jamesp
Cave Dweller 
Member since October 2012
Posts: 35,928
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 19, 2022 7:57:11 GMT -5
My viewpoint is purely theoretical. I say the +500,000 bays are +500,000 impacts aligned as if impacts and shaped as if impacts therefore they are impacts. The only issues that are hypothetical is some of the debate you and I have had regarding their creation or that they are not impacts. Once again, hypothetical and not theoretical. A theory requires some solid evidence to back the hypothesis, which simply does not exist. If you can show some evidence that is specific to a impact event such as the list I have given several times and for which no evidence has been shown, then this could raise your hypothesis to the level of a theory. Therefore, your hypothesis at this point remains hypothetical, not theoretical. As for your comment "I say the +500,000 bays are +500,000 impacts aligned as if impacts and shaped as if impacts therefore they are impacts.", this is a great example of my point. Once again you are presenting your hypothesis as fact when there is no solidi evidence to indicate this is an impact event. As has been pointed out various times already, these depressions could have been formed from a variety of things. And there is no evidence of an impact event such as deformation features that would be a hallmark of such an event, evidence of major flooding, evidence of a shockwave, evidence that the depressions if the silt were removed that would be deep enough to be consistent with such an impact event, evidence of the elipitcal field consistent with such an impact event, lack of evidence of a 180 degree primary ejection from such a shallow impact, no evidence that the dating of these depressions that vary by 54,000 years is inaccurate, and no explanation for the 2 different directions of the bays that would have to indicate more than one shallow strike in totally different locations. In other words not a single solid piece of evidence to indicate an impact even on the ice sheet that is being claimed. Furthermore, let's assume for a second that this was an impact event on the ice cap by a comet and not a meteorite. A comet is made up of ice and bits of space rock. Space rock is almost always high in nickel, which is rare naturally on Earth. Therefore, if this was an impact event from a comet there would still be a deposition of nickel from the impact at both the impact site and at the bays just like how the Sudsbury impact deposited so much nickel that it is major mining location for nickel. So here is yet another opportunity for you to present some credible evidence of an impact event. Show deposition of nickel in either the supposed impact site or the bays, which would likely be from an impact as naturally occurring terrestrial nickel is very rare. So far you have yet to provide even a single shred of solid evidence of an impact event. Depressions that occur in two different directions that date with age differences over 54,000 years that you still have not shown any evidence of being inaccurate is not proof of an impact event. Again, various hypotheses that could explain these shallow depressions have been proposed and i can still think of others. Therefore, it takes more than shallow depressions to shallow for the proposed impact event to verify the hypothesized impact event. And therefore, the impact event remains hypothetical as there is no evidence to raise this hypothesis to the level of a theory. And therefore, you should not present a hypothetical situation ad a fact since they are so far from the same thing.
Without a birth certificate we can't prove our own birth date. There is a point in time when common sense and practicality must be employed to draw conclusions or else all facts would become hypothetical. That is the way it is in the real world. 500,000 elliptical spring depressions - what are the chances ? 500,000 wind formed elliptical depressions - what are the chances ? Shocked quartz from ice ejecta - not likely. Aging ice born water ? I see a great deal of excellent evidence that you have avoided to recognize or challenge. I am satisfied with the proof. I said it before, I'll say it again, you have your opinion and I have mine and life will carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 19, 2022 20:16:54 GMT -5
Once again, hypothetical and not theoretical. A theory requires some solid evidence to back the hypothesis, which simply does not exist. If you can show some evidence that is specific to a impact event such as the list I have given several times and for which no evidence has been shown, then this could raise your hypothesis to the level of a theory. Therefore, your hypothesis at this point remains hypothetical, not theoretical. As for your comment "I say the +500,000 bays are +500,000 impacts aligned as if impacts and shaped as if impacts therefore they are impacts.", this is a great example of my point. Once again you are presenting your hypothesis as fact when there is no solidi evidence to indicate this is an impact event. As has been pointed out various times already, these depressions could have been formed from a variety of things. And there is no evidence of an impact event such as deformation features that would be a hallmark of such an event, evidence of major flooding, evidence of a shockwave, evidence that the depressions if the silt were removed that would be deep enough to be consistent with such an impact event, evidence of the elipitcal field consistent with such an impact event, lack of evidence of a 180 degree primary ejection from such a shallow impact, no evidence that the dating of these depressions that vary by 54,000 years is inaccurate, and no explanation for the 2 different directions of the bays that would have to indicate more than one shallow strike in totally different locations. In other words not a single solid piece of evidence to indicate an impact even on the ice sheet that is being claimed. Furthermore, let's assume for a second that this was an impact event on the ice cap by a comet and not a meteorite. A comet is made up of ice and bits of space rock. Space rock is almost always high in nickel, which is rare naturally on Earth. Therefore, if this was an impact event from a comet there would still be a deposition of nickel from the impact at both the impact site and at the bays just like how the Sudsbury impact deposited so much nickel that it is major mining location for nickel. So here is yet another opportunity for you to present some credible evidence of an impact event. Show deposition of nickel in either the supposed impact site or the bays, which would likely be from an impact as naturally occurring terrestrial nickel is very rare. So far you have yet to provide even a single shred of solid evidence of an impact event. Depressions that occur in two different directions that date with age differences over 54,000 years that you still have not shown any evidence of being inaccurate is not proof of an impact event. Again, various hypotheses that could explain these shallow depressions have been proposed and i can still think of others. Therefore, it takes more than shallow depressions to shallow for the proposed impact event to verify the hypothesized impact event. And therefore, the impact event remains hypothetical as there is no evidence to raise this hypothesis to the level of a theory. And therefore, you should not present a hypothetical situation ad a fact since they are so far from the same thing.
Without a birth certificate we can't prove our own birth date. There is a point in time when common sense and practicality must be employed to draw conclusions or else all facts would become hypothetical. That is the way it is in the real world. 500,000 elliptical spring depressions - what are the chances ? 500,000 wind formed elliptical depressions - what are the chances ? Shocked quartz from ice ejecta - not likely. Aging ice born water ? I see a great deal of excellent evidence that you have avoided to recognize or challenge. I am satisfied with the proof. I said it before, I'll say it again, you have your opinion and I have mine and life will carry on. OK, let's apply some common sense and practicality. No evidence of an ice ejecta event for the formation of the bays other than the severely remote possibility that massive chunks of ice with tons of energy behind them made shallower impressions than should have occurred, in two different directions over a 46,000 year period that somehow supposedly just happened to impact in the same exact locations in the same exact directions, at the same shallow angle over than 46,000 year period. Sure sounds like you have solved the mystery.
The wind hypothesis has just as much credibility as do the various other hypotheses as none of them have sufficient evidence to prove cause.
The deformation features would mainly be at the initial impact site if this really happened, not as much from the supposed ice impact except for maybe with the much larger depressions, which would have required massively more force. And not only would there have been shock deformation features, as I pointed out there would have also been depositing of large amounts of nickel, which is normally very rare as natural terrestrial nickel. No evidence of this either, which common sense and practicality tells us is further evidence that this was not an ejecta event.
No idea what you mean by "aging ice born water". Water in the depressions would heve evaporated, sunk in to the water table, pumped out for agriculture, refilled by rain, etc. over the 6,000 to 60,000 years that these bays were dated to have formed over. Therefore, even if these bays formed from ice ejecta, which is highly unlikely due to the lack of any real evidence, the water in the bays would not be original ice water.
I guess we have very definite different definitions of what "excellent evidence" is. In my opinion I have not seen any credible evidence to support the ice ejecta hypothesis. I have even brought up numerous things several times that would be credible evidence of an ice ejecta formation of the bays yet no evidence to any of these have been presented.
In short, until some credible evidence to back the ice ejecta or any other hypothesis can be presented, there really is no reason to keep going round and round about unproven hypotheses. Otherwise, all that is being done is rehashing guesses instead of providing credible evidence to bring the hypotheses to the point of a theory.
|
|
RWA3006
Cave Dweller
Member since March 2009
Posts: 3,437 
|
Post by RWA3006 on Apr 19, 2022 20:30:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 19, 2022 22:19:17 GMT -5
Yes, the wind hypotheiss is one of the ones that was brought up. And it does make a lot more sense than the ice ejecta hypothesis as this would explain the shallower depressions, the 2 different directions of the bays and the greatly varying ages of the different bays. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 35,928
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 20, 2022 5:37:35 GMT -5
Yes, the wind hypotheiss is one of the ones that was brought up. And it does make a lot more sense than the ice ejecta hypothesis as this would explain the shallower depressions, the 2 different directions of the bays and the greatly varying ages of the different bays. I will never bite on the wind hypothesis. I have too much real world experience in hydrology and mitigating erosion in wetland and sandy locations along the SE US coastal plain. In no form or fashion have I ever seen wind formed shapes resembling these after covering 1000's of miles of shallow sandy tidal wetland and riverine wetland systems and adjacent dry lands. It just does not happen. I would have seen these patterns on a smaller scale. Show me a photo of present day elliptical depressions caused by wind anywhere on earth be it in the Sahara, in the Mojave, in Florida, along the SE US coastal plain, in tidal zones...anywhere. Such a scenario could easily be modeled in a lab with a fan and a tray of sand and water. This is not a hydrological behavior. Those geologist making these claims need to consult a hydrologist and let him set them straight. Give me a mud pit or a wet sand pit and a rock and I will show you perfect elliptical shaped ejecta resembling the Carolina Bays to a tee. I have tossed millions of pre-seeded mudballs in constructed wetlands over the years and seen these splatter patterns too many times. I have sprayed wetlands with seed laced high viscosity muck thru a high pressure hydroseeder and seen similar patterns. Ice Age factor and wind blown water - We have forests, not deserts. Thick tall forests that seriously block wind and prevent erosion taking about 30 years to reach 70 feet in height on uplands or inundated(cypress) lands. 200 feet height at 300 years but it takes just a few years for thick erosion blocking shrub vegetation to become established. No bay was wind blown after vegetation was established, not gonna happen. If it was too cold to grow plants then these ponds would be frozen. Reminder that there was an ice age during most of the claimed wind formation time range of 6000 to 54,000 years ! Did they consider wind effect on ice ponds ? No they did not. Pow pow, 6 guns are back in their holsters  |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 20, 2022 9:20:11 GMT -5
Yes, the wind hypotheiss is one of the ones that was brought up. And it does make a lot more sense than the ice ejecta hypothesis as this would explain the shallower depressions, the 2 different directions of the bays and the greatly varying ages of the different bays. I will never bite on the wind hypothesis. I have too much real world experience in hydrology and mitigating erosion in wetland and sandy locations along the SE US coastal plain. In no form or fashion have I ever seen wind formed shapes resembling these after covering 1000's of miles of shallow sandy tidal wetland and riverine wetland systems and adjacent dry lands. It just does not happen. I would have seen these patterns on a smaller scale. Show me a photo of present day elliptical depressions caused by wind anywhere on earth be it in the Sahara, in the Mojave, in Florida, along the SE US coastal plain, in tidal zones...anywhere. Such a scenario could easily be modeled in a lab with a fan and a tray of sand and water. This is not a hydrological behavior. Those geologist making these claims need to consult a hydrologist and let him set them straight. Give me a mud pit or a wet sand pit and a rock and I will show you perfect elliptical shaped ejecta resembling the Carolina Bays to a tee. I have tossed millions of pre-seeded mudballs in constructed wetlands over the years and seen these splatter patterns too many times. I have sprayed wetlands with seed laced high viscosity muck thru a high pressure hydroseeder and seen similar patterns. Ice Age factor and wind blown water - We have forests, not deserts. Thick tall forests that seriously block wind and prevent erosion taking about 30 years to reach 70 feet in height on uplands or inundated(cypress) lands. 200 feet height at 300 years but it takes just a few years for thick erosion blocking shrub vegetation to become established. No bay was wind blown after vegetation was established, not gonna happen. If it was too cold to grow plants then these ponds would be frozen. Reminder that there was an ice age during most of the claimed wind formation time range of 6000 to 54,000 years ! Did they consider wind effect on ice ponds ? No they did not. Pow pow, 6 guns are back in their holsters  And I won't except the extremely weak ice ejecta hypothesis that only has eliptical shaped depressions that could have been formed from numerous things going for it.
Funny though how you want people to provide evidence that you are wrong, but you will not provide evidence you are right. That is not how things are supposed to work. Proof of claim is the burden of the original claimant. If you want to prove the ice ejecta hypothesis to raise it to the level of a theory then start by answering my questions I asked you multiple times, which would show evidence of a possible ice ejecta forming the bays if that evidence exists. If none exists, then the ice ejecta hypothesis is extremely unlikely to be the answer to the formation of the bays.
Even Mars has very similar looking dunes, except these have not been touched by erosion www.iflscience.com/space/perfectly-preserved-fossilized-dunes-found-on-mars/ It could be that the bays are actually dines that simply filled in with water over time, which would also explain things such as the shallowness of the bays, total lack of deformation features, lack of evidence of flooding or shock wave effects, lack of nickel, lack of evidence to a primary 180 degree ejecta that would be consistent with a shallow impact, the fact that the bays do not get gradually larger with distance that is consistent with a strewn field, the bi-directional field that is not consistent with a single impact event, and they widely varied ages 46,000 in differences of formation, none of which can be explained by the age ejecta hypothesis.
Bazooka shot, loaded and ready to go again.  |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 35,928
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 20, 2022 11:04:08 GMT -5
Yes, these are classic common wind blown patterns but are far from enclosed ellipses. Connected circles, eclipses and ovals just don't happen with wind forces vegasjames.  The more presentations and rebuttals you bring the more it reinforces the fact these are angular ejecta impacts. It just hit me that the water would have been frozen from 12,000 to 54,000 years ago. That hypothesis needs to be canned. Conifers and other vegetation covered the area and blocked wind anyway. Wind doesn't erode rooted soil. The entire wind hypothesis needs to be canned. Next time you see a mud puddle simply toss a rock into it at a 30 to 40 degree angle and you will get varying sized ellipses at varying distances from impact. Small ellipses scattered among the large without a dependency on distance from the impact is the norm. It is a rare pattern that mimics the bays perfectly. Overlapping ellipses and ellipses within ellipses are classic ejecta patterns. Angular rotational orientation of the ellipses aimed at Michigan, radial distance from Michigan, their formation in soft sandy soil - keep adding these and the above mentioned patterns in great numbers and statistical proof becomes overwhelming that this was a cosmic impact event. And a geological/dating analysis of an ice ejecta event is feeble at best; we don't have proven comparison events. |
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Apr 20, 2022 12:08:31 GMT -5
I am not assuming because I am always wrong when I assume so I am going to call it an opinion. The old timers here know I have an opinion about everything and have even been correct once or twice. There are a couple of positives here. One is that something formed them. I have no knowledge beyond that but we have very limited possibilities. There are billions of things that did not form them and with my limited knowledge of the subject I still know they were formed by something way way bigger than a back hoe. All I can come up with is things falling from the sky or glacial push and gouging which can do some really strange s... but generally in a north south movement. Ok, I am awake again. I did not read from page one (who has that much time to sleep) so I may have missed something but would love to hear about any other possibilities. Hello again Jamesp and vegasjames. I want you two to know that you caused me to fall asleep, tip to the right and end up with my head leaning against a shelf which gave me a large crease on the side of my head. Please don't do that again. People laugh at me and no, I do not remember how many times it has happened. Jim/James/wampidy It's good to hear you're still around, 3 Jims now should Jimmy this right open. Or not... I'm currently in pain from falling asleep in a recliner with my head at a currently unrepeatable angle, but not from this thread. Different monotonous Youtube video. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 20, 2022 19:51:17 GMT -5
Yes, these are classic common wind blown patterns but are far from enclosed ellipses. Connected circles, eclipses and ovals just don't happen with wind forces vegasjames . The more presentations and rebuttals you bring the more it reinforces the fact these are angular ejecta impacts. It just hit me that the water would have been frozen from 12,000 to 54,000 years ago. That hypothesis needs to be canned. Conifers and other vegetation covered the area and blocked wind anyway. Wind doesn't erode rooted soil. The entire wind hypothesis needs to be canned. Next time you see a mud puddle simply toss a rock into it at a 30 to 40 degree angle and you will get varying sized ellipses at varying distances from impact. Small ellipses scattered among the large without a dependency on distance from the impact is the norm. It is a rare pattern that mimics the bays perfectly. Overlapping ellipses and ellipses within ellipses are classic ejecta patterns. Angular rotational orientation of the ellipses aimed at Michigan, radial distance from Michigan, their formation in soft sandy soil - keep adding these and the above mentioned patterns in great numbers and statistical proof becomes overwhelming that this was a cosmic impact event. And a geological/dating analysis of an ice ejecta event is feeble at best; we don't have proven comparison events. There you go again simply dismissing ideas without providing any proof to your claims. You just will not give an inch to the fact that your ice ejecta hypothesis is so highly flawed that the overwhelming evidence goes against the ejecta hypothesis that you are solely focused on.
Nothing I have posted has supported the ejecta highly faulty ejecta hypothesis. I guess if someone tried super hard to twist the facts to fit their hypotheses that they may come to such a conclusion.
Things to keep in mind other than the numerous points I have made about lack of evidence to the ice ejecta hypothesis. First of all the landscape today is not the same landscape of 6,000 to 60,000 years ago. In fact, if we apply some common sense here and basic science we know that none of those trees, grass or other plants are 6,000 to 60,000 years old. Those plants there now grew in AFTER the formation of the bays. Oops, that bazooka just went off again. And the ice ejecta hypothesis DOES NOT alter the aging of the bays. First of all, according to where you are going with this faulty hypothesis, if all the aging was done from organic material in the ice then the impact could not have occurred more than 6,000 years ago since this would have been the most current organic deposition. Native Americans have been here much longer than 6,000 years, at least double that. If there was such an event that occurred during the time Native Americans were here then not only would such an event been witnessed, but it wold also have been part of Native American lore. Secondly, the carbon dating would have been done from core samples, in which the dating would be from the bottom sediment at the bedrock. If plants were present back then the bottom layer for carbon dating would be from these plants, and ice ejecta impacts would simply compress this organic layer. while carbon from the ice would settle on top. If the carbon really came from ice ejecta that you are erroneously claiming then the variety of dates from ejecta would be pretty consistent with all the bays since there would be a mix of varying carbons that got trapped in the ice. Instead, they are showing distinct different dates for different bays 100% ruling out that the carbon being tested came from ice ejecta. Oh damn, that bazooka just went off again. Of course credible science always trumps highly flawed hypotheses not backed by any real evidence.
Next time you see a mud puddle, take a very heavy rock, like 50 pounds or so and throw it down in to the puddle. Note how deep the rock goes in to the puddle. Now think about how much deeper a massive rock or chunk of ice being ejected from hundreds of miles away would penetrate with impact. Hint, it is a lot more than 3-10 feet. Especially a chunk of ice big enough to supposedly create a bay over a mile in diameter.
While you are at it, also look up the pattern of a strewn field. You will find out as I already pointed out to you that in a strewn field larger pieces having more energy behind them and therefore travel further, while smaller pieces travel shorter distances. This results in an elliptical shaped strewn field with larger impacts further out, which also allows scientists to determine direction of deposition of a strewn field. So far I have not seen these characteristics of the bays to indicate that it is due to a strewn field. Instead, we have shallow impressions with mixed sizes intermingled all of which goes against the hypothesis of ice ejecta. Also going against the ice ejecta hypothesis are the 2 different directions of the bays, the vast age differences in formation, the lack of evidence for deformation features, lack of evidence of flooding or shock wave, etc. I keep asking you about these faults with the ejecta hypothesis and you keep ignoring the questions. Why is that? Because they likely disprove the ejecta hypothesis?
"Overlapping ellipses and ellipses within ellipses" again can be explained by numerous presented hypotheses. Again, we can even see this with the wind erosion photos from New Mexico and if you research erosion you will see yet more examples. This is why the ejecta hypothesis needs some real evidence to back it such as shock deformation features, evidence of flooding or shock waves, evidence of deeper impacts assuming the bays filled in with silt, etc. Again, I have questioned you for this evidence over and over and you keep ignoring the questions. Such evidence would back your hypothesis and I would not be able to debate so effectively against the highly faulty ejecta hypothesis. So, why don't you answer my questions by providing this evidence that would back the ice ejecta hypothesis since elliptical depressions by itself doesn't? Could it be you are ignoring my questions and avoiding providing the evidence because none of that evidence to indicate an ice sheet impact simply does not exist? Your constantly claiming I am wrong because the facts do not fit your hypothesis does not cut it. Show me some real evidence. if any exists, to support the ejecta hypothesis by answering the questions I asked of you such as where is the evidence of shock deformation, flooding and shockwaves, deeper impacts, etc. Ignoring evidence that does not support your hypothesis does not make that evidence go away. This also includes the formation of ellipses in New Mexico and even on Mars that WERE NOT formed by ejecta. And if you think about it even New Mexico has plants, yet wind still formed very similar ellipses. So your rooted soils do not form ellipses from wind hypothesis also just blown out of the water also. Loading my bazooka once again.
As fro your comment "Angular rotational orientation of the ellipses aimed at Michigan", you are forgetting the fact that the ellipses are formed in 2 directions, not a singular direction. Therefore, this would require more than one impact. Also keep in mind that a shallow, angular impact would create primary ejecta in a 180 degree pattern and thus WOULD NOT be all in one direction. So even more evidence against the ejecta hypothesis.
Formation in soft sandy soil does not back the ejecta hypothesis either. Again, the ellipses in soft sandy soil can be explained by wind erosion like the ellipses we see with the wind erosion patterns in New Mexico, where rooted plants also grow.
As for your comment "keep adding these and the above mentioned patterns in great numbers and statistical proof becomes overwhelming that this was a cosmic impact event", this is not true. Although, even if they were produced by the highly unlikely due to lack of any credible evidence ejecta hypothesis, a cosmic impact event could also be defined as the breaking up of a comet over the area as I mentioned very early on in this thread. Therefore, even if this was formed from ice impact, that does not mean the ice from the impact on an ice sheet, which would also explain things such as the lack of shock deformation features, lack of a 180 degree primary ejection, lack of evidence of flooding or shockwave, etc. that would be present with your ice cap being hit and leading to ejecta hypothesis.
And as far as your comment of "And a geological/dating analysis of an ice ejecta event is feeble at best; we don't have proven comparison events". that goes 2 ways. By your claim that also means you cannot prove that the testing is inaccurate either due to a lack of comparison for such events. And actually, we can use evidence from Antarctica ice core samples can be used to make comparisons. So you are shooting yourself in your own foot with such flimsy arguments. Better start taking those six shooters out of the holster before pulling the trigger. 
The real irony here is that "the more presentations and rebuttals you bring the more it reinforces the fact" that your ice cap ejecta hypothesis is so highly flawed, and the lack of evidence of an impact highly points to the bays not being formed by an ice cap impact.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 35,928
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 21, 2022 3:51:33 GMT -5
It's so simple vegasjames. All you have to do is toss a rock in a mud puddle from a 30 to 40 degree angle and you will have a perfect simulation of the bays. It will provide a unique pattern simulating the bays exactly. A pattern caused exclusively by a basic impact splatter. It all makes perfect sense. There is no shocked quartz because it is lower velocity ice ejecta and no other introduced geological debris because clean glacial ice from Michigan caused the craters. The largest example of organic matter wash down from the ejecta and all it's water would be the filling of the 700 square mile Okefenokee Swamp. The entire coastal plain has similar deposits. It ties in with the timing of the Younger-Dryas event. "The Okefenokee Swamp is a shallow, 438,000-acre (177,000 ha), peat-filled wetland straddling the Georgia–Florida line in the United States. A majority of the swamp is protected by the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and the Okefenokee Wilderness." "The Okefenokee was formed over the past 6,500 years by the accumulation of peat in a shallow basin on the edge of an ancient Atlantic coastal terrace, the geological relic of a Pleistocene estuary." So we have an age of about 6500 years to begin a hypothesis on. The age of +/-6500 years ago interests many scientists, evolutionists and creationist. I am going to step away and let some recent(within past 2 years) Youtube video authors do the hypothesising. This is an active study to this day. Video #1 Video #2 |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 35,928
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 21, 2022 4:30:09 GMT -5
This is the research team involved in solving this mystery. These people are qualified to perform the study and have plenty of evidence to support the cause of the bays was ice ejecta. They might even be more capable and educated than James and James on the subject at hand. IMO they have proven the impact hypothesis with a wide variety of clear evidence. It is a complex and unique event and requires a lot of time to interpret the evidence. And they have plenty of videos and a few books to explain it all away convincingly for those interested. The findings are amazing and the impact this event had on the holocene age is a big game changer in many theaters of thought.  |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 21, 2022 6:44:20 GMT -5
It's so simple vegasjames . All you have to do is toss a rock in a mud puddle from a 30 to 40 degree angle and you will have a perfect simulation of the bays. It will provide a unique pattern simulating the bays exactly. A pattern caused exclusively by a basic impact splatter. It all makes perfect sense. There is no shocked quartz because it is lower velocity ice ejecta and no other introduced geological debris because clean glacial ice from Michigan caused the craters. The largest example of organic matter wash down from the ejecta and all it's water would be the filling of the 700 square mile Okefenokee Swamp. The entire coastal plain has similar deposits. It ties in with the timing of the Younger-Dryas event. "The Okefenokee Swamp is a shallow, 438,000-acre (177,000 ha), peat-filled wetland straddling the Georgia–Florida line in the United States. A majority of the swamp is protected by the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and the Okefenokee Wilderness." "The Okefenokee was formed over the past 6,500 years by the accumulation of peat in a shallow basin on the edge of an ancient Atlantic coastal terrace, the geological relic of a Pleistocene estuary." So we have an age of about 6500 years to begin a hypothesis on. The age of +/-6500 years ago interests many scientists, evolutionists and creationist. I am going to step away and let some recent(within past 2 years) Youtube video authors do the hypothesising. This is an active study to this day. Video #1 Video #2 What is really so simple is the understanding of the concept that these same shapes could have been formed for a variety of reasons as has been pointed out to you numerous times, including wind.
You can throw all the boulders you want in to mud puddles and it still will not prove anything since again, those same shapes could be from a number of things. That is why it requires more solid evidence to the still highly faulty ice ejecta hypothesis. For instance, shock deformation features, increased nickel content, etc, etc, etc. I keep bringing all this up to you and you keep ignoring all of it. Apparently none of this evidence to back the ice ejecta hypothesis exists.
As for deformation features, I made it perfectly clear to you in an earlier post that the shock deformation features would be at the initial impact site, not at the bays IF this is what really happened. Of course, there is no evidence of this to indicate a strike. Although, I did also bring up the fact earlier that in the earlier video YOU posted, the speaker pointed out that if this is what happened, the ice chunks would have impacted the Earth with the force of 3 megatons. This is more than enough force to create shock deformation features. So are you now rejecting that video YOU provided as "evidence" since it completely conflicts with the your hypothesis and I already went over that flaw?
Along the same lines I posted a link for you that stated:
"He also conducted projectile experiments using a .38 caliber bullet to determine if elliptical depressions could be made at a small angle of impact. The conclusion of his data was that a meteorite could produce an elliptical depression, but it would be 2-3 kilometers deep with an uneven bottom. The Bays, on the other hand, are flat-bottomed depressions only a few feet below the surface of the surrounding ground." Therefore, more solid evidence against the ice ejecta hypothesis. And before you try to argue this fact away again, it is very simple to check the actual depth of the bays by simply measuring down to bedrock, which is what it appears they did. And the very shallow depth is not consistent with the ice ejecta hypothesis. Again, even the earlier video you posted as "evidence" said the ice would have hit with the energy of 3 megatons, which would have definitely left depressions deeper than 3-10 feet, which the bays are.
As for your claim of "clean glacial ice", you clearly have no knowledge of how impacts work. During an impact material from an extraterrestrial impact will mix with ejected material. So no, you would not just have "clean glacial ice" being ejected. If you wish to learn more about this process, then I recommend researching the formation of howardite meteorites. Or as another example, you can research australites, which are nickel rich tektites. The nickel comes from the mixing of the extraterrestrial material with Earth soil from the impact.
I got a real laugh with this part of your post:
"The Okefenokee was formed over the past 6,500 years by the accumulation of peat in a shallow basin on the edge of an ancient Atlantic coastal terrace, the geological relic of a Pleistocene estuary."
So we have an age of about 6500 years to begin a hypothesis on."
Why? Because every time I mentioned the dating of the bays being formed over a period of 6,000 to 60,000 years you always had some excuse as to why the dating was not accurate. Even claiming the impact would have changed the readings with no proof. Then you also wrote "The 6000 to 60,000 age sure seems logical but a variation of age from 6 to 60 thousand years sure kills the impact theory. Dating has it's shortcomings too, especially with the large amounts of organic debris with a wide range of ages in the fertile east." So you kept arguing the carbon dating of the bays was not accurate since the dating of 6,000 to 60,000 years with different formation times did not fit your hypothesis narrative. Now all of a sudden you are claiming an age of 6,500 years, which would have been based on carbon dating you have been erroneously claiming is not accurate. You cannot pick and choose when you want to believe in science so it fits your needs.
I can see why you like this guy's videos so much though. Just like you, this guy talks as if the ice ejecta hypothesis was proven to have happened, not as the hypothesis it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 21, 2022 6:50:30 GMT -5
This is the research team involved in solving this mystery. These people are qualified to perform the study and have plenty of evidence to support the cause of the bays was ice ejecta. They might even be more capable and educated than James and James on the subject at hand. IMO they have proven the impact hypothesis with a wide variety of clear evidence. It is a complex and unique event and requires a lot of time to interpret the evidence. And they have plenty of videos and a few books to explain it all away convincingly for those interested. The findings are amazing and the impact this event had on the holocene age is a big game changer in many theaters of thought. What evidence? Where is it? Why haven't you presented any of this evidence if it is supposedly credible and dispels the overwhelming evidence against the ice ejecta hypothesis?
If credible evidence existed proving the ice ejecta hypothesis then we would not be on page 6 of this merry go round where I keep asking you for evidence to back your claims and hypothesis and you keep ignoring my requests.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 35,928
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 21, 2022 7:30:23 GMT -5
I'm an engineer and you are have extensive medical background I presume. The videos I have posted on this thread were authored by people much more versed in these types of sciences. It makes sense to listen to what they have to say. They are on top of it presently with a whole new set of high tech tools. IMO they are heading in the right direction and they have allowed me to form my conclusion. And continue to reinforce my conclusion with their recent findings. I suggest you open your mind to what they have to say too. You certainly have the right to convince yourself of whatever hypothesis it is you want to pursue.
|
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 21, 2022 16:06:47 GMT -5
Mohs has a come up w/ a hypothesis to the oval shape of the Carolinian bay formations The bays could have been formed by yeast fermentation! Yeast cells are elliptical in shape as opposed circular.  Given the rocking geological conditions of the substructure, the fermentation process of converting of minerals into highly enjoyable ethanol fumes; the bay formations would maintain the shape of the cells in the frothing process. It well known that rocksseek2roll This is why certain rock poets have ‘promised to drown them selves in mystic heated wine' bays Highly probable,,,,m  stly |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 21, 2022 19:32:17 GMT -5
I'm an engineer and you are have extensive medical background I presume. The videos I have posted on this thread were authored by people much more versed in these types of sciences. It makes sense to listen to what they have to say. They are on top of it presently with a whole new set of high tech tools. IMO they are heading in the right direction and they have allowed me to form my conclusion. And continue to reinforce my conclusion with their recent findings. I suggest you open your mind to what they have to say too. You certainly have the right to convince yourself of whatever hypothesis it is you want to pursue. If you paid attention to what I have been saying then you would know that I am not pursuing any single hypothesis as there is not enough evidence to prove any of the hypotheses. That is why they are still hypotheses and not theories.
If you presented any credible evidence to the ice ejecta hypothesis then maybe I would take it more serious. So far though you claim there is all sorts of evidence, I have been asking for evidence, but you have not produced any. You have posted a video that contradicts your claims as they pint out the ice would have hit with a force of 3 megatons, which would have left significantly deep craters and not shallow bays. And you posted a couple of other videos that are simply hypotheses presented as fact, and that actually contradict your earlier claims. For instance, the bays have been dated to have formed over a 46,000 year period. According to your video they are implying they formed around 6,000 years ago. And your explanation of why they are so shallow has to with the initial impact causing liquification and filling with peat during this process. Yet the video you posted claims the peat did not form until thousands of years later after the supposed formation of the depressions from supposed ice impacts.
I also find the claim of the melting of the ice simply flowing down the tributaries to be highly implausible. Such an impact would have led to significant, sudden melting of an ice pack, which in turn would have led to a massive and immediate flood. Of course there is no evidence of this, but this guy makes it sound like it was just minor flooding, which would not be consistent with such an impact.
Of course as I have pointed out so many times, nothing I have seen yet is consistent with what would have happened if this impact on the ice cap actually occurred. And I have given you the opportunity so many times to supply credible evidence to explain the inconsistencies I have repeatedly brought up. Instead, you just keep claiming I am wrong without providing a single shred of evidence that I am. For example, you said that the impact would negate a lot of my claims of these inconsistencies with the ejecta hypothesis, but when I asked you to explain the how several times you totally ignored my question.
I may not be an engineer, and yes I do have an extensive medical background. That does not mean that I only know medicine extremely well. I have also had a lot of classes in science (physics, chemistry, biology) and spend a great deal of time doing research as I was brought up on chemistry and inventing as my father is an inventor and my great grandfather was an inventor both producing inventions way ahead of their time. So, I learned how to use my brain and employ logic as well as understanding the scientific process. Same reason I understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. And why I understand the importance of evidence to create a theory.
So back to your hypothesis. Again, I am not stuck on any singular hypothesis. In fact, if you go back through this thread you will see where I presented several possible hypotheses as to how the bays could have formed, which make a whole lot more sense than the ice ejecta hypothesis that has a whole lot more evidence against it than for it. I do not present any of these hypotheses as facts though because hypotheses ARE NOT facts. They are educated guesses. Therefore, presenting a hypothesis as a fact is wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding of scientific process.
Again, you have been asked several times to back your claims, especially the ones that contradict the physics of an impact event, with some credible evidence. Ignoring my request over and over is not providing that evidence. And your claiming that these scientists have all sorts of evidence to back the ejecta hypothesis, but your inability to provide any of this evidence calls in to question of whether any credible evidence to the ejecta hypothesis exists in the first place. After all, if you would have supplied indisputable evidence at the beginning backing the ice ejecta hypothesis, we would not still be going round and round on this topic.
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,370
|
Post by pizzano on Apr 21, 2022 21:03:16 GMT -5
Lets beat a dead horse even more.....:
Assumptions & Hypthesis.....to include Theory.........
"Difference between Hypothesis and Assumption
Key Difference: A hypothesis is an uncertain supposition or explanation regarding a phenomenon or event. It is considered to be true by the researcher. An assumption is also a kind of belief which is considered to be true. A hypothesis must always go through the process of verification and investigation. On the other hand, an assumption may or may not be verified or investigated. In research, assumption denotes the existence of the relationship between the variables. A hypothesis establishes the relationship determined by an assumption.
A hypothesis is an uncertain supposition or explanation regarding a phenomenon or event. It is believed to be true by the researcher. It can always be tested by experimentation after the formulation. One acquires all possible evidence to proceed further and the investigation is carried out to test the hypothesis. Initially, it is either accepted or assumed.
According to Tuckman, these three criteria should be kept in mind before stating a hypothesis –
A good hypothesis statement should...........
conjecture the direction of the relationship between two or more variables,
be stated clearly and unambiguously in the form of a declarative sentence, and
be testable; that is, it should allow restatement in an operational form that can then be evaluated based on data
Generally, an assumption refers to a belief. An assumption does not require any evidence to support it. It is commonly based on feelings or a hunch. In the following example, the usage of the term 'assumption' is depicted
'My assumption is that tomorrow Mary will bring snacks for all'.
Assumption and hypothesis often create confusion as both are widely used in the field of research. An assumption is about taking things for granted, without having any firm explanation behind it. On the other hand, hypothesis is a type of assumption for a certain purpose of argument. However, both are not already proved. An assumption is always assumed to be true. On the other hand, a hypothesis is regarding statements that need certain investigation. In research, assumptions are formulated and on the basis of the assumptions certain hypothesis statements are declared. Thus, a hypothesis can also be considered as an assumption that is taken to be true unless proven otherwise."
"Theory vs. Hypothesis: What’s the Difference?
A hypothesis proposes a tentative explanation or prediction. A scientist bases their hypothesis on a specific observed event, making an educated guess as to how or why that event occurs. Their hypothesis may be proven true or false by testing and experimentation. A theory, on the other hand, is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence. Theories rely on tested and verified data, and scientists widely accepted theories to be true, though not unimpeachable."
Seems assumptions and hypothesis abound the subject(s) matter due to the lack of cognitive and duplicatable scientific analysis required to truly apply a theory........at least at the scale the historical events (evidence) have provided......and since it appears, by the references provided by both horses in this race, that mother nature seldom duplicates the exact conditions required to replicate the same result(s) as argued.......making even theory difficult to support by more than a handful of a few acknowledged experts who eat and sleep this stuff for a living.......?
Sometimes, great minds will and can debate a particular assumption(s) to a stand still and agree to accept an "agree to disagree" platform........such has not been the case here........The poor dead horse's spirit can not find peace....."there is no peace where conflict is more relevant and prevalent than compromise".....so saith the scribes.
|
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 21, 2022 22:36:00 GMT -5
We should also consider Inductive vs deductive reasoning According to a scanty interpretation of Bertrand Russell Inductive reasoning is akin to the notion of chickens, Predicting the farmer will continue to brings grains for feeding after the first feed. Perhaps because he's benevolent chap? The farmer even gains more benevolent idealization from the chickens because just before the axe fell; he brought extra feed! The fattening up process. That is predictive inductive reasoning. Another example of inductive reasoning The cock grows then the sun rises. So cock crowing must be the reason the sun rising. Butte then a deductivist formulates a hypothesis. What if the cock is silenced? Will the sun also rise? So he removes the cock from the equation. We won’t say how. The sun proceeds to rise the next morn. Hence: the sun rising isn’t contingent on the cock's crow. Butte in this explanation the Inductivist could say: you’d have to remove every cock in existence to prove the hypothesis. Some this reasoning gets infinitely redididdilohs Nonetheless deductive reasoning is better indicator for actual field work, and fills in gaps of what reasonably happened. Because ultimately it explains more. Ptomely cosmological model of circular orbits made some inductive sense. It predicted certain phenomena. Butte then Galileo, and his tele came along. He saw empirically, that these the orbits did NOT accord to what Ptolemy model indicated. Then all hell broke loose. I won’t try to explain the trial. Suffice it to say that the Inquisition had to rely on angels pushing the orbs around to defend their model - when physical explanations of gravity, Kepler elliptical, & Coriolis effects ectctra were beginning to offer more sensible explanation. How we reach consensus- if possible- on scientific theories is always contentious. Its long arduous process, and may never guarantee rock solid certainty. But we have to live in this world w/ our 5 senses and best reasoning. If that reasonably makes any sense?  These ideas (which I butchered) are much better presented by David Deutsch in his book: “The Fabric of Reality” Highly and most plausibly recommended and he’s an  ptimist |
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 21, 2022 23:23:49 GMT -5
Bertrand Russell expound on morning wood? Hu nhu, besides Ed?  |
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 21, 2022 23:35:46 GMT -5
|
|
stly 
ptimist 
Rich 
Uncle Albert...
all day
I distinctly remember forgetting that!