Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis

Pages: (202) < ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... >

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,08:49    Quote Oh, and why do you ignore those revolutionary Creationists who established that the Earth was much older than a few thousand years, hmmm? My guess is that Dave will either ignore this or engage in the usual "No True Scotsman" fallacy: these couldn't have been "real" Christians, since they disagreed with Dave's "personal interpretation" of the Bible. Dave is very predictable that way.

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,09:06    Quote We're a representative democracy; it could happen that we vote in a government of Muslims.  Are you quite sure that you want the government in the religion business? Ha! Or even Catholics??!!!! I can just see dave shuddering at the thought. Heck we've even had a Catholic Pres. Close one, davey!

Shirley Knott Posts: 148 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,09:08    Worse, Steve -- he's so immoral he doesn't care. hugs, Shirley Knott

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,09:16    Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,13:07) Quote I think you meant it was creationist dogma that forced creation scientists to discard 'uniformitarianism'... Are you saying that the old Lyellian uniformitarianism is still alive? I'm saying you shouldn't get your geological information from CreationWiki. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,09:20    Here's another amusing "fudge" from Humphreys, AFDave--The e-mail you cited and Humphrey's response as to why he had NOT done the He isotope ratio testing that would substantially confirm/disconfirm his claims:     Quote From: Russ Humphreys Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:14 PM To: Dave Hawkins Subject: Re: 3He/4He in Zircons? Hi Mr. Hawkins: No we didn't think to ask the lab to look for 3He in the zircons because it wasn't the usual practice among helium/zircon researchers then (or at least I'd never heard of the practice then). Now, the fact is that 3He/4He ratios were long known to be of EXTREME value in dating minerals and looking for non-uranium/thorium-series sources. LONG before Humphreys did his "study" in which he deliberately skewed the data. Now, even if you say " well, it wasn't done on *ZIRCONS*...uh. really, Dave? How do you explain this: Hurley, PM, 1952. Alpha ionization damage as a cause of low helium ratios. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 33: 174-183. ? Now, even if Humphreys now claims he was "unaware" of this...he WAS aware of it years ago. Henke told him to do the ratio studies years ago. He never did...and never will...why? You got CONNED again, AFDave...this time by Russ Humphreys himself!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and Dave,that's not the ONLY citation dealing with zircon He ratios from the 50's or onwards. People were LOOKING for helium sources/natural gas and were VERY interested in He ratios up to today and beyond. The fact that the isotopes show differing origins was of paramount importance to gashounds sourcing the gasses themselves. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,09:23    Quote Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,10:02) Wells..       Quote You still haven't grasped the point: we have a perfect historical record of P,F,S,I,R(omanian)... all descending from Latin. I have never denied this.  I agree with it.  But it is not specific enough.  My explanation fills in the missing details. AFD seems to have embraced some form of Christianity where never admitting you're wrong is much more important than not lying. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,09:36    I'll be sending that Humphreys e-mail off to Henke, along with the other updates I got off of this, Dave...thanks!!!!! Quite a hoot. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,09:45    Quote (deadman_932 @ June 14 2006,14:20) Here's another amusing "fudge" from Humphreys, AFDave--The e-mail you cited and Humphrey's response as to why he had NOT done the He isotope ratio testing that would substantially confirm/disconfirm his claims:     Quote From: Russ Humphreys Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:14 PM To: Dave Hawkins Subject: Re: 3He/4He in Zircons? Hi Mr. Hawkins: No we didn't think to ask the lab to look for 3He in the zircons because it wasn't the usual practice among helium/zircon researchers then (or at least I'd never heard of the practice then). I'm confused by this email, too.  To be specific, I'm wondering what Humphreys, the bold CREATIONIST PIONEER who innovatively chose to employ helium/zircon dating, could possibly mean by "usual practice among helium/zircon researchers then"? Dave on June 2: Quote I found it interesting that Norm had not heard of anyone using helium to date rocks.  That's because creation scientists are pioneers, Norm.  Pioneers get laughed at but they keep pressing on because they care about the truth, not peer pressure.  Remember Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler?  Same deal here. Dave on June 3: Quote OK.  So the creos didn't discover it.  Too bad!  They are just RE-discovering it along with the Yale lab quoted above. Dave on June 7: Quote Can you give me a paper that shows non-ambiguous data on He diffusion in zircons prior to Humphreys et al? Dave on June 8: Quote Oh really, JonF?  As early as 2001, huh?  Do you know when Humphreys published his predictions?  Did you foget that little detail?  I thought so.  Here ... I'll help you.  It was 2000 in this publication ...     Quote Anyone with any sense or any ethics at all would know that I meant before he PUBLISHED his predictions.  It doesn't make any sense to get data published in 2001 to try to make some predictions in 2000, now does it?  As for your other sources, the RATE Group looked at everything and nothing was relevant except for the ambiguous Soviet data mentioned. Dave, we know your answer for where Cain found his wife.  My question for you is: when Humphreys was busy pioneering/discovering/re-discovering helium/zircon research, where did he find a "usual practice among helium/zircon researchers"?

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,09:50    Don't you guys think that discussing portuguese and zircon with AFD is getting excessively boring? Dave isn't going to change is mind. If you still want to argue with him, I suggest you move to another topic, (forget isotopic dating, Dave will dismiss it).

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:01    Quote (jeannot @ June 14 2006,14:50) Don't you guys think that discussing portuguese and zircon with AFD is getting excessively boring? Dave isn't going to change is mind. If you still want to argue with him, I suggest you move to another topic, (forget isotopic dating, Dave will dismiss it). Yes. I can't wait to hear his description of his "global flood," and "evidence" therefor. The problem is, the only way to get Dave to move on (despite his repeated threats to do so) is to allow him to claim "victory" (to the extent he doesn't already think he's won), and I for one will not let him do that. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:03    Quote I still maintain that he is so dumb and crazy that he doesn't know he's wrong. well, progress is being made.  You used to think he was just dumb. Look, folks, in case you haven't noticed by now, trying to argue logically with someone who MUST reject logic or risk having to deal with his cognitive dissonance is rather a frustrating prospect. If you enjoy it, fine, but don't whine that Dave isn't listening to your arguments. He simply CAN'T.  You can't "fix" him in an online forum, so if you feel you need to sharpen your arguments on him, enjoy, but don't expect your arguments to be fruitful on Dave himself. In case you had forgotten, early on Dave was shown how AIG lied to him about aspects of the GULO controversy, he at the time admitted that they were wrong.... and within two days had completely reversed himself. Someone even made a thread to note this fact, and even ask him why he had never confronted AIG. You really ARE fooling yourself if you believe for one second that when Dave says he can be convinced by evidence, that he really means it. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:06    Quote (jeannot @ June 14 2006,14:50) Don't you guys think that discussing portuguese and zircon with AFD is getting excessively boring? Dave isn't going to change is mind. If you still want to argue with him, I suggest you move to another topic, (forget isotopic dating, Dave will dismiss it). I think most of us are just trying to see how bizarre of a response we can get out of him.  It's still kind of interesting to see how he rationalizes some things. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:08    Quote (ericmurphy @ June 14 2006,15:01) Yes. I can't wait to hear his description of his "global flood," and "evidence" therefor. I'm personaly eager to hear him about speciation. It's going to be good. Quote The problem is, the only way to get Dave to move on (despite his repeated threats to do so) is to allow him to claim "victory" (to the extent he doesn't already think he's won), and I for one will not let him do that. How will you prevent this?

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:09    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2006,15:03) Quote I still maintain that he is so dumb and crazy that he doesn't know he's wrong. well, progress is being made.  You used to think he was just dumb. Look, folks, in case you haven't noticed by now, trying to argue logically with someone who MUST reject logic or risk having to deal with his cognitive dissonance is rather a frustrating prospect. If you enjoy it, fine, but don't whine that Dave isn't listening to your arguments. He simply CAN'T.  You can't "fix" him in an online forum, so if you feel you need to sharpen your arguments on him, enjoy, but don't expect your arguments to be fruitful on Dave himself. In case you had forgotten, early on Dave was shown how AIG lied to him about aspects of the GULO controversy, he at the time admitted that they were wrong.... and within two days had completely reversed himself. Someone even made a thread to note this fact, and even ask him why he had never confronted AIG. You really ARE fooling yourself if you believe for one second that when Dave says he can be convinced by evidence, that he really means it. It was clear after his second post that he is incapable of reason: "their arguments, not being founded in reason, cannot be swayed by reason". I stay for the entertainment, and to watch the way a fundie mind works. They are, after all, a danger to their fellow Christians, to their families, and to society at large; it's important to understand how their brains work. Oh, and did I mention the entertainment value?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:16    Quote (jeannot @ June 14 2006,14:50) Don't you guys think that discussing portuguese and zircon with AFD is getting excessively boring? Dave isn't going to change is mind. If you still want to argue with him, I suggest you move to another topic, (forget isotopic dating, Dave will dismiss it). There is a very real sense in which debating anything with AFD is boring and futile... I think the people still hammering away at it still can't believe that someone could be that impervious to reason -- that eventually, AFD will drop his arguments due to the sheer force of their ridiculousness. I personally don't see this happening. I don't see the point in trashing AFD's YEC silliness. I'm just sticking around to humiliate him whenever he ventures out on the linguistics branch. I would say I'm staying here to 'keep him honest', but that certainly isn't happening. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:22    Well, no, but nobody ever expresses themself perfectly. I always thought he was some combination of the two. I think religion is a typically mild and very limited kind of craziness which only very slightly hurts people. But in a few people who take it too seriously, it makes them actively, dangerously crazy, to the point that they'll do things like shoot abortion doctors or suicide bomb a cafe. On a 'Crazy Religiosity' scale where the average American is a 1, Jerry Falwell is a 5, Eric Rudolph is an 8-9, and Osama bin Laden is a 10, I'd put AFDave somewhere around 3-4. Crazy enough to go around telling all the experts they're wrong and refusing to believe otherwise, but not crazy enough to shoot the evil opposition.

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:48    Quote (stevestory @ June 14 2006,15:22) Well, no, but nobody ever expresses themself perfectly. I always thought he was some combination of the two. I think religion is a typically mild and very limited kind of craziness which only very slightly hurts people. But in a few people who take it too seriously, it makes them actively, dangerously crazy, to the point that they'll do things like shoot abortion doctors or suicide bomb a cafe. On a 'Crazy Religiosity' scale where the average American is a 1, Jerry Falwell is a 5, Eric Rudolph is an 8-9, and Osama bin Laden is a 10, I'd put AFDave somewhere around 3-4. Crazy enough to go around telling all the experts they're wrong and refusing to believe otherwise, but not crazy enough to shoot the evil opposition. To paraphrase the Hitchiker's Guide, Dave is mostly harmless.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:53    Steve- well, you can't just quantitatively evaluate "crazy", there's a big qualitative aspect of it too. IOW, there's lots of different kinds of crazy. a sociopath and a schizophrenic don't have much in common, regardless of the degree of affliction. Not being a psychologist, I haven't a good idea how to classify AFD's current affliction, but I'd bet serious money that cognitive dissonance plays a causative role. as to whether Dave is actually dangerous or not, that would be entirely relative, and we don't have enough information to judge one way or the other. However, based on what he's posted and how his mind apparently processes logic, I'd say he could at the very least be considered a significant negative influence in an instructional setting. You wouldn't hire him as a teacher, now, would ya? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:12    Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,12:14) You may not be on a crusade personally.  But the NCSE is and I think they run this forum, do they not? They do not. Quote  If not, I think it is at least fair to say that you are probably supportive of the NCSE's agenda.  To me, they are crusaders on a 'religious mission to sanitize schools of any mention of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer or a God.' Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Quote They apparently think that 'Separation of Church and State' is in the constitution... And so does the Supreme Court, the final arbiter on what is and is not in the Constitution. Quote and they think that 'no establishment of religion' means no mention of a Creator or God in public settings. Another lie, Davie-ol'-chap; they think that "no establishment of religion" means that the government may not promote one religion over any others.  Mentioning a Creator or God in public settings is fine (althouth it's inappropriate to do so in science class, for non-Constitutional reasons). Quote Quite false interpretation... Yup, your interpretation is indeed quite false.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:28    Quote My question for you is: when Humphreys was busy pioneering/discovering/re-discovering helium/zircon research, where did he find a "usual practice among helium/zircon researchers"?  Ah, yes.  I should have been more specific. In the RATE Books, Humphreys points out that ... "Our diffusion dating method in Section 9 differs entirely from the "He dating" of (U-Th/He) Chronometry [Reiners, 2002].  Very crudely, the difference is this: (U-Th/He) Chronometry divides the number of He atoms in a crystal by nuclear decay rate.  Diffusion dating divides the number of He atoms lost from the crystal by the diffusion rate.  Some practitioners of (U-Th/He) Chronometry, in their unpublished comments about our work, have not yet understood this distinction.(RATE Book II, p. 94) Apparently he is pioneering Helium Diffusion Dating.  Others were apparently beginning to do (or had been doing for some time ... not sure) (U-Th/He) Chronometry as differentiated above. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:35    Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,16:28) Quote My question for you is: when Humphreys was busy pioneering/discovering/re-discovering helium/zircon research, where did he find a "usual practice among helium/zircon researchers"?  Ah, yes.  I should have been more specific. In the RATE Books, Humphreys points out that ... "Our diffusion dating method in Section 9 differs entirely from the "He dating" of (U-Th/He) Chronometry [Reiners, 2002].  Very crudely, the difference is this: (U-Th/He) Chronometry divides the number of He atoms in a crystal by nuclear decay rate.  Diffusion dating divides the number of He atoms lost from the crystal by the diffusion rate.  Some practitioners of (U-Th/He) Chronometry, in their unpublished comments about our work, have not yet understood this distinction.(RATE Book II, p. 94) Apparently he is pioneering Helium Diffusion Dating.  Others were apparently beginning to do (or had been doing for some time ... not sure) (U-Th/He) Chronometry as differentiated above. Perhaps you also should have answered the question.  Oops, forgot, that would expose your ignorance. '...where did [Humpheys find a "usual practice among helium/zircon researchers"?'

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:46    Quote (jeannot @ June 14 2006,15:08)   Quote The problem is, the only way to get Dave to move on (despite his repeated threats to do so) is to allow him to claim "victory" (to the extent he doesn't already think he's won), and I for one will not let him do that. How will you prevent this?   Simple. By never giving in. Either Dave will move on to another topic once he sees how thoroughly unconvinced we are…or he won't. Either way, he loses. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:48    Quote (JonF @ June 14 2006,16:12) Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,12:14) You may not be on a crusade personally.  But the NCSE is and I think they run this forum, do they not? They do not.   Quote If not, I think it is at least fair to say that you are probably supportive of the NCSE's agenda.  To me, they are crusaders on a 'religious mission to sanitize schools of any mention of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer or a God.' Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.   Quote They apparently think that 'Separation of Church and State' is in the constitution... And so does the Supreme Court, the final arbiter on what is and is not in the Constitution.   Quote and they think that 'no establishment of religion' means no mention of a Creator or God in public settings. Another lie, Davie-ol'-chap; they think that "no establishment of religion" means that the government may not promote one religion over any others.  Mentioning a Creator or God in public settings is fine (althouth it's inappropriate to do so in science class, for non-Constitutional reasons).   Quote Quite false interpretation... Yup, your interpretation is indeed quite false. Dave: 0 Posters: 25+ Gentlemen, I give you Target-Drone Dave: Loser. Liar. Lunatic.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:50    Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,16:28) "Our diffusion dating method in Section 9 differs entirely from the "He dating" of (U-Th/He) Chronometry [Reiners, 2002].  Very crudely, the difference is this: (U-Th/He) Chronometry divides the number of He atoms in a crystal by nuclear decay rate.  Diffusion dating divides the number of He atoms lost from the crystal by the diffusion rate.  Some practitioners of (U-Th/He) Chronometry, in their unpublished comments about our work, have not yet understood this distinction.(RATE Book II, p. 94) So what, in your mind, Dave, would possibly make you think that the nuclear decay rate would be less reliable than the diffusion rate?  Because it seems to me that if you're rejecting the presumption of uniformity, diffusion rates would be meaningless.  For bonus points, try to answer this without quoting something. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:54    Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,16:28) Ah, yes.  I should have been more specific. In the RATE Books, Humphreys points out that ... Dave, since neither Humphreys, you, nor anyone else knows what the diffusion rate is, (because no one has sufficient data on half a dozen parameters that can affect the diffusion rate) what is Humphreys dividing the number of He atoms lost by? He's just pulling a number out of his butt, is what he's doing. Humphreys has no justification for even assuming that the diffusion rate has been constant over time, for crying out loud. That's the problem everyone else has with Humphreys' method. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:59    Jeannot: Yes, you're right on the subjects of zircons and Portuguese being essentially over and done. Dave is toast on these topics ( American slang meaning he's finished, defeated, done for). His own boy, Humphreys...lied to him on the topic. His blatant quote-mining of a Portuguese citation as well as his inability to provide a worldlist of Portuguese terms derived FROM French...yeah, it's over. He can move on to Polonium halos or whatever he wants. He'll still get slaughtered. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,12:01    Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,13:07) Get the book.  I did and he explains it perfectly. Never. I will not support creationist lies.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,12:03    Quote Get the book.  I did and he explains it perfectly. He does? Wait... If you have the book, Dave, and it explains it perfectly, why do you do such a poor job of it? can't you just quote chapter and verse from the book? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,12:04    Quote (normdoering @ June 14 2006,17:01) Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,13:07) Get the book.  I did and he explains it perfectly. Never. I will not support creationist lies. I prefer the term "con artists". -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Michael Tuite Posts: 12 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,12:06    Hello Dave, Dave stated above: Quote . . . it will be Creationists who keep pressing ahead on the cutting edge of science . . . Below is a list of the title's from this month's issue of Geology, one of the most prestigious venues for publishing cutting edge work in the geosciences.  The list represents a wide range of disciplines and every single paper draws upon and reinforces our knowledge of the earth's long history. This is just one example of the content of the hundreds of journal volumes that are published every year that relate to the age of the earth. If the intellectual output of the overwhelming majority of the world's geoscientists is not sufficient to at least give you pause, is there any line of reason that would convince you that your desire to gain the imprimatur of science for your religious beliefs is the rear-guard action of a superstitious world-view rather than a battle at the vanguard of science? Widespread Archean basement beneath the Yangtze craton. Siberian glaciation as a constraint on Permian–Carboniferous CO2 levels. New method to estimate paleoprecipitation using fossil amphibians and reptiles and the middle and late Miocene precipitation gradients in Europe. Rapid magma ascent recorded by water diffusion profiles in mantle olivine. The control of weathering processes on riverine and seawater hafnium isotope ratios. Biomarkers from Huronian oil-bearing fluid inclusions: An uncontaminated record of life before the Great Oxidation Event. Evolution of Atlantic thermohaline circulation: Early Oligocene onset of deep-water production in the North Atlantic. Ganges basin geometry records a pre-15 Ma isostatic rebound of Himalaya. Depleted swell root beneath the Cape Verde Islands. Submarine volcanoes and high-temperature hydrothermal venting on the Tonga arc, southwest Pacific. The origin of volcano-tectonic earthquake swarms. The Kalkarindji continental flood basalt province: A new Cambrian large igneous province in Australia with possible links to faunal extinctions. Moving hotspots or reorganized plates?. Kinematic evolution of a tectonic wedge above a flat-lying decollement: The Alpine foreland at the interface between the Jura Mountains (Northern Alps) and the Upper Rhine graben. Why is lawsonite eclogite so rare? Metamorphism and preservation of lawsonite eclogite, Sivrihisar, Turkey. Active transtension inside central Alborz: A new insight into northern Iran–southern Caspian geodynamics. Interaction of the rifting East Greenland margin with a zoned ancestral Iceland plume. Seafloor morphology of the Sumatran subduction zone: Surface rupture during megathrust earthquakes?. Redox decoupling and redox budgets: Conceptual tools for the study of earth systems. The blueschist-bearing Qiangtang metamorphic belt (northern Tibet, China) as an in situ suture zone: Evidence from geochemical comparison with the Jinsa suture. Potential of ikaite to record the evolution of oceanic ?18O. Motion of Nubia relative to Antarctica since 11 Ma: Implications for Nubia-Somalia, Pacific–North America, and India-Eurasia motion. Tibetan basement rocks near Amdo reveal “missing” Mesozoic tectonism along the Bangong suture, central Tibet. Permanent Quaternary hyperaridity in the Negev, Israel, resulting from regional tectonics blocking Mediterranean frontal systems.

Pages: (202) < ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard