HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Creation Science at its b...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:56 AM

Creation Science at its best

One creationist claim that’s commonly laughed at is this idea that 8 people could build a great big boat, big enough to hold all the ‘kinds’ of animals, and that those same 8 people were an adequate work force to maintain all those beasts for a year in a confined space on a storm-tossed ark. So the creationists have created a whole pseudoscientific field called baraminology which tries to survey all of taxonomy and throw 99% of it out, so they can reduce the necessary number of animals packed into the boat. Literally, that’s all it’s really about: inventing new taxonomies with the specific goal of lumping as many as possible, in order to minimize the load on their fantasy boat.

In the past, I’ve seen them argue that a biblical ‘kind’ is equivalent to a genus; others have claimed it’s the Linnaean family. Now, Dr Jean K. Lightner, Independent Scholar (i.e. retired veterinarian), has taken the next step: a kind is equivalent to an order, roughly. Well, she does kind of chicken out at the Rodentia, the largest and most diverse group of mammals, and decides that those ought to be sorted into families, because otherwise she’s reducing the number of animals on the ark too much.
...
Here’s the quality of her scholarship: this is one of her kinds, the greater gliding posum. Look carefully at that photo. Notice anything odd about it?

Maybe you’d like a closer look to be really sure. RationalWiki noticed this peculiarity.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/11/18/the-science-of-antediluvian-plushies/

211 replies, 16551 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 211 replies Author Time Post
Reply Creation Science at its best (Original post)
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 OP
longship Nov 2012 #1
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #82
morningglory Nov 2012 #2
savebigbird Nov 2012 #9
HuskiesHowls Nov 2012 #13
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #3
valerief Nov 2012 #4
dlwickham Dec 2012 #201
Rain Mcloud Nov 2012 #5
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #7
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #6
Bossy Monkey Nov 2012 #8
BlueJazz Nov 2012 #10
zeemike Nov 2012 #11
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #14
zeemike Nov 2012 #17
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #19
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #22
zeemike Nov 2012 #24
intaglio Nov 2012 #27
zeemike Nov 2012 #34
Act_of_Reparation Nov 2012 #41
zeemike Nov 2012 #45
Walk away Dec 2012 #202
zeemike Dec 2012 #203
Walk away Dec 2012 #207
intaglio Nov 2012 #42
zeemike Nov 2012 #43
skepticscott Nov 2012 #46
zeemike Nov 2012 #54
skepticscott Nov 2012 #58
Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #49
zeemike Nov 2012 #53
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #56
zeemike Nov 2012 #59
JKingman Nov 2012 #61
zeemike Nov 2012 #88
JKingman Nov 2012 #89
zeemike Nov 2012 #90
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #91
zeemike Nov 2012 #98
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #99
zeemike Nov 2012 #102
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #104
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #109
zeemike Nov 2012 #116
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #118
JKingman Nov 2012 #93
zeemike Nov 2012 #97
Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #71
zeemike Nov 2012 #86
Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #95
zeemike Nov 2012 #96
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #111
zeemike Nov 2012 #112
Laochtine Dec 2012 #162
Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #121
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #106
zeemike Nov 2012 #114
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #117
zeemike Nov 2012 #120
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #122
zeemike Nov 2012 #130
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #131
zeemike Nov 2012 #133
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #134
zeemike Nov 2012 #138
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #140
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #135
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #119
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #84
zeemike Nov 2012 #85
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #110
zeemike Nov 2012 #115
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #123
zeemike Nov 2012 #124
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #126
zeemike Nov 2012 #128
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #136
zeemike Nov 2012 #137
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #139
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #143
JKingman Nov 2012 #87
Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #129
intaglio Nov 2012 #62
Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #44
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #55
zeemike Nov 2012 #60
JKingman Nov 2012 #63
zeemike Nov 2012 #64
JKingman Nov 2012 #65
zeemike Nov 2012 #66
JKingman Nov 2012 #67
zeemike Nov 2012 #70
Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #73
zeemike Nov 2012 #76
Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #77
JKingman Nov 2012 #78
Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #79
JKingman Nov 2012 #81
Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #83
Dorian Gray Nov 2012 #156
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #74
zeemike Nov 2012 #75
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #80
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #92
zeemike Nov 2012 #100
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #101
Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #105
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #107
JKingman Nov 2012 #113
AlbertCat Nov 2012 #144
TrogL Nov 2012 #103
progressoid Nov 2012 #23
zeemike Nov 2012 #25
mr blur Nov 2012 #36
zeemike Nov 2012 #38
skepticscott Nov 2012 #47
zeemike Nov 2012 #51
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #125
zeemike Nov 2012 #127
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #132
intaglio Nov 2012 #141
zeemike Nov 2012 #142
intaglio Nov 2012 #145
zeemike Nov 2012 #146
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #147
zeemike Nov 2012 #148
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #149
zeemike Nov 2012 #150
gcomeau Nov 2012 #152
zeemike Dec 2012 #159
gcomeau Dec 2012 #166
zeemike Dec 2012 #168
gcomeau Dec 2012 #170
zeemike Dec 2012 #171
gcomeau Dec 2012 #172
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #173
zeemike Dec 2012 #174
gcomeau Dec 2012 #175
zeemike Dec 2012 #176
gcomeau Dec 2012 #177
zeemike Dec 2012 #178
gcomeau Dec 2012 #179
zeemike Dec 2012 #180
gcomeau Dec 2012 #181
zeemike Dec 2012 #182
gcomeau Dec 2012 #183
zeemike Dec 2012 #184
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #185
zeemike Dec 2012 #188
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #190
zeemike Dec 2012 #196
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #200
zeemike Dec 2012 #204
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #206
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #192
zeemike Dec 2012 #195
gcomeau Dec 2012 #186
zeemike Dec 2012 #187
gcomeau Dec 2012 #189
zeemike Dec 2012 #197
gcomeau Dec 2012 #198
zeemike Dec 2012 #199
gcomeau Dec 2012 #205
zeemike Dec 2012 #208
gcomeau Dec 2012 #209
zeemike Dec 2012 #210
gcomeau Dec 2012 #211
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #191
gcomeau Dec 2012 #193
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #194
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #154
zeemike Dec 2012 #158
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #160
zeemike Dec 2012 #161
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #163
zeemike Dec 2012 #164
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #165
intaglio Dec 2012 #157
gcomeau Nov 2012 #151
Nonhlanhla Nov 2012 #12
Blanks Nov 2012 #32
Nonhlanhla Nov 2012 #37
Blanks Nov 2012 #39
Act_of_Reparation Nov 2012 #40
Nonhlanhla Nov 2012 #50
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2012 #57
Shadowflash Nov 2012 #15
rrneck Nov 2012 #16
Leontius Nov 2012 #18
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #20
morningglory Nov 2012 #26
ck4829 Nov 2012 #21
MineralMan Nov 2012 #28
MineralMan Nov 2012 #29
LineLineReply +
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #35
vlyons Nov 2012 #30
Blanks Nov 2012 #33
vlyons Nov 2012 #48
Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #52
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #68
dimbear Nov 2012 #69
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #72
dimbear Nov 2012 #31
Thats my opinion Nov 2012 #94
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #108
trotsky Nov 2012 #153
2ndAmForComputers Nov 2012 #155
Fix The Stupid Dec 2012 #167
skepticscott Dec 2012 #169

Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:30 AM

1. "The science of antediluvian plushies"

You've gotta love PZMyers' combination of snarky humor.

Here's his tagline for the article:
But it does solve a lot of problems if the ark were stuffed full of plushies! It’s also a phenomenal marketing opportunity — the museum will be the gift shop!


R&K

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:38 AM

82. Hmmph! Nobody here seems to believe in antediluvian plushies, simply because

they do not appear in the fossil record. Experts, of course, recognize that the antediluvian plushies were mostly soft creatures, containing very few hard parts that could readily become fossilized

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:42 AM

2. So here's the deal: after the flood, you let all these orders

or families or stuffed toys out and then, what? They have to begin EVOLVING into the many species that are present today. Wait a minute...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningglory (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:46 AM

9. Wait, WHAT?

Did WE evolve from plushies???!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savebigbird (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:58 AM

13. Yes, I'd have to say that some of us DID evolve (or not evolve) from plushies......

They have (R) after their names....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:22 AM

3. At this point, this is all I can do.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:24 AM

4. Everyone knows creationists are all furries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:00 PM

201. yick

I don't understand furries in the least

give me a nice normal fetish like water sports or BDSM-something that makes sense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:26 AM

5. These people have selective vision,hearing,memory,selective everything.

 

It is alright as long as it cements their faith,it is for a higher purpose.
Turning all the children of the world to Christianity so that they may be fleeced every Sunday and Wednesday at the collection plate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rain Mcloud (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:33 AM

7. They "selective vision ..." They also have the adrenaline rush from the hate which unites them.

 

It's a type of drug addiction from the chemicals created in the body.

When they are on an adrenaline high and want to continue with it, they know that the things that will bring them down off the high (from what they otherwise see, hear, remember) have to be disregarded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:27 AM

6. To paraphrase Cicero, how can they pass one another on the street without laughing out loud?

 

This world is only 6,000 years old? We've undoubtedly have had religious charlatans for more than 6,000 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:34 AM

8. She blinded me with Creation Science! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:47 AM

10. My first scientific response to the "Tree thing" was...

What the fuck is THAT?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:48 AM

11. Ya gotta love the Noah's Ark arguments.

It shows the weak logic of both sides.
On the atheist side they will point out that only eight people escaped the flood cause that is all that is mentioned in the bible...(imagine that, the atheist believing literally what the bible says)
No mention of the same story in other cultures, of people escaping the flood.
No mention of the fact in many cultures rich people...rich enough to build a big arc, had servants...but would not be mentioned in any text cause they were just servants....and when the family goes they take their servants....again the atheist will accept the literal interpretation of the bible....if it says eight people that is all there were....if it says one arch that is all there were.

And on the creationist side they too will insist that it be taking literally and that if it mentioned only 8 it must be only 8....and the preachers have made an article of faith, and can explain away contrary things with miracles of God....and cult like resistance begins.

And other rational people just sit in amazement at how it is all so constructed so that no one wins and no one ever learns anything from it but hate for the other side.
But that is where we are in 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:09 AM

14. There's no 'weak logic' on the 'atheist side'

The 'atheist side' is not "the atheist believing literally what the bible says". It's saying that it's fictional; which is what non-literal Christians, and believers in other religions, also think. It's saying that literal belief is absurd.

"The same story" does not turn up in other cultures. The Genesis story explicitly says the 8 people, and no-one else, survived ("I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground ... I am going to put an end to all people ... Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.") Other cultures have different flooding myths. Of course, physics and archaeology tell us there was never a worldwide flood, whatever myth you look at. It's not just a matter of whether the number of humans or species works out; it's a question of where the water would come from, or if you'd believe the dry land would simultaneously all across the world. Flood myths indicate that devastating floods happen in many places, and people remember them, and talk about them.

We all laugh at the creationists, not hate them. You're right that no-one learns anything from the Genesis flood myth; that's why it's funny that the creationists persist in trying to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:01 PM

17. And you base your opinion that it is fictional on what evidence?

The evidence that it sounds wrong?...How rational is that?
How many stories have been told from experiences that actually happened and they came down through the ages changed but still basically real?....the art of storytelling has never been where people just make shit up...it is mostly based on real events.

And you are wrong...the story is in every culture...on every continent.
But look at it this way....If Noah was a real man and recorded his experiences with the flood and he said "the waters covered the whole earth" would you take that to mean the Noah knew and saw the whole earth?...no reasonable people would say he spoke of what HE saw not what happened in the whole world.....(and this is where the religious help you out by declaring the bible gods word and so god told Noah what was happening on the whole planet)

But where the watter came from is an interesting one indeed....Genesis says it came from "the fountains of the deep"....and only recently we have learned about Methane hydrates....which is in the deep and is similar to ice but contains mostly watter and Methane gas in a solid form...and there are vast deposits of this in the deep.
One speculation of this is that this vast deposit was fractured and the release of all that Methane gas would have created a tsunami of immense size that could have been the flood...the release of the gas expands the volume of watter.

And we then agree no one learns anything by this ....but how does it make you feel if some one ridicules you?....laughs at you...What do you think they feel?....which is never considered.
What if you did not laugh at them but presented your case with no ridicule of theirs?...could things be different?....could they learn from you?...could you learn from them?....could we learn from each other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:24 PM

19. Based on: mathematics, physics, biology, geology, archaeology

What level of detail do you want to go into?

"The evidence that it sounds wrong?...How rational is that? "

Very rational. why do you ask?

".the art of storytelling has never been where people just make shit up"

No, sometimes people make shit up. Like continents that don't exist, or time travel, or miracles.

"it is mostly based on real events. "

"Real events" meaning "mostly featuring humans", perhaps. But if you want that 'mostly' to mean something significant, then clarify the number of stories you've examined, and the level of detail you went into to determine if they were 'real events' or not.

"And you are wrong...the story is in every culture...on every continent. "

No. What, for instance, is 'the same story' in Celtic or Norse myth?

The myth does not just have Noah thinking his family is the only one left. It has God specifically telling him he will kill all the other humans and land animals, before it happens, because God doesn't like them (well, he doesn't like the people, but is happy to kill the animals with them).

"But where the watter came from is an interesting one indeed"

No, it's not. Because it's obvious to anyone who paid attention in school that it requires the miraculous creation of far greater amounts of water than the Earth has ever had, or the instantaneous moving of continents downwards by miles. I suggest you learn some basic mathematics before you ever pretend again that methane hydrates could cause anything that can be seen as a worldwide flood, as opposed to a tsunami that affects one coast (and which coast are you claiming could have been affected in that way, that then gave rise to a flood myth in the Jordan valley where the Genesis stories appeared?)

The thing is, you can point out how actual floods happen, and say "maybe the story relates to that", but the story is explicitly about wiping out everything not on the ark, and about all land being covered with water in all directions for scores of days. It bears no more relation to reality than me saying "I once knew a man a hundred feet tall!" and then excusing this as 'based on reality' by saying "some people are taller than others".

"how does it make you feel if some one ridicules you?"

It makes me feel like I need to learn something. How does it make you feel?

"presented your case with no ridicule of theirs" That has, of course, been done over hundreds of years, and the idiots still have not learnt. Instead, they indoctrinate children to ignore reality, and believe what is written in one book. So we laugh at them too.

"could you learn from them?"

No. They are idiots who refuse to look at reality, because they have been brought up to be ignorant, and proud of it. They think it's a virtue to believe a book when it flies in the face of reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:57 PM

22. Wow, you really have a live one there, don't you!



Well done. Making the ignorant and ridiculous look, well, ignorant and ridiculous, is easy and fun. And you are serving Mr. Zeemlike a double dose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:25 PM

24. No need to go into detail at all

You claim that science has proven a negative.....and that is not what science does....so it can all be dismissed as science.

But look we can take these things one at a time and discuss them, and I can present a rational alternative view, but unlike you I will not tell you that I know it is true cause I don't and can't....however your side insists on claiming proof that it is true, and when presented with evidence that brings it into question claims the evidence is wrong or mistaken or made up. but always sticks to the position that they DO know it all.
And of course holds them to a strict literal interpretation of all ancient text and that the text of the bible spoke in some universal context to where a single man, Noah, knew what was happening in the whole world, even the fact that the flood waters overtopped Himalaya mountains....cause he said the Waters covered the whole earth and that could not mean the whole earth that HE knew about.....and taking all the animals of the earth meant all over the earth not just the animals in the earth He knew about...and that all men on the whole planet perished and he could not have meant all the people in his land cause he knew all the people of the earth and everything...and so one straw man after the other you knock down as the religious are forced to prop them up so you can knock them down again.

Sorry but I think this is all silly shit on both sides....both sides claiming to know things they can't possibly know.

But I guess it is a teaching method that what you do is find out what people think then ridicule it if it does not fit with your view....that makes them eager to learn your POV I suppose....perhaps I should ridicule you and you would be more open to what I am saying.....or get mad at me and put me on ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:28 PM

27. Seriously, stop this you are just appearing more and more foolish

You claim that science has proven a negative.....and that is not what science does....so it can all be dismissed as science.
No, the claim is that scientific study has shown that certain events would have been associated with the Ark story did not happen

1) There is no genetic bottleneck across all species that matches a great flood. There does seem to have been a genetic bottleneck in human development when the population was, perhaps, reduced to 15,000 individuals following the Toba eruption 70,000 years ago.

2) There is no single layer of deposits that would match the sedimentation produced by a singular world flood. Stratigraphy does show that there are a multitude of sedimentary deposits but they are not coordinated and they are not uniform in composition which would be the result of a flood.

3) There are no catastrophic erosion features that would match the draining of the flood waters in a short space of time. The Grand Canyon is impressive but it is one feature and cannot be modeled as being created in a single event.

3) There was no massive die off of all land plants in a single event.

4) There was no mass extinction of salt water fish species in a single event.

This sort of investigation is perfectly within the competence of science and demonstrates that the flood story explains nothing in the geological or genetic record, i.e. it is a failed hypothesis, just as the hypothesis of a luminiferous aether failed because it could not explain observational results.

Look at the obvious impossibilities in the story. The impossibly vast volume of water that would have had to be deposited, the impossible changes to the laws of optics so that a rainbow was first seen only after the flood and either the impossibly large number of creatures aboard the Ark or the impossibly rapid evolution that the transportation only of "kinds" would require.

Now add in that a deity that caused such a disaster is revealed as a vindictive and indescribably cruel being worthy only of hatred and loathing and the flood story is revealed as being deserving of all the ridicule that mankind can muster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:41 PM

34. So "did not happen" is not a negative?

But to disagree with your story I will look foolish....and that is my greatest fear, to look foolish.

But we could take those things one by one and I could dispute them with science and it would still not be enough because any argument I would make would be foolish to someone who believes the matter is settled and only the fool would question it.

And I have had this conversation before...and it is always the same....I dispute some claim you make and you dismiss all the evidence I present and say I am just a creationist fool using creationist tools.

There IS evidence for the flood, in the sediment and elsewhere but you will and have dismissed any evidence that counters your claim to have proven the negative that the flood did not happen and that Noah did not exist and neither does any kind of god.
And that really is a problem when science adopts this kind of dogma because it attempts to squelch inquiry that does not match the official story....just as that same kind of dogma holds people in religion in check.....you must believe or you are liable to be called stupid. which it the ultimate insult to the academic..and so all adopt the same story and belief and fear deviation from it....same as religion....and so it becomes a war not an inquiry, and as we know, truth is the first casualty of war.

I don't know what the real truth is...and neither do you...but science should be curious not dogmatic and open minded not closed and willing to let the science speak for itself....no matter what it says....and not try to make theory into accepted fact and claim to know things they cannot know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:20 AM

41. This kind of shit is infuriating.

It's nothing short of insulting.

Science is not religion. Science is not dogma. Science does not encourage or reward conformity.

Academic scientists must compete with one another for grants, ergo there is real incentive for a scientist to set himself and his research apart from his peers by proving them wrong. You speak as if there's some cabal of scientists hiding out in an ivory tower somewhere, slapping each other on the back while raving about how right they all are. The fact of the matter is this: science is cutthroat, and no one is more critical of a scientist than another scientist of the same field.

The fact that certain theories - such as evolution - have endured throughout the years speaks not to a "scientific dogmatism", but to the evidential strength of these theories.

That aside, allow me to address a few other problems with your thinking:

1) Science isn't concerned with truth, but fact. If it is truth you're interested in, we should be discussing philosophy.

2) Knock it off with this "I have the evidence but I'm not going to present it because you're not going to believe it anyway" poisoning-the-well crap. If you have the evidence, then present it.

3) No, you can't test a negative assertion. However, with the abject dearth of credible evidence suggesting a one-time global flood makes it permissible to say things like "there was no global flood" in casual conversation. If you want to be a semantic nitpicker, then the properly scientific way to address the flood claim is this: "There is no evidence of a global flood".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:35 AM

45. Well if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen

So the saying goes....but heat always comes when faced with critical thinking.

And yes science is all about critical thinking....but academia don't like it much if you contradict their theories...which is human...and scientist are human after all and many have big egos.

But I know what happens if I produce evedence....you then will say it is bogus and has been thoroughly debunked....(they always say thoroughly and I don't know why)....then I have to prove the evidence is evidence which I can't because it has been debunked and so does not exist.
Then I present another piece and you do the same to that....and bottom line you control what evidence is real and what evidence is not...and nothing I present is.

Yep it is a war of the intellect...and no one learns from it and no one wins....and every one must chose up sides or piss them all off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:15 PM

202. I just have to step in here and say...you have not exhibited one iota of critical thinking.

I can't believe you found anyone to argue with you. It's a riot! Now tell the truth...this is an act. The give away was the "war of the intellect".
Good job!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #202)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:20 PM

203. Not one iota you say...

I am not sure if that is good or bad considering I am the one who is critical of your thinking....Anyone can use critical thinking on those that disagree with the established thought...the real critical thinking is when you think outside the box and are not afraid to do it

But thanks for your approval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #203)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:17 AM

207. Critical thinking includes a commitment to using reason in the formulation of beliefs.

Wild speculation and reason are two different things. But you knew that you wiley satirist! I'll bet you could write a book. Keep up the good work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:33 AM

42. No, Hypotheses are predictive

It is possible to produce predictions from the flood hypothesis eg Genetic bottlenecks, sedimentary deposits, erosion features, mass extinctions of the types I describe. Your claims are dismissed because they are based on ignorance and, possibly deliberate, misinterpretation.

Now read what I said not what you would have liked me to have said. You claim that there is evidence of a massive worldwide flood in sedimentary deposits (which is a religiously inspired delusion); what I said on the nature of sedimentation was:
2) There is no single layer of deposits that would match the sedimentation produced by a singular world flood. Stratigraphy does show that there are a multitude of sedimentary deposits but they are not coordinated and they are not uniform in composition which would be the result of a flood.
emphasis added in the hope you will read the words.

Now, dogma. The definition of dogma is "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" Science does not claim incontrovertible truth to any hypothesis or theory because it is always open to new evidence; but it can show that some things are incontrovertibly false - examples include the doctrine of the Humours, homeopathy and the flat earth, the last of which has Biblical support as well. The impossibilities and the failure of the predictive power of the Flood hypothesis show it to be incontrovertibly false - but brainwashed proponents of the Bible continue to be willfully deceived.

You rightly claim that you do not know what real truth is, just like myself, but your whole attitude seems to contradict this. You might be amused by this take-down of Eric Hovind and his vision of truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:15 AM

43. Well we go right back to the same old thing.

Of saying I am ignorant because I have a different hypothesis than you, and sense it disagree with you it must be formed from ignorance.
And I had never heard of Eric Hovind cause I am not a creationist...never have been...and my hypothesis is not based on anything they have said.
If I had to pick a person most influential in my hypothesis was Vallitosky after reading "Worlds in Collision"....he opened my eyes to new possibilities to explain things with.
For instance if a dark body or some small planet came into our universe and passed close to the earth it would cause cataclysms on the earth....and so a crack started in the earth crust in the deep sea and that crack fractured the vast deposits of methane hydrates that caused a big tsunami like wave thousands of feet high wash over the continents and sense most of humanity perished except for a few, who told the stories that we now call myths.
And by the way when methane hydrates fracture they expand the volume of watter greatly....so the flood waters would stay around a while as the methane escaped into the air.
That crack exists and so does evidence of sedimentation from it....but you will not hear it cause you are locked in a battle with Christians who make easy targets for ridicule.

No science does not claim incontrovertible truth ....People do however and claim that science is doing it....and they become just as unyielding as the Christian fundamentalist they are at war with.
Every word in the bible must be proven not true....not a thing can be yielded to the Christian fundies...everything about the bible must be discredited and if anyone deviates from that they must be fundies too or complete idiots.
And the Fundies know their place in this game....and they use it to convince their following that Science is full of the evil ones and science should be disregarded completely.....it is the perfect game...never ending and rewards both sides with feelings of righteousness.....and the results is that people are made stupider on both sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:38 AM

46. Speaking of stupider

Citing "Vallitosky" as being "a person most influential in my hypothesis" puts you so far down the credibility ladder that you'll not likely ever climb out again. Leaving aside laughable grammar, it's Velikovsky, dude. That you can't even spell the name of your "most influential" person right makes me wonder if you've actually read a word of what he wrote, let alone been able to examine it critically. Even leaving that aside, his hypotheses have been so thoroughly discredited that no sane and remotely knowledgeable person gives them any credence whatsoever. Yeah, yeah..we know...there's EVIDENCE in favor of them, right? No, there isn't. Not a shred that passes even the most superficial critical examination.

Having a "different" hypothesis does not give that hypothesis equal standing, not even when you wahwahwah about the rigidity of science and our unwillingness to consider the evidence you won't even present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:17 AM

54. Oh that is so beautiful

That is why I used Vallatosky...It was a sure thing....but I did expect more to swoop down on me though.

But it is an absolute thing....not a shred of evidence....and any shred produced is well debunked....I know I know...had this conversation so many times I know it by heart...I cannot win ever cause you have it all covered completely with your righteousness of science programed debunking....you always win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #54)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:11 PM

58. Evidence always wins

over lack of evidence. Your claims fall into the latter category, so yes...you lose.

And you're tiresome. Have fun in your little fantasy world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:49 AM

49. its not nonbelievers fault that

 

the bible makes extraordinary claims about supernatural events. "Every word in the bible must be proven not true....not a thing can be yielded to the Christian fundies...everything about the bible must be discredited and if anyone deviates from that they must be fundies too or complete idiots." not so: the uncontroversial facts related in the bible are passed over in favor of the extraordinary claims. the bible got it right that egypt used to have pharaohs no big deal. the big deal is that moses parted the ocean with his magic stick or that jesus walked on water. the bible discredits itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #49)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:04 AM

53. Well sure.

Just as there was no Troy because Homer said Achilles was the spawn of a god that left him with a bad heal....oh that's right Troy was real...The Iliad and Odyssey discredited itself.
What does that tell us, but that what we think of as myth has it's basis in truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #53)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:14 AM

56. Bad analogy

That Troy existed is not evidence that every word in The Iliad is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #56)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:30 PM

59. That is the point I was making.

That not everything is true in anything dealing with a long gone past....and I would not expect the bible to be any different.
The Iliad does not have to be all true for Troy to have existed....the Bible does not have to be all true for the flood to have happened....same rules should apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #59)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:56 PM

61. Except that you have NO "EVIDENCE" of that flood

 

Any first year student of geology would find there to be no "evidence" of a flood that was worldwide.

Learning what is evidence, (and what is not), and how that evidence can either confirm or negate an hypothesis is what learning SCIENCE is about. Perhaps you can start there.

Belief in any existent hypothesis is not equivalent to the validity of that hypothesis.

In this specific case, you have decided to believe in the hypothesis of a worldwide flood without bothering to examine any of the evidence, you have chosen to believe in it, simply because it is in the Bible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:05 PM

88. Does that apply to your hypothesis that it never happened?

Or is that a proven fact in your mind?....that somehow you proved the negative.

And you have chosen to believe that such a flood could not happen, and so anyone that thinks it might needs to be schooled at the basic levels so that they will come into line with your way of thinking....cause your way of thinking is the right way....and your evidence is the good stuff and all other evidence that might contradict it just does not exist....there is NO evidence you say... none what soever.....
I can't tell you how many times I have heard the exact argument before on this....I have come to believe that it is taught somewhere and people just learn it by route....and it is always NO evidence, as if weak evidence or little evidence would blow the whole thing up.
Well maybe it would....I sense insecurity when I hear such things.

And welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #88)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:15 PM

89. YES!!! TOTALLY, If you have NO EVIDENCE that

 

Santa came down your chimney last Christmas Eve, it didn't happen!!!!!!!!

Nothing happened to show he was there, nothing happened to show your living room got more gifts than it had the night before.

Santa didn't arrive. The flood never happened. Equal lack of evidence.

Why is this such a difficult concept for people who pretend to be rational human beings to take in? Why are you so invested in the flood but not in believing Santa came down your chimney? Both of them are nice fantasies, and good fairy tales !! Neither of them have an ounce of evidence to support them.

Why would someone as well educated as yourself be so willing to dismiss one as a fairy tale yet so adamant to defend the other tale? Is there something deep down in you that finds one fairy tale harder to give up than the other one? THAT'S the real question you should be asking yourself, I already know the answer for me, your answers may differ from mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #89)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:13 PM

90. Well I am glad to tell you why rational people don't take it in.

First you make statements that are patently NOT true by any measure of rational reasoning....like there is NO evidence what soever....you must know deep down that cannot be true and is not a true statement.

And then you compare it to Santa Clause coming down the chimney....talk about false equivalency, that is right up there with the best of them.

When I hear shit like that you loose credibility with me...those are things ideologues use to counter arguments with....absolute and suggestions that you might not be right in the head unless you believe like you do....or stupid
And by the way I am self educated...and from what I see when having discussions like this it might be a good thing....I have not been badgered into total acceptance of the official story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #90)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:24 PM

91. Lets cut to the chase, shall we?

Just what evidence do you have that supports a whole-earth flood hypothesis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #91)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:01 AM

98. Well t have no evidence myself.

this is a subject that I was interested in over 30 years ago when we got our information from books.
But as I have found before that any things I could use to show as evidence will be impeached with the statement "that is what the creationist use"....and so nothing I could say I presume has not been used by them and therefore impeached. (as in any war the enemy cannot say or do anything right)
And sure enough when I search for something I learned way back when it will lead to a creationist web site and frankly this is not important enough to me to spend the time trying to look for evidence that they have not used...
And I know even if I find it somewhere else you will say it proves nothing and is not credible...Even if the source is credible it can be dismissed by saying that someone else has debunked it.
So it is just a run around in circles waste of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #98)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:20 AM

99. So if you have no evidence to support that hypothesis, why do you hold it to be true?

I mean, considering that there are literal mountains of evidence that do support the current geological model that does not include a world-wide flood due to the evidence contradicting the possibility of a world-wide flood, why do you persist in proclaiming its authenticity?

On what basis do you assert that the current model is incorrect and favor the world-wide flood?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #99)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:45 AM

102. I could ask you the same question

Cause you have no evidence ether unless you are a archaeologist that has dug something up....you rely on those who do dig things up for your evidence.
But there is evidence that goes unseen by you and the public, that shows something different...but you chose not to consider it because it does not fit with the uniformitarianism favored by academia.

But let me be clear...I am not proclaiming anything but my willingness to be open minded....I don't think we know at all the true history of the earth or the men and creatures that live on it...and will never know it as long as ideology trumps real scientific inquire...and that applies to both sides.
Science should have no part in ideological wars....but it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #102)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:50 AM

104. What evidence goes unseen by the public? Produce it if it exists, zeemlike.

Stop talking about this evidence and how it is being suppressed, and instead simply produce it. I will, with an open mind, review it, weigh it for adherence to the scientific method, and determine for myself how valid it is.


Just produce the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #102)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:42 PM

109. You are proclaiming you are privy to secret evidence that we have not seen

It's false when you state that "I am not proclaiming anything but my willingness to be open minded"; you say, in the very same post, that "there is evidence that goes unseen by you and the public, that shows something different". And then you berate us for not considering this secret evidence that we have not seen. And you still refuse to tell us what this evidence is.

Your posts in this thread are not even logically consistent, let alone your basis for thinking there was some global flood. I've looked at the occurrence of oyster beds on the Gulf coast; although it's not clear how that pointed to a global flood, I think we've seen that the actual thickness is compatible with uniformitarianism, and formation since the end of the last glacial period. You keep claiming that anything will be dismissed as 'coming from creationists'; but we've already shown that's not the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #109)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 04:06 PM

116. Well there is nothing secret about it.

It is unseen because you don't want to look at it.

The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. 15 Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. 16 Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past. See also Rapid Petrification of Wood, by Andrew Snelling.

Clastic Dikes: According to Austin, a clastic dike is "a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass." 17

"These dikes...(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The process of formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale." 17
Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in that massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata. This must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state.

What took these "older" sediments so long to become hard?

One would think that a million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone, yet we have an example of sediments which are said to be 80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into the (supposedly much) "younger" sediments. Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary method of "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strongly suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution. 17,18,19

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #116)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:22 PM

118. Who says "Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today"?

There are plenty of examples of bones that get found covered in sediment, which is the first stage needed - being covered, they are unlikely to be disturbed by animals, and so mineralization of the bones in their original shape can start. No flood is going to accelerate the process after that.

As an example, you can have Lindow Man - a man murdered and dropped into a pool in a bog about 2000 years ago, and recently found by peat cutters - in other words, his bones (plus other hard to digest material, like some skin and hair) had been covered in sediment, which formed the peat. No catastrophic flood (or volcano) involved. If that peat had been further compressed, and mineralization had time to happen, you could get a fossil from it.

Clastic dikes may well be associated with a local flood or earthquake. They do not, however, indicate a global flood or similar catastrophe. I don't think any geologist says there can be no evidence of any earthquake or flood ever found anywhere. And they do not cause any problems for geology. 'Uniformitarianism' doesn't say that every rock formation has to be formed at exactly the same rate, day after day, year after year, forever; it says that they form from processes that we can see examples of, somewhere, today - sediment deposition, volcanic eruption, and so on. But not a completely different "global flood to a depth of many miles" scenario, which requires impossible sudden huge movements of whole continents, or different laws of physics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #90)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:48 PM

93. What is false about Santa, compared to your fantasy?

 

Answer: nothing, other than a Bible that you choose to believe in, other than Santa Claus.

Equal Equilancy....you show no evidence of other than equivalency.



Please do NOT use the word "educated" when you are no where near that level of accomplishment.

Education requires someone else to pronounce you so. You CANNOT say any human is "self educated" without admission of inability to be educated by other human beings. You are NON educated, trying to PRETEND you are educated. That's what the term "self educated" really means; someone who wishes they were educated, and thus, proclaims themselves so.

Thousands of so-called "self-educated" die each and every year, thinking themselves so superior to alcohol, to drugs, to the various seductions of the human form. They wind up just as dead.

Please seek treatment for your self-aggrandizement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #93)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 09:53 AM

97. Ironically Santa Clause is an example of what I am talking about.

First Santa has nothing to do with the bible....never has.
But it is a myth that is based on a real person....just as most myths are.
But I really laugh at this;
"Education requires someone else to pronounce you so."
And if this is what you believe there is no point in continuing this conversation...you have just declared yourself to be blinded by institutionalism....and I will not tell you to seek treatment for that because it apparently is terminal and cronic/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #59)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:41 PM

71. same rules do appy.

 

however the flood claims are extraordinary, not mundane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:50 PM

86. So different rules for claims you call extraordinary?

And floods are extraordinary?
But claiming you know the origins of man is not?....or claim you know that no catastrophic event ever took place on the earth is not extraordinary?....or that you know the story is a myth?
But it all comes back to the point that you make the rules about what is extraordinary and what is acceptable evidence....and funny thing....all that is acceptable is what you believe is true, and that which you don't believe is not.

And with those rules you can run people around in circles forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #86)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:55 AM

95. you can muddy the waters (pun intended) all you want

 

but yeah a global flood for which there is no credible evidence is up there as extraordinary claim along with walking on water.

i can muddy the water too -- if we are to bother taking noah story seriously we should be taking the water-walking miracle seriously as well, no?

and yet the walking on water claim is obviously preposterous and mythological. why should worldwide flood for which there is no evidence be considered a stronger claim than the former miracle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #95)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 09:31 AM

96. Well at least you are now saying credible evidence

Instead of the obvious untruth of NO evidence what so ever....so that is progress.

But just because the bible says something you don't think can happen dose not mean that there is no historical basses for some of what is said...like I said before, most myths are based in some truth....the example I used before is the Iliad which is full of gods and heroes...but also the truth of Troy.
But what you are trying to do is say that if you reject one you must reject all, which is a mental trap for people....and not realistic.
And ironically or not it is the same position the fundies take...if you believe one you must believe it all....as opposed to your position that says if you doubt one you doubt it all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:48 PM

111. Please give evidence that *most* myths are based in some truth

Giving one instance does not mean that most myths are based in truth. You yourself are taking the position "if you believe one you must believe it all", unless you can show you've considered a wide range of myths, investigated them, and have shown that a majority are "based in truth".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #111)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:40 PM

112. Well it is my opinion that most are.

Based on the examples I have given and human nature.
When people experience things they don't understand they tend to interpret them in ways they do....or as in the case of Homer interpret in the more exciting and popular story of the time about the Gods and Heroes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #111)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:13 PM

162. Narcissus

The Jersey Devil, Big Foot, Rumpelstiltskin all very credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:20 PM

121. lack of credible evidence is not an improvement for the global flood hypothesis

 

the flood hypothesis is better off without any evidence at all than the laughable so-called evidence we saw so far.

what i dont understand is really who cares? its such a far out theory with no credible evidence i dont think i'll give it another thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #86)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:20 PM

106. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A world-wide flood is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence to support that claim. What is the evidence, be it ordinary or extraordinary, that supports the claim of a world-wide flood?

Simply produce that evidence so we can have a look. A link will be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #106)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:49 PM

114. Well I will take the first in my Google serch.

Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3 Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7

Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8 have both roots and rootlets attached. Such trees, and their -- more often than not -- missing roots, are discussed in much more detail in The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia. 9 Likewise, many (if not most) of the large, fragmented, and broken-off Stigmaria roots are also missing their rootlets. 9

Many of these roots and rootlets, are also buried individually. 9 This strongly suggests that these trees did not grow in the same places where they were buried, but rather were uprooted and re-deposited there.

Similar circumstances occur at various other places in Nova Scotia, as well as in the United States, England, Germany, and France. Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without their roots attached is Axel Heiberg 10,11 Island in Northern Canada.

And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, most of it is over 100 years old, and difficult to access. One of the few articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:

“Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition. Curiously a paper on polystrate fossils appears to be a 'black swan’ in geological literature. Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of the relevant phenomena was never published. However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils. In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position." 12

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #114)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:25 PM

117. And what is the consensus of the geological community on this?

Are there any peer-reviewed and published papers on this?


And a quick google search shows that "Polystrate fossils" are not even a geological or archaeological term. Where does that term come from?

And if it is factual and accepted evidence by the geological community, how does that fit with the thousands of other pieces of evidence that does not support a world-wide flood?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #117)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:55 PM

120. Well I don't know and don't give it much thought.

But look it up on Wikipedia and you will see that geological community call them upright fossils...and that cracked me up cause it illustrates the silliness of it all.
The creationists want to give it some Latin name like Polystrate so that it sounds scientific and credable...and the other side avoids the Latin and calls it upright to diminish it's significance...

And how the evidence fits is what it is all about...learning the truth...but you don't do that by ignoring evidence that does not fit an ideology...science should never be about that...but it always is as it becomes institutionalized....human nature being what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #120)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:21 PM

122. "Well I don't know and don't give it much thought". Yes, that seems apparent.

Did this part of the entry give you any pause?

The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically only found in creationist publications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

And for you to throw around words like "ideology" is disingenuous. Science is not an ideology, it is a method of discovering what is factual and what is not. The only thing that contains an ideology is creationism, which is based not on science, but on opinionated ideology. I hope you can see the difference.


Back to my original question: What is the consensus of the geological community about this? Are there any peer reviewed and published papers on the subject? Can any of the claims be substantiated, tested, and repeated?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #122)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:33 AM

130. So if it is not a standard term is it not real?

Cause only the established scientific community can use Latin names perhaps?...those words only have meaning when used by the proper authorities?
But we agree...science is not an ideology...but my point is that ideology dose effect science and should not....and it has always been so...just look back in history....what was commonly accepted by the scientific community was dominated by religious beliefs until Darwin and the advent the new ideology that broke from it.

But the consensus of the community is just that...a consensus....and if you go by consensus then no claims WILL be tested if they already are convinced of the outcome....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #130)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:12 PM

131. It seems that you are not grasping the way science works.

The scientific method applies across the board and spans ideologies and biases. It is the only way we have that tells us what is factual and what is fantasy.

The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method



There is only one way to do this and it's not up to interpretation. So I ask you again but in a different way, does your evidence stand up to the test of the scientific method? Yes or no. There is no middle. If it does, kindly produce the studies that show this. If not, then you are simply engaging in wishful thinking.

Here is a hint: if you can only find support for a "scientific" claim on a creationist/religious website, chances are that it has not passed the test of the scientific method. And that is because its not factual, not for nefarious reasons like "hiding it from the public."

Come on zeemlike, use your brain for critical thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #131)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:27 PM

133. And you are not grasping what I am saying.

The empirical evidence is the fact that things do exist when you are dealing with the science of geology and archeology....and I suppose that is why you hear so many say "there is no evidence"
If you find a human skeleton in a coal mine that is empirical evidence that it's a skeleton in a coal mine...but it also raises a legitimate question of how it got there if the strata was made millions of years ago

Here is examples that I am sure you will call bullshit...And I have no idea whether it is a creationist web site or not cause it is the first time there for me...but then if it were to contradict your view it must be a creationist web site though right?
https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/87

and if you are in the scientific community and your faith is that the bible is 100% bullshit and so no such thing like a flood could possibly exist then finding such things is troublesome....and the easy way is to just ignore them and ridicule anyone that asks questions or brings it up.....then point to the fact that no one payed attention so it must be bullshit.

And I suggest I am giving you critical thought, but you don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #133)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:09 PM

134. Does any of the "evidence" you have put forward pass the test of the scientific method?

It a yes or no question. Either it does or it does not. From what I see and read, the scientific community says it does not, which is why it is dismissed.

If you are in disagreement with the findings of the rest of the scientific community that puts these claims to the test of the scientific method, nothing is stopping you or anyone else from performing your own scientific tests and putting the results and findings of your research to the second step in the process: Peer Review.

If it stands up to the peer review process, you just may be on to something. Good luck with that, for the claims you have put forward have already been tested and peer reviewed (in the few cases where this "evidence" got that far), and found to be less than credible. That is not my opinion on the evidence, it is the fact of the matter, that this evidence did not stand up to the scientific method.

You can call me names and disparage me as much as you want, but nothing will change the FACT that this "evidence" does not pass the test of the scientific method. And if you really do grasp the concepts at work in the scientific method, you would not be so quick to proclaim that this "evidence" is factual.

You want to convince me? Here is how. Show me where this "evidence" stands up to the scientific method.

That's it. That's all it will take. That's as open as any rational mind can be. The ball is in your court. Where you go from here is up to you. Will it be science, facts, and reality, or will be creationism, biblical nonsense, and conspiracy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #134)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:10 PM

138. Well that is the difference between us I guess.

Your test of what is true and not is dependent on the consensus of the community.....mine is not.

But when you think I am calling you names and disparaging you personally then it is time to end this....cause I surly never intended it in that way and it is a signal that no progress can be made.

so good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #138)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:22 PM

140. Your continued misrepresentation and mischaracterization of everything I post shows you are playing

a game.

Your test of what is true and not is dependent on the consensus of the community.....


I never said that. But you know that already.

Your intentional obtuseness means you have no desire to understand.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #133)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:32 PM

135. On that subject:

In addition to staking his career on the notion that Africa was the cradle of humankind, he also believed, given the fossil evidence, that the earliest bipedal human ancestors, or hominids, must have existed hundreds of thousands of years earlier than most other scientists were willing to say. Indeed, the reason for that first trip to Olduvai Gorge was to test the idea that a modern-looking skeleton, discovered by German scientist Hans Reck in 1913, was, as Reck claimed, about half a million years old—the age of the deposits in which it had been found.

Leakey, initially skeptical of Reck’s assertions, visited the site with Reck and soon agreed with him. They coauthored a letter to the British journal Nature reporting the new evidence for Reck’s original theory—which also appeared to confirm Leakey’s hunch that our first true ancestor lived farther back in prehistory. “(Reck) must be one of the few people who succeeded in swaying Louis once his mind was made up,” observes Leakey’s biographer Sonia Cole. But a few years later, other researchers, using improved geological methods, concluded that the skeleton wasn’t ancient at all, but had simply been buried in far-older sediments.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/olduvai.html?c=y&story=fullstory


In 1913, Professor Hans Reck (1886-1937) of the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (Humboldt University of Berlin, at the time known as Universität unter den Linden) discovered an anatomically modern human skeleton at Olduvai Gorge in what was then German East Africa and is now Tanzania. The skeletal remains, including a complete skull, had to be removed from the highly cemented deposit in which they were contained with hammers and chisels, leading Reck to conclude that the remains were of high antiquity. He believed that the deposits above the skeleton were undisturbed, but the contracted position of the skeleton and its completeness are very different from the usual condition of hominid fossils, which tend to be of body parts rather than complete skeletons. It was partly thanks to the controversy surrounding this discovery that the young Louis Leakey (1903-1972) became fascinated with the Olduvai Gorge site. Reck’s skeleton was notorious because its age could not be established satisfactorily. As Reck could not return to the site (he was German and the United Kingdom had acquired Germany’s African colonies as a result of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles), Leakey began his lifetime’s work there.

The difficulty with accepting Reck’s skeleton as being a million years old (as some creationists have claimed) is that his work was done without any appreciation of archaeological stratigraphy. Although the deposit from which the skeleton was recovered was of that sort of age, it was not clear to Reck if the burial was intrusive (in other words, deposited more recently by digging a grave into that particular geological stratum). Indeed, geological analysis of the material surrounding the skeleton showed it to contain red pebbles and limestone chips derived from higher (i.e. later) strata than that in which the skeleton was thought to have lain. This makes it certain that it was intrusive, in other words, in a grave cut down from a higher layer. As early as 1932, Leakey’s work there showed that this has to be the most economical explanation; had there been anatomically modern humans at this date in the gorge, we would expect to find other remains in contemporary strata, and as we do not, we must question Reck’s original judgement. In fact, even Reck later came to agree that the skeleton was of a recently buried human (most estimates now put it at around 20,000 years old). The ever-useful TalkOrigins website contains a useful (and fully annotated) rebuttal of the claims.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=144


Oldoway Man: a complete skeleton found by Hans Reck at Olduvai Gorge in 1913. In 1932 it was shown to be a modern Homo sapiens, buried 20,000 years ago in older deposits that had been exposed by faulting (Johanson and Shreeve 1989). Taylor (1992) writes "Some have suggested this skeleton is an intrusive burial", when in fact this explanation has been unanimously accepted (even by Reck and the notoriously stubborn Louis Leakey). Bowden (1981) disputes this, as Reck had originally claimed the skeleton could not be an intrusive burial because of the undisturbed layers above it. It was later shown, however, that the layer above the skeleton had been misidentified by Reck, and instead of being very old, had been laid down recently, after the skeleton had been buried (Morell 1995). The completeness of the skeleton and its contracted position were also consistent with a burial rather than a natural fossilization.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #114)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:34 PM

119. 'Polystrate' fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Not a problem now for geology now, and not a problem in the 19th century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #59)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:07 PM

84. Except that the only thing that said the flood existed is the Bible

As I said, there is NO geological evidence for a world-wide flood in the last 6000 years. None whatsoever.

You claim not to be a biblical literalist, yet with every one of your posts, that's exactly what you show yourself to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #84)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:38 PM

85. And you keep insisting on things that are not true....literally.

There is evidence you just don't like it.
And I show myself to be no such thing.
Now why should anyone take YOU seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #85)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:45 PM

110. What evidence?

Be specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #110)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:59 PM

115. What evedence do you have that NO evedence exists?

Seems a google serch would put that one to rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #115)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:46 AM

123. Doesn't work that way

The person making the claim is supposed to back up the claim. YOU are the one insisting you have evidence of a world-wide flood. So let's see this alleged evidence. Put up or shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #123)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:28 AM

124. I am not hear to argue that case

I am hear to critique the system....and the system is biased and not fair and driven by ideology not science.

And what I am insisting on is that there IS EVEDENCE and to say there is none is blatantly untrue.

But I know the routine...I present something and you debunk it and once you debunk one thing it is settled and you claim victory....I present something else and you tell me that now I am making myself look foolish and that I need to go back to school and learn that it has all been debunked and therefore there is no evidence.

But if you have proof that the flood could never have happened then you should put it up and show it...I would be interested for sure...cause I don't know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #124)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:41 AM

126. "I am not hear (sic) to argue that case"

Translation: "I cannot come up with any evidence for a world-wide flood (even though I said I had some) so I am running away from your demand that I present the evidence I say I have, and am blaming you for my refusal to present the evidence I say I have."

Or, to put that more another wayt, "Waaa! You're being mean to me, asking me to give you evidence I say I have! How dare you demand that I support my allegations!"

Or yet another way, "I have evidence to support my point, but you are unworthy of it. Thus, it is entirely your fault that I do not present it."

Grow up. Oh, and don't ask me to prove a negative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #126)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:08 AM

128. "Oh, and don't ask me to prove a negative."

OK I won't....so don't claim that science knows one.

I don't need or care to provide anything...you have a computer look it up.

But translated it comes down to play the game with me....you set it up and I knock it down....then I feel superior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #128)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:53 PM

136. Ahh, I see where the disconnect is! Science has not claimed that there was not a world-wide flood!

Science, or rather the Scientific Method, has shown that the earth's geology is layered, and that those layers took millions of years each to get there, and that within the layers are fossils that correspond to the organisms that lived during that time.

When it is claimed that the entire Earth was covered in a planetary flood of, biblical proportions, the evidence for that hypothesis is so small and unconvincing, that there is no way it can refute the widely supported evidence of layering. So the flood hypothesis is dismissed. Not because evidence is being suppressed, but because there is not enough evidence to support the flood hypothesis.

So if you want to continue to believe that the planet was covered in a world-wide flood, you need to provide enough evidence to not only to thoroughly support your flood hypothesis, but to refute the theories that show something completely different happened.

And you should do just that! Science relies on people just like you, who refuse to accept what others are saying, so they go out and prove everyone wrong. THAT is how science progresses human knowledge. Through people just like you.

No get out there and PROVE your hypothesis, and in the process, prove the rest of to be suckers. That alone should make it worth the effort.

Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #136)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:48 PM

137. It is not my hypothesis and I have no desire to prove it.

All that I believe is that neither side in this has the truth, and never will as long as they are biased by their ideology.

But yep there are layers.....and maybe it took millions of years for them to form....except where there has been a great flood...where sediment it deposited rapidly...the way most fossils are formed....then you could have sediment a hundred feet thick that does not represent millions of years....and those places exist all over the planet....uniformitarianism makes no logical sense when we have seen the power of catastrophic events like the quakes and tsunamis and what that did....and from some big but not that unusual quake...yet people cling to it because it is the opposite of the young earth theory of the Christians....and so it must be the opposite and uniformitarianism provides that proof.

Well I expect no resolution to this difference we have...cause this is a battle between the atheist and the Christians and neither will admit to being wrong cause their whole world is built around that believe in the reality or the non reality of god.

So good luck to you too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #137)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:17 PM

139. INFINITE FACEPALM!!!!!!

You win. I give up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #128)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:01 PM

143. Saying "there is no evidence" is not the same as proving a negative

And for you to say, as you did, "I have evidence to support my allegation which I refuse to give you, and it's your fault that I won't" is both cowardly and childish.

Besides which, we all know that you have no evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #84)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:00 PM

87. Perhaps we need to look at the TOTAL AMOUNT OF WATER on the planet?

 

This kind of quantitative fact tends to stop the "global worldwide flood" adherents dead in their tracks.

Then, they have to claim all the water came from someplace else, inside the planet, or from outer space, (where temps are below freezing as low as 10 miles universally above Earth's surface), or somewhere else, perhaps from within the holy word of God in the Bible, itself.

How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

Very astounding but true graphical representation of the total amount of water, including that within our bodies, that within lakes and rivers, that in the oceans, as compared to the total surface of the planet.

This graphic will blow the minds of most people as being totally unbelievable. How could so little water support so much life on the planet, and how could the graphic be accurate? But it is!

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #87)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:09 AM

129. thats awesome

 

here it is for those too lazy to click the link:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:58 PM

62. No, I am saying you have a false hypothesis

Read what I say, not what you imagine.

You are seriously putting forward Immanuel Velikovsky being any more than a deluded fool then you have NOT read "Worlds in Collision" critically. I read it when I was 15 and knew enough science to find it little more than an over extended joke. The man was a psychiatrist FFS with no background or real knowledge of physics mathematics or astrophysics. To explain his orbital mechanics he required a non-existent electromagnetic force that counteracts gravity at close range (so it is not dark energy). According to him Earth orbited a Saturn like body that then went "nova" and blew off it's outer layers so causing the flood.

I did not claim that science has "a claim to incontrovertible truth," again you are reading words you want to exist because I said the opposite. What I actually said:
Science does not claim incontrovertible truth to any hypothesis or theory because it is always open to new evidence; but it can show that some things are incontrovertibly false
emphasis again added to guide your reading. Misrepresentation of my actual words is lying.

Your final paragraph is disjointed flailing. If you wish people to gain any sense from it I would suggest you re-write it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:34 AM

44. sorry to dive in here but

 

"I could dispute them with science and it would still not be enough because any argument I would make would be foolish to someone who believes the matter is settled and only the fool would question it."

we dont expect astrophysicists to debate astrologers or geocentrists or flat-earthers either. some hypothesis are so discredited or absurd on the face of it that it would be remiss of us to give them credence. noahs flood is one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:09 AM

55. The ones being dogmatic are the creationists

And I have had this conversation before...and it is always the same....I dispute some claim you make and you dismiss all the evidence I present and say I am just a creationist fool using creationist tools.


Except that creationists do not present evidence. For example, there is NO evidence for a world-wide flood. That's zip, zilch, nada.

I have a question for you: If Genesis 1 is an accurate description of the creation of the universe, then the universe cannot be more than 10,000 years old (indeed, according to the geneologies and so on, it is closer to 6000 years). Yet there are objects in the sky that are more than 10K light years away. How do you, as a creationist, explain this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #55)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:54 PM

60. Well they absolutely are

And you respond to them with your own dogma...that is why this is war like

You say "there is NO evidence for a world-wide flood. That's zip, zilch, nada."
That is a totally false statement....and there is not question that it is false....they have evidence but you don't like it and dismiss it and say they are fools to even think it....the evidence may or may not be false but it is evidence and should the evidence be false it should be easy for you to prove that....but to just say it does not exist hurts YOUR credibility.

But to answer the question Genesis is not an accurate description of creation....and accurate description would take volumes of works and no one has the knowledge to write it or understand it all anyway....that is why allegory is used.
And the bible does not say the earth is 10,000 years old...it says nothing about the age of the earth....it is some shit house preacher who did the math and that is what he came up with and now you say it is in the bible.

I am not a creationist and I am not a evolutionist, I am not a Christian and I am not an Atheist....I am a free thinker and am not intimidated away from my freedom to think freely by either side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #60)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:13 PM

63. Ah, here, once again, the foundations of the discipline of ..

 

science escape you.


You say "there is NO evidence for a world-wide flood. That's zip, zilch, nada."
That is a totally false statement....and there is not question that it is false....they have evidence but you don't like it and dismiss it and say they are fools to even think it....the evidence may or may not be false but it is evidence and should the evidence be false it should be easy for you to prove that....but to just say it does not exist hurts YOUR credibility.


There is no such thing as "false" evidence! Evidence either exists or it doesn't. When there is no evidence for an hypothesis, (a worldwide flood, for example), then the hypothesis MUST be put aside.

they have evidence but you don't like it and dismiss it and say they are fools to even think it


Who is "they"? What evidence? Where can one find that evidence? Where can one read about it?

I am a free thinker and am not intimidated away from my freedom to think freely by either side.


You are free to think freely, but not free to make up your own reality. It is rather evident from your posts here that you have only a vague acquaintance with the discipline and nature of scientific inquiry. The fact that you are "not a(n) evolutionist", rather clearly demonstrates to those of us with any smattering of scientific training and exposure that you have not done much serious academic study of these issues, and prefer, instead, to consider your heavily unschooled, evidence-free, personal opinions some sort of respectable "free thinking".

Allow us to differ in our opinions of your level of training and science education in these matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #63)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:47 PM

64. So let me get this strait

You say that there is no false evidence, but if they present some you say it is not false evidence according to science because false evidence does not exist...?
So if I were to point you to some sedimentary evidence I thinks shows a great flood you would just say it don't exist?

Well "they" are people that don't go looking for evidence to prove the negative that it never happened and look at what they find.
And I am not going to provide it for you...it would waste my time and yours because you would reject it right away and say it never existed.....besides I have left that part of my interests in the world behind years ago...but I can give some from memory if you like.

Like this one I found about in the 70s....they used to pave the roads along the gulf cost with oyster shells and I wondered where they got them all from....as it turns out there is a Hugh shoal off the cost of oyster shells that are hundreds of feet thick....so if you apply standard dating to it how many million years would it take for a bed of shells to be laid down that thick?....how could that be?...the Ice age should have lowered the sea levels and exposed the bed....and how could the watter level stay at that level for that long in the same place?
And there are many other anomalous things like that in the geological record that have no explanation and don't exist as evidence to you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #64)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:08 PM

65. Shall we take your fuzzy logic step by step?

 

1) There is no such thing as "false" evidence! Evidence either exists or it doesn't.

There is "evidence" of floods, on each and every continent, (including Antarctica), on the planet. But that "evidence" does not PROVE your singular hypothesis of a "great flood" (a worldwide flood). It is evidence of floods, PLURAL, some last year, some over a million or more years ago. There is no evidence of one singular "great flood" that was worldwide. There is evidence of literally thousands of floods at different times in different places, none of them ever "worldwide", and most of them not simultaneous. If you had the knowledge to know anything about the "evidence" of each flood, for example, the depth, the types of items and soils and sands and rocks that were eroded in each and every flood, you would have the tools to determine the approximate date and extent of those floods, and probably a little about the climate conditions just prior to many of those floods, temperature, specific flora and fauna that were present in an area before each flood, etc.

Your shell evidence is exactly that: evidence, but evidence of what? Evidence that shell creatures existed on this planet for literally millions of years, and died off, and fell to the bottom of the seas. I would imagine you have heard of the White Cliffs of Dover, right?
What do you think chalk and limestone cliffs (which exist on all continents) are made of?

Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed largely of the minerals calcite and aragonite, which are different crystal forms of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Many limestones are composed from skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera.

Limestone makes up about 10% of the total volume of all sedimentary rocks. The solubility of limestone in water and weak acid solutions leads to karst landscapes, in which water erodes the limestone over thousands to millions of years. Most cave systems are through limestone bedrock.


Your roads made of seashells are from relatively recent deposits of such shells, shells deposited in the last 2-3 million years, much younger than the White Cliffs of Dover or the limestone caves we find around the world.

So you have pounced upon one piece of evidence and decided to base your entire theory and hypothesis of a worldwide flood upon something which, when taken into context of all the millions of other examples of evidence earns a place as just that, one fragmentary piece of evidence, while you disregard all the rest, disregard the limestone caves we find all over the world, disregard even the White Cliffs of Dover.

The White Cliffs of Dover are cliffs which form part of the English coastline facing the Strait of Dover and France. The cliffs are part of the North Downs formation. The cliff face, which reaches up to 350 feet (110 m), owes its striking façade to its composition of chalk accentuated by streaks of black flint. The cliffs spread east and west from the town of Dover in the county of Kent, an ancient and still important English port.


The cliffs are composed mainly of soft, white chalk with a very fine-grained texture, composed primarily of coccoliths, plates of calcium carbonate formed by coccolithophores, single-celled planktonic algae whose skeletal remains sank to the bottom of the ocean during the Cretaceous and, together with the remains of bottom-living creatures, formed sediments. Flint and quartz are also found in the chalk.


What is the Cretaceous, you ask? Glad you asked!

The Cretaceous ( /krɨˈteɪʃəs/, krə-tay-shəs), derived from the Latin "creta" (chalk), usually abbreviated K for its German translation Kreide (chalk), is a geologic period and system from circa 145 ± 4 to 66 ± 0.3 million years (Ma) ago. In the geologic timescale, the Cretaceous follows the Jurassic period and is followed by the Paleogene period of the Cenozoic era. It is the last period of the Mesozoic Era, and, spanning 80 million years, the longest period of the Phanerozoic Eon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #65)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:51 PM

66. Well this is why I seldom come here or bring this up.

You can wear me out, cause I have no burning desire to convert you or anyone else to my point of view....that is why I don't get in between you and the fundies often...it becomes an impossible task to moderate ether sides position....and I think they both enjoy it.
Oysters live in a very narrow range of water depth...too deep or too shallow they die...here you have beds hundreds of feet deep and miles long and wide and you want me to believe that all of that shell was made in that one place and nothing had changed there for millions of years?...as the shells piled up the watter got deeper?...sorry that is not logical to me....but what do I know eh?

I think you are both wrong and each have a piece of the truth but are locked in some battle and are too blind to see it.
So you are angry at them and call them stupid fools and they are angry at you and mistrust your science and science in general....making us all stupider.
That's how I feel.
And this is what I believe....that the earth is billions of years old...as we measure time....but I know that the real truth may well be that time itself is an illusion.
I believe that the universe is far more complicated than we can ever know and only a fool would think he has if figured out.
And I believe there is far more to Man than we know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #66)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:33 PM

67. Well, here again, you're taking a few few facts and

 

trying to construct an hypothesis, and leaving out tens of thousands of other pieces of "evidence".

Let's take your one cherry-picked fact and compare it to just a half a dozen OTHER facts on the same topic.

Your fact:

Oysters live in a very narrow range of water depth...too deep or too shallow they die...here you have beds hundreds of feet deep and miles long and wide and you want me to believe that all of that shell was made in that one place and nothing had changed there for millions of years?...as the shells piled up the watter got deeper?...sorry that is not logical to me....but what do I know eh?


You are correct about the common variety of oyster we eat.

But, which oysters?

The word oyster is used as a common name for a number of distinct groups of bivalve molluscs which live in marine or brackish habitats. The valves are highly calcified.


The largest oyster-producing body of water in the United States is located in Chesapeake Bay, although these beds have decreased in number due to overfishing and pollution. Another large area in the U.S. includes the bays and estuaries along the Coast of the Gulf of Mexico from Apalachicola, Florida on the East to Galveston, Texas


That last area is a distance of hundreds of miles of coastline. Oh, and, by the way, some calciferous molluscs live perfectly well above see level 12 hours a day in tidal waters. Have you ever seen a Barnicle? Also, in the seas off the coast of Northeastern Africa, pearl divers go down dozens of feet to the bottom of the sea floor to extract Oysters and other molluscs for peals. So your isolated fact about oysters probably only applies to the ones we like to eat, not other varieties.

But, as you know, coastlines change, move up and down over hundreds of thousands of years, with global warming and cooling.

So, I'm not sure which variety of Oyster you are insisting upon, nor if you realize that coastlines change, and we can find shells of sea molluscs even in the Rocky Mountains. I'm not sure what your point is, nor how it proves nor disproves anything in the context of the hundreds of types of molluscs which in have inhabited various locations in or near coastal salt waters around the world.

I am not angry about people who insist that there was a global flood and a Noah's Ark. I am simply surprised that they get so invested in a fairy tale that has not one scintilla of evidence ever produced nor discovered anywhere in the world which supports it. It is their choice, of course, to be so wrapped up in disputing science while defending their lack of scientific training to prop up their investment in the fairy tale. I only question what is the purpose and what is the personal gain they get from defending the scientifically indefensible, and what joy it brings them to be so willfully ignorant of why the Noah's Ark fable cannot logically "hold water".

If people wish to believe in Noah's Ark as an historical event, if people want to believe the Earth is flat, if people want to believe no one ever landed on the moon, if people want to believe in blood-letting as a way of curing illness, that is their choice. I am astounded any of those people still exist in the world, given the advances in science and technology in the last hundred years, but that is their choice and they are free to believe in it. They are free to believe the Earth and Universe is only 6000 years old. But I see no value or reward they can possibly gain in their lifetime by willfully closing their minds to more informed evidence and logical conclusions instead of holding onto any one or all of those beliefs. That is their choice, but I know that they suffer deeply for choosing those beliefs instead of learning from all the wonders and reaping all the rewards that the sciences can give them.

Willful ignorance of science is a choice, but I just have to ask, "WHY"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #67)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:43 PM

70. Well you don't need to tell me about the Gulf Cost

I lived there for thirty years and have eaten many an oyster and I know what an oyster looks like
And I was there in 1964 when many of the roads were of oyster shell and you could pick one off of the road and it would look just like the one you shucked ....the shells were all the same....some small some large but all the same.

But seriously let's just drop this argument....it will produce nothing of any value...you can say you won it if it makes you feel good....cause it can never produce anything when you say things like this;

"that has not one scintilla of evidence ever produced nor discovered anywhere in the world which supports it."
You know that is not true but you state it as shield to protect your position....if you say things like that it means we go nowhere with this....and I suggest that if you say this to someone that they will surly close their mind to your arguments....and maybe that answers the why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #64)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:20 AM

73. You seem to be ignorant of geology and biology...

You talk about oyster shells, than as a question you think has no answer, when you should be researching it yourself, for example, what is the rate of deposits for shoals and coral beds? Also, you speak of the Ice Age as if it were one event, its actually several periods of warming and cooling(with variations in ocean levels), that lasted several millions of years, and each period of high and low ocean levels varied greatly. Not to mention that the ocean floor itself isn't static, what with plate tectonics and land being thrust upward and sunk down over millions of years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #73)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:32 AM

76. I am not pretending to be a scientist.

But like the saying goes...you don't need to be a weatherman....and so you don't have to be a scientist to ask why and come to a conclusion for yourself....unless the sense of inquiry has been beaten out of you by people that think you do have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

But how long do you think it takes for a tiny oyster to gather and make a shell as big as your hand?....it takes years.
And yes things change...but here things did not change for a very long time....long enough to create a shoal of dead oyster shells that is large....that is a problem if you are a uniformitarian in your outlook on the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #76)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:42 AM

77. Basically you are saying the experts shouldn't be consulted, do you diagnose yourself...

when it comes to your health, or do you go to doctors? Think about how stupid your argument is, I mean really, you claim you are not a scientist and yet you also seem so sure of your own answers that you actually are wilfully blind to evidence that those who are actually educated in these fields.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #76)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:52 AM

78. how long do you think it takes

 

But how long do you think it takes for a tiny oyster to gather and make a shell as big as your hand?.... it takes years


Um NO!

Growth Rate: Spat grow at the rate of about an inch per year, and sometimes faster. Growth rates can be affected by temperature, food quantity, salinity, and disease. Shell growth usually occurs in the spring and soft body tissue growth occurs after spawning. Oysters usually reach market size (3 inches) three to five years after spat settlement, but in warmer and saltier waters, they can reach that size in as little as a year. Sterile (triploid) oysters usually grow faster because they are not expending energy on reproduction.

Maximum Size: Approximately 8 inches long.


http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/fish-facts/oysters


Oysters grow all over the world in similar waters, from France to Japan and Australia. They are prolific in the right kinds of estuary shorelines, such as those that extend from northern Florida to Texas. Female oysters can spawn up to a million eggs each in the right conditions.

Oysters are broadcast spawners, meaning they release eggs and sperm into the water column. A fertilized egg develops into a planktonic (free-swimming) trochophore larva in about 6 hours. A fully shelled veliger larva is formed within 12 to 24 hours.


http://score.dnr.sc.gov/deep.php?subject=2&topic=15

I still fail to see any connection between your citation of using a few billion oyster shells as a road beds in Florida as having anything to do with the folklore of a worldwide flood.

The science and the facts are out there, evidence and facts by the thousands, all there for the learning. To follow your analogy, you choose NOT the be a weatherman, and can certainly tell when it's raining, but by choosing not to educate onleself, one cannot tell if the rain is the beginning of the next Hurricane Sandy, or just a late fall shower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #78)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:05 AM

79. I was looking up similar evidence, that points to 1 year as well, to reach maturity....

and 2 to 3, max, to reach sizes where they can produce eggs. Your google-fu is slightly stronger than mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:34 AM

81. Thanks I always go for the USGS, NOAA, and other US

 

publications first. They are usually the most reliable and accurate, and usually most abundant in a Google search started from North America.

Then there are the particular industry publications, or state sources.

Bi-valve molluscs, (of which the edible oyster is only one of several hundreds or thousands) are a prolific life form around the globe, wherever fresh water meets the oceans. They also include varieties which are NOT dependent upon low salinity and can grow well in deeper sea waters, (hence the pearl divers of northeastern Africa).

But the bottom line here is that there are ALMOST ALWAYS literally thousands of scientific facts to controvert any singular scientific or pseudo-scientific "evidence" used in defense of the assertion of a biblical worldwide flood, or in defense of the assertion of any variety of Creationist folklore. The facts are out there, and the mystery remains: why to some people find it to their advantage to willfully ignore or attempt to debunk the vast body of accumulated human inter-disciplinary knowledge we know call "science"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #81)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:47 AM

83. Yeah, I found a couple of reports on disease oysters suffer...

due to pollution, parasites, etc., they also mentioned the lifecycle, mostly from state departments of agriculture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #78)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:50 PM

156. This is the most fascinating post

in this thread. I had no clue how oysters mated or grew of anything. I love oysters. They're delicious to eat. But I never really thought about their life cycle before. The Long Island Sound has it's fair share of oysters, though when it comes to eating them, I'm partial to Pacific water mollusks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #64)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:33 AM

74. It would help your case if you can point to someone else referring to this 'hundreds of feet thick'

shoal, so that we'd be able to check your recollection of its size, and maybe look to see how geologists think it formed. It seems a bit surprising that it's off the coast, though; mining underwater isn't that easy, and for a basic material like road foundations, I'd have thought not worthwhile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #74)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:19 AM

75. As I said in an other post this was in the 70s

And this is not important enough for me to go search it out.

But along the coast...like where I lived in Escambia county Florida gravel was scarce....even rocks are rare unless they are imported....and they had big clam shell dredges that they dug them up and put it in barges....it was a cheep and effective way to make a road in the sand....far cheaper than bringing gravel from far away.

Well a search shows this....titled Oyster Shell Dredging in the Gulf of Mexico waters by the Army corp of engineers.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a279030.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #75)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:27 AM

80. Good - that gives us something to work with

That says "oyster lenses are characteristically thicker in the center (up to 10 feet thick) and tapered on the edges)" (page EIS-5), and has diagrams that match with that. So that's about 3 metres; at a rate of 1mm/year, that would take 3,000 years to deposit - the kind of timescale for which the position of the Mississippi delta has been roughly stable in a few different places since the last ice age, as detailed in the passage on EIS-27 and EIS-28. And as pages EIS-30-31 say, the weight of sediment deposited in the area also causes subsidence of the existing deposits. I can't see if it specifies how much of a lens is oyster shell and how much sediment that is then separated, but it does describe how they dig this up with a dredger, and then have to separate the sediment, so this is not some compacted rock that has been subject to great pressure far below the surface; it's a mixture of shell and sediment, deposited as the oyster shoal grows.

So that doesn't look like 'hundreds of feet thick', and would be explained by natural growth of oyster beds, and then subsequent sinking of them, as the position of the delta changes over a few thousand years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #75)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:38 PM

92. Not really sure just what this is supposed to tell us regarding your world-wide flood hypothesis.

Just what do oysters have to do with a world-wide flood?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #92)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:30 AM

100. Well there are two explanations of why those thick beds of shells are there.

The Uniformitarianism view is that the collected there over thousands of years in a place that never changed at all in that time.
and then there is the other that says they were formed by a tsunami like wave that washed them into a big pile
The first one to me seems fanciful...pretending that all change is slow and steady and there cannot be catastrophic events....and if they were to admit to them being there by sedimentation and a flood it gives credence to the Noah's flood as a possibility...and that must be avoided at all cost.
So anything suggesting a flood must be debunked and ridiculed to satisfy the ideology of atheism....nothing the bible says can be accepted as truth....nothing.

'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #100)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:38 AM

101. What is the scientific explanation?

And by scientific, I mean the one that best explains how they got there through testable and repeatable observation and modeling?

And I agree with the last part of your posts...

nothing the bible says can be accepted as truth


because nothing in the bible can stand the test of scientific inquiry. So while the bible may tell you things that you believe are true for you, science tells us what is factual for all of us.



Zeemlike, it is all about evidence. Testable, observable, repeatable, scientific evidence. Nothing about a world-wide flood stands up to any direct scientific inquiry. If it did, it would not be so easily dismissed as nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #100)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:53 AM

105. You do realize that most of these shoals form in protected areas...

generally in brackish water at the mouths of rivers and tidal areas, right? And others form away from the shore, where a tsunami would be a 2 to 4 foot wave that literally passes right over them while they sit there on the continental shelf. Not to mention the speed of growth of oysters and the sheer enormous rate of reproduction allows for relatively quick formation of such shoals, most likely in decades or centuries rather than thousands of years.

In addition, I don't see what atheism has to do with this at all, most mainstream Christians, Muslims and Jews take the story of Noah and a worldwide flood as allegory and myth at best. The view you represent is only a small subset of these people, shared by only a small minority of the 3 major Abrahamic religions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #105)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:22 PM

107. I don't get the feeling that zeemlike is impressed at all by these facts. Not even a little bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #107)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:49 PM

113. RIGHT! He has this one fact and cannot seem to find ...

 

a way to fit it in with all the other tens of thousands of facts out there, he's holding onto the oyster shell theory of a flood, and no fact can get in his way. Despite the fact that such large deposits of shells can accumulate in 20, 50, 100 years, he's sticking with the Noah's Ark stuff, for no plausible reason, except he'd like to go on a cruise, I guess, and would like all us science folks to be drowned in some water somewhere. We science folks really rattle his brain.

He'd like to believe whatever he wants, and not have to deal with those thousands of " facts" getting in the way of his prided "free thinking" mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:03 PM

144. "it is mostly based on real events. "

You mean there was a flood somewhere in the past???

AMAZING!

Since most ancient civilizations spring up around the natural highways that are rivers, it would seem obvious (to anyone that can think) that a flood is about the worst disaster that can happen. And one most of the illiterate population can readily understand. So naturally when authoritarians want to scare the population to death, they might use a flood. This goes for many many early civilizations and their religions.

Just like early civilizations near volcanoes might use fire and brimstone to scare the bejesus out of the illiterate.

If you live near BOTH a river and a volcano...you might get versions of both peppered throughout the mythology.


DUH!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #17)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:48 AM

103. The story is not in every culture

Provide referenced. Lots of them. There's lots of cultures

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:05 PM

23. No


"On the atheist side they will point out that only eight people escaped the flood cause that is all that is mentioned in the bible...(imagine that, the atheist believing literally what the bible says) "


Pointing out a fallacy does not mean one believes it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:36 PM

25. Well that is true for sure.

But using this fallacy as a fact in your rebuttal is not.
If you were to point to the fallacy that no one man like Noah could have known of all the people in the world would be the honest way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:42 PM

36. Or would have known of the over-one-and-a-half-million species of insects, or...

that a wooden ship that size (with no metal components) would not be stable structurally...etc. etc...
I know that Noah was 900 but he doesn't seem to have learned much in that time.

You are making yourself look extremely foolish with your claims (and not just your claims of what we atheists "believe"). I'd stop while you still have some credibility left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #36)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:07 PM

38. Well I reject your assertion that I am making myself look foolish

And I say that is bullshit....critical thinking of critical thinking is not foolishness....but is always used never the less.
It only works on the insecure.

And by the way it was not a ship...it was an ark...and an ark need not be constructed like a ship....etc..etc.
And of that half million do you supposed survived the flood?....ever see one floating on a tree in the watter?....or their eggs surviving till after the flood when they hatch?....or any number of other scenarios that abound....insects have survived most destruction's because of their great numbers and distribution and size....same with fish....and because of their short life span and rapid breading they evolve quickly....take some insects or mice and you can evolve them in just a few years.
All of this is predicated on the false assumption that every living thing had to be on that ark...and that every mountain top must have been covered with watter and that only 8 people on the ark survived....cause the bible did not say otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:41 AM

47. Funny that you reject that assertion

and then come right back and prove it again with the rest of your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #47)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:55 AM

51. Well of course I did

Anything that contradicts your view has to be foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:31 AM

125. This may clear some things up for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #125)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:57 AM

127. By that definition is the Flat Earth also a theory?

Cause it was commonly regarded as true?...and the same is true for many other theories that were commonly accepted at the time....theories can and have been wrong....but never in the minds of the true believer.

Here is the problem I have with this....you are telling me that your theory is so good and backed up by impeccable evidence that it is actually a fact and that anyone who denies the fact must be nuts or ignorant or both...And if I don't accept this as fact that I am a creationist and MUST then believe the earth is 6k old and other things that they believe...you are with us or against us.
How then can I respond?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #127)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:16 PM

132. It is becoming obvious that you are just playing a game here.

That or you are so wrapped up in your creationist ideology that you are unable to think critically for yourself.

Either way, it is pointless to continue to try and get you to accept facts over fiction and fantasy.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #127)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:58 AM

141. Why do you not read what is being said to you?

Creationists would say the Flat Earth is a theory, not scientists.

Theories are backed up by REPEATABLE observations and are generally parsimonious, i.e. they do not multiply entities unnecessarily, This last is sometimes called "Occam's Razor".

Now, let's look at the example commonly quoted as showing how "Science" ignores a correct "theory", Wegner's Continental Drift proposition.

Wegner's idea was that an explanation of observed fossils, geological strata and chemical signatures could be made from the concept that entire continents drifted across the surface of the earth. This was not a new idea; geographers had noted the fit between large scale coastlines for more than a century; but Wegner was the man who put the evidence together. Where Wegner failed was; firstly, he was wrong in the the specifics (he was' unaware of crustal plates); and, second he had no mechanism in his model by which continents could drift.

As it so happens Wegner was wrong, but from his ideas and the evidence he gathered others formulated Plate Tectonic Theory. This theory has repeated observations supporting it, has a mechanism by which it works and can be experimentally tested.

Now look at your pet propositions:
The Flood - No observations support it, no mechanism of action and no experiments can test it.
Worlds in Collision - No observations support it, it has no mechanism of action and no experiments have ever shown one prediction made by it to be true.

I know you will claim that there are "mechanisms" supporting your ideas but "Goddidit" is not a mechanism and neither is a non-existent "anti-gravity".

Now read what is being said and not what you imagine is being said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #141)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:56 AM

142. The flat earth theory WAS accepted by a consensus at one time.

Now that is what I was saying in case you did not read it....consensus is not proof of truth.

And "Occam's Razor" is invoked in every discussion like this...it has become a cliche. and I am aware of Plate Tectonic Theory...hell I remember when it was still being debated....but the evidence for it is much different than the evidence for a flood.
The evidence for the continental drift is one dimensional...are the continents drifting apart.
For the flood it is multidimensional cause evidence of a flood can be anywhere and in far different ways...

But as to Worlds in Collisions observations did support his theory....for instance he predicted that Venus was a relative new planet cause it had been blasted off of Jupiter by a cataclysmic event....and the probes that we sent to Venus confirmed that with a surface temperature of over 900 degrees and a very dense atmosphere of a composition he predicted...That does not prove his theory...but it IS evidence
But a few more short retorts.

I never said god did anything like the flood....the mechanism was probably cosmic or dynamic and catastrophic

And the statement that anti gravity does not exist is really something....if there is gravity there must be anti gravity ...anti just means not....and there is nothing with out the not.

But I have read what was said...you just think I have not because I don't agree or have a different view. you think your view is so perfect that no one should ever not see it your way so it must be that they did not read it...a false assumption

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #142)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:15 PM

145. You demonstrate absolute ignorance about the Sciences and Velikovski

Do you have a comprehension problem?

I did not raise "Occam" only the fact that theories are parsimonious which, I quote
This last is sometimes called "Occam's Razor"
I did not raise it as an objection to the nonsense peddled by Velikovsky although, of course it can be because there is so much in that fools work that depends upon unevidenced mechanisms; technically, a multiplication of entities.

Now let us take apart your nonsensical post item by item.

The evidence for the continental drift is one dimensional...are the continents drifting apart.
I expressly said the continental drift was a false hypothesis, the fact you continue to use that name just emphasises your ignorance and word blindness. The currently the theory of Plate Tectonics is evidenced by surface matching, deep borehole samples, direct measurement of vertical and horizontal movement, paleo-magnetic evidence and seismic imaging of the interior of the earth; these measurements are 3 dimensional both literally and figuratively.

For the flood it is multidimensional cause evidence of a flood can be anywhere and in far different ways...
What evidence? Please identify the sedimentary layer or sequence of layers you claim are the result of the Flood. Identify where they are contiguous over the surface of the earth. Please identify what other evidence you have, such as erosion features of similar magnitude to the Grand Canyon dating to the same time. Please identify the evidence for a mass extinction of plants (BTW saying "coal" is not good enough, there are multiple layers of coal all dating to different periods)

But as to Worlds in Collisions observations did support his theory
Wrong, no observation has been made of the anti-gravitic force essential to maintain the orbital variations required by WiC. There has also been no observation of the Saturn sized remnant required to explain the flood.

for instance he predicted that Venus was a relative new planet cause it had been blasted off of Jupiter by a cataclysmic even
Except that the known chemistry of Venus does not in any respect match the chemistry of Jupiter and also there is no evidence that Venus is a "new" planet.

and the probes that we sent to Venus confirmed that with a surface temperature of over 900 degrees and a very dense atmosphere of a composition he predicted
Except the atmospheric composition of Venus was known and the surface temperature estimated before WiC. It is true that pulp SF authors chose to ignore that evidence but they were writing stories that required a habitable Venus.

That does not prove his theory...but it IS evidence
Finally one statement that is correct except the inference you derive from it is false. What you have quoted does not prove Velikovsky's assertions because they are all falsehoods. Additionally Velikovsky never produced a "theory"; he produced, at best, a hypothesis that was mathematically and physically unsound.

I never said god did anything like the flood....the mechanism was probably cosmic or dynamic and catastrophic
And after you showed your stunning foolishness in supporting Velikovsky I never said that you did, but I did compare your blind faith in a non-existent physical force with the usual excuse of deluge believers i.e. "Goddidit"

And the statement that anti gravity does not exist is really something....if there is gravity there must be anti gravity ...anti just means not....and there is nothing with out the not.
Absence of gravity is not anti-gravity. For somebody who claims to believe WiC you seem oblivious to the mechanism of action that was required for the stupid orbital and planetary interactions proposed by your psychiatrist guru. The absolute requirement is for a force generated by electrons that is powerful enough to counter gravity on planetary scales. This was an opposing force to gravity i.e. anti-gravity. If you want to know the consequences of such a force read the "Cities in Flight" series by James Blish.

Finally Flat earth was never an accepted scientific consensus, at best it was considered a philosophical ideal by ancient cultures, or possible a model that worked on the local scales

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #145)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:39 PM

146. Well I wish to end this conversation.

Cause everyone and anyone that disagrees with you is foolish stupid nonsense...you used that phrase in in every paragraph you wrote....the tells me a lot...but mostly that this is a fruitless pursuit...even though you made many misrepresentations of what I said and facts...particularly about Venus...
When some one sets themselves up as an expert and tries to intimidate people into ether shutting up or submitting to your expert opinion then it is a waste of time.
I have no desire to be insulted like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #146)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:18 PM

147. Translation: I just had my ass handed to me so I will bloviate for a bit then slink off in a huff.

Careful, were you to clutch those pearls any tighter, you might cut your hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #147)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:00 PM

148. And of course the parting shot insult post.

And the illusion that you won something...and perhaps you feel the need for that experience so I am glad I could help....the world is full of insecure people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #148)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:13 PM

149. You should have just walked away when you had the chance. But you must be a glutton for punishment.

My translation was exactly that; a translation into layman's terms the screed your wrote. Sorry if it cut a bit too close to the bone. My bad.

Now you have the same choice. Walk away a keep what you have, or risk it all, and stay for what is behind curtain number 3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #149)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:08 AM

150. You think you punished me with all that crap you posted?

Get real man...words do not punish me at all....I am not that insecure.

I never walk away from a fight when the person tells me that I am a coward for doing it....so you want to keep this going to stroke your ego then fine...I can insult too.....and I can "interpret" what you say too....and I interpret this to mean "I am insecure and need to feel superior to someone"
And seriously If you really need that I have no problem supplying some of it....you can feel better and I don't have to feel worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #150)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:37 AM

152. I think...

...that you're so in the dark about the subject matter you are discussing you're incapable of even recognizing how thoroughly your ass has been handed to you in this discussion. So does it technically count as "punishment" when you don't realize you're getting obliterated? Interesting philosophical point I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #152)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:04 AM

159. In your view you mean.

No doubt about it...I got creamed in your eyes...cause your eyes can see only one side and can't possibly understand that anyone can think differently than the official story about things.
And it is always the same with the true believer....no matter what is said they think they have not just won the argument but have obliterated the opposition...cause they posses the only truth and have everything figured out completely and no one can dare challenge it...it is absolutism....you are absolutely right and others are absolutely wrong.
Really no different than the fundies who feel the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #159)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:29 AM

166. The "official story"?

Basic scientific facts are now being referred to as "the official story" are they? Like they're some kind of authoritarian cover up of the real truth or something?

Would you also like to call math "the official story"?

Do you know what the volume of space that would need to be filled by water in order to flood the entire surface of the earth is? Over 4 billion cubic kilometers to raise seal levels to the heights of the mountain ranges.

Do you know how much total water exists on the planet? Every drop of water in ALL the oceans is about a third of that. So you would need to add three more of the entire ocean on top of the current ocean. Think that's floating around in the rainclouds or locked up in an ice sheet somewhere? (Please keep in mind that frozen water*expands* and takes up more space than when it's liquid if you're feeling tempted to say something really stupid like "yes".)

You CANNOT FLOOD THE ENTIRE EARTH. Period. Done. End of discussion. Leaving aside the little detail that every single last solitary bit of other physical evidence directly contradicts there ever having occurred a global flood. Do you or do you not understand this? Do I need to explain it in even simpler terms for you? Saying there was a global flood is roughly as large a violation of the basic physical laws of the universe as saying you believe Santa actually flies a team of reindeer around to all the children in the world in one night. THAT is how freaking ridiculous you are being in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #166)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:22 PM

168. Go to any university and what do they teach?

If that is not the official story I don't know what is....and they will all say what you say...that there is NO evidence for a world wide flood...end of story.
But there is something else that expands watter and that is the release of methane hydrates into the watter...and in fact has been said to have sunk a ship that went through an eruption of the hydrates because it lowered the density of the watter to where the ship no longer floated...
One theory is that these hydrates were fractured in the region of the mid Atlantic riff....which would have sent a series of waves way bigger than the Tsunami in Japan...and these series of waves would crash over the land and pick up every tree plant and animal and lots of rocks and deposited them inland in sedimentary layers....a far simpler explanation for fossils of sea creatures on mountain tops than uniformitarianism...but cannot be considered because it might suggest that the bible was based on some truth....and that can't be allowed.
And the evidence is there...but all of it disregarded by those who insist on saying the bible is 100% wrong...cause that is how things are to them....ether 100% wrong or 100% right...just the same principles as used by the fundies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #168)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:02 PM

170. Is this some kind of elaborate practical joke?

Or some dare your buddies put you up to to see how long you could troll a forum?

Did you READ what I just posted? THREE ENTIRE ADDITIONAL OCEANS WORTH of water. And your response is "methane hydrates"!?!?!?

To return to the earlier Santa analogy... "but, but... they could have dressed the reindeer in aerodynamic clothing! What about that? Aha! That could make the go faster... and in order to get to beyond light speed they also need to go "faster"... problem solved! Now don't bother me with details like how *much* faster..."

What response to that would you expect to get? "Methane hydrates" producing a tsunami sufficient to wash over the planet and bury mountain ranges? Im. Pos. Si. Ble. You have absolutely no conception of what you're talking about.

And no "the evidence" is not there. Zero evidence of what you just said. None. Zip. Not one iota. A wave depositing sediment in layers does so through hydrologic sorting. Hydrologic sorting sorts the layers BY SIZE AND DENSITY. Have you ever even glanced at an overview of the geologic column? You are making a laughingstock of yourself with every word you type. That is not a simpler explanation of the column, that is not ANY explanation of the column. An explanation has to actually account for the thing it is supposed to be explaining. Do you get that?

And there are fossils on mountain tops because of a little thing called plate tectonics. Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #170)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:40 AM

171. I am not trolling a forum

I am responding when posted too...is your idea of a troll one who does not submit to your attempt to intimidate them?
If you really wanted to end this you would just need to stop insulting me and expecting me to "slink off" as if I had done something wrong so you could feel superior or something.
Well fuck that shit...I can keep this up as long as you keep the insults up.....and your insults have zero effect on my self esteem...I fight back because you try to intimidate.

And it is always the same...you insist there is NO evidence whatsoever and anyone who says there is must be a fool and a idiot...well I see it different....the fool and the idiot think they know a whole lot more than they actually do...

But yes it does sort by size and density....but not just vertically but horizontally too...do you understand that?
If you care to answer that on your next insult post go ahead....otherwise forget it...this thing cannot be discussed openly and honestly without denigrating someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #171)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:34 AM

172. Could have fooled me.

My idea of a troll is someone who deliberately posts ridiculous nonsense to get a rise out of people. I was extending you the benefit of the doubt since the alternative is you actually take the nonsense you are spouting seriously.

And I'm sure you can keep this up indefinitely. It takes no particular level of skill or effort to post ridiculous nonsense. You don't have to seriously study, you don't have to think, you just have to spout off random ridiculous bullshit from creationist websites.

"the fool and the idiot think they know a whole lot more than they actually do... "


Irony overload...

"But yes it does sort by size and density....but not just vertically but horizontally too...do you understand that? "


I understand the sentence. I have difficulty understanding how you could possibly believe that makes your point. You understand that the column is vertical right?

Answer me this. Tell me how a wave sorts sediment in the following order, from top to bottom:

Top: Limestone Layer
Sandstone Layer
Another Sandstone Layer (#2)
Shale Layer
ANOTHER Sandstone Layer (#3)
ANOTHER Shale Layer (#2)
Sand/Conglomorates Layer
ANOTHER Limestone Layer (#2)
ANOTHER DIFFERENT Limestone Layer (#3)
YET ANOTHER Different Limestone Layer (#4)
ANOTHER Shale Layer (#3)
ANOTHER Sandstone Layer (#4)
ANOTHER Sandstone Layer (#5)
A Quartzite Layer
ANOTHER Shale Layer (#4)
ANOTHER Limestone Layer (#5)

...


THEN, after you work that freaking law of physics defying miracle explanation, explain how the materials embedded in those layers were sorted by a big wave by their radioisotope content so they radiometrically date as getting younger to older by order of depth.

THEN once you have finished waving that magic freaking wand, explain how those materials were also sorted by biological morphology instead of by size or density so that all the same KINDS of fossils end up next to each other in the same aged layers.




I'll wait. Lay the "evidence" on me. Go ahead. Tell me all about how a giant wave EXPLAINS the data as you just finished claiming it did because it "sorts horizontally too". Do enlighten me how that accounts for the composition of the column. I'm all ears.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #172)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:46 AM

173. Move Over!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #172)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:19 PM

174. "someone who deliberately posts ridiculous nonsense to get a rise out of people?

And then go on to say....rediculous....ridiculous nonsense...random ridiculous bullshit...
And yes I can keep it up if you want....I have no intention of letting things like this stand unanswered.
And you should realize that just because you call it ridiculous does not make it so...and if there are scientist that agree with you then they are not scientist cause they don't look at the evidence just like if I post my evidence you will not address it but insist it is a creationist trick show and they don't have any evedence....right?....is that not the drill?

But I will tell you how I think it happened for what it is worth.....I favor the rupture of the hydrate layers that exists way in the deep....and by the way if you want some interesting things look up Methane hydrates and see what I am talking about....and this rupture took place at the Mid Atlantic Riff.
And it did not create just a Tsunami like wave but a series of waves as the watter expanded ...this could have gone on for weeks....and that is why your calculation of how much water was needed is wrong....it did not require a 30 foot increase of watter to cause a 30 foot tsunami to hit Indonesia and Japan.
But here just for you I found this very good presentation of their evidence...so if you will watch it I think you will see that they DO have evidence....lots of it.
But please don't do the drill and try to impeach the messenger...and don't tell me it is ridiculous nonsense...
You can skip to 07:00 if you want to get right to the evidence.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #174)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:14 AM

175. Yep.

"The drill" is dealing with the facts.

You appear to be having difficulty doing so. I just asked you to explain three of those facts. The structural composition of the geologic column. The radiometric composition of the materials embedded within the geologic column. The distribution of fossils based on morphology within the geologic column.

You ignored all three. Your little video ignores them as well.

If you can't deal with the facts, just say so. Stop wasting the time of everyone here. As for this:

"and that is why your calculation of how much water was needed is wrong....it did not require a 30 foot increase of water to cause a 30 foot tsunami to hit Indonesia and Japan. "

Do you have the faintest teeny tiniest clue what kind of forces you are talking about to push a tsunami OVER A MOUNTAIN RANGE? Trying to wave around terms you clearly do not understand like some kind of magic incantation does not get the job done. "Hmmm... that is physically impossible you say? Well... ummm... I hereby invoke "methane hydrates" and now it could happen! Aha!"

No, it doesn't get the job done. You would have to hit the ocean with an asteroid big enough to break the planet in half to cause a tsunami that would cover the earth. And nobody would be riding through the result in a big wooden boat with a zoo on it.

And to hit the high points of your little video... since I wouldn't want you to think I was ignoring your "evidence"...

First of all, thanks so much for telling me to go to the 7:00 mark to get to the start of this "evidence" then making me listen to this doofus ramble on for 5 minutes about how pretty the sunsets are, and talk about Bryce and Zion and the Grand Staircase, and a bunch of other things that have zero bearing on any case he's making for there being a flood.

Finally we reach his first actual touching on a claim that has the remotest thing to do with claiming there was a flood at around the 13:00 mark... and what is it? Five points that he then goes on to talk and talk and talk about without ever making a discernible valid observation or conclusion.

1. There are marine fossils above sea level.

Well great. He kind of skips over those fossils being sorted globally into specific layers in the column based on their morphology and sorted chronologically in line with radiometric dating results though now doesn't he? Just like you did. So they could have got their because of PLATE TECTONICS, which explains why they are sorted in exactly that way... or there was a big sploosh of water that put them there... and sorted them... somehow... in ways that defy physics. That is not evidence. That is idiocy.

2. "Rapid burial" of fossil organisms. ALL FOSSILS ARE BURIED RAPIDLY. Remains that aren't buried rapidly decompose and don't become fossils. So to sum up... fossils... therefore giant globe covering flood! Yeesh.

3. "Extraordinary extent of the sedimentary rock layers". Uh huh... lots of sediment, therefore flood. And just nevermind that that sediment is sandwiched between other layers of stacked tiers of sandstone and limestone that could not POSSIBLY have been deposited by a flood.

Are you detecting a pattern to this yet?

4. "Rapid or no erosion between the layers". Claim based on... lots of hand waving and then basically nothing.

5. "Many strata deposited in rapid succession"... Yeah... except they weren't. Every single last iota of physical evidence tells us they weren't. Just declaring they were doesn't magically alter the laws of physics and rates of radioactive decay.

"and don't tell me it is ridiculous nonsense... "

That's like asking me not to call water wet. It is what it is and it will be called what it is. Ridiculous nonsense.



Now, would you care to address the points I raised in the last post, or were you planning to continue ignoring them and hoping they would go away?



(If anyone wants an episode of comedy gold, listen to the video guy's declaration that what was happening to cause the flood was "rapid sea floor spreading". No, seriously, ENTIRE TECTONIC PLATES were moving at millions of times their normal speed and also became bouyant and started throwing oceans worth of water around so they sloshed across all the continents. It's *hilarious*. Oh, and also, the mountain ranges were basically unformed when this happened. IN HUMAN HISTORY. They just kind of sprang up after the flood. And it just keeps going and going and going... it's made somewhat less funny by the knowledge that some people can listen to this crap and actually nod their heads and think "wow, that makes sense".)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #175)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:57 AM

176. No the drill is to discredit facts that counteract yours.

Or anyone who may present them....and you did not disappoint....even saying yet again in an oblique manner that what is say is utterly nonusers....it's all part of the drill of hanging on to your faith...the fundies do it too.
And the three things you asked for were covered in that video....and contrary to what you said he spent little time on the facts not dealing with the subject...and his presentation was mostly on the subject.

But you seem concerned about the forces necessary to do all of this...so I will just give my best guess as to how all of this happened...and there is no wo wo to it.

Way out in space a planetoid was disturbed from it's orbit around the sun in the Kuiper belt and made a low angle hit on Jupiter...an the force was enough to propel it out of Jupiter's gravity field into an elliptical orbit around the sun which when it had a close encounter with the Earth caused great geological stresses on the earth crust...which cracked like an egg and the molten magma that came up fractured the Methane layer which shot up a tremendous stream of gas and water high in the atmosphere and caused a series of tsunami waves that could have indeed been a mile high or higher. And these waves Would have come from different directions as the methane deposits fractured.
Call it nonsense if you like...but there is no denying that such forces exist in the universe as we are learning...and this is just one plausible explanation of how it could have happened.

Now that is how I think it could have happened and I presented to you the clearest explanation of how the creationist see it...there explanation has to do with god and shuns natural forces.
And so it continues...It is a game really, and both have a reward for it...one side is rewarded by a feel good when the other is ridiculed and the other side by becoming a martyr in the eyes of the faithful to the truth of the bible....there really is no winning for truth in this game.
What if science took a different approach...and said "well that is an interesting theory you have there...but I have not seen convincing evidence yet"
And the religious took a different approach and said "well those are interesting ideas but my faith is still in the bible"?
Is that now science and religion SHOULD be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #176)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:41 AM

177. In an oblique manner?

I said it flat out. That video is pure unadulterated nonsense. There was nothing oblique about it. The video is ridiculous, and the person speaking in it is an ignorant moron.

And good grief, I don't even know where to start on that disjointed fairy tale you just spun.

How about we start with THERE IS NO FREAKING "METHANE LAYER" in the earth's crust? How about that? There are methane deposits, there is not a methane "layer".

Let's move on from there to the tiny detail of how much methane you are talking about releasing to cause a globe spanning tsunami. First, it doesn't exist. Second, you would POISON TO DEATH EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH if that much methane existed and was released from the crust. Do you think that might represent a teeny tiny flaw in your pet theory?

Then we can move on to it being impossible for ANYTHING to make a "low angle hit" on Jupiter and then be "deflected off". Do you know what Jupiter is composed of? It's not a cosmic billiards ball.

Or how about we just start with the fact that, to repeat, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE that anything you just said happened. You just made it up. We have ACTUAL SCIENCE that tells us what happened and it wasn't anything remotely resembling what you just said.




As for the video dealing with the three points I raised? I call bullshit. Provide the time stamps and tell me how it did so if you claim it's in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #177)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:26 PM

178. "Pure unadulterated nonsense"

I mean it can just be wrong, or even nonsense, it must be pure and unadulterated...why is that?...just as there cannot be a lack of convincing evidence or even little evidence but NO EVEDENCE AT ALL.

But oh I see....a layer is not a deposit and a deposit cannot be a layer....got it...I will try to keep it strait
Even still today there are large methane hydrate deposits all over the world that have been discovered...and companies have taped them for a source of natural gas...you can look that up.
And in these deposits the hydrates consist of one part methane and 7 parts water... and heat and pressure is the thing that can fracture it and when released it has tremendous pressure....The BP oil disaster was because of releasing the pressure on these deposits.
It is not the amount of methane it is the pressure that they were formed under....that is the energy that caused the tsunami like waves....and the methane does not instantly go out of the watter but actually expands the volume of the water.

Yes indeed Jupiter is not a cosmic billiard ball...that we can agree on....but what we know of Jupiter is the composition of it's atmosphere and that is all we can know for now....but orbital mechanics is not theory it is math....and with that math you can construct a scenario of mass, speed and angle to make it come out...
You do know the explanation of how meteor rock from Mars are found on earth don't you?...well it is comet or meteor hitting Mars and ejecting rock into space and escaping the parent gravity...

But yes I will spend the time it take to watch it again and make notes on whatever you want....but right now I have lost track of exactly was those three points.....but remind me and take it one at a time and I will give as much detail as you like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #178)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:01 PM

179. "Why is that"?

That's like asking why the wheels on my car are called "round". Because they meet the definition of round.

Why is the stuff you keep posting pure and unadulterated nonsense? Because they meet the definition.

"Even still today there are large methane hydrate deposits all over the world that have been discovered"


Yeah, and? If you instantly emptied every single one of them in one single second you would still not produce the effect you are claiming was produced. What the heck point do you think you are making?

This is like someone saying the entire Grand Canyon was filled to the brim with water yesterday evening, and then someone pointing out that that seems like it's impossible, and they just went and looked and see no sign it was filled to the brim yesterday... and the person making the claim saying "Oh yeah? Well sometimes IT RAINS you know! Have you ever heard of rain? It drops water in stuff and fills them up!" Then standing back like they've finished making their argument and supporting their position.



And just to get this out of the way, why the hell are you even talking about Jupiter anyway? Seriously? I mean why not Pluto while you're at it? Or Neptune? Or a stray comet? I mean since you're just making random stuff up why not a wandering black hole? Why Jupiter? Just because you felt like it? Because that was the first name of a planet other than Earth that popped into your head? Why did you need ANY planet to bounce something off at all? What was the point? It made your little fairy tale sound more dramatic? Improved the mental production values? Because it sure as hell wasn't because of one single tiny bit of data that said a damn thing about any object in the solar system actually having a damn thing to do with a collision with Jupiter I know that much for sure.


"but right now I have lost track of exactly was those three points.....but remind me and take it one at a time and I will give as much detail as you like."


Ok, you are reminded. But excuse me for concluding that rather than "losing track" of them you simply never saw them because they're not there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #179)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:08 PM

180. Well that is just not true...Methane locked in hydrates is enormous .

In the deep sea....

Gas hydrates occur abundantly in nature, both in Arctic regions and in marine sediments. Gas hydrate is a crystalline solid consisting of gas molecules, usually methane, each surrounded by a cage of water molecules. It looks very much like water ice. Methane hydrate is stable in ocean floor sediments at water depths greater than 300 meters, and where it occurs, it is known to cement loose sediments in a surface layer several hundred meters thick.

The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html




And what I said is nothing like saying the Grand Canyon was filled with watter...that is ridiculous for you to say such a thing.

But yes it could have been any planet or a black hole...we don't really know and probably never will in out life time....but as I said I think that myth is based in real events...and in mythology it is said that The goddess Venus sprung from the head of Jupiter...in fact that is why we call the planet Venus, because of myth.
And number two, Venus is a very young planet as I have stated before and contains a very dense atmosphere....as you would expect.
And we have no data from tens of thousands of years ago...none at all unless you have developed a time machine that can observe the past...the only data we have is the present and things that have been recorded in recent years....and with all due respect, you are full of shit if you say you know that for sure.
And they are there...and as I said if you seriously want to know then ask a specific question I will find it for you and answer any questions that you may have.
But you won't find any reference to the hydrate theory in that clip because I encountered that theory years ago somewhere I can't remember...and that was when Methane hydrates were still poorly know and understood....in the creationist idea they just say God did it, and it makes there life simpler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #180)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:00 AM

181. I'm aware they're enormous.

You are apparently completely unaware of how far BEYOND "enormous" they would have to be to produce the effect you are talking about.

"And what I said is nothing like saying the Grand Canyon was filled with water"



I know, it's roughly 1,00,000 times more ridiculous than that. I was using a smaller scale analogy.

"And we have no data from tens of thousands of years ago...none at all unless you have developed a time machine"


Good. Grief.

You have said an awful lot of ignorant things in this thread and yet you just managed to trump them all. Congratulations. You really know *nothing* about what you are talking about. Not even grade school level understandings of the science involved. It's stunning that you are persisting in arguing this topic when you have literally no clue whatsoever what you are talking about.

Let me drop you a hint, when things happen that generate evidence of their occurrence... the evidence doesn't disappear ONE SECOND LATER so the only way to get that data is to time travel back and grab it as it is generated.

We have fucking LIBRARIES filled with data from thousands, and tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands, and millions, and billions of years ago.

It is really completely pointless even trying to have a rational discussion of this topic with you. This is like trying to explain powered flight to someone while standing on the tarmac at an airport with jets flying right over our heads and having them say there is no evidence that things that are heavier than air can fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #181)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:30 PM

182. Now how the hell do you know that?

Did you or anyone you know calculate the energy needed to do that and how much energy resides in Methane Hydrate?
You just made it up...declared it so and it became so in the mind and said it was ridiculous and it became ridiculous in your mind.
If you doubt the energy of pressure just pop the cork on a Champagne bottle and see what happens....and that pressure is only a pond or two...or better yet release the pressure on a pressure cooker at about 5psi and see what happens....you will have to scrape what you are cooking off the ceiling...and that is something that happens often...and the Champagne that comes out of the bottle is far less dense and several times the volume as it was under pressure.
Those are all facts that are simple to observe.....if you want to know how much it expands while out gassing just pore a glass of it and see how the volume goes down as the gas is released in to the air.
But crap, you don't want to hear that, cause this is not about science and the evidence, this is about ideology.

And you are right, events do leave evidence of their occurrence....but there is no direct observation of that event that happened 10, years ago...and so we have only some of the evidence it left behind...and only some of it cause over great periods of time things get lost and destroyed by nature as well as man.
Now tell me how my theory of the flood that I have evidence for, and have presented some is so ridiculous?....because it does not prove some story wrong in the bible?....and that is the only evidence you will look at of discuss....if that ain't ideological I don't know what is cause science does not try prove a negative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #182)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:37 PM

183. Laugh riot

"Did you or anyone you know calculate the energy needed to do that and how much energy resides in Methane Hydrate? "

Before I respond to that directly... this was YOUR theory. Did YOU calculate it? Isn't that YOUR responsibility since it was your proposed explanation? Do you appreciate the comedy value of you running all over this thread throwing around wildly unsubstantiated crazy claims about world covering tsunamis and things bouncing off Jupiter without one single shred of data or evidence or calculation and then getting all outraged at me when I point it out because I didn't accompany my critique with the calculation YOU should have done before you even started typing?


Since I'm quite certain you didn't do any of these calculations and frankly can;t even conceptualize them, I won't bother waiting for the ridiculously obvious reply.

To begin with as a point of reference let's take a look at the 2011 Japan Tsunami. The resulting tsumani reached wave heights of about 10 meters. That 10 m wave was the result of a 9.0 earthquake with a seismic moment releasing approximately 4x10^22 Joules of energy.

To put that in perspective, that amount of energy is equivalent to over 9,000 gigatons of TNT. Which is be like taking every single nuclear weapon on earth, multiplying them by about 900, and then letting them all of at once in the same place.

10 meter wave. That managed to go this far:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/flash/newsgraphics/2011/0311-japan-earthquake-map/index.html?ref=asia

...inland on one shore of one tiny island that was VERY nearby and dissipated before it really had any significant effect on any other shoreline.


Following along so far?


YOU are proposing that somehow, through the result of the release of some pocket deposit of methane hydrates, you could produce a tsunami that would swamp mountain ranges THOUSANDS of meters high. Across the ENTIRE planet. We are not talking about champagne bottles and pressure cookers here. We are talking about literal world shattering energy requirements.




Now HOW MUCH methane are you claiming was released in this event?



Oh, and on a closing note:

"and the Champagne that comes out of the bottle is far less dense and several times the volume as it was under pressure"

When was the last time you popped the cork on a champagne bottle and spilled several liters of champagne on the floor? No, it is NOT several times the volume, 2 seconds of thought would be all that was necessary to realize that. You cannot make it through a post without posting half a dozen ridiculous things can you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #183)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:18 PM

184. And your theory is that such things are impossible .

And to even consider it is ridiculous cause you know how much energy it takes and you know how much energy is in the hydrates at the bottom of the sea....and it ain't what the geologists say is there or there is no real energy formed by hydrates formed under the tremendous pressures at the bottom of the sea....and that when it out gasses it does not expand the volume of the liquid like basic hi school physics are teaching kids...
But that is the way to avoid facts that don't fit...just pretend they don't exist...But you can find out for yourself if you want...there are many papers on hydrates in the sea...because this is a relatively new thing....until they got to the deep sea diving they did not know they existed.

Japan is not a tiny island...but the earth quake that caused it was tiny by comparison to what is possible, and what created the wave was a block of sea floor raised up creating the wave.that is tiny tiny compared to an even where an object with the mass of the earth made a close encounter with our earth....and close here wold be several times the distance to the moon...That would cause the renting of the crust of the whole earth...surly you must know that...the force of gravity is not an unknown.
And if that crust rented and magma flowed out of the cracks and onto a bed of methane hydrates a hundred feet thick I ca assure you there would come a plume of gas and water along with parts of the sea floor that would shoot into the atmosphere...and it wold last for days...and that out gassing would expand the watter...
Now you cannot tell me that the above could not happen...obviously it could....what you are really trying to say is that you don't want it to be real cause the Christians might win a point if there could have been a flood...and your whole "the bible is 100% false" meme falls apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #184)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:15 AM

185. The above could not happen

Look, you are just writing bad fiction. It's clear you know nothing about the physics involved; you're just making it up as you go along. The amount of energy held in hydrates is not really relevant; there is no evidence that there has been an instantaneous release of a huge amount of gas from hydrates. Nor can anyone put forward any reason why there should have been.

No "object with the mass of the earth made a close encounter with our earth" after about 4 billion years ago (the collision that formed the Moon). Velikovsky's claims were physically impossible. But even an object of that size would not have the effect you claim if it passed "several times the distance to the moon". It would have tidal effects on the same order of magnitude as the Moon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #185)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:05 PM

188. Well great then, we have a definitive answer.

Link please to evidence that no hydrates like that ever existed, and evidence that no celestial body ever could or has came close to the earth and that if it did the gravity forces wold have not even mussed the earths hair except for some tidal forces....Would love to read that little piece of fiction.

The problem with these arguments it making claims like that, that obviously you cannot know, and expecting people to cave to it and accept it as some kind fact in your mythology of uniformitarianism.


But if you know then show me the physics of how close the celestial body would have to come to the earth to cause a major catastrophe...or are you going to tell us sense it has never happened in our life time it is proof it could not and has not ever happened? Can't you see how wrong that logic really is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #188)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:38 PM

190. POE'S LAW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #190)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:49 PM

196. My intent is to learn

So I guess that makes me a sincere extremist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #196)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:51 PM

200. If your intent was to learn, you would have stopped plastering nonsense after nonsense...

SO at the very least, you are not sincere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #200)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:32 PM

204. It is not nonsense and it is nonsense to say it is.

Nonsense is claiming to know things you cannot possibly know....and refusing to lern new things and may have to modify your belief system.
I actually like having to modify my belief system when I learn new things...I am not stuck to any ideology for any reason.
My mind can be changed...but only by evidence...not someone telling me there is no evidence there at all when I know there is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #204)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:04 AM

206. Nonsense.

My mind can be changed...but only by evidence...


Considering the sheer amount of evidence placed in front of you, I have but one thing to say to that comment...



Nonsense.


You have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #188)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:48 PM

192. The tidal force from an object is inversely proportional to the cube of distance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

Therefore an object 'several' times further away than the Moon will not have a huge tidal effect. For instance, if 'several' means 5, then an Earth-sized object (81 times the mass of the Moon) would have 81/(5^3) = 0.65 times the effect of the Moon. And the rotation of the Earth means that the tidal force from the Moon is applied to it from a continuously differing direction, all the time - but the Earth does not crack open every 13 hours.

What hydrates are you claiming existed that would simultaneously erupt due to a force less than the hydrates we know experience every day?

As for evidence that none of this happened while humans were alive: the Vostok ice cores - over 400,000 years of climate records, showing nothing in terms of a giant global flood, earth-'rending' forces, or anything remotely like that: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html

Beyond that, we have the rocks that, again, show the normal processes of deposition, with no global flood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #192)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:44 PM

195. So then how close would the encounter have to be to cause the crust

Of the earth to move and crack?....surely you will not tell us that there is not enough force in the nature of this kind of event to cause the crust of the earth to crack in a big way are you?...that would be laughable....
But i suppose it must be calculated out before you can say such things are possible eh?

But I am guessing at how far that would be...and several does not mean five and you do not account for the angle of the approach which could be in sync with the tidal force of the moon or against it and has more to do with angular momentum than distance. And frankly I would thing a pass of a million and a quarter miles would have a large effect....in any case it would add to the over all effect of cracking the shell of the earth crust...and it would have been in the way it was moving in it's normal state of creeping cause things break where there is weakness.

But do some research on Hydrates and you will learn that they are ice because of temperature and pressure...and that is why the only exist in the deep earth or in deep sea...usually near a subduction zone. and in beds hundreds of feet thick... a flow of hot magma flowing up in those beds all of a sudden would release fantastic amounts of gas and watter.
BP disaster was caused by the pressure on hydrates being released by lowering the pressure from sticking a small hole in them....and that is what fracking is all about...fractuering hydrates.

But the ice core samples are good evidence for your side...cause they do show layering...but here is the rub....it is based on the same principles of uniformitarianism...that ho thing big ever happens....and so if they see one layer they think one year...but is that true? could there be more than one layer in a year?...and how would you know?...so while that evidence is good it is not empirical.
The evidence for the deposition of the layers was covered in that clip I posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #184)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:45 AM

186. SUCH THINGS LEAVE FREAKING EVIDENCE

If you split the planet open, which is what is necessary to produce the effect you're looking for, that leaves teeny tiny little indicators behind. Like a split open freaking planet. The planet DID NOT crack open in recent human history. Period. Claiming otherwise is purely insane.


And to even consider it is ridiculous cause you know how much energy it takes and you know how much energy is in the hydrates at the bottom of the sea....and it ain't what the geologists say is there or there is no real energy formed by hydrates formed under the tremendous pressures at the bottom of the sea....and that when it out gasses it does not expand the volume of the liquid like basic hi school physics are teaching kids...


In other words, you didn't read one damn word I just typed in that last post. Not one. Instead of dealing with a single fucking thing I said you went off on a rant about a bunch of things that had nothing to do with what I said.

"it ain't what the geologists say is there". Yes, it IS what they say is there. what they say is there is NOT what YOU say is there. Get it?

"there is no real energy formed by hydrates under pressure". Yes, there IS energy formed by hydrates under pressure. But not enough to produce the crazy impossible tsunami you claim happened. Understand?

Etc...

And yes Japan is a tiny island. We're talking about global scales remember? Japan covers a whopping 0.07% of the earth's surface. And only one fraction of the shoreline of that tiny island was impacted by a tsunami that took the equivalent of 900 times the power of the combined global nuclear arsenal being let off 70 measly kilometers away to create.



And if that crust rented and magma flowed out of the cracks and onto a bed of methane hydrates a hundred feet thick I ca assure you there would come a plume of gas and water along with parts of the sea floor that would shoot into the atmosphere...and it wold last for days...and that out gassing would expand the watter...


Yep, yep, yep... and leaving aside the fact that we know none of that happened through this little thing called geology all of that WOULD NOT PRODUCE A MASSIVE GLOBE COVERING TSUNAMI ANYWAY SO WHO FREAKING CARES?!?!?!? You realize that the REASON tsunamis happen is because earthquakes happen violently and INSTANTLY right? Slow events that last for days do not produce tsunamis, which are sudden massive high energy IMPULSES being transmitted through the water. What produces the tsunami is the *jolt*. You don't even know what a tsunami is do you? You've been talking about them for dozens of posts and you don't know what they are.

You have no idea about *any* of this.


Now I asked you a several questions about your little theory and you've been constantly avoiding them.

1. How does a tsunami sort material in this pattern:

Top: Limestone Layer
Sandstone Layer
Another Sandstone Layer (#2)
Shale Layer
ANOTHER Sandstone Layer (#3)
ANOTHER Shale Layer (#2)
Sand/Conglomorates Layer
ANOTHER Limestone Layer (#2)
ANOTHER DIFFERENT Limestone Layer (#3)
YET ANOTHER Different Limestone Layer (#4)
ANOTHER Shale Layer (#3)
ANOTHER Sandstone Layer (#4)
ANOTHER Sandstone Layer (#5)
A Quartzite Layer
ANOTHER Shale Layer (#4)
ANOTHER Limestone Layer (#5)

2. How does a tsunami sort material into that pattern AND sort the material embedded in the layers by their radioisotope content?

3. How does a tsunami do that AND sort the fossils in the layers by their morphology instead of by their size and density?


And 4... HOW MUCH METHANE ARE YOU CLAIMING WAS RELEASED?



You have nothing and you know it.



Your little theory can't explain any of the data and you know it.



You can't answer these basic fundamental questions and you know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #186)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:52 AM

187. Yes indeed...such thing do leave evidence.

And this is about that evidence and you have dismissed it all cause of some kind of vendetta against the bible or religion of some nonsense like that...but telling us that such evidence does not exist even though it does.
And the earth does have a big crack in it...lots of them actually...it circles the globe....they call it the ring of fire.....and guess what?...the methane hydrates form along the subduction zone and can be hundreds of feet thick for miles and miles long....there is a scholarly paper on this and you can read it for yourself....the one I briefly looked at was the Cascadia subduction zone off the coast of Washington.
Here; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X98000132

And I did read every word you posted....what you don't understand is that your words are not the arbiter of all truth...and just because you say things don't mean shit to me....just as what I say makes no difference to you at all....the ideology takes over and must be protected at all cost...even to denying the obvious and dismissing it as nonsense.

But that is why I said tsunami like wave...cause I knew you could and would pick apart definitions like you have done to other things I said....like deposits v layers...
Of course it did not act like a tsunami caused by an earth quake...although if there was a cataclysm as I have described there would be multiple tsunamis caused by earthquakes in addition to the ones caused by the fracture of the methane layer.

And the sorting of the layers was covered in the clip I posted...if you would have watched it you would have seen it and you would not have to ask that...in fact the explanation of the layering was the major part of the clip.

But I can tell you how much Methane was released....mega Hugh...that is all one can say because it is like asking how much oil is there and how much energy it represents....it is not necessary to have a figure when the deposits are that large.

But I just did answer those questions...you just did not like the answers.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #187)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:28 PM

189. For cripes sake.

"And the sorting of the layers was covered in the clip I posted"


No it isn't. This will now make the SECOND time I "reminded" you to tell me where if you disagree. Provide the time stamp or you're full of crap.


"But I can tell you how much Methane was released....mega Hugh"


Translation: You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever so cannot provide even VAGUE details when pressed for them. The bottom line is you can't put a number on this because if you did it would then be immediately used to prove your claim is impossible. So you hand-wave at it instead.




I'm done dancing around this with you while you refuse to addres any of the basic impossibilities of your claims then pretend like the answers just exist out there somewhere. This conversation does not continue until you provide this data or admit you can't because it doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #189)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:09 PM

197. It is there...you just did not see it.

Too busy thinking of how you were going to counter it I guess.

Try 0:35:15


Question for you.
If I asked you how many stars there were there and you said trillions, wold that mean there were not enough to prove the universe is out there cause you did not know exactly how many?....there probably is a Latin word for that kind of logic but I don't know it...and if not then there should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #197)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:46 PM

198. No. It. Is. Not

He's talking about one group of nautoloid fossils in ONE layer and saying the fact that they are all in one place somehow proves they were all buried together at the same time. So what?

He says NOTHING about the radioisotope sorting through the *entire* geologic column. Not one damn word.

And he says NOTHING about how the different layers of sandstone and limestone ended up stacked on top of each other and intermixed again and again and again instead of all the sandstone being in one layer, and all the limestone being in another, etc... which is how they WOULD be sorted if they had been sorted by any hydrologic process.

And he says NOTHING about how EVERY FOSSIL ON THE PLANET ON EVERY LAYER IN THE COLUMN are sorted according to MORPHOLOGY.

Want to try again? Like I said, this conversation does not continue until you either answer those questions are admit you can't. I've been waiting quite long enough for you to stop dodging around them. Not playing anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #198)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:49 PM

199. What you watched it for about one minute?

He talks on for at least an hour on the sediment and the layers...How the hell do you think I am going to do better here?
But I guess there can never be enough to satisfy you....you just keep raising the bar that I have to jump over.
And always with the hyperbole of NOTHING and NEVER and ALWAYS...and when shown that it is not nothing and never and always you just ignore it and go on making statements that full of absolutes.

But the drill is on...I keep answering and you keep saying I did not answer and no such thing ever existed or ever will...and then raises the bar even higher...
But ask your questions one at a time and I will stay with it as long as you will....I got all the rest of my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #199)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:49 PM

205. I've watched the entire thing.

You think him spending an hour blabbing away while saying "sediment" and "layers" a lot is the same thing as him answering the specific questions ABOUT the layers and how the contents were sorted in the manner I listed?

He did not so much as mention one damn word about sorting by radioisotope content. Not. One. Damn. Word.

He did not mention One Single Word about how the entire column had its fossil contents sorted by morphology.

He didn't say jack squat about how a flood layers sandstone on limestone on sandstone on different sandstone on limestone again......

And you know what? I'm pretty sure you know it. You have nothing... and you know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #205)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:20 AM

208. Well what I know for sure is that it will and can never be enough.

This guy spends over an hour talking on the subject and presenting his case as best he could and you say it is all just babbling on, cause it did not agree with your own conclusions....so when you watched you were looking for what he did not say, and thinking how you could counter it....all of that comes from ideology not science.

And he did talk about how the layers were formed in a catastrophic flood...
Try it at about 0:34:30 where it talks about laminar flows. and he spend some time on making the case...

It is fair to say that he did not answer every question you could think to ask or to school us on the science of laminar flows...But it is not fair to say he did not explain his points.
And I know it is hard for you to take this cause you have so much invested in the complete denial of all that could suggest any religious point could be right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #208)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:45 AM

209. He didn't answer ANY freaking question I asked.

And neither have you. Because they can't be answered. Because the column being laid down by a flood is ***physically impossible***.

Since you're clearly never going to address any of my questions feel free to run along now. We're done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #209)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:16 AM

210. Well I have no intentions of running along now.

But we have established that you can ask questions that have not been covered and claim that the fact that you can ask questions that have not been answered proves you are right.
Like I said, there probably is a Latin name for that kind of logic but I don;t know it....but lack of evidence is not evidence...and because every question you could think of was not answered does not mean shit.
And none of that is physically imposable...at least according to Physics and science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #210)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:13 PM

211. Feel free to hang out talking to yourself then.

"And none of that is physically imposable...at least according to Physics and science"

Since you are clearly unfamiliar with both of the above, whatever you want to tell yourself. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #186)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:39 PM

191. Hay man, he is a Poe, and is just playing you.

Poe's Law...

Nuff said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #191)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:49 PM

193. That was the conclusion I was leaning towards back in post #170...

But it's hard to resist responding to statements this absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #193)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:38 PM

194. I know, I responded for a bit too!

But it quickly became obvious that this particular poster is either bat-shit crazy like Michelle Bachman or is just playing a game for his own amusement. Either way, he makes DU suck more, so I quit feeding him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #150)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:18 PM

154. I thought you wished to end this conversation?




Yet, here you are.


Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #154)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:56 AM

158. I never give up when when leaving someone calls me a coward.

If you want it to continue just continue calling me one...I can stay here till the cows come home if you like.
Perhaps you have been accustomed to people caving when you do your intimidation thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #158)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:13 AM

160. Never called you a coward, but if you feel you are one, that is your problem.



Accusing me of saying things I never said? Most would say that is the quality of a liar.

You have yourself a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #160)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:33 PM

161. And at the second parting....call them a liar

You just have to have the last insult don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #161)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:01 PM

163. Is it not the trait of a liar to fabricate the words of another?

The only insult is the failure to acknowledge what you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #163)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:07 AM

164. You mean like you did when you "tranlated" my words?

"Translation: I just had my ass handed to me so I will bloviate for a bit then slink off in a huff."

And who slinks off but a coward?
And so you fail to acknowledge what you have done....and tell me it is not fair to translate what YOU have said...
But like i said....I have been here before....the hyperbole and rhetoric only gets more bizarre as this goes on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #164)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:24 AM

165. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Gertrude's Law.


You have yourself a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #150)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:19 AM

157. But you do walk away when you do not have any evidence to support you.

You also seem to lack abilities in reading your own favoured brand of woo.

You only have faith to support your beliefs, there is nothing wrong with that unless you insist upon everyone else giving credence to your fantasies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:33 AM

151. Is that a bad joke?

No mention of flood stories in other cultures? One of the many, many, many atheist arguments pointing out the nonsense that is the biblical flood story is that it is a clear ripoff of the Gilgamesh epic. Some lazy doofus just copied it and modified some names and details.

And yes, we will point out TO LITERALISTS WHO INSIST THAT THE BIBLE IS LITERALLY TRUE that the literal story is fantastically nonsensical. How "weak" of us to state the obvious truth.

We also, for the record, point out that it is an ironclad scientific fact that there has never been a global flood. Ever. Period. Wave around all the "flood" stories from multiple cultures" claims you like the hard evidence refutes it conclusively. Beginning with the tiny little detail that there is insufficient water on the planet to HAVE a global flood, moving on to the tiny inconvenient fact that the geologic column is a continuous record of events like floods throughout the last several billion years and show no indication of a global flood... etc...

"And other rational people just sit in amazement at how it is all so constructed so that no one wins and no one ever learns anything"


By "no one" do you actually mean you? Because the people who know this is all bullshit have learned the material quite well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:52 AM

12. Creation "science" is also bad theology

This stuff annoys me so much. Creation science is not only bad science, it is also bad theology.

I love the Noah story and teach it to my students each year alongside the Gilgamesh Epic. The Noah story derives from flood myths even more ancient than itself: the similar story in the Gilgamesh epic, and other other even older flood stories with almost exactly the same plot line. The oldest, if memory serves, is the Eridu Genesis, which is more than a thousand years older than Noah. The Noah accounts (there are actually two in the Bible, from 2 different sources, and they're mixed up into one narrative) took the same story line and reworked into monotheistic polemics against polytheism: so instead of multiple gods sending the flood, there is one God; and instead of the flood being sent because people are noisy, it is sent because people are sinful - thus they take the plotline and rework it to say something about what they believe about the divine and the moral order of the universe. Also, in the older stories the gods regret their decision because they get hungry (they are dependent on human agriculture and on sacrifices), whereas God seems disappointed in the Genesis account when Noah offers up a sacrifice - the point being made is that the God of the ancient Hebrews is not dependent on humans. So the story is polemical in nature - a theological treatise against the other religions of the day.

The story is also highly symbolic: in much of the Ancient Middle East, water symbolized chaos, plus it was believed that creation consists of a dome in the middle of the waters above and the waters below, nd people live in the safe fertile dome or "bubble" in the middle of these waters: so, in effect, what happens during the flood, is that almost the whole of creation is destroyed, taken over by the chaos. Creation survives, temporarily, only in embryonic form: on the ark, the only remaining safe "bubble" where life still exists. Hence the importance of having samples of all animals. It is, however, SYMBOLIC, not literal in any sense.

In short, reading these stories as an alternative science is both scientifically wrong and theologically wrong.

*I should add that I have preached the story like this as well. It is not true that all of Christianity takes these stories literally - it is mostly the fundamentalists that do so, but they are a VERY loud presence in American culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:34 PM

32. I would expect some flooding at the end of an ice age.

Since the last one ended about 10,000 years ago.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

It would seem that it's possible that there would be stories from about every culture. Any time your 'settlement' was behind a berm of some type, and the water rose to a point; your 'entire world' would be destroyed. Just like the levees being over-topped in New Orleans.

The survivors could tell whatever story they wanted to the first culture they came across who had built their civilization on higher ground. If they rebuilt without interacting with another culture; it might be fun to brag about how you were smart enough to built an ark.

The same rising water levels that caused the 'Lost Continent of Atlantis' to be destroyed. It makes sense that Atlantis would have more advanced technology than anywhere else in the world; it would have attracted the greatest minds to the part of the planet with the best weather. From both the Americas and Europe.

My point is there probably was flooding, but there wouldn't have been any reason to load up the animals; that's just some shit you come up with to explain where the animals came from when you tell the flood story to your great grand kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #32)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:02 PM

37. Yes, there are flood stories across the world

There are indeed stories of a great flood in cultures all across the world, although their details differ significantly (not all have a boat, for example). My point was that the biblical story of Noah follows the same storyline of the other Ancient Near Eastern stories, and all the evidence point to the Noah version to be significantly younger than most of the others, so to take it literally is just nonsense. The story was never meant to tell a historical tale, but is a theological polemic. But I agree that it seems likely that the worldwide flood stories, whatever their different details, must have had their origins in massive flooding that occurred either at roughly the same time or for that matter at different times in different parts of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:11 PM

39. Haven't you had that goofy uncle that tells funny stories.

I had a great uncle who told us to stop playing with the salamanders. He said that they would 'bite your fingers off.'

The very next day he said they didn't have any teeth. We reminded him that he had said they had teeth the day before. He said they fell out over night.

These were the folks passing the flood stories on. Of course they don't cover all the details. They're just a story to pass on to the next generation. Just kind of joking with the young ones.

It's just a theory of mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:42 PM

40. There was no world-wide flood

There's simply no geological evidence of it.

Floods in general, however, are a relatively common event. No doubt there was a major flood in the Near East which influenced the Babylonian Utnapishtam story, which in turn influenced the Hebrew Noah myth.

You really don't need to go back as far as the last major ice age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #40)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:53 AM

50. Even older than Utnapishtim

The Utnapishtim story itself dates back to even older stories (all with a hero, ark, and animals), like the Eridu Genesis, and the story of Atrahasis.

I agree that various floods seem to be the most likely, but I can also imagine that given how common flooding is, that the "world is coming to an end" tone of the stories indicate a storm of cataclysmic proportions and not simple annual flooding. Not a wordwide one - that is simply impossible, but strange weather over large portions of land is quite possible during times of climate change.

Anyway, what interests me are the stories themselves. They show a worldview so different from ours, and they show human beings trying to make sense of events. I love these stories, and I love teaching them, and I hate what the fundies do to these stories, trying to turn them into actual historical events and putting them in the middle of this stupid political fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:42 AM

57. More on "Creation science is not only bad science, it is also bad theology."

The great Christian writer, Augustine of Hippo, addressed this very point in his De Genisi ad Litteram (not really translatable, "On Genesis to the Letter" is a literal translation, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" is as close as one can get in English), 1.19 (my translation)

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case "without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance."


The quote at the end is 1 Timothy 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:31 AM

15. You put the words 'Creation' and 'Science' in the same sentence.

Without the words 'is not' between them.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:58 AM

16. The implications are chilling...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:10 PM

18. One thing I have seen in YEC is the use of

extraordinary and rare events in the geologic record and make them the norm of geologic science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:31 PM

20. Why would a flying opossum evolve *into* something that can't cross the road? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:40 PM

26. Haha, good one! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:48 PM

21. What I always wonder is how they got the parasites on the ark

Things like lice, ringworm, guinea worm, etc. Did they divide it up, straws, did one person do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:40 PM

28. What a cute plush animal.

I want one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:43 PM

29. Isn't that an illustration from Durbin's Origin of the Specious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #29)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:42 PM

35. +

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 04:34 PM

30. The creator god must have been inordinately fond of beetles

Order Coleoptera = beetles

The largest order in the animal kingdom, with more than 350,000 described species worldwide, representing about 40% of all known insects. About 24,000 spp. in 131 families are known.

And when we say "all know insects," that includes ants, flies, butterflies, moths, spiders, mosquitos, tarantulas, roaches, mites, crickets & grasshoppers, mantises, bees, hornets, wasps, thrips, and termites. Did I leave anything out?

Every year more beetle species discovered and described.

So the ark was big enough to hold all the species, but ... where did Noah store all their food? Termites on a wooden ark? uh-oh ...

I don't believe in a creator god, unless there's some meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-level of divine consciousness, but I have no evidence for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:40 PM

33. I was told 1 in 4 of all organisms is a beetle.

If you are standing in a line with 3 people at the grocery store; between the customers and clerk, one of you is a beetle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #33)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:43 AM

48. haha but you were told wrong

all organisms would by definition include all ocean life, as in copopods, algae, spnges, and work your way up the food chain through worms, crustaceans and fish. That's not even counting land mammels, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Then there's viruses, bacteria, yeasts, etc. Lotta life out there.

I'm just waiting for Mars Curiosity to report finding hydrocarbons. Won't that be a kick? Of course Baptist church will deny the significance of such a find. Lordy, lordy, when will we be rid of organized religion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:02 AM

52. neato.

 

and most of the biomass on earth is ants. they outweigh all other species put together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #68)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:19 PM

69. Don't think anybody really knows, but the main competitors would be ants, termites,

nematodes, krill, and cows.

Those are all apparently within a factor of about 2 of coming out winners. Hence too close to call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:41 AM

72. None of them appear to be anywhere near outweighing all the other put together

and as the ant blog pointed out, you ought to compare species with species, genus with genus etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:17 PM

31. I recognize that animal. It is a petauroides volans fergusonia. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:30 PM

94. It's a story!

The fundies take it as history. It's a story! I'm always amazed that rational people here try to pretend that they take it as seriously as the fundies do. Get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #94)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:24 PM

108. Uh, have a look at Zeemlike's posts in this thread.

Are you calling zeemlike a fundy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #94)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:06 PM

153. 46% of Americans are fundies?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

That's 46% of Americans (of all beliefs), so if you scale back to Christians only, it's a MAJORITY of US Christians who, according to you, are fundies.

You seem to be building your ivory tower higher and higher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #94)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:01 PM

155. I reiterate cleanhippie's question, and wait for an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #94)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:49 PM

167. Me too.



Would like you to answer the questions posed before you.

Is Zeemike a fundamentalist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:33 PM

169. Sorry, peeps, but arguing with the guy

in the psych ward trying to convince him he isn't Napoleon is not a productive activity, even if it's amusing for a while. Better to save facts and rationality for those it isn't wasted on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread