Discussion:
"Great Ages found in Geologic Strata" is a farce
(too old to reply)
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-24 05:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.

Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it accumulated a foot in a million years.

Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see great ages.

So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note the picture of the tree penetrating strata:

https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/

Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project it with nervous knees."
Malte Runz
2017-03-24 11:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst Haeckel liked to make up stories. ...
Proving somebody's motive is difficult. Haeckel drew what he saw, and
he thought he saw gill slits in embryos. He was wrong, just as you
were wrong, when you thought you saw the Ark.
... And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time column. ...
Haeckel had very little to say about the geological column, if
anything at all. You're making him out to be the Godfather of all
things evolutionary, when he was a minor figure, even in his own time.

Didn't we go over this recently? Didn't we agree that whatever Haeckel
drew 150 years ago, it is of no relevance today? Why are you so
obsessed with him?
... See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see great ages.
As a rule of thumb. Rapid sedimentation also happens. No mystery. No
controversy. No world wide flood needed to explain anything.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great ages that you so believed in? ...
Jeez... 'Polystrate fossils'. Again? Can't you guys come up with some
new material just once in a while.
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
After 5 seconds I need to give them my email address, and there is no
way that's going to happen. Give me a link to the specific image you
think destroys 300 years of logic and science.
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project it with nervous knees."
Are you telling me, that you have never heard or read any rebuttal of
the 'tree trunk argument'?
--
Malte Runz
Christopher A. Lee
2017-03-24 13:25:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:36:25 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst Haeckel liked to make up stories. ...
Proving somebody's motive is difficult. Haeckel drew what he saw, and
he thought he saw gill slits in embryos. He was wrong, just as you
were wrong, when you thought you saw the Ark.
Far too often, that's all these morons have when they can neither
address nor acknowledge a point.
Post by Malte Runz
... And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. ...
Haeckel had very little to say about the geological column, if
anything at all. You're making him out to be the Godfather of all
things evolutionary, when he was a minor figure, even in his own time.
Didn't we go over this recently? Didn't we agree that whatever Haeckel
drew 150 years ago, it is of no relevance today? Why are you so
obsessed with him?
These morons make mountains out of molehills to try and discredit
science which refutes their nonsense - and it _is_ nonsense which
contradicts well understood, objective reality and describes things
that simply don't or never happened.

They also imagine science is some kind of revelation and expect it to
get things right first time - like they imagine their religion does.

But unlike religion, science is self-correcting as more knowledge is
obtained.

Early researchers like Haeckel didn't have the advantage of Darwin's
other contribution to science, that of confirming or refuting
prediction, which eliminates incorrect explanations with what is left
becomes the correct one.

So they often simply explained what they saw in terms of what was
already known, without actually making sure they were right.

So Haeckel saw what he thought were gill slits as confirmation for his
theory that Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny.

Today, this is called "confirmation bias".

There are slits, but these never had the function of a fish's gills.

And it was scientists who discovered this and corrected the knowledge
base.

Something which no creationist has _ever_ done, and it's part and
parcel of how knowledge advance.
Post by Malte Runz
... See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see great ages.
As a rule of thumb. Rapid sedimentation also happens. No mystery. No
controversy. No world wide flood needed to explain anything.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a picture
of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great ages that you so believed in? ...
Jeez... 'Polystrate fossils'. Again? Can't you guys come up with some
new material just once in a while.
Don't ever expect any honesty or intelligence from these morons.
Post by Malte Runz
... Not if you're an evolutionist!
The deliberate liar knows there is no such thing, and that it is a
dishonest canard to present objective science as merely an -ism.
Post by Malte Runz
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
After 5 seconds I need to give them my email address, and there is no
way that's going to happen. Give me a link to the specific image you
think destroys 300 years of logic and science.
The deliberate liar knows there is no such thing, and that it is a
dishonest canard to present objective science as merely an -ism.
Post by Malte Runz
"Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages because it's
gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project it with nervous knees."
The deliberate liar invents motives that aren't there, to attribute
to people who actually understand the real world.

And he's too stupid to understand that because these falsehoods are
amateur-psychologised, they reflect the only personality he knows -
his own.
Post by Malte Runz
Are you telling me, that you have never heard or read any rebuttal of
the 'tree trunk argument'?
He only listens to creationists. doesn't understand what they say or
why it's wrong, and repeats his own interpretation as if it were
undisputed fact - hence his ridiculous put-downs which he is so stupid
he doesn't realise they backfire on him.
.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-28 23:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst Haeckel liked to make up stories. ...
Proving somebody's motive is difficult. Haeckel drew what he saw, and
he thought he saw gill slits in embryos. He was wrong, just as you
were wrong, when you thought you saw the Ark.
... And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time column. ...
Haeckel had very little to say about the geological column, if
anything at all. You're making him out to be the Godfather of all
things evolutionary, when he was a minor figure, even in his own time.
Didn't we go over this recently? Didn't we agree that whatever Haeckel
drew 150 years ago, it is of no relevance today? Why are you so
obsessed with him?
... See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see great ages.
As a rule of thumb. Rapid sedimentation also happens. No mystery. No
controversy. No world wide flood needed to explain anything.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great ages that you so believed in? ...
Jeez... 'Polystrate fossils'. Again? Can't you guys come up with some
new material just once in a while.
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
After 5 seconds I need to give them my email address, and there is no
way that's going to happen. Give me a link to the specific image you
think destroys 300 years of logic and science.
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project it with nervous knees."
Are you telling me, that you have never heard or read any rebuttal of
the 'tree trunk argument'?
--
Malte Runz
This is what all of these ignorant dolts do. There is nothing new after 2000 years pretty much everything we need to know about religion has been uncovered.
But they still feel like they need to drive the conversation and does not seem to matter how many times they get their noses bloodied, their god needs new meat. Or they are just garden variety trolls being the assholes that trolls are.
It makes no difference if God himself should come down from the heavens and make himself known to the world in no uncertain terms if he said anything that was no in accordance with their current beliefs they would claim it was an atheist hoax.

Nobody is as stupid as these people appear to be. They can't believe that there is any point in repeating the same few arguments until they can be repeated from memory. They are as fake and false as any of the "miracles" from the Bible.

This is the kind of behavior that is typical of theists, they know that in terms of evidence they have nothing since so much of what they believe has been demonstrated to be false.

From Abraham to Moses to Joshua and through to Jesus the Messiah so boring that nobody wrote about him during his lifetime, they have nothing. Just a bunch of stories some of which are forgeries, some of which are victims of creative editing and all of which are fiction with few exceptions. There were no miracles, no crossing of the Red Sea, no virgin birth, no Moses, no Abraham, no Exodus, no flood. Evidence for any of these things is either nonexistent, grossly exaggerated, or outright lies.

Nobody can be so stupid as to think that getting your ass handed to time after time serves any useful purpose for their alleged cause. It's great for atheism because it shows how insane theism actually is.

When I first came to a.a. I thought they were part of a joke that a bunch of atheists were having with each other because they appeared astronomically stupid to the point it seemed they had to really put in some effort to appear so stupid.

There is some entertainment value from some of them like Duke and JTEM the rest are just annoying and pointless. If they think they are going to convince anybody theirs is the right right path they have to be even more stupid than imaginable.
Malte Runz
2017-03-29 00:20:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)
Post by Cloud Hobbit
When I first came to a.a. I thought they were part of a joke that a bunch of atheists were having with each other because they appeared astronomically stupid to the point it seemed they had to really put in some effort to appear so stupid.
And I thought that the rational arguments and evidence I could
present, would convince any Flood believer, if I could just get him to
listen. My hypothesis was disproven astonishingly quickly.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
There is some entertainment value from some of them like Duke and JTEM the rest are just annoying and pointless. ...
We have different tastes, I see.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
... If they think they are going to convince anybody theirs is the right right path they have to be even more stupid than imaginable.
I hope they believe what they say is true. I'd feel foolish if they
didn't.
--
Malte Runz
default
2017-03-24 17:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see great ages.
How is that a tree penetrating strata?
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project it with nervous knees."
default
2017-03-24 18:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
Loading Image...

http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q

A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-24 19:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
nope. limestone.
Malte Runz
2017-03-24 20:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
nope. limestone.
Do you know how limestone is formed?
--
Malte Runz
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-24 20:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
nope. limestone.
Do you know how limestone is formed?
--
Malte Runz
Every carpenter knows that soil rots wood. And I've seen it and it happens very fast.
Malte Runz
2017-03-24 21:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
nope. limestone.
Do you know how limestone is formed?
--
Malte Runz
Every carpenter knows that soil rots wood. And I've seen it and it happens very fast.
Sure. And in anaerobic conditions it won't rot at all. Now, back to
limestone, and why it more or less falsifies any idea you might have
about the Flood:

http://tinyurl.com/kalaub9
"Biological sedimentary limestone forms most often in warm, shallow
marine waters in areas between 30 degrees latitude north and 30
degrees latitude south. This type of limestone is formed as marine
organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons die and
accumulate layer by layer. Eventually, with extensive pressure and
time, that calcium carbonate sediment hardens into limestone."

Told you so.
--
Malte Runz
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-24 23:07:23 UTC
Permalink
2:46 PMMalte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
nope. limestone.
Do you know how limestone is formed?
--
Malte Runz
Every carpenter knows that soil rots wood. And I've seen it and it happens very fast.
Sure. And in anaerobic conditions it won't rot at all. Now, back to
limestone, and why it more or less falsifies any idea you might have
about the Flood:

http://tinyurl.com/kalaub9
"Biological sedimentary limestone forms most often in warm, shallow
marine waters in areas between 30 degrees latitude north and 30
degrees latitude south. This type of limestone is formed as marine
organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons die and
accumulate layer by layer. Eventually, with extensive pressure and
time, that calcium carbonate sediment hardens into limestone."

Told you so.



Sounds like you're a creationist. What you've just written supports my views. And I don't know why you think that it doesn't.
--
Malte Runz
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-24 23:07:25 UTC
Permalink
2:46 PMMalte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
nope. limestone.
Do you know how limestone is formed?
--
Malte Runz
Every carpenter knows that soil rots wood. And I've seen it and it happens very fast.
Sure. And in anaerobic conditions it won't rot at all. Now, back to
limestone, and why it more or less falsifies any idea you might have
about the Flood:

http://tinyurl.com/kalaub9
"Biological sedimentary limestone forms most often in warm, shallow
marine waters in areas between 30 degrees latitude north and 30
degrees latitude south. This type of limestone is formed as marine
organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons die and
accumulate layer by layer. Eventually, with extensive pressure and
time, that calcium carbonate sediment hardens into limestone."

Told you so.



Sounds like you're a creationist. What you've just written supports my views. And I don't know why you think that it doesn't.
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
2017-03-24 23:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
2:46 PMMalte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
nope. limestone.
Do you know how limestone is formed?
--
Malte Runz
Every carpenter knows that soil rots wood. And I've seen it and it happens very fast.
Sure. And in anaerobic conditions it won't rot at all. Now, back to
limestone, and why it more or less falsifies any idea you might have
http://tinyurl.com/kalaub9
"Biological sedimentary limestone forms most often in warm, shallow
marine waters in areas between 30 degrees latitude north and 30
degrees latitude south. This type of limestone is formed as marine
organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons die and
accumulate layer by layer. Eventually, with extensive pressure and
time, that calcium carbonate sediment hardens into limestone."
Told you so.
Sounds like you're a creationist. What you've just written supports my views. ...
You don't see the difference? You talk about a huge world wide
catastrophic flood, covering even the tallest mountains, and I talk
about warm, shallow waters, where fine particles slowly sink to the
bottom and build up layers over a long, long time.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
... And I don't know why you think that it doesn't.
Explain how you envision limestone forming in your world wide,
mountain covering, canyon carving, mountain creating, tectonic plate
moving, water being blown into space, flood scenario.
--
Malte Runz
Marvin Sebourn
2017-03-24 23:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
nope. limestone.
Do you know how limestone is formed?
--
Malte Runz
Every carpenter knows that soil rots wood. And I've seen it and it happens very fast.
Yep, it happens very fast. That's why Venice and parts of St Petersburg, Russia were built on foundations of wooden piles driven in water and mud. And long endure. Everybody knows that.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com
Malte Runz
2017-03-25 00:04:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:21:21 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
nope. limestone.
Do you know how limestone is formed?
--
Malte Runz
Every carpenter knows that soil rots wood. And I've seen it and it happens very fast.
Yep, it happens very fast. That's why Venice and parts of St Petersburg, Russia were built on foundations of wooden piles driven in water and mud. And long endure. Everybody knows that.
And Assdestroyed's response to that might be 'some cat species don't
retract their claws', or something equally relevant. Very difficult to
keep him on track.
--
Malte Runz
Bob Officer
2017-03-27 02:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a picture
of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great ages that
you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note the picture of
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
This is what you're referring to?
http://youngearth.com/sites/default/files/styles/body_image/public/polystrate-fossil-joggins.jpg?itok=qPD6QXRc
http://tinyurl.com/l3bdu7q
A tree that was caught in a mudslide? And from this you get multiple
strata? You'll note that the rock surrounding the tree is uniform,
color, type, etc., and doesn't appear to form strata.
That is not a tree.
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity

Tom McDonald
2017-03-25 00:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.

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

"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?

"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
Malte Runz
2017-03-25 16:44:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
Here's ICR's take on it:
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."

The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
and has no excuse for writing this:

"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."

He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.

In the section 'Related articles' we find gems like "That's a Fact:
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
--
Malte Runz
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-25 16:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
--
Malte Runz
It is not highly implausible. It's not even plausible. It is fact. If you're serious about your claim you would scout through and thoroughly watch all the creationist geology videos on this subject and you'll see why. Photo and film documenting of actual trees standing upright in water exists. It's a natural process where the root section eventually starts gravitating toward the bottom making the tree upright in the water. You'll have a forest of bare logs floating upright with the root section hanging below. I think this occurs because the roots are still absorbing the water even though most of it has been broken off.

https://amazingdiscoveries.org/albums?view=album&code=Flood#_
(check out picture 5 row down.


I was skeptical as you when I first heard the claim. It wasn't until I saw the pictures that I was convinced. And of course when I heard the claim I had to find out for myself. But how it happens, as I explained above, makes sense.
Malte Runz
2017-03-25 18:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
--
Malte Runz
It is not highly implausible. It's not even plausible. It is fact. ...
Really? You just decided that? Trained specialists, with years of
experince, think differently.
... If you're serious about your claim you would scout through and thoroughly watch all the creationist geology videos on this subject and you'll see why. ...
Not a chance. I know enough geology to recognize that they're lying
through their teeth. Yes, lying. When a trained geological engineer
can suggest what he did in my quote, he knows how wrong he is. Trust
me on this one, 'roid, you are being manipulated.
... Photo and film documenting of actual trees standing upright in water exists. It's a natural process where the root section eventually starts gravitating toward the bottom making the tree upright in the water. ...
I'll bet none of that happens in a raging flood, that carves canyons
and carries huge loads of suspended material.
... You'll have a forest of bare logs floating upright with the root section hanging below. I think ...
Google it, and achieve certainty.
... this occurs because the roots are still absorbing the water even though most of it has been broken off.
Roots are lighter than stems, and they don't 'absorb water'.
https://amazingdiscoveries.org/albums?view=album&code=Flood#_
(check out picture 5 row down.
The one with the caption saying: "Petrified logs from the Mt. St.
Helens eruptions float upright, ..."?
Do they even know what "petrified" means? Do you?
I was skeptical as you when I first heard the claim. ...
Not even remotely as skeptical. You see, I happen to know a little
about these things, and you believe water can be blown into space.
... It wasn't until I saw the pictures that I was convinced. ...
So, you're either very gullible, or prone to confirmation biaz in the
nth degree.
... And of course when I heard the claim I had to find out for myself. But how it happens, as I explained above, makes sense.
You forgot to take into account, that supposedly the whole planet was
engulfed in raging flood waters. The image of the floating rock trees
[facepalm] portray a very different environment.

The site you linked to is another one of those you should stay away
from. It's full of misinformation (intended or not) and flawed
reasoning. Take the caption from the image of the cliffs of Dover...
the white ones:

"White Cliffs of Dover These deposits are marine deposits and they are
right on the top of this landscape, so this entire continent must have
been underwater very recently for these to have formed."

He is right of course, that the area must have been under water at
some point in history, but his conclusion, that global water levels
therefore must have been waaayyy higher "recently", is false. And he
too should have learned something about how limestone is formed.
--
Malte Runz
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-25 18:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
--
Malte Runz
It is not highly implausible. It's not even plausible. It is fact. ...
Really? You just decided that? Trained specialists, with years of
experince, think differently.
... If you're serious about your claim you would scout through and thoroughly watch all the creationist geology videos on this subject and you'll see why. ...
Not a chance. I know enough geology to recognize that they're lying
through their teeth. Yes, lying. When a trained geological engineer
can suggest what he did in my quote, he knows how wrong he is. Trust
me on this one, 'roid, you are being manipulated.
Nobody is being manipulated and nobody is being lied to. There's no reason to lie about this.
Post by Malte Runz
... Photo and film documenting of actual trees standing upright in water exists. It's a natural process where the root section eventually starts gravitating toward the bottom making the tree upright in the water. ...
I'll bet none of that happens in a raging flood, that carves canyons
and carries huge loads of suspended material.
During the flood billions of trees were uprooted. Floating masses of trees covered the seas. As the land masses began to emerge out of the water, lakes and large inland seas remained. In some of these bodies of water, the floating trees there began to take vertical form as the root end sank.
Post by Malte Runz
... You'll have a forest of bare logs floating upright with the root section hanging below. I think ...
Google it, and achieve certainty.
... this occurs because the roots are still absorbing the water even though most of it has been broken off.
Roots are lighter than stems, and they don't 'absorb water'.
Yes they do. They take in nutrients and water so that plants can grow.
Post by Malte Runz
https://amazingdiscoveries.org/albums?view=album&code=Flood#_
(check out picture 5 row down.
The one with the caption saying: "Petrified logs from the Mt. St.
Helens eruptions float upright, ..."?
Do they even know what "petrified" means? Do you?
That was probably not a petrified log and was mislabeled by accident. That's not the point. The point is that it's a tree floating upright.
Post by Malte Runz
I was skeptical as you when I first heard the claim. ...
Not even remotely as skeptical. You see, I happen to know a little
about these things, and you believe water can be blown into space.
... It wasn't until I saw the pictures that I was convinced. ...
So, you're either very gullible, or prone to confirmation biaz in the
nth degree.
... And of course when I heard the claim I had to find out for myself. But how it happens, as I explained above, makes sense.
You forgot to take into account, that supposedly the whole planet was
engulfed in raging flood waters. The image of the floating rock trees
[facepalm] portray a very different environment.
The site you linked to is another one of those you should stay away
from. It's full of misinformation (intended or not) and flawed
reasoning. Take the caption from the image of the cliffs of Dover...
That's just a random site that had that picture. There are plenty of documentaries as to what happened at St Helens. You have floating upright trees there.
Post by Malte Runz
"White Cliffs of Dover These deposits are marine deposits and they are
right on the top of this landscape, so this entire continent must have
been underwater very recently for these to have formed."
He is right of course, that the area must have been under water at
some point in history, but his conclusion, that global water levels
therefore must have been waaayyy higher "recently", is false. And he
too should have learned something about how limestone is formed.
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
2017-03-25 21:10:02 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Malte Runz
... If you're serious about your claim you would scout through and thoroughly watch all the creationist geology videos on this subject and you'll see why. ...
Not a chance. I know enough geology to recognize that they're lying
through their teeth. Yes, lying. When a trained geological engineer
can suggest what he did in my quote, he knows how wrong he is. Trust
me on this one, 'roid, you are being manipulated.
Nobody is being manipulated and nobody is being lied to. ...
Sorry to be so hard on you, but you're not in a position to determine
that.
... There's no reason to lie about this.
Some people have a vested interest in keeping people like you in good
faith, so to speak.
Post by Malte Runz
... Photo and film documenting of actual trees standing upright in water exists. It's a natural process where the root section eventually starts gravitating toward the bottom making the tree upright in the water. ...
I'll bet none of that happens in a raging flood, that carves canyons
and carries huge loads of suspended material.
During the flood billions of trees were uprooted. Floating masses of trees covered the seas. As the land masses began to emerge out of the water, lakes and large inland seas remained. ...
Where did the waters go?
... In some of these bodies of water, the floating trees there began to take vertical form as the root end sank.
I have another explanation for how the trees ended up fossilized
vertically. One that doesn't involve the Flood. One that we came
observe happening today. Your picture is all the evidence you need.

In other cases the trees are buried in situ, and eventually petrified.
Post by Malte Runz
... You'll have a forest of bare logs floating upright with the root section hanging below. I think ...
Google it, and achieve certainty.
... this occurs because the roots are still absorbing the water even though most of it has been broken off.
Roots are lighter than stems, and they don't 'absorb water'.
Yes they do. They take in nutrients and water so that plants can grow.
Capillary pressure. Water evaporates from the leaves of a tree, thus
creating a low pressure that extends down to the roots, where water is
'sucked in' and transported around. No leaves, no suction, and never
any absorbtion.
Once the trunk is floating it will absorb water, and, depending on the
type of tree, it might sink, and it might even become vertical.
Post by Malte Runz
https://amazingdiscoveries.org/albums?view=album&code=Flood#_
(check out picture 5 row down.
The one with the caption saying: "Petrified logs from the Mt. St.
Helens eruptions float upright, ..."?
Do they even know what "petrified" means? Do you?
That was probably not a petrified log ...
No, it probably wasn't a huge rock floating in water.
... and was mislabeled by accident. ...
It happened twice. Look at the picture on the far right in the same
row. The caption reads:
"A petrified log, uprooted by the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Its roots
are ripped off and the branches and bark are stripped in the rolling
and bashing caused during the flood. A typical example of how the
petrified trees were transported by floods."

The people clearly don't know what petrified means. Anyway...
... That's not the point. The point is that it's a tree floating upright.
Yes. It happens, and the point is, it happens without the Flood.

(snip)
Post by Malte Runz
The site you linked to is another one of those you should stay away
from. It's full of misinformation (intended or not) and flawed
reasoning. Take the caption from the image of the cliffs of Dover...
That's just a random site that had that picture. There are plenty of documentaries as to what happened at St Helens. You have floating upright trees there.
I don't deny that. It shows us that it can happen, and that there is
no need for the Flood to make it happen. In other words, the vertical
petrified trees are not evidence of the Flood.
--
Malte Runz
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-29 00:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
--
Malte Runz
It is not highly implausible. It's not even plausible. It is fact. ...
Really? You just decided that? Trained specialists, with years of
experince, think differently.
... If you're serious about your claim you would scout through and thoroughly watch all the creationist geology videos on this subject and you'll see why. ...
Not a chance. I know enough geology to recognize that they're lying
through their teeth. Yes, lying. When a trained geological engineer
can suggest what he did in my quote, he knows how wrong he is. Trust
me on this one, 'roid, you are being manipulated.
Nobody is being manipulated and nobody is being lied to. There's no reason to lie about this.
And yet they do, constantly. Organizations such as CR or DI, or Answers in Genesis KNOW they are lying, they know they are exxagerating, they know they are misquoting, using outdated science that has long since been revised and corrected. THEY DO NOT CARE. tHEY ARE FULLY PREPARED TO LIE FOR GOD.
Nobody can be this stupid without effort. You have to reject the entire consensus and established truths that science has given us. Finding stuff this badly fucked up might be excusable on a high school science paper, but for adults many of whom have the education to know they are full of shit, this is just pathetically sad if we are to assume they actually believe it. If they don't really believe it, it should be considered criminal.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
... Photo and film documenting of actual trees standing upright in water exists. It's a natural process where the root section eventually starts gravitating toward the bottom making the tree upright in the water. ...
I'll bet none of that happens in a raging flood, that carves canyons
and carries huge loads of suspended material.
During the flood billions of trees were uprooted.
There was no flood.

Floating masses of trees covered the seas.

No they didn't because there was no flood and no Noah, and no Gilgamesh.

As the land masses began to emerge out of the water, lakes and large inland seas remained. In some of these bodies of water, the floating trees there began to take vertical form as the root end sank.


Never happened. You are lying or you are a fool or both, but the facts are clear, there was no fucking global flood.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
... You'll have a forest of bare logs floating upright with the root section hanging below. I think ...
Google it, and achieve certainty.
... this occurs because the roots are still absorbing the water even though most of it has been broken off.
Roots are lighter than stems, and they don't 'absorb water'.
Yes they do. They take in nutrients and water so that plants can grow.
Post by Malte Runz
https://amazingdiscoveries.org/albums?view=album&code=Flood#_
(check out picture 5 row down.
The one with the caption saying: "Petrified logs from the Mt. St.
Helens eruptions float upright, ..."?
Do they even know what "petrified" means? Do you?
That was probably not a petrified log and was mislabeled by accident. That's not the point. The point is that it's a tree floating upright.
Why are there so many errors from religious nutter websites?
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
I was skeptical as you when I first heard the claim. ...
Not even remotely as skeptical. You see, I happen to know a little
about these things, and you believe water can be blown into space.
... It wasn't until I saw the pictures that I was convinced. ...
So, you're either very gullible, or prone to confirmation bias in the
nth degree.
I'm going with yes on both counts gullible and biased.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
... And of course when I heard the claim I had to find out for myself. But how it happens, as I explained above, makes sense.
You forgot to take into account, that supposedly the whole planet was
engulfed in raging flood waters. The image of the floating rock trees
[facepalm] portray a very different environment.
The site you linked to is another one of those you should stay away
from. It's full of misinformation (intended or not) and flawed
reasoning. Take the caption from the image of the cliffs of Dover...
That's just a random site that had that picture. There are plenty of documentaries as to what happened at St Helens. You have floating upright trees there.
Post by Malte Runz
"White Cliffs of Dover These deposits are marine deposits and they are
right on the top of this landscape, so this entire continent must have
been underwater very recently for these to have formed."
He is right of course, that the area must have been under water at
some point in history, but his conclusion, that global water levels
therefore must have been waaayyy higher "recently", is false. And he
too should have learned something about how limestone is formed.
--
Malte Runz
Tom McDonald
2017-03-25 22:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-25 22:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
Malte Runz
2017-03-25 23:50:55 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-25 23:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Malte Runz
2017-03-26 01:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
--
Malte Runz
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-26 02:17:20 UTC
Permalink
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.


I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
--
Malte Runz
Marvin Sebourn
2017-03-26 04:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
I enjoyed this YouTube video with Ian Juby:


Marvin Sebourn
Post by A***@yahoo.com
--
Malte Runz
Tom McDonald
2017-03-26 17:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by A***@yahoo.com
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
http://youtu.be/xvsOUXeVz5o
One of my favorites. The kicker is that the YouTuber, Martymer, is a
physics teacher! I don't think Juby's credentials stretch to that height.
Malte Runz
2017-03-26 19:00:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:44:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by A***@yahoo.com
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
http://youtu.be/xvsOUXeVz5o
One of my favorites. The kicker is that the YouTuber, Martymer, is a
physics teacher! I don't think Juby's credentials stretch to that height.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, does it better than this:
http://tinyurl.com/lwxfnpr
--
Malte Runz
Tom McDonald
2017-03-27 12:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:44:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by A***@yahoo.com
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
http://youtu.be/xvsOUXeVz5o
One of my favorites. The kicker is that the YouTuber, Martymer, is a
physics teacher! I don't think Juby's credentials stretch to that height.
http://tinyurl.com/lwxfnpr
Have to agree with you there. The Living Dinosaur is a living legend. It
is sad that he has either stopped producing videos or is doing so very
infrequently. Last vids were a year ago. :-(

Here's a link to another of TLD's videos on *Mr.* Juby:



Or:

http://tinyurl.com/ks23uq2
Malte Runz
2017-03-27 17:57:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 07:36:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:44:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by A***@yahoo.com
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
http://youtu.be/xvsOUXeVz5o
One of my favorites. The kicker is that the YouTuber, Martymer, is a
physics teacher! I don't think Juby's credentials stretch to that height.
http://tinyurl.com/lwxfnpr
Have to agree with you there. The Living Dinosaur is a living legend. It
is sad that he has either stopped producing videos or is doing so very
infrequently. Last vids were a year ago. :-(
http://youtu.be/n86uymCx2zI
http://tinyurl.com/ks23uq2
I watched them all, and I wish he'd make another 41 videos.
--
Malte Runz
Tom McDonald
2017-03-27 21:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 07:36:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:44:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 9:17:23 PM UTC-5,
6:26 PMMalte Runz On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:58:17 -0700 (PDT),
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 4:50:54 PM UTC-7, Malte
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:59:01 -0700 (PDT),
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 3:35:25 PM UTC-7, Tom
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an
expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists
who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are
hillarious. Dinosaurs laying eggs whilst running from
the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the
same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being
duped by people who lie for money, and count on their
flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists
to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
-- Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the
actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/ and see if you can find any research.
Watch his videos on YouTube and pick a good one for me.
Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
http://youtu.be/xvsOUXeVz5o
One of my favorites. The kicker is that the YouTuber, Martymer,
is a physics teacher! I don't think Juby's credentials stretch
to that height.
http://tinyurl.com/lwxfnpr
Have to agree with you there. The Living Dinosaur is a living
legend. It is sad that he has either stopped producing videos or is
doing so very infrequently. Last vids were a year ago. :-(
http://youtu.be/n86uymCx2zI
http://tinyurl.com/ks23uq2
I watched them all, and I wish he'd make another 41 videos.
I think he got jaded by the increasing fuckwittery of some parts of the
YouTube atheist community, I suspect partly because of the increasing
success of anti-SJW/anti-feminist/anti-intellectual popular YouTube
atheists. Of course, there was also the brief episodes of atheists
calling themselves 'brights' and the imbroglio over Atheism-Plus.

Much of the creationist-like thinking, assertions and fear of actual
research to find out what's true among those faux-liberal and actual
alt.right content creators is what TLD has been fighting all this time.
I'd be surprised if he weren't disheartened by seeing the
anti-intellectualism and dishonesty he fought so spectacularly being
used by folks whose atheism should, properly applied, have insulated
them from that behavior.

I guess atheists are like any other group of folks. Attitudes, motives,
behavior, etc., all over the map, with the sole uniting factor of not
believing in god/s giving an illusion of community.
Malte Runz
2017-03-27 23:12:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:50:03 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 07:36:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:44:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 9:17:23 PM UTC-5,
6:26 PMMalte Runz On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:58:17 -0700 (PDT),
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 4:50:54 PM UTC-7, Malte
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:59:01 -0700 (PDT),
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 3:35:25 PM UTC-7, Tom
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an
expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists
who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are
hillarious. Dinosaurs laying eggs whilst running from
the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the
same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being
duped by people who lie for money, and count on their
flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists
to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
-- Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the
actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/ and see if you can find any research.
Watch his videos on YouTube and pick a good one for me.
Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
http://youtu.be/xvsOUXeVz5o
One of my favorites. The kicker is that the YouTuber, Martymer,
is a physics teacher! I don't think Juby's credentials stretch
to that height.
http://tinyurl.com/lwxfnpr
Have to agree with you there. The Living Dinosaur is a living
legend. It is sad that he has either stopped producing videos or is
doing so very infrequently. Last vids were a year ago. :-(
http://youtu.be/n86uymCx2zI
http://tinyurl.com/ks23uq2
I watched them all, and I wish he'd make another 41 videos.
I think he got jaded by the increasing fuckwittery of some parts of the
YouTube atheist community, I suspect partly because of the increasing
success of anti-SJW/anti-feminist/anti-intellectual popular YouTube
atheists. Of course, there was also the brief episodes of atheists
calling themselves 'brights' ...
Hey, I remember them! I was living in Montreal at the time, and
believed it was time for me to spread the good word. I exchanged a few
emails with the founders, but I simply could not call myself a
'bright' and eventually forgot about them.
Post by Tom McDonald
... and the imbroglio over Atheism-Plus.
[shudder]

Is that still a thing?
Post by Tom McDonald
Much of the creationist-like thinking, assertions and fear of actual
research to find out what's true among those faux-liberal and actual
alt.right content creators is what TLD has been fighting all this time.
I'd be surprised if he weren't disheartened by seeing the
anti-intellectualism and dishonesty he fought so spectacularly being
used by folks whose atheism should, properly applied, have insulated
them from that behavior.
Do we know his real name and who he is?
Post by Tom McDonald
I guess atheists are like any other group of folks. Attitudes, motives,
behavior, etc., all over the map, with the sole uniting factor of not
believing in god/s giving an illusion of community.
Amen!
--
Malte Runz
Tom McDonald
2017-03-28 00:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:50:03 -0500, Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tom McDonald
I think he got jaded by the increasing fuckwittery of some parts of the
YouTube atheist community, I suspect partly because of the increasing
success of anti-SJW/anti-feminist/anti-intellectual popular YouTube
atheists. Of course, there was also the brief episodes of atheists
calling themselves 'brights' ...
Hey, I remember them! I was living in Montreal at the time, and
believed it was time for me to spread the good word. I exchanged a few
emails with the founders, but I simply could not call myself a
'bright' and eventually forgot about them.
Post by Tom McDonald
... and the imbroglio over Atheism-Plus.
[shudder]
Is that still a thing?
Don't think so, at least not by name in any way I've heard of lately.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tom McDonald
Much of the creationist-like thinking, assertions and fear of actual
research to find out what's true among those faux-liberal and actual
alt.right content creators is what TLD has been fighting all this time.
I'd be surprised if he weren't disheartened by seeing the
anti-intellectualism and dishonesty he fought so spectacularly being
used by folks whose atheism should, properly applied, have insulated
them from that behavior.
Do we know his real name and who he is?
I don't know, though I think he's known to some YouTubers. He seems to
be some sort of university-level academic. He is clearly British (or
seems to me to be). He does seem to have a very good grasp on American
politics and culture, so he may well either be working in the US or with
American academics. Just guesses, though.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tom McDonald
I guess atheists are like any other group of folks. Attitudes, motives,
behavior, etc., all over the map, with the sole uniting factor of not
believing in god/s giving an illusion of community.
Amen!
Some studies *seem* to suggest that atheists have certain identifiable
*tendencies*, e.g. education, intelligence, lower sensitivity to social
cues, etc. But these could well be cases of correlation, not causation;
and they are at best tendencies, not universal traits. Basically, we
could pretend to some kinds of superiority in some areas, but, aside
from making ourselves feel good, doesn't mean jack shit.

I'm fine with being part of a group that would have me! ;-)
Don Martin
2017-03-28 22:38:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:38:18 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:50:03 -0500, Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tom McDonald
I think he got jaded by the increasing fuckwittery of some parts of the
YouTube atheist community, I suspect partly because of the increasing
success of anti-SJW/anti-feminist/anti-intellectual popular YouTube
atheists. Of course, there was also the brief episodes of atheists
calling themselves 'brights' ...
Hey, I remember them! I was living in Montreal at the time, and
believed it was time for me to spread the good word. I exchanged a few
emails with the founders, but I simply could not call myself a
'bright' and eventually forgot about them.
Post by Tom McDonald
... and the imbroglio over Atheism-Plus.
[shudder]
Is that still a thing?
Don't think so, at least not by name in any way I've heard of lately.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tom McDonald
Much of the creationist-like thinking, assertions and fear of actual
research to find out what's true among those faux-liberal and actual
alt.right content creators is what TLD has been fighting all this time.
I'd be surprised if he weren't disheartened by seeing the
anti-intellectualism and dishonesty he fought so spectacularly being
used by folks whose atheism should, properly applied, have insulated
them from that behavior.
Do we know his real name and who he is?
I don't know, though I think he's known to some YouTubers. He seems to
be some sort of university-level academic. He is clearly British (or
seems to me to be). He does seem to have a very good grasp on American
politics and culture, so he may well either be working in the US or with
American academics. Just guesses, though.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tom McDonald
I guess atheists are like any other group of folks. Attitudes, motives,
behavior, etc., all over the map, with the sole uniting factor of not
believing in god/s giving an illusion of community.
Amen!
Some studies *seem* to suggest that atheists have certain identifiable
*tendencies*, e.g. education, intelligence, lower sensitivity to social
cues, etc. But these could well be cases of correlation, not causation;
and they are at best tendencies, not universal traits. Basically, we
could pretend to some kinds of superiority in some areas, but, aside
from making ourselves feel good, doesn't mean jack shit.
I'm fine with being part of a group that would have me! ;-)
There goes your lower sensitivity again! (I, too, feel that I have
been only partially socialized.)
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-28 01:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:50:03 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 07:36:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:44:34 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 9:17:23 PM UTC-5,
6:26 PMMalte Runz On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:58:17 -0700 (PDT),
Post by A***@yahoo.com
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:59:01 -0700 (PDT),
(snip)
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an
expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists
who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are
hillarious. Dinosaurs laying eggs whilst running from
the flood and so on.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being
duped by people who lie for money, and count on their
flok to remain uneducated.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists
to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
-- Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/ and see if you can find any research.
Watch his videos on YouTube and pick a good one for me.
Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
http://youtu.be/xvsOUXeVz5o
One of my favorites. The kicker is that the YouTuber, Martymer,
is a physics teacher! I don't think Juby's credentials stretch
to that height.
http://tinyurl.com/lwxfnpr
Have to agree with you there. The Living Dinosaur is a living
legend. It is sad that he has either stopped producing videos or is
doing so very infrequently. Last vids were a year ago. :-(
http://youtu.be/n86uymCx2zI
68&ab_channel=TheLivingDinosaur
http://tinyurl.com/ks23uq2
I watched them all, and I wish he'd make another 41 videos.
I think he got jaded by the increasing fuckwittery of some parts of the
YouTube atheist community, I suspect partly because of the increasing
success of anti-SJW/anti-feminist/anti-intellectual popular YouTube
atheists. Of course, there was also the brief episodes of atheists
calling themselves 'brights' ...
Hey, I remember them! I was living in Montreal at the time, and
believed it was time for me to spread the good word. I exchanged a few
emails with the founders, but I simply could not call myself a
'bright' and eventually forgot about them.
Post by Tom McDonald
... and the imbroglio over Atheism-Plus.
[shudder]
Is that still a thing?
What the fuck is "Atheism-Plus"?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tom McDonald
Much of the creationist-like thinking, assertions and fear of actual
research to find out what's true among those faux-liberal and actual
alt.right content creators is what TLD has been fighting all this time.
I'd be surprised if he weren't disheartened by seeing the
anti-intellectualism and dishonesty he fought so spectacularly being
used by folks whose atheism should, properly applied, have insulated
them from that behavior.
Do we know his real name and who he is?
Post by Tom McDonald
I guess atheists are like any other group of folks. Attitudes, motives,
behavior, etc., all over the map, with the sole uniting factor of not
believing in god/s giving an illusion of community.
Amen!
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Malte Runz
2017-03-28 10:01:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:16:14 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<***@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What the fuck is "Atheism-Plus"?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus
--
Malte Runz
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-28 10:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:16:14 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
(snip)
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What the fuck is "Atheism-Plus"?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus
In other words, it's basic human decency and intelligence. Why does that
have to be a separate movement?
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Tom McDonald
2017-03-28 13:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:16:14 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
(snip)
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What the fuck is "Atheism-Plus"?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus
In other words, it's basic human decency and intelligence.
Or what is also known as 'liberal political correctness'. :-)
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Why does that
have to be a separate movement?
I think A+ failed because it assumed that a group of folks who valued
rationality and evidence would also value humanism and our status as
social animals. Lots of folks thought that way. Lots more, it seems,
preferred to keep their atheism separate from their social views. And,
sadly, many other atheists don't really value rationality, evidence and
our status as social animals over their fixed political and/or social
ideologies.
Alex W.
2017-03-28 23:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:16:14 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
(snip)
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What the fuck is "Atheism-Plus"?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus
In other words, it's basic human decency and intelligence. Why does that
have to be a separate movement?
Because we are humans, and it is our basic birth-right to pigeonhole
everyone and everything, and to slap labels on anything and anyone. If
we can also turn it into an alphabet-soup acronym, so much the better.
Malte Runz
2017-03-28 23:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:16:14 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
(snip)
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What the fuck is "Atheism-Plus"?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus
In other words, it's basic human decency and intelligence. Why does that
have to be a separate movement?
Because we are humans, and it is our basic birth-right to pigeonhole
everyone and everything, and to slap labels on anything and anyone. If
we can also turn it into an alphabet-soup acronym, so much the better.
Cults often use a lot those, creating a code understood only by the
members. The military jargon is also littered with acronyms and first
letter abbriviations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_military_abbreviations

'Littered' is an understatement, as it turned out.
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
2017-03-26 08:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
He is full of crap, and you refuse to see it because he confirms your
beliefs.
--
Malte Runz
A***@yahoo.com
2017-03-26 16:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
He is full of crap, and you refuse to see it because he confirms your
beliefs.
--
Malte Runz
It's called documentation and actual hands-on investigation. It's what he's done. What about you?
Malte Runz
2017-03-26 18:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
He is full of crap, and you refuse to see it because he confirms your
beliefs.
--
Malte Runz
It's called documentation and actual hands-on investigation. It's what he's done. ...
He stands in front of a screen or visits sites where he tells his lies
about what he sees. The lies you want to hear, like 'human footprints
in the Paluxy river' and 'vertical fossilized trre trunks are evidence
for the flood' (which have determined they aren't since it can happen
during a local event).
Did you go to his web site? He is in it for the money. Two links lead
you to his videos, and the other two are about donating or buying his
books and CD's. He's not investigating or doing research. He wouldn't
know how.
... What about you?
Spent a few years at university, back in the late 80's, getting a
bachelor's in geology. What about you?
--
Malte Runz
Ted
2017-03-26 11:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
6:26 PMMalte Runz
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go
on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
Of which he does nothing. Go have a look at his site
http://ianjuby.org/
and see if you can find any research. Watch his videos on YouTube and
pick a good one for me. Time for breakfast.
I've seen his Youtube videos. Good stuff.
Hmm ... I suspect you're retarded, but this will tell us for sure:

This message is encrypted with TardBlock® which is special software that
prevents retards from reading or responding to posts.

Can you read this and respond? If not, then you must be retarded, because
TardBlock® blocks only retards. Everybody else can read it and respond to
it.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-29 01:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. ...
He has no formal training, and his ideas are hillarious. Dinosaurs
laying eggs whilst running from the flood and so on.
... Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. ...
Hovind is equally untrustworthy. Again, you're being duped by people
who lie for money, and count on their flok to remain uneducated.
... On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
The Hamster's 'replica', or the rock in Turkey?
--
Malte Runz
it's not a piece of paper that makes a person, it's the actual research.
If you don't know how to properly interpret and understand the information you will likely make mistakes, some innocent, some deliberate. Hovind is one of the most deliberate kind of mistake makers. Sometimes it seems like he might now what he's talking about and twists it into something of complete crap. Other times he doesn't seem to have any knowledge of what he 's talking about. He is, as should be obvious to anybody, a complete scam artist who got snookered by his own family.

It doesn't matter how much research y7ou do if you do it wrong or reach conclusions not supported by the evidence.

Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind are not to be trusted ever. They deliberately distort the facts whenever it suits them. What is Hovind's scam hge works now? Some sort of sacred water or holy sand or other equally fake crap trying to get his lifestyle back that being a convicted criminal took away.
Marvin Sebourn
2017-03-26 00:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
Kent Hovind goes on field trips? To a Creation Museum?

Noah's Ark site? I've seen a very similar formation in southern Oklahoma, east of I-35. A doubly plunging syncline. Maybe it was from one of the Mormon Arks which landed near present day Kansas City.

Tell us about your field trip experiences, Asteroid. Been to the Channeled Scablands, Hell's Gate, etc? Rhea County Courthouse, talked to Bryan College rep? Grand Canyon, rim to river and return? Your formal geologic education?

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-29 01:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
Kent Hovind goes on field trips? To a Creation Museum?
Noah's Ark site? I've seen a very similar formation in southern Oklahoma, east of I-35. A doubly plunging syncline. Maybe it was from one of the Mormon Arks which landed near present day Kansas City.
Tell us about your field trip experiences, Asteroid. Been to the Channeled Scablands, Hell's Gate, etc? Rhea County Courthouse, talked to Bryan College rep? Grand Canyon, rim to river and return? Your formal geologic education?
Marvin Sebourn
If you want to see some REALLY GREAT strata, watch the first few minutes of The Great Wall. I don't know if that is Chinese dessert, Australian or New Zealand dessert, but it's one of the few times I saw a dessert and thought it beautiful.
There is an abundance of strata to be seen and the movies isn't terrible either.
Marvin Sebourn
2017-03-29 14:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst
Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it
accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results
of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time
column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see
great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you a
picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy those great
ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an evolutionist! Note
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project
it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't now. All
the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in fact, from
environments that were subject to periodic flooding. The strata are
mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in, usually, swampy environments
where large quantities/depths of sediment are laid down relatively
quickly and relatively often. Read and be enlightened. Note that the
author of the TO article specifically uses 19th century reports first to
show how bad and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you yourself
love the old stuff, just like you did here with Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are
still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic
Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are
upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in
river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with
rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a
coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and
rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his
interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of
sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of
these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century literature refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this
remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his stuff,
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of
numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that
uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go on location to verify facts. Kent Hovind, another person you despise does the same thing. On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists to go to the Noah's Ark site.
Kent Hovind goes on field trips? To a Creation Museum?
Noah's Ark site? I've seen a very similar formation in southern Oklahoma, east of I-35. A doubly plunging syncline. Maybe it was from one of the Mormon Arks which landed near present day Kansas City.
Tell us about your field trip experiences, Asteroid. Been to the Channeled Scablands, Hell's Gate, etc? Rhea County Courthouse, talked to Bryan College rep? Grand Canyon, rim to river and return? Your formal geologic education?
Marvin Sebourn
If you want to see some REALLY GREAT strata, watch the first few minutes of The Great Wall. I don't know if that is Chinese dessert, Australian or New Zealand dessert, but it's one of the few times I saw a dessert and thought it beautiful.
There is an abundance of strata to be seen and the movies isn't terrible either.
The scenery looks beautiful and otherwise interesting, CH. The reviews I read, the movie is being panned, but I'm eager to see it--the trailer reminds me a bit of steampunk.

Thanks!
Marvin

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com
Tom McDonald
2017-03-26 17:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:47:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named
Ernst Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he
did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits.
Let's say it accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the
results of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the
geologic time column. See, if you look at the great depths
of those strata we see great ages.
So, what's wrong with that you ask? Well, if I could show you
a picture of a tree penetrating strata would that destroy
those great ages that you so believed in? Not if you're an
evolutionist! Note the picture of the tree penetrating
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by A***@yahoo.com
because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to
project it with nervous knees."
This wasn't a problem for geologists in the 1800s, and it isn't
now. All the trees found that seem to cross strata are, in
fact, from environments that were subject to periodic flooding.
The strata are mostly silt, sand and clays laid down in,
usually, swampy environments where large quantities/depths of
sediment are laid down relatively quickly and relatively often.
Read and be enlightened. Note that the author of the TO article
specifically uses 19th century reports first to show how bad
and how early the 'polystrate' trees bullshit in support of
creationism was debunked. I thought you'd like it, since you
yourself love the old stuff, just like you did here with
Haeckel.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century,
and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868)
described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova
Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few
metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones.
These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that
penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal
seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted
sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered
and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these
fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current
interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An
interesting feature of these examples is the presence of
vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling
of the stumps.
"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent
reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with
conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using
very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems"
exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature
refutes their presentations."
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/
"Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of
this remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it."
The author of this important scientific paper has, AFAICT, a
legitimate degree in Geological Engineering. So, he knows his
"But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood
of numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event
that uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright
position."
He must know that what he describes is highly implausible.
In the section 'Related articles' we find gems like "That's a
Fact: Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No
less!
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is
comedy gold!
Not really. Ian is one of those onsite creationists who actually go
on location to verify facts. Kent Hovind, another person you despise
does the same thing. On the other hand I can't get ye evolutionists
to go to the Noah's Ark site.
I've seen a number of episodes of Juby's show, and many of Kent Hovind's
creationism videos. Neither one does original research, although Juby
does at least occasionally nod towards actual research. Though even
then, Juby misses the point far more often than not, and always puts a
creationist spin on the evidence he cherry-picks. One example of his
'scholarship' is when he claimed a certain type of raptor dinosaur laid
eggs in a circle, but then claimed that fossil eggs laid by that same
type of dinosaur were laid in pairs in a straight line. He claimed that
this meant that the eggs were laid as the dino was running uphill to
escape the flood. In reality, they were laid by an entirely different
species of raptor dinosaur which always laid its eggs in pairs in rows.
His own reference noted that difference, but Juby either lied about it
or stupidly missed the point.

As for Kent Hovind, he does no research worthy of the name, but rather
has developed a patter based on decades-out-of-date, misconstrued
scientific work (mostly as reported in grade-school or high-school
textbooks from two or more decades ago, not actual scientific papers or
journals) and then gives the evidence a creationist spin so wild that
it's almost impossible to believe that he read anything about the
material under discussion.

If these two are your examples of 'good' creationist science, you are
not to be trusted with matches.
Malte Runz
2017-03-25 23:41:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:35:27 -0500, Tom McDonald
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
That's 'Professor Ian fucking Juby' to you.
--
Malte Runz
Tom McDonald
2017-03-26 17:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:35:27 -0500, Tom McDonald
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
That's 'Professor Ian fucking Juby' to you.
I sit corrected. Yes, I have to bow to your (and "Dr. Dr. Dr." Carl
Baugh's) superior sagacity!
Christopher A. Lee
2017-03-26 17:40:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:36:18 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:35:27 -0500, Tom McDonald
(snip)
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Malte Runz
Global Flood" and "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". No less!
Morris even references Ian fucking Juby as an expert! This is comedy gold!
That's 'Professor Ian fucking Juby' to you.
I sit corrected. Yes, I have to bow to your (and "Dr. Dr. Dr." Carl
Baugh's) superior sagacity!
As in....

"Doctor, Doctor, Doctor, I woke up this morning under the bed"

"You must be a little potty"

"But, Doctor, I'd been dreaming I was a set of drapes"

"Pull yourself together"
Davej
2017-03-26 00:34:12 UTC
Permalink
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
Eric
2017-03-29 15:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Once upon a time a long, long time ago, an evolutionist named Ernst Haeckel liked to make up stories. And this story he did tell.
Just look at that strata. Just look at those deposits. Let's say it accumulated a foot in a million years.
Nope. Those weren't his exact words, but the key is that the results of his thoughts resulted in what we now know as the geologic time column. See, if you look at the great depths of those strata we see great ages.
https://www.pinterest.com/jasonblowers/creation-and-the-malarchy-known-as-evolution/
Evolutionist: "Well blow me down. I'll still believe in great ages because it's gotta be true. I'm smart - or at least I try to project it with nervous knees."
The age of a strata is not determined by how quickly it formed, but how long ago it formed. Such a stimple concept, yet creationists can't seem to understand it.

Yet another simple concept that they can't understand is that strata can form at different rates. Just because one geologic layer formed quickly does not mean that all geologic strata form quickly. Yet another simple concept that creationists can't understand.

To finish it off, geology has nothing to do with evolution. Even if evolution was false, the great ages seen in geology would still be true. The methods that geologists use to measure age have nothing to do with evolution.
Loading...