Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Continuing with Kevin · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke
(BETTER AUDIO) Online Young Earth Creationists VS Their Guests
2 Febr. 2022 | Gutsick Gibbon
Intro on cross-disciplinarity got these answers:
1:53 Have you heard of cross-discipline study?
Suppose a geneticist, an archaeologist, an anatomist and a carbon dater were making a paper on El Sidrón Neanderthals, and afterwards presented it to diverse publics, should each absolutely only stick to his expertise?
Svante Pääbo is not free at all to mention they were (or one of them was) carbon dated to 40 000 BP?
2:13 And you might know the answer:
- Flood waters were indeed much larger than the flooding at Mt St Helens and could carve something significantly larger;
- and they did so before the rocks at GC had solidified.
If you pretend Georgia Purdom is dishonest for not presenting your objection everytime, why are you not so when not presenting hers?
On the general theme, I haven't seen your conclusion just yet, but GC is no more your expertise than Georgia Purdom's, if wikitubia is to be trusted:
Erika is a Masters of Research student in Primate Biology, Behavior and Conservation. She has a BSA in Pre-Professional Animal Science, and minors in Anthropology and in Biology.
I saw no even minor in Geology ...
2:27 So, you are not in conventional science as both GC and this theme you bring up are outside yours?
W A I T ... this video is not one of your academic papers?
Well, that of Georgia Purdom is not one of hers either, I think ...
I am glad people in the Humanities (and that's where I'm from, ask me about language if you want, but don't expect me to explain Chomsky's X-bar-theory, my Latin professor didn't use it to explain Latin syntax). There, traditionally, we don't apply "stick to your subdiscipline or shut up" - it's not Med school and not supposed to be!
Meanwhile, stop whining about YEC speaking about things outside their subdiscipline, as if no academic had a right to write or speak on anything outside his academic papers in his own niche!
On youtube I get the weirdest responses from Evolutionists on origin of language, by people very obviously not very much into linguistics, and on carbon dating being calibrated 40,000 years back by dendrology from people who have very little grasp on the current stand of dendrology.
Btw, while one could describe Latin as my major and Greek as my main minor (though I forgot most since 1993), I am not claiming to have got a Masters. I just studied enough to get one, if I had taken some supplementary steps to taking a masters' exam.
2:51 I think it would be very wise for someone presenting his or her research (but that's what you do in academic papers, not in every single occasion you speak up) on mating behaviour of polar bears to bring in, as contrast and parallel, those of brown bears, in so far as she can get hold of it from other people's either fresh research or general zoological knowledge.
She would present her research on polar bears badly, if her audience were left guessing which behaviours (outside relation to big chunks of ice, obviously) are unique to polar bears and which ones are just what you expect from any bear, like brown or grizzly as well (or even beyond).
Precisely as someone presenting an idea from Paris 1277 (those condemned and those implicitly upheld) should know what was still current in 1600 or had already been presented in 800, and what parts were unique to the then and there discussion.
Heat problem part got these answers:
8:01 I was already looking at your video on heat problem or rather the heat problem part of your five part video.
I think you need to be more precise on what you attribute to creationists.
You cited a paper by Joe Meert. He adressed one very specific version of the YEC solution. According to it, both light velocity and all radioactive decay rates were much faster in the past and have slowed down. As I understand his paper - I'm not sure I totally do - his point is, this would generate very massive heat (btw, if velocity of light was in your equation, which is more than I can spot, perhaps Setterfield kind of fixes it by posing an infinite velocity of light at creation)
However, he was speaking of the kind of scenario Setterfield is also speaking about : a certain decay in the past was much faster in proportion to how far it was in the past. No relation to RATE project on hightened radioactive decay during Flood, as this scenario is about local hardmelts, certainly many, but definitely not one single speeding up into a hardmelt of all radioactive decay already ongoing by then.
Joe Meert's update from 2002 misses the point, since a lot of local hardmelts:
- 1) doesn't add up to Joe Meert's universal hardmelt problem
- 2) necessitates (which was implied in objections to him) that much of the radioactive decay attributed to the past didn't happen at all, but is due in its appearance, a kind of mirage, to very many cases of daughter isotope already there before the decay began.
I have back in 2015 had "heat problem" conjugated to "my" theory (already there in Morris, Edgar Andrews and more recently Hovind) that carbon 14 levels rose. I started my research - based on my high-school knowledge of maths and also on "works of reference" knowledge on how carbon dating works, showing by now in the end that the period from Flood to end of Babel, in 401 years, had about 10 times as fast production of C14 as now.
The guys who had objected to me were probably having Meert in the backhead, and thought his work was a general OHKO not just to one argument he had answered in 1996, but to any and every argument a YEC could make even since then.
8:39 You may have a point against AiG here, not against me.
I don't pretend pre-Flood continents were Pangaea, or there ever was a Pangaea. I say instead that the pre-Flood geological plates (barring downs and ups) had fairly much the same oritentation as now.
Between Eurasia with Africa and the Americas, I think the now Oceanic plates (cleft in Iceland) were before the Flood and some time after too (explaining part of peopling of Americas, and fauna-ing as well) until Atlantis sank actually land plates.
And for the rise of Himalayas, the most important folding, I consider it took them 100 years to reach lower case phi of the present height of Mt. Everest. Not one single Flood year.
Obviously the Himalayas were not habitable at this time, and lo and behold, the two cultures from Sivalik Hills are very adequately placed at Pre-Flood and at carbon dated 5000 BC - which is after Babel, a bit before Abraham was born, namely when Peleg and Heber died. Between Flood and then, even Sivalik Hills were uninhabitable.
So, perhaps I should thank you for tearing down AiG's rival claims to mine ...
I wonder how Lisle would look at it if he took my version on how much tectonic plates moved rather than the up to now popular one.
As we are on the subject of YECs contradicting each other, I can mention I have met no support for my model which implies lots of less tectonic movement. Which would obviously involve solving one part of the ... what? ... heat problem.
On gatekeeping behaviour:
25:25 "the critic who shall not be named"
I think both on Gutsick Gibbon side vs that video and on the side now cited vs herself, we are dealing with an evil behaviour which a Jew converted to Jesus described as "Jewish Gatekeeping" - it is not Catholic, since Catholics condemning ideas historically tend to publically cite the persons, whether in calls to repentance (Exsurge Domine vs Luther) or in objections to the character (like when we wonder if Calvin had a one time sodomitic past before becoming a Reformer) or simply when telling what their ignorance is (like me saying Ellen G. White relied too much on 19th C. inept historians about both Reformation and Medieval Catholicism and its supposedly pre-existing Protestant alternative - yes, both Wylie and d'Aubigné were 19th C. - I rechecked the latter.)