Steve LeMaster wrote:

"Your response only shows how immature you are. I
have been very curtious to you, Gerd, Warwick and
others. If your only response is ad homonim attacks
then I feel sorry for you."

Given, that Lemaster in "N/T This is for Paul H. as well" falsely
insinuated that neither I nor Gerd VDC were following the data
in this discussion, I see nothing immature in pointing that
LeMaster was abusing the data and in fact was the person, who
was repeatedly violating the advice he repeatedly provides us
all in his "signature". If LeMaster didn't want me commenting
on the fact that he wasn't following the data, as he advises in
his signature, he shouldn’t have falsely insinuated that neither
I nor Gerd VDC weren't following the data in the previous post.

It might be undiplomatic to note that LeMaster isn't following
his signature. However, if LeMaster insinuates that other people
aren't 'following the data" and makes a big point of "following
the data in his signature, it neither immature nor an ad homonim
to point out that he isn't following his own advice. If a person
doesn't follow the advice that he is giving other people, it is
perfectly reasonable and neither immature nor ad homonim for
someone to point out this inconsistency. The only thing I need
apologize for here is being undiplomatic and blunt.

Given that LeMaster is misusing and misrepresenting rates and
averages in the same way that Young Earth creationists abuse
and misuse rates and averages, in my opinion, it is neither an
ad homonim attack nor immature to point this out. In this case,
I only need apologize for the unintended way in which the
previous article falsely implies that the misuse of data is
deliberate.

In case of the "Mindless Mississippi Model", the use of the
word "mindless" isn't an ad homonim attack, although blunt and
undiplomatic, is an accurate description because, he isn't
thinking at all about what interpretations of rates of erosion
found in textbooks actually mean and the very real limitations
as how and where they can be used. A excellent example is the
application of rates of erosion derived from water erosion in
the humid Mississippi River Valley to the arid Giza Plateau
where entirely different processes have eroded limestone.
Because the environmental factors, types of limestone, and
processes between the Mississippi Valley and the Giza Plateau
are so completely different, it should be quite obvious, with
the least bit of thought, that the rates calculated for one area
are going to be totally meaningless in the other. In my opinion,
it is literally "mindless" to expect that rates calculated for
a specific set of circumstances / variables in the Mississippi
Valley can be used to infer anything about rates for an
entirely different set of variables in the Giza Plateau.
Other conventional geologists would use far more strong of
language in describing the quality of such "science" if these
argument was to submitted as part of a paper for to a
journal for publication.

The meaning of rates in geology is taught in entry-level
geology course. Therefore it is true that if a person made
such arguments either in a paper or on a test, he would get
"F", or at least a "D" on it in a geology class. Thus, is
nothing ad homonim about this remark, as it quite true.

LeMaster wrote:

"What I have posted are from textbooks. The very
same that are used in schools and universities."

Is doesn't matter what the source of the rate interpretations
are. If the rates weren't specifically calculated for the Giza
Plateau, it is impossible to applied these rates to Giza Plateau
region, much less the Sphinx itself. Rates of erosion because of
variations in the factors controlling them between regions and,
even between outcrops vary from region to region and, thus,
are region specific. As a result, it is well proved fact that such
rates are region and, any times, even outcrop specific Thus, it
is incredibly bad science, even nonsensical, to expect that the
generalized and time and areal averaged rates of limestone
erosion of different regions with different types of limestone and
environmental conditions found in textbooks can be applied to
areas outside of where they were calculated, i.e. the Giza
Plateau, much less a specific outcrop within the Giza Plateau.

The erosion of limestone is controlled by a number of factors,
which include:

1. grain size

2. mineralogy (high versus low magnesium aragonite, calcite,
siderite, and so forth).

3. grain types (fossils, oolites, mud, pisolites, intraclasts, etc.)

4. cement type

5. porosity

6. bed thickness

7. number and spacing of joints

8. climate and paleoclimate

9. humidity

10. ground moisture

11. slope aspect

12. outcrop or building stone

13. PCO2

14. process causing the erosion

15. and others

A change in any of the above factors will change the rate at
which limestone is eroded even if all of the other factors are
remain the same. Because many of these factors differ from
region to region to region, even the average rate of limestone
erosion will differ from region to region. In fact, because of
variations in these factors the rate of erosion of limestone
will differ even from outcrop to outcrop.

The effect of changing any of these variables is much like
changing a variable in a mathematical formula. For example,
if a person has the equation:

A(a)+B(b)+C(c)+D(d) = 678

Where the uppercase are rates and lowercase constants that
are unique to each variable. If A was "4" in Kentucky and
A was "0.9" in Giza Plateau, it should be quite obvious that
A(a)+B(b)+C(c)+D(d) will **not** equal 678 in the Giza
Plateau. Therefore, a person can't use "678" to either describe
or predict the solution of this equation for the Giza Plateau
despite a textbook citing this number as being valid in Kentucky.
If because of environment conditions, the value of any of the
constants, i.e. "a", are different in Giza from Kentucky, the
result of A(a)+B(b)+C(c)+D(d) in Giza will be different from
result of this equation, "678", in Giza from Kentucky. Thus,
the fact, no matter how many textbooks state that the solution
to this equation is "678" in Kentucky, it doesn't negate the
fact that this value can be different if Giza if the variables are
different in Giza then they are in Kentucky. Thus, the value
of 678 reported in the textbook is meaningless in Giza because
the value of "A", "a", or other variables or constants are
different in Giza than they are Kentucky because of difference
in environment factors between Kentucky and Giza.

Different environments, different types of limestone, and
different processes all have different values for A, a, B, b,
C, c, and so forth. Because environments and processes
vary from region to region and, even outcrop to outcrop,
and the type of limestone varies between regions and, even
outcrops, then the variables, which determine erosion rates,
and so forth will vary on a regional and even outcrop scale.
If these such variables vary from region to region, then it
is impossible for a person to expect, as in case the quation
A(a)+B(b)+C(c)+D(d), will produce the same value for each
region. As in case this equation, rates of erosion calculated
for one region from one set of values are meaningless for
other regions where the environmental variables have a
different set of values and would quite likely result in
different rates between regions. The only meaningful erosion
rates for the Giza Plateau is an erosion rate calculated from
data collected within the Giza Plateau. Even then, different
parts of the Giza Plateau and different outcrops will erode
at different rates because factors as local variations in the
physical properties of limestone and apsect of the exposure.

Another problem, one which Young Earth consistently ignore,
is that the rates, which LeMaster uses, are averages. The
rate at which change actually happens can at any one time be
greater than or less than the average at a specific point in
time. In the above equation, hypothetically in Kentucky
the values for "A", "a", and so forth can vary in time in
response to environmental changes as to produce values for
the equation of A(a)+B(b)+C(c)+D(d) of 1, 1, 67, 189, and
3132. Although the value of this equation, at any specific
point in time varies above and below 678, their average,
which is the number found in texbook, would be 678. Thus,
at one point in time, the actual value, at which something
happens, can either greatly exceed or be less than 678, the
average of these values and is what would be reported in a
textbook. Just because a textbook states that the typical /
average value for a process is 678, the actual value at
any one time can either be greater than or lessor than value.
In case of the six million year history of the Grand Canyon,
this quite certainly the case because of the huge variations in
stream flow, paleoclimate, and tectonic uplift that the rate
at which "limestone" was eroded has been greater and smaller
than the average rate calculated by LeMaster at different
times during the six million year period.

Last weekend, I filled in a 2.5 foot deep stump hole on my
property, Technically speaking the average rate at which the
stump hole was filled over the last 5,000 years is 0.0005
foot per year. Using the logic that Lemaster's is using in
respect to the Sphinx, I can argue, based upon this rate
of stump hole filling, that a 3 foot deep filled stump
hole on my neighbor's property is 6,000 years old. This the
nonsensical result that a person can get, if they unthinkingly
use rates to calculate age. In many cases, the rate will
vary according to time over which it is averaged.

Another problem is that many of the rates, which LeMaster
cited from textbooks, are not only averaged over time but
over area also. As a result, a specific outcrop within a region
can erode at rates less than the average, while other outcrops
can be eroding at rates greater than average. Therefore, it is
possible to have outcrops where the factors vary as to
produce values of 1, 1, 67, 189, and 3132 within a region
for the equation A(a)+B(b)+C(c)+D(d) but the average of
these values is only 678. Thus for one outcrop the value
can greatly exceeds 678 and, yet the average rate for the
region, which is the rate reported in the textbook is only 678.
Therefore, just because a textbook states that the erosion
rate in an area is X, it is referring to an average rate
of erosion in area, in which the rates of erosion might vary
from 0.1X to 99.9X from loaction to location but average X.
It is impossible to deduce from such an average what the
actual rate of erosion at a specific outcrop is, even
within the region for which the average applies. It is
absolute foolishness and remarkably unscientific to apply
this rate to a region outside of the area from which the
data from which the rate was calculated, was collected.

For example, there is a hole ten foot square was filled at
the rate of one foot per hour. If this rate was averaged over
an area of 1,000 square feet, then the accumulation of dirt
rate would be 0.01 foot per hour for the whole yard. It is
quite obvious that the rate at which sediment accumulated for
the entire yard, as in case of a region, doesn't describe the
rate at which the hole was filled for just the hole itself.
Rates for small areas can be much higher than rates for
an entire region or area for which the rates were averaged.
Using this regional rate and LeMaster's logic, a person
would argue that using the regional / areal, which is what
appears in textbooks, that if the hole was ten feet deep
that it took not 10 hours to fill the hole, but it took a
1000 hours to fill the hole.

Technically speaking, the values which LeMaster are getting
from textbook, for the most part, are not true data, but
rather interpretations of the data based on a specific way
in which the actual data was interpreted mathematically and
collected to derive an overall rate of erosion for a region.
In case of rates, LeMaster is not even following real data,
but interpretations made from actual data collected from a
region or feature. The way in which this data was collected
and how the data was interpreted mathematically is going to
effect the interpretation, the rate, which LeMaster is using.
In case of my yard, the accumulation rate will vary according
to the period of time over which it is calculated. In case
of my tree stump, for a 5,000 year the accumulation rate is
0.0005 foot per year, while for a year period, the rate is
2.5 foot per year. From the same data, a person can get
different interpretations depending on the length of time
that is considered signficant to the resaerch.

"I respect that you are a geologist, however, I now know
what John means by Piled High and Deep, because you
are clearly showing it."

First, given that I do not have a Ph.D, the Piled High and Deep
joke, technically speaking, is as inapplicable to me as erosion
rates determined for Niagara Falls are for the Giza Plateau.

Finally, I find it quite revealing that LeMaster, who complains
bitterly above about the use of ad homonim attacks and me
acting immature, openly compares me to excrement, which is what
"Piled High and Deep" ultimately refers to. The people on
this list can decide for themselves whether such a comparison
is either an ad homonim attack, immature, or a combination
of both in the context of a discussion about erosion rates.

"BTW, you have yet to show me where I am wrong. Until
you do that in a professional manner, then...."

"Good day. I will not be answering anymore of your ad
homonim responses.

Science is not democratic... that is, evidence does not rest
on a majority vote. Rather, one follows the evidence where
it leads..."

A person should to practice what they repeatedly preach. If
they don't, it is perfectly acceptable, and certainly neither
immature nor an ad homonim response to point that this person
isn't practicing what they endlessly preach and what they
accuse other people of not practising.

Yours,

Paul
Baton Rouge, LA