Number of days writer Richard Kerr has failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 1 year, 2 months, and 1 day
Hopefully George will remove CL’s creationist drivel immediately.
In the meantime, in your studies did you observe substantial maritime sediments and alterations at around 1,000 BC of those bays nearest the Atlantic coast?
And though these are accepted as impacts, the group that argues aeolian has not given up.
However, some things about the Rio Cuarto landforms make them considerably different from the Carolina Bays. One is the extreme ellipticity of the Rio Cuarto bays/craters. Next, there is the depth of the Rio Cuarto landforms. Also, one end of the Rio Cuarto landforms has a distinctly sharpened point. In addition, Rio Cuarto is in a decidedly dry climate, whereas the CBs are in a region of plentiful rain.
Although I have not found data on it, I am certain that at Rio Cuarto the prevailing winds are not perpendicular to the long axes.
Both groups are spread over a widespread area, and both areas run essentially SSW-NNE. Yet the CBs long axes are across the short width of the area (essentially SE-NW though swinging from S-N in the south to E-W in the northern end), while the Rio Cuarto long axes are aligned WITH the swath (SSW-NNE). Yet, to the uniformitarian “aeolianists” both these populations of landforms were made by the same forces.
I applaud any and every researcher who attempts to “solve” the enigma of the CBs. I still reserve the right to disagree.
I am stumped, though, by the insistence of the uniformitarians to force an aeolian explanation. That explanation has been tried since they were first discovered, and it was rejected decades ago. But each generation of uniformitarians insists THEIR generation can dredge it up again and explain it. And they always leave out the inconvenient evidence, choosing only the evidence that supports it. Good scientists are supposed to also present all the arguments against their explanations and show why such evidence can be excluded. Every aeolian explanation fails in this – at least the ones I’ve seen.
Chris, I will address some specific points you made in my next comment…
Loading...
Hi Chris –
Hopefully George will remove CL’s creationist drivel immediately.
In the meantime, in your studies did you observe substantial maritime sediments and alterations at around 1,000 BC of those bays nearest the Atlantic coast?
The same aeolian arguments are put up by one side of the argument about the Rio Cuarto ellipsoidal landforms. See:
http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7156/6524651341_e6eeda03f7_s.jpg
and
http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7008/6524651307_c625c668bd_s.jpg
And though these are accepted as impacts, the group that argues aeolian has not given up.
However, some things about the Rio Cuarto landforms make them considerably different from the Carolina Bays. One is the extreme ellipticity of the Rio Cuarto bays/craters. Next, there is the depth of the Rio Cuarto landforms. Also, one end of the Rio Cuarto landforms has a distinctly sharpened point. In addition, Rio Cuarto is in a decidedly dry climate, whereas the CBs are in a region of plentiful rain.
Although I have not found data on it, I am certain that at Rio Cuarto the prevailing winds are not perpendicular to the long axes.
Both groups are spread over a widespread area, and both areas run essentially SSW-NNE. Yet the CBs long axes are across the short width of the area (essentially SE-NW though swinging from S-N in the south to E-W in the northern end), while the Rio Cuarto long axes are aligned WITH the swath (SSW-NNE). Yet, to the uniformitarian “aeolianists” both these populations of landforms were made by the same forces.
I applaud any and every researcher who attempts to “solve” the enigma of the CBs. I still reserve the right to disagree.
I am stumped, though, by the insistence of the uniformitarians to force an aeolian explanation. That explanation has been tried since they were first discovered, and it was rejected decades ago. But each generation of uniformitarians insists THEIR generation can dredge it up again and explain it. And they always leave out the inconvenient evidence, choosing only the evidence that supports it. Good scientists are supposed to also present all the arguments against their explanations and show why such evidence can be excluded. Every aeolian explanation fails in this – at least the ones I’ve seen.
Chris, I will address some specific points you made in my next comment…