The Science of Watchmen thread has bloated up abominably, and the topics have wandered far afield. It is now closed, but you can talk about whatever right here, instead.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Well, considering that we find freshwater fish preserved in sediments that were deposited in freshwater environments, and saltwater fish preserved in sediments that were deposited in brackish or marine environments, I don’t think this is a problem you should spend too many brain cells on. Just sayin’.
I doubt it’s the ball cap with the unit crest, so I suspect it’s gotta be the boots. I mean, boots versus a lab coat?
Now, if you wore boots with the lab coat…
*reads comment #493 for the second time*
Wow. Pretty much says it all.
The rest of the mess has also been well dealt with, I would say.
*sits back and waits*
Well, the geologists get to use all the cool field gear, too. And as for lab stuff, who else can go from an oil slab saw to an electron microscope in the same day? (maybe not with the same specimen, unless it was a really long day)
I see the fish explanation was already dealt with, so I’ll bring up plants, which always get the short end of the creationist stick. (or schtick, as it were).
I’ve read a lot of hand-waving from floodists about sorting in the fossil record and animal behavior. Some swam better than others, some searched for safe spots, etc. and so forth as with Alan and his “vegemats”. But what about the plants?? Forget that stupid Precambrian rabbit, why aren’t there any Precambrian giant sequoias? They’re pretty big and heavy, so they should have sunk straight to the bottom. Why no Lepidodendron in the Ordovician? For that matter, why all the fiddly little spores all over the Ordovician and Silurian? They’re light; they should have floated right up to the top. How about leaves? Dicroidium leaves have a nice shape for buoyancy, so why aren’t they in Miocene layers? There’s no way plants could have sorted the way they did from flooding unless all of the laws of physics were suspended.
*sigh*
They’re pretty much always really long days…
MIRACLES!!!
Carlie is spot on, guys. This is also something that the flood model must explain.
To paraphrase Desi, “delugionists, you have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.”
Start ‘splainin’ the whole picture with references to the scientific literature backing up your assertions.
Latest score, science, 550; delugionists, 0.
I could understand if the floodists (good name, Carlie) just kept repeating a mantra of “goddidit.” Then everyone would agree that miracles do not occur in science, therefore the noachian flood is not scientific. Discussion over. Instead, Alan and his lovely assistant, Roger, keep trying to jam the flood into science. Their efforts just do not work.
I realize the floodists are stuck with a dilemma. If they say “then a miracle happened” to explain away real world discrepancies, then they’re effectively saying their god is a liar. Since they posit that god is truthful, they are obligated to tapdance and handwave to keep from calling god a liar. So we get bristlecone pines surviving months of submersion and fresh water fishes living happily in hollowed out trees. That’s what happens when you try to fit actual evidence into a predetermined conclusion.
However, I am happy that Alan and his lovely assistant have been doing their shuck and jive. I’ve learned a fair bit about biology and, especially, geology from reading Owlmirror, David and Josh.
I hesitate to enter the discussion but let me expand on the corals issue.
Not far from where I live in England is the small town of Much Wenlock. It is world famous to geologists because the Wenlock, one of the four divisions of the Silurian, is named after it. Overlooking the town is Wenlock Edge, a ridge of limestone (the Much Wenlock Limestone Formation – MWLF). Close by there (and beneath) is the entire sequence of Ordovician with the Cambrian beneath that. Thus, the MWLF lies partway through the geological sequence with sedimentary rocks below and above.
A feature of the MWLF locally is coral reefs. The coral does not form a long continuous structure (barrier reef) but as isolated patches of massive coral. Hence the description, patch reefs. These are typically the shape of a fat discus but of varying sizes up to about 10 m across. On top of each patch reef is a drape of clay/silt grade rock which has killed the coral animals because they must have clear water because they are filter feeders. When the water cleared patch reefs again formed so in some places there are several reefs stacked on one another. Wenlock Edge lay on a shallow shelf flanking a sharp drop off into deep water. Halfway along the Edge the nature of the rock changes to deep marine and no corals are found.
All this is straightforward for a geologist to understand, indeed, the location is a popular place to take undergraduate geology students (I have led several field trips and been on trips led by others). For Alan and Roger there is a major problem. In the middle of the geological sequence here are corals which are clearly susceptible to the effect of a thin layer of mud or silt but are growing successfully while the turmoil of the flood goes on around them. Oh yes. And most corals seem to require shallow water and sunlight to flourish (there are a few deep water exceptions). So we have corals thriving in shallow, clear, sunlit water in the middle of the greatest worldwide flood that could be envisaged.
Consider another point. There are 3 groups of true corals – Tabulata, Rugosa and Scleractinia. Their fossil remains are easily distinguised from each other. The corals in the Silurian patch reefs are exclusively Tabulata and Rugusa corals which died out at the Permian extinction. For 50 million years there were no corals. Eventually, the coral niche was taken over by a totally different class of corals, the Scleractinia, none of which are found anywhere world-wide in the ideal coral-growing time of the Wenlock limestone.
Coral reefs are not restricted to the Silurian. Wherever they are found they are only Tabulata and/or Rugosa until the end of the Permian. There is then a gap of no corals at all and then only Scleractinia for any rock later than 50 Ma after the end-Permian extinction and up to the present.
Science (Geology, Palaeonotology, Evolution) has no difficulty understanding these patterns.
The Flood Hypothesis? Alan, Roger – here is your chance to make a name for yourselves and to explain these features (but if you are in the middle of answering Josh, I am happy to wait).
Alan B–bravo. Nice treatment. Well said.
# 479 may be the most painfully stupid thing Alan has said so far.
And that is a high bar to cross.
I’d like to emphasize something that Alan B wrote:
The highest peak near Much Wenlock is Brown Clee Hill at 546 m (1,790 ft) high. Shropshire, the English county where the MWLF, must have been very active geologically for the MWLF to have been in shallow water during the flood which covered mountains but now is much lower than even modestly high mountains.
If anyone is interested in Wenlock corals and patch reefs:
http://www.ukrigs.org.uk/html/esos.php?page=esosintro&menu=knomain
Teachers’ and pupils’ notes for school field trips to Knowle Quarry on Wenlock Edge (KS3=11-14 years; KS4=14-16)
http://www.gigapan.org/searchGigapansList.php?keywords=reef&page=2&window_height=707&window_width=1419
Scan down part way to Farley Quarry (on Wenlock Edge) Files v. large if opened. Small LH picture shows a patch reef
Geology Today, Volume 16, Issue 1 (p 37-40)
gives an introduction to Tabellate corals
Owlmirror, “By the way, I note that Hugh Ross is an Old Earth Creationist.”
There’s something oddly perfect about Roger using an old-earth creationist to prove young-earth creationism. Like Alan, he’ll use their opinions, but he’ll “just disagree with their time line and dating assumptions.”
What is with their contempt for time as an essential component of an equation, anyway? It’s like time is meaningless in their world.
Alan mixes and mashes dates and timelines like a mad pastry chef concocting monstrosities with his egg-beater of a brain, and Roger says: “From evolution we learn that the magic pixie dust is TIME; only your immagination is the limit.”
Hey, Roger, next time you microwave a burrito, don’t worry about timing it. 60 seconds, 10 days, whatever, there won’t be any significant difference in the end product.
And don’t worry about stepping off a high building without a parachute. All you’re doing, after all, is changing the number of seconds you fall. True, the number of feet you fall also changes, but you can disregard that the same way you dismiss the periodic accumulation of mutations in a species having any correlation at all with genetics and evolutionary consequences. (One mutation, a thousand, we still don’t see no crocoducks walkin’ around! Am I right?)
What a pair of goofballs. Roger, who is in love with faith; and Alan, who has devoted his life to being contrary. It’s like watching Laurel and Hardy build a house. [. . . “I don’t know, Stan. Is this the way Jesus did it? . . . “I think so, Oliver, but it does seem to be sagging a bit. I think these support thingies need more faith.” . . . “Yes, Stan, I do believe you’re right. We need to pray over it. Hmph!” . . . “Oh, goody! I like praying! We’ll have this house up in no time!” . . . “You’re right, Stanley, no time at all!” ]
There’s a whole mysterious world around us, and the joy of discovering it, and
these twomillions are going to believe in the bible and nothing is going to stop them.Ugly.
Carlie Forget that stupid Precambrian rabbit, why aren’t there any Precambrian giant sequoias? They’re pretty big and heavy, so they should have sunk straight to the bottom.
Wood doesn’t float? It doesn’t matter how “big and heavy” something is. As long as a cubic foot of water weighs more than a cubic foot of the material, the material will float. The recent Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 provided a mini-catastrophic model which is useful for understanding components of the much-larger Biblical flood. Click here for an aerial photo which answers your question for why the “big and heavy” sequoias DON’T float to the bottom to take their place among what you classify as “Precambrian”. As a matter of fact, the photo was taken 27 years after the eruption and as you can see, the trees are still floating! Click here for additional photos. Floating mats like this could house bugs, worms, seeds, flies, etc. which would provide a mechanism for returned growth.
I just saw this on wikianswers.com:
Q: Why are there no precambrian coal beds?
A: No plants existed during the Precambrian. The formation of coal beds relied on vegetation.
The convoluted logic seems astounding to me but perhaps this answer is not representative of the larger body of uniformitarian scientists. Please tell me you don’t believe this. Do they mean the Earth’s land masses were void of vegetation while the seas were abundant with life? Or worse yet, do they mean plants didn’t exist in the sea? Something is grossly wrong with your model. The Morrison Formation in the western U.S. which is so abundant with gigantic dinosaur fossils lacks this same evidence of fossilized vegetation: “Although the Morrison plain was an area of reasonably rapid accumulation of sediment, identifiable plant fossils are practically nonexistent.” * If these animals had nothing to eat then why did they grow to such large sizes? Again, your model fails. The creationist model has no problem whatsoever in answering the seeming dilemma of no food evidence in the strata: The flood transportation and deposition process selectively separated the dinosaurs from the vegetation.
Carlie, in all seriousness, I think you would be well-served to at least look at this website and answer for yourself, using your model, how these alternative interpretations can be refuted. Also, if you scroll a third of way down, you’ll soon forget about your crush on Josh when you see Sean Pitman. I feel somewhat sorry for Josh since he is now burdened on two fronts: appealing to intellect and women.**
* White, T. E., 1964, The dinosaur quarry, in, E. Sabatka, ed., Guidebook to the Geology and Mineral Resources of the Uinta Basin: Salt Lake City, Intermountain Association of Geologists, pp. 25-26.
** I have nothing against women. I own one.
Alan,
Wow….
Your attempts at humor are just as pathetic as your attempts at science. I said it before and I will repeat myself, you are a deeply creepy person.
Not surprising.
Alan is wrong on virtually everything he’s posited here, he might as well be an asshole too.
Something that just occurred to me – why would they have been saved in this way? The whole purpose of the flood was so your capricious, angry-at-what-was-his-own-fault, monster-god could destroy every living thing save those he instructed Noah to take on board the ark.
Your theory leads to the conclusion that your demented, hate-filled god failed; he wasn’t competent enough to do what he set out to do – which I guess is not really surprising considering he’s such a poor designer as well.
Or are you saying the aspect of the story where Noah was instructed to save all the animals is inaccurate?
it always amazes me how little alan actually knows. i mean… this surprises him. as if he’s never heard that one before. as if it was complete and utter NEWS to him that scientists have found that life was only present in the sea for a very long time!
maybe he thinks plants aren’t life? I don’t get it. This is something I knew when I was 6 FFS!
*sheaks head*
#481 Feynmaniac
Hi Fey~, Congradulations! You have been chosen as the lucky winner for the Bible “contradiction” response post. Here is your prize, but remember, you must believe in order to receive the full prize benefit! (Just trying to lighten it up, now more seriously) –
The basic outline containing the largest subset was divulged in Gen 6, the plan details and full set requirements are given in Gen 7. Noah did bring in the “(2) of all flesh” subset for the purpose given, “and keep alive with you”. Additional clean animals requested for the “full set” may have been segregated and divided among the families for livestock, food, and sacrificial purposes after the flood. There may have been some biological or survival reason for the greater (7) pairs each requirement for birds. My guess would be that bird survival is more fragile requiring greater numbers.
-An analogy attempt on your cited verses: Fey tells her friend, “We need you to bring cake for all the children.” Fey then adds the teacher and her husband will also be attending. On the way to the party, Fey frets that her friend will only bring cake for the children. Q: Is Fey wrong to fret?
-The bible is full of redundancy so that with careful study, the correct message can be conveyed. Genesis 7:17 can be easily understood by the detail in the previous verse 7:12 “And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” This makes crystal clear the broad term “flood” in verse 17 is tied to the rain stage where waters increase as described by “waters multiplied”.
You may find the KJV more clear: Genesis 7:24 “And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”
Reading further you will learn more detail of the 150 day period: Genesis 8:3-4 “And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated (reduced). And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.” The 150 days APPEARS to be the time from the beginning of the flood until the ark hit ground. The beauty of scripture is that it is bursting with information. Look at Genesis 7:11 for the beginning date: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Look at Genesis 8:4 for the landing date: “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.”
Time difference = (month 2, day 17) – (month 7, day 17) = 5 months
5 mo. x 30 days/mo. = 150 days exactly! (My assumption was correct.)
Conclusion:
Supposed “contradictions” are commonly presented by those with a predisposition against the Bible in order to justify their opposing beliefs. I will not be answering ALL “contradictions” since claims can be endless and I see the benefit of limits due to my time constraints.
I, on the other hand, will make up a resolution to ALL “contradictions.” Bring ’em on.
#518 Wowbagger
Alan Clarke: Floating mats like this could house bugs, worms, seeds, flies, etc. which would provide a mechanism for returned growth.
Something also just occured to me –
Q: What does the Evolutionary “survival of the fittest” model require for progress?
A: Each of the less prime and less adapted animals including mankind must die! Success and progress that feeds on the “death” of others. (Appears to have spiritual connotations as well.) Otherwise, evolution is diluted and the theory fails. This world view gave rise to Eugenics which was practiced in WWII.
Feynmaniac, Janine, BigDumbChimp: I can see that my lousy “owning a woman” joke turns you off, so I’ll dispense with it completely. Sometimes I place “hooks” in my text to get responses so I can test the field. This is much easier than me asking, “Has your relationship with men been such a failure that you despise them?” No one on this forum would answer that point blank but they do respond (or not respond) indirectly to sarcasms. Such is the unfortunate fate of a combative forum.
I have NEVER denied my wife’s request for money or for an extravagant grocery item. I wash 90% of the dishes and change 50% of the diapers. I paid 100% of her educational expense for a BS degree in Chemistry. I never once yelled angrily at her in my life. In 9 years of marriage, we never had a sustained argument that exceeded 1 or 2 sentences. I feel that my wife is more “virtuous” than myself and more responsible. The stronger a woman is, the more I admire her. I’m impressed with Condoleezza Rice and Margaret Thatcher. My wife is a Christian. My debasing joke of “owning her” couldn’t be further from the truth.
The ideal woman.
Not always. Ironwood and ebony sink, as will many woods if sufficiently water-logged. That’s not to say that giant sequoias would sink, but “wood never sinks” is a fallacy.
Many of the trees might still be floating, but not all:
Wait a second. That sounds familiar. Weren’t you telling us about this process a while back as evidence for the flood??
(A tip, though: “rapidly petrifies” is still a lot longer than 100 days.)
Wikianswers? Come on. At least Wikipedia expects citations.
Still, the answer sounds about right, if brief.
I’m not surprised that you’re astounded by anything. But what convolution? It’s a two-sentence answer!
Uh, yeah?
Algae predates land plants by about a billion years or so, so yeah I think there was some primitive aquatic plant life. Algae may contribute to oil formation, but not coal; coal is formed from carboniferous plants.
DINOSAURS ARE NOT PRECAMBRIAN!
And it therefore has enormous difficulty explaining why delicate, light, floaty animals like crinoids and hallucigenia got buried below massive, heavy animals like the dinosaurs.
I would not have thought it possible, but you have lowered my opinion of you even further. Bravo!
Who was that guy? You totally beat the shit out of him, and now there’s straw everywhere!
1) Evolution “requires” nothing “for progress”. Evolution is a process, not a system directed by an external force to achieve some ultimate end goal.
2) Evolution does not make value judgements. Organisms die because they are not well adapted to their environment, not because some external force decrees that they “must”.
3) Survival is “success” from an evolutionary perspective. A species doesn’t have to become more complex to “succeed”; it might remain static, or even become simpler if the environment requires it. As long as you don’t go extinct, you’re doing okay.
4) Eugenics predates the theory of evolution by thousands of years. The Spartans practiced eugenics. Selective breeding of livestock is the same principle.
hey kagato, maybe alan thinks “pre-cambrian” is a word that means something like “pre-historic, just much much older”?
it doesn’t sound like he understands that “pre-cambrian” is a particular period of time. you know the one that came before the cambrian :-p
Alan Clarke, do you believe that wives should submit to their husbands? Do you believe that the husband is the head of the wife?
No, Roger. We’ve been over this before. I know you forget quickly, especially when you consider the words to have been written by someone you consider as an enemy, but let’s take this from the top in little bitty steps:
1) The Theory of Evolution, like all scientific theories, is descriptive, not prescriptive. I know that “prescriptive” is a big, hard word for you to understand, but it basically means that since a theory is an explanation, it doesn’t tell people what to do (prescription) — it tells what happened (or happens) (description). Gravitational theory is descriptive. Atomic theory is descriptive. Optical theory is descriptive. Relativity theory is descriptive. Electrical theory is descriptive. Chemical theory is descriptive. Physics does not tell anyone to kill anyone else. Chemistry does not tell anyone to kill anyone else. Evolutionary biology does not tell anyone to kill anyone else.
2) The Nazis did not like the Theory of Evolution. This is because the Theory of Evolution includes Common Descent. Common Descent means that white humans are related to black humans, and that all humans are related to apes. The Nazis did not like being told that they were related to black people. They really did not like being told that they were related to apes. The Nazis like feeling special, so they rejected the Theory of Evolution so that they could say that white humans and black humans were not related. They also wanted to say that Aryans (Germanic people) were more special than everyone else. The Theory of Evolution does not say that anyone is more special.
3) The Nazis, as maybe you know, committed genocide. That means they collected many people of specific ethnic groups (Jews, Gypsies, Poles), and killed them. The Nazis thought that they were more special than all those other people, and that those other people were all bad, evil, and disgusting, and would corrupt the special Aryan people. That’s why the Nazis committed genocide.
4) The Nazis, as maybe you don’t know, were Christians. The population of Germany at the time consisted of a majority of Protestants, and a minority of Catholics. The German armies were made up of Protestants and Catholics. The concentration camps and extermination camps were run by Protestants and Catholics. Both Protestants and Catholics had been taught to hate Jews from a very young age. That’s at least partly because famous Christian teachers and leaders, like Martin Luther and John Chrysostom, hated Jews, and wanted other Christians to hate Jews as well. They did this by writing screeds, rants, and polemics that said that Jews were all bad, evil, and disgusting, and made sure that they were published and handed around to Christians. This sort of hatred led to something called a pogrom, which is a large group of armed Christians attacking a small village of unarmed Jews, and burning the houses, stealing any valuables, and beating, raping, and killing the inhabitants.
5) A scientific theory that did inspire the Nazis was the Germ Theory of Disease. Now, as above, the Germ Theory of Disease is descriptive, not prescriptive. The Germ Theory of Disease simply says that micro-organisms cause disease; if the micro-organisms causing the disease are eliminated, then the disease should go away. However, Nazis used this as an analogy. They claimed that a community of people was like a body, and certain other people — people in the minority, like Jews, Gypsies, Poles, physically deformed Aryans, retarded Aryans, homosexuals, and communists — were like disease micro-organisms that were “infecting” the body. So the special Aryans told each other that the people who were like disease micro-organisms had to be eliminated, just like real disease micro-organisms, so that the Aryan community would be well and healthy again.
6) When we read the story of the flood, what does it say? It says that all the people in the world were bad, evil, and disgusting — just like the Nazis said about the Jews. When God decided to do something about this, did he give them chances to mend their ways or give examples by specifically putting the worst of the worst on trial, convicting them publicly, and then executing them swiftly and mercifully, so that people would know that he was serious? No. Of course not. God treated all the human beings — all the men, all the women, all the children, all the animals, all the plants, all living things everywhere — exactly the same: like disease micro-organisms that had to be eliminated.
Conclusion: God, in the story of the flood, committed genocide, just like the Nazis. Or rather, something a bit worse than genocide: omnicide. “Genocide” means “the murder of a race”; omnicide means “the killing of all life” — except perhaps for a few fish and a few bugs and insects and plants that maybe he overlooked. And eight humans (out of millions? billions?) with two of each “kind” of animal, in a rickety wooden boat.
Now, I am pretty sure that you will just not even bother reading this; you will dismiss it because you consider me as the enemy, and anything I write to be rejected out of hand. But in case you get down here, you might want to ponder why you defend God making a flood in the first place, and even go so far as to claim that human beings are just like disease micro-organisms.
RogerS, #522 – so, you’ve got nothing, then?
I love it – you leap onto all these crazy theories for how things might have survived the global flood without realising that, by doing so, you’re pointing out yet another way for your pissant god to be considered incompetent – thereby rendering him impossible based on your own definition.
You fail both science and critical thinking.
Alan Clarke @523, sure. I believe you no less than usual.
PS. You’re supposed to be responding to the huge list of responses people made to you which you then either ignored or evaded, not telling us how wonderful you are. cf #73.
You can learn something every day from a creationist. Today we learned that no wooden ship ever sank; after all, _wood always floats_.
Sheesh.
I have just skimmed this thread so please correct me if I am wrong, but did Roger say fish survived in hollowed out logs?
They had dugout canoes now?
Roger.
If you’re going to blame Evolution on Germany’s perceived conduct through the war at least get the right one. It wasn’t WWII, it was WWI. Several figures in Germany’s high command used Natural Selection specifically as part of their justification for going to war. Its a stupid idea and doesn’t really make sense of course.
People will use any justification they can to behave in the whichever way they want to. Biologists at the time countered this with their own arguments based on evolution in order to counter these ideas (and the rise of the fundamentalist Christian movement at the time).
I doubt you were aware of this, but Dartmouth College was involved in this debate. In the 1920s William Patten set up the first compulsory course on evolution to demonstrate to freshmen that this wasn’t the case.
(A good reference for those that can get it is Mitman, G. 1990. “Evolution as Gospel: William Patten, the Language of Democracy, and the Great War”, Isis, 81 (3), 446-463. Sadly it isn’t freely avaliable.)
Eugenics has been going on for a very long time. The idea is not new. Natural Selection merely provides another way for people to rationalise away their hatred of minorities, the disabled, women, or whatever. Just because some notable biologists fell for it doesn’t make their contributions to science any the less important, and it doesn’t make the theory they based their erroneous speculations on wrong.
CosmicTeapot, you mean you missed it?!?
#459
I chuckled again, just now, re-reading it.
Wowbagger @#518, I brought this issue up in Watchmen comments #1031 and #1123. I don’t think there was any response to those questions, not even the not-answer that you got.
Wow, more idiocy by the two delugionist. Absolutely no evidence. They still think their fictional bible is evidence. That was refuted two threads ago. Since they quoted the bible they lose ten points, which on top of their other lack of evidence brings the score to scientists, 565; delugionists, 0. You are still perfect guys.
TROLL ALERT: The National Web Service has issued a severe torll alert for the Pharyngula area. Feeding the troll is especially dangerous as their egos grow when fed.
Alan Clarke has to be a troll. There is no way anybody can be that stupid and still have a functioning brain stem.
(in my best PZ immitating the Shatman voice) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
Alan, does it not cause you the least tiny little bit of head pain to refer to it as the so-called Precambrian and to say things like what you classify as “Precambrian”, when you are not simultaneously saying things like “the so-called limestone” and the “stuff that you classify as limestone?”
No, you’re right. Considering your rather impressive lithological prowess (see Watchmen comments #652, #718, and in particular #772), I can see where you feel justified simply dismissing the existence of the entire Precambrian series out of hand. Obviously, the whole discipline of stratigraphy is wrong, whereas you are correct. How many Precambrian rocks was it again that you had personally laid a hand on?
Oh for fuck’s sake. *headdesk*
Please go look up the word taphonomy and then come talk to me (after first reading comment #73 again…).
Owlmirror, #528
Nice. I’m pretty sure that even creationists could understand that. If they bother to read it. They won’t agree, of course, as we are the enemy, but it was written in such a way that they can at least understand it.
If there were a place on Pharyngula that linked to some of the better posts by commenters, posts that creationists could be directed to when they say their silly, silly things, I would include #528
Alan Clarke has to be a troll. There is no way anybody can be that stupid and still have a functioning brain stem.
Unfortunately, if you follow his link you’ll find he actually is quite the fanatic.
Ironic, given that Dartmouth is the alma mater of one of our more persistent creationist visitors of late, Mr. Nat Weeks.
Re: Clarke
Another gem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_Formation
From the above link, I see where the uniformitarianists are getting the food for the large sauropods found in the Morrison Formation. They think the river edges provided the food:
“Much of the fossilized vegetation was riparian, living along the river flood plains.”
Since vegetation existed only at the river edge, they must think that explains why little fossilized vegetation is found in the layers of strata of the Morrison Formation. Look at the huge problems presented by this interpretation:
“The very diversity of the sauropods has raised some questions about how they could all co-exist. While their body shapes are very similar (long neck, long tail, huge elephant-like body), they are assumed to have had very different feeding strategies, in order for all to have existed in the same time frame and similar environment.”
The small confines of the river’s edge doesn’t provide enough food for the size, quantity, and diversity of animals found.
Alan
Do you ever take flight waving your hands like that?
Alan Clarke has to be a troll. There is no way anybody can be that stupid and still have a functioning brain stem.
I don’t know, maybe you’re right, after all.
Sorry, I meant
Alan Clarke has to be a troll. There is no way anybody can be that stupid and still have a functioning brain stem.
I don’t know, maybe you’re right, after all.
Alan at #541. Oh, come on. Just because something isn’t fossilized doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. We’ve been over this. Go read Watchmen comment #795 again.
Not only that, but just because we haven’t found something, doesn’t mean the fossils don’t exist. The first remains of Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn, 1905 were found just after* the turn of the last century. Do you really think that this means that they weren’t out there, patiently weathering out of Lance/Hell Creek exposures and awaiting discovery in, say, 1850? Seriously?
*or just before–I forget which and don’t have time to go dig it up** right this second.
**shut up, Anthony–I heard that.
so alan, care to explain why you think there were dinosaurs in the “pre-cambrian”
*snortle*
That’s it in a nutshell. Creationism is not science and it’s not history – and because its adherents are fundamentally dishonest and ignorant about what evidence is it can provide an “answer” to any objection.
Science, of course cannot invent stuff; luckily – it doesn’t have to!
Take Alan’s above post – well any of his posts – it is nothing more than a mish-mash of sciencey bullshit (none of which he accepts as true) linked by ludicrous assertions.
Is it time to simply plonk the plonkers, these two in particular? For the crimes, specifically of wanking and stupidity? I am very aware of the great replies they have garnered, but I begin to feel as though we are simply feeding their deluded fuckwittery. Why should we continue to provide a soapbox for Alan to lie and spout his fascistic world view in same blog in which most posters are trying to be honest and enquiring? He also used something his “3.5-year-old” daughter said as “evidence” and I personally find it despicable to drag his unfortunate children into this.
Could we not just end it for them? Simply? Effectively? They have had more tolerance than they ever deserved, and it’s boring. Let’s clean up these trolls. They’re liars and we’re fuelling their delusions.
#525 Kagato
RogerS: Q: “What does the Evolutionary “survival of the fittest” model require for progress?”
-I did not attempt to define Evolution, but proposed a philosophical question regarding the theoretical model which relies on the selection mechanism “survival of the fittest” in order to predict. Without prediction, this hypothesis goes no where.
“A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.”(source)
RogerS: “A: Each of the less prime and less adapted animals including mankind must die! Success and progress that feeds on the “death” of others. (Appears to have spiritual connotations as well.) Otherwise, evolution is diluted and the theory fails. This world view gave rise to Eugenics which was practiced in WWII.”
-Glad you agree
I did not claim Eugenics began in WWII but was practiced in WWII which was applied to humans. Let’s look at the origin of the word Eugenics: “The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin.” –source below
Let’s see where creative “students” in the classroom applied their knowledge in the real world from a historical perspective. Here the students improved upon natural selection by applying “external forces” to speed the “selection” process with the aid of intelligence (void of morals).
The “interventions” advocated and practised by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, ‘promiscuous women’, homosexuals and entire “racial” groups——such as the Roma and Jews——as “degenerate” or “unfit”; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, their “euthanasia”, and in the worst case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.(source)
I heard a quote from a Catholic priest the other day on a show about the great flood.
That equally applies to the non-science of creationism and fluddism.
RogerS, still bobbing, weaving, and avoiding posting anything of intellectual and scientific content. You are essentially showing us delugionists are stupid fools. We knew that already. Keep it up. We get to laugh at you even more.
Hmmm. Well, what about those creatures which weren’t there and weren’t fossilized?
I think that these un-fossils prove the negative, and thus confirm that evolution isn’t true.
Not, of course, that I expect anyone here to accept that..
When emphasis is added to clarify the plain meaning of the sentence, the YEC distortion and misinterpretation that immediately follows, “vegetation existed only at the river edge“, is so egregiously incorrect that it raises an obvious question: Is the YEC stupid, or is he simply a liar? The answer, of course, is that he no doubt partakes of both deliberate mendacity and reading comprehension problems, but this still leaves the question of which is primary.
Fortunately, from the his long history of writing, we can with some confidence point to reading comprehension problems being paramount. He has more than once misinterpreted and made egregious mistakes in understanding his own mythology and cult doctrine, which did not immediately serve the purpose of advancing said doctrine or undermining science, and only made the him look foolish and feebleminded.
One is tempted to suggest that some intellectual humility and more attention paid to careful reading is called for, but such advice, while painfully obvious in its necessity, will no doubt be ignored. If YECs had any intellectual humility whatsoever and paid more attention to what they were reading and understanding from that reading, they would be less likely to be YECs at all.
Alan Clarke says: “The creationist model has no problem whatsoever in answering the seeming dilemma…”
Well, given that your theory has an unlimited number of adjustable parameters, it should be able to account for absolutely anything. That is why is isn’t science. Or prove me wrong. Make a prediction.
Thanks for that big giant appeal to consequences and exposing even more of your lack of understanding about History and science.
Do you also blame Newton for everyone who has been shot through history?
Oh, it’s Eugenics now is it? Preposterous. The “argument from sociopaths”. And the worst is, don’t you just know that RogerS is a perfect representative of the slave-owning, humanity-denying society from which we are only now emerging? I can see just his personality type leaping on Eugenics as a method to reassert his own racial superiority.
There were no shortage of such people in Nazi Germany. Roger would have fit right in…
May I address this primarily to Alan and RogerS
I am not a philosopher or an academic. I am a retired senior industrial chemist with a thirst for understanding and a particular interest in geology. (I am currently most of my way though a degree in Earth Sciences having got a B.Sc. in chemistry over 40 years ago. I completed a final year module in Evolution last year.)
I would like to try to summarise where we are in considering flood geology and a young earth after so many posts.
As I see it, there are 2 alternatives to assess as to the categorisation of the status of flood geology: is it religion or is it science? Let’s come back to this at the end because really this is the conclusion.
Let’s look at how we might categorise flood geology, assuming it is science.
1) Is it a hunch? An interesting idea? People have lots of interesting ideas. Like Alice I have several interesting ideas before breakfast. Let us agree that flood geology is a hunch, an interesting idea. Since a large number of people spend a considerable amount of time looking at it we should at least consider it to be a hunch.
2) Is it a hypothesis? Let’s see what RogerS quote mined from that famous source of all knowledge – Wikipaedia:
“A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.”
Alan has been asked to explain any number of observable phenomena by Josh and others. He has been asked how flood geology explains various observable features of the geological record. I and others have asked about how raindrops, mudcracks, corals, multi-layers of soil, corals etc.etc. are formed and preserved (sometimes in the finest detail) in the middle of the rock sequences. Alan has tried to explain about how tidal waves during the flood explain many features of the rock record. The suggested explanation of well established phenomena have failed to convince anyone here and especially not Josh.
Alan has failed to demonstrate any explanatory power to the hunch of flood geology and hence it stays as a hunch. There is no point to ask the second part of the definition Roger quotes:
“… proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.”
since it cannot even explain the simplest phenomenom, how can it be said to predict among multiple phenomena.
3) Is it a theory? Since flood geology fails as a hypothesis there is no point in even considering it to be a theory, the highest level of scientific understanding.
Thus, flood geology is a hunch and a pretty worthless hunch with no explanatory power and no predictive power. (Alan has been asked to do both explain and predict.)
So, is flood geology science or religion? Since:
1) Alan and Roger both regard a religious book – the Bible – as their prime source and quote it regularly (and somtimes at length)and since
2) They both recognize a Creator God as being the prime mover in flood geology
it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that flood geology is religion and not science. Roger hoped that there would be enough evidence found for him to be convicted of being a Christian. For flood geology, I believe we have that evidence and flood geology is religion.
BUT. There is always a BUT. Alan and Roger have a final opportunity to show me that I am wrong. Give us some explanations of observable phenomena that work rather than being hand-waving with no supoporting evidence. Personally, I wouldn’t mind if you did not come up with a working theory of plate tectonics within a fllod setting. To explain raindrops, mudcracks and footprints in the middle of several miles of sedimentary deposits would be a great start. Josh may wish for something different and I am happy to give way on that. Give us your best shot. Remember, showing that science cannot explain something isnot the same as proving fllod geology did it.
Show us how flood geology makes predictions which have come true. When, for example, did flood geology find oil when science failed? Where is the fossil bunny or tortoise in the Precambrian? Where are all the rhinos and hippos and elephants mixed in with the herds of triceratops of similar size and weight? Flood geology predicts these things but we are waiting for evidence. You find it, Alan, and you are on the way to a Nobel Prize.
There is a simple answer. To state that flood geology is religion as Josh has encouraged you to consider. Contrary to what many may say on this site, there is nothing wrong, in principle, with using miracles to explain things. God could have created things with the appearance of age. God could have done stupendous, mind-shattering miracles. That would be an explanation but it would not be science.
I used to believe in a modified version of flood geology until I looked at the evidence and at its inability to explain phenomena. So did honest Christian naturalists 200 years ago before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species etc.
If we are all so wrong, PLEASE show us some evidence, some explanatory power, some predictive power. Until then my judgment is that flood geology is religion and not science. I think this is put up or shut up time.
AlanB wrote:
Nope. Nope. I think that’s fine. Great, in fact. How about this, though: let’s make it a real exposure and one that we can all see, ja? Let’s use the section of the Witmore Point Member of the Moevane Formation that was described in the Milner et al. (2009) paper that was discussed here in early March: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/how_did_dinosaurs_sit_down.php
The section was illustrated very well in Figure 2, and we all have access to the paper here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004591
I think this is a great exposure to talk about. It’s exactly the kind of deposit that the flood model must explain, at this scale, in order not to fail. The Witmore Point* section is about 25 meters thick and it includes multiple beds and multiple rock types. There are mudcracks, stromatolites, dinosaur footprints/bones, fish bones, plant fossils, roots, invertebrates and invertebrate traces. There is a layer of carbonate and there are two erosion surfaces (the curved lines at the top of the section and just above the carbonate layer).
So, how does the flood model deposit the 47 beds of sediment in the 22-23 meter thick Witmore Point member, including all of the fossils and sedimentary structures illustrated in the section (e.g., mudcracks, stromatolites, dinosaur footprints/bones, fish bones, plant fossils, roots, invertebrates, invertebrate traces) How does the flood address a thin carbonate layer within a thick sequence of sands and muds, and does the flood address the two erosional surfaces?
RogerS? Alan? Any thoughts on how to explain this?
*Of course, the flood model also needs to explain the rest of the Moenave Formation and the overlying Kayenta Formation (e.g., why is the Moenave red and the Kayenta yellow, and how did the flood deposit those giant wind-blown sand dunes in the Kayenta), but we can start small…
Gigantic floating mats of destroyed forests are not necessary for insects to be preserved in the Biblical flood model. The ark sat on dry ground for about 100 years while it was being prepared. Practically no insect or vermin was prevented from entering the ark during this period. Ants, wasps, hornets, roaches, spiders, etc., all had access. These insects/spiders could have small quantities of eggs in the food supplies or resided on the living animals in small and tolerable numbers. The wooden ark was the ultimate floating biomass.
Why doesn’t coal appear in Precambrian strata? Evolutionists argue that plants did not evolve yet. This whole notion is not believable by virtue of the existence of Precambrian coal or “anthraxolite”. Certainly evolutionists aren’t going to take this lying down, so an explanation is derived as thus: “The deposits were probably formed from algae deposited on the margins of a sea making them sapropelicitic.” A theory becomes less viable when too many exceptions have to be explained.
Kagato #524: Ironwood and ebony sink, as will many woods if sufficiently water-logged. That’s not to say that giant sequoias would sink, but “wood never sinks” is a fallacy.
Here is were your argument fails: During the era before the flood (dinosaur era for your theory) the Earth’s fauna was much more prolific as evidenced by animal gigantism, forests on Antarctica, Siberia supporting Wooly Mammoths, etc. The vegetation must have been like a jungle as evidenced by fossils. Any time a tree grows more rapidly, it is less dense. Your arguments for ironwood and ebony sinking are for modern-day wood. It is not uncommon for uniformitarianists to fall into this fateful pit of failed logic.
I still adhere to the wonderful model above which has not only been illustrated by the observed phenomenon at Mt. St. Helens’ Spirit Lake, but it perfectly describes Specimen Ridge at Yellowstone National Park. The fact that some trees float longer than others wonderfully supports my flood catrastophism theory. Those that sink more quickly or have their bark fall off and sink to the bottom later, explain present-day coal seams. Those that retained root systems and floated vertically for a longer time describes Specimen Ridge. This also explains why we have coalified and mineralized vertical tree trunks intersecting multiple strata which are supposedly separated by millions of years (by uniformitarian standards). See examples of polystrate fossils here. Obviously the strata aren’t separated by millions of years unless of course these trees had the ability to grow underground through solid rock and coal. I glanced at uniformitarian rebuttals but the dating methods of the paleosols surrounding the root structures are probably based on circular reasonings of geologic column locations. Please correct me if there is something more substantive.
Even if a tree had an affinity to sink because it was heavier than water, it would be subject to hydrologic sorting. The velocity of the assuaging global flood waters would have greater inertial effect on large-sized objects, such as trees and saropods, thus creating a “geologic column” beginning with the smaller “Cambrian” organisms on the bottom.
Josh’s attempt to compare the Biblical flood to modern-day tsunami’s is inadequate for the following reasons:
1) Modern-day tsunami’s are generated by forces much smaller than those created by the raising and depressing of the entire Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian ocean basins during the Biblical flood.
2) Modern-day tsunami’s can’t create the necessary volume of water on land to initiate multiple “backwashes” of water returning to the ocean. During the Biblical flood, when the flood waters began to assuage, the run-offs accumulated in lower areas until the heights broke through the natural dam barriers and created secondary, tertiary, and quaternary backwash floods. The natural dams may have been of earth or ice. The creationist catastrophic model places the ice age in a period approx. 0 – 700 years after the flood. Therefore these “backwashes” may have spanned over 700 years which explains the anomalies that uniformitarian geologists argue could not have happened by a single one-time flood. There was indeed “one large global flood”, but it was accompanied by smaller multiple floods as the waters assuaged and the ice melted. Today’s glaciers are beautifully explained in the creationist/catastrophist model by their present diminishing size and their faster-than-expected rate of melting.
Q: Why are uniformitarianists surprised that the glaciers are melting so quickly?
A: Their model doesn’t predict what we observe.
If the Earth is supposedly billions of years old, then why are things changing so quickly in our lifetime? Glaciers melting, global warming, magnetic field declension, and over-population of the Earth are just a few. The 2000 sandstone arches at Arches National Park are supposedly over 100 million years old. Since 1970, forty-three arches have toppled because of erosion. Grab your calculators and face reality.
Some have criticized my bending geologic dates with no regard to “science”. Have you no realization that huge numbers of your dates that are supposedly “set in rock” are in fact set in the “geologic column” which is a self-supporting date-by-position argument? Many (most?) rocks can’t be dated by radioisotopes so their age rests solely upon YOUR INTERPRETATION which is being questioned NOW. I can’t remember a single National Geographic or Nova episode ever explaining the dating methodology when they said this or that was millions or billons of years old. I’m sure there are peer-reviewed explanations, but even these are disputed and masses of the public are swallowing this fluff as if it is FACT.
They didn’t collapse before 1970? They have only collapsed since 1970? Why is 43 in 39 years significant? Are there other numbers I should be entering into the calculator in order to face reality?
When you going to answer Josh?
….crickets…….
Who? There are other peer-reviewed scientists stating that the dates are fluff? Where? I might be persuaded if there were other peer-reviewed articles stating it is fluff.
When you going to answer Josh?
….crickets…….
WHO says this? Who says these arches are over 100 million years old? WHO? I call bullshit. What’s your source?
It’s the fucking sandstone that’s 100 million years old, not the fucking arches, you unbelievably stupid person you.
If the Earth is supposedly billions of years old, then why are things changing so quickly in our lifetime?
Alan’s topping out a little-known and underappreciated metric in the field of web analytics: fp/c
facepalms per comment. We are in the presence of a master.
sven, you don’t actually expect alan to understand that erosion periods and accretion periods are usually consecutive, not simultaneous? i mean, you’re talking to the guy who used numerology and who thinks “pre-cambrian” is some sort of phrase encompassing all of the rock-forming past. he also thinks something like “uniformitarianism” still exists in which processes we see today in one spot are the ONLY processes there ever were in that particular spot.
he’s got the scientific understanding of a pre-schooler.
*Smacks Sven*
Don’t give him the punchline!!!!
Ah. It’s no big deal (I was just being a dink*). Your rebuttal was fucking funny.
*Shut up, Anthony. I heard that.
Alan still lying and bullshitting. No references to the peer reviewed primary scientific journals, which means everything you said is pure conjecture. Still batting zero, and still not showing the right evidence you need to convince us you are anything other than an idiot. The only evidence we accept is peer reviewed science. Creationist blather won’t cut the mustard.
Sorry, Josh–I should know better than to comment on threads I’ve had hanging open in tabs for a while.
The first part of the definition of hypothesis answers your question. “Survival of the fittest” is described, not predicted. A certain attribute can be shown to be superior for survival in a particular setting. But you cannot look at a predecessor group (evolution works on groups, not individuals) and predict that a certain attribute will arise through mutation.
Sorry, Alan. More armwaving. Much of what you have written at #558 is gobbledegook. I personally do not intend to rise to it. This cannot be your best shot so I am happy to wait. At the moment as I said in #556 flood geology is demonstrably religion and until you come up with explanations it stays that way.
Remember just because you do not choose to educate yourself to understand what the science of geology is telling you that does not mean by default that flood geology is science. It still has to do the hard work of explaining what we already know.
You believe flood geology is so powerful as a means of explaining. Fine. Let’s hear it. I want to learn. Why not start with Josh #557 and get down to the rockface along with geologists.
More empty postulation. Show your work. Show us something that supports that statement above than includes actual hard evidence and not empty handwaving.
I’m still waiting for the evidence that shows that the Himalayas were raised to their current level in the last 4k years. And more than likely in a shorter period than that because of the catastrophic nature of what it would take to push them 8000 meters so quickly before modern history.
Show us the evidence.
Or do you accept my Teton meteorite theory?
I have as much evidence for it as you do for the flud.
imminent, KoT
They start with the assumption there was an ark and then try every way possible to cram every living thing on it. THERE’S NO WAY. It’s fucking absurd!
No flood. No ark. No one living hundreds of years. It’s all insane. And there isn’t a shred of evidence that it’s anything but a myth.
I’m guessing that entomology is yet another topic Alan can add to his growing ‘Things I Probably Should Have Read a Little More About Before I Used Them in My Argument’ list.
Termites, Alan. Woodboring beetles, Alan. What do these two creatures have in common? Why would that be important?
Tell you what – you chop up a whole bunch of wood and leave it out on the ground somewhere and, using only the treatment methods (i.e. no modern chemicals) available in 4,000BCE, you see how long it takes for that wood to become unusable.
I’ll give you a hint – it ain’t going to take 100 years.
Sez Alan:
Here, you assert that you understand the concept of an argument failing. Progress? I hardly think so.
There is something so gloriously funny in you “knocking down” an argument on here. You’ve argued for – a month? – with a group of people, some of whom are experts in the fields of knowledge you so arrogantly claim as your own, but all of them knowing full well that you are wrong, in every way short of criminal.
Our argument fails? You are an case study in argument failure. One could write a book….maybe I shall….
The thing to remember about your “argument” is that you are dishonest, and – a word of advice – lying is never a clinching argument in a debate with rationalists. Your fractal fuckwittery takes my breath away.
And I still think you should be plonked.
Bedtime. See y’all tomorrow (later today for me).
It works fine in talking to religious people though – in fact soemtimes it’s the best way forward.
Not here! The great thing about being a rationalist is that I never have to lie about what I believe. It’s the atheists creed!
RogerS,
Are you getting this from Genesis 5:32 and Genesis 7:6? Does that square with Genesis 6:1, which I’ve heard implies some passage of time? And the fact that the rest of Genesis 6 doesn’t appear to be a strict chronology (e.g., Genesis 5:32 and 6:10 essentially refer to the same thing, but there is stuff between them, such as Genesis 6:4, which doesn’t seem to square with Genesis 6 being a strict chronological recounting from 5:32-7:1). I agree that there definitely seems to be a passage of time between the birth of Noah’s sons and the point at which the duluge began, but it seems like your interpreting things a bit to call it an even 100 years. Thoughts?
Evidence for this? Biblical justification? And you might, just might, want to read Wowbagger at #574…
Plants hadn’t evolved yet, which is why there’s no coal in the Precambrian. You wanna know why anthraxolite doesn’t present a “Precambrian Rabbit” for us? Because anthraxolite isn’t coal. You put the quotation marks around the wrong word.
Calling it “Precambrian coal” is fine if that gets you off(1), but the phrase is meaningless with respect to the origins of the substance. Anthraxolite is a bit of a garbage-can term that refers to several different substances (none of which are coal). The Precambrian anthraxolites are carbonaceous materials(2-5) derived from cyanobacteria and other algal sources(6, 7) that have been metamorphosed. Metamorphosed, Alan. Anthraxolite is found most commonly in low-grade metamorphic rocks like slate and in higher-grade metamorphics at impact sites. Coal is a sedimentary material. The Precambrian anthraxolite is a metamorphic material. It’s algal goo that has been subjected to heat and pressure until it forms a kind of junk that sort of resembles coal, either in bedded deposits or in vein infillings. But it’s absolutey not coal and it didn’t form from the compression and heating of leaves and shit. That presents a rather large problem for creationists to try and wave it in our face as an example of something that stratigraphy (uniformitarianism? evolution? communism?) can’t explain. This is why I continue to harp on your word choice. This is geology. Word choice matters.
References and Notes
1Yes, there are papers out there that refer to this stuff as “Precambrian coal” (e.g., C.B. Douthitt, 1982, Precambrian coal or anthraxolite; a source for graphite in high-grade schists and gneisses; discussion. Economic Geology 77(5):1247-1249). These tend to be economically-oriented papers that are using it in the colloquial sense. In these papers, “coal” should have been written in quotation marks.
2tesla.pmf.ni.ac.yu/lgc/articles/27-1986.pdf
3http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-488V8C3-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_
version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4bf5aa84cbae2a392d853b70629680d6
4http://www.springerlink.com/content/m08588ku2l405585/
5astrobiology.nasa.gov/files/ddf/2007/Hiroshi%20BAR.pdf
6http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/impacts97/pdf/6022.pdf
7And why are you saying this as if it’s a creationist “Gotcha”? The earth sciences community isn’t in any way saying that there weren’t plenty of carbonaceous materials in Precambrian rocks.
For example:
econgeol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/5/1169
astrobiology.nasa.gov/files/ddf/2007/Hiroshi%20BAR.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/kt28n11672412615/
imminent indeed
thanks for pointing that out
I find this line of argument funny: Global flood, therefore Bible is inerrant. QED
Never mind that they have to twist the facts to get the evidence to fit the global flood, never mind that so many other stories of the bible are contradicted by evidence too. But if the global flood is real then they can praise and worship God…
This was true a hundred and fifty years ago. We have much more data now, in many independent lines of verification. Thank you for playing.
I’d address the stuff about trees being less dense and how they floated, but reading that much concentrated stupidity sent my brain cowering into a corner, and I haven’t been able to get it to come back yet.
If no global flud the bible is fiction. So far, given the latest masterful rebuttal by Josh, the bible being fiction is ahead 600 to 0. Our delugionists just can’t seem to get into the game. Maybe their presumptions are wrong.
However, my brain did just yell across the room to remind me that you still haven’t addressed the issue of the innumerable spores, pollen, seeds, and leaves that all magically sorted themselves into layers that have nothing to do with sedimentation and deposition in a massive flood environment.
Priceless.
Smart brain Carlie.
Phase 1: Flud theory
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Prophet
Rev that was fucking awesome.
Except that now I have that fucking Underpants Gnome song running through my head*.
*thanks for that…
IT’S A TRAP!!! Our brains can’t repel stupidity of that magnitude!
Sorry. I’m out.
I tried to keep up, I really did, but the stupid is just coming in too fast. The dumb is getting dumber and it’s accumulating at a rate faster than it can be dealt with.
Each new post is more densely packed with stupid than the last; we’re approaching critical mass. It’s the Moronological Singularity! No lucid thought can escape.
Get out while you still can! It’s the End Times of Rationality. The Dopocalypse. Dumbageddon.
Alan B post #556: So, is flood geology science or religion?
Alan, to begin with, here are some links that will educate you on creationism:
https://www.csm.org.uk (oldest creationist organization in the world founded by the inventor of the vacuum tube)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook (Walt Brown, M.I.T. Mech. Engr. PhD., Air Force colonel)
#566 Nerd of Redhead, OM
Over confidence in the process of scientific peer review may lead to false assumptions.
–I remember the OJ trial where the evidence was put in the face of jury “peers” who were sworn in to be impartial in considering the evidence. (The scientific peer review process of course is not under these constraints.) Our best investigative scientists had immediate acess to the crime scene (as opposed to 1,000’s of yrs.) with tons of evidence: blood DNA everywhere, hair samples, 15-inch knife, (2) bodies, and a leather glove. The trial included dozens of expert witnesses and testimony. Yet we learn that “the blood-sample evidence had allegedly been mishandled by lab scientists and technicians.” (source below). Q: Would it be possible to mishandle evidences gathered thousands and thousands of years after the incident by those with a learned predisposition? They also presented the glove evidence which FAILED to fit, thus “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. How could anyone deny this “proof” of innocence?
The one invested in OJ’s innocence used tactics that are strikingly familiar to tactics used by other certain invested individuals on this forum. I wonder if (names omitted) used him as a role model or if a signed copy of “If I Did It” is on their shelves:
Cochran’s jury summation compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler, a technique which was later criticized by Robert Shapiro and by at least one juror. Cochran called Fuhrman “a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America’s worst nightmare and the personification of evil.”
(source)
another category fail. wtf? don’t they teach you in school that words != things those words describe? don’t they teach you that words have different meanings in different context?! don’t they teach you ANYTHING!?!!!!?!?
Alan B post #556: So, is flood geology science or religion?
If I wanted, I could discuss Biblical flood geology without ever invoking the name of God. Likewise evolutionists and uniformitarianists could attempt a similar feat without ever invoking their mysterious, unaccounted-for, eternal matter and energy which turned into the elements, stars, planets, water, etc. Geologists think about this often put they don’t necessarily publish their thoughts. Anything that is “eternal” automatically takes on an aura of “religion”. Claiming that an eternal entity has no intelligence and is therefore unlike a god, and is therefore “naturalistic” or “scientific”, is an exercise in futility. One must then violate the laws of observable science to convince others that all intelligence arose from non-intelligence. Computer programs are a good example of why this can’t happen: they never exceed the intelligence of the creator(s). As a matter of fact, without proper maintenance by their creators, they succumb to the laws of entropy and cease to exist. Nevertheless, atheists believe that complex programs can arrive from random particle motion. This has never been seen but those who “believe” it do so religiously.
If you reject the information contained in the Bible, make sure you are not doing it on “religious” grounds. The ink on the paper is real, most of the cities listed in the Bible are extant or have been archeologically excavated, many of the characters are accepted as real among historians, the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, Egyptian, and Roman empires are all accounted for with various levels of detail, the Jewish people continue to this day carrying the same culture and practices described in the Bible, the Jews have recently returned to the physical location of their ancestors, and the Bible’s influence on our present-day culture is undeniable. Do you know of any fable that has achieved a similar level of integration with present-day reality? The first thing that comes to my mind that would approach it distantly would be Islam and the Koran. I say “distantly” for the following reasons:
The Koran has far less detail for things such as the global flood. Jesus is mentioned as a “prophet” but the quantity and detail of his life are missing compared to the four Gospel accounts. The Bible’s genealogies are more extensive and are a true source of information whether one finds them interesting or not. Fewer cities are mentioned in the Koran. Much less history is accounted for in the world empires I listed above. The Koran was written after the Torah, in the late 7th century, while much of the Torah was written at least 3,000 years ago. The reason that I listed Islam at all is because it indeed has some true historical significance as related to our current-day acceptance of actual history. Arab people are generally darker than Jews which is what one would expect from the Bibles description of Abraham’s son, Ishmael, being from an Egyptian woman. Ishmael was familiar with sacrificial offerings which is what Arabs practice in various forms today. Why is it that Jews and Muslims, who are notorious for being at odds with one another, accept the idea that Abraham is their common ancestor? The answer is because both have maintained accurate historical connections with their true and literal ancestors. Speaking of two disparate religions meeting at a single point of unity, look at this Islamic creationist website:
http://www.harunyahya.com
Both sides realize that there is commonality in science and both have come to similar conclusions. Never think for a moment that “religion” necessarily equates to “non-scientific”. My personal belief is that the scientific achievements of these individuals never would have resulted if it were NOT for their faith in God.
P.S. Look what you would have missed by throwing the Bible out as a true historical resource: The founder of the Islamic web link above is Harun Yahya. “Haran” was Abraham’s brother. A city was named after him. Investigate for yourself on Wikipedia – “Harran”. The Bible will lead you to endless knowledge founded on realities of the past, present, and future.
Alan and RogerS, two more failed posts. No physical evidence for your imaginary god. No physical evidence showing your bible isn’t fiction. No evidence for a world wide all continent flud. No evidence for the death of all biota on all the continents. No evidence that the dating for the alleged flud evidence all matches the alleged date of the flud. No evidence of the death of all other existing civilizations existing during the flud. Total fail boys. Still nothing. Still lying. Still bullshitting.
Here is some advice. Stop posting as you have nothing.
#590 = two appeals to authority and one non sequitur
RogerS,
Yes, what kind of monster would try and link their opponents to the Nazis?
RogerS #522,
Alan Clark #206 on Watchmen Thread,
Perhaps RogerS was right to say:
Oh, one shouldn’t even have to point the obvious: “jury of peers” and “peer review process” are two very different things. Okay, yes the word “peer” is in both of them, but the similarities pretty much end there.
You do realise you are sitting at a computer right now, correct? Just how do you think a computer works – that there’s magic smoke inside that allows it to work? Or do you think that there might be some merit to a device that only exists because of our understanding of quantum physics?
feynmaniac, i really think this inability to separate words from meanings is a major symptom of (or cause of, i’m actually not sure; chicken/egg)literalism. i have met a non-fundie with that problem once. for him, too, words were things, not symbols. made interaction ridiculously difficult. fundie indoctrination must make that a lot worse still.
If it don’t fit
You must acquit.
If it didn’t Flud
You must not be made from mud.
Or a rib. Depending.
#578 Feynmaniac
Hi Fey,
It appears you have many fine pointed questions that deserve an authoritative answer; one that you would likely value and respect more than mine. I had the opportunity to here Barry Farber speak at a synagogue and found members of the congregation who attended very receiving and friendly. If you called the nearest synagogue, I am sure a rabbi would be more than willing to answer questions pertaining to the Torah if you were there sincerely to discover / research the answers to your questions. I’m sure it would be a life experience and I would be interested in learning the responses. Regards, RogerS
Still another evasion by the tap dancing master of not saying anything. RogerS, if you aren’t offer evidence for your flud, don’t bother posting.
Fuck the flood, I want to know why they feel the laws of physics are wrong. That when we observe distant galaxies or date old rocks why it shows an old earth and an even older universe. Why is it that millions of scientists, many of them religious and specifically Christian have all testified to the age of the earth and universe, yet are off by a factor of over 2,000,000. I’m guessing Alan has some damn fine evidence to support that, because if he’s just doing armchair science them it would mean he has nothing…
RogerS, they do not randomly select registered voters to review scientific papers. You are an incredibly stupid person. Is anyone going to submit #591 to Fundies Say The Darnedest Thing?
Again, even if you prove there was a global flood, it doesn’t prove the inerrancy of the bible. You can ever prove by example, only disprove. If you want to prove that the bible is inerrant, you have to show that everything in the bible happened as said, backed up by irrefutable evidence.
Maybe there was a global flood, maybe there wasn’t. But the laws of physics still show an old earth and even older universe. The fossil record still shows a gradual evolution of species. The genetic code shows the interconnectedness of life. It doesn’t matter if there was a natural disaster at one point because there is just so much evidence for the old universe and old earth that one single piece of evidence in one field is not going to throw out everything else that has been observed. Please stop going on about the flood, it’s been done to death.
When are you going to answer Josh?
…………crickets……………
You did say you would answer him, no?
If we don’t believe, how can we reject the Bible is on “religious” grounds. Talking about non-belief. I don’t reject Zeus on religious grounds and neither do you. We both agree it is a myth. Certainly there are some things in the Bible that seem to correlate with known history but in order for us to believe that a flood as described in the Bible took place, aren’t you asking for a literal interpretation?
While there are some things that match what we know about history, there is much that does not correspond with geography or history. So how can we accept something as fantastic as a world flood if we have to take other parts of the Bible and not be able to interpret literally? You do realize that there are many fictional novels with historical accuracies? Should we give these works of fiction preferential treatment because they get the geography or historical figures names but also fictionalize their actions?
When are you going to answer Josh?
Holy crap, did I just get a Christian refer me to a rabbi?
Roger, I asked those questions because I wanted to hear your response. You said weren’t qualified to answer and I appreciate your honesty.
Actually I already know the answer to the last two questions. The Torah looks like it was cut-and-pasted from four other texts because it was.
The first question, who wrote the Torah, I have don’t have an answer, but neither does anyone else. We know it couldn’t have been written by Moses, as many have maintained. There are things in there Moses couldn’t have possibly have written about, most notably his own death. We know that there were at least 4 authours and one editor (the redactor). There is also much known about the time and location of the various authours.
However, it is odd that this a book billions have based their life and has played such a vital role to Western culture, yet we don’t know who exactly wrote it.
I genuinely hope, that for the several scientists on this thread (no, not you two, duhhhh) that your confidence in scientific review, was exactly what got you your jobs.
Another brilliant takedown Josh.
I am also so happy that I know that the smart people here aren’t violent.
Well. it’s better when it’s verbal, isn’t it?
Alan and Roger – will they hit their children? Bet they do.
RogerS, just say you don’t know. You really think that after the witness you’ve given here that anyone would be even remotely interested taking their questions to a rabbi, priest or pastor? You do know what a rhe”torah”ical question is, don’t you?
I’d still like one of them to explain to us why there needed to be a flood at all – since their alleged god is allegedly omnipotent and could have just magicked out all the things he didn’t like and magicked in shiny, obedient new ones.
A flood is the act of a half-assed rain god, not a being capable of creating the universe.
Of course, answering the question of why an omniscient being wasn’t able to predict what would happen and therefore have no right to be angry and smitey about it would also be nice.
That’s always been my thought, a do-over. No one would know. Wait, maybe that’s the point, it’s God’s ways of saying “I’ll cut you if you fuck with me”. That seems a little harsh, so let me try a RogerS answer
Alan, when are you going to answer Josh?
And it would be just as worthless as it is when you invoke god.
it is not science, it is wholly unsupported garbage.
Yet you bring it up as some sort of pointed attack on the scientific method.
Fail
Alan, it’s been 48+ hours (and several comments by you) since you told us that you were composing a response to Josh. How’s that coming along? Can we expect it anytime soon?
Kel: Both of us agree that something always existed, you think God is eternal, I happen to think that energy is eternal.
Solar deities were common among the ancient Egyptians, Aztecs and Hindus. Each thought that their knowledge was superior to the previous generation. The logic of the Greeks brought them to a higher realization of “Earth, Water, Air, and Fire”. Kel, you have an advantage over the ancients in that all of their accumulated knowledge is at your fingertips. This empowerment has enabled you to wisely choose the loftier element of “Fire” or “Energy”. After all, your combination of all of the suns will be more powerful than the Aztecs’ single inept sun. If you had unwisely chosen “Earth”, then your colleagues would have undoubtedly abandoned you.
Thanks for taking my argument to absurdity. I wasn’t talking about any of the ancient myths, but thanks for putting my argument in such a way that it looks like I was. Rather I was referring to special relativity, big bang cosmology and black holes. But all those modern things are just dressed-up myths of old to you aren’t they?
You have no idea of the science and what it means. Do you even understand the importance of e=mc² or finding the Higgs Boson? Do you understand what big bang cosmology states? Do you understand how singularities work?
(original source)
…Ok, I’ll stop now :)
Ragutis: Alan, it’s been 48+ hours (and several comments by you) since you told us that you were composing a response to Josh. How’s that coming along? Can we expect it anytime soon?
I will approach the Morrison Formation first. I have already been making posts alluding to the lack of vegetation in the strata which is a major problem for uniformitarianists. I want people to be as knowledgable as possible about the formation before I make my final submittal, because knowledge will be to my advantage. You can start reading about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_Formation
Look at its physical size: http://www.fieldadventures.org/blue/morrison.html
Start thinking for youselves on how such a large uniform combination of several strata formed. See photos: http://images.google.com/images?&q=%22morrison+formation%22
My taxes are due April 15 and I’m torn betwixt two: this forum and the IRS. I have about 40% of my presentation done. Obviously Nerd will yawn and say, “Again, no evidence for your God exists.” But this is to be expected. Actually, the Morrison Formation does not prove God exists. I’ll use it to show that the Biblical account of the flood is scientifically accurate.
Flash! I just realized something. Nerd is tired of all this scientific hogwash. He is interested in something that will connect him to God. I’ll think about it…
Alan,
Okay…..
Again, even if you do prove that were was a global flood (that requires showing that all evidence all over the planet supports it, no localised bullshit) it still wouldn’t so that the bible is scientifically accurate. It would show the validity of one story. That’s it. Nothing more nothing less; global flood means a global flood.
Kel: Do you understand what big bang cosmology states?
It states that order was created out of an explosion. A stick of dynamite will create order if you are being attacked. I bet I’m off on the wrong track. Please explain what was the source of the explosion.
I wonder when it will click in Alan’s head that local != global. Showing local flood after local flood, all it says is that floods occur and show up in the geological shelf – to which geologists would reply “welcome to the 19th century.” It’s the equivalent of seeing an ant-hill being built and concluding that giant ants built a mountain.
Feynmaniac: According to radiometric dating, the Morrison Formation dates from 156.3 ± 2 million years old (Ma) at its base,[2] to 146.8 ± 1 million years old at the top…..
This is getting good. Radiometric dating of what? The formation has a lot of components. Your dating statement is too broad.
No, it’s an expansion of space-time out of a singularity. Not an explosion at all – but that’s what happens when people’s extent of knowledge on science is looking at the name. Feynmaniac should be able to explain it better than I, but it’s nothing like the stick of dynamite analogy you are giving.
Kel,
No, it would prove the inerrancy of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Thus if a flood did indeed occur then that would mean that Gilgamesh was 2/3 god, 1/3 man, that he killed the demon Humbaba, and that Utnapishtim and his wife were granted immortality by the gods.
Kel: No, it’s an expansion of space-time out of a singularity.
Does the expansion conform to all known laws of Physics or are there yet-to-be discovered laws that the expansion draws upon? Are the current Physics explanations debated or is everyone on the same page?
Alan,
It wasn’t my statement, it was a statment from YOUR source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_Formation .
After about 10-37 seconds in, it does. Before then the laws of physics break down. Which means at that point in time we have a chance to understand how the laws of physics are set. That’s the great thing about science, when there isn’t an answer a scientist will say “We don’t know” and seek to find an answer as opposed to saying “God did it” and not considering it ever again. Remember that only 200 years ago, the answer to the question of where we came from was “God did it”, now we know better.
Epic of Gilgamesh?
Here would be a good project: List every detail on the flood provided by the EOG, then compare it to every detail provided by the Bible. My prediction is that the information ratio will be about 50:1. I could be wrong. Does anyone know if the ark dimensions and flood heights are mentioned in the EOG? Since everyone here is impressed by empiricism and science, we need to know which way to go.
#608 Feynmaniac
“We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.” KJV John 9:29-30
-The authority of Moses in the Torah was well recognized 2,000 yrs ago, but the same people failed to recognize the Messiah. Today we fail to recognized both the Torah AND the Messiah. Man’s carnal knowledge has increased while his spiritual component has been ignored and neglected; those continuing in this direction do so at their own peril.
Textual analysis and archaeological evidence show that it would be impossible for Moses to be the author of the Torah. Nothing to do with spiritualism; the evidence simply does not add up… of course that’s what happens when you investigate things as opposed to believing them.
Is this the first time he was right about anything?
I know it is quotemining but it was too damned tempting.
Kel, I’m not belittling your enquiry to science. I believe God wound everything up then let it go. After that, everything conforms to set laws and we are free to inquire. I love science. I can investigate the same as you for after 10 ^-37 seconds. As a matter of fact, I’m humbled and I’m learning from you. In my explanations of the Biblical flood I try to use naturalistic explanations because the flood happened much after 10 ^-37 seconds. I do believe God gave Noah the plans but everything built was with saws, axes and hammers. No magic wands were involved. My life’s experience has been the same.
I’m curious however if you live TOTALLY by empirical science. What is “love” to you? How do you convince someone not to worry? Do you explain to them using probability equations that an event is unlikely to occur? Are all people of equal value to you or are some more valuable than others? How is one’s value measured? You don’t have to answer me, but it’s some food for thought.
Science is good for some things but I don’t see much applicability when I’m visiting a hospital room of a terminally ill person. I’ve seen people at funerals that looked extremely awkward and uncomfortable. I’ve often wondered if their life was totally invested in the physical world: stock markets, career, outward appearance, etc.
Science is good for some things but I don’t see much applicability when I’m visiting a hospital room of a terminally ill person. I’ve seen people at funerals that looked extremely awkward and uncomfortable. I’ve often wondered if their life was totally invested in the physical world: stock markets, career, outward appearance, etc.
Huh?
Alan,
precision != accuracy
I could say the distance between Los Angeles and New York are 1.05204567568 metres. It’s precise, but not accurate.
The Epic of Gilgamesh:
Tablet XI:
The Story of the Flood
“[The boat] was a field in area,
its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height,
the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times It cubits each.
I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?).
I provided it with six decks,
thus dividing it into seven (levels).
The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments).”
I will also note that the translation of the tablet has 2,846 words while the chapters of Genesis dealing with the flood (Genesis 6-8) has 1,648 words. However the comparison isn’t fair since only the majority of the tablet deals specifically with the recounting of the flood. Anyway, the two are of comparable detail and have nowhere near the “information ratio” of 50:1 as you suggested. Read the link yourself if you don’t believe me.
You’ll find many similarities:
“All the living beings that I had I loaded on it,
I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat,
all the beasts and animals of the field”
“I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;”
“I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.”
Lest you think it’s just a retelling of Noah’s story there are also clear differences.
Like all other experiences, a drive that helps the survival of the species. It’s the way for our brain to get us to act in certain ways that allow for successful survival of the genes. In saying that though, just because it can be explained, it doesn’t make it in the slightest bit less meaningful.
I don’t convince anyone of anything.
Some more than others of course.
By the relationships we have with others.
You don’t see the applicability of science when it comes to hospitals?!?
The question is Alan, what answers do you give to your own questions? Have you thought about the role of you in this world? What is your purpose here? For that matter what is the meaning of life? Have you actually found answers or do you just throw God in there as if it explains something?
Alan Clarke, man of one book bleated:
EOG, from tablet XI:
Later:
Next (this will really kill you):
Alan Clarke, man of one book also pontificated:
What a great idea! No one has ever thought of that before!
Kel: Textual analysis and archaeological evidence show that it would be impossible for Moses to be the author of the Torah.
Maybe Joshua wrote Deuteronomy 34 about Moses’ death. What is the big hangup? You talk as if everything is disqualified if the authorship doesn’t meet such and such standard. What standard are you referring to? There are parts of Origin of Species that are questionable. Is it time to bring out the torches and start burning books?
Alan Clarke, no one claims that On The Origin Of Species is infallible. Being a work of science, it is amendable to revision.
Yet an other failed analogy.
Discombobulated, thanks so much for the Epic of Gilgamesh story. Now we have two detailed testimonies of the same account. They seem to be slightly varied views by two different witnesses, just like two people giving slightly varying accounts of an auto accident. One saw it perfectly up close while another was at a distance. One thing for sure was there was a wreck, or a FLOOD. What more do you want? Why would anyone reject the obvious conclusion that there was a FLOOD?
Now putting aside Sumerian and Christian mythology……
Alan,
Yes, you are completely off track. If you are going to critize theories can you at least start by having a basic understanding of them? You have shown similar ignorance of the theory of evolution. It would be like me saying Christians believe that God is a giantic Panda living under the ocean. You would label me as completely ignorant and you would be correct.
The big bang theory states that ~13.7 billion years ago the universe started off as a singularity, then proceed to expand. Now many people picture this as an explosion of matter in an infinite void. That’s not what the theory says. Space itself began to expand.
The common analogy here is to imagine dots spread out on the surface of a ballon. Someone blows into the ballon. The distances between the dots and the surface area of the balloon grows. That’s basically what’s going on, except in space.
Now, is this theory hard to believe? Yeah, but to quote Gregory House: “I only cling to this crazy theory because it’s been proven right every step of the way.”. The Big Bang predicts both the red shift seen in stars and the cosmic background radiation. It’s the best cosmological model we have of the universe.
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
oh ffs… are you next gonna claim that hammurabi got his code of law from overhearing Moses’ conversation with god?
the writers of the bible are plagiarists. not surprising really, considering the hebrews are likely descended from the people who write the sage of gilgamesh and the code of hammurabi.
Alan might also be interested in who first proposed what became the Big Bang Theory:Georges Lemaître
Alan,
Sigh….Rather than conclude the obvious, that a flood myth was common in ancient Mesopotamia, Alan yet again twists things to his world view.
Also, that was the quickest 180 I have ever seen. He went from dismissing the Epic of Gilgamesh as imprecise comparred to the Bible to using at as proof for a global flood.
I want more than two ancient myths agreeing on some details!!!
For fuck sakes, would you accept the fact that the Roman Gods and the Greeks Gods had similar features as proof for them?!?!?
Alan Clarke, MF, wrote (regarding the dating of the Morrison formation):
Er, Alan? It doesn’t matter which component, Alan – only one component of anything, anywhere, has to be older than 6,000 years for your theory to be rendered invalid. By citing the Wikipedia article on the Morrison formation in your argument you are agreeing that some aspect – doesn’t matter which – is between 156.3 ± 2 million years and 146.8 ± 1 million years old.
How many more than 6,000 is that? Once again you’ve been hoist with your own petard.
Oh, and speaking of Alan’s colossal mistakes – so you accept the Epic of Gilgamesh as being a story from ancient Sumer? Could you hazard a guess to when the first period of that great nation existed?
Here’s a hint: it’s longer than 6,000 years ago!
Epic FAIL – yet again.
Alan Clarke:
Thank Feynmaniac, as he was first, and gave a more detailed analysis.
How many virgin birth -> great leader/messiah mythologies are there again?
Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go facepalm myself into a fugue state.
I was referring to the documentary hypothesis. It’s more than just referring to the death of Moses, it’s that there are 4 distinct writing styles upon textual analysis. And those 4 distinct passages have been woven together throughout the Torah, but it’s obviously still there.
Alan,
The first “problem” given:
The site gives no explanation what specific static universe model or observational data it is referring to.
Static universe models have huge problems. Now when Newton formulated his law of gravity he saw a big problem. Since gravity is always attractive then all the mass of the universe would clumb together until it was one giant mass ball. He proposed the solution of having an infinite universe with infinite stars. So for any given star there were stars pulling from all directions. There was thus a net zero force and a static universe.
Now, Olber came along and found that an infinite number of stars would mean that the night sky would be bright. Clearly that’s not the case.
Later, when Einstein was creating his Theory of General Relativity he came across the same problem as Newton. His proposed solution was adding a Cosmological constant to his equations to allow for an equilibrium. The problem however is the that equilibrium is unstable. If it contracts a bit it will continue to do so. If it starts expanding slightly, it will expand more and more.
60% more? Oh my. “The defence from Poetry” went well…
Extraordinary. How can you back up a fairy tale?
Alan Clarke shows us….
Plonkage! His mental illness isn’t funny anymore.
Alan @ 593
If geologists don’t publish their thoughts often, how do you know most of them think about this?
If you are going to invent things, don’t make it so obvious you are …
LYING.
Yes, as you say CT,
He is a liar. He never addresses any of the arguments against him properly – well, how can he – but we know he’s lying with every word he writes.
Alan Clarke said #590:
“Alan, to begin with, here are some links that will educate you on creationism:”
Firstly, you have failed to understand the concept of a rhetorical question. It is one the speaker/author puts forward to focus the minds of his listeners/readers on the key issue at hand. It can be distinguished as such by noticing how the speaker/author then continues by answering that question.
Secondly, you did not seem to have read my contributions. I said that I used to believe a modified form of flood geology but have found that it lacks explanatory and predictive power. There is no point in directing me to such sites. I am aware of them.
Alan Clarke #593
If you could have discussed flood geology without mentioning God then why did you not do so? You knew you were entering into a scientific discussion with many who are atheists. (NO. Don’t answer – it’s another quasi-rhetorical question.)
I am aware of the Islamic approach to flood geology and creationism. Why do you thin this has any more impact than your interpretation of the Bible? (NO. Don’t answer – it’s another quasi-rhetorical question.)
I think that covers your 2 replies to me. Now, let’s get back to where I left it last night (my time).
I had established that flood geology is religion without the explanatory power to go beyond being a hunch and far below the level of even a hypothesis. Josh has proposed you disprove my conclusion by showing how flood geology explains a specific piece of real geology, the Whitmore Point Member in a paper available to you and the rest of us. I look forward to understanding how well flood geology works in the real world of geology.
As MAJeff has been known to say: Jesus fucking Christ! What is going on in here? I just went to bed for a couple of hours. Shhheeeesh. It’s like a F-5 shit tornado whipped through this place. Hey! Maybe it built some evidence for the flud, a 747 if you will? I will look…
*looks around*
Nope. Doesn’t appear so. But I did find this little gem in #619:
Well, this ought to be interesting…
and this one from #624:
Alan, it came from the source you encouraged people to read. You do realize that if you’re going to use a source, then your tactily approving of the source. You don’t get to say “Yeah, I gave you that source for the rock descriptions, but I’m ignoring the radiometric ages therein.” If you’re going to do something like that, then you need to be able to justify WHAT reasoning you’re using to dismiss those parts of the source that you are. Armwaving about the evils of carbon dating isn’t going to cut it. It’s just going to make you look like a child.
Okay, back to business. First:
1. How does the flood explain how the sequence I referred to in comment #557 formed?
2. How does the flood explain how the sequence I referred to in Watchmen comment #882 formed?
Regarding comment #558, I’m going to talk about Spirit Lake later, as my time is limited. But no, I didn’t miss those paragraphs…
Alan wrote in comment #558:
So let me get this straight…
A., You assert that the Salem Limestone, the Morrison Formation, and the Athabasca Oil Sands are evidence of a major pulse of tsunami activity (the same one? different ones? we’re never told!) that deposited tsunami-moved-around sediment deep into the continental interiors (i.e., high-energy, tsunami activity is responsible for forming all three of these units).
B., I reply by asking you where in any of those three units we find evidence of tsunami deposition (because tsunamis are high-energy events that result in a tumble of unsorted junk and none of those three deposits seem to be characterized in general by evidence of high-energy, catastrophic deposition).
C., You never offer any evidence of high-energy catastrophic deposition for any of those three formations, but instead assert that
D., My asking for evidence of high-energy catastrophic deposition in these formations isn’t reasonable because…the tsunamis generated during the flood were…HIGHER energy, and…more catastrophic, than the modern ones?
*blink blink*
*blink blink*
WTF?
So, warm, shallow, “quiet” waters deposit limestone today, and tsunamis deposit piles of jumbled, unsorted rocks, mud, debris, and shit; but the SUPER-TSUNAMIs of the flood, which were much more severe than anything we’ve ever seen today, deposited stuff which looks exactly like quiet shallow water limestone.
*shakes head*
Alan, Alan, Alan…
Say the word with me: miracle.
Summary of Alan Clarke, #619
1) Here’s the Wiki address to the Morrision Formation.
2) It’s big.
Was this the 40%? Looks like it won’t take too long to finish it.
Summary of Alan Clarke, #624
“I still haven’t read the freely available internet article on the Christian perspective on radiometric dating.”
(Incidentally, I have read it and it is excellent.)
Q Have we moved any further from flood geology = religion?
A No.
Josh,
congrats to a severe case of SIWOTI syndrome !
You’ll get better eventually.
Alan is just as hopeless as Barb/Maggie/Kenny/Simon/Rob,your brilliant knowledgeable posts are totally wasted on the likes of him.
AlanB, I never told you this explicitly, because I was trying to write #557 quickly and never got back to it, but I enjoyed comment #556 very much. Well thought out and well organized. Nice job.
Hi, clinteas…yeah, I know it’s gonna be waisted on him. It’s actually less a case of SIWOTI syndrome (I hope…) and more of me just honing my understanding, for myself, of the stuff I’m trying to get through his head. I like to make sure that the stuff I think I know is what I actually know.
Re Josh #557 Whitmore Point Member
Alan B to Josh:
“Oh, PLEASE sir, me sir!” (waves hand in the air). “I’ve skimmed the paper and looked really hard at Figure 2 like you asked us. Please sir, ask me. It’s marvellous and it’s so clear, sir. Oh please sir, let me explain it sir”
Josh to Alan B
“Put your hand down, Alan B. I asked Alan C to explain it to the class. He keeps telling us he knows all the answers so I’d like to hear what he has to say.”
Alan B goes off to sulk in the corner …
(Not really but it is enough to get anyone excited. A new piece of geology, a series of outcrops that tell a clear and fascinating story and it’s got dinosaurs!)
Alan Clarke
“how do you know that?”
Lots of posts by Alan, but no content in there to push forward his idea. Lots of bobbing, weaving, and evasions. Anything but putting forward and idea and citing the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up the idea. Scientists 625, delugionists 0. Still a perfect score from the perfect idiots.
Guys, we are still waiting for the evidence for your flud. The whole package in one fell swoop. Trying to get us off science is just bobbing, weaving, and more lying on your part. You are wrong until you prove yourself right. Check the score to see how successful you are at proving yourself right. You need to change how you are going about this.
I hope the skies are clear Alan is flapping his arms again.
Alan, stay away from Washington DC airspace.
Clinteas
Dont discourage Josh!
I have learned and relearned a great deal from reading his posts, I was a geology major back in the 60s and never finished. I am having a great time following his links and following the discussion here.
Yes, Clarke has blinders on, but I am sure there are others still interested in watching. One can learn from bad examples like Clarke as well as good ones.
Thank you kindly
I second Britomart’s comment.
The idea that Alan is somehow dutifully working through an argument ( 60% done, already – why it hardly seems a point over 50!) is hilarious.
When he’s “finished” what will happen do you think? Imagine the time, not far off now, when he will post a final piece of information, say just one more thing, and it will be…finished at last! Then we’ll all go, as one:
“Wow! We were like, so totally wrong – and there was a fucking big flud after all!”
What information will it be? I can’t wait to find out!
Alan,
When are you going to answer Josh?
Passive-aggressive.
Re Josh #659
“Ooh, you are awful … but I like you!”
(Dick Emery, English comedian, d.1983)
Re Josh #660
Agree totally. I find I don’t really understand something unless I can explain it. Alan C is definitely doing me a favour. And, seriously, thanks for introducing me to the Member for Whitmore point – shame he isn’t standing as an MP.
Alan wrote in comment #558:
This is at least the second time that you’ve used this word “backwash.” I intended to ask you for a definition of it before, but I can’t recall if I actually did. So, can you please define “backwash?” Why are you putting it in quotation marks?
Where did the ice come from? Are you talking about ice forming after the deluge event, or during the event? If it is after the event, then how could there be natural dams of ice that caused flood waters to pool? How do we have massive glaciers forming in a world where that’s covered mostly still with water? And if it’s during, then how do natural dams of ice form and survive in this super-tsunami environment that you’re postulating?
Wait, what? 700 years? You’re saying it took seven hundred years for the flood waters to “assuage?” Doesn’t that contradict what Genesis says about the event?
I mean, we have:
Genesis 7:24: And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.(KJV)
Genesis 8:3: And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.(KJV)
Genesis 8:7: And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.(KJV)
Genesis 8:10: And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;(KJV)
Genesis 8:11: And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.(KJV)
Genesis 8:13: And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.(KJV)
Genesis 8:14: And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.(KJV)
I’m by no means a biblical scholar, but don’t these passages strongly imply that we’re not talking about hundreds of years between high flood waters and a dry earth? Did the dove live for hundreds of years? What am I missing here?
And also, if you’re saying “which explains the anomalies that uniformitarian geologists argue could not have happened by a single one-time flood,” then aren’t you acknowledging that those “uniformitarian geologists” have observed something in the geology that you actually need to explain? Aren’t you tacitly acknowledging that they know what they’re doing? Doesn’t that sort of shoot another hole in your foot? I mean, why do you need to offer an explanation if these “uniformitarian geologists” are all completely out to lunch (which is what you have argued elsewhere)? Why provide an explanation unless you agree that there’s something out there that needs explaining…?
And how exactly does the creationist model explain their present diminishing size? You asserted that the model explains it, but how does it explain it? What’s the explanation? Are you saying that today’s glaciers/ice sheets (I presume that you’re equating the two…?) are the last remains of this post flood ice age and that we should expect to see them completely disappear soon as the world achieves some sort of post-delugional temperature equilibrium? Is that what you mean?
And regarding this post-flood “ice age,” why was there an ice age? What was the point? Does the Bible mention this event? Which verse? Why are you postulating that there was a post-flood ice age?
No, you don’t. Are you switching to a Christian who agrees that evolution occurs, the universe is old. Liar.
Liar, liar.
Liar, liar, liar.
Here, come over here, I want to tell you something. Forget all those other things I said. I really do think you an amazing person. ewwwww
You fail because you start with the answer and then try to build an explanation. If you truly “love” science you would know you’re doing it wrong.
He got the plans from Ziusudra and Utnapishtim’s used book store.
No Alan, it has not.
When are you going to answer Josh?
Passive-aggressive
Alan: How do you convince someone not to worry?
Kel: I don’t convince anyone of anything.
Alan: Are you succeeding? Why do you post?
Alan: Are all people of equal value to you or are some more valuable than others?
Kel: Some more than others of course.
Alan: How is one’s value measured?
Kel: By the relationships we have with others.
Alan: So the reference point for one’s “value” is “we”. I assume you are one of the “we”? There are a lot of people in the world. How often should they refer themselves back to “headquarters” to see how much they’re worth? Also, you put a “relationships” quality modifier on “we”. Relationships can vary greatly. Your meter looks to me like a compass with no magnetic north. Your direction is one of personal preference but you have no assurance you’re not walking in circles. From my reference point, I can clearly see you are. From your reference point, you’re walking with a crowd of people than can’t possibly be wrong by virtue of their vast numbers.
Mat 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Still waiting on those answers Alan.
Another swing and miss by Alan. A side show, with nothing to do with promoting his flud. Alan, all these evasions tell us loud and clear that you have nothing and you know that. Present the full argument with citations to the peer reviewed scientific literature.
#556 Alan B
If you want to advance your knowledge of flood effects on Geology (beyond your peers) and gain an understanding of the creationist perspective, a must read is “The Genesis Flood” by John C. Whitcomb co-authored by Henry M. Morris. ($11.55 on Amazon)
It seems your thinking is locked in a Religion/Science viewpoint that will restrict your future ability to conduct objective science and thus formulate enduring conclusions.
-If you are looking for human spirituality, you need to investigate “religion”.
“A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.” (source)
– If however, you want to study Geology or Archaeology, then you would do well familiarize yourself with historical narratives including the Bible. “History is the study of the past, with special attention to the written record of the activities of human beings over time. Scholars who write about history are called historians. It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the sequence of events, and it often attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events. (source)
If you dismiss the Bible as “Religion” and not worthy of serious examination, you would find yourself on the outside of locating/dating/recognizing major archaeological finds.(here) & (here2).
The Genesis account of the global flood is chock-full of content useful for historical study and investigation: lineages, ages, numerous calendar date references, time duration of each flood stage, details of flood causes and effects, “blue-print” descriptions with numerical values, depths, mountain range identification, and “a captain’s log” of events and observations. If you perceive the information as nothing but a fable you should just move on and drop from the intense controversy.
A WORD OF CAUTION (for young and impressionable):
Be mindful that Pharyngula is not necessarily representative of majority thought, even within uniformitarian / evolutionist circles. One person on this thread for example posts with intellectual content yet links Jesus Christ and his teachings to Hitler and Nazi Aryanism. (i.e. the “ice cream” is not FDA approved)
RogerS, another swing and miss. Religion is for the religious. And should be kept in the home and church. We are having a scientific debate. So, you have to start using the rules of science. Which you and Alan keep failing to do, hence your zero score. You keep trying to change the argument, but we are focused on you providing scientific evidence. If you can’t do that, you need to stop posting.
That’s hilarious considering the sole purpose of Flood Theorists is to prove the innerancy of the bible. Taking the pre-determined conclusion that the bible is correct and then torturing data or just creating it to fit that conclusion ignoring, denying or obfuscating all other data that doesn’t support it.
Hilarious.
RogerS
False. The closest that could even come to someone saying this is Owlmirror on the Science of Watchmen Thread:
To which Alan lubriciously responded:
No one said anything about Jesus and Hitler except Alan Clarke.
Also, as I have pointed out in here YOU and Alan have pulled many Godwins.
Here are some more examples of Alan doing it on the Watchmmen thread:
Me,
Spell check fail. That was suppose to be :
To which Alan ludicrously responded.
[insert dirty joke here]
Josh, you have failed :p
Sometimes, the creotards inadvertently write something true.
And this is of course the central problem with what the fabulists propose – the fairytale nature of their fairy tale.
It is exactly the point that all of the information in Genesis is false. Every last comma, *Well, maybe there is something there which is trivially true, offers?* But it is all invented. The only even vaguely sciencey thing about it is simply added by creationists; so, for example, we have to have evolution in there to cover the should-be-embarrassing fact there are way more different kinds of life than the compilers could ever know.
Oh, and I may have carried out a Nazi sin. I said that from what I imagined of Alan and his colossal stupidity, I would imagine him to have nasty racist views and to have supported Eugenics. And then said that he was just the kind of man who supported the Nazis.
If this is wrong I apologize. On reflection, I think he would be too stupid to be welcomed into the Nazi party.
No AnthonyK, it was not invented, it was plagiarized from Gilgamesh.
And the virgin birth and other bits and pieces are plagiarized from dozens of other myths and legends.
Then they went on and borrowed from a fertility festival here, and a solstice festival there, a Celtic goddess became St Bridget, a pagan tree became a Christmas tree and they want us all to forget where it all came from.
Tell me, how many wives did the patriarchs have? Where do they vote in the bible?
Don’t get me going :)
Thank you kindly
Roger S
Dude, you still aren’t getting it. The bible has been investigated and it has been found wanting in explanatory power. It has been investigated for hundreds of years and dismissed as mythology because it contradicts the collected evidence gathered in the real world.
Many commenters here have shown themselves to be very knowledgeable about the bible. You have seen this with your own eyes, and yet here you are complaining that atheistic scientists are closed-minded and won’t even consider cracking open the bible to find out if it’s true or not.
All you creationists seem to do is distort and lie.
Unlike you (Christians and religious fanatics of all types), many people do not equate truth with emotions. Unlike you, many people insist on hard facts, and investigation, and will follow the evidence—no matter where it leads. This is the love of truth. Your idea of truth (TRUTH!) is the feeling you get when you’re deep in the ritual of a prayer circle, and everyone is humping jesus for a worshipgasm. I know, I come from that world *Oh, won’t you come forward and let Jesus take your burdens? He’s knocking at the door; will you answer? * I’ve seen many, many times people on their knees with their eyes tight-closed and one hand raised like an antennae, weeping tears of joy and feverishly mumbling their thanks to god for being merciful and not sending them to hell. I’ve seen this. I grew up with the bible as the word of God. I know the world you live in. Many people here either know of, or come from, the world of religion. It has been investigated.
Re RogerS #675
Frankly, RogerS, you amaze me. It was the Genesis Flood which enabled me to see the fallacies in flood geology!! I still have a copy on my bookshelf (9th printing 1966) alongside Gish – Evolution the fossils say no. It is now over 40 years old. In that time science has moved on to a staggering extent. I had hoped from your and Alan C’s enthusiastic writing to see how flood geology had moved on and matured. To date that has not come to pass.
You refer me to a 40 year old source … I’m speechless.
“-If you are looking for human spirituality, you need to investigate “religion”.”
If I was interested in the spiritual side of life I would not need some kind of faux “religion” in quotation marks. Incidentally, how do you know I am not religious? I have not mentioned it at any stage and I don’t intend to because this is about science.
“Scholars who write about history are called historians.”
Grandma, meet egg. Egg, meet grandma. Now Grandma, the first thing you must understand is that you don’t suck an egg, you blow it …
Please stop using Wiki – you and Alan C are just making fools of yourselves and, frankly, it’s embarrassing seeing people laughing at you. And, no, it is not being persecuted for righteousness sake.
If I want to study Archaeology of Norman or Saxon times in the UK why should I study the Bible as my textbook or as any kind of source? We do have a history and an archaeology in the UK but perhaps you were not aware of that? In Roman times the British were renowned orators. Oratory did not start with Abraham Lincoln and the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jnr. We also have a written history that goes back at least as far as the Venerable Bede (673-735), the Anglo Saxon Chronicles under King Alfred (890 onwards) and the Domesday Book (1086) without breaking out of the 11th Century.
You say the Bible is an invaluable source for geology. Fine. That is what this thread is all about at this stage. Does flood geology actually deliver? Has flood geology anything more to contribute since 1961? The International Geophysical Year of 1957/8 started a renaissance in geology and other earth sciences. Did the Genesis Flood do the same for our understanding of geology. That is what you are trying to demonstrate and I for one want to understand what has changed in 40 years of concentrated effort.
Josh and close to a dozen people here having been trying to tease this out and in particular to find out what we have been missing by not considering the flood. We are reaching the stage where Alan C is going to show how flood geology explains some pretty straightforward features in a named formation. You say the flood is the key to geology. I say – that’s up to you to prove.
“A WORD OF CAUTION (for young and impressionable)”
Are you trying to be gratuitously offense? You address the post to me and try to convert me to your way of thinking then, in case you have failed, you warn others against those who might be impressed by your lack of ability to explain anything. Or do you consider ME to be young and impressionable and I have somehow fallen for PZ? I am in my mid 60s for crying out loud. You weren’t to know that but having read my (I hope) more mature contributions you might have caught on. You might have noticed I have not called you and Alan C idiots, fools, mountebanks, liars snake oil salesmen nor any other epithet.
I do not agree with everything PZ says (could anyone?). When he talks about Evolution and evodevo type subjects I listen hard and try to learn although I admit some of it is beyond me. Strangely enough I have the willpower NOT to log into Pharyngula. I suspect other readers do too.
I do not intend to answer any more of your comments unless they are advance the purose of this thread – to have a sensible, informed discussion of science. If you have something to contribute – fine. If not, please go somewhere else.
#678 Posted by: Feynmaniac
I find debating minutiae distasteful but will address this being part of the post–
Response to “False”: the word “posts” can be taken in the broad sense as in, “A particular individual on this thread “posts” where he chooses.”
You see to totally miss the intent. The warning was not intended for those with politically correct “sensitivities” but against a more damaging and lasting pitfall; being baited into BELIEVING false radical comparisons:
God = vicious, despicable mass-murderer, much much worse than Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot
-I cited a factual link above containing:
“and Richard Dawkins described him as “the greatest of Darwin’s successors….In 1911 he was involved in forming the Cambridge University EUGENICS Society…”
See any linkage? If the shoe fits..
One of the great things – and perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised – is that people here who did have a fundie phase – such as you, Dude – can recover. And that when they have recovered it is to essentially the same reality as the rest of us. You really are living in exactly the same world as I am.
The problem of course is the horrible time some Christians have leaving the church and the awful psychological experiences they can have (see ex-Christian.net for many examples). One just hopes that you managed to salvage something from the experiences – beyond of course a close knowledge of some parts of the bible and that feeling that you are no longer worshipping a non-existent monster.
RogerS, another post without showing any evidence. Bad habit me boyo. Still vainly attempting to get you inane religious testament as evidence. No go.
The evidence will be found in the peer reviewed primary scientific literature, since we are talking science. We have been telling you that for three threads now.
If only!
You not only try to debate minutiae constantly, it is all you have to make up for the lack of any truth or value in your argument.
You do realise that you are a pure example of a man obsessed by unreason, and that posters come here to learn how to argue with the utterly delusional – that is, you?.
Remember that we know you are lying in your motives and in your statements. Were it not for the fact that your defence of a global flood and a man who put the whole world in a wooden boat is so floridly ridiculous, there would be no point in them at all.
You provide a true-learning experience for us rationalists. Do you have any other value as a human being? Nothing you have said has made me think you do.
It’s taken me a long, long time but I have worked out the way Alan C and RogerS are playing this.
Let me try my hypothesis out and see if it has explanatory power and predictive power.
My hypothesis is this:
Both Alan C and RogerS know that flood geology has nothing scientific to contribute. Perhaps Josh was the final straw. Maybe they haven’t previously met up with someone with the knowledge and the determination to call their bluff.
If they stop now and refuse to answer the questions raised here, if they pull out short of providing evidence that flood geology has explanatory and predictive powers, they and their point of view loose credibility.
Hence they have only one way forward. They must be booted out by PZ. This allows them to brush the dust off their feet and go their way praiseing God that they have been found worthy of suffering for righteousness sake in the footsteps of their Lord. It also means that Alan C does not have to put up his explanation of how flood geology can explain what geologists have painstakingly worked out about the deeptime history of the Earth. He can go away saying that he had it all sown up but was not allowed to show us all.
This is the hypothesis.
What does it explain? – much of the nonsense from both of them recently and especially their unwillingness to put anything forward for serious scientific consideration.
What does it predict? – that the recent nonsense will continue until PZ finally gets so ****ed off with them that he throws them off. That we never will get the remainder of Alan’s explanation which, last time I read consisted of: Here is the Wiki reference to the Morrison. It covers a big area and we need to think about that.
How can it be disproved? By RogerS and Alan C packing up the silliness and by Alan keeping his word (something which used to be a feature of the actions of a gentleman, let alone that of a Christian).
It will never move to the status of a theory but it looks better than a hunch at the moment.
Alan: How is one’s value measured?
Kel: By the relationships we have with others.
Many marriages fail because one spouse bases their “value” on the affirmation of the other. Even non-believers see the fallacy of this arrangement as evidenced by their complaint, “You’re clinging to me. I need my freedom!” How many are familiar with the repeated question “Do you love me? “ and the expected response, “Of course I love you. I just don’t express it continually. Why do you doubt?” Such is the fate of Kel’s system where people’s values are based on his or another’s opinion. In other words, self-worth is relative to another human. How would Kel fare in prolonged solitary confinement? I could view this difficulty as an opportunity to connect with my creator. Is there a mechanism for filtering out those with weaker and flawed belief systems? How will Kel fight off depression and sustain himself if there are no other’s to affirm his value? There was a resurgence of religious faith after the demise of the Soviet Union and its notorious gulags. Nobel prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a living testament of survival. I talked to Richard Wurmbrand personally who impressed me as possessing a level of mental soundness exceeding that of anyone I ever met, despite his 14 years of being tortured and 3 years of solitary confinement.
Disassembling an automobile engine requires different tools than those required for disassembling a computer program. Make sure that you don’t discard a seemingly worthless toolset just because you haven’t needed it thus far.
Bingo – I’ve often thought this. They’d like to give up, cos they really are getting their asses whopped on every level, but in part this is apologetics, so they have to keep pesetering us or Jesus will be cross.
It’s an easy way out to be plonked (and I’d like to see it).
And let’s not forget another consideration that Alan, in particular, is a bona fide internet nutcase, so this is, in a sense, his “work”. Yuk!
But yes, they both want to be plonked.
AlanB–#689 appears to be a datapoint that supports your most recent hypothesis, now doesn’t it?
hmmm….
The force might be strong in this one.
Alan at 689 – pure gibberish.
flap flap flap flap
Another bob and weave irrelevant post for the delugionists. Still batting zero. Boys, if you want to stop, simply remove Pharyngula from your bookmarks. Very easy to do, and you can do so privately.
Oh, and Kagato? This last one (#691) was of course in my best Alec Guinness, not David Tennant…
Josh #695
David Tennant – Who’s he??
Alan Clarke:blah blah blah blah bad analogy blah blah
Half way sane bystander:That analogy is nonsense.
Alan Clarke:blah blah blah blah bad analogy blah blah
Alan @#697: One of the numerous Doctors Who.
Alan C you made more sense when you were talking about rocks than when you moved on to psychology!
Get back to answering Josh’s questions, ok?
There are a bunch you have promised us, we are waiting.
Thank you kindly
David Tennant is best known for his portrayal of The Doctor in the series Dr Who. He rivals Tom Baker for being the most beloved Doctor.
Josh and Janine
Sorry, “Who’s he?” it was a humorous (?) question …
While we are waiting for the magnum opus from Alan C we could discuss Dr Who. Personally I believe the first Dr you see in the multiple series is the one you consider to be the best or the most beloved. Me? I go back to the very beginning in 1963 with William Hartnell – a fine but cantankerous English actor…
Black and white, one take only (or so I have been told) but with the brilliant electronic music. It inspired the “behind the sofa viewing” concept of hiding until the scariest bits were over. Beats the middle Drs hollow.
FUCK. That went right past me.
*headdesk*
I was raised on the show. I’m a Baker man, myself. Favorite episodes were probably the Pyramid of Mars, Stones of Blood (I think that’s what it was called–that one was way creepy when I was nine or whatever), Seeds of Doom, and whichever one had Nessie in it (that one rocked).
Incidentally, how long should we wait for Alan C? Anyone got any ideas?
It’s not over ’till the fat lady sings” so when does PZ normally send in the Valkeries, complete with saucepan lids? Personally, I am ready to give more time but then I have a dog in the race with my hypothesis to test.
Hi Alan C. Join us if you will – how long will you need? It’s already been days and according to some of your long-running friends here it has been a long, long time including other threads.
Currently, flood geology is judged to be religion and a hypothesis has been put forward as to how I think you would like this to end. Your endgame has been identified.
I have stuck my neck out as will any true scientist and left myself vulnerable to you coming forward with your flood geology explanation which will challenge challenge my hypothesis. Another data point. Seriously, I hope you do. I want to listen to what Alan C has to say. Hopefully, as Josh has stated, he will use words that any scientist can understand. If it’s good we will join in to help him refine it.
Dammit, Alan B. Now I just feel dumb. ‘who’
PBS did not have the Hartnell nor Troughton episodes so in the eighties, I had the Pertwee, Baker and Davidson Doctors. I did not see much of Colin Baker or McCoy because of my limited access to TV in college. Lost track of the good Doctor until I caught the relaunch on BBC America. And as heretical it may be of someone my age, as much as I loved Tom (I also liked Jon and Peter quite a bit.) I have to go with Tennant as my favorite.
By the use of the British “u” and your mention of your age, I can guess that the show came on while you were a kid. What did you think of Mary Whitehall? It would seen that she had to be more scary than any Cyberman or Dalek.
A moderately old kid, perhaps, being in my mid-60s now (I was honest in my statement of age to RogerS)
Mary WhiteHALL? Could this be an upmarket version of Mary WhiteHOUSE? The founder of the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association?
If so, the Wiki article is surprisingly good.
In the Section on “Legacy”:
Writing in the Dictionary of National Biography, the philosopher Mary Warnock comments, “Even if her campaigning did not succeed in ‘cleaning up TV’, still less in making it more fit to watch in other ways, she was of serious intent, and was an influence for good at a crucial stage in the development both of the BBC and of ITV. She was not, as the BBC seemed officially to proclaim, a mere figure of fun”.
However, she did at times make herself a target of those who wanted to take things even further.
I usually double check in order to make sure I get the names right. Failed to do so this time.
How sweet. Kel, I think he’s trying to save you.
Alan, when you going to answer Josh?
….crickets…….
RogerS was looking in a mirror as he typed this.
Alan, when you going to answer Josh?
….crickets…….
No problem Janine. You are among friends – even if some of us have funny accents. Went into a store in downtown Atlanta and a lady said to me in a huge southern drawl, “My, you have a cute accent!” To which I replied, “So have you!”
I have a saying, “Everyone makes a fool of themselves 5 minutes in a day. It is the wise person who keeps it to 5 minutes.” I won’t tell you what my best is but it ain’t 5 minutes!
Mine, either. Holy shit.
Yeah, those accents can be funny things. I have been watching Ashes To Ashes. I understand everything that DCI Gene Hunts says. Yet some people seem to think he is too heavily accented for American audiences, BBC America supplies subtitles.
As for making fools of ourselves on a daily basis; what people get on the web is a heavily emitted version of myself. Perhaps I need to edit more.
Found an article on an Apologetic website about the history of “Flood Geology”.
“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Alan and RogerS proving Edmund Burke correct.
History of the Collapse of “Flood Geology” and a Young Earth
Alan, when you going to answer Josh?
….crickets…….
Josh (Sorry folks, this is largely shop talk for geologists)
While we are waiting for Alan C, I would like to ask a couple of questions about Figure 2 of the Whitmore Point Member log.
First of all, do you think this follows the conventions of using a scale of grain size with the finest grains closest to the left and the coarsest further out to the right or are they trying to give a feel of the countour of the cliff face? (Which is not what I understand to be a graphic log but perhaps different conventions are used …)
Secondly, I don’t want to confuse Alan C with too much science but in your view, are there any sequence boundaries here? I think the top of the WHM is one but how about the top of the green bed at about 53m and the pair of lines at about 68m? I am doing a module this year on sequence stratigraphy and I am still struggling a little. Are unconformities ipso facto sequence boundaries? Are there any other tracts or boundaries that you would regard as sequence stratigraphic features?
Since Alan C is obviously enjoying himself working out the problem I don’t want to spoil it for him by giving too much away.
(I wasn’t joking when I said this is a superb formation to look at the palaeo-ecology. We have little Jurassic locally although the lower oolite is a major component of the Cotwsolds about 40 or so miles away. We have no Cretaceous in the W Midlands.)
Local geology – North Worcestershire, South Shropshire:
Precambrian:
Longmyndian – thick, U-shaped sedimentary beds with some suspected raindrops and possibly Ediacaran fossils.
Malvern Hills – highly complex igneous. Only 3 people understand the Malverns and they are all wrong!
Uriconian volcanics with rhyollites, dust tuffs, and many others
Cambrian:
Comley limestone of world fame (Prof. Lapworth of Birmingham Uni)
and others
Ordivician: This is the type area for much of the Ordivician in England. The famous Ordivician/Silurian angular unconformity on the River Onny is in 1 hour drive.
Silurian:
Roderick Impey Murcheson’s stomping ground. Type area for Wenlock and Ludlow with the full sequence from Llandovery to Pridoli (in the Old Red Sandstones). Wenlock Edge, Dudley lagerstatten etc. Furthest East that the Silurian extends in the UK is just W of Birmingham. Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage site for the industrial revolution.
Devonian:
Lower Devonian with major unconformity then upper Devonian.
Most of Herefordshire is Devonian or Silurian/ORS. Calcretes common.
Carboniferous:
Clee Hill is the Carb. in microcosm. An early site in the industrial revolution.
Permian:
Plenty of dune-bedded SS. Someone showed me what is claimed to be the P/Tr boundary locally but I haven’t seen the evidence.
Triassic:
Plenty close by mainly fluvial (a major river ran through the area from what is now N France and ended up in the plains of Cheshire – hence the salt deposits.
Caenozoic:
Not much until ice age times. Diverted river systems, river terraces etc. Much of it removed as a souce of gravel.
If you ever come over to the UK drop us a line if you wish.
As Samuel Pepys said, “And so to bed”.
(I am 5 hours ahead of the time shown here)
See y’all tomorrow.
Who knows, we might have Alan C’s explanation. Something to look forward to. Sweet dreams!
But of course.
I can’t tell from the paper (I know several of the authors; I could contact them if you really want to know), but I don’t think it’s a grain-size scale. There isn’t enough differentiation between the sands and the muds in the lower 15 meters or so of the Whitmore Point Member section (unless the sands are extremely fine-grained). I think it’s the more traditional qualitative representation of differential resistence to weathering (so a combination of the grain-size of the rock and cementation differences in the various beds), and so it represents the outcrop better than the strict grain-size scale tends to.
Good eye! I’m inclined to agree that the 53M one is most likely a boundary. In fact, I think that and the carbonate layer are what the stratigraphers who defined the Whitmore Point Member probably keyed onto when they named the unit. I’m less certain about the 68M mark, but I can definitely see what you keying on (and likely agree with your probable interpretation). As with you, I don’t want to get too far into this while we still hold out some faint hope that Alan will actually engage in a discussion of this unit, but once we’ve decided to move on, then we can dissect it further. I can try and dig up some more sources on the Whitmore Point Member (as I’ve never personally worked in the Moenave formation–it’s a little too old for me).
Not always, because sequence boundaries are related to the depositional system (i.e., they’re very broadly syndepositional), but you can have an erosional event that scours very ancient sediments long after the environment of deposition has “shut off.” But yes, broadly speaking, when your keeping the discussion within the “system of deposition.”
Are you familar with this site?
http://www.uga.edu/~strata/sequence/index.html
How about this one?
http://strata.geol.sc.edu/
These are both really good sites that I think are pretty clear.
Indeed, although I suspect we’ll have time soon…
I’ve been around the UK a fair bit, but don’t often get into the bush. The geology/paleontology you describe sounds absolutely fantastic. I would very much like to take you up on that kind offer the next time I’m in the area. Thank you.
Hey! *snap* Focus.
If you’ve got time to write this drivel, you’ve got time to work on your “final submittal” in response to Josh.
I may not have the tolerance to engage in this
debatediscussiondebacle any further, but I feel it is my solemn duty to witness the grisly end of the Dopocalypse. I will mourn for the intelligent thoughts lost to its suckage.Alan B,
Hey! I heard of them!
Worcestershire sauce.
Shropshire Slasher.
Guys – and gels, on this thread – no, not you fuckwits – one name to you “William Smith” – finst man to go down a mine – Somerset, UK, canal surveyor – first man to see it all.
As he went down on the rope, through the levels – The Somerset Levels indeed – look em up – he saw the history of the earth, for the first time properly. Eat your heart out geologists FIRST EVER!
Luckily, it’s all detailed in Simon Winchester’s “The Map that Changed The World” which you simply must read.
There s another book you should read – one of many. But the egregious, paraphyletic Alan Clarke posted some shit about being in a cell, captured by terrorists, and an atheist, guy – obviously, having nothing to do except kill themselves, as atheistts always do ;o
Fuck that – clearly – read Brian Keenan’s “An Evil Cradling” and find out how a man, without religion, survived almost the worst that could be thrown at him.
We do have geological time don’t we? Unlike them.
The Map that Changed The World is a terrific read.
Huh. If time is an illusion, and lunchtime doubly so, then I think I can safely say that all time is geologic time*.
*it is, you know…
Alan, may I suggest that instead of trying to aid Kel’s social life you put that time to use finishing your response to Josh? Prioritize. Get to the other stuff later. You keep mentioning how short you are on time, but you seem to have plenty to respond to other posts. People suspicious of you might think that you’re stalling. You wouldn’t want to give that impression, I’m sure.
OK, I’m intrigued, it will be next after I finish Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True”. This thread has been very instructive and I for one appreciate the time and effort put into the answers. If nothing else, Alan and RogerS have actually done a great service, if in a backhanded way.
William Smith is discussed in the article I posted earlier. I know it’s an apologetic website, but it is an interesting read, a discussion about how Christianity was forced to rethink the flood.
History of the Collapse of “Flood Geology” and a Young Earth
Alan, when you going to answer Josh?
….crickets…….
I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Yeah, thanks for that link. I’ve been reading it. It’s interesting stuff.
I thought it fit the current direction of the conversation and when I read it I thought about some of the things you had written. I felt reassured there seemed to be some Christians seemed at ease with evidence and were unafraid to examine their faith in light of scientific advances.
Alan, when you going to answer Josh?
….crickets…….
To quote Alan:”How many virgin birth -> great leader/messiah mythologies are there again?
Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go facepalm myself into a fugue state”
The Hindu Epic, the Ramayana, has 4 virgin births. King Dasaruthra could not have children, so his adviser, remembering a dream about Vishnu deciding to incarnate into a child Dasaruthra along with his snake, conch and wheel,told him to have a ritual in a special place. There, this glowing light gave the King special rice grains to give to his wives to eat, who later had Rama (who was really Vishnu), and his 3 brothers.
Athena, in Greek Mythology, is born from Zeus after bumping his head.
The list goes on and on.
To explain myself more fully…
We are social creatures, and we have those same social relationships with the environment around us. Having and maintaining social bonds is important for us as individuals as it’s vital to our survival. At the same time, that individualism is the only way we can act. We act of our own accord, our relationships with others are a means in order to consider them in any decision making. i.e. by having relationships with others we understand our place in something far greater than us.
It was telling that you asked me about what I say to convince someone else or what I would say to someone in a hospital, because in that you only serve to demonstrate my point. We as individuals have wants and desires, yet how do we measure the success of those if not by our peers around us? The desire of being close to God would resonate far more strongly among a group of peers where godliness is important to where godliness is irrelevant. If you had no interaction with anyone but the godless on here, the desires would change as to reflect the social group. Since being on here I’ve resolved to get a better understanding of science – because I’m surrounded by a group that values science.
They have found that the worst thing you can ever do to someone is to ostracise them from a social group, quite simply humans need interaction. We crave interaction, and those relationships we form are meaningful ones. We in effect create value in an enterprise through our own desires, but our desires are shaped and modified by those around us. By our parents, by our peer group, and by society as a whole. There is no top-down commandment of what is meaningful and what isn’t, instead we build meaning in our own lives over time through experiencing the world. Our externalisation of our selves is the only way we can truly feel at peace internally.
Oh, I forgot to add that Rama is a heroic figure in Hindu religion, as he can use any weapon, break a bow the size of a mountain in half, kill demons and is actually a God (although he does not know it) in a mortal shell. Sound familiar???
Alan at #689 completely misunderstood what I was saying, though that was my fault by not making myself explicit. I hope I have done so in #726.
Which I find quite hilarious. He seems to assume that a) I haven’t experienced any tragedy in my life and b) religious belief somehow is a tool that allows for that survival. On (a), it demonstrates he knows nothing about my life and what hardships I have or haven’t faced and seems to think that I’ll fail if I did face hardships. Maybe God has a word in his ear about how good my life has been and everything has been just super.
On (b) all he does is demonstrate that belief is a crutch, it’s there to help hold you up. Maybe he’s right, a crutch is useless to one who can walk on their own two legs. If I don’t need that mental crutch, why would I hold onto it? And in the future when I need one, I’ll go to the crutch store and buy one from there. A tasty, delicious crutch, I can feel that liquid crutch helping me out as it goes down through my throat… which reminds me, it’s been over 6 months now since I started the great vodka experiment and my water still hasn’t turned to vodka. God’s success rate is still at 0%. Omnipotent my arse!
My 5 month experiment has the same results, same conclusion.
Josh – please also go for Prothero – fraankly it’s the most beautiful book I own. Plus, it’s a huge onan invite for a prospective paraphylite like me ::::P
(Hox genes, eh?)
Alan, one of the main things I abhor about organised religion is that it preys on the weak – it takes those at their most vulnerable and fills their heads that any rational adult would otherwise not believe. Teaching children who don’t know better, getting former drug addicts, the depressed, the incarcerated, the physically and emotionally abused; the very nature of religion being a crutch is why I’m so against it. It pushes incredulity and dresses it up as hope. It doesn’t give meaning to those people in need, it gives them an exit out of a bad situation. If the idea cannot stand up on its own merits, if it cannot survive the outsider test for faith, then the idea has no worth.
God is not a crutch for the week, it’s the belief in God that is the crutch. It doesn’t matter what belief it is, people will still resonate towards that belief. It does not speak good of any meme that has vulnerability as its main social conduit.
Fortnightly, monthly, yearly, whatever. It preys on everyone, for all time.
Does Pharyngula have a resident philosopher, if not I would like to nominate Kel. (726)Good job Kel, you have come closer than many.
Yes, of course. And it’s your turn. Go on then, be clever…
Ap!
nope!
My turn!
So…uh…
Unusual travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God.
-Bokonon
Interesting article: Chimpanzees exchange meat for sex
If it’s your turn, Sven, then please take it. Here’s the talking stick….
The oldest profession must be older than we thought.
Butchers?
Yeah, that was it. I’m more of an epigramatic philosopher.
The ordinary crude mind has only two compartments, one for truth and one for error: indeed, the contents of the two are sadly mixed in most cases. The ideal scientific mind, however, has an infinite number…….The ideal scientific mind, therefore, must always be held in a state of balance which the slightest new evidence may change in one direction or another. It is in a constant state of skepticism knowing full well that nothing is certain.It is above all an agnostic with respect to all facts and theories of science, as well to all other so-called beliefs and theories.
(An excerpt)
Care to guess who said it?
#683 Alan B
First of all, let’s clear the air. From your following post it appeared you were taking up an interest in geology. You also mentioned being “most of my way trough” Earth Sciences. I was offering advice in good conscience for a beginner in a new field. I apologize that the content came across with a youthful tone and was misplaced in regard to your age and stature. In an in-person discussion this would have been adverted and my love of England, culture and history would have been predominating. In the response to the religion / science question you had posed, I laid ground work by quoting Wiki on word definitions since in part disagreements often are a matter of semantics. In the pro-evolutionist atmosphere of this forum, links far removed for the mother’s milk of TalkOrigins are suspect. Alan C has pointed out the pro-evolutionary bias of Wiki which should be therefore palatable for a reference point in order to at least engage in discussion.
You also took offense to a 40 year old book reference as outdated and obsolete. Even though most of the contents may be accurate, I realize book value drops when any aspect is proven false or no longer holds water. A local library was even reluctant to receive my dated science books but other books were fine. It is interesting how after thousands of years one book has emerged, withstood the test of time, debate, and ridicule yet is still the number one seller of the world -with no funding from the government. Now if you haven’t already, open mouth and insert leather (Wiki link).
To give you a specific answer is difficult since the word “religious” is broad.
It includes the group who were at odds with a particular outspoken person who challenged their well established textual beliefs and way of life. When their best and brightest had posed trick questions he baffled them. With their position of power and influence threatened as well, the “religious” leaders rationalized in plotting his death. So to answer your question, no, I don’t know if you are religious. The big question for you which carries consequences is whether you fit in the following quote and which part?
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21
Is it The Da Vinci Code?
RogerS,
Don’t forget also that reality has a liberal bias.
The Da Vinci Code also sold well. Oh, since you are so fond of Wiki please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
RogerS, if you have evidence that proves the global flood why are you wasting your time arguing on this blog for? If you truly have evidence to support it then surely you can argue your case in academia. Hell if you demonstrated there was a flood, you’d be world famous. You’d be hailed at the one who confirmed Christianity… instead you post on here getting your arse handed to you every step of the way by a real geologist but you are too caught up in your bible to realise it.
Quite simply RogerS, even if you are right, your effort is totally wasted on here. The best you could do is convert us – but that’s the real goal here, isn’t it? It doesn’t matter about scientific truth, all it matters is that you collect enough tickets to gain admission into the Kingdom of God. Otherwise you’d show some intellectual honesty and fight for your ideas in scientific circles.
Actually, he wouldn’t; he’d be the person who’d confirmed supernaturalism of some kind. Proving that the force responsible for it was the god of the bible would be another exercise entirely.
Another point about this:
Perhaps no funding from the government – but, over those years, certainly plenty of governments which would have you killed if you admitted you didn’t accept the contents of the bible as fact. Owning a bible would help with the façade.
So, I’d say a great proportion of bibles over the years were bought by atheists who, sensibly, didn’t want to die at the hands of the adherents of a loving god and their peaceful saviour.
The scientifically-illiterate simply have no ideas of the significance of what they claim. If they did, they might be a little more humble in trying to argue the point. It goes beyond the Dunning-Kruger effect, they simply believe that their answer is right no matter what. If only they realised that if they truly had the knowledge that they claim, then they would be world famous. That many indeed have come before them and claimed the exact same thing, but have been turned away because the evidential basis simply is not there…
But will that deter them? Of course not, they have to be right about what they are saying because the consequences of them being wrong will shatter their worldview. So when the evidence doesn’t support them, they’ll ignore it. Why aren’t they arguing that the earth is at the centre of the universe, or that the world is flat? When it comes down to it, all they have is their bibles. That’s it, they believe in the goddamn bible, not in God. If the bible is wrong, that’s it for them so their bible must be true. It’s really pathetic that they think that constitutes critical empirical investigation. And it’s even more pathetic that they think that preaching to the scientifically-minded is doing science. Old fools who have their mind bent on the cross.
“And Candle In The Wind is the highest selling song of all time. Popular sure doesn’t mean right” – Penn & Teller
Re:741
HENRY
AUGUSTUS
ROWLAND 1848-1901
An American physicist
Anyone care to bet on who posted #741?
How about #749?
Now, who thinks they were the same person?
He took “offence” because he’s already read it and it was that book that made him realise what you’re proposing was nonsense. Of course you weren’t to know that, but that’s not the point, he (and perhaps the rest of us) were hoping to see what advances had been made since this book came out. The answer appears to have been nothing.
This is because science moves on continuously. I took a course in human palaeontology in 2000. Were I taking a similar course today I’d need a totally different book because of all the changes that have happened since then. There’s a reason Josh hasn’t recommended reading William Playfair’s Illustration of the Huttonian Theory of The Earth, Lyell’s Principles of Geology or even Arthur Holmes Principles of Physical Geology, which isn’t much older than The Genesis Flood. All are well written, and at the time would have been on every student’s bookshelf, but now are only really of historical interest to anyone actually doing the science. There are whole fields of enquiry relevant to modern geology and biology that those authors had absolutely no idea about, and others about which they were completely wrong.
Who needs government when you’ve got several million followers aggressively pushing the book? Who needs government when the contents of the book are interwoven in the fabric of society? If anything government is going to see this as either a threat or a bandwagon to be hitched to. The Roman Empire went from one to the other, and the rest, as they say, is history.
That would have to be John S Wilkins.
http://www.scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
RogerS wrote:
I don’t know how we would measure “distance” from a website in a source’s content, but for the record, I find TalkOrigins to be not all that much better than Wikibabbia. Sure, a lot of the content is good, but much of it is outdated or had to have been written by a non-specialist, for they make some juvenile mistakes. Moreover, when trying to read their pieces from the perspective of someone who doesn’t “believe” in evolution, I haven’t found any of their stuff to be particularly convincing. I just find that they don’t explain things very well (but of course that’s my opinion and you know what those are worth). I think you’ll find, if you look back, that I haven’t used them to support a single point that I’ve argued. I certainly don’t regard them as the mother’s milk of anything we’ve been discussing.
Re RogerS #742
I previously wrote #683:
“I do not intend to answer any more of your comments unless they are advance the pur[p]ose of this thread – to have a sensible, informed discussion of science. If you have something to contribute – fine. If not, please go somewhere else.”
In #742 RogerS wrote:
“I was offering advice in good conscience for a beginner in a new field.”
Almost relevant. You failed, sir. So far you have demonstrated far less knowledge than I have and I haven’t even graduated yet. Josh is far ahead of us both. I will seek advice from him (as I already have). Unless YOU have an in-depth knowledge of sequence stratigraphy and can explain how to identify a Bouma sequence from a Stow sequence, a HSST, a LSST, the difference between a sequence and a parasequence, the palaeo-environment demonstrated by Figure 2. Thanks for the offer but no thanks. (Science can really be a bitch, can’t it, with all these long words and abbreviations! And you don’t have time to look them all up – pity!)
Now if you had first hand knowledge of field geology and can talk to me about evaporites, chicken wire structures, and dolomitisation. If you know how important are ammonites, goniatites, brachiopods, ostracods, acritarchs, conodonts and how to extract and identify them. If you knew the difference between hummocky and swaley cross-bedding (assuming you knew what cross bedding was) and the implications. If you have examined a sequence of calcretes or varved lacustrine deposits. Then, Yes I would gladly listen to you and learn from you.
The only expertise you and Alan C seem to claim is an in depth knowledge of flood geology. Great! Get started on Figure 2. I enjoy learning new things (but don’t talk about Paul and the men of Athens, I know the quote)
To contribute here you either produce depth of understanding or you ask honest questions which means listening to the answers. To contribute from Wiki as your primary source is intellectual suicide and holds you up to ridicule.
The remainder is an attempt to evangelise me. Forget it. You are telling me how successful flood geology is and how it explains things Figure 2 and the surrounding geology. Remember? Your bluff has been called.
CURRENT STATUS:
Flood geology = religion
Flood geology = hunch (at best!)
Hypothesis that RogerS and Alan C want to be thrown off for evangelising: another positive data point.
RogerS wrote:
With science books, it’s because the more time that passes after the publication date, the more likely it is that there is more than one thing in it that’s been falsified.
That’s because, as time passes, science books become…well, dated*, in a way that many other books do not.
A two-hundred-year-old novel still holds most of the reading value that it had when it was printed (in fact, it might well have more because we’re now so far away from society in which it was written).
A two-hundred-year-old book on geology, on the other hand, has lost most of it’s value as a source. There is definitely still value to it, however. I have thousands (yes) of journal articles. Many of them are dozens to hundreds of years old. These old papers still hold value because of the data that they contain. Namely, the descriptions of outcrops or fossils. Now, no description of a fossil is TRUTH and newer papers looking at the same material are always useful (largely because they are looking at the same data while backed up with new knowledge), but the data contained in the old papers remain valuable (especially as many old rock outcrops don’t exist anymore, buried as they are now under the asphault beneath the skateboarders’ wheels). It’s the interpretations of those data that become far less valuable as time goes on, because science has moved on. Science changes over time and it’s self-correcting. What we knew one hundred years ago has been supplanted by what we know now. This will, of course, be supplanted by what we know one hundred years from now. It’s worse for books than papers, too, because books are usually heavy on interpreation and light on the actual data, and so they “age” poorly as compared to papers. And because it’s the interpretations, rather than the data, that most consumers of science books want, the number of people who find those books valuable tends toward zero as time goes on.
The fact that things change all the time is what makes the world so cool for me. The fact that science also changes over time simply means that I might live just long enough to maybe have some idea of how little I truly know. I know that this fundamentally bothers you deep down, and that makes me sad. Regardless, however, it remains reality.
*I thought that was an excellent word to use here, by the way…layers of meaning with respect to this conversation.
I hit submit before putting this in (I intended on an introductory sentence): Roger, before you read my comment #755, read David’s at #751. #755 was intended to be complimentary to #751.
In comment #558, Alan wrote:
Why does the age of the planet have anything to do with the pace of change on it’s surface(1)? Can not a planet exist for a long time and still change frequently (or in the case of the Earth, constantly)? What is your frame of reference for fast change? Slow change? WHY does the age of the planet dictate what changes take place on it? Show me.
The tower on Memorial Hall at Harvard was completed in 1877(2). It burned one afternoon in 1956(3). So, the tower was 79-80 years old (~29000 days) when it burned, but was dramatically changed by an event that took up less than 1/29000th of the days that the structure had existed(4). Why does the age of the tower have anything to do with this speed of this change? Could this fire not have happened two days after the newly finished tower was unveiled?
Have you ever been to Meteor Crater in Arizona(5)? You know how fast this formed, right(6)? Let’s take your age of the Earth and round it to an even 6000 years. For easy figuring, let’s just say that the impact took a day to happen. Six thousand years equals what, about 2,190,000 days, right? This rather dramatic change took up how much of the entire history of the Earth…? Why does the age of the Earth have anything to do with this speed of this change? Could this event not have happened two days after Noah got the raven back from it’s last returning flight?
Now I know this isn’t the “kind” of change you meant, given what you wrote here:
and you’re going to come back and say, no, that’s not it. What you were talking about was normal gradual change like we insist takes place.
But I gave those examples because I was trying to get you to understand something. This isn’t what we insist takes place. You keep trying to put words in our mouths that all change is slow and gradual and “uniformitarianistic” and I keep trying to get it through your head that this is a strawman. This has not been my position. See here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/not_so_smug_now_are_you_canada.php#comment-1529147
Would I have used the Old Man in the Mountain as an example if I were operating under some “uniformitarianist” requirement that all change be “slow” and “gradual?” Seems unlikely, doesn’t it? Look back through my comments. Am I holding myself to your “uniformitarianist” argument, or is this a strawman…? Change on the Earth is change on the Earth. Some of it is slow and gradual. Some of it is extremely fast. Stop putting words in our mouths and trying to imply that we think everything happens at a snail’s pace. This is not what we’re arguing. This doesn’t help your case at all.
This is like your adhearance to this microevolution versus macroevolution nonsense. Seriously, you guys have got to let this stuff go. Could you please at least learn enough to get to the point where you know what we are actually arguing?
References and Notes
1And what are you using as a benchmark for fast change versus slow change?
2http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~memhall/concept.html
3http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/memorialhall.html
4And of course this was just the tower, part of Memorial Hall itself, which was older…
5tu.trekunited.com/frontpage/images/meteorcrater.jpeg
6Unless there is some creationist model of how this feature formed that is “slow?” Is there?
Another bobbing and weaving post by RogerS. Still proving nothing positive about their flud. Yawn. What’s the matter RogerS, you know you have nothing?
“#755 – did you just insult #751?”
“Ummmm…mutter..”
“Go on then…apologise, you ungrateful post!”
“..5orry…”
“Louder!”
“SORRY!”
“And….”
“You were a good post, and a clever one”
“There. How hard was that? Now shake hands, and we’ll have no more inter-post rudeness, OK?”
I think that’s sorted it for you, Josh.
*smacks Anthony*
*turns back to this f-ing manuscript*
Re Josh #715
Thanks for your response and the positive comments.
I guessed Figure 2 was more an outcrop contour than a graphic log senso stricto. They both have their place and they could be combined with one on the LHS of the column and one on the RHS but I can’t remember having seen this often (or even at all). Don’t bother the authors.
I have dug up some material about the WTM – after Alan C has presented his conclusions it would be helpful to me if we compare notes.
I am familiar with both internet sites. The S Car. site is massive but differs slightly from the interpretation we are using (unless I have got it mixed up – pretty likely really!).
Do you have any idea at all as to when you might be able to take up the offer? The UK is a good place for geology – much of the original work was done here, as you know. I am delighted people have referred to the book about “strata” Smith and his ground-breaking map. A really excellent read IMHO. One of the best features of the UK is that it is all so condensed. I have been to the edge of the US praries and marvelled at it but to have to face 1000 miles of it is a bit over the top! In a small area like S Shropshire there are representative rocks from just about everything from Precambrian to Triassic with lower Jurassic not too far away. Weak on more modern stuff. No K/T boundary but lots more.
Sometime it might help if we can communicate dorect if you agree. PZ has both our e:mail addresses and might be asked to act as the honest mediator??
Josh #720
Ford Prefect, I believe, sir.
“… any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still know where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.”
Why don’t you guys swop e-mail addresses by means of some sort of geological cipher, which only a trained geologist could understand?
@#763:
*wipes tears from his eyes*
Thanks. I needed that one this morning. That was priceless.
Hmm.
Like spelling out words by comparing line by line with a standard text? But we would have to tell you all which text we were using …
Let me see what my vacation schedule is like. I could do with a nice cross-pond excursion that isn’t work related. Summer is coming up, after all. Let me think about this.
Indeed. Feel free to drop PZ an email.
More later.
hush Anthony!!
I am listening and learning and so are a few others. If you don’t want to, that’s OK. Get a kill script or go visit another thread.
Thank you kindly
Re: #751 Dave Godfrey
Exactly the point I was trying to make concerning the Genesis Flood. Thank you.
Re: #759 Anthony
Wonderful!!!
Anything by Josh – excellent!
Think that brings me up to date. Time zones are a killer to net conversation …
#764 “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours …”
Nothing from Alan C yet?
“Absence makes the heart grow fonder”? It’ll be great when it comes. Do you think Alan C is talking to his flood geology friends to try to get an answer? How about “Dr” Dino since this is his period of geological time? Oh dear. Just remembered, Kent Hovind is in jail for 10 years for tax evasion isn’t he? (Wasn’t that how they got Alan C’s namesake Al Capone?) Perhaps they allow messages…
Sorry Britomart – I too am listening and learning. I do sometimes suffer from terminal whimsy and if my posts have offended anyone unintentionally then…pfft well, this is the internet after all. Just ignore me!
AnthonyK I have a sneaking suspicion that you own a few of these.
Annoy-A-Tron!!
I would ask you geologists to recommend a good – perhaps even a great book on geology. I recall reading a long article once in the New Yorker about a man who was puzzled by something like glacial erratics in an otherwise unglacial valley in, perhaps, the Rockies, and on investigation had discovered a deep-time history of staggering complexity, but that was in the 70s. A book exploring a similar theme would be great!
I was physically excited by reading the account of William Smith descending a coal mine (not far from where I live, btw) and seeing the layers for the first time, and found Winchester’s book on Krakatoa to be brilliant too – but anything else you can think of that is interesting and well-written?
re: #766
Josh
I have dropped pz an e:mail asking himto release my e:mail address to you. I have NOT asked him to release yours to me. Please reply if you wish to let me know yours.
PZ If you read this, you have mail!
Rev – thanks. I thought my Antony-a-tron was my own invention – but this sounds wonderful. Beep!
AnthonyK:
I thoroughly recommend Richard Fortey’s Earth: An Intimate History is extremely well written. It isn’t a textbook by any means, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a fair few errors- he’s a trilobite specialist by training, rather than a hard-rock geologist. That aside its very good at detailing the history of the subject and conveying the fascination people have for the subject.
Anthony, I second what Dave said at #775. Are you looking for any particular flavor of book? More paleo/sed focused? More volcano/earthquake? Overall history?
The stuff that John McPhee has written is pretty good.
That would have been McPhee. His geological writings have been collected (and, I think, updated a bit?) as Annals of the Former World, and popular writing on geology does not get any better.
It pains me to admit this, but reading your posts makes me want to know more about *whispers*…sedimentary rocks…
*places hand on Anthony’s shoulder–nods knowingly*
It’s okay, my friend. Give in. Come to the dark side.
Let me do some thinking in this vein and get back to you. That being said, however…what Sven wrote in #777.
Not really. Even with a really generous judge, it’s only mediocre at best.
And any comic relief at all is outweighed by how sad it is that you invest so much time and energy into a position that can be summed up as essentially I CAN HAZ MOAR EPICYCLES PLS?
More bacon
#781
b- b- but it was an April Fools joke!!
How could you raise our hopes like that …
Thank you, Alan, for saving me a bit of April embarrassment.
Hehehe
Beckons to Anthony from the shadows
Pst. Forget Josh. I can show you some really HOT stuff. After you’ve seen this you will never want to go cold turkey on those hardened muds.
Welcome to the red hot world of IGNEOUS!!!
Oooooooooooooooooooh! Cutting! But thanks for all your own valuable contributions in this vein…
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. “If it didn’t glow cherry red when it was born you’re just not that interested.”
*eye roll*
Whatever.
Everyone knows the real rocks are sed rocks. Take those fancy pink granites of yours and subject them to a few years of water and wind and what happens…oh…oh…are all those pretty feldspars moving toward…toward clay? *Gasp!* I think they are. Shit.
It’s sediment all the way down, people.
*folds arms and looks at you smugly*
Check.
“mediocre at best” Fuckwit.
And you guys are both wrong – the most interesting stone is – concrete. Useful, ubiquitous, sexy, and gorgeous. And it often contains “living” fossils.
Man the natural world is so over-rated!
Wow – I followed a link from FSTDT – I really should learn from that – just spent my whole afternoon reading this!
Just thought I would add that I have a bit of a crush on Bunter Sandstone myself, coming from Robin Hood country.
Makes me feel all evolved just to touch it :)
He got under your skin, didn’t he?
@ Abs42: I just checked out a some pics of the Bunter Sandstone following your comment. Cool looking shit.
@Josh – thanks – I like it – I walk past an exposed rockface on the way to walk and always have to give it a little stroke!
I love that people have lived in it and used it for years – it feels like home to me.
I love that you are so passionate about geology – it does make people look for a second time and appreciate what is around them when someone is so excited about it.
The world is so amazing as it is – why people have to make up magic shit about it I just don’t know.
No! He did not! *kicks cat* Fucking non-existent cat!
*Should have said on the way to work.
Bother!
*Kicks Anthony’s non-existant cat too*
I doubt any of us could have said it better…
+15 to you.
Apology accepted Anthony, some times I cant see the glint in some ones eye without a few cups of coffee.
Welcome Abs42, looks like the delugionists have wandered off at the moment but we are having fun anyways.
My husband recently ordered me to stop buying cookbooks, as he says we are out of room. Wonder what I shall do with the last 4 books on geology recommended here. I love Amazons second hand selection!
thank you kindly for the recommendations.
FTFY, no problem.
BTW, Josh, this is totally your fault :) — I’m going back to school to study nursing. For pre-reqs while applying, I need a couple of credit hours at the right time, so I’m going to take intro geology for that purpose.
I never gave much thought one way or the other to geology, but your Molly-worthy comments here have been so intriguing, they actually inspired me to get an overview of the field. You’ve actually made me want to learn about rocks–just so you know!
Combine the two. Limestone soup is good at this time of year.
Roger:
Hmmm… “no funding from the government.” Let’s think about that. Centuries ago, the government—in the timeline of Christianity (and not that long ago)—not only promoted the bible, but was instrumental in reinterpreting it, revising and editing it. Those in power I>insisted that it be taken as the word of god, often killing (by the thousands) those who refused to do so. There is a rich history of the “government” not only sanctioning Christianity, but mandating it on pain of death. A vast theocratic network used religious indoctrination—for hundreds of years—to make people subservient and happy about it. But of course, that’s got nothing to do with anything going on today. . . .
Go ahead, Roger, try to convince us that you’re not afraid to not believe in the Christian god.
Oh fucking great. Abs42 wanders in (welcome, btw), is here for a like a whole bloody ten minutes, and has already joined the crowd who seems to make it their fucking mission in life to only write really funny shit when I’m drinking something. Thanks.
*smack*
Crap. Sorry.
Excellent*. The disease spreads. It’s all going exactly as planned.
*smacks Anthony*
*Rev would throw some sort of demonic laugh in here at this point, but I’ll settle for a satisfied grin.
humm?
Or he’d do that. Perfect.
Original Science of Watchmen thread: 1381 comments
This spillover thread: 802 comments
Total (*counts on fingers*): 2183 comments.
Does this count as the first 2K-comment thread on Pharyngula? Have to go back and check some of those crackergate threads to be sure.
In any case, congratulations are in order!
Ah. Nope.
“Frackin’ Cracker” = 1007
spillover “Fresh crackers” = 1519
Carry on.
Whoa, awesome – what on earth do your hands look like?
Thank you!
I have read a lot of Pharyngula as a friend sends me links every weekend, but I have never read all the comments before – that is FSTDT’s fault!
I will come back tomorrow – going to spend some “quality time” with my hubby now (the kids are at the grandparents overnight – guess what we are going to be doing :D )
*Makes mental note to bring waterproofs tomorrow for Josh’s screen-spray*
Sounds like a good day all round, Abs42!
Ho Yus! :D
Have a nice evening all :)
Re Thalarctos #796
GEOLOGY.
DON’T DO IT! SAVE YOURSELF WHILE YOU CAN!!
You look at one rock and then you have to look at another and before long you are stopping at car parks just to look at the aggregate on the ground. You stop at a road sign saying “Beware Falling Rocks” and you wait. You start petitioning the government for a pull-in space beside every road cutting. You are walking round a great building with your friends and you find you are the only one with their nose pressed up against the stone trying to work out what the fossil is.
It gets worse. You start collecting rocks and you have to have the floor reinforced. You go on holiday and throw out the swimming costume to make room for the geological hammer. You make a special pannier carrier pack for the dog to put your fossil specimens in.
It starts as an interest and becomes a fascination and turns steadily into an addiction. One small piece of mudstone is enough at first but soon you have to take another and another. You get fixated on limestone but after a while even this isn’t enough. You have to move on to harder and harder rocks until you move up the hardness scale looking for ever bigger fixes. The half pound hammer turns into a sledge. You need a pack animal to carry it all and make the fateful decision to ask the wife to help.
And all the while your love for this fascinating subject becomes greater and greater. You start to talk like me and then, later, you start to talk like Josh. You try to stop but you find you can’t. It’s got into your blood. Your enthusiasm carries you away. You are hooked and THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!
STOP NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!
Sorry. Have to finish. The men in white coats are coming with a special jacket for me to try on.
ARGH!!!
Kinda like this
Don’t forget that the original thread where our grue some two some appeared was Titanoboa with 912 posts.
NERD! Gruesome is our term! It is not for them!
XD
i lol’d
I only pick up pebbles, pumice, and small fossils and I can stop any time I want to. Seriously. Any time.
No such problems with cement!
Alan B – brilliant. I wonder if hydrologists are the same with puddles?
#815
“I wonder if hydrologists are the same with puddles?”
Only when they get big enough to cover the world …
Hydrologists–bah. Weird, mathy, engineery types.
You wouldn’t have your limestones if it weren’t for their water…
Bullshit. They care only for water when it’s moving around through glorious sediment. The marine realm, where limestones are born*, is lost on their kind.
*Okay, well, they probably do care a little about fluvial and lacustrine carbonates; and they care about water moving through limestones**. And caliche in soils of course (because it can hinder water flow). And they probably like shallow warm, tropical seas as much as anyone.***
**And caves. They like caves. Water makes caves. They like that.
***I mean, there are bars in the lagoons in some places. You can swim up to them. Why wouldn’t a hydrologist like that? I mean, they’re almost geologists; they still like beer****.
****Especially if it’s in caves. I mean, beer in caves? Hell, then you’ve got water and beer in the same place. They definitely like that. Now if it were a cave in a lagoon with a bar…*****
*****Oh, never mind.
#819
See what I mean?
You’d be amazed.
Actually, you are starting to get the true flavour of geology from Josh. He gets right to the guts of the matter and shows that even hydraulic geologists really can claim the prized title, “Geologist”.
What is the common link between geologists on both side of the Atalantic and around the world. Fluvial and lacustrine carbonates comes close, admittedly.
Another clue.
You see the mules and donkeys and trucks on a big US geological field expedition. What do you think they’re for? OK, they take away half a hillside at the end of the day but what do you think makes up the balast on the way out?
Across the Atlantic, across the world, there is a common link and its not plate tectonics.
IT’S BEER!
No UK geological field trip is complete without a visit to the pub for lunch and ending up with good company over a pint (or so) afterwards. We just pretend to outsiders that it’s the science and the exploration but now you know what it’s really about …
Josh, seems like we can’t we keep any secrets from these guys!
Re the ladies hearts comments, I don’t know what its like now but back when I was young and foolish the odds were 100 men and 2 women majoring in geology and about the same in programming. The geology majors were MUCH better looking.
And caves! Oh yes, a weekend in the dark with some wee carbide lanterns, what fun! Carter county KY had some great places to spend a weekend in. wonder what ever happen to my helmet and lantern. Can you still get carbide ? I remember one where you had to rope in. Carbide flames are NOT good for rappelling down a rope.
Sorry to say I need my beauty sleep (some say I have great need of it). Just before I go byebyes, perhaps I can just explain to any visitors why we are having an enjoyable chat amongst friends.
We are waiting for Alan C to come back to us and fulfill his promise to demonstrate the explanatory power of flood geology and in particular to explain the geology of the Whitmore Point Member, famous for its amazing dinosaur trackways.
Current Status:
We have tentatively concluded that flood geology is religion and only meets the level of a hunch (at best) when looked at as science.
We are also testing out a hypothesis which explains the lack of a response as being due to lack of anything for flood geology to contribute and the desire of RogerS and Alan C to be kicked off for evangelising so they don’t have to reveal their hunch to be a crock.
This hypothesis has the strength that it is capable of being falsified by Alan C fulfilling his promise and showing us how effective flood geology is and how it should be raised to the higher level of a hypothesis or even a theory to match or surplant the modern science of geology.
I have waited 40 years to see how flood geology has moved on from its hesitant start with “The Genesis Flood”. I can wait another day.
Maybe tomorrow, Alan C?
Yes, we made our mind up about that did we?
Mr and Mrs C (senior) also wish us success in this endeavour.
You reckon? A whole theory? I can’t wait!
Great work guys!
I would like to see our delugionists explain banded iron formations (sorry,Wikipedia is the best I could do).
Biology and Geology have an answer: oxygen from early photosynthetic organisms reacted with iron, which was present in enormous quantities in the anaerobic early oceans, to form hematite and magnetite which precipitated out in alternating layers with other materials (mostly silicates) to form the massive iron rich deposits which can be found in a number of places around the world.
For delugionism this creates problems. Since these deposits are in places like Michigan and the Australian interior (i.e. dry land) they would have to be products of the Flood. First they need to account for truly ginormous quantities of iron being suddenly dissolved in the oceans (without poisoning marine life btw). Then they need to account for the equally sudden and ginormous amounts (20 times the amount in the present atmosphere) of oxygen needed to oxidize said iron. Additionally this all has to happen fast. Banded iron formations are all Precambrian, which means that, according to the Flood myth, that these huge quantities of iron and oxygen have to appear, react and precipitate out before the first Cambrian deposit. In short, a matter of days. Furthermore these sediments then have to survive, undisturbed, all the subsequent tumult including “tsunamis”.
Now I am not a Geologist, but if I were to write a paper on the subject: Reconciling Banded Iron Formations with the Genesis Flood The abstract would read, in it’s entirety:
#754 Posted by: Alan B
Wow! Did you follow this Josh?
Time for definitions (Source:RogerS)-
Knowledge: retaining or recalling information
Intelligence: correctly interpreting or using information
Story Time
I once saw an area of newly developed homes where a young girl was dropped off from church. She was on visitation with her dad who was staying in his unfinished new home. The speed that the new homes were going up was impressive. The contractor must have had a talented team of masons, framers, electricians, plumbers, finishing carpenters, and roofers. Custom community homes are usually professionally managed, and well funded. Promotional advertising and websites require skilled staff capable of “selling” the benefits of xyz construction. However, that spring was particularly wet; the entire lot was very muddy with standing water. No, I am not a Geologist with ability to spout geological terminology off the top of my head, but I did have an understanding of the location in general. It had poor elevation and drainage. As ground began to give way from a front corner of the development properties, my major background in Engineering was more than adequate to recognize that early decisions on the development location were flawed, which led to foundational issues -jeopardizing the entire endeavor. Construction came to a halt for an extended time and I am sure they worked every angle to salvage it since they were already heavily invested. Sadly, it had to be abandoned.
I can likewise recognize that most all major fields of study have favored the site recommendations of the Evolutionary model in which to build. I have walked around this site, examined the foundation, and I am reporting the signs of cracks but to no avail. I am sad for all invested, especially those who were less savvy and trusted the professionalism of others. I do not mean to slam the quality of the workmanship, but the choice of location conflicted with a “flood zone” (pun intended). Alan B, I know you are just a small part of the whole and I don’t intend to single you out, but this is the basic response that comes back from the “building managers and bank directors”:
“This is a work in progress and we have people to patch that up! You’re not qualified to make that judgment neither are you part of this team. Get off the site *@&$#%!!!!”
-Conclusion:
This “foundation” story is very pertinent to any structure built by man, physical or non-physical, which includes one’s philosophy for living. All of civilization’s pursuits including science, history, and religious / anti-religious endeavors rest on a foundational choice.
This is my honest assessment. Respectfully, RogerS
Mat 7:26-27 KJV “And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”
Things Alan Clarke Has Hone Instead of Responding to Josh’s Geological Evidence
– Engaged in numerology
– Gave relationship advice to Kel
– Wrote:
– Made sexist joke about owning women (twice)
Oh dear. D-K, but bad.
Sad.
Oh dear.
Anyway.
The metaphysical foundations of science are quite sturdy, thankyou.
There are many religions, but only one science. We can afford to lose religion, we can’t afford to lose science.
RogerS wrote:
<sarcastic monotone>Really? I would never have guessed.lt;/sarcastic monotone>
That was relationship advice? Maybe I need to re-read it.
Read it again, very confused as to what he was trying to say. Maybe he can come on and clarify this after reading my post at #726 and my response to him at #728.
Oh, brother, Roger has been to prayer meeting again and is all charged up with compassion and sadness.
He’s not a geologist but he’s going to point out the “cracks” in the science and caution professional geologists that they have erred by building the foundation of their science on “the evolutionary model.”
Roger, you are one dumbass twit. But thanks for caring.
Big. Damn. Insane asylum.
@ Roger – Hi – very good analogy that it doesn’t matter what you build if the foundations are all wrong, however, I think you got the good/bad foundations mixed up. You see science is the truth that we are slowly working out, it is hard and there are mistakes made along the way, but I think you will have to admit while typing on your computer and sending messages to people all over the world, living in a house which is warm and dry and comfortable, preparing food which is safe to eat and drinking water that won’t kill you, that we have come quite a long way from those goat-herders in the Middle East. I am afraid it is your house which is falling into the sand, you are running around like a headless chicken trying to shore it up, persuading people that it isn’t really a great big mess of contradictions, ridiculous stories and ludicrous laws that no longer apply in a society that can accept that rape can happen in a city without the girl being able to cry out, and that consensual sex between two adults is no-one elses business.
God doesn’t exist, I am sorry for you, as it would be nice, wouldn’t it? If you just took all the fluffy bits that is, but there is still wonder and beauty and glory in the world, it doesn’t need a magical father figure to make it more so.
RogerS- Stop it with the analogies. We’ve heard the “I’m just trying to point out flaws” line before. It didn’t work then and won’t work now, because- as you’ve been told- you need to explain everything that geology does better than our current understanding. That is everything geology explains and more. So far you haven’t even attempted to account for the Much Wenlock Limestone, the existence of palaeosols in the Morrison Formation, Banded Iron Formations, the dinosaur footprints in the Whitmore Point Member, trees growing in till on quartzite, or even demonstrated that you’ve read the site on “Radiometric Dating From a Christian Perspective” (I have its excellent), or answered any of Josh’s, Alan B’s, David Marjanović’s or anyone else’s questions about what they’ve written. Stop writing poor analogies about houses and get your hands dirty with the geology.
Geology can explain all of these things (even without “evolutionary theory”). A great number of 19th century geologists were ardently against evolution, devout Christians, but discarded the idea that a global flood accounted for the rock record as being inconsistent with the observed data. That was over 150 years ago.
This is how I left things overnight #825:
“Current Status:
We have tentatively concluded that flood geology is religion and only meets the level of a hunch (at best) when looked at as science.
“We are also testing out a hypothesis which explains the lack of a response as being due to lack of anything for flood geology to contribute and the desire of RogerS and Alan C to be kicked off for evangelising so they don’t have to reveal their hunch to be a crock.
“This hypothesis has the strength that it is capable of being falsified by Alan C fulfilling his promise and showing us how effective flood geology is and how it should be raised to the higher level of a hypothesis or even a theory to match or surplant the modern science of geology.
“I have waited 40 years to see how flood geology has moved on from its hesitant start with “The Genesis Flood”. I can wait another day.”
Progress overnight (for my time zone – UK):
RogerS #828
“Wow! Did you follow this Josh?”
I am sure he did. It was Geology 101. You say you are not a geologist yet you come here telling us that we have got it all wrong? Incidentally, there were some clues in my list to help with Figure 2. You caught them of course, didn’t you. Oh, you didn’t. Never mind. Alan C knows all about it.
Argument by analogy is always a difficult thing. You say have an Engineering major. Good for you. As such you can recognize that the foundations of a building could be unsound. Fair enough.
You then say this is an analogy of the entire edifice of science (including geology). I can understand the value of an Engineering major in you story because it was totally linked to the problem in hand. What is your equivalent to allow you to state that the whole foundatrion of science is unsound? A sound background knowledge spread across the whole range of science? You do not even know what Josh has been talking about here.
“Alan B, I know you are just a small part of the whole and I don’t intend to single you out …”
Strange. It seems you just did single me out …
” …but this is the basic response that comes back from the “building managers and bank directors”:
“This is a work in progress and we have people to patch that up! You’re not qualified to make that judgment neither are you part of this team. Get off the site *@&$#%!!!!”
Now I have lost you completely.
Are you saying I am unqualified to make the judgment that is coming from this thread and should get out? Or are you admitting that you are unqualified as has already been amply demonstrated. If you are talking about yourself, no one with the authority to carry it out has told you to “Get off the site *@&$#%!!!!” Only PZ has that and he has been quite remarkably lenient (so far).
You have been told to get out by a number of posts on this thread but only because you insist on NOT discussing science. You discuss religion and call it science. It does not make it so. Come up with some science and we will listen to you. Demonstrate how flood geology has moved forward in the last 40 years (since “The Genesis Flood”) and is in a position to explain and contribute to the body of scientific understanding and we will listen and consider. If you are right the evidence should be screaming at us and you have had decades to put it into some formalised structure.
To say the foundation of science, and in particular geology, is unsound is your right. To expect anyone on this site to believe you requires some evidence. To date there has been none. We are waiting for Alan C to provide it. I quite deliberately wrote that we have a tentative conclusion, based on this thread, that flood geology is religion and no more than a hunch because you and Alan C have produced nothing more … yet.
What was the point of this part of the “story”?
Are you a stalker or something?
Alan B, comment #754, wrote to RogerS:
And RogerS, in #828, asked me:
Morning, Roger. Yep, I followed it. Alan basically bombarded you with a number of sedimentary structures, rock types, and fossils, in order to illustrate the complexity of the sedimentary rock record, at the level of individual exposures. This, you might recall, has also been a consistent goal of my comments, because it is at this scale that the flood model must have explanatory power–the devil being in the details, as it were.
But yeah, I’m familiar with the terms he chose:
evaporites, calcretes, and varved lacustrine deposits = rock types (evaporites, calcretes, varves can also function as sedimentary structures in certain rocks).
chicken wire structures and various types of cross-bedding = sedimentary structures (features within rocks that hint at formation history or post-depositional alterations).
ammonites, goniatites, brachiopods, ostracods, acritarchs, conodonts = fossils (old dead shit).
The rest of the text in comment #754 and #836 suggests that he knows what those words mean.
Just about to leave for a long weekend of sun, sea and sand (I wish!) in West Wales and before I go I want to thank Josh and Alan B for a very entertaining and hugely informative few days.
I haven’t studied geology since undergrad days 40 years ago and you have been a source of inspiration. I’ll certainly be buying some of the books you recommended.
Now where did I put that hammer? I know it’s around here somewhere…
As Josh knows only too well, the fossils (or “old dead shit” – he appears not to be a palaeontologist at heart) are also used to correlate rocks across wide areas (e.g. goniatites in the Carboniferous) so that you know you are talking about the same rocks in different place. Try reading the book about “Strata” Simth. The concept is about 200 years old.
In the right circumstances e.g. ammonites in the Jurassic you can often date to within 1 million years – oh, sorry, that must be wrong, we only have a few decades to play with …
If you were in the UK, I would invite Roger and Alan C on a field trip. A summer trip to Wenlock Edge? Beautiful. IIRC the entire ridge is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). What better place for you to explain how flood geology works.
Hah, young Padawan, you still have much to learn. That’s code for those who are paleo-types at heart.
The study of old dead shit would be paleolithic-scatology, wouldn’t it? ;)
In comment #828, RogerS wrote:
Great. If you can recognize the cracks, then you should be able to discuss why they are cracks with me. I’m not an engineer, Roger, but if you and I were standing in an excavated cellar hole, beside the concrete foundation for new house and you were trying to show me cracks in the footing, you’d be able to explain to me exactly what was a crack and why it was an issue. And I would get it. You’d be able to point out exactly where each crack was propagating between individual particles of aggregate in the matrix of the concrete and would probably be able to predict the general direction continued growth for each crack. And I would get it.
This is what you have not been doing for the geology.
As I told you in Watchmen comment #938, a global flood would be way cool. I welcome the evidence. But you have to actually show me the cracks. How much more clear do I have to make it?
What you have been doing thusfar is standing twenty feet away from me and saying “Josh, over here…here’s a big crack! Look!”
I’ve been running over to inspect the spot on the foundation that you’ve been pointing at, but as soon as I started heading toward you, you turn away and rush off to a different place in the foundation.
I reach your first spot and have my eyes right up against the wall, but you’re over at the new spot yelling, “Josh, over here…look at this one! It’s huge!” Funny thing, though: that crack you were insisting on at the first spot? It turned out to be a water stain on the concrete. The second one? That was a splatter of tar from when they sealed the foundation.
I know a lot about concrete and I know a lot about foundations. I’ll understand what you’re talking about if you can point out where those cracks are propagating through the concrete. Really–I will. Indeed, we’ll be able to have a great discussion as we watch them wind around the little bits of rock in the matrix. But you have to actually do it. Show me the cracks. Standing twenty feet away from me and claiming that there’s a crack, and then running off to the next one rather than pointing it out for me makes you look like Duane Gish. This is not a compliment. So far, you’re just adding support to AlanB’s hypothesis. So, show me the cracks that you’re talking about. Otherwise why am I going to pay to have the footing patched?
There are plenty of places where you have been saying there are cracks. Lots of foundation feet to study. Show me. You’ve been insisting that they are there for weeks, Roger. Where are they? SHOW ME.
1. Answer the questions in comment #73 above.
2. Demonstrate how the flood explains “Prometheus” at the outcrop scale (i.e., put your hand on the crack and show it to me).
3. Demonstrate how the flood explains the oolitic limestone/dolomite contact in the Iowa sequence from Watchmen comment #882 at the outcrop scale (i.e., put your hand on the crack and show it to me).
4. Demonstrate how the flood explains Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone at the outcrop scale (i.e., put your hand on the crack and show it to me).
5. Demonstrate how the flood explains the Salem Formation at the outcrop scale (i.e., put your hand on the crack and show it to me).
6. Demonstrate how the flood explains banded iron formation exposures at the outcrop scale (i.e., put your hand on the crack and show it to me). See tresmal’s comment #827 above.
7. Demonstrate how the flood explains Figure 2 in the paper discussed in comment #557 above at the outcrop scale (i.e., put your hand on the crack and show it to me).
You say that “I am reporting the signs of cracks but to no avail.” In truth, you’re not reporting anything. You’re simply assuring us that you have a report. Well, okay. I believe you. I want to read it. You say you can identify cracks in the interpretations of the data. I say bring it.
SHOW
ME
THE
CRACKS
Well yeah, for those who think that the paleolithic is old…
/ducks
*Throws frying pan at Josh just when he pops his head up to see if I am looking*
I fear, Alan, that the dream field trip would prove less so in reality. Not only because you may find their theology an irritating counter to your knowledge, but the frustration of showing them, in detail, every aspect of the stunning geology of the region, only to have them deny it all would test the patience of any man, even one as patient as you are. And, of course it would make no difference to their views.
I was struck last night by the stunning edifice of theology when I heard a woman “examining” the Jewish and Christian responses to the Holocaust. This woman, who was clearly clever and knowledgeable, and with an ear for linguistic beauty, spoke gobbledygook as she quoted numerous God-apologists wrestling with theodicy, in particular the problem of why God had forsaken man just at the moment when he should have lent a hand.
So, for example, we have the idea that God, who had suffered more than we can conceive by this event – and the abandonment of faith which engendered it – was now in a position where He needed consolation from Man for His own, even deeper, suffering.
It was an eloquent broadcast, and tried to be elegant, but the level of inanity was so breathtaking, and the ideas so deeply stupid, that I was left in a mood of moderate depression.
So, I would suggest that you wait until the two dunderheads (and lying dunderheads, let’s not forget the fundamental deceptions at the heart of their position!) come round to accepting that their religious flood idea is false, before offering your time to them :)
Tresmal #827
Ah Tresmal! Banded Ironstone Formation. Now there’s a happy hunting ground for someone like me – a chemist with a serious interest in geology. A match made in heaven (as it were – do not quotemine me Roger).
Once Alan C has successfully demonstrated the explanatory power of flood geology on Figure 2 of the Whitmore Point Member paper and sorted the questions arising there will a lot of features we will need his advice on.
/sarc at the moment but RogerS & Alan C, you can change all this.
*ducks expertly away from your juvenile pan-throwing attempt*
*smacks head into doorjam in the process*
OUCH!
Okay, that’s it. It’s on.
RogerS, with another irrelevant post that essentially says “I have nothing to offer to the discussion now, but I will show you anyway by posting.” Another failure. RogerS, show us you have some manhood, and don’t post here again until you are going to supply the scientific evidence required to forward your flud idea. What we are seeing now is a scared child who can’t shut up, but knows they don’t have the arguments to win.
Your god and bible are irrelevant to that discussion, since you have not proven by any physical evidence your god exists, therefore the bible is a work of fiction. Your faith is irrelevant, and every time you post a bible verse you are saying you have lost the argument.
Anthony #846
Anthony, Anthony. You mistake my intent. Once the “two dunderheads” (your words, not mine – we might yet have to change our assessment) have demonstrated the explanatory power of flood geology dozens, nay thousands of geologists will want their expertise – there would be so much they could teach us. I wanted to get in first!
AlanC, RogerS – your audience awaits you, the scientific world is holding its breath. The Nobel Prize Committee may be watching this site even now as I type. You only have to demonstrate the power of FLOOD GEOLOGY and you can name your own price/prize. But remember, once you have reached fame and fortune, I asked you first!
Thank you.
One criticism of geologists – evertything’s so “now now now” with you guys, isn’t it? If only you could have a little historicity in your outlook, and take the long view a little more. I mean, the earth wasn’t flooded in a day, you know! Sheesh.
Yeah, it was more like 150 days, right? Or was that 700 years…?
creepy
wondering where this rambling analogy is going and at what point it’s going to fail… again
no shit, among other things.
Which in it’s own does not make one a geologist or mean one knows that he is talking about. See every one of Alan Clarke’s comments above and in Watchman thread… or the Titanoboa thread
Yeah I see where this is going and it’s going to fail as predicited
For good damn reason, empiricism has led them there
wearing bible shaped blinders with arrogance of ignorance tinted lenses
Without understanding a thing about how scientific foundations are formed
Without knowing what a crack would be, wholly unable to describe a crack or the reason a crack might be there.
Brought on by your own inability to recognize this very flaw in your self. Being a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, it keeps you from being able to recognize that the professionalism of others has built a strong foundation. It also beings to dawn on you and confuses you that they are all standing there pointing at you wondering why this raving lunatic street person is pointing at the foundation and waving his arms and screaming.
Liar that is exactly what you are doing. You are playing the part of the backwoods hick who loves eating possum road kill and can’t understand the classically trained chef who is the owner of 4 successful restaurants in Manhattan whose cuisine features a mix of classic French technique with Asian and Middle-eastern influenced dishes made with regional fresh produce and the highest quality meats and seafood. You turn your nose up at the pan seared sweetbreads, anise braised pork belly and roasted bone marrow because you just don’t understand them. And because you do not understand them or they seem weird or gross that you claim they aren’t good food. You then postulate the correct way to cook bone marrow, based on what you think is a possible way to do it, which includes your final step of removing the fatty substance in the middle of the bone and discarding it.
Except there is no flood zone and your pun falls flat
Except that the house is fine and your delusions of it’s collapse are unfounded and were brought on by your total misunderstanding of the process. The house is still standing and people are concerned for your mental health because you keep ranting that it has collapsed even as the the smiths and their two kids and dog and cat are moving in.
If it fit the situation maybe, but it does not.
physician heal thyself
Nail, meet head of hammer.
#834 Posted by: Abs42
Here is a typical refute example.
If you notice, we have comments from the plumber and electrician about the quality of their materials and innovations. Much of the structure in the home analogy was fine work enabling conveniences for the new occupants. These are examples of work preformed after digging the footer at the site selection and do not address the foundation.
In comment #828, RogerS wrote:
This is a flaw in this analogy, at least given the information you provided. You wrote:
The problem is, of course, that a low-lying and poorly drained area does not by itself a flood plain make. This isn’t fatal for your analogy (low-lying and poorly drained is sufficient), but it does take all of the sting out of your pun.
#835 Posted by: Dave Godfrey
It looks like we pulled in a comment from surveyor. If you listen carefully, he defends the site selection by claiming a better location must be proved. Although ground of higher elevation may be in view, he recalls a decision 150 years ago how the location appraisal perform came back negative.
Yes, but your analogy also requires the plumber to claim that water is carried by invisible magical water pixies who leave no trace, and the electrician to claim that he is able to shoot lightning bolts from the tip of his penis – and without either of them being able to support those claims with evidence.
0.2 on the Rooke Scale.
#836 Posted by: Alan B
This is how I left things overnight #825:
The unfortunate part of the home analogy #828 is that a greater part of the blame falls on the Geologist. Here we have an ambitious student excited about Geology 101 coming to defense of the decision. He claims the higher ground the Engineer pointed to was a hunch and the soil was not professionally tested. Whether it was an incident in the past where confidence was broken is unclear but from his conversation the student appears to equate “religion” with “unscientific”. He refuses to consider the higher ground site because “religious” people recommended it and they cannot be correct.
No it is because that the person recommending it uses his religion as support for his assertion instead of using empirically derived data and actually having the professional experience and education to correctly recommend a site.
I think it’s more that the student is suspicious because the “religious” people who claim to have had the soil tested refuse to produce the results of the rest for everyone to look at. They appear to want the student to take their word for it. The student thinks it’s reasonable to ask for the test results because he’s standing right beside the cellar hole and the soil looks dry and properly drained, and he can’t see the cracks in the foundation that the engineer keeps insisting are there (but won’t show him). He doesn’t want to doubt the engineer, but he can’t understand why the engineer won’t just show him the bloody cracks and the test results for the soil.
With the engineer adding helpful comments like ‘when you really believe the cracks are there they will become visible to you.’
Oh, and despite the fact that the greater proportion of engineers around the world, who agree with the first engineer on many other aspects of the construction, don’t believe there are any cracks that doesn’t meant there aren’t any; it just means they aren’t true engineers…
…it is under no obligation to resemble reality.
We’re all grown-ups here RogerS. You don’t have to keep using tortured analogies, you can just talk about the actual thing you’re talking about. Try making direct statements backed up by real evidence, instead of obtuse hints, and you might have more success engaging with people.
Following on from Kagato #863
And PLEASE RogerS, don’t use Wiki. It cuts no ice here at all. Do a little bit of research on your own. If you have nowhere to start, there is Google or Google scholar. Some of the peer-reviewed papers you’ll find are available, not all hide behind expensive firewalls. You’ll find some excellent stuff written by high quality researchers about their work. While this may not be peer reveiwed, you have at least moved up a stage and people will respect you a bit more for putting in some effort.
Since quote-mining is so common amongst creationists, maybe I can do some myself:
II Tim 2:15
While most people here will disregard the source, the concept behind it will go down really well.
OMG! I failed in a rebuke (and I missed Josh – dammit! Never mind – he won’t be expecting the next hit ;))
How sad for me :(
I wasn’t actually playing the “story” game though, I was trying to point out that taking what people thought thousands of years ago and using it to base all your decisions on today is not a good plan – some people came up with some good thoughts – there are even (shock horror) a few in the Bible – some are even original! ;) But they have no idea what is happening in the world today, so you need to make sure what they are saying is relevant and above all, makes sense – now, I dunno about you, but the talking snakes and casting out of demons kind of makes me wonder about whether they might just be pulling a fast one, or just plain wrong. That used to happen a lot (still does!) A few years ago I’d have been branded as a witch and at least had my left hand tied behind my back, now people realise it is just an oddity of genetics. Just *try* to get with reality a little bit – it is healthy and very satisfying.
#835 Posted by: Dave Godfrey
Poor RogerS, threw out a stupid analogy trying to create a hole to put his imaginary god into. Guess what RogerS, science works well without imaginary deities, and has absolutely no need for any. Or any religion. Science ignores god, which is why it works so well, and is constantly progressing, compared to religious thought, which is stuck in a 2000 year old rut. Quit trying to create a hole for something that is irrelevant. You will appear much smarter.
(and I missed Josh – dammit! Never mind – he won’t be expecting the next hit ;))
*waits expectantly*
#868
“They never expect the Spanish Inquisition …”
*whistles innocently* ():@)
So, how are we doing with our analogy? Has anyone called the police to have the nutcase removed?
And I don’t think we have a satisfactory explanation for what the little girl was doing – she didn’t wee in the corner did she? I know my boys would given half a chance :D
That could explain a lot – have we sent a sample for analysis?
While we have some religious people around, can I ask a question?
How does the “Til death do us part” bit of marriage work if we are going to live in heaven forever? Does God approve of polygamy if it is in heaven? What about if one partner kills the other (ie Henry VIII)? is it still fine for them to remarry? I never understood this one – some wives/husbands would be really pissed off if their other half turned up with someone else in heaven “Oh, I’m sorry, haven’t you met?…” WTF?
While we have some religious people around, can I ask a question?
How does the “Til death do us part” bit of marriage work if we are going to live in heaven forever? Does God approve of polygamy if it is in heaven? What about if one partner kills the other (ie Henry VIII)? is it still fine for them to remarry? I never understood this one – some wives/husbands would be really pissed off if their other half turned up with someone else in heaven “Oh, I’m sorry, haven’t you met?…” WTF?
Oops sorry double post.
*makes a mental note to not post while doing boys dinner and arguing with cats*
#861 Posted by: Josh
Sorry Josh, but the analogy continues, will try to be kind-
The Geologist of greater experience and clout is now alerted by the Geo101 student’s agitation. Although evidence has been submitted in the past, the admirable and dashing Geologist with buckled chest-rig and M4 in hand wants to see the paperwork. In the recesses of his mind, memories of cracks exposed in the past are not pertinent since spackling now covers the “blemishes”. When calls are made to xyz Homes office, the answering machine responds, “Construction and repair is a continual process. Do not be alarmed if you see a repair crew on site. For all other inquiries press 1 now to be automatically forwarded to talkorigins. If you are a victim of call harassment, press 2 for PZX operator.” So the debacle continues. Because of continual leaking in basements, xyz Homes repair crew remains on site with spackling.
So, what you are trying to say RogerS, is that because there have *apparently* been cracks in the past (although the documentation to support this is not forthcoming) we should abandon the procedures that work today, supplied by an expert in the field, and “believe” the 101 geology student as a matter of faith and pull the whole goddamn building down – evidence or no?
Yep – works if you are religious – not so much in the real world – would love to know what my employers would say if I came out with that bollocks – well, actually, no I wouldn’t cos I need my job!
Ladies’ heaven – no – gentlemen’s heaven – yes. Just as on earth.
On a more serious note, are there toilets in heaven? I’m unlikely to go there, but if I did I’d certainly want the pleasure of a nice morning poo or an open-air pee. I think I could go without shaking hands with Mr onan, but the relief of defecation would be a penance to forego.
Okay Roger, that one was funny, although you get an obligatory eyeroll for “dashing.” I can’t give a reply the attention it deserves right now, so I’ll beg a short recess.
*clears his M4 and places it on safe*
Oh don’t worry about not getting to their heaven – there is a much better one run by the FSM http://www.venganza.org – has beer volcanoes and stripper factories, and I am pretty sure, knowing the FSM’s Disciples as I do, that there will be open air peeing contests – just for fun you understand! ;)
That Christian heaven sounds boring anyway – just wanted to ask :) Unfortunately I was gullible enough in my youth to fall for the fairytale, and I did wonder about the “polygamy in heaven” thing!
The argumentum ad podum is the only one they understand. Well mine doesn’t…but that’s because I don’t have any feet.
Roger, forget the analogy. Just bring us some evidence.
For all the real geologists out there can any of you recommend a reasonably priced current book on geomorphology? As long as I am going to build a new bookshelf some where I might as well fill it up!
thank you kindly
#874
Roger, Roger. This is science, not English decomposition. You are making yourself out to be even more of an idiot.
I leave it up to others – is this another data point on my hypothesis?
RogerS, until you show physical evidence for your imaginary deity your house is built on quicksand and of very inferior materials, like balsa wood. You need to make a change if you want a better result.
Re: #881 Sorry. This is still me. Finger trouble
Oh I know the cats don’t listen – just like the Creationists – still fun to argue with them sometimes though – “Will you take that dead mouse the fuck out of the kitchen?!!” seems to be a favourite at the moment! (With the cats obviously, creationists are weird, but not so big with the dead mice!)
By the way I kicked your imaginary cat yesterday cos I wasn’t going to kick mine – they would scratch me to death! :D
My cat is seriously clever and empathic. When I’m sad, I often get down to find the room filled entirely with live humming birds and butterflies…but with real cats you might like to try reverse pyschology. Simply put the little rodents in your mouth and munch them up with lip-smacking glee. They won’t try that again…
hahahaha – well, I might consider that if it gets too bad – for now they just give me a dirty look and take it back outside!
Don’t you find hummingbirds give you a headache though? Lively little buggers!
Count your blessings, would you rather have that mouse running around your kitchen? We had a problem with them in our apartment, they were coming in up the gas pipe behind the stove and it took several tries to figure that out and then seal the pipe. Bold things would frolic on the stove top while the 4 cats we had at the time would watch. We are on a second floor apartment, and I have one cat that regularly catches birds on the back porch. I figure any bird that cant escape from a cat on the second floor porch deserves to be lunch ! However, none of the household felines were interested in mice.
I am convinced that computers are run by the souls of dearly departed cats.
Roger: evidence. No more analogies.
Thank you kindly
Depends what level you want. To use the word “geomorphology” seems to suggest you are not looking for a Janet and John level.
I have “Global Geomorphology” by Prof Michael A Summerfield.
Published 1991. Looking at Amazon it would appear this is still the current edition. I paid £1.49 at the local charity shop but it will probably set you back over £20, even from Amazon. Have a look on Amazon (they allow you to view a limited number of pages) and see if you think it is your level.
I have no other experience to make a comment. No doubt Josh will have some thoughts.
Alternatively, it is amazing what you can find on the web. For example, I downloaded an entire textbook on isotope geochemistry not too long ago (>700 pages IIRC in pdf format). Level suited me down to the ground but probably post graduate. Some lecturers, esp. American colleges, put their notes on the web or powerpoint sets. I have not needed to look for geomorphology but you might like to browse on Google. There is always MIT (that is right isn’t it?)who have put huge amounts of material on the web primarily for 3rd world countries like the UK.
Caveat emptor always comes in.
@ Britomart – well, yes, they will chase anything, but we don’t have any other creatures in the house – just the ones they bring in! We had to move the stove the other day cos they had brought a mouse in and chased it behind it! *sigh* I wouldn’t mind if they ate the buggers, but they don’t, they just play with them until they are dead and no more fun and then leave them lying around for unsuspecting humans to fall over! Nature at work is a fascinating thing :)
Re: pest control – I was always amused by the story of the New Yorker who got an iquana (?) to rid his appartment of cockroaches. It worked. No more cockroaches except..well he ended up having to buy cockroaches from the pet store to feed the hungry lizard.
@AnthonyK – I have lived in a couple of flats as a student that could DEFINITELY support an Iguana or two :D
#888
For example, item 1 page 1 of Google search with geomorphology lectures http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/lemke/geomorphology/index.html
There seem to be many more sites on Google.
As always, you tend to get what you pay for but again, it depends what you want.
For isotope geochemistry try:
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes07.html
(it is worth going to that url and then trimming back to
… /classes/Geo656 and you get to the directory where you can browse.)
(W M White lecture notes 2007)
And lots more on http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/GEO656.HTML
and go to Geochemistry web sites
Beware. This is not beginners’ guide stuff. This is the real thing!
Just shows what you can find with a bit of nosing around …
Thank you for the suggestions, I shall hunt them down this evening. At the moment I am at work and waiting for some reports to run.
I am not quite a beginner, but I sure am rusty. I took 2 years as a geology major at Ohio University in the late 60s, then anther year at SUNY Albany in 70 or so. Then I married, moved to northern Maine, had a garden and a dog and a child … Long story…
Anyways, found myself having to make a living so I went back, finished up a a few undergrad degrees and an MBA and now I count beans… back then it looked impossible to make a living in geology as a single parent unless I stayed in school another few years. I shall give up bean counting in a few years (I HOPE !! depending on the economy of course) and have fun.
I still have my old texts, most of them anyways, and a few rocks lying around. And an itch to understand what I am looking at.
Back to work for me now, and thank again
Surely the evidence for the flud is so obvious, that it shouldn’t take Alan Clarke 2 days to put it together.
Or is he just going to disappear altogether for a few days, avoid the question, and pop back up on another thread repeating the same nonsense (again)?
Meanwhile, RogerS, can you lay off the bad analogies and simply answer Josh’s questions, since you and AlanC both find the flud so obvious. We’re waiting with bated breath for anything tangible, that has both explanatory and predictive power.
That’s a hypothesis that I also have been entertaining since yesterday afternoon.
herp-nerd alert
Iguanas are specialized herbivores. They will ignore your cockroaches and eat all your cabbage and broccoli.
Sorry this has been in bits but if anyone REALLY is interested in Geochemistry (which includes some bits onm cosmochemistry (where did the elements come from) and radioisotope dating (again at senior UG level)
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/geo455/Chapters.HTML
By William White.
The whole shooting match from Intro through to Appendices.
Try downloading a single chapter if you really think you might be interested. This web book is used by other colleges and universities as well as Cornell. Amazing that it is made freely available by the authot who is the Dean (?) of postgraduate studies.
Well if Clarke does pop up on another thread, please let us know so we call all be edified.
or astonished.
or something !
thank you kindly.
Thanks Sven, well that helps me since the brassicas are currently making my kitchen a no go area…*nervously checks wiki for factual error…nope, nothing wrong with that*
I’m going to stop posting here for a while, guys. It’s making me a bit cross, arrogant, and wanky and I don’t like that much…all my fault. I’ll come back when I’m in better humour…
Thanks for these two threads, in particular..I’ve learned to love geology…and now know that iguanas don’t eat cockroaches..so that’s my pub talk for tonight sorted!
Oh, and may I be the first to congratulate Josh on his upcoming Molly :) Very well deserved!
Josh #895
I am maybe a little older and more cynical than the rest of you and I have thought it for some while – indeed before I put “the hypothesis” together. I had hoped it would help hold him to his word by coming face to face with his responsibilities.
If he walks away it will:
Show he actually had nothing effective to say
demonstrate his bad faith
cast doubt on his ability to keep his word, and
raise questions about whether he really is a Christian.
A Christian really ought to know Psa 15 which asks the rhetorical question (yes, that construct again), “Who is going to live with God in His Temple forever?”
Psa 15:1 O LORD, who may stay in your tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?
v4 … The one who makes a promise and does not break it, even though he is hurt by it.
I hope for his sake that Alan C makes good his promise, “even though he is hurt by it”
In my mind at least it will show that he was sincere.
(Sorry for preaching on Pharyngula.)
I cannot understand why creationists/floodists like RogerS and AlanC insist on the literal truthiness of the Bible. The Bible is a theological book which also deals with philosophy and history. The King James Version, while a poor translation, is a masterpiece of English literature. What the Bible is not is a scientific treatise and it doesn’t pretend to be one. It’s only biblical literalists who claim that if there’s a conflict between science and the Bible then we have to forgo science. Sorry, Roger and Alan, but I prefer living in the real world.
In #788, Anthony wrote:
I have to admit, the “living fossils” thing here went right past me. I’m lost.
AlanB, I never actually responded to #762, so I will just sit here and nod approvingly.
*looks over his shoulder for Abs42*
and where the hell did Carlie go?
It’s original sin. If the god of the Bible didn’t really create the world the way it’s laid out in Genesis then there is no garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, no talking snake and no tree of Good and Evil. Without the Fall, why would we need Jesus? You have to have the glue of original sin to make us all born sinners, unworthy wretches, to hold the thing together.
There is a logic to it really. It doesn’t matter how many peer-reviewed articles we cite. We can point out reality, recite discoveries in biology, geology, astronomy, physics and just about any physical science you can name. That really doesn’t matter. We can call him names, he revels in it because it becomes a badge of honor.
His MO makes it seem as if he’s a bit dense, and he could be, but it’s more likely that he considers most of the conversation to be irrelevant. He seems arrogant because in his mind he has access to “The Truth”. We are merely children in his Sunday School class. He is not here to have a conversation, he is here to lecture and to lead us back to the path of righteousness.
He does not respect anything presented here. Nor does he respect those would would try to broaden his worldview. No, he is here help us understand the folly of our ways. We are lost and deep inside each of us knows he is right. It is our pride that prevents us from seeing our error. RogerS knows that if he can endure, we will eventually realize that we are but sinners.
He is Holden Caulfield, standing at the edge of the cliff, while we are the children that play in the rye field at the edge of the abyss. He doesn’t realize that we have already jumped and have safely landed in Nietzsche’s “open sea”. “The Christian God would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world.”
So the next time RogerS posts a Bible verse or bores us with analogies that would make a 9 yr. old roll their eyes, just remember that he really has little choice in the matter. In order for his worldview to stay intact, the world had to begin this way or else the foundation crumbles.
Walk home. Look through a lighted window….x
re 903, that was to you….I should of…..gaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh..do you realist that the Neanderthals went extinct over the prepsition “rngth”? Beware!
Is Jimmy Hoffa a living fossil ?
reboho, damn.
#905 Posted by: reboho
Nietzsche’s “open sea” –No life guard on duty!
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844 –1900)
Beliefs now common:
What is more harmful than any vice? — Active sympathy for the ill–constituted and weak — Christianity … “. He blamed Christianity for demonizing strong, higher humans. Pascal, he claimed, was an intellectually strong man who was depraved by Christianity’s teaching of original sin. (source)
The statement “God is dead,” occurring in several of Nietzsche’s works (notably in The Gay Science), has become one of his best-known remarks. (source below)
If you drive on Toll Plaza, there is a Toll Booth:
Since his childhood, various disruptive illnesses had plagued him — moments of shortsightedness practically to the degree of blindness, migraine headaches and violent stomach attacks.
Overbeck traveled to Turin and brought Nietzsche to a psychiatric clinic in Basel. By that time Nietzsche appeared fully in the grip of a serious mental illness,…
Commentators have frequently diagnosed a syphilitic infection as the cause of the illness. While most commentators regard Nietzsche’s breakdown as unrelated to his philosophy, some, including Georges Bataille and René Girard, argue that his breakdown may have been caused by a psychological maladjustment brought on by his philosophy.
In 1898 and 1899 Nietzsche suffered from at least two strokes which partially paralyzed him and left him unable to speak or walk. (source)
RogerS, the pointless fool, we aren’t here to discuss Nietzsche. We are here to discuss the one topic you have been avoiding for the last 10 or so posts. That is the scientific evidence for your flud. We are still waiting for you to either get your act together and show that scientific evidence, or to just acknowledge you don’t have it by not posting here again. You latest posts scream of your evasions, lies, and bullshit. So, time for you to be a real man of integrity, and either present the evidence or shut up.
Let’s make it clear and simple:
RogerS:
WRONG.
RogerS:
WRONG.
RogerS:
WRONG.
RogerS:
CORRECT.
RogerS,
You do not disappoint, predictable.
God is dead and people like you killed him. Nietzsche said as much in “The Gay Science”. Maybe you should read it some time. You’d find that your mindless devotion to dogma is one of the reasons he pronounced God dead. The question for you is what did he say after that statement. You go for the appetizer and miss the main course. Not unexpected.
Now that you have had your Nietzsche diversion, as I knew you would, care to address any of the outstanding issues. If not, I rest my case.
RogerS,
I didn’t give you a fair reading.
Is that really all you got out of what I wrote? You really think that a quick cut and paste can silence what Nietzsche said? I sense doubt. You only attack that which threatens you. Does Nietzsche threaten you? Does a crazy old man threaten you?
You fight with shadows while the building is collapsing around you. Josh and others have ripped the ground from beneath your feet yet you think it’s important to stop and slander a philosopher who had chunks of people like you in his stool.
Pathetic.
RogerS,
When considering someone’s mental health it’s probably best to turn to a psychiatrist, rather than a philosopher and an historian. Many people have been atheist and have not been driven mad. Syphilis sufficiently explains Nietzsche’s breakdown. Trying to tie it to his philosophy is a transparent attempt to tarnish atheism. You do this despite the fact that many atheist haven’t read Nietzsche nor necessarily agree with him on many issues.
Please address the points made by the people here and not the ones made over a century ago by a syphilitic mind.
State of Play, Friday morning
The conclusions stand (for lack of any contrary evidence)
1) Flood geology is religion and (in terms of science) nothing more than a hunch.
2) Evidence is building every day that RogerS and Alan C:
Have nothing to support flood geology
Want to get themselves thrown off the thread for evangelising so they don’t have to show the lack of evidence for flood geology.
Both conclusions can change if RogerS and/or Alan C keep their word and come up with the evidence that they are so certain is everywhere around us.
Nothing changes much, does it Roger/Alan?
What worries me is where is Alan A? ;)
He hasn’t been spotted for a long time – I am concerned that Alan C has done him in. :D
Sorry – the B and C thing makes me think of the Cat in the Hat.
So – while we are waiting can someone talk some more dirty geology to us? I think a lot of us are enjoying that.
*Throws a wok at Josh while he is distracted doing work stuff*
*rolls away from his desk to the floor as the wok whips past his left ear and wacks into the wall*
A wok? Jesus Christ. Pulling out the big stuff now, eh?
That’s okay. That’s alright. You’re just gonna get more wrath.
*sends a text to the Lorax*
*resumes editing*
Re: Abs42 #917
“So – while we are waiting can someone talk some more dirty geology to us? I think a lot of us are enjoying that.”
I could say a little more about the “old dead shit” fossils that Josh obviously loves so much!
The list I gave are all fossils which have been used to correlate rocks from one location to another. I could add graptolites to the list. When I said you could date rocks by the fossils, this is a simplified version.
In many places round the world there are ash falls from volcanic eruptions which can dated using radiometric methods. Except in unusual cases, sedimentary rocks are not suitable but these ashfalls are sometimes preserved in sedimentary rocks. This means that if, as in the Silurian local to me, there are several falls of ash within a series of sedimentary beds you can date the individual ash falls and therefore bracket the dates of the sedimentary beds. Thus:
TOP of sequence
Shales 15-20
Ashfall 3
Shales 6-10
Ashfall 2
Shales 1-5
Ashfall 1 (note: Ma = millions of years ago.)
Bottom of Sequence
Knowing the ages of ashfall 1 (say 426 Ma) and ashfall 2 (say 423 Ma) the shale beds 1-5 must date from between 426-423 Ma. In addition, if there is no evidence that the beds have been overturned (usually pretty obvious, at least in the situation I amtalking about) then shale bed 1 is the oldest (and nearest to 426 Ma) and shale bed 5 is youngest (and nearest to 423 Ma).
That’s all fairly obvious but suppoese you have no ashfalls to help?
One of the common fossils in the Silurian were graptolites. These were colonial animals, somewhat similar to corallites, but they grew in a long string. When fossilised they look rather like pieces of hacksaw blade with the individuals living in squashed cups that appear to be the teeth of the blade. Nearly all graptolites floated freely in the upper levels of the seas and were swept round the world on ocean currents. They evolved fairly rapidly during the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian. In the UK there are none after the end of the Silurian until the present day. (Wonder why on a flood geology basis?)
Because the mixing of the oceans was faster than the rate of evolution the same graptolite species were present in all the rocks formed at the same time and different species are found in rocks of a different age.
All sorts of factors are needed to make a “good” fossil species – e.g. commonly found, rapid (geologically) morphological evolution, good preservation, rapid spread geographically.
Thus, if in shale bed 1 you have graptolite 1 then where you find graptolite 1 somewhere else, that bed will also be close to, but younger than, 426 Ma, even though you don’t have an ashfall in the new location.
Since graptolites died out (in the UK) before the end of the Silurian you need something else for other rocks. Thus, in the UK in the Carboniferous goniatites are used to correlate the age of rocks. Goniatites are like ammonites which did not come on the scene until a long time later (sorry, not to hand, look it up if you are interested). They filled the same ecological niche as ammonites and the modern nautilus.
[Curious really. Nautiloids have been found over vast tracts of geological time up to the present while goniatites in the same niche) lived and died out and were followed by ammonites which lived and died out (at the K/T boundary – remember, death of dinosaurs?). Just one of a huge amount of palaeontological evidence that needs to be explained by flood geology.]
In the Jurassic, ammonites can date beds to within 1 million years and sometimes less.
There’s a lot more to it than this, of course. It helps if you can use more than one type of fossil (which you often can). You have to repeat this in various places to make sure that things are consisten – but this is what careful science is about.
It was this basis (without the absolute dating) which allowed William “Strata” Smith to travel across the length and breadth of England and Wales and correlate different beds. Thus, in the Cotswolds he found “pound stones”(which were echinoids of constant size and used locally as a weights) in the Clypeus Grit (a Jurassic coarse grained limestone). Further afield he found the same poundstones in shale or sandstone and was able to surmise that they were the same age as the Clypeus grit. Singlehandedly and using similar techniques he drew up a geological map of England and Wales which bears comparison with modern maps. This, of course, was well before Darwin and On the Origin of species etc.
It is this kind of careful detective work which I find so fascinating in geology and which I would hope we will be seeing in the presentation of in flood geology by Alan C and RogerS.
blah blah blah blah
needs more bacon
Mmmmm – bacon!
Can’t complain really, I had hot cross buns for breakfast this morning!
@Alan B – so, are there fossils in Bunter Sandstone? There are a lot of pebbles etc which are really easy to see, but I am not sure about fossils – if there are I will be surreptitiously pulling a chunk off as I walk to work next week to try and find one :) We have a little fossil as a souvenir from our honeymoon in Lyme Regis – um – not sure what it is – a sort of spiral flat seashell. Our youngest has taken it to school for show and tell and we actually got it back (A roman ring he took got lost on their playing field – can’t wait to hear what future archaeologists make of *that*! ;) )
Josh – don’t worry about the wok – it was only a cheap one, I have plenty more – cooking is for people who don’t have a takeaway nearby! :)
#913 Posted by: reboho
“After severing his philosophical ties with Schopenhauer and his social ties with Wagner, Nietzsche had few remaining friends. Now, with the new style of Zarathustra, his work became even more alienating and the market received it only to the degree required by politeness. Nietzsche recognized this and maintained his solitude, even though he often complained about it. His books remained largely unsold. In 1885 he printed only 40 copies of the fourth part of Zarathustra, and distributed only a fraction of these among close friends, including Helene von Druskowitz.” (source)
-Nietzsche miss-interprets the ”best seller”and complains of his 40 copy give-away.
#920 Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
”Many animal species practice coprophagia as a matter of course; other species do not normally consume feces but may do so under unusual conditions. Only in rare cases is it practised by humans.” (Chef reboho special w/ baco bits)
-To each his own but not my typical fare.
Stick to reciting your ignorance on all things scientific RogerS. Comedy is not your strength.
Sounds like you are in the Bunter Pebble Beds. The Bunter SS was formed in a desert with giant sand dunes. In some places there are wadis where streams cut across the desert in flash floods. In others you have to wait for much larger, more permanent, rivers to flood the area. Either way, the deserts in the UK are Permian and they are followed immediately by Triassic stream deposits.
We were more or less where the Sahara is now and there ain’t much living in deserts. Anything that had lived is likely to be eaten as soon as it dies. Or it shrivels up and is sanbd blasted by the sand grains.
So. Fossils? Very unlikely. There are some very rare and very important reptiles from the Triassic in Shropshire but you are highly unlikely to find them!
The small spiral shell is an ammonite. Lyme Regis is famous for its fossils (including ammonites) in the Lower Jurassic. Mary Anning (1799-1847) collected fossils which she sold to make a living (“She sold sea shells on the sea shore” was about her). She also found wonderful marine reptiles – Ichthiosaurs and Plesiosaurs – some of which are giant wall displays in the Natural History Museum, South Kensington. Wiki is as good a place as anything for a brief intro to her.
RogerS, another meaningless evasion telling us you have nothing, but don’t have the cojones to acknowledge that fact to yourself. You need to either put up or shut up if you are a good xian, and a man of honor and integrity. Your inability to put up or shut up says you are bearing false witness (a sin), and are not a man of honor and integrity. So far, you are showing overt signs having no honor.
I am in Nottingham – we have Bunter Sandstone all over the place – I have been googling for a good picture, but I think it is very hard to get the lighting right. This one is about a mile from my house – very gothic :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/setsuyostar/2410176411/in/photostream/
Deserts? I always thought it was nice shallow tropical seas! Wow. Now, maybe you can help me with this – my little brain finds it a bit weird – the sandstone is, obviously, really soft, and yet there are massive outcrops of it rising high above the rest of the landscape (Nottingham Castle Rock being the most prominent) How does that happen? What can make all the other rocks erode away and yet leave such a soft one? Were there other softer rocks that were laid down next to it? Or was it just eroded in strange ways?
Sorry if I am asking really elementary questions but I didn’t even do GCSE geography (crops bored me to tears) I prefered the biology side of things.
“The liar is a person who uses the valid designations, the words, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real.”
RogerS,
You best get back to defending your foundations before Josh and Alan B finish. See how all your pretty house of cards falls into a heap, never to be rebuilt and only to be discarded. Run along now, they are waiting for your reply.
#922
Ah! RogerS is back. Welcome! Is Alan C out there lurking? Still waiting to see the explanatory power of flood geology and how in over 40 years, since 1961, it has kept pace with the advances made in Earth Sciences since 1957/8.
Re #926
For a start, try:
http://www.articlesbase.com/dating-articles/discover-the-caves-of-nottingham-79111.html
Come back if you want some more!
Re #929
Just checked in the Geologists’ Association Guide No. 63 – The Geology of the East Midlands (2003). Provides a BG to the geology and a number of itineraries. Well worth getting hold a copy, perhaps from the local Library (you know, those big buildings that had shelves with lots of books dating from BC – before computers).
My copy has no ISBN. Cost in the region of £10-£15.
You might get it at a good bookshop.
Excursion 9 is The Permo-Triassic of Nottingham and will guide round key features in the Nottingham area. One of them, of course, is your marvellous set of man-made caves under much of the centre of Nottingham. If you can find it there is a soft-cover guide-book type publication by Tony Waltham, “Sandstone Caves of Nottingham”, 1996, ISBN0-9519717-1-9. My copy is priced £3.95 You may well find it in Libraries or tourist info. centres.
Yes. There was a tropical sea – the Zechstein Sea which stretched down form Durham. Some of what I was saying was more applicable to Birmingham area. Too complicated to explain here but the books are accessible, esp. Tony Waltham.
There is a common feature in what Josh and I have been saying viz that a lot of fieldwork is needed to sort out the detective story that is geology. You really do have to get down and dirty to sort out the clues in the rocks.
Alan – many thanks – I had a look at the website which didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know, but the book sounds like it is what I want – I will have a look round for it.
I can understand the formation of flat levels of sandstone under seas or from deserts, but I am puzzled by the “lumps and bumps” – How do we get sandstone cliffs and outcrops on top of huge hills?
I think maybe I am asking questions I have no hope of understanding the answers to with my level of knowledge!
*sigh* Oh well, in 15 years when the little darlings have left home *fingers crossed* ;) I might have a chance to learn a bit more.
Ah – Amazon is my friend – £4.45 on the way :)
Thank you!!
Sorry for derailing the thread somewhat – I never had pet geologists to ask questions of before! If I can ever help you with info on your prostate (I am a Urology Nurse) let me know :D
I can provide some help on this question, but it will take a little time before I get to it.
#934
Obviously, Josh will come back with a better answer but let me try one concept. We have the Bunter SS in the West Midlands in spades and they are a bit simpler and easier to explain than yours.
Let me take the example of Kinver Edge. The bulk is made of Bridgnorth SS – soft, easily carved, desert SS, weak cement (haematite) holding the grains together. Rock houses carved into it – inhabited until recently 1971 IIRC. Yet this soft SS stands as a major ridge in the countryside (try OS Getamap and search for Kinver). The reason it stands there is a layer of bunter pebble beds on the top. Imagine a soft SS matrix with lots of hard quartzite pebbles. The matrix will erode rapidly leaving … a thick layer of erosion-resistant pebbles that protect the surface from rapid weathering. The sides of the Ridge are steep and covered with vegetation which reduces the physical weathering of the sides so Kinver Esdge stands tall. Eventually, of course, it will get worn down.
Another example. Find Clee Hill between Cleobury Mortimer and Ludlow in S Shropshire. Clee hill is surrounded by flat countryside. On the top of Titterstone Clee Hill is Carboniferous coal measures rock. Into this is intruded a layer of hard dolerite. This forms a cap on the top of the hill. There is very little coal measures left on top of the dolerite (there was some easily won coal that was recently removed). The dolerite cap has prevented the softer rocks under it from being rapidly eroded and hence Clee Hill stands proud as the highest point in Shropshire and the only hill shown on the Mappa Mundi. There is a pub near the top called the Kremlin Inn only they reverse the R to make it look cyrillic. It is said that you can see the Kremlin from the top of Clee Hill! (I suspect the curvature of the Earth stops that but its a nice story). However, there is nothing higher than Clee Hill to the East until you get to the Urals. All because of a layer of resistant rock on the top.
Now, not every site is as simple to explain and you are far enough North to have some glacial influence, I suspect. But it does show that relatively thin layers of harder material can protect from erosion and result in ridges being formed.
With that I’ll let Josh give you a better answer but it works for these 2 local features.
@Josh – that would be great – no rush – I expect you geologists to be quite slow :D
Ah – thanks again Alan B – sounds very similar, so probably the “protective layers” were put down randomly with lots of gaps that led to all the humpy bits (we live on top of a very big hill which was known for “nutting parties” (parties with liquor, food and dancing – and presumably “nutting” ;) )200 years ago! I guess the views were quite good :D I haven’t found any sandstone in our garden yet, but when the rain stops I may get out a spade and dig a deep hole.
#938
That’s a falacy. We can go very quickly over short bursts but there can be a long time between them.
#921 Abs42 said:
“Josh – don’t worry about the wok – it was only a cheap one, I have plenty more – cooking is for people who don’t have a takeaway nearby! :)”
I collect rocks, Abs42 collects Woks!
/quack quack
>That’s a falacy. We can go very quickly over short bursts but there can be a long time between them< Oops! Sorry, my ignorance was showing :D *Abs rearranges her attire* >Abs collect woks< Only for their aerodynamic properties - I leave cooking to the professionals whenever possible!
Hey I don’t mean to be downer… but if you guys keep throwin utensils at each other, Rev B.D.C. might be a liiiiitle peeved when he sees what you’ve done to his kitchen. I suggest you acquire a pound or two of his favorite pork product and a few libations to make amends…ya know smooth things over a bit…just sayin
Well, he won’t know that we threw them about if you don’t go and tell him…
*folds arms and gives sphere coupler a look*
oh, and…bacon.
I’m not going to say a word, but he ain’t the dumbest chimp in the jungle ya know. When he sees that wok imbeded in the wall with sediment dripping from the handle, it might just give you away… oh and yeah that quartz sticking out of the steamer…dead give away…
Abs42, he’s right. We must slink…we must slink now.
Hey good idea sphere coupler.
I’ve found this thing that comes out of the front of my PC and I’ve put a piece of the best smoked bacon soaked in the best warm beer I could find at short notice on it, pushed it back in and e:mailed it to the Rev. as a peace offering.
(Don’t try this at home, children)
With broadband it should get to him in 3, 2, 1, NOW.
Of course if you two have some unfinished business.
*speaks quietly*
i hear pz’s not going to be in his lab for awhile and you won’t get caught amongst the laborith of tentacled specimens.
I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.
Isn’t this where we came in?
I rather think that was Sven’s point.
I’m off to bed unless someone wants a comment in the next 5 minutes.
Funny. What Alan B said in #951 had more truth and intelligence that the combined acts of typing of Alan Clarke and RogerS.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
We call that in England being praised with faint damns!
We need to come to a concensus as to how long we wait for Alan C to prove he is a fraud. We have already seen that RogerS has absolutely no contribution to make on the issue of flood geology. Commonsense tells me at least that if Alan C really had anything to contribute he would have done so by now but he has been clever by leaving himself an out on the lines of I have to sort my taxes out but I’ll come back with the remainder.
Josh has scared him because he does not allow Alan C to get away with the usual BS. (If I am wrong and you are lurking, Alan, come out and prove it)
See you folks in the morning.
Alan B #937
Oh good, here’s my opportunity to get all sciency or engineery or mathy or something technogeeky.
As previously stated in my post #511 Clee Hill is 546 m (1,790 ft) above sea level. It has been determined that the formula √ height above surface in meters / 6.752 = distance to horizon in kilometers (or kilometres, since Alan B is English). So √546/6.752 = 34.61 km. I think Moscow is a bit further away than that.
Comment 457:
<headdesk> Of course; when the climate cools, the sea level drops. I did it twice because the second occurrence is copypasta of the first.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Delugionists:
An important part of the analogy is that space does not correspond to the air inside the balloon. It corresponds to the balloon itself, the two-dimensional skin of the balloon.
Counterintuitive? Sure. Wrong? Apparently not; it’s the best explanation for what we see that has yet been found.
What do you mean by “two”? They’re the two latest versions of the same myth. Dumuzi (Sumerian) → Atrahasis (older Babylonian) → Utnapishtim (younger Babylonian) → Noah (Hebrew).
And of course the first three versions are all older than the entire Bible.
Just for the record: that’s not unusual or anything. My thesis supervisor has over 17,000 journal articles, with another 1,000 being added per year.
…and if it is, it isn’t the whole truth, because it happens all the time some side of some bone suddenly turns out to be highly interesting but isn’t even explicitly mentioned as existing in the original description. That’s one reason why redescriptions are sometimes done.
The Expelled! thread had over 2500. It was the first thread that had to be stopped for bringing the ScienceBlogs servers to their knees.
You do know what a coprolite is, don’t you…? :-)
Yeah. Last week… last ice age… where’s the difference?
Iguanas are actually somewhat omnivorous. They can’t live for long on a completely vegan diet.
Then why are there still Catholics?
Because Catholic theology has found a way around this “problem”. Here goes: Because we’re descended from mere animals, we have a “sinful nature” and too need a Savior.
Oops, the formula should be √ height above surface in centimeters / 6.752 = distance to horizon in kilometers. However, the answer for the observable horizon from Clee Hill is still about 34.6 km.
I missed the reference to that demonstration before. This demonstration is great; I love it, especially as a tool for teaching younger students. But it should never be done by painting dots or drawing little galaxies on the balloon. The dots will stretch as the balloon expands. This is not a misconception we want to reinforce in those who see the demonstration. Using little stickers is better.
That’s incorrect.
From here:
From here:
Plenty more where those came from.
Actually, I checked. 2031 and then a spillover thread with 351.
Shhh! I don’t think our “delugionists” took the advanced course.
Happy Crucifiversry!
Sooo…
This metamorphosed thread continues.
I betcha if sphere coupler is engaged, we can spin it past the one thousand mark and maybe even again respawn. There’s a record in sight.
What was that about the expanding Earth hypothesis again? :)
<troublemaker>
Re 956, 958 ‘TisHimself
While we are being picky, there are some tall spires in the Kremlin and these will come up above the horizon. The formula then gets more complicated. The topmast sails were seen long before the hull for a vessel at sea. But who cares … without the dolerite cap the land surface would be no more than the surrounding area c.100 m. so the cap has protected over 400 m of softer deposit.
David Marjanović, OM (You weren’t on the list of the Order of Merit when I last saw …)
“There also were no land animals before the beginning of the Devonian or later.”
Make that body fossils of land animals. There are some smears from the Cambrian which may habe been formed by animals. Also, the first body fossils come from the Silurian. A bit of a cheat, perhaps, because they come form Luford Corner near Ludlow in the UK and I have been there. The beds in which they were found are in and just above the famous Ludlow Bone Beds. This is in the Pridoli Series which is now classified as the fourth and final division of the Silurian (Llandovery, Wenlock, Ludlow, Pridoli).
“Samples of the bone bed have recently yielded terrestrial arthropod remains (two centipedes and a trigontarbid arachnid), as well as abundant fragments of eurypterids, aquatic scorpions, kampecarid myriapods and land plants.”
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/gcrdb/GCRsiteaccount1642.pdf
which also gives a description of the location and
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/827077
which gives a picture (last time I was there some of the greeny had been cleared)
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/ImageBank.cfm?v=19&Style=All
see Figures 6.1 – 6.8 (6.8 the wee beastie itself in all its miniature glory).
Mind you, sneeze and you’ve lost it – the arachnid was only about 1 mm.
@Sphere Coupler (Is it me, or does that sound like a weird explanation of how planets are “born”?)
Hey – I am using my own kitchen appliances (well, I may as well use them for *something!*) What has the monkey got to do with anything? *IF* we had some lovely people actually trying to explain some more features of this fascinating flood to me, maybe I wouldn’t have to resort to making my own entertainment! As it is they have wandered off to sort out their taxes (shouldn’t they be in church or something this weekend?) and I am left here with a sarcastic geologist and a surfeit of cooking recepticles – don’t get me wrong, I like the PZ’s lab idea, I just haven’t experimented personally with the aerodynamic properties of test tubes and large jars of formaldehyde, so I am not sure my aim will be quite as good – and I must say, for a scientist, Josh has some good reflexes :D
Abs,
You should be aware that Josh is in the National Guard (American equivalent of the Territorials) where he learned odd things like how to jump out of perfectly good airplanes.* As a result, his reflexes are particularly good.
*Why one should jump out of a perfectly good airplane is a question answerable only by study of abnormal psychology. When I did my stint in the military ever so many years ago, I did the opposite of Josh. I was a submariner. Why one should purposely go to sea in a ship designed to sink is another question for abnormal psychologists.
Ah yes, you crazy military types!
Personally I have never felt the urge to salute *anybody* – much less my boss! But then I work in the public sector which has always had a more disrespectful attitude to our bosses, who do their best to earn it by being complete jerks :)
So, ex-submariner – answer me this – do submarines actually make that “glomp-ping” noise all the time? And if so why haven’t you all gone mad and stabbed each other with spoons?
And anyone trying to push ME out of an aeroplane is going to get a serious frying pan round the ear!
I am seriously not cut out for the military – in one of my performance reviews I was described as being “abrupt” when I am dealing with people who are – erm, how can I say this politely? – idiots who don’t know what they are doing (AKA Junior Doctors) Don’t think senior officers would be impressed with my attitude :D
I have pretty good reflexes myself when someone is about to vomit all over me though – I have a great duck in those circumstances!
I am learning so much about you guys! I should throw things at people more often :D
Abs42
Put that Wok down and let me ask you a question …
I have been doing some digging.
Are you familiar with the GRC documents and website?
What I point you to next will depend on your amnswer …
Hey, they put me through college. I’m not crazy…much…
Wait….
Shit.
And it’s a good question*. Of course, since I serve in an airborne unit, it sort of comes with the territory.
*At least as good as why anyone would volunteer for the silent service…
@Alan B – No – sorry :(
I stand corrected several times over. :-)
Most importantly, I forgot the biggie for the delugionists:
September 2007.
Are you referring to sonar pings or the noise heard at the beginning of the film Das Boot (The Boat)? Or some other noise.
In actuality, noise is the enemy of submariners. Submarines were the first stealth weapons platform. Water is opaque to almost all electromagnetic radiation. Light, radar, radio except for ultra low frequency (ULF – 100 to 3000 Hz) don’t penetrate water more than a few meters. However, sound travels further and faster in denser media. During World War I ASDIC, named for the fictitious Allied Submarine Detection Investigation Committee, became a means of finding submerged submarines.
ASDIC, later given the name “sonar” (SOund Navigation And Ranging), works in two ways. Active sonar sends out a ping and listens for an echo. The direction of the echo gives a bearing and the time from when the ping was emitted to when the echo was received gives a range. Nowadays, low frequency sonars can detect submerged submarines at ranges of several miles. The problem with active sonar is that the ping can be detected by other ships at distances much greater than the pinger can hear an echo.
Passive sonar listens without transmitting. It’s undetectable from other ships. However, there are limitations on passive sonar: (1) The ocean is a very noisy place, biological noises, geological noises and man-made noises can cut the signal-to-noise ratio a lot; (2) while bearings to an “object of interest” are readily discernible, ranges are not (ranges can be determined by TMA [Target Motion Analysis] but it takes a very long time to generate and analyze the data), and (3) what’s called “own ship noise,” noise generated by the sonar platform, can attenuate outside noise.
Submarines operate as quietly as possible. The quietest submarines, the US Trident (726) class missile submarines are quieter than ambient ocean noise. They’re called “holes in the ocean.” One thing that Tom Clancy never mentioned in his book Hunt For Red October is that every door on board USS Dallas had a small placard with “quiet” in Russian on it.
Have I confused you further?
As long as you are listing big problems for delugionists i want to understand more about the floating mats of vegetaion that carried trees about while the waters were hight. Did we see any in Katrina, or the Tsunami or the cylone that it Myamar?
Thank you kindly
@Tis Himself – Yeah – I knew the “pings” were SONAR – just pulling your leg – wasn’t sure about the “glomp” noise though – Das Boot? Erm – quite possibly – my other half watches war movies and I go and have a long bath with a book! After I have made a few sarcastic comments about people stabbing other people in enclosed spaces with spoons – claustrophobic? me? Damn right – I get claustrophobic in a raincoat! And don’t get me going about motion sickness – I can throw up in the bath if I am not careful :D *sub* marines probably don’t get that problem so much though? I did consider all these things with my career choice, and decided that the armed forces were probably not for me :D
My father, who served in submarines during World War II, said that Das Boot was the only submarine movie he’s seen that had the right feel. Even though the film was about a U-Boat in the Atlantic, my father said he felt he was back in an American sub in the Pacific.
#972
Not a correection by saying, “You’re wrong!” More a course correction.
Becuae the geosite is English few people seem to know about it. The site is one of the great geo sites of history with links to Suir Roderick Impey Murchison who sorted out the Silurian in England (and the Permian in Russia)
I know, I know. OM = Order of the Molly.
In England OM is the Order of Merit, one of the very highest honours in the land and in the sole discretion of the Monarch. Limited to 24 living members only with a tiny number of honorary overseas members e.g. Eisenhower, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa. President of the Royal Society seems to get it semi-automatically if there is a space i.e. a death).
You’re good – but you’re not that good!
The comment was supposed to be humorous.
[Failed]
#977
Sorry, dreadful spelling/typing.
@Alan B – this site needs an edit function :D
Was a bit puzzled by the first bit? Is that in reference to asking me about that site? I think you need to give me a link – I am a bit slow today – kids are running amok!
So, what are you up to for the Pagan Spring Rebirthing festival? :)
Actually, AlanC/RogerS, this latest little chat gives me an idea for another analogy to hopefully help illustrate why we are so hung up on word choice in this flood discussion. I suspect that by now you are aware that I (and others here) feel that precision and accuracy in word choice is important when we’re talking about science, but I get the sense that you still don’t really understand why I harp so much on using “sediment versus soil” and things like that, holding your feet to the fire with respect to the words that you choose in your comments. So, to hopefully provide an additional illustration of why word choice is so important in science, I offer the following (hopefully good) analogy:
Regarding the U.S. Army, you might have heard the phrases “Army Ranger” or “Airborne Ranger” or some variant thereof.
These phrases relate to the fact that, within USASOC(1), there is a unit called the 75th Ranger Regiment. This is an active duty airborne unit(2) consisting of several special operations light infantry (=ground forces, usually dismounted) battalions and some support elements. These are the famed “Rangers,” and the regiment is a direct outgrowth of the Ranger Battalions that were involved in Normandy, etc.
Now, I referred to them as “special operations” infantry for a reason. Although an infantry unit, they are organized within Special Operations Command(1). This is because the Rangers have evolved into doing a very specific job. While still in an infantry unit, the job that they spend their time training for is different than the job that most other “grunts” spend their time training for. The tactics are basically the same, but the mission posture isn’t. In the Army, when you say “the Rangers such and such…,” you’re usually referring to something different than if you say “the infantry such and such…” even though the Rangers are still technically a subset of the infantry.
With me so far? Okay, now here is why I think this is a good analogy.
The Army organizes its training into formal “schools.” If you want to be a paratrooper, they send you to a school for it(3). At the end, there’s a graduation ceremony with a diploma; the whole bit. Now, the Infantry Training Center administers a course that provides ranger training(4). Colloquially, this is the famed “Ranger School.” Upon graduation, you are awarded the coveted Ranger Tab(5), which you can wear on the left shoulder of your uniform for the rest of your time in service.
Still with me? Okay, here is the relevant bit: The Ranger Tab is awarded to graduates of the school. You do not have to be assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment to attend Ranger School, and no matter what unit you serve with, you can wear the tab if you survive ranger training. For the rest of your time. You can sew it into your underwear if you like.
But, even if you get the tab tattooed to your forehead, unless you do serve with the 75th, you are not “a Ranger.” Rather, you are “ranger qualified.” This might seem a trivial distinction, but it matters because the jobs are different. I know guys who drive tanks who have Ranger Tabs. They are not “Rangers.” They drive tanks. Ranger’s don’t. These guys are ranger qualified. Whereas to an “outsider,” this seems like I’m splitting hairs, it’s an important distinction “inside,” because the 75th does a job that no one else does. When we refer to “the Rangers,” we are talking about the job.
This dude is not “a Ranger.”
http://fiveouncesofpain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/andrew-chappelle.jpg
I’m showing you this picture specifically because it illustrates the fine-scale differences(6).
1. This corporal is in the infantry (note the blue shoulder chord–only infantry wear those (including “Rangers”)).
2. This corporal is airborne qualified (note the jump wings above his ribbons). All “Rangers” are airborne qualified.
3. This corporal is in an airborne unit (note the yellow fabric “oval,” behind his wings, the blue “Airborne Tab” on his left shoulder on top of his unit patch, and his maroon beret–only active paratroopers are identified by these things). The 75th is an airborne unit, so “Rangers” have these decorations as well (well, with a tan or maroon beret, and minus the airborne tab, but that’s all another story…).
4. This corporal is ranger qualified (note the yellow ranger tab on his left shoulder; he is a Ranger School graduate).
5. This corporal is not a “Ranger.” Note that his shoulder patch isn’t this one: (7). Despite having all of the other traits of “a Ranger,” this corporal is doing a different job in a different unit. He is a “ranger qualified infantry paratrooper,” but he’s not “a Ranger.” Outside of the Army, this is a trivial hair-splitting distinction. Inside the Army, unless we’re talking about tactics, if we’re talking about “Rangers,” the conversation is usually about something different than if we’re discussing “ranger qualified infantry paratroopers.”
Is the horse dead yet?
Discussing evidence for the flood puts us squarely into the “inside of the Army” kind of conversation. The difference between “ranger qualified” and “Ranger” is essential here, because we’re trying to sort out observations that were made by specific processes and (and here I stretch the analogy to the breaking point…) a “Ranger” is not the same process as a “ranger qualified.” The distinction between soil and sediment is not just important, it’s the whole game (accuracy). The distinction between “thick pile of limestone” and a “sequence of limestone and shale beds” is not just important, it’s the whole game (precision and accuracy). The distinction between “tsunami deposit” and “river deposit” is not just important, it’s the whole game (accuracy).
And I would argue that this isn’t just important for this flood discussion, but is applicable whenever one is talking about science. If you’re trying to talk science and you’re not trying very hard for both precision and accuracy in your word choice, then you’re doing it wrong.
Is the picture now a bit, shall we say…less muddy?
References and Notes
1http://www.soc.mil/
2=”paratroopers.” To say that a unit is “airborne” is to say that insertion by parachute is one of the things that the unit specifically practices. This is not most units. Airborne units are idenfied by an “Airborne Tab” that sits on top of their shoulder patch:
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Tab/AirborneTabs.htm
http://www.173rdairborne.com/abnpatches.htm
3http://www.benning.army.mil/airborne/airborne/
4http://www.infantry.army.mil/rtb/rtbmain.asp
5http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Tab/RangerTab.htm
6This dude is a Ranger: img112.imageshack.us/img112/3623/israelcj4.jpg (I can’t see his unit patch, but the beret, the beret flash, the unit crest, and the oval behind his jump wings are those of the Regiment).
These guys too: news.soc.mil/releases/News%20Archive/2005/05AUG/26.jpg
7http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Ranger/75RangerRegiment.htm
>Is the picture now a bit, shall we say…less muddy?
Weeeell, I don’t know – what sort of mud are we talking about? ;)
I must admit, even in our job, which is never cut and dried, cos every patient is different, we get really annoyed when they start off “I looked this up on the internet….” We automatically groan and write off the next three hours trying to persuade them that we have done 3 years training and endless hours practice, and that the internet *has* been known to be *Shock Horror* WRONG sometimes!
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Re; #971 Abs42
No, that’s fine – no point in assuming when I can ask. Others might be interested.
The Government arranged for a Geoconservation Review which was an in depth assessment of the key geological sites in GB which should be kept a special eye on because of their importance. They identified a few hundred(?) sites and wrote each of them up along with a summary of where they fitted in to the overall picture of British Geology. Some, like Ludford Corner are (or should be) world renowned.
The whole is reported in about 60 (not checked but about right) volumes costing c. £50-£100 each and hence beyond the reach of almost everyone, including University Libraries. Birmingham University (one of the top Unis for geology) does not have a complete set.
Until recently, the only thing available on the net was chapter 1 of each Volume which was of interest anyway as it gave an overview of the stratigraphy of (Vol 19) the Silurian along with the list of sites. It was often possible to find out more about a site on the web but it was not very helpful.
Volume 24 is of interest to you as referring to the Permo-Triassic red beds. Each of the Periods has its own volume along with separate volumes summing up fossil fishes, coastal geomorphology etc. etc.
More recently, they have been putting parts of the Voluimes on the web. When a volume is done it has a URL for all the Figures and each of the site reports. Chapter 1 is still there. of course.
You will be interested in:
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/Sites/GCR_v24_C03_Site2753.htm
The site report for Scrooby Top Quarry in the Nottingham Castle Formation.
Go to:
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/SiteReports.cfm
select volume next
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/SiteReports.cfm?Step=1
drop down list – you want Vol 24
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/SiteReports.cfm?Step=2v
choose your site
e.g. Styrrup Quarry or Scrooby Top Quarry
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/SiteReports.cfm?Step=2v
hit load full site report
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/Sites/GCR_v24_C03_Site3013.htm
To get photoset for the volume including maps, photos, drawings,etc etc
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/ImageBank.cfm?v=24&Style=All
(change the number from 24 for other volumes)
Other useful pages:
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2965
To get chapter 1
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/V24Chap1.pdf
Have a play and see what you can find although this probably summarises the Permo-Triassic info.
(Can’t locate the full list of volumes but it’s there somewhere.)
Abs42
I’ve put up a post re-GCR but I probably had too many links. Hope it won’t be delayed too long.
Re: Abs42 #972
All will be clear when the message gets through to the site. My fault. I put too many links in and it seems to be held for moderation.
Abs42
I’ll put up a few URLs and let you play:
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/V24Chap1.pdf
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/Sites/GCR_v24_C03_Site3013.htm
http://www.thegcr.org.uk/ImageBank.cfm
and select Vol 24.
O-kay!
I read the first bit of the first one and think it may take me some time to get through the whole thing! I have bookmarked it – the second one I didn’t understand any of the technobabble (obviously need to read the first one first!) and the third one totally baffled me with lots of “fig 1″‘s
Thank you very much – I will definitely have a deeper look at them – just can’t now as the house is too noisy to concentrate and I intend to be starting to get drunk soon.
I am hoping the book I ordered might be more on my level :D
Josh,
Where do these guys fit in the whole Ranger situation?
POSERS!
That was terrific. I was wondering if someone was going to go there*.
*The Rangers I know hate the fact that there are forest rangers out there…
>Josh,
Where do these guys fit in the whole Ranger situation?
Ooh! Hard hats and tool belts? Am I allowed to say I don’t care, just gimme! :D
Hmmmm…is that better than a team ballcap and boots?
‘kipedia sez:
Give it up Josh–forest rangers were FIRST.
>Hmmmm…is that better than a team ballcap and boots?
Hell yeah! :D
*fans self vigorously*
CRAP!
*throws team cap to the ground in frustration*
Indeed. I’ve presented that exact argument to a friend of mine (ex-Ranger). He’s not impressed. “Rangers Lead the Way” and all of that.
*eyeroll*
>CRAP!
*throws team cap to the ground in frustration*
Hahaha! Sorry – married to a Telephone Engineer here – harnesses and tool belts and hard hat – AND he knows how to get the internet to work! PHEW! He’s cute too :)
John Morales | April 10, 2009 11:28 PM
I would love to discuss this but right now I,ve got to hit the road for a another engagement and with the earth expanding as such… I may never reach my destination!
HA HA.
(I know I only have one monitor…why do I see two?)
Must have more bacon.
#979
Not sure yet – may scout out some Silurian/Devonian sites where fish fossils have been found. Chances of getting into any approaching zero but it keeps me off the streets (and onto narrow country roads).
Come on, folks, we’ve just got another five posts to hit the magic 1K mark. Where’s Roger? Has Alan Clarke finished his taxes and/or magnus opus proving The Flood? Can Alan B see Offa’s Dike from his chimney top?
Magic? What happens? Do we get a cookie? :D
So, I’m beginning to get curious about Alan’s return. We lost Nat, and we lost Leon Flamick before him. At least in Nat’s case, it was just when things were getting interesting. Anyone want to make a prediction that’s tangential to Alan B’s hypothesis: whether or not, at this point, we expect Alan C to return at all?
>Anyone want to make a prediction that’s tangential….
Nostradamus says “The yellow chicken will taste nicer than the pink, and may need to go to bed earlier”
Is that any help?