AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (118) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Tough to read twitter
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> AgTalk CafeMessage format
 
2TrakR
Posted 4/17/2024 22:01 (#10710808 - in reply to #10710616)
Subject: RE: Tough to read twitter


Saginaw Bay Area - Michigan
Hilltop Husker - 4/17/2024 21:07

A Sedimentary and Stratigraphic
Record of Sea-Level Regression as
A Result of Regional Tectonism

Carl R. Froede Jr., P.G.

This 2011 paper states that it was caused by poor farming practices.



That's a field guide. https://segs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SEGS-Prov-Can-Guidebook-...

"The canyons were created due to a combination of regional uplift, easily-eroded sands confined between clay layers, and poor farming practices. They formed in less than 50 years and continue to slowly expand today."

Same anecdotal statement regarding farming practices but more math that does not add up. Not calling liars, just looking for the evidence to back up the claims.

For the record, Mr. Froede appears to be well studied and well regarded. I do not see where he has published data to support the farming-related cause, only reported the same as other era-correct "guide books" have reported. His guide book speaks to the geology of the area well.

I'll quote another article from the same author, not in direct support of "farming did" or "farming did not" do this, but to underscore that "the science" is not always settled:

"The dominance of gradualism in the geological sciences stifled geologic thought for more than a hundred years. Historians of geology now realize that non-scientific factors preserved that paradigm, even when it was clearly contrary to the evidence. Ridicule and peer-pressure once reserved for any form of catastrophism is now solely reserved for biblical catastrophism. "
https://creation.com/secular-neocatastrophism

You'll note my quotation of "the science" as the scientific geology field obviously stuck to their guns for non-scientific reasons for many years. Who's to say the current thought process is not to be revised in the not too distant future or perhaps they finally got it right on that particular topic. Is it not rare for the current generation to have "now finally figured it out" and "how wrong the previous generation was"?

If you are convinced this was formed by man's actions, which is fine if that's your belief, what evidence backs up that belief other than somebody said it was true?

Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)