Hello Humans,
This is my first post here so let me give a little background on myself. I have a BS in Geology and a BS in Geophysics from the University of Houston. I have participated in the Yellowstone Bighorn Research Association field camp. I am also a researcher at my place of work. I will admit that UH is an oil school and thus does not focus on the true nature of Geology, but is more of an oilfield prep college.
I have a couple of qualms with the Skeptic magazine for choosing Marc Defant as the "skeptic of choice" to present an argument.
Marc Defant is a Geochemist and a Geochronologist by default. A Geochemist studies "Phase diagrams" which tell you (based upon pressure and temperature diagrams) the order of operations for the formation of rocks based upon initial chemicals present. This means that with a bulk solution of chemicals in a liquid state Defant can tell you what will precipitate first and what will be formed. Defant can also tell you the time it takes for each to form, if it is possible to form these minerals with the water available, and based upon the minerals crystallized he can say (with some degree of certainty) the rate at which these minerals formed. This is the essence of Geochronology. This means that he knows how long it takes for certain rocks and minerals to form under "laboratory" conditions.
A little background on the field of Geology. In school you quickly learn that all Phd degrees in Geology are a degree in Philosophy of Geology. This is important, because it leaves room for debate, thus nothing is concrete (sorry for the pun). You also learn in school that even in their own RESPECTIVE fields that there are still arguments among the scholars. This means that even professors with the same degree in Geochemistry can disagree with their peers. This means that a Geology student can be taught something totally different from any other student based upon who taught them. This also means that by default, someone is wrong.
The fact that two Geochemists can share different ideas on what is right or wrong is a fragment of what I am trying to tell you. At GSA (Geological Society of America), which is one of the largest Geology based conferences in the USA, you get the opportunity to see your professional colleagues as well as hearing their arguments for what they believe in. Even in their own respective fields, you can hear arguments. A Geomorphologist can give a presentation to a room full of people ON STAGE, and be called out in public by another Geomorphologist that disagrees with them!!
The funniest thing about the whole JRE "debate" was that Shermer had a Geochemist arguing about Geomorphology!!! Geomophology is defined as "the study of the physical features of the surface of the earth and their relation to its geological structures." This is fine and dandy for a Geochemist, because the micro translates to the macro quite well. For example clouds are chemical structures. You can ask a Meteorologist with a geology background, and they will bore you with the similarities between mineral structures and cloud structures.
However, Geochemistry can not account for all of the structural failures which result in landslides, moraines, and carst topography. Defant is only a Geochemist "laboratory geologist" arguing about Geomporphology "real world geology."
Even though I am not a geologist with a Phd, I can still do research and look up Defant's CV (Curriculum Vitae) and see that he has not really written any papers on Geomorphology. Even on google scholar if you search for "marc defant" geomorphology, between 1980 and 2017, you will find 4 results. Those results all mention subduction, which has absolutely nothing to do with glaciers!
Side note - A great piece of evidence that aligns with the impact and flood theory is the "Beer can experiment." [structuralgeology.50webs.com]
This experiment was created to explain the Heart Mountain (Detachment, Slide, whatever). This is where a mountain slid 40 miles away with no friction marks left behind. [www.youtube.com]
Just google Heart Mountain Wyoming Geology. Google Beer can experiment. You will quickly learn that there are many things that Structural Geologists, Geomorphologists, and any other professional geologist cannot explain with current knowledge. I have not personally done the math, but I would love to have the time and money to do the research - just like every other Geologist!
I do not have the answers, I can only show you that nobody has the answers. Please do your google quality research and read and watch what real geologists are saying about these phenomena. Thanks and stay human!
This is my first post here so let me give a little background on myself. I have a BS in Geology and a BS in Geophysics from the University of Houston. I have participated in the Yellowstone Bighorn Research Association field camp. I am also a researcher at my place of work. I will admit that UH is an oil school and thus does not focus on the true nature of Geology, but is more of an oilfield prep college.
I have a couple of qualms with the Skeptic magazine for choosing Marc Defant as the "skeptic of choice" to present an argument.
Marc Defant is a Geochemist and a Geochronologist by default. A Geochemist studies "Phase diagrams" which tell you (based upon pressure and temperature diagrams) the order of operations for the formation of rocks based upon initial chemicals present. This means that with a bulk solution of chemicals in a liquid state Defant can tell you what will precipitate first and what will be formed. Defant can also tell you the time it takes for each to form, if it is possible to form these minerals with the water available, and based upon the minerals crystallized he can say (with some degree of certainty) the rate at which these minerals formed. This is the essence of Geochronology. This means that he knows how long it takes for certain rocks and minerals to form under "laboratory" conditions.
A little background on the field of Geology. In school you quickly learn that all Phd degrees in Geology are a degree in Philosophy of Geology. This is important, because it leaves room for debate, thus nothing is concrete (sorry for the pun). You also learn in school that even in their own RESPECTIVE fields that there are still arguments among the scholars. This means that even professors with the same degree in Geochemistry can disagree with their peers. This means that a Geology student can be taught something totally different from any other student based upon who taught them. This also means that by default, someone is wrong.
The fact that two Geochemists can share different ideas on what is right or wrong is a fragment of what I am trying to tell you. At GSA (Geological Society of America), which is one of the largest Geology based conferences in the USA, you get the opportunity to see your professional colleagues as well as hearing their arguments for what they believe in. Even in their own respective fields, you can hear arguments. A Geomorphologist can give a presentation to a room full of people ON STAGE, and be called out in public by another Geomorphologist that disagrees with them!!
The funniest thing about the whole JRE "debate" was that Shermer had a Geochemist arguing about Geomorphology!!! Geomophology is defined as "the study of the physical features of the surface of the earth and their relation to its geological structures." This is fine and dandy for a Geochemist, because the micro translates to the macro quite well. For example clouds are chemical structures. You can ask a Meteorologist with a geology background, and they will bore you with the similarities between mineral structures and cloud structures.
However, Geochemistry can not account for all of the structural failures which result in landslides, moraines, and carst topography. Defant is only a Geochemist "laboratory geologist" arguing about Geomporphology "real world geology."
Even though I am not a geologist with a Phd, I can still do research and look up Defant's CV (Curriculum Vitae) and see that he has not really written any papers on Geomorphology. Even on google scholar if you search for "marc defant" geomorphology, between 1980 and 2017, you will find 4 results. Those results all mention subduction, which has absolutely nothing to do with glaciers!
Side note - A great piece of evidence that aligns with the impact and flood theory is the "Beer can experiment." [structuralgeology.50webs.com]
This experiment was created to explain the Heart Mountain (Detachment, Slide, whatever). This is where a mountain slid 40 miles away with no friction marks left behind. [www.youtube.com]
Just google Heart Mountain Wyoming Geology. Google Beer can experiment. You will quickly learn that there are many things that Structural Geologists, Geomorphologists, and any other professional geologist cannot explain with current knowledge. I have not personally done the math, but I would love to have the time and money to do the research - just like every other Geologist!
I do not have the answers, I can only show you that nobody has the answers. Please do your google quality research and read and watch what real geologists are saying about these phenomena. Thanks and stay human!