ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_DrW]

2. Do you realize that the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a self-identified fringe science journal, which is a place where authors are invited to publish in the pseudo-science fields of "ufology", cryptozoology, astrology, paranormal phenomena and pre-Columbian Trans-oceanic contact? Is this really your "scientific reference"?

Not the best journal to include in your tenure file. Doesn't quite have the cachet of Nature or Econometrica.

May be a good place for novice LDS apologists to get some pseudo-science traction, however, since pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is specifically mentioned as within its scope of interest.

(Could this be because of interest in the journal views and content by ::assumes best Church Lady Voice:: Mormons?)

[_Franktalk]

Jon,

I put something together some time ago. I will post it for you. I updated a few things and checked the links.

The soil transport of the Mississippi has been studied many times. So this will supply some good data for us.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRec ... =ADA460627

‘The Lower Mississippi River, extending from Cairo, Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico, annually transports approximately 170 million tonnes of sediment. Historically, the quantity and calibre of sediment derived from catchment erosion have been affected by changes in land-use and management. For example, soil erosion increased during the 19th and early 20th centuries due to settlement by Europeans and this may have elevated catchment sediment supply to the Mississippi River, while more recently the supply of sediment from tributaries is known to have decreased markedly as a result of river engineering and management. Specifically, the construction of large dams as part of the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) Project has trapped sediment that would otherwise have been supplied to the Mississippi, particularly by the Missouri River.”

So we have a number for today but we know it has been greatly affected by man. So some more searching.

http://www.cep.unep.org/publications-an ... -river.pdf

Period of record kg km−1 year−1 Source
<1850 ? –
1879 to 1880 107 297 Fisk (1952); estimate 1
1879 to 1880 102 691 Fisk (1952); estimate 2
1851 to 1930s 117 933 postulated in Curtis et al. (1973)
circa 1890s 94 220 Dole & Stabler (1909)
1949–1961 85 463 Judson & Ritter (1964)
1956–1967 90 600 Curtis et al. (1973)
1963–1979 64 201 Milliman & Meade (1983)
1970 to 1988 65 380 Keown et al. (1986)
1980 to 1988 33 975 Smith et al. (1996)
1974 to 1993 52 347 This study

Now at this point we have to pick a number that represents the transport less human intervention. Current levels times three may be reasonable.

So back to:

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Hydro/Ponds/smithEA_2005_hi.pdf

“Our estimate for
sediment discharge from the MS Basin (161 x 10^6 t/
year) is within 4% of the estimate of 167 x 10^6 t/year by
Turner and Rabalais (2004).”

Now from one source we have 170 x 10^6 tonne, another one of 161 x 10^6 tonne, and a third of 167 x 10^6 tonne. So let us use 170 x 10^6 t/year (its all science so I can pick the big number) and I am pretty sure it is metric ton 2200 lbs. Now I used 100 lbs per cubic foot because I actually weighed a cubic foot of dirt.

So

170 x 10^6 tons/year x 2200 lbs /ton = 3.74 x 10^11 lbs
3.74 x 10^11 lbs x 3 (before soil conservation measures by man) = 11.22 x 10^11 lbs /year

Elevation of United States 2500 ft

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001792.html

United States size 3.795 x 10^6 sq miles

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108355.html

3.795 x 10^6 sq miles x (5280 x 5280) sq ft /mile = 1.057 x 10^14 sq ft
1.057 x 10^14 sq ft x 2500 ft (elevation) = 2.64 x 10^17 cubic ft

Now to convert soil lbs to cubic feet. I will use my number 100 lbs / cu ft.

11.22 x 10^11 lbs /year / 100 lbs /cu ft = 11.22 x 10^9 cu ft / year

So if the United States is eroded by the Mississippi how long does it take.

2.64 x 10^17 cu ft / 11.22 x 10^9 cu ft /year = 23.5 x 10^6 years

But now I will be a turkey and say that all of the other rivers in the United States all add up to the same sediment discharge number of the Mississippi. So

2.64 x 10^17 cu ft / (2) x 11.22 x 10^9 cu ft / year = 11.75 x 10^6 years to erode the United States.

.

[_Chap]

A:

Just study erosion enough and you will find that our dating methods are completely wrong.

B:

... [on certain assumptions about the rate of erosion of soil by all US rivers it would take] 11.75 x 10^6 years to erode the United States.

How does B prove the point made in A?

[_cinepro]

Official doctrine or not?

Current apostle? check
No new revelation to contradict previous doctrine? check
Published by the LDS church? check
~td~

I suspect some would argue that he wasn't an Apostle when he said it.

But I would be really, really interested to know whether he still believes what he said. I don't see any reason that he wouldn't (after all, the arguments against such ideas aren't much different today than they were 35 years ago), but I'd like to know for sure.

[_Franktalk]

Chap,

You are right that I have used assumptions in my post on erosion. I assumed that rain happened in the past and it pretty much is about the same as today. I also assumed that soils erode today and in the past pretty much the same. I also assumed that no supernatural events caused the conclusions I came to.

If you want you can reject those assumptions and make new ones and redo the math. I am not sure if your conclusions will be worth much.

[_Chap]

Chap,

You are right that I have used assumptions in my post on erosion. I assumed that rain happened in the past and it pretty much is about the same as today. I also assumed that soils erode today and in the past pretty much the same. I also assumed that no supernatural events caused the conclusions I came to.

If you want you can reject those assumptions and make new ones and redo the math. I am not sure if your conclusions will be worth much.

But how do your calculations lead to the conclusion that:

[If you] study erosion enough [ ] you will find that our dating methods are completely wrong.

[_keithb]

The church should build a Museum of Natural History based solely on scripture and latter day revelation. Can you imagine what that museum would look like? LOL

Kind of like http://creationmuseum.org/

[_Some Schmo]

The church should build a Museum of Natural History based solely on scripture and latter day revelation. Can you imagine what that museum would look like? LOL

Kind of like http://creationmuseum.org/

I love this picture of the sweet little cave girl with her pet raptor:


I watched a video last week or so of a lecture given by a biologist giving her review of the museum. It was pretty hilarious. She could barely go more than a couple minutes without giggling about one thing or another. I suppose giggling is a fine substitute for blowing your head off in exasperation.

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk,
3. Do you know that the (largely religionist) appeal to Kuhnian paradigm shifts as a means of, or justication for, science denial has been criticized by Kuhn himself?

The idea that science has anomalies and those anomalies are brushed aside is common knowledge. Kuhn I believes wants science to be the best it can be. Any criticism he had should be viewed in that light. The opinions expressed by others I am not interested in. But the idea that science leaps forward when it studies anomalies is valid. Faith in science or discussions of science bounded by the rules of science should be examined all of the time. We should all step back and try and take a wide view every once in a while. As science becomes even more focused and specialized we need to real careful of tunnel vision. I do not deny science, in fact I have studied it most of my life. I just think that it has to be in context. It does not supply truth so don't look for it there. Truth does not change but the theories of science change all of the time. As each new set of data or observation comes along it may and sometimes does change how science views the relationship of forces and objects in nature.

Just in the few posts I have made there have been many assumptions made concerning my beliefs. That is the world we live in. And isn't it amazing that the people who believe in the foundations of theoretical science are the ones leaping to conclusions. How odd it is they don't follow the rules of their own methods. I am a reasonable person but I am also very critical about the past. This is due to my quest to find the purpose of life. Something science can not find out due to their own self imposed limitations.

Myself I tend to view spirituality as private between God and myself. Then I view the world through eyes modified by spiritual means. I do not accept projections outside of direct observation and repeatable experiment. Many take projections as equal to the scientific method. I do not.

Like my post on erosion. I had assumptions built into the conclusions. I freely admit if my assumptions are not valid then the conclusions are not valid. See how easy that is to say. But try and get some to say that about their pet theory and a war starts. Sad to see actually.

[Guest]

Frankintalk,

Rather than post old stuff you have done in the past (surface erosion rate estimates based on data from rivers), which is not really relevant (the Atlantic basin is a result of relative plate motion and not erosion), perhaps you should address the issues at hand.

You made the statement that you believe Jeffrey Holland's version of natural history. Perhaps you could show us the data that support it.

If you would rather argue philosophy of science, instead of science itself, then perhaps you would would explain why Kuhn's ideas should be used by science deniers, when he has provided clear guidelines for best (or even viable) theory selection, which the science deniers fail to follow, or even recognize (or even understand?).

Or you could respond to the question about the mainstream scientific theories that you do believe as compared to some you do not believe, and explain the difference.

Whatever you do, please don't just continue to spout nonsense that you read from Discovery Institute or other pseudo-scientific Christian apologist websites.

There are a few folks here who are professional scientists and they really get annoyed at such behavior. This kind of thing also doesn't help to convince neutral third parties who may be lurking here to see how well you do.