|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
What ever gave you the idea that that is difficult to estimate? Estimate how many trees were in Asia in 2,300 B.C. To know what you are asking of me would be more difficult than what I just challenged you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I think Calypsis needs to stick with one topic (missing geologic layers, polystrate trees, fossil beds) and explore that thoroughly. This spamming is just really annoying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Calypsis4 is running all over the place and other members don't have the sense not to chase him.
Closing this topic in (more or less) 15 minutes. The next one needs to be more precisely defined. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2 Thread Reopen Requests 2 Topic Proposal Issues Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
When you say die together, do you mean on the same day, month, year, century? Or what? And what evidence is there to confirm your answer? Immediate burial and fossilization is almost a foregone conclusion for the mass of thousands of creatures who died at Agate Springs. It is by no means the only place where there is such a massive example of organisms dying at the same time.
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/gosiutichthys-parvus-t-1.jpg[/thumb=300] [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/0004.jpg[/thumb=300]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I gave an answer to your post #6 though. Would you agree with me that the only point of disagreement on your mtDNA argument is the dating of the specimens ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Obvious Child writes: All your ripple marks suggest (especially since that rock is limestone or other sedimentary rock) is that such rock was at the bottom of the ocean. It takes exceptionally long times to produce that kind of wear and tear on hard rock. You can try this yourself. Get an aquarium, take smooth rock, set up an agitator and let it run for a year. You will not get the same results as the pictures you show. But if you let that rock sit for millions of years, you will. Someone rated this message to be a 5. WRONG WRONG WRONG! Those ripples are from a current moving the sediments, not a current carving solid rock. It may be a water current or it may be the wind. Moose Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I think Calypsis needs to stick with one topic (missing geologic layers, polystrate trees, fossil beds) and explore that thoroughly. This spamming is just really annoying And I think that you need to practice a little more honesty. Would you and the other critics please take a look at the title of this topic? Please! Everything I have covered on this thread is about the flood of Noah, the fossils that were formed by it, and the evidence that reveals a great catastrophe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Get an aquarium, take smooth rock, set up an agitator and let it run for a year. You will not get the same results as the pictures you show. But if you let that rock sit for millions of years, you will. That statement is pure baloney. For one thing it has been observed in our time. Secondly, no one has ever sat to observe such a thing for millions of yrs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I gave an answer to your post #6 though. Would you agree with me that the only point of disagreement on your mtDNA argument is the dating of the specimens ? Right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
The next one needs to be more precisely defined. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2 Thread Reopen Requests 2 Topic Proposal Issues Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Me, I think this topic is a monument to the lack of focus.
If there is a subtopic someone wishes to pursue further, please propose a new topic. Please define the theme and scope of discussion pretty tightly. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined:
|
Thank you!
The reason creationists think they win discussions with non-creationists is because they dive bomb their adversaries to death with a myriad of unsupported assertions. They think their one- or two-sentence statements are quality refutations, while the rest of us who know better are drafting 200+ word arguments... which go largely ignored because the creationist doesn't understand them. Creationists who want to advance their *theory* need to do so on a case by case basis. That's how science works. When all the pieces come together to form a logical and coherent story, then they have a leg to stand on. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given. Edited by roxrkool, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
I stayed out of this thread for the same reason I stayed out of the Moon thread and regretted getting into the living fossils. I recognized that it would be a waste of my time. Calypsis, as was pointed out by others, has no interest in discussion or debate but wants a forum to present his ideas unchallenged.
When his ideas are challenged he resorts to mockery, insults, running off-topic, and (most often) completely ignoring entire points. As I mentioned in the living fossil thread, I took a great deal of time to collect resources and show that most of his so-called living fossils were distant relatives at best. Others have done the same on that and other Calypsis threads. All of the 'hard facts' (ones not answered by creo sources?) are summarily ignored. I was eagerly awaiting Calypsis' response to Coyote's message #6 on Down on Your Knees man's haplotype (I met one of the 46 last year at the big clan gathering here in Juneau, Alaska). Instead he responded with two posts showing a complete misunderstanding of the question. Several posts later, when it was explained, I thought he would surely have an answer. But silence from Calypsis. It is this exact style of 'debate' that lets me infer that Calypsis' knowledge of the subjects he promotes goes no further than a few creationist books or websites from which he repeats irrelevant claim after claim. (oddly reminiscent of the Palin-Couric interview) Also on this thread Calypsis did (again) repeat his amazing feat of dismissing an actual expert in the field as knowing nothing. I am wondering if he isn't 'beefing up his CV' and will, in the future, tell the anecdote of how he pwned an actual physicist and archaeologist in a debate this one time. That and his 'threats' that the next example or next thread will definitely be a show-stopper. The one promised here on radiocarbon is the latest example. I would be willing to bet that those of us here could write all 20 or so examples and points on radiocarbon he plans to present, seal them in an envelope, then reveal when that thread closes and we will have covered them all. So I, for one, will be joining those more intelligent than I in just ignoring Calypsis threads until he either goes away or starts respectfully and honestly discussing his assertions. Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I've not participated for two reasons: 1) I'm recovering from major medical conditions, and 2) I had earlier spent a few years of my life trying to carry on a discussion with a local creationist who was a pathological liar and used the exact same methods as Calypsis4 has repeatedly and consistently used. How could any reasonable person even think they could carry on any kind of meaningful discussion with such an individual?
I would have jumped in at one point, but LindaLou beat me to it. When Calpysis4 (BTW, look up that word; rather an interesting insight to this individual and his probably character and motivation) regurgitated the standard creationist spasm about the geological column, LindaLou pointed him directly to Glenn R. Morton's page about the existence of the complete geological column (as per published creationist standards) both in North Dakota (been there, having for five years served 200 miles from the "middle of nowhere", AKA Rugby, ND) and in about 31 other locations in the world. Not only that, but that complete geological column contains several widely separated layers of shale, which requires extended periods of tranquil water and so could not have possibly formed within a mere fraction of a single year of highly turbulent flooding. Plus, many layers contain burrows made by organisms of that time, such that those burrows could not have possibly been dug within such fractions of a single year of highly turbulent flooding. Plus, crinoid beds that contain so many crinoids that they wouldn't have left any room on the entire earth for any other organisms, let alone all of themselves. But the real killer evidence to be presented by Glenn R. Morton is his own story. He used to be a young-earth creationist. All he knew about geology he had learned from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). He even wrote several articles for the Creation Science Research Quarterly (part of the creationist organization that preceded the ICR). When he graduated with a BS Physics at a time when that degree didn't mean much (some time in the 1980's), he went to work as a field geologist for an oil company. A moment here, please, to get some perspective. When he presented his findings at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC), the crowd from the ICR immediately challenged him. In particular, John Morris, who identified himself as a "petroleum geologist". Morton chopped Morris off at the ankles with two questions:1. "What petroleum company did you work for?" "Well, uh, I taught one semester on the subject at the University of Oklahoma." (ie, no actual field experience, which Morton did indeed have). 2. "How old is the earth?" "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." That is the mind-set that Morton had been taught when he went to work in the field. At that 1986 ICC, Morton reported that he had hired several geology graduates of Christian Heritage College [which formerly housed the ICR and hence they had all been similarly trained in ICR flood geology], and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. They were utterly unprepared to face the geological facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis. What was not reported at that time, but was later reported by Morton himself, "creation science" drove Morton to "the verge of atheism". It wasn't evolution, nor was it geology, but rather creation science that drove him to the verge of atheism, because it was not evolution nor geology, but rather creation science that insisted that if the world is older than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning. Glenn tells his own story at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm and at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm, plus he provides others' personal stories at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm -- I would personally recommend Steve Smith's story at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ssmith.htm. I would recommend that Calypsis follow those links and learn the truth, but I know that he never will. Morton's site contains many pages providing extensive problems that the rock-hard geological facts refute creationist "flood geology". Calypsis needs to learn the truth for somebody who has actual hands-on experience. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot: Calypsis is incapable of learning the truth. One of the occupational hazards of being a creationist. OBTW, I found Calypsis4's mention of the Green River Shale to have been hilarious! Morton presented that evidence at the 1986 ICC as being extremely serious problems for "flood geology". That formation required several thousands of years of annual deposits in tranquil water and could not have possibly formed during a single year of turbulent flooding. I'm sorry that I cannot provide a link to this other piece of evidence, but Morton seems to be reorganizing his site at this time. He presented a coprolite, a fossilized turtle turd. A fossilized dessicated (means "dried up") turtle turd. What are the chances of a turd in a turbulent flood? What are the chances of a turd getting dried up in a flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4328 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
I had been looking for places in the science forums where an interested non-expert like me could join in, having been banned for posting too many uncomfortable facts in another creationist forum. Calypsis' posts show so much astounding scientific ignorance that I found it easy to join in with refuting them. Like others here have done, I should have stopped early on when it became apparent that he has no interest in the facts, detailed posts are wasted on him, and maybe all he really wants to do here is stir us up and then go off and claim to his admiring creo friends that he won debates with us. I enjoyed the space I had to add a bit of my own knowledge but it came at the price of chasing after rapidly-shifting topics and feeling like I'd been made to look silly. The next such thread needs to be more focused, I agree, but I also think that until (if ever, which I think is unlikely) Calypsis changes his attitude, it's better not to give him a platform for proselytising.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024