Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying Creation
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 141 (3186)
01-31-2002 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
01-30-2002 4:29 PM


The author of this silliness either deliberately or through ignorance has completely misunderstood the idea of falsification in science. Falsifiability means that it must be possible, paradoxically, to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false. This requirement leads to the logic that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false, and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it. If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then whatever evidence exists doesn’t matter. It would be utterly pointless to even look at the evidence, because the conclusion is already known. The claim is thus invulnerable to any possible evidence. Note: this doesn’t imply that the claim is true. On the contrary, it implies that the claim is completely meaningless. It is logically impossible for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim there is ALWAYS some kind of evidence, which if discovered, would make the claim false. In short, every true claim is falsifiable. Welcome to science.
The second major fallacy committed by the author relates to his attempt to force the proponents of the competing hypothesis to invalidate or falsify his claim for him, by showing that theirs is completely true in all possible cases. In other words, yours cannot be proven 100%, therefore mine is true. Let me see if I can make this clear:
YOU CANNOT VALIDATE A THEORY BY DEMANDING THAT THE ADHERENTS OF AN OPPOSING THEORY PROVE THEIRS. YOU CAN ONLY VALIDATE A THEORY BY PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOURS. That plain enough for you?
The two paragraphs you cited, along with your spurious demand that we prove the ToE, do NOT provide any potential falsification of creationism.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:29 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 01-31-2002 9:47 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 141 (3205)
01-31-2002 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by John Paul
01-31-2002 9:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Q:
YOU CANNOT VALIDATE A THEORY BY DEMANDING THAT THE ADHERENTS OF AN OPPOSING THEORY PROVE THEIRS. YOU CAN ONLY VALIDATE A THEORY BY PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOURS.
John Paul:
Who said anything about validation? I posted on the topic of falsification. Is that clear enough for you?

It's patently obvious you have no clue about what you posted, do you? Take a look at your so-called "falsifications". The only way to falsify the examples you posted would be to prove evolution true in 100% of the cases.
Perhaps you would care to provide a different interpretation of:
quote:
would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible
and
quote:
would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time
In other words, prove ToE true or creationism isn't false. Nice try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 01-31-2002 9:47 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 141 (3254)
02-01-2002 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
01-31-2002 11:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"It's patently obvious you have no clue about what you posted, do you? Take a look at your so-called "falsifications". The only way to falsify the examples you posted would be to prove evolution true in 100% of the cases."
Actually, under these falsifications, you could falsify Creation by showing that evolution is POSSIBLE (100 percent), you wouldn't actually have to prove evolution.
Then again, I think you evolutionists should take a step back and realize just how difficult it is to falsify YOUR theory. I can only think of two (very broad) ways:
1. Show that it is NOT possible to explain life by natural means.
2. Show that the Earth is much younger than evolutionists claim.
Neither of these falsifications are very realistic. If you can provide more falsifications for the ToE, please provide.

Cobra: Unfortunately, as I pointed out to John Paul, comparing one theory to another is not falsification in the sense I posted in message 4 of this thread. Replace the word "validate" with "falsify" in the post, and you'll understand what I mean. The distinction is a false one John Paul came up with because he had no other argument.
As to potential falsifications to evolution: I can think of lots and lots!!!! Let me know if you want some (this is a thread about falsifications for creationism, after all) - although you should be able to come up with better than those two. BTW: How is "showing evolution to be possible 100%" different from proving evolution?
(Here's why the ones you proposed for evolution aren't true potential falsifications: 1) You can't prove a negative, so logically there is no way you can develop "negative" information like that. 2) Actually, #2 isn't bad. It would certainly cause some major revisions in things like natural selection, etc. I'm not sure what would be left of the ToE after this. It would have to be pretty powerful evidence, however, since it would also have to refute what we know of geology, physics, plate tectonics, Mendelian genetics, paleontology, astronomy, etc. That's a lot of science - but it could happen... You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-31-2002 11:14 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 1:54 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 75 of 141 (5870)
03-01-2002 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by RetroCrono
02-28-2002 8:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RetroCrono:
-----------
I guess you didn't realise what I was disagreeing on. The Theory of Evolution is the study and belief that life came about over time. How would proving that dissaprove a creator? Maybe immediate creation like you believe, but that is all. No matter what science finds out (unless they work out how energy comes from a non existant source, which would go against a well demonstrated law), than God can always sit on top of it all.
What you have to realise is working out how the wheels go around will never prove a God didn't put those wheels in motion in the first place. RC
Excellent point, Retro. Science has no interest in disproving the existence of God or gods. In fact, science has no capability of doing so. The question has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory, or any of the other realms upon which science - based on examination of natural phenomena - has jurisdiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RetroCrono, posted 02-28-2002 8:08 AM RetroCrono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by TrueCreation, posted 03-01-2002 6:55 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 82 of 141 (5982)
03-02-2002 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by TrueCreation
03-01-2002 6:52 PM


Sorry Peter (and TC), but I couldn't resist.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So the burrials SHOULD be random ... not ordered."
--No because that isn't how the Flood happend, the world doesn't just all of a soden fill up with water over a period of any short time as would need to be suggested for a randomness.
Umm, which Flood model are you describing? According to Genesis, the entire world was covered in about 40 days. That's pretty fast by any standards.
quote:
"Glad we agree on that ... Evolution IS refutable given approriate evidence."
--Thats some very massive evidence, this evidence is almost speculative on Flood theory. If Evolution requires this sort of evidence, then I really don't know how to come against Evolution, it's extreamly flexible.
It's not a question of the flexibility of the theory, TC (although even if it were, I'm not sure how that could be construed as a negative attribute). The original theory was so elegantly simple, and so well-based on available evidence, that almost all observations since have tended to reinforce the original idea. Some of the mechanisms have had to be tweaked a bit, but considering the numbers of scientific hypotheses that have been jettisoned over the years, the ToE appears to be practically a law of nature. You're correct that the Flood theory is highly speculative (I'm being kind). Also, you're correct that evidence refuting the ToE would indeed have to be extraordinary. Not to say it couldn't happen, but you'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath
.
quote:
"That's the nature of theories ... if new evidence emerges some or all
of a theory has to be re-arranged."
--Right, my note was to say that this is in support of Flood deposition theory, it would be expected.
Except, TC, you have yet to present any positive evidence in support of a global Flood...
quote:
"Yes, and there will be layers above and below where those remains are completely absent. (It is the 'below' part that is the
most important ... since scientists have been wrong about
extinctions in the past)."
--Yes that is what I would also argue, that it is how it is first found that is important. This is more naturally against a uniformitarian outlook though. Seeing as during the flood it was not about developing and then deposition, it was about ordered deposition, that is, everything was fully forumed towards its kind. Such as bats first appearing in the fossil record fully formed I believe in 50myo strata.
Ordered deposition is NOT what would be expected by a flood. Look at ANY modern flood - the deposition of remains is utterly random. Therefore, if there were a Flood (unless your positing that the Noachian Flood didn't follow the basic laws of hydraulics and fluid dynamics), you would expect to commonly find totally random distributions (men with anthracosaurs with rabbits). In spite of possible individual anomalies (like a rabbit running faster or swimming longer than a dimetrodon), statistically the majority would be randomly sorted. This is NOT what is observed.
Don't drag in "god of the gaps" inre bats, etc. Besides, you're a YEC, you can't even legitimately USE an argument that shows spontaneous bat creation 50 mya because for you the world has only existed for 6000 years. Even granting you can play with dates, there has been a fair amount of discussion concerning evolution of glider to flyer in mammals already.
quote:
"Evolution does not REQUIRE it as evidence, without this there is plenty of other evidence for evolution (with which you tend
to disagree/interpret different, but none the less ... )."
--Oh it doesnt, but that would be a problem for Evolution, such cats suddenly appearing in the fossil record. Though I know that there are forms of cats simmilar to the lion and its relatives such as the tiger, I just havent seen much information on it. But I see that if such representation in the Evolutionary model is not required for evidence, than the Flood should be looked upon with the same eyes.
TC, listen to yourself. In one breath you are denying the evidence of feline evolution, and in the same breath you are claiming you have no information on feline evolution. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know." At least as long as you don't couple this phrase with "It's all wrong." Before you can assert that something is false, it makes sense to check the evidence to insure you have some basis for the assertion...
quote:
"In the flood model, with anything touching sea bed being fossilised we should see many fossils of infants, since these would have been too weak to survive for more than a very short time."
--Not really, you would defanantly see the diversity in skattered remains accross the geologic column, but there would defanantly be no bats or baby lions or something like that in cambrian strata.
Why? This would be precisely required by your Flood. That these anomalies don't exist provides pretty damning evidence against the Flood being real.
quote:
--Apatosaurus would have died first from effects of the ice age and short climate drop, self producing heat is a great advantage here, which is why such a large dinosaur would have died along with the other dinosaurs and other large reptiles/cold-blooded.
You are aware, of course, that the book you base your worldview on makes no mention whatsoever for any ice age? Stands to reason, of course, since the supposed writer(s) lived in a flipping desert. However, large dinos and the other fossils used as evidence for an old earth (at least) are found throughout the world even in places - including Egypt - where ice never came. Odd, isn't it?
quote:
"Why would one (elephants can swim, sauropods are thought to have been able to swim) hit bottom before the other ?"
--See above, also, they can't exactly 'swim', though they can stroll through water and take a bath per se.
How in the name of Darwin did you arrive at this little gem, TC?
quote:
"And not JUST one, all apatosaurs hit the bottom before ANY
elephants ... when survival is based (you agreed) on INDIVUDUAL
survivability."
--Yes, see above, this is quite a difference, the ability to produce ones own heat and not rely on outward environment is a emense advantage, and thus the appearence of the fossil record.
No doubt this explains why there are NO dinos buried ABOVE any large mammal, flightless bird, mammoth, etc. Not even ONE SINGLE FOSSIL out of place.
quote:
"OR in case we have a problem with supposing that a sauropod could swim, why would ALL elasmosaurs (water dwellers as it is) die
before ANY elephants (or mastodons or whatever YOU would expect
to be the proto-elephant of Noah's time) ?"
--Elephants or mastadons, I would most likely agree are related along with the mammoth and such. And elasmosaurs, or pleseasaurs, basically the same, rely on air, thus would die off by cold air cooling a top layer of the ocean to very low temperatures, even though some places were greatly heated by tectonic activity and heat being produced at some places in the oceans, the K-T extinction would have been after the crux of the activity most likely.
Wait a sec, now you're conflating the KT extinction - reliably dated to 65 mya - with the Flood? What about the Permian extinction? 90+% of all species on the planet disappeared in a few thousand years. I thought THAT was supposed to be the Flood. How does Flood myhtology account for the other 3 major extinction events - in the most minor of which over 50% of extant species disappeared. Care to comment? (Preferably without absolute denial followed by "I don't know.")
Okay, that's about as far as I can go without getting either irritated or repeating myself. Looking forward to hearing TC's comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by TrueCreation, posted 03-01-2002 6:52 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:03 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 91 of 141 (6025)
03-02-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 1:03 PM


Aaarrgghh! [insert head-banging smilie here]
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Umm, which Flood model are you describing? According to Genesis, the entire world was covered in about 40 days. That's pretty fast by any standards."
--Yes that is fast, though in being more specific for randomness would be more like flooding the earth in a matter of an hour or some hours. Though even if you were to do this, you would still find a remnance of a uniform burrial, though it sertainly would be much more random. Also then you have very little obsticle for environmental conditions such as the rising ice age killing the dinosaurs at the point of the K-T boundary.
Au contraire, mon frere. There is literally NO mechanism that can account for fossil stratigraphy EXCEPT geologic time. Let me make this perfectly clear: NO FLOOD MODEL YOU'VE PRESENTED EXPLAINS THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD. (Sorry for shouting.) There are NO repeat NO anomalies as would be required by any global flood. Not to mention the utter lack of any geological evidence of rapid deposition. Not to mention the utter inability of a Flood - of any size - to explain things like fossilized mudcracks, raindrops, animal tracks, bioturbation, evaporite formations, etc etc etc.
quote:
"It's not a question of the flexibility of the theory, TC (although even if it were, I'm not sure how that could be construed as a negative attribute)."
--Yes, it would not neccessarelly be a 'negative attribute', though it is something that should very much be taken into consideration when discussing the highest theoretical validity for YEC and OEC interperetations.
Why??? You've had the essence of the scientific method explained to you a dozen times. What is it about the formation and testing of hypotheses don't you understand? (Your science teachers down through the years should be taken out and shot.)
quote:
"The original theory was so elegantly simple, and so well-based on available evidence, that almost all observations since have tended to reinforce the original idea."
--In a scence it is very close to Flood theory, you just take it down to a drastically short time period. The idea of survival of the fittests is all for flood theory and constitutes its randomness.
In the first place, evolutionary theory is the absolute antithesis of biblical creationism (sorry, creation "science"). It rests on little things like EVIDENCE and OBSERVATION - two elements at least that creationism ain't got. In the second, I have no clue what the heck that second sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps you'd care to clarify.
quote:
"Some of the mechanisms have had to be tweaked a bit, but considering the numbers of scientific hypotheses that have been jettisoned over the years, the ToE appears to be practically a law of nature."
--From my observation and experience, Evolution by common descent (or the theory of an Old Earth), has been the most modified theory in all scientific history. Though ofcourse that's somewhat the cause of it being such a fundemental theory for much of other geologic and biological interperetation being refined and fashioned over the years.
Okee dokee, what (in your no doubt VAST experience referenced above) do you consider modifications to Darwin's theory? Please specify anything that might give one to believe there was something sneaky or underhanded going on. The only changes I can see were mechanistic, descriptive or based on new sciences (like genetics). These changes would include such refinements as an understanding of allopatric vs sympatric speciation, population genetics, genetic drift, PE, etc. None (let me repeat for clarity) NONE of these modifications IN ANY WAY FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED DARWINIAN THEORY (again apologies for shouting). There has been NO change in common descent, no change in natural selection (except mechanistic - and an ongoing argument about its relative importance), and the addition of random mutation and genetic drift. Darwin's orginal idea still stands after 150 years. Not bad, eh?
quote:
"You're correct that the Flood theory is highly speculative (I'm being kind)."
--I was more addressing the fact that if you found a human in cambrian strata or something liket that, Flood theory itself would have to be greatly modified.
On the contrary, that's exactly what you would expect from your Flood theory. In fact, you'd almost HAVE to find such an anomaly - and lots of them - for your theory to have any validity at all. Nice try. Now if you COULD find such a strangeness, especially if it were repeated in various places around the world, ToE could rightly be considered false.
quote:
"Except, TC, you have yet to present any positive evidence in support of a global Flood..."
--Thats because were discussing the validity of a flood deposition for organisms, if you would like to ask that question, what specific would you like to tackle?
Validity or falsehood of any deposition theory DEPENDS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE FLOOD ITSELF. In other words, if the Flood didn't happen, then the discussion of deposition patterns is moot. In fact, the entire discussion of sorting mechanisms etc is rooted in an attempt to determine whether the Flood occurred. We're all still waiting your positive evidence. Any day - you've only been asked for the same thing about 50 times or so...
quote:
"Ordered deposition is NOT what would be expected by a flood. Look at ANY modern flood - the deposition of remains is utterly random."
--The global flood was, hm.. how could I put this. Just a bit more catastrophic than any nile-river or mississippi flood of today.
No kidding. Therefore the evidence IN SUPPORT of its occurance should be immediately obvious everywhere in the world. Unless you can come up with some wonderous revelation that all the geologists, paleontologists, etc over the last 200 years have missed, there isn't any. Again, we're waiting eagerly for your information.
quote:
"Therefore, if there were a Flood (unless your positing that the Noachian Flood didn't follow the basic laws of hydraulics and fluid dynamics), you would expect to commonly find totally random distributions (men with anthracosaurs with rabbits). In spite of possible individual anomalies (like a rabbit running faster or swimming longer than a dimetrodon), statistically the majority would be randomly sorted. This is NOT what is observed."
--Thats right, because hydrologic sorting is a vastly small percentage of what would be a consideration in flood deposition, for hydraulics and fluid dynamics to be the sole prospect, no organism should be able to move (they all must be dead before any flood activity) and the flood should flood every point on earth at the same time. I see that an order of deposition is fundamental in what should be found.
THEN BLOODY WELL STOP HANDWAVING AND PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE!!!! [insert second head-banging smilie here]
quote:
"Don't drag in "god of the gaps" inre bats, etc. Besides, you're a YEC, you can't even legitimately USE an argument that shows spontaneous bat creation 50 mya because for you the world has only existed for 6000 years."
--I never said that I was bringing in the god of the gaps argument in, nor is it substantiated by what I said. I was making a point that since bats should be fully formed as bats during the flood, this is what we see, we don't see any proto-bats to the degree of evolution. And they appear in supposedly 50 myo strata.
Err, that last bit IS god of the gaps - there's a gap in the fossil record, therefore it didn't happen. I've given you an explanation for why this gap exists (remember: small forest dweller, acid forest soil, lousy chance of fossils?). Also, given the number of different species alive today that exhibit some of the adaptations one would expect from critters on the evolutionary pathway to bat-style flight (i.e., glider to flyer), there's absolutely no reason to believe it didn't happen the same way in the past.
quote:
"Even granting you can play with dates, there has been a fair amount of discussion concerning evolution of glider to flyer in mammals already."
--Yes, sure you can always speculate on what should be found, its whether you've found it that is going to really make the matter.
GoG.
quote:
"TC, listen to yourself. In one breath you are denying the evidence of feline evolution, and in the same breath you are claiming you have no information on feline evolution."
--No I did not den feline evolution, i said that as an example as an attatchment to what I said earlier for clarity. And then I said that within this example, I have seen what the theory is on feline evolution, though have little evident background information on it rather than the theory itself.
You mean you've never read anything about the miacid to cat evolution? Lots of fossils, lots of branches, lots of good evidence. 'Course it couldn't possibly have happened in 6000 years, so it must be wrong.
quote:
"Why? This would be precisely required by your Flood. That these anomalies don't exist provides pretty damning evidence against the Flood being real."
--Because as I stated earlier in the post, the flood did not just all of a soden flood the world with 500+ feet of water at every point on earth to give this randomness. My theory on flooding is ice cap's melting some from the heating of the oceans which would flood the world and then with the massive global vapor saturation in the atmosphere rain for 40 days and a rebuilding of the polar ice caps from a slight nuclear winter.
Bzzzzzzt. [sound of buzzer] I'm sorry, thanks for playing. Since your genesis story is your only evidence for the Flood, there's no mention (I checked) of nuclear winter or global cooling or an ice age. Even without the bible, there is no evidence that such an event occured 4500 years ago - of ANY stripe. Your theory collapses again for lack of evidence.
quote:
"You are aware, of course, that the book you base your worldview on makes no mention whatsoever for any ice age?"
--Why would it make such a mention?
Because that's the bleeding mechanism you're touting. If the infallable biblical scholars who invented the whole thing (err, sorry, the divinely inspired authors who were writing the literal and strict word of God), didn't include it - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Now, if you can show where the bible talks about endless winter or global freezing or an ice age, maybe we can reconsider the question.
quote:
"However, large dinos and the other fossils used as evidence for an old earth (at least) are found throughout the world even in places - including Egypt - where ice never came. Odd, isn't it?"
--For a cold-blooded organism to die, you don't need to freeze it from an ice cap, you simply need to lower the climatic temperatures, the bible does make slight reference about this. Saying that after the flood there would be seasons the way they did.
Once again, there is neither evidence from your God-given bible NOR from science that indicates a severe global cooling occuring 4500 years ago concurrently with the massive global warming that would have had to occur for your putative non-existent ice sheets to melt - causing the global flood you seem so fond of.
quote:
--Take a look at an elephant, if you throw the thing in the ocean, how long is that thing going to swim? A sauropod does not have the same ability as a pleseasaurus.
Repeating: "How in the name of Darwin did you arrive at this little gem, TC?"
quote:
"No doubt this explains why there are NO dinos buried ABOVE any large mammal, flightless bird, mammoth, etc. Not even ONE SINGLE FOSSIL out of place."
--Yup.

I decided to bold this one. You're accepting evolutionary theory? 'Cause that's the ONLY conceivable explanation for the statement. I really can't wait to see how you wave this one off.
quote:
"What about the Permian extinction? 90+% of all species on the planet disappeared in a few thousand years. I thought THAT was supposed to be the Flood. How does Flood myhtology account for the other 3 major extinction events - in the most minor of which over 50% of extant species disappeared. Care to comment? (Preferably without absolute denial followed by "I don't know.")"
--No doubt your going to have a Permian extinction of Acritarchs, Archaeocyathids, Molluscs, Echinoderms, Gusulinid Foraminifera, Corals, Diatoms, Dinoflagellates, Stromatoporoids, Trilobites, etc when the sea floor was going through mass catastrophy in heat and tectonic activity. What other extinctions would you like an answer for?
Wait a sec. We now have two extinctions you admit to. Dates aside, which one coincides with your flood?
Permian-Triassic: 90+% of all extant species obliterated. In fact, this one comes closest in sheer scale to your Flood: it nearly cancelled the whole experiment in life of this planet. Life persisted by a whisker, no more.
Cretaceous-Tertiary: 60-70% of all extant species obliterated.
Fill us in, TC: Which one corresponds to your Flood? And, of course, how do you explain the other one - let alone explain it in the last 4500 years (for which period, btw, we have verifiable archeological, including written, records?)
[insert final head-banging smilie here]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:03 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 6:16 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 141 (6066)
03-03-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by gene90
03-02-2002 6:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
You mean large scale rapid deposition of course, we still have landslides, lahars, and Pompeii.
My turn to be pedantical.

Duh-oh. [sheepish] Yeah - what you said.
[edited to fix really strange quote mis-arrangement]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 6:16 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 99 of 141 (7411)
03-20-2002 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Peter
03-20-2002 11:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Bit thin on responses now ... do I win yet ???
Ya got my vote!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Peter, posted 03-20-2002 11:00 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 11:09 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024