Author Topic: Mike Messages 1/21 - 22  (Read 13 times)


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Mike Messages 1/21 - 22
« on: January 23, 2017, 11:16:50 am »
on: January 21, 2017, 11:59:38 am

Hi Mike.
Let me know if you want to be a member of this forum to work on an NCGT paper together.

My idea is that you can work on the paper on your board and I can work on it on this board, and we can compare each other's material and copy what we like from each other. Does that sound good? Or do you have a proposal that may work better?

So far, a lot of my material is discussions and references which will need a lot of sorting and editing.


Copy of this morning's email message:
Hi Mike. NCGT encourages submitting our case if we feel we have persuasive evidence. I shortened the list of claims as below and I imagine we would be modifying the wording etc. Following was my most recent message to this editor.

"Here is an outline of our proposed paper or article. Will you let me know if any of the following would need to be changed or not discussed?

Recentness of Planetary Resurfacing

Introduction: Scientific Method vs. Religion & Corruption

Claim #1. Sedimentary Strata Deposited in Short Time Span by Megatsunamis

Claim #2. Late Heavy Bombardment Caused Said Megatsunamis

Claim #3. Said Bombardment Also Split Supercontinent into Present Continents Etc

Claim #4. Most Radiometric Dating Methods Inaccurate

Claim #5. Fossils & Civilization Date to Very Recent"


This was the reply I received by this morning.

"Our reviewers will judge based on rigorous scientific evidence.  If you think your paper can convince our reviewers with overwhelming hard evidence, please submit. Please avoid reference to religion as NCGT is a scientific journal. Regards,   Dong Choi Canberra, Australia"


I proposed mention of religion in the introduction only to assure readers that, unlike most or all creationist arguments, this paper will not be based on belief in any religion. I imagine most readers would tend to suspect that such a paper would be based on such belief, so I thought it may help to reassure them. To avoid upsetting the reviewers, maybe a cover letter could mention that the paper is not a Creationist paper or something.

Mike, I'm flexible on this proposed paper. The title and any of the claims could be stated differently. The paper could cover all of the claims, or only one, or some. We could submit more than one paper to cover more of the claims, if needed.

Since you have a lot more experience in writing papers and much more knowledge of the field of geology etc, you're welcome to take charge of the project, if you like. And I'd be glad to assist. I'm pretty good at editing, but you seem to be better. I've compiled a lot of material mostly from online and I've organized it, but it needs a lot of sorting through and adding to.

I think the main things I'd like to argue first are that the sedimentary strata were deposited in short time spans and that it all or nearly all occurred recently. Then a later paper or several papers could cover the other claims. So far, my friend, Gordon, hasn't agreed to participate, but he would nonetheless answer questions. He's a high school science teacher, I think, with a lot of experience in geology, especially regarding the geology of the Northwest.

So, what do you think, Mike? Are you willing to take charge of this project?

I started a private forum to work on the paper. I have a board there for my work at and one for your work, if you like, at
So that's available, if you like. Or, if you have a better place to collaborate, let me know.

You and I don't agree on everything, esp. the dating of the cataclysms, 10kBP vs 5kBP, but I think we can deal with that last and maybe we'll come to agreement by then.

- Good Day. Lloyd

On Wed, 1/18/17, <> wrote:

 Subject: RE: Flood Basalts
 To: "lloyd kinder" <>
 Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2017, 9:24 PM
 Lloyd.  That is very ambitious.  Covering all
 those ideas should probably be done with a number of
 separate papers with substantial support since the premises
 are unconventional and so cannot be assumed.
 The editor's statement "Our journal is a
 scientific journal.  Papers need good evidence and data
 to support what you say in the paper" strikes me as
 cautionary.  He may believe that denying the geological
 timeline and evolution is unscientific.
 You could show him your list of proposed sections
 and ask him if any of them are off limits.  If they
 are, he might suggest you try for a creationist journal.
  If he is okay with them, I would be glad to work with
 you and Gordon.  It would be good to know before
 putting in a lot of effort.

 Subject: RE: Flood Basalts
 From: lloyd kinder <>
 Date: Wed, January 18, 2017 4:41 pm
Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 03:23:33 pm by Admin

Re: Messages to Mike
Reply #1 on: January 21, 2017, 12:54:41 pm

This morning Mike said:
- The editor is setting a very high standard with "overwhelming hard evidence".
- It is probably not possible to link the Late Heavy Bombardment with Earth events,
- and he would likely see the introduction as editorializing, though your intentions are good.
- 1. Linking a meteorite strike to splitting a supercontinent
- 2. and causing megatsunamis will work,
- 3. with consequent simultaneous deposition of sedimentary strata,
- 4. as well as the initiation of the slow motion associated with Plate Tectonics.
- 5. Radiocarbon dating of fossils buried in those strata places their deposition in recent times.  This can be done.
- As a first step, tell me what evidence you and Gordon have assembled that applies to any of the above, and I will share mine.  If there is enough material, we can proceed.


I can show you a bunch of references pretty quickly, but specific evidence will take me at least a day, maybe less than a week, to show you in efficient form. So far I've mostly just copied our discussions, including evidence and arguments, and started to sort them out. But I'll try to streamline it so it'll be easier to read and to follow the line of reasoning etc.

My idea is to do the paper in 4 parts. Each part could be published in different issues of the journal, or maybe some or all of the parts could be published together in the same issue.

1. The first part would start with the obvious, the general record of the sedimentary strata, overlooking the fossils for now. We would show that megatsunamis are the only likely means for depositing the sedimentary strata.

2. Part 2 would show that the megatsunamis occurred recently and that dating methods are inaccurate.

3. The third part would show that asteroid strikes caused the megatsunamis and probably the late heavy bombardment, though we would not need to try to prove the latter.

4. The last part would show that the same bombardment that caused the megatsunamis also caused continental drift.

I like that sequence, because I think readers might find it the most intriguing. They'll be learning one exciting new fact after another, instead of all at once. So they might digest it all better and not get too confused.

Since we're not yet agreed on how long after the Great Flood the supercontinent broke up, I think we could present 2 possibilities. 1. It broke up a few centuries after the flood, as your website suggests. 2. It broke up toward the end of the flood, as I think may be most likely. Gordon may have thought it broke up near the beginning of the flood. He thought the folding of strata into mountains required that the strata had to be still soft, but fluidization by impact would make solid rock temporarily fluid anyway. The reason I think the breakup had to occur toward the end is because the main impact seems to have produced the iridium (& clay?) layer, which is above a thicker (?) layer of glass spherules etc.

So I have 2 questions for you there. 1. What do you think about having the paper in 4 parts or so as I suggest above? I'm open to alternative arguments you may have. 2. If we don't come to agreement on exactly when the breakup occurred before we finish the paper, i.e. Part 4, do you think it'll be okay to present both views?

Now to my task of assembling evidence for you.


I'm done with the first part of the first step: the evidence is at

I suppose my next task will be removing most of the chaff there and identifying the primary evidence that I have & what's needed. Guy Berthault will be an important source. I'd like to find out if he has done any experiments that might simulate megatsunamis. I also hope to find out what the requirements are for lithifying sediments. I suspect that sediments mixed with sufficient lime, as you seem to suggest, might lithify almost like concrete with very little overburden, whereas with such cementing agents, it would likely require enough pressure to bring the temperature up to the melting point of sand or mud, which doesn't seem to be even possible to great depths.

Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 10:15:43 pm by Admin

« Last Edit: January 25, 2017, 01:27:50 pm by Admin »

Social Buttons