Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,800 Year: 4,057/9,624 Month: 928/974 Week: 255/286 Day: 16/46 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Geology and the Great Flood ⇒

Uniformitarianism and Geology

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism and Geology
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9197
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2

Normal Thread Display

(1)
Message 37 of 56 (593038)
11-23-2010 9:38 PM 		Reply to: Message 20 by alschwin
11-21-2010 1:31 AM

Nat Geo issue?
How about providing the issue of Nat Geo this was in?
​
I find it hilarious that fundies and YEC's have this need to appeal to authority but usually fuck it up
​
Your statement
National Geographic not long ago published a picture of a polystrate fossil
​
ICR says
Years ago, National Geographic published a remarkable photograph of a polystrate fossil
​
Was it not long ago, or was it years ago?
What the hell does Nat Geo publishing the photo have to do with anything? How does that help your position?
​
Polystrates have been explained by others already so I will not kick that dead horse. I am sure you have ignored all of the evidence and instead are going to believe what Ian Juby has to say.
​
I love this statement from Juby.
This page is reserved for brief, easy to read scientific studies.
​
Care to present his scientific credentials since you seem to have a need to appeal to authority. By what reason should we listen to anything Ian has to say?
​
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by alschwin, posted 11-21-2010 1:31 AM alschwin has not replied
  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9197
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2

Normal Thread Display
Message 52 of 56 (593188)
11-24-2010 8:05 PM 		Reply to: Message 20 by alschwin
11-21-2010 1:31 AM

Bump for alschwin
I see you are on now and you seem to have ignored Message 37. Do you have evidence for this fossil being published in Nat Geo? Or are my suspicions correct that you just copied this info from a creo site? I would really like to see the original Nat Geo article if it exists. Context is everything.
​
But I am afraid that you might actually have no clue whether Nat Geo published such a thing or not. Did you sacrifice your credibility for a lying creo website?
​
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by alschwin, posted 11-21-2010 1:31 AM alschwin has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2010 8:39 PM Theodoric has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024