was saying to me. He used Strelin's works to support his "position." If his "position" has changed, he should tell us why it has changed.
SuperRockman33 2 weeks ago
@SuperRockman33 Did you read the recent postings where lawilson200 requested that we not discuss lawilson200's position on megaflooding on the Santa Cruz River? Evidently, he wants us to stop quoting him, and he wants us to stop asking what he now believes. It must be a sensitive issue to him. He's been posting here for 3 years, but he wants us to quit discussing what he has said! What do you think?
fossilguy9 1 week ago
@fossilguy9 Fortune cookie for lawilson200 would say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Maybe lawilson200 needs to admit that his major position statement about "no megafloods" he has developed over the last three years is weak. I think he should admit like Paul Carling that there is "probable evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River." Admitting that would make a major part of this controversy go away. If he does not, posters will keep reminding him.
SuperRockman33 1 week ago
@SuperRockman33 I hate to be the target, when I am not permitted to defend myself. Frankly though, your fixation on me is petty, considering you haven't presented anything new or relevant in 3 years. Pointing to anceint postings I made, is the only thing you got.
lawilson200 1 week ago
@fossilguy9 I have submitted 3 postings, none were approved, So it is hard to present a counter argument when you are not even permitted to speak.
Now I do grow tired of this. When I review the written records on the Santa Cruz River Valley, it is by established geologists. The only tangible thing Austin has provided was his 2011 GSA poster and even that was repudiated. I am calling a possible MF only because Strelin thnks it possible. As far as I am concern, Ausin is a nonplayer.
lawilson200 1 week ago
@lawilson200 You say, "I am calling a possible MF only because Strelin thinks it possible." Just six months ago you were arguing with me that the data of Dr. Jorge Strelin was incompatible with the notion of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. I was arguing with you that Strelin's evidence WAS compatible with a megaflood, and that Strelin believed in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. During the last six months you have been munching on a giant "crow sandwich."
SuperRockman33 1 week ago
@SuperRockman33 Lawilson200 says, "I am calling a possible MF only because Strelin thinks it possible." I think Dr. Jorge Strelin has more commitment to megafloods on the Santa Cruz River than just thinking its "possible." Strelin is well beyond just "thinking." Strelin has studied a suite of structures, including the gravel hills, that make megafloods very probable.
geferlek3 1 week ago
@lawilson200 You say,"When I review the written records on the Santa Cruz River Valley, it is by established geologists." You reviewed the publications of Jorge Strelin six months ago improperly. He was not arguing against megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. Which Strelin publication argues against megafloods? He believes in megafloods! Strelin is a very smart and observant Argentinian geologist. Crow sandwich anyone?
SuperRockman33 1 week ago
@SuperRockman33 Crow can be very tasty if you cook it correctly.
geferlek3 1 week ago
@SuperRockman33 False. It was you who misrepresented Strelin. If you want me to agree with you then you need to repudiate Austin;s claim. It is false. He used the Santa Cruz River to make a false argument against Charles Darwin, If Austin truly advocated for a megaflood, he would have done a better job presenting the information and he would followed establsihed guidelines, But that is the problem when you support a theological cause over rationality, It your motives I suspecf,
lawilson200 1 week ago
@mattghtpa they aren't saying that it does.
golfer435 1 month ago
@grodge61 Sadly no, the boulders are too well organized and sorted for it to be glaciation. If glaciation caused this, you would see glacial erratics strewn all over the valley. The only feasible way to explain this is as a massive flood caused by the melting of glaciers, as Dr. Austin is claiming.
golfer435 1 month ago
@golfer435 You know this how? have you visited the region Austin is referring to? Strelin and Rabassa has mapped the area and we do know that glaciers reached as far as the Condor Cliffs, which is more than 150 miles from the Andes. We also know the location of Paleolake Argentino. According to Strelin, it was retained by an old moraine and not glacier ice.It was water overflowing the moraine and not rapid melting of the glacier that triggered the flood.
lawilson200 1 month ago
@golfer435 I can tell you were paying attention to the video. You probably recognized the extraordinary texture of the boulder and cobble deposit at 3 minutes into the video. I think you appreciate that this texture is not like a glacial deposit. It shows marks of the sorting action by a very powerful flood.
geologyeducation1 3 weeks ago
a certain size rock, to me it is obvious that this river was at one time much larger than it is today. Secondly, bringing in the point about stream competency, it is blatantly obvious to me that, given the size of the valley, the river had to have grown to proportions only possible in situations of catastrophe. This, combined with the proximity to glaciers and the existence of glacial eratics, is what led Dr. Austin to come to the conclusions that he came to.
golfer435 1 month ago
For everyone who does not give this video any credence, hear this. Dr. Austin is an extremely well respected geologist in both creationist and conventional circles. Here he makes some very astute observations and points that almost anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of geologic processes would understand. For instance, the stream is way too small to transport boulders of that size into that valley. There is a little thing called stream competence, the ability of a stream to carry
golfer435 1 month ago
@golfer435 I can see Austin is popu;lar among creo's, but many of the geologists I know working at the Cascade Volcano Observatory are friends of mine. They never heard of Austin,
lawilson200 1 month ago
@lawilson200 If they haven't heard of Dr. Austin, then that's more than a little surprising. You know the little volcanoe called Mt. St. Helens? Well Dr. Austin was one of the leading geologists researching the effects of that eruption. He is also credited with the creation of the Floating Log Mat Theory for the formation of charcoal. So the fact that your friends have never heard of Dr. Steven Austin is really quite surprising to me.
golfer435 4 weeks ago
@golfer435 I am sorry, but you did not answer my question. Frankly I am not interested with your hero worshipping of Steve Austin. I know who he is. I have even met with him when he paid a visit to the Seven Wonders Museum operated by Lloyd Anderson. My question to you was: What do you mean when you wrote "Sadly no, the boulders are too well organized and sorted for it to be glaciation" How do you know this? Is this through personal knowlege or a cited source?
lawilson200 3 weeks ago
@lawilson200 I was basing what I said off of observations from the video, and it was not in response to you.
golfer435 2 weeks ago
@golfer435 Since you opened this door, I will respond. Most of this work is credited to Harold Coffin, who wrote the actual papers. Austin merely assisted. You insult me about Mount St Helens. I camped at SL when I was a kid. I lived in Portland, OR on May 18, 1980, I had a front row seat and I became a geologist because of that eruption. Flooting log mat - wrong. About the closest analogy to Spirit Lake is Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. Coffin's had zero impact.
lawilson200 3 weeks ago
@lawilson200 I am sorry if I insulted you, I seriously did not think you knew who Dr. Austin was. and about the floating log mat, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens proved that theory to be correct.
golfer435 2 weeks ago
A reminder of two undeniable facts. FACT 1 -- Dr Vic Baker and Dr Jorge Strelin (megaflood geology authorities) have now in public endorsed megafloods on the Santa Cruz River in Argentina. FACT 2 -- Frequent poster here on this YouTube channel Lawilson200 has been stridently asserting for over two years on this posting area that there is no evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. I just want to remind visitors here, again, of these two undeniable facts.
SuperRockman33 1 month ago
@SuperRockman33 Is that why you keep lying about my position? One more time. I am oppossed to Aiustin's exaggerated version of a megaflood. I have yet to see anything from Strelin or Baker supporting the claim that Paleolake Argentino once dominated the modern locations of Argentino AND Viedma. I have yet see anything from Strelin or Baker supporting Austin's claim of 5,000,0000 m/s-1. How come after two years, you still cannot get it right?
lawilson200 1 month ago
@lawilson200 I'm not lying. FACT 2 is proved by your post here on the Santa Cruz River: "...there are no reputable geologist have argued in favor of a mega-flood and there is no evidence which supports a mega-flood." You wrote me that both Vic Baker and Jorge Strelin do not believe in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. You disputed megaflood evidence I & others presented. Have you stated there IS geologic evidence of megafloods on the Santa Cruz River? Did you change your mind?
SuperRockman33 3 weeks ago
@lawilson200 Lawilson200 postings here on Santa Cruz River: "However, there are no reputable geologist have argued in favor of a mega-flood and there is no evidence which supports a mega-flood." Other Lawilson200 postings, "The real issue here, was there a mega-flood? While the evidence does support a flood on a much smaller scale, there is no evidence to support a mega-flood." and "There were certainly some flooding in the past, but no mega-flood." Context is Santa Cruz River.
SuperRockman33 3 weeks ago
@lawilson200 You are on record here with postings that "there is no evidence of a megaflood" on the Santa Cruz River. You need to admit that has been your position. It is not just Austin's evidence of megaflood, you discounted all evidence of megaflood on Santa Cruz River! Now, if you change your mind about your opinion of megaflood evidence, you should tell us. If Baker and Strelin have now endorsed megaflood evidence, it would be nice if you could recognize them and tell us.
WhereDarwinWentWrong 3 weeks ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong I am flexible, always have been. Austin version of megaflooding was always wrong. Based on his two lectures, Austin hypothesis never met with reality (or those great geological maps of Strelin and Rabassa). The only other reference to megaflood is from Pacifici, which consist of 1/2 of a paragraph. I am still waiting on Baker. The best material is from Strelin. I have yet to see numbers based on what we know. But Austin is clearly wrong.
lawilson200 3 weeks ago
@lawilson200 We restated your position a year ago: "I believe we have your position stated: "...there is insufficient data to call the catastrophic release of the paleolake a megaflood." We understand your position to be that all the data on the Santa Cruz River valley leads you to believe that catastrophic floods have occurred on the Santa Cruz River, but it is your belief that nobody has yet documented any "megaflood" (flood flow of 1 million cubic meters per second or bigger)."
WhereDarwinWentWrong 3 weeks ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong Yes you did. So are you saying that one cannot have their mind changed as new information materialize? I suppose if geology was governed by your standards, we would never get anywear. But that is the problem with creos, its politics with you, Never about the science.
However, I have yet to see a formal calculation, so I am only calling what happened in the SCR has a possible megaflood, Until I see more, that is my position.
lawilson200 3 weeks ago
Wikipedia entry "Santa Cruz River (Argentina)" follows Austin's thoughts: "One wonders how Darwin's thinking may have been different had his ship reached the glacial lake and the geology paradyms of Lyell seen as not always reliable, a paradym Darwin would extrapolate from the realms of geology to biology. The Santa Cruz river valley is one of many valleys once thought to have been cut slowly over millions of years but today recognized to have been made quickly by catastrophic glacial flooding."
WhereDarwinWentWrong 1 month ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong I like the last sentences of the Wikipedia article: "The Santa Cruz river valley is one of many valleys once thought to have been cut slowly over millions of years but today recognized to have been made quickly by catastrophic glacial flooding. Catastrophic deglaciation flooding has also been suggested related to glacial Lake Missoula in the Northwestern United States and although initially ridiculed is now accepted as the prevailing view."
geferlek3 1 month ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong You do realize this is completely meaningless. Wikipedia is not like the Enclycopedia Britanica, especially since any one and every one can place an entry, update and change a previous entry. I would be more impressed if Enclycopedia Britanica supports "Austin's thought."
I am still waiting for the peer reivew papers. It is time for Austin to stop being lazy and actually produce somehting more than a poster.
lawilson200 1 month ago
@lawilson200 Your spelling tells us about you. You wrote,"Wikipedia is not like the Enclycopedia Britanica, ... if Enclycopedia Britanica ...." Are you referring to Encyclopedia Britannica? My English teacher told me "Spelling is important!"
fossilguy9 1 month ago
@fossilguy9 An "enclycopedia" is a new digital reference that lawilson200 invented. "Enclycopedia" is pronounced en-CLICK-o-pe-de-a. You find this resource online, and simply "click" on the topic that you want. Should lawilson200 try to sell the idea to Britannica?
geologyeducation1 1 month ago
@geologyeducation1 I tend to be multi-tasking when working on a computer and I am not always paying attention to my entries. Tell you what, I will endeavor to spell correctly, but this does not take away the issue.
Wikipedia is open source, making it unreliable.
Isn't past time fpr Austin to publish something? Anything? It's been three years now. What's the problem?
lawilson200 1 month ago
lol this video is perfect for people with a god complex. IMO I think free thought is better than continueing a religious tradition of believing evolution isn't real. I am spiritual and acknowledge God/nature, but I am not going to hold on to religious dogma's like all these creationists do. Philosophy took a huge hit when people closed their minds to questioning the creation of the universe because they were too loyal to the church's dogma.
H4z3y420 1 month ago
@H4z3y420 Although we could talk about religion and philosophy here, we have focused our attention on Charles Darwin as a geologist. Many geologists are ready to admit that Darwin was wrong in his interpretation of the erosion of Santa Cruz River valley. What is most interesting is that Darwin had access to what we now believe is the "correct" way of thinking about the erosion of the valley. Darwin deliberately rejected that good way of thinking, and followed the idea of Charles Lyell.
WhereDarwinWentWrong 1 month ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong -
I am really growing tired of you constantly making this false accusation. It shows that you have not bothered (after 3 years) to actually understand history, including life of Charles Darwin and geology during the 19th Century. First, Darwin role in all this is strictly historical. Second, Darwin admitted in his autobriography, that his position on the Ice Age and Glen Roy in particular, were wrong. Catastrophism is a bogus argument as are you!
lawilson200 1 month ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong
After three years, please tell us. how did "Darwin ... access to what we now believe is the the 'correct' way of thinking ..." has anything to do with anything? Darwin's theory of evolution is still regarded as the best idea ever and it has expanded far beyond what Darwin could possible have known. How does the Santa Cruz River change this? Stop with the innuendos and actually produce something. Darwin or megefloods, you can't have it both ways,
lawilson200 1 month ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong "Darwin deliberately rejected that good way of thinking" What does that suppose to mean? Charles Lyell based Prinicples of Geology on Isaac Newton, James Hutton and John Herschell. Are you saying Newton and Hutton had bad thoughts too?
It is time you end this lie. that all it is. A lie. It a line of arguments developed by Austin that never had support of history, philosophy or even reality.
lawilson200 1 month ago
2011 was a good year to talk about Darwin being wrong. There were good comments posted here, and not so good comments posted. Any nominations for "best posting" of 2011? Any nominations for "worst posting" of 2011?
fossilguy9 2 months ago
@fossilguy9 My "worst posting" nomination goes to Lawilson200 for his comment about Paleolake Argentino (PLA), "Enough! You have been speculating on Strelin for 2 years now! Put up or shut up! Produce the location and size of PLA that could support a megaflood or end this line of nonsense!" It was not nonsense to propose a megaflood from Paleolake Argentino. Lawilson200 figured out the size of PLA and answered his own "put-up or shut-up" challenge with next quote, my best posting nomimnation,
carrmike1 2 months ago
@fossilguy9 My nomination for "best posting" goes to Lawilson200 for recognizing the size of Paleolake Argentino (PLA): "According to Strelin, the PLA was 30 Km (E to W) and 20 Km (NS) with a maximum depth of no more than 75 m. This is close to a paleolake in Germeny called the Munsterland Embayment and reported in Meisnsen (2011). based on calculations the max peak flow was 1.3 X10(6) m3/s-1. Enough to a megaflood...." For his PLA quote, Lawilson200 has my commendation for best posting in 2011.
carrmike1 2 months ago
@fossilguy9 Carrmike1's words at 1st of year gets my vote for best posting: "2010 was a good year for megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. It was the year Dr. Victor R. Baker (world's megaflood authority) wrote, "...megafloods in the Santa Cruz River system (Argentina) emanated from the Patagonian Ice Sheet,..." My prediction is that 2011 will be even a better year. 2011 is now open for other geologists to speak in public and even publish papers on megafloods on the Santa Cruz River."
SuperRockman33 1 month ago
@fossilguy9 My nomination for "worst posting" of 2011 goes to Lawilson200. Writing of Carrmike1, Lawilson200 posted, "Regardless of anything else, you are still a fraud and a liar!" I did a word search of postings here for the words "fraud", "liar" and "dishonest". I found that lawilson200 uses these words often of others who believe in megafloods, not just Carrmike1.The predictions made by Carrmike1 for 2011 were excellent.
SuperRockman33 1 month ago
@fossilguy9 My nomination for "worst posting" goes to lawilson200 when he commented on the Santa Cruz River of Argentina saying, "... there are no reputable geologist have argued in favor of a mega-flood and there is no evidence which supports a mega-flood." Of course reputable geologists do affirm megafloods on SCR. We have not seen lawilson200 repeat this statement in the last 6 months, so some suppose he is a secret believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River!
geferlek3 1 month ago
@fossilguy9 My "best posting" vote goes to carrmike1 for his uncanny prediction made to lawilson200: "What if my prediction for 2011 comes true? I believe a "major player" in the geology of the Santa Cruz River will go public about megaflood evidence. That's when I would stop posting if I were you! You will not "bet" on what I believe will happen, but you should drop out when it happens. The debate is not over, it has just begun! Watch and see."
geferlek3 1 month ago
@fossilguy9 "Worst Posting" nomination geos to Lawilson200 for, "Since it is you who is making these exaggerated claims on the works of Jorge Strelin, the burden falls on you to prove. All you need to do is give us the name of the paper, the page number and the exact quote supporting 1) A massive lake; 2) megaripples and 3) flood erratics. I am all ears." See Austin & Strelin, 2011, "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River..." Geol Soc Am. Abstracts with Programs, vol 43, no 5, p. 249.
geologyeducation1 1 month ago
@fossilguy9 "Best Posting" vote of 2011 clearly goes to Carrmike1,"What if my prediction for 2011 comes true? I believe a "major player" in the geology of the Santa Cruz River will go public about megaflood evidence. That's when I would stop posting if I were you! You will not "bet" on what I believe will happen, but you should drop out when it happens. The debate is not over, it has just begun! Watch and see."
geologyeducation1 1 month ago
Now that it nearly 3 years since this was first posted on you tube, arn't you getting tired playing the role of censor by having to approve everything first? Isn't time to move one? You can do this either by closing down future entiries or by allowing submit without approval. You Tube does give you this option.. Frankly I don't know why you continue? In the real world, you can always delete enteries you find inappropriate, but it would allow for an unfretterred free exchange.
lawilson200 2 months ago
Wow, we are approaching three years into this story and we are no closer to a resolution now then when we started.
The usual suspects have proposed a new mechanism to save Austin calulated megaflood; that is Shaw's rapid melting of glaciers. Interesting, but was does the evidence show? According to Strelin the flood was tiggered by a collapse moraine and not the rapid melting of a large ice field.
Why can't the usual suspects accept a smaller megaflood? Austin was wrong on size.
lawilson200 2 months ago
@lawilson200 You said, "...smaller megaflood?" You are on record with numerous postings at this site that there is "no evidence of a megaflood" on the Santa Cruz River! You argued that no geologist supports a megaflood on the SCR. You argued on this site strenuously against all megaflood evidence on the Santa Cruz River. I am not aware of any posting by you about there being any evidence of a megaflood in Argentina. Are you a secret believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River?
fossilguy9 2 months ago
@fossilguy9 You asked if lawilson200 is "a secret believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River." Very good question. I am not aware of a posting that lawilson200 acknowledges any geologic evidence favoring a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. He posted for our viewing enjoyment repeatedly that no reputable geologist (Baker, Pacifici, Carling, or Strelin) endorses evidence of megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. Is lawilson200 a secret believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River?
geferlek3 2 months ago
@fossilguy9 On a natural disaster list a "smaller megaflood" ranks just above a "tiny tsunami." If you are going to choose a natural disaster to die in, you should select without hesitation a "smaller megaflood" over a "tiny tsunami."
geferlek3 2 months ago
@geferlek3 I'd rather die in a "tiny tsunami" because my body would be washed up and deposited on shore where my next of kin would find it. That would allow them to know I'm dead, and greeve appropriately. In a "smaller megaflood" my body would be washed out to sea and never be found. If my body were washed out to sea, my next of kin might not believe I was dead, and, therefore, expect that I could return.
geologyeducation1 2 months ago
@fossilguy9 - Incorrect, I support the evidence and the work of actual geologists like Jorge Strelin. My opposition in this manner was always directed against Steve Austin. When he first presented this video 3 years ago, it was not with the intention of addressing a previously unknown geological process, but instead to fabricate anothr false argument against Charles Darwin. Austin tries to play the field both ways. He needs to decide, is he a geologist or a politician.
lawilson200 2 months ago
@lawilson200 You posted, "I support the evidence and the work of actual geologists like Jorge Strelin." Strelin supports the identificatioin of "gravel hills" interpreting them as "dune bedforms" that were sculpted by megaflood. So, you support Strelin's hills as large bedforms, interpreting them as megaflood features. Do I have your view stated?
fossilguy9 2 months ago
@fossilguy9
I am not sure how your response relates to Austin's grandiose misrepresentation of the actual evidence. How does this draw Austin's conclusion of a megaflood flowing at 5,000,000 m3 s-1. In what manner does this statement drum up the much more massive lake necessary to support a megaflood of this size? If you wants to adopt Austin, then present the evidence supporting Austin and quit wasting my time on manutia.
lawilson200 2 months ago
@fossilguy9 lawilson200 is a "secret believer in megafloods." I think he knows there's excellent evidences on the Santa Cruz River best interpreted in terms of megafloods bigger that one million cubic meters per second. I think he knows that reputable geologist know about this evidence, and he knows these geologists have stated their belief in megafloods on the SCR. After three years of postings here, he may be able to admit geologic evidence of megafloods on SCR. Any progress?
carrmike1 2 months ago
@lawilson200 "According to Strelin the flood was triggered by a collapse moraine..." You could have posted "According to Strelin the megaflood was triggered by a collapse moraine..." If you posted "Strelin ... megaflood," you might want to revise your earlier post to me, "...so far, you have no reputable geologist independently declaring there was a megaflood in the Santa Cruz River Valley." Isn't it true that Baker & Strelin believe in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River?
SuperRockman33 2 months ago
This is so silly. People like this think that if they can discredit Darwin, then evolution just goes away. What if I discredited Thomas Edison or Nikola Tesla, would you stop believing in electricity? Apparently you would proceed to tell me that believing in electricity is pagan and immoral. Darwin simply made discoveries about evolution. After him it has been supported thoroughly and has revolutionized biology. Discrediting him will not undo his major discovery. The cat is out of the bag.
theshredator 2 months ago
An excellent paper: "Subglacial floods beneath ice sheets." G.W. Evatt, A.C. Fowler, C.D. Clark and N.R.J. Hulton. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. A, 15 July 2006 vol. 364, 1769-1794.
"Subglacial floods (jökulhlaups) are well documented as occurring beneath present day glaciers and ice caps. In addition, it is known that massive floods have occurred from ice-dammed lakes proximal to the Laurentide ice sheet during the last ice age...."
geologyeducation1 2 months ago
@geologyeducation1 Here we go again. Why is this article relevant? I am not suggesting that it is bad or wrong in anyway, but please explain how is this article relevant to Austin's problem. The paper is great on theory and I do enjoy the math, but it is time for you to get to work Was the SCR flood triggered by conditions described in Evatt? What's your evidence? Are you disputing Strelin reported size of PLA? Remember the disagreement is not over floods, but Austin'sf
lawilson200 2 months ago
Another Lawilson200 posting: "Come on people, this is basic geology 101
1. The boulder bar you are obsessed over has a name; its called San Fernando Terrace 2. If you bother to do your homework, you will discover it was reported by Strelin in 1999.
3. Strelin writes that it is a dissected alluvial terrace.
Sorry guys but it is not a boulder bar similar to the Hagerman, unless you care to explain how Strelin was wrong."
Lawilson misquoted Strelin. Strelin and Austin are right! Megaflood!
carrmike1 2 months ago
@carrmike1 Yes, you found another Lawilson200 big blooper! His statement is very sad. There is evidence that "boulder bars" and "gravel hills" on the Santa Cruz River are evidence of megafloods. Strelin admits it. If I were lawilson200, I would post the following, "Oops, I really goofed again! This time I need to affirm that Dr Jorge Strelin is a believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River!" I have not seen any Lawilson200 postings admitting Strelin is a believer in megafloods.
fossilguy9 2 months ago
@fossilguy9
Blooper? So what is your source supporting this claim? My comments are drawn directly from the only reports available on the Santa Cruz River. Each of them were written by Strelin. If you claim I am making a blopper, then you are saying the only research geologist who spent decades studying the Santa Cruz River region is wrong. I love to see your source that proves me wrong.
lawilson200 2 months ago
What else was Darwin wrong about? Gee, let me guess. Oh, I know. Just because he was wrong about gradual change with erosion by the Santa Cruz River, he must also be wrong about gradual evolutionary change? Is that your argument against evolution?
prschuster 2 months ago
@prschuster If you would have met Charles Darwin in the 1840's, he might have talked with you at length about geology. Geology was on his mind. Darwin showed himself to be great at observation. Darwin was not very good at interpretation. What you see in reading Darwin's geology publications is his use of observations to make interpretations--that is his methodology. His methodology of doing geology was not very good. That reflects on Darwin as a scientist.
WhereDarwinWentWrong 2 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong - When are you going to let this already exposed lie of yours to finally go to the trash heep where it belongs? Your arguments was exposed 3 years ago? Why do you persist using it?
Evolution survives, thrives despite your false allusion to Darwin use of uniformitarian prinicples. This is because Darwin's control of the theory ended, the moment it was published!
Meanwhile you blind use of SCR denies historical events! Admit you are wrong, liar!
lawilson200 2 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong If Darwin was wrong, why has he fooled hundreds of thousands biologists for a century & a half?
prschuster 2 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong
Many scientists make mistakes during the process of theorizing and experimenting. That's how we learn. However, in regards to evolution, the premise that Darwin came up with has been scrutinized countless times by some of the best minds in the world. And through independent observations, they still consider it to be a valid theory, and the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life.
JVIPER88 1 month ago
@prschuster
Not surprising, Austin's administrative assistent is attempting to distract you with a meaningless response.
For an honest discussion of Darwin's geology and what he got right and wrong read:
Martin Rudwick, "Darwin and Glen Roy: A 'Great Failure' in Scientific Method," Studies in History of Philosophy of Science, 5 (2) (1974) 97-185.
lawilson200 2 months ago
@carrmike1 I read some technical papers on how and why meltwater floods break out directly from beneath glaciers. It seems like a very potent force. Most people are unaware that glaciers have abundant water. Sometimes this water is supercooled inside the glacier being liquid below 32 degrees Fahrenheit and remaining liquid because of the pressure at the base of the glacier. This water can break through cracks within a glacier. Lake Missoula's ice dam could have failed this way.
geologyeducation1 2 months ago
@geologyeducation1 Baker said, "...megafloods on the Santa Cruz River eminated from the Patagonian ice sheet." Notice that Baker did not write, "...megafloods on the Santa Cruz River eminated from a lake in front of the Patagonian ice sheet." Evidently, Baker likes subglacier meltwater source for many megafloods. Pacifici also sketched that idea to explain his "diluvial dunes" on the Santa Cruz River west of Condor Cliff. I'm just pointing these things out to help discussion.
carrmike1 2 months ago
@carrmike1 Yes, subglacial water is a potent reservoir for megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. This kind of water within or under a glacier is a very potent source for a megaflood. Also, it is possible that subglacial water is recharged through vertical cracks from supraglacial lakes. This could involve significant pressure and catastrophic outbreak floods. The piedmont glaciers upstream on Santa Cruz River could have had enormous quantities of subglacial water. Long live megafloods!
geferlek3 2 months ago
Strelin has sent me photos of the "fluvial" dunes that is currently being relied on by geologyeducation1 and others. Austin has been supplied a copy of these same photos. I have compared the Strelin photos with photos I have personally taken in Camas Parrie, Montana, West Bend, Washington and Red Rock Pass in Idaho. These areas have known fluvial dunes from previous megafloods. While I am not denying a flood formed these features shown in Strelin, they do not support Austin claim of 5 m/s.
lawilson200 2 months ago
Let's look at Austin's claim on the size of the flood. First, he claimed that PLA covered today's Lake Viedma and Lake Argentino. He has not presented evidence to support this and Strelin does not agree the PLA was as large as Austin suggested. Without it, Austin cannot justify the claim of 5,000,000 m3/s-1. That figure also is not based on fluvial dunes but instead on boulders which we know from Strelin are Glacial erractics. No one denies a flood, but Austin specific claim is still weak.
lawilson200 2 months ago
GSA poster text of "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River" by Austin & Strelin (2011), says, "These spillover cobbles indicate that one megaflood was 100-m deep and 10-km wide. Flood discharge can be estimated from the Manning Equation using channel cross-sectional dimensions, channel roughness, and channel slope. The Manning parameters at Rincon Grande allow us to estimate this megaflood's mean flood flow velocity at over 5 m/sec and discharge at 5 million m3/sec."
WhereDarwinWentWrong 3 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong Austin and Strelin are saying that they estimated discharge of one of the biggest megafloods on the Santa Cruz River from the elevation of spillover deposits and from the parameters of the spillway. Both methods they report seem to sgree on the size of the megaflood. I can go to bed tonight believing that Austin and Strelin have not made an error in estimatting the flood volume.
geologyeducation1 3 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong There are two ways to estimate megaflood discharge once you have data about flood depth in a channel. There are 1D and 2D ways of estimating the discharge. 1D uses a single channel profile, roughness and slope. 2D uses elevation change through multiple channel profiles. 2D estimate is done on a computer by the stepped-backwater method and requires more input data. 1D is easier to do. 2D may be a more accurate estimate. I did 1D in an engineering class.
geologyeducation1 3 months ago
@geologyeducation1 - So you are telling me that you prefer the less accurate 1D model over the more accurate 2D. Tell me, how can you have a megaflood discharge of 5 million cubic meters per second, from a lake that was only 20 KM X 30 KM and 75 meters deep? Compared to known large megeflood sights like Agassiz, Bonneville and Missoula, the lake size is very small. Even the elevation change is no help. After 2 years don't you thing it is time to end all speculation?
lawilson200 3 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong What does a river flood have to do with Noah's flood? Other than that is where all the flood stories came from.
What does Darwin being wrong about the geology of a river have to do with 'Origin of Species''?
gregrutz 2 months ago
GSA poster text of "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River" by Austin & Strelin (2011), says,"Eastward of the spillway, within the widening valley, paired terraces are covered by abundant 'gravel hills' (longitude 71.1 to 70.7 west)…. along 20 km of the river terrace surfaces west of Condor Cliff. These hills are composed of 0.3-m-diameter boulders displaying dune bedforms with lengths of more than 10 m and heights of up to 3 m." Austin & Strelin say "dune bedforms" are evidence of big megafloods.
WhereDarwinWentWrong 4 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong Lawilson200 wrote 3 months ago about Strelin: "Strelin makes clear that most of the deposits at the Condor Cliffs were the product of the largest glacial maximum, dated by Mercer as 2 ma. Carling reports the so-called ripples are barely discernable from the surrounding terrain. Strelin reports the boulders as glacial erratics." Thus, lawilson200 believes that Strelin is a doubter of megaflood evidence in boulders at Condor Cliffs. Lawilson200 reads Strelin wrong.
geferlek3 4 months ago
@geferlek3 - Actuallly, I agreed to not reveal e-mails, so I will concede that I am a disadvantage at the moment. However, I will go to bed tonight, satisfied with the knowledge that Austin was wrong when measured the megaflood at 5,000,000 cubic meters per second. At best, this flood was only between 300.000 to 1,000,000 cubic meters per second.
Second, the deposits at Condor are glacier deposits. It is you who is wrong.
lawilson200 3 months ago
@lawilson200 I can go to bed tonight satisfied that Lawilson200 has been wrong about no geologists favoring a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River, and wrong about there being no geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River.
fossilguy9 3 months ago
@fossilguy9 Sweet dreams! Also, go to bed tonight satisfied this Lawilson200 quote is wrong: "As much respect I have for Dr Baker, he has not visited the SCR. Carling has been to the SCR. He has examined the area identified by Pacifici as bearing fossilized fluvial dunes. He has stated that when he was standing on top of the Condor Cliffs, he had a hard time seeing the dunes. There is evidence of a catastrophic flood. But it wasn't a megaflood. If Baker continues, he is using other evidence."
carrmike1 3 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong This makes a case that "dune bedforms" at Condor Cliff are like giant ripples that were sculpted by megaflood.
geologyeducation1 3 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong Strelin now understands his "gravel hills" on the terraces west of Condor Cliff to be giant bedforms sculpted by megaflood. SCR gravel dunes were recognized to be deposits of big flood when Pacifici (2009) related them to flood features on Mars. When Carling (2009) saw them, he styled them as "probable" megaflood landforms. Notice that now everybody (except Lawilson200) is attributing "gravel dunes" to megaflood processes. Nobody is saying dropstone.
geologyeducation1 3 months ago
@WhereDarwinWentWrong The dune wavelength can be used to estimate the flood depth and the flood velocity. Dr. Paul Carling's publications tell us how to estimate the flood flow parameters. Also, the boulder size can suggest the flood velocity. Carling is an authority here.
geologyeducation1 3 months ago
lawilson200 wrote me over a year ago: "...so far, you have no reputable geologist independently declaring there was a megaflood in the Santa Cruz River Valley." Just a few days later on 10/31/2010 I posted on this site that I listened to Dr. Vic Baker (world authority on megafloods) affirm at Geological Society of America meeting a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. Recently, on 10/10/2011, both Austin and Strelin presented a GSA paper "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River, Southern Argentina."
SuperRockman33 4 months ago
@SuperRockman33 Are you going to conitnue to whine, or are you going to actually contribute something? For the last year, all you have done is obsessed over entries I made one and two years ago. You have not provided nothing except cry and cry some more over how I have been unfairly treated. Well enough! You have not earned my respect and you do not deserve my respect. Now bring something new to the table or move on!
lawilson200 4 months ago
@lawilson200 My question for you: "Is there a reputable geologist that is declaring that there is geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River?" I would appreciate a "yes" or "no" answer. Your declaration to me, "...so far, you have no reputable geologist independently declaring there was a megaflood in the Santa Cruz River Valley." Is there a reputable geologist that is declaring that there is geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River? Yes or No answer?
SuperRockman33 3 months ago
@lawilson200 Whether I have earned or deserve your respect is immaterial. I want to get closure on the question we have been discussing for over a year. "Is there a reputable geologist that is declaring that there is geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River?" I am bringing something new to the table. I am asking for a simple "yes" or "no." Is there a reputable geologist that is declaring that there is geologic evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River?
SuperRockman33 3 months ago
WDWW -- Please be aware that Lawilson200 and I have a bet (posted here) made months ago about megaflooding on the Santa Cruz River. The bet centers on whether geologists will begin endorsing evidence and interpretations of megafloods on the Santa Cruz River and whether Dr. Austin's notions of megaflooding on the Santa Cruz River will receive recognition. Both have happened recently fulfilling the bet. Therefore, Lawilson200 should refrain from posting on this site for a period of one year.
SuperRockman33 4 months ago
@SuperRockman33 - Incorrect. The bet was for one of the principles to publish in a peer review journal and Austin's YEC paper had to be specifically cited. Excluded were absracts and posters. Those were the terms you had agreed to. Since none of the principles have published a peer review article and Austin's YEC paper has not formally been cited, it is perhaps you who should refrain from posting here for a year. It is you who have lost.
lawilson200 4 months ago
@lawilson200 5 months ago I wrote "I can accept your bet. You say, 'The geologist must specifically mention Austin by name and citation (specific, no personal communications) and state an affirmation to Austin's hypothesis. If there is no mention of Austin at all, then you lost.' These terms are acceptable to me." I did not agree that any publication of Austin must be cited, only that Austin be mentioned by a geologist endorsing a megaflood. Strelin coauthored with Austin on megaflood evidence!
SuperRockman33 3 months ago
@SuperRockman33 I believe Lawilson200 lost his bet with you. Lawilson200 affirmed, "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood." You persisted in saying you believed Strelin is a believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. If I were lawilson200, I would post the following, "Oops, I really goofed again! This time I need to affirm that Dr Jorge Strelin is a believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River!"
fossilguy9 4 months ago
@fossilguy9 - Then where is the peer review paper citing Austin's Acts and Facts article? Those were the terms of the bet.
lawilson200 4 months ago
On Monday October 10, 2011, at the Geological Society of America meeting in Minneapolis, I attended the poster "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River, Southern Argentina." The paper was coauthored by Drs. Steve Austin and Jorge Strelin. Dr Austin described the Pleistocene glacial landforms and the sedimentary deposits on the Santa Cruz River. I learned many new things about geology of Argentina. I found the presenter to be very gracious and respectful. The poster paper was very well attended.
SuperRockman33 5 months ago
@SuperRockman33 I also attended the Austin & Strelin megafloods paper at Geological Society of America. There was good response from geologists at the meeting. The paper was very well done. Darwin's name was mentioned.
carrmike1 5 months ago
My prediction posted here more than 6 months ago:
"Some major geologist like Dr Jorge Strelin will identify publicly with the megaflood on the Santa Cruz River."
Lawilson200 posted here one year ago: "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood."
Lawilson200 posted here 10 months ago:
"However, Jorge Strelin - who has studied the area - conclude there was a catastrophic release, but it wasn't close to a megaflood."
carrmike1 4 months ago
@carrmike1 There are some thing about the association between Austin and Strelin that I am not a liberty to discuss. However, I can say this. According to Strelin, the PLA was 30 Km (E to W) and 20 Km (NS) with a maximum depth of no more than 75 m. This is close to a paleolake in Germeny called the Munsterland Embayment and reported in Meisnsen (2011). based on calculations the max peak flow was 1.3 X10(6) m3/s-1. Enough to a megaflood, but nowhere near as big as Austin reported.
lawilson200 4 months ago
@lawilson200 You asked me 7 months ago: "Which if the geologists we have been discussing endorses the Austin model? No quote mines, no fabricating historical events to "pown" one of history's most famous scientist. Just provide the name of the geologist (Pacifici, Strelin, Baker or Carling) have declared their support for the Austin model. A reply is expected." Here is my reply to your question. The name of a geologist who supports Austin's model is Dr. Jorge Strelin. My reply is correct!
carrmike1 4 months ago
@lawilson200 Your question to me 7 months ago: "You did not answer the question. The question is simple. Out of the geologists discussed, which one have expressed support for the Austin model. Since you seem to be unable to be honest with your answer, I will take your evasion as an admission that none so far has supported Austin. Now answer the question." My answer to your question is Strelin has expressed support for the Austin model. I am honest with my answer and I am not evading a reply.
carrmike1 4 months ago
@lawilson200 Do you remember your most deplorable post of 2010 on this YouTube channel? You posted here about the Santa Cruz River: "... there are no reputable geologist have argued in favor of a mega-flood and there is no evidence which supports a mega-flood." Has there been anything that has happened lately that challenges your statement? Did both Vic Baker and Jorge Strelin prove you wrong? Baker and Strelin both endorse megafloods on the Santa Cruz River.
carrmike1 4 months ago
@lawilson200 Another posting I saw in days gone by from lawilson200: "The debate on the Santa Cruz River, as far as I am concerned is over. You have failed to demonstrate that a megaflood had occurred and none of the mainstream geologists support you."
carrmike1 4 months ago
@lawilson200 Lawilson200 posted 2 months ago, "Since it is you who is making these exaggerated claims on the works of Jorge Strelin, the burden falls on you to prove. All you need to do is give us the name of the paper, the page number and the exact quote supporting 1) A massive lake; 2) megaripples and 3) flood erratics. I am all ears." The paper is S. Austin & J. Strelin, 2011, "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River..." Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol 43, no 5, p. 249.
SuperRockman33 4 months ago
@lawilson200 You wrote me two months ago, "Enough! You have been speculating on Strelin for 2 years now! Put up or shut up! Produce the location and size of PLA that could support a megaflood or end this line of nonsense!" I did not need to provide the location and size data for Paleolake Argentino from Strelin that you need to argue for megaflood. You had Strelin's data all along! It is good to see that you know now that it can be used to argue for megaflood. You've shown that I was right!
carrmike1 4 months ago
@lawilson200 You have been arguing vigorously for two years that the Plaeolake Argentino data of Jorge Strelin is incompatible with the idea of a megaflood. Now you are arguing Strelin's data IS compatible with a megaflood. You've changed your mind again! Remember you said Arroyo Verde glaciation was not on the Santa Cruz River? Remember saying that this video shows a lateral moraine deposited by ice? Remember saying that Baker and Strelin do not believe in a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River?
carrmike1 4 months ago
@carrmike1 - You do like to waste time with the mose stupidest stuff. Do you even have a life?
lawilson200 4 months ago
@SuperRockman33 I posted 6 months ago despite Lawilson200's protest, "2010 was ... the year Dr. Victor R. Baker (world's megaflood authority) wrote, "...megafloods in the Santa Cruz River system (Argentina) emanated from the Patagonian Ice Sheet,..." My prediction is that 2011 will be even a better year. 2011 is now open for other geologists to speak in public and even publish papers on megafloods on the Santa Cruz River. Geologists will be speaking more about megafloods." Jorge Strelin did.
carrmike1 4 months ago
@carrmike1 And that is still an absurd statement. There is nothing controversial about megafloods. Austin on the otherhand ...
lawilson200 4 months ago
@SuperRockman33 Dr. Austin was first to advocate in public a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River (February 2009). Then, later in 2009, Dr. Carling supported megaflood in a published paragraph (Paul A. Carling et al, 2009, page 44). Then, at the GSA meeting on October 31, 2010, Dr Baker stated his opinion favoring multiple megafloods. Now Drs. Austin and Strelin on October 10, 2011, gave "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River..." at GSA meeting (GSA Abstracts with Programs, vol 43, no 5, p. 249).
geologyeducation1 4 months ago
@geologyeducation1
I hate to break up this little love fest, but don't you have anything useful to post? Jesus! You waste time on the most stupidest stuff!
"Dr. Austin was first to advocate in public a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River (February 2009)." No, he was not. Strelin wrote on flooding of PLA in 1995. This was followed by Pacifici in 2009. Austin 2009 contributions are not considered because he Acts and Facts is not recognized. His bad move. He should have known better.
lawilson200 4 months ago
I like how this video shows us the field evidence that Charles Darwin saw. Those big boulders in the river valley still challenge our ways of thinking. It is almost like I was standing there in Argentina. Viewers should be enlightened. Well done.
fossilguy9 6 months ago
National Creation Science Foundation? That must be a real scientific group. Despite my lack of fundamental knowledge on the subject (no pun intended, fundamentalists) I must ask what Darwin's error on the river valley has to do with evolution? He may have beaten his children for all I know. What is the strict relationship to the issue of evolution?
opptynox 6 months ago
@opptynox Millions of years supposedly makes evolution more plausible. Or put another way, if Darwin is shown to be lying about something verifiable, he is probably also lying about something unverifiable.
nibblet777 5 months ago
What if he was right?
KjetilKilhavn 6 months ago
Lawilson 2 weeks ago: 1. "Strelin imagines a very big lake..." False. Strelin reports younger glaciers erased the lake boundaries and does not speculae on a size
2. Strelin discovered the boulders in the "gravel hills"False. Strelin reports the terraces as glacial moraines. Strelin never suggest finding "megaripples"
3. ""Strelin investigated really big boulders "- Strelin assigns the erractics of Condor as glacial erractics. Only one site is attributed to release of PLA by iceberg drift
SuperRockman33 6 months ago
@SuperRockman33 My prediction is that Lawilson200 will be changing his mind soon on what Jorge Strelin is saying about megafloods. It seems that lawilson200 is very teachable, if we endure with complex argument, he slowly agrees. Lawilson200 has not reaffirmed, "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood" during the last three weeks. Something must be happening inside his brain. Will he be telling us of his change?
geologyeducation1 6 months ago
@SuperRockman33 If I were lawilson200, I would post the following, "Oops, I really goofed again! This time I need to affirm that Dr Jorge Strelin is a believer in megafloods on the Santa Cruz River!"
fossilguy9 6 months ago
@SuperRockman33
1. Strelin still does not image a very big lake.
2. Strelin still have not reported finding megaripples at the Condor Cliffs. However, he does indicate the presence of small fluvial dunes near Site 1 (Fig 4).
3. And they are still glacial erratics.
It you who was doing the speculating. I simply was following the written documentation and I am still following the written documentation.
lawilson200 6 months ago
@lawilson200 You said of me, "It was you who was doing the speculating.... I am still following the written documentation." Your postings here say that Strelin does not believe in a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River, and you are on record here as posting Strelin's data is inconsistent with megaflood on the Santa Cruz River. You have something very important that you need to tell us here! You don't need to tell us that I was speculating. Post your very important announcement here, right now!
SuperRockman33 6 months ago
@lawilson200 I was telling you what I believe about Jorge Strelin's position on megaflooding. You told us what you believe about Strelin's position on megaflooding. I would not say I was "speculating," and I would not say you were recounting published facts. We were both reading between the lines to infer Strelin's position. Now, what is the truth on this matter? You have something very important to say. Post it here!
SuperRockman33 6 months ago
@SuperRockman33 - Your claim on the size of Paleolake Argentino is based on the assumption that the glacier retreated back into the Andes. You described PLA with depth of 250 m, extending out to 125 km. The evidence show the depth to be 75 m and the length still largely undefined. You called the gravels at Condor, megaripples. Finally the erratics as flood deposited. Just where do the glaciers, which the evidence support, fit in your claim? Glaciers played a major role.
lawilson200 6 months ago
@lawilson200 SR's words over 1 month ago were,"Paleolake Argentino ,,, was a huge lake at 250 to 260 meters elevation in the upper Santa Cruz River drainage basin. Strelin mapped part of the lake's shore. How big this lake was is unknown because it extended out of the area of Strelin's map. This lake could extend up the drainage basin in the modern topography about 125 km from the Arroyo Verde glacial dam westward to the foothills of the Andes Mountains, being about 25 km wide and 70 m deep."
WhereDarwinWentWrong 6 months ago
@lawilson200 SuperRockman33 got the lake's correct elevation and depth (elevation of 250 m and depth of 70 m). He also said the extent of the lake is "unknown." He told us of its possible size. SuperRockman thinks you have something important to say about Strelin's view regarding the presence or absence of megaflooding on the Santa Cruz River.
WhereDarwinWentWrong 6 months ago
I would like clarification on Lawilson200's statements. From 9 months ago, "However, Jorge Strelin - who has studied the area - conclude there was a catastrophic release, but it wasn't close to a megaflood." 11 months ago Lawilson200 posted: "According to Professor Strelin, the castastrophic release might be large, but the evidence does not support a megaflood." Is Lawilson200 saying that Dr. Jorge Strelin has specified that no megafloods occurred on the Santa Cruz River?
SuperRockman33 6 months ago
@SuperRockman33 Just 3 weeks ago lawilson200 clarified his position on Dr. Strelin again. He responded to me 3 weeks ago, "Strelin papers support a large flood event (but not a megaflood event)...." Lawilson200 has stated his position on Strelin very clearly. The big question is will lawilson200 be changing his position again? He might be changing his position on Strelin very soon. I understand Strelin has written an abstract "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River..." Never a dull moment!
carrmike1 6 months ago
@SuperRockman33 - I go with valid scientific fieldwork. If new information is presented that changes the dynamics of a given area, then I will update my own views. To bad the same is not true with most creationists.
I have recently been in communication with Jorge Strelin. He sent me a wonderful PowerPoint presentation and a copy of the abstract that is to be submitted at the GSA Convention. The rest, you just need to ask him for yourself.
lawilson200 6 months ago
My prediction for 2011 posted 4 months ago:
"(1) Dr. Vic Baker will keep calling attention to megafloods on the Santa Cruz River by continuing to promote his megaflood map."
"(2) Some major geologist like Dr Jorge Strelin will identify publicly with the megaflood on the Santa Cruz River."
"(3) Dr Austin's megaflood ideas will continue to inspire debate and critical view of uniformitarian geology."
"(4) Charles Darwin will continue to be recognized to have blundered at the Santa Cruz River."
carrmike1 7 months ago
@carrmike1 "Dr Austin's megaflood ideas will continue to inspire debate and critical view of uniformitarian geology"
Another fabrication. YECs has been lying about the meaning of uniformitarianism for 5 decades now and I am sick of it. Strict gradualism has been abandoned long ago, if you had the most basic geological education, you would know this! Today, uniformity is the rule of simplicity. Nothing more. Regardless of anything else, you are still a fraud and a liar!
lawilson200 7 months ago
@lawilson200 Should WDWW have posted your words about fraud and liar? Here is what I posted to you here 4 months ago, "You also believe the only evidence of a megaflood on the Santa Cruz River is a misidentified terrace. You are predicting an abysmal failure of all efforts to associate geologic evidence with a megaflood event on the Santa Cruz River. I have a very different understanding. I believe there is excellent megaflood evidence." Do you need to stop namecalling and admit megaflood?
carrmike1 7 months ago