The Geologic Column -->EXPOSED
adman
Read some truth for a change
--
A cup of coffee and some reality with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
The Enigmatic One
gr...@hotmail.ett says...
>
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
>Read some truth for a change
No need. We already know you're a fucking moron. But thanks for
posting some more corroboration.
-Tim
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> Read some truth for a change
If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
Mark
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
>Read some truth for a change
I do, we just never see any from you and this is no different.
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to run
away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you
failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming Paul Neuman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
Mike Dworetsky
news:5AXFk.47880$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
You're a moron, you know that? Here I am, reading real, actual truth--so
I'll share some with you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html
Start here, and by the way you still owe us a demonstration of the maths you
claimed would support your views in another recent thread. So far, nothing
on this from you.
Basically, you are crowing about how wonderful every kook and creationist
author you could find is, and pretending that real scientists don't know
what they are talking about.
Willful ignorance on your part.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
adman
Math does not lie
No need to shoot the messanger.
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
adman
Perhaps the article was too complicated as is demonstrated by your
frustration and use of nasty words?
Yes, that is it. I can always tell when you bozo's have no answer to truth
when you start calling on vulgar language to release your frustration.
You must need a more simplistic approach. Here ya go:
The average sediment transport rate through the Grand Canyon was measured to
be around 500,000 tons per day.
Multiply that by 365. And then multiply the result by your claimed age of
the earth.
The bottom of the Grand Canyon should be somewhere in China by now!
I won't mention the erosion of the rocky's. Too embarrassing for you.
--
A smile and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
adman
> "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
> news:5AXFk.47880$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>
>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>> --
>> A cup of coffee and some reality with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>
> You're a moron, you know that? Here I am, reading real, actual
> truth--so I'll share some with you.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html
>
> Start here, and by the way you still owe us a demonstration of the
> maths you claimed would support your views in another recent thread.
> So far, nothing on this from you.
>
If you would read more then just one web-site on the topic perhaps you would
learn something for a change
And what thread would that be?
> Basically, you are crowing about how wonderful every kook and
> creationist author you could find is, and pretending that real
> scientists don't know what they are talking about.
Pitman is not a kook silly. And i like how he puts his name on the web page.
He does not beg for donations on his main page for the research either.
He shares his information with young inquiring minds without a fee. How
about that.
>
> Willful ignorance on your part.
Willful stupidity on yours.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
rossum
>Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>>
>
>Math does not lie
I have some math which says that the chance of God existing is less
than 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942 chance of existing. Math does not lie, so
according to you I am right.
>
>No need to shoot the messanger.
Only when the messenger is regurgitating stuff that is already known
to be nonsense.
rossum
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>>
>
>Math does not lie
But you, and a lot of others do.
>
>No need to shoot the messanger.
You are not.
>
>
>
>A cup of coffee and some truth with:
You are a total stranger to the truth.
>
>·.¸Adman¸.·
>^^^^^^^^^^^
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <_D3Gk.44887$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>>
>
> Math does not lie
Bullshit. Quote: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and
statistics". The Right Honorable Benjamin Disreali, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield,
KG, PC, FRS, late Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government.
See further Mark Twain: "Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have
the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli
would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies:
lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"
>
> No need to shoot the messanger.
Not only are you an idiot, you're an _ignorant_ idiot.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Mike Dworetsky
"adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>> "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
>> news:5AXFk.47880$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>>>
>>> --
>>> A cup of coffee and some reality with:
>>>
>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>
>> You're a moron, you know that? Here I am, reading real, actual
>> truth--so I'll share some with you.
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html
>>
>> Start here, and by the way you still owe us a demonstration of the
>> maths you claimed would support your views in another recent thread.
>> So far, nothing on this from you.
>>
>
> If you would read more then just one web-site on the topic perhaps you
> would learn something for a change
>
I read lots of web sites, journals, books, etc. But I tend to avoid the
ones written by Creationists, it is true. For sure I can't learn anything
from those sites except how stubborn and foolish people can be when they
think truth comes only from a 2,500 year old book.
> And what thread would that be?
Here is a copy of my posting which was in the thread "More Flood Evidence".
You never replied. So how about showing us the maths you claim back up the
creationists?
Copy begins:
> "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
news:xVrEk.45825$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>r norman wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:07:00 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>> Fact 1: Nov. 18, 1929, The New England coastline experience a
>>> powerful earthquake centered along the continental shelf off
>>> Newfoundland.
>>>
>>> Fact 2 The continental shelf was crossed by 13 telephone cables
>>> providing communication between the US and Europe. There were eight
>>> phone cables, one atop the other each one descending a few feet
>>> lower then the next one, the other 5 side by side with equal space
>>> between.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fact 3 The first eight cables broke all at the same. The other five
>>> broke one at a time over a 13 hour period.
>>>
>>> Fact 4 Two scientist discovered why in 1953. They named the
>>> discovered Turbidity Currents
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbidity_current
>>>
>>>
>>> Fact 5 We find turbidites in the Grand Canyon and 30% of all
>>> sediments on land were deposited by turbidites. (Arjen Van Der Wolf
>>> Sedimentologist: Netherlands)
>>
>> Given that turbidity currents are generally products of seismic
>> action, just what does it have to do with the flood? I don't recall
>> reading about earthquakes in the Bible.
>
> I am sure ancient man knew all about seismology and could describe it in
> modern scientific terms.
> Or, Maybe that part that says "on the same day all the fountains of the
> great deep were broken up, and...." may ring a bell.
>
>>
>> Just what is it about the geology of the surface of the earth is
>> supposed to be explained by turbidity currents acting in one single
>> instance some 6000 years ago? (or longer if you aren't a YEC)
>
> Simple math, really.
> --
> Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
>
Really? In that case, you can show us your working out of whatever it is
you think you are working out mathematically. But you can't, because you
don't know WTF you are talking about.
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
> stupidity
>
I have suspected this about you for some time now.
>
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Copy ends.
>> Basically, you are crowing about how wonderful every kook and
>> creationist author you could find is, and pretending that real
>> scientists don't know what they are talking about.
>
> Pitman is not a kook silly. And i like how he puts his name on the web
> page.
If by that you mean he doesn't run around with an ostrich feather up his
arse, yes. But he is definitely on the weird Creationist side of things.
He is not even a geologist.
>
> He does not beg for donations on his main page for the research either.
So what?
>
> He shares his information with young inquiring minds without a fee. How
> about that.
His advice is worth every penny, to be sure.
>
>>
>> Willful ignorance on your part.
>
> Willful stupidity on yours.
>
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
--
adman
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:53:59 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>> On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>>
>>>> Read some truth for a change
>>>
>>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>>>
>>
>> Math does not lie
> I have some math which says that the chance of God existing is less
> than 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942 chance of existing. Math does not lie, so
> according to you I am right.
I can pull figures out of my ear too
>
>>
>> No need to shoot the messanger.
> Only when the messenger is regurgitating stuff that is already known
> to be nonsense.
>
> rossum
>
>>
>>
>>
>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
--
adman
> Really? In that case, you can show us your working out of whatever
> it is you think you are working out mathematically. But you can't,
> because you don't know WTF you are talking about.
The math is 1+1=2
If turbidity currents happen under water, then everywhere we see turbidity
current evidence on dry land must have been under water.
Mike Painter
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>>
>
> Math does not lie
>
> No need to shoot the messanger.
I can prove that you can't pick up a pencil using math.
(M)-adman
by all means...
--
Mike Dworetsky
news:mp7Gk.42402$XT1...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
I thought you were trying to use maths to prove there was a Biblical
universal Flood.
You flunk. A resit of this exam is possible in one year's time.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
At some point in the very distant past, sure.
geo...@hotmail.com
Short version of the troll's link, for those who can't be bothered to
read:
'I don't understand a lot about the Earth's current geological state,
so scientists are wrong. However, the evidence does just happen to
support a story mentioned in the Bible that people like me have been
making pseudoscientific shit up about for years. We look forward to
setting your children's education back at least one hundred years.
Please browse the links at the bottom for more misunderstandings of
science which we can feed to the unprepared, and waste the time of the
scientists who work to improve our lives and understanding of the
universe. And the name of our website is just a coincidence, because
creationism is nothing to do with ID. Those people don't support us at
all.'
Stuart
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> Read some truth for a change
>
> --
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
So where's the oil company Pittman founded? If conventional geology
is wrong, he should be making a killing?
Pittman is well known to us. He's the guy who still doesn't quite
grasp
the geometry of chevron folds.
Stuart
The Enigmatic One
says...
>
>
>rossum wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:53:59 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>>> On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>>>
>>>>> Read some truth for a change
>>>>
>>>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Math does not lie
>> I have some math which says that the chance of God existing is less
>> than 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942 chance of existing. Math does not lie, so
>> according to you I am right.
>
>I can pull figures out of my ear too
And, even though you're a worthless fucktard, you do figure out a way to do
just that. And often.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
says...
>Yes, that is it. I can always tell when you bozo's have no answer to truth
>when you start calling on vulgar language to release your frustration.
I insult you because you deserve nothing else.
Now fuck off, moron.
-Tim
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ent>:
<snip>
>I can pull figures out of my ear too
No, really? We'd never have guessed...
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Boikat
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> Read some truth for a change
>
>
Then why did you post a link to a website full of lies and
misrepresentations?
Boikat
heekster
>The Enigmatic One wrote:
>> In article <5AXFk.47880$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>> gr...@hotmail.ett says...
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>> No need. We already know you're a fucking moron. But thanks for
>> posting some more corroboration.
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps the article was too complicated as is demonstrated by your
>frustration and use of nasty words?
>
>Yes, that is it. I can always tell when you bozo's have no answer to truth
>when you start calling on vulgar language to release your frustration.
>
Whereas you resort to levels of imbecility, hitherto unknown to
science, and not even hinted at in the Septuagint.
>You must need a more simplistic approach. Here ya go:
>
You are the premier paradigm of simplistic, you make nematodes seem
incredibly complex.
>The average sediment transport rate through the Grand Canyon was measured to
>be around 500,000 tons per day.
>
No shit? You don't understand averages, means, or standard
deviations, do ya, sunny jim?
Who measured it, and how did they measure it? Come on, asshole, you
claimed that it was measured. Now back it up.
You didn't mention how long a period overwhich that "average" was
maintained, either, pookie. Maybe you can ask the guy that "measured"
it.
>Multiply that by 365. And then multiply the result by your claimed age of
>the earth.
>
And you will get a meaningless number, because you literally have no
idea of what you are talking about.
>The bottom of the Grand Canyon should be somewhere in China by now!
>
Now I know what an aborted thought looks like.
We know that your cranium is wholly embedded somewhere beyond your
rectum, by now.
Boikat
No shit, asshole? The problem for you is you thinki they all occured
at the same tim, about 5500 years ago.
Boikat
Cory Albrecht
> The Enigmatic One wrote:
>> In article <5AXFk.47880$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>> gr...@hotmail.ett says...
>>>
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>> No need. We already know you're a fucking moron. But thanks for
>> posting some more corroboration.
>>
>>
>
> Perhaps the article was too complicated as is demonstrated by your
> frustration and use of nasty words?
>
> Yes, that is it. I can always tell when you bozo's have no answer to truth
> when you start calling on vulgar language to release your frustration.
Good to see that you;re still resorting to argumentum ad hominem
when somebody debunks your silly claims rather tha actually dealing
with what they said.
Cory Albrecht
But not all at the same time.
Shane
> rossum wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:53:59 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>>> On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>>>
>>>>> Read some truth for a change
>>>>
>>>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Math does not lie
>> I have some math which says that the chance of God existing is less
>> than 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942 chance of existing. Math does not lie, so
>> according to you I am right.
>
> I can pull figures out of my ear too
We know, and not only figures, a whole theology, and much of
what you consider to be science.
Shane
I thinks its called playing the hand that you have been
dealt. It makes one wonder if people like adman are
hypocrites because they are creationists or creationists
because they are hypocrites.
Stuart
False. Welcome to the modern theory of Plate Tectonics. When
continents
collide, and they do collide, marine sediments between them are thrust
up onto land.
There are other ways in which your assertions are wrong.
By why bother ...
Stuart
Boikat
Let's not rule out "stupid", just yet. :)
Boikat
Augray
<VC3Gk.44886$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net> :
>The Enigmatic One wrote:
>> In article <5AXFk.47880$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>> gr...@hotmail.ett says...
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>> No need. We already know you're a fucking moron. But thanks for
>> posting some more corroboration.
>
>Perhaps the article was too complicated as is demonstrated by your
>frustration and use of nasty words?
>
>Yes, that is it. I can always tell when you bozo's have no answer to truth
>when you start calling on vulgar language to release your frustration.
>
>You must need a more simplistic approach. Here ya go:
>
>The average sediment transport rate through the Grand Canyon was measured to
>be around 500,000 tons per day.
>
>Multiply that by 365. And then multiply the result by your claimed age of
>the earth.
>
>The bottom of the Grand Canyon should be somewhere in China by now!
Who claims that the Grand Canyon is as old as the Earth?
>I won't mention the erosion of the rocky's. Too embarrassing for you.
I doubt you have the competence to discuss the topic.
(M)-adman
> On Oct 5, 8:13 am, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ent> wrote:
>> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>>> Really? In that case, you can show us your working out of whatever
>>> it is you think you are working out mathematically. But you can't,
>>> because you don't know WTF you are talking about.
>>
>> The math is 1+1=2
>>
>> If turbidity currents happen under water, then everywhere we see
>
> False. Welcome to the modern theory of Plate Tectonics. When
> continents
> collide, and they do collide, marine sediments between them are thrust
> up onto land.
Obviously the plate movement has not destroyed all of the turbidity current
evidence. It is there.
>
> There are other ways in which your assertions are wrong.
>
> By why bother ...
Stu, you have an errosion problem too.
The colorado should have a delta the size of mexico by now. Where is it?
(M)-adman
> On 5 Oct, 05:47, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>
>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>> --
>> A cup of coffee and some reality with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Short version of the troll's link, for those who can't be bothered to
> read:
>
> 'I don't understand a lot
Which sums you up nicely.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
Where is your web site? Where is your degree?
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
heekster
wrote:
>Stuart wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 6:47 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>>>
>>> --
>>> A cup of coffee and some abject stupidity with:
>>>
>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>> So where's the oil company Pittman founded? If conventional geology
>> is wrong, he should be making a killing?
>>
>> Pittman is well known to us. He's the guy who still doesn't quite
>> grasp
>> the geometry of chevron folds.
>>
>> Stuart
>
>Where is your web site? Where is your degree?
Where is your common sense?
(M)-adman
And there is your proof people in lurk-land. When confronted with the
problem of sediment and erosion, all they can do is be insulting and do some
hand waving.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Boikat
> heekster wrote:
>
> >> The Enigmatic One wrote:
> >>> g...@hotmail.ett says...
No, people in lurkland already know you are to much of a fuctard to
take seriously any more, so all you deserve is literary abuse for your
willful stupidity.
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
How about this, instead, asshole:
http://www.political-humor.org/graphics/how-about-a-nice-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-up.jpg
Boikat
Boikat
There are two answers to that:
1) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html
2) the same place they would be if they were the result of a WWF,
except if the canyon was the result of a WWF, the delta would be
glaringly obvious, which is isn't, due to the above mentioned reasons:
some was simply desolved in the rainwater, the rest spread out through
various geophysical processes, which takes several times the time
between now and the supposed date of ye olde floode.
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
You are allergic to truth.
Boikat
Boikat
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 6:47 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> >> Read some truth for a change
>
> >> --
> >> A cup of coffee and some abject stupidity with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > So where's the oil company Pittman founded? If conventional geology
> > is wrong, he should be making a killing?
>
> > Pittman is well known to us. He's the guy who still doesn't quite
> > grasp
> > the geometry of chevron folds.
>
> > Stuart
>
> Where is your web site? Where is your degree?
>
Where's yours, hypocrite?
Boikat
Boikat
> > On 5 Oct, 05:47, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >>http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> >> Read some truth for a change
>
> >> --
> >> A cup of coffee and some reality with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Short version of the troll's link, for those who can't be bothered to
> > read:
>
> > 'I don't understand a lot
>
> Which sums you up nicely.
Projection.
Boikat
_Arthur
> The average sediment transport rate through the Grand Canyon was measured to
> be around 500,000 tons per day.
The normal flow of the Colorado is 620 cubic meters per second. Of
water
So, about 620 metric tonnes per second, Or 53.6 million tonnes of
water a day.
Your number 500,000 tons, is approximatively 1% of that. So the river
must carry 1% per weight of sand, gravel, loam and other sediments.
The numbers seem high but in the proper ballpark. Note that there are
numerous dams over the Colorado, which would impede the flow of
sediments.
Also over 90% of the water is diverted for irrigation purposes; does
that mean that the remaining "water" is 10% sediments, brown sludge
when it reaches the sea in Baja California ?
Of course, the Colorado River bassindrains 630,000 square kilometers;
now calculate how long it would take to erode 630,000 square
kilometers of land by 1 millimeter, at the rate of 500,000 tons a
day. Might take a while.
Boikat
Especially since adman can't get past "fingers and toes".
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> >> Read some truth for a change
>
>
> Math does not lie
>
He has lied repeatedly in dialogues on this forum.
His arguments are utterly bogus.
RF
> No need to shoot the messanger.
>
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Devils Advocaat
> The Enigmatic One wrote:
> > In article <5AXFk.47880$De7.35...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> > g...@hotmail.ett says...
>
>
> >> Read some truth for a change
>
> > posting some more corroboration.
>
> Perhaps the article was too complicated as is demonstrated by your
> frustration and use of nasty words?
>
> Yes, that is it. I can always tell when you bozo's have no answer to truth
> when you start calling on vulgar language to release your frustration.
>
>
> be around 500,000 tons per day.
>
> the earth.
But that requires the major assumption that the river that formed the
Grand Canyon had existed from the moment the Earth was formed, and
that would mean there was water on the surface of the Earth.
That is a notion that you dismissed yourself in a posting in July:
"you know that the solar system was too hot to for any planet to have
water,
"billions" of years ago, so why deny it?"
(See thread entitled "Science Caught in YET ANOTHER LIE")
So tell me adman, was there water on the surface of the earth billions
of years ago or not?
After all you cannot have it both ways.
>
> The bottom of the Grand Canyon should be somewhere in China by now!
>
> I won't mention the erosion of the rocky's. Too embarrassing for you.
>
> --
> A smile and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
Nonsense, not to mention childish and obsessive.
I used the "claimed age of the earth" to illustrate the point DA. To make
it more vivid. At no time during this conversation did i make the claim the
colorado has been flowing since the formation of the earth.
Grow up for goodness sake
Now, did you want to address the erosion aspect of the conversation?
>>
>> The bottom of the Grand Canyon should be somewhere in China by now!
>>
>> I won't mention the erosion of the rocky's. Too embarrassing for you.
>>
>> --
>> A smile and some truth with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 6:47 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> >> Read some truth for a change
>
> >> --
> >> A cup of coffee and some abject stupidity with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > So where's the oil company Pittman founded? If conventional geology
> > is wrong, he should be making a killing?
>
> > Pittman is well known to us. He's the guy who still doesn't quite
> > grasp
> > the geometry of chevron folds.
>
> > Stuart
>
> Where is your web site? Where is your degree?
>
Wow a website means you know somethun'
Who duh thunk it.
Google Stuart Weinstein geophysicist
That should answer your questions.
dumbassman.
Stuart
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 8:13 am, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ent> wrote:
> >> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> >>> Really? In that case, you can show us your working out of whatever
> >>> it is you think you are working out mathematically. But you can't,
> >>> because you don't know WTF you are talking about.
>
> >> The math is 1+1=2
>
> >> If turbidity currents happen under water, then everywhere we see
> >> on dry lanturbidity current evidence d must have been under water.
>
> > False. Welcome to the modern theory of Plate Tectonics. When
> > continents
> > collide, and they do collide, marine sediments between them are thrust
> > up onto land.
>
> Obviously the plate movement has not destroyed all of the turbidity current
> evidence. It is there.
>
>
You're talking out of your ass, man.
>
> > There are other ways in which your assertions are wrong.
>
> > By why bother ...
>
> Stu, you have an errosion problem too.
No I don't.
>
> The colorado should have a delta the size of mexico by now. Where is it?
>
The size of Mexico?
Show all maths.
Repeating creatobabbling talking points will not help you.
I'm a professional.
They are imbeciles.
Stuart
(M)-adman
Where is your proof
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
common sense Stu. That much erosion would have visual evidence to be
observed
Augray
wrote in <MnkGk.45211$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net> :
Then why bring up the age of the Earth at all? Or are you simply
trying to confuse the issue?
>Grow up for goodness sake
>
>Now, did you want to address the erosion aspect of the conversation?
Has it occurred to you that there's a canyon involved?
Ron O
> heekster wrote:
>
> >> The Enigmatic One wrote:
> >>> g...@hotmail.ett says...
Legit creationist or a troll trying to make creationists look bad. My
bet is that any lurker can't tell which it is for (M)adman-adman.
That is about as sad a comentary on anti-science creationists that
there is.
Ron Okimoto
geo...@hotmail.com
LOL. Except, of course, that I don't have a long list of questions I'm
avoiding. Sheesh, it's one thing to be bad at science like most
creationists, but bad at trolling? You really fail.
Venus
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> Read some truth for a change
>
Well, at least Adman is now just brainlessly cutting-and-pasting
pseudoscience, instead of Smiting people.
By the way, Adman, I am still quite unsmited. What seems to be the
problem? Smite me! Come on and smite me!!
(snicker) (giggle)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Ruby Moon
is nearly impossible to know where to begin. Probably, the most
significant issue is that the typical creationist has never bothered
to study the current scientific paradigm of geology. It is far easier
to wrap their brains around the simple concept of the WWF. I wonder,
with a half-hearted curiosity, what the land looked like prior to the
WWF. What about fold and thrust mountains? What about the Basin and
Range? What about fossil fuels? What about Pangea? What about
dunes? How about stress and strain measurements on the axis of a
syncline? What about rotated garnets? So may nuances, so little
time.
Of course, it is difficult for the creationist to make time to study
any science because they are generally too far-gone brainwashed to
accept anything that they are told is not directly sourced from god.
No amount of intervention or de-programming can help.
My general response to creationist thinking is this: refusal to see
evidence does not make that evidence any less real. That refusal to
see evidence only highlights the blinders that have been placed on
them by their fellow human beings, in the name of their own brand of
god.
The “science” of creationism is intellectually dishonest. The typical
creationist can not provide evidence for their theory because they are
not intellectually capable. That’s not quite accurate. The typical
creationist may be intellectually capable, however, for some
pathological reason that intelligence is used in the pursuit of some
intangible “thing” that makes them feel better, more important even,
about their place in the universe, as if reality isn’t sufficient.
The typical creationist will not provide evidence for their theory
because the bottom line is always “faith”. The typical creationist
will point to the world and claim its very existence is the ultimate
evidence of their theory. And this theory can never be tested because
it has all been done. There is nothing left to test. It exists,
therefore it is from god.
Thankfully, real scientific endeavor is always about falsifying
hypotheses. Creationist “science” can not stand up to that sort of
rigorous testing because it is not possible to quantify “faith”.
After all, how can a creationist falsify faith?
Ruby
(M)-adman
You will believe anything. I have some swamp land in florida
(M)-adman
Once again ladies and gentelmem, when confronted with the problem of
(M)-adman
BWAHAhahahahahahahhaha!! Oh! Hahahahahah!!! Megabytes of giggles!! Laughter
to PLUTO!
All this hand waving and you still cannot confront the problem of erosion
and time.
(M)-adman
> On Oct 5, 3:53 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Stuart wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 6:47 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>
>>>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>>>> --
>>>> A cup of coffee and some abject stupidity with:
>>
>>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>> So where's the oil company Pittman founded? If conventional geology
>>> is wrong, he should be making a killing?
>>
>>> Pittman is well known to us. He's the guy who still doesn't quite
>>> grasp
>>> the geometry of chevron folds.
>>
>>> Stuart
>>
>> Where is your web site? Where is your degree?
>>
>
>
> Wow a website means you know somethun'
>
> Who duh thunk it.
>
Generally, yes.
> Google Stuart Weinstein geophysicist
>
> That should answer your questions.
>
> dumbassman.
>
> Stuart
The NOAA guy? [chuckle]
Google "history of the geological column.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Max
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> Read some truth for a change
>
> --
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Brilliant work, except for the lies and errors. Spotted this one right
in the beginning.
" Wouldn't it be logical to assume that there should be a fair amount
of weathering of each of these layers over that amount of time? But
this expected uneven weathering is generally lacking (see
illustration).1 Just about all the layers have un-weathered or at best
very rapidly weathered parallel and smooth contact zones. "
Actually, there are many areas that have experience uneven weathering.
Not to mention periods of uplift and distortion. Check out The Wave in
Arizona for one of the coolest examples. Yes, there are areas where
the sediments lie fairly flat for many layers. Anyone who has had to
drive through the MidWest should not be surprised at this.
What's really sad is that the answer is right in front of your and
Sean's noses but your brains just can't process it.
"Some of these rates [of erosion] are obviously staggering; the Yellow
River could peneplain [flatten out] an area with the average height
that of Everest in 10 million years. The student has two courses open
to him: to accept long extrapolations of short-term denudation
[erosion] figures and doubt the reality of the erosion surfaces, or to
accept the erosion surfaces and be skeptical about the validity of
long extrapolations of present erosion rates." -B.W. Sparks
Look at the last half of the last sentence. Consider all the talk in
the news lately about climate change (even the deniers are talking
about cycles). Consider also all the worrying those wacko
environmentalists are doing about the unprecedented rates of erosion.
Does it not occur to you that the error lies not in the hundreds of
years of work by hundreds of geologists but in your underlying
assumption that present rates of erosion have been constant or at
least represent the average over the years?
And let us for a moment consider the silly notion that you guys are
right and see where that leaves the geologists
Head Geologist- "Alas, alack, and woe is me! The timeline we have
constructed is all wrong! Our radiometric dating is hopelessly flawed!
Where shall we look for a model now! *sob*
Student- "Here! Here is the answer for everything!" *proffers bible
and opens it to relevant passages on the deluge*
Head Geologist- "What is this? You're saying that the poorly
translated ancient writings of a small semitic tribe will provide the
answers that I need?"
Student- "Yes. You see all the layers you see here were layed down in
that great flood (except for the ones that weren't and don't ask where
the sediments came from)"
Head Geologist- "Hmm, yes I see. The burrows, the sediments that could
only have been laid down in arid conditions, the fossils laid down in
order of their appearance on earth, the greater density of older rock,
the varves, the rhythmites, the corals... It all fits! My God boy!
you're a genius! Let me throw out all these dusty, outdated geology
texts. I only need one book now! I'll be sure and write a letter to
the Nobel Committe on your behalf."
=The student then goes on to win the Nobel Prize. Secularists are
driven, hissing and clawing, back into the darkness from which they
came.
Umm, no. Stephen King's "The Mouth of Madness" presents a saner
world.
Max
> The Enigmatic One wrote:
> > In article <5AXFk.47880$De7.35...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> > g...@hotmail.ett says...
>
>
> >> Read some truth for a change
>
> > posting some more corroboration.
>
> Perhaps the article was too complicated as is demonstrated by your
> frustration and use of nasty words?
>
> Yes, that is it. I can always tell when you bozo's have no answer to truth
> when you start calling on vulgar language to release your frustration.
>
>
> be around 500,000 tons per day.
>
> the earth.
>
>
>
This is a perfect example of how Creationists multiply their errors.
At least Sean knew to address erosion of the whole Colorado river
basin and to limit himself to the age of the Grand Canyon.
In case the point slipped right by you; No geologist says the Grand
Canyon is as old as the earth itself. And the Grand Canyon carries
sediments from a drainage basin many times larger than itself.
rossum
<lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>By the way, Adman, I am still quite unsmited. What seems to be the
>problem? Smite me! Come on and smite me!!
Was that the five minute smite or the full half-hour?
rossum
rossum
>rossum wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:53:59 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>>> On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>>>
>>>>> Read some truth for a change
>>>>
>>>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Math does not lie
>> I have some math which says that the chance of God existing is less
>> than 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942 chance of existing. Math does not lie, so
>> according to you I am right.
>
>I can pull figures out of my ear too
So you say 1) "Math does not lie"
and you also say 2) "I can pull figures out of my ear too"
One or the other please, not both. Make your mind up.
rossum
Max
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> >> Read some truth for a change
>
> > If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>
> Math does not lie
>
But people can lie with numbers. I refer you to Darrell Huff's "How to
Lie with Statistcs
Boikat
Only because presenting you with a refutiation of your mindless PRATT
seems to be completely ignored by you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html
If there is any "hand waving" going on, it's because you are an
ignorant fart. You are also an intellectual coward.
Boikat
Boikat
You also ignore that if the canyon were the result of a world wide
flood, you would have the same problem, idiot.
Another problem for you is that *real* scientists have found the
sediment you seem to think is missing, and it does not support a YEC
world view:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html
You, adman, are an ignorant intellectual coward.
Boikat
Max
> Stuart wrote:
>
> >> Read some truth for a change
>
> >> A cup of coffee and some abject stupidity with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > So where's the oil company Pittman founded? If conventional geology
> > is wrong, he should be making a killing?
>
> > Pittman is well known to us. He's the guy who still doesn't quite
> > grasp
> > the geometry of chevron folds.
>
> > Stuart
>
> Where is your web site? Where is your degree?
>
So a web site and a degree on Pitman's part overrides all the degrees
and papers by all the non-creationist geologists? Thanks for letting
me know.
Max
> Google "history of the geological column.
>
I just did. Found some great stuff on geology and a an interesting
article on quote mining by creationists. Thanks.
Dwib
> The bottom of the Grand Canyon should be somewhere in China by now!
It's not realistic to take the current rate of erosion in the Colorado
river basin and extrapolated it back millions of years.
Dwib
Desertphile
wrote:
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 8:13 am, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ent> wrote:
> >> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> >>> Really? In that case, you can show us your working out of whatever
> >>> it is you think you are working out mathematically. But you can't,
> >>> because you don't know WTF you are talking about.
> >>
> >> The math is 1+1=2
> >>
> >> If turbidity currents happen under water, then everywhere we see
> >> on dry lanturbidity current evidence d must have been under water.
> >
> > False. Welcome to the modern theory of Plate Tectonics. When
> > continents
> > collide, and they do collide, marine sediments between them are thrust
> > up onto land.
> Obviously the plate movement has not destroyed all of the turbidity current
> evidence. It is there.
But I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like
to run away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th
September 2008 you failed to deal with a number of items that were
first listed by Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now
myself) think you need to address:-
Claiming Paul Neuman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this
news group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any
given sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 8:52 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> > > On Oct 5, 8:13 am, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ent> wrote:
> > >> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> > >>> Really? In that case, you can show us your working out of whatever
> > >>> it is you think you are working out mathematically. But you can't,
> > >>> because you don't know WTF you are talking about.
> > >> The math is 1+1=2
> > >> If turbidity currents happen under water, then everywhere we see
> > >> on dry lanturbidity current evidence d must have been under water.
> > > False. Welcome to the modern theory of Plate Tectonics. When
> > > continents
> > > collide, and they do collide, marine sediments between them are thrust
> > > up onto land.
> > Obviously the plate movement has not destroyed all of the turbidity current
> > evidence. It is there.
> > > There are other ways in which your assertions are wrong.
> > > By why bother ...
> > Stu, you have an errosion problem too.
> > The colorado should have a delta the size of mexico by now. Where is it?
> There are two answers to that:
>
> 1) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html
>
> 2) the same place they would be if they were the result of a WWF,
> except if the canyon was the result of a WWF, the delta would be
> glaringly obvious, which is isn't, due to the above mentioned reasons:
> some was simply desolved in the rainwater, the rest spread out through
> various geophysical processes, which takes several times the time
> between now and the supposed date of ye olde floode.
The Grand Canyon and its side canyons, of course, has been dated
recently. The youngest side canyons are only about 9,000,000 years
old.
Desertphile
wrote:
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>
> > Really? In that case, you can show us your working out of whatever
> > it is you think you are working out mathematically. But you can't,
> > because you don't know WTF you are talking about.
> The math is 1+1=2
>
> If turbidity currents happen under water, then everywhere we see turbidity
> current evidence on dry land must have been under water.
Floods happen.
NOW THEN: I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you
like to run away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th
September 2008 you failed to deal with a number of items that were
first listed by Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now
myself) think you need to address:-
Claiming Paul Neuman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this
news group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any
given sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Desertphile
wrote:
> rossum wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:53:59 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >>> On 2008-10-05, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
> >>>>
> >>>> Read some truth for a change
> >>>
> >>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Math does not lie
> > I have some math which says that the chance of God existing is less
> > than 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942 chance of existing. Math does not lie, so
> > according to you I am right.
> I can pull figures out of my ear too
Actually, it's your anus you pull your shit out of.
But of course I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least
Desertphile
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 6:47 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
> >>
> >> Read some truth for a change
> >>
> >> --
> >> A cup of coffee and some abject stupidity with:
> >>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > So where's the oil company Pittman founded? If conventional geology
> > is wrong, he should be making a killing?
> >
> > Pittman is well known to us. He's the guy who still doesn't quite
> > grasp
> > the geometry of chevron folds.
> >
> > Stuart
> Where is your web site? Where is your degree?
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to
Desertphile
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 11:47 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> > http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
> >
> > Read some truth for a change
> Then why did you post a link to a website full of lies and
> misrepresentations?
Because he is a Creationist.
Sheeeish: that was an easy one.
> Boikat
Ye Old One
>Stuart wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 8:13 am, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ent> wrote:
>>> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>>>> Really? In that case, you can show us your working out of whatever
>>>> it is you think you are working out mathematically. But you can't,
>>>> because you don't know WTF you are talking about.
>>>
>>> The math is 1+1=2
>>>
>>> If turbidity currents happen under water, then everywhere we see
>>> on dry lanturbidity current evidence d must have been under water.
>>
>> False. Welcome to the modern theory of Plate Tectonics. When
>> continents
>> collide, and they do collide, marine sediments between them are thrust
>> up onto land.
>
>Obviously the plate movement has not destroyed all of the turbidity current
>evidence. It is there.
What part of "thrust up onto land" went over your head?
>
>>
>> There are other ways in which your assertions are wrong.
>>
>> By why bother ...
>
>Stu, you have an errosion problem too.
>
>The colorado should have a delta the size of mexico by now. Where is it?
Please explain why you think it should be so large?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Delta
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to run
away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you
failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming Paul Neuman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
Ken
It's also not realistic to discuss anything with ASSman
(M)-adman
> On Oct 5, 2:53 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>
>>>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>>
>> Math does not lie
>>
> He has lied repeatedly in dialogues on this forum.
>
> His arguments are utterly bogus.
>
> RF
You made the assertion but offer no proof why he is wrong.
Everything i read from pittman makes perfect sense.
>
>> No need to shoot the messanger.
>>
>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
*plonk*
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> >> Read some truth for a change
>
> > If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>
> Math does not lie
>
But you do constantly.
> No need to shoot the messanger.
>
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Translation - I can't get these people to fall for the lies I've
spouted. Since I don't have any facts or logic to back up what I say
I'll fall back on insults.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 2:53 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >>> On 2008-10-05, adman <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> >>>> Read some truth for a change
>
> >>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>
> >> Math does not lie
>
> > No, but Sean Pitman does.
> > He has lied repeatedly in dialogues on this forum.
>
> > His arguments are utterly bogus.
>
> > RF
>
> You made the assertion but offer no proof why he is wrong.
>
> Everything i read from pittman makes perfect sense.
I suggest that in that case you track back and read the endless
dialogues in which he evades, regurgitates endlessly unfounded
assertions and lies.
If it makes perfect sense to you, you evidently don't have a freakin'
clue about the subjects on which he pontificates.
RF
Kermit
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> Read some truth for a change
>
> A cup of coffee and some reality with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Wow.
In the same vein:
I weighed myself on the scales today and I weigh two pounds more than
last week. At this rate, by the time I retire, I'll weigh 1358 pounds.
It also means that I am not as old as I thought; I guess I'm really
less than two. On the bright side, I suppose that means I'm
precocious.
Kermit
James Beck
gr...@hotmail.ed says...
>
> Everything i read from pittman makes perfect sense.
Now that pretty much sums it up.
(M)-adman
>Secularists are driven, hissing and clawing, back into the darkness from
>which they
> came.
>
tiny correction.
More like: Secularists *WillBe* driven, hissing and clawing, back into the
darkness from which they came.
Your masters time is short
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> >> Stuart wrote:
> >>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> >>>> Read some truth for a change
>
> >>>> A cup of coffee and some abject stupidity with:
>
> >>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >>> So where's the oil company Pittman founded? If conventional geology
> >>> is wrong, he should be making a killing?
>
> >>> Pittman is well known to us. He's the guy who still doesn't quite
> >>> grasp
> >>> the geometry of chevron folds.
>
> >>> Stuart
>
> >> Where is your web site? Where is your degree?
>
>
> > Who duh thunk it.
>
> Generally, yes.
>
> > Google Stuart Weinstein geophysicist
>
> > That should answer your questions.
>
> > dumbassman.
>
> > Stuart
>
> The NOAA guy? [chuckle]
I'm sorry. Is that funny?
Stuart
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> >> Stuart wrote:
> >>>> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> >>>>> Really? In that case, you can show us your working out of
> >>>>> whatever it is you think you are working out mathematically. But
>
> >>>> The math is 1+1=2
>
> >>>> If turbidity currents happen under water, then everywhere we see
> >>>> on dry lanturbidity current evidence d must have been under water.
>
> >>> False. Welcome to the modern theory of Plate Tectonics. When
> >>> continents
> >>> collide, and they do collide, marine sediments between them are
> >>> thrust up onto land.
>
> >> Obviously the plate movement has not destroyed all of the turbidity
> >> current evidence. It is there.
>
>
> > You're talking out of your ass, man.
>
>
> >>> By why bother ...
>
> >> Stu, you have an errosion problem too.
>
>
> >> The colorado should have a delta the size of mexico by now. Where is
> >> it?
>
>
> > Show all maths.
>
> > Repeating creatobabbling talking points will not help you.
>
> > I'm a professional.
>
> > They are imbeciles.
>
> > Stuart
>
> common sense Stu. That much erosion would have visual evidence to be
> observed
>
I'm taking issue with the fact that there should be evidence of
erosion.
I'm taking issue with the fact that the detritus should fill up a
state
the size of Mexico. If you can't compute how much sediment there
should be, you're
not in a position to claim there isn't enough.
You've already be given a link to the Colorado River Delta. That has a
a chunk of it.
Google "Salton Trough" for much of the rest.
Stuart
(M)-adman
> On Oct 6, 7:27 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 2:53 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>>>> On 2008-10-05, adman <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>
>>>>>> Read some truth for a change
>>
>>>>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>>
>>>> Math does not lie
>>
>>> No, but Sean Pitman does.
>>> He has lied repeatedly in dialogues on this forum.
>>
>>> His arguments are utterly bogus.
>>
>>> RF
>>
>> You made the assertion but offer no proof why he is wrong.
>>
>> Everything i read from pittman makes perfect sense.
>
> I suggest that in that case you track back and read the endless
> dialogues in which he evades, regurgitates endlessly unfounded
> assertions and lies.
>
> If it makes perfect sense to you, you evidently don't have a freakin'
> clue about the subjects on which he pontificates.
>
You obviously cannot prove the information wrong.
(M)-adman
all that sedement went into the crack?
"Before the Glen Canyon Dam was built, the average sediment transport rate
That is a lot of sediment ma'boi
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>Stuart wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 6:47 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>>>
>>> Read some truth for a change
>>>
>>> --
>>> A cup of coffee and some abject stupidity with:
>>>
>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>> So where's the oil company Pittman founded? If conventional geology
>> is wrong, he should be making a killing?
>>
>> Pittman is well known to us. He's the guy who still doesn't quite
>> grasp
>> the geometry of chevron folds.
>>
>> Stuart
>
>Where is your web site? Where is your degree?
What does it matter?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>Max wrote:
>>Secularists are driven, hissing and clawing, back into the darkness from
>>which they
>> came.
>tiny correction.
>
>More like: Secularists *WillBe* driven, hissing and clawing, back into the
>darkness from which they came.
Be sure to post a notice when this happens so we don't miss
it.
>Your masters time is short
I don't even play golf.
Stuart
A lot of it did.
Try reading beyond the first paragraph, crack head.
The trough was filled with sediment. It initially opened up
as a spreading center; a failed rift which subsided and was then
filled by
with sediment by the Colorado river.
> "Before the Glen Canyon Dam was built, the average sediment transport rate
> through the Grand Canyon was measured to be around 500,000 tons per day."
>
> That is a lot of sediment ma'boi
Good. And what is the mass of Mexico?
Do the math, support your claims, assman.
Stuart
wf3h
> Max wrote:
> >Secularists are driven, hissing and clawing, back into the darkness from
> >which they
> > came.
>
> tiny correction.
>
> More like: Secularists *WillBe* driven, hissing and clawing, back into the
> darkness from which they came.
>
> Your masters time is short
> --
you guys have been saying christ will return...for 2000 years
you guys have been predicting the return to 4th century science for
150 years.
any idea when you're gonna defecate or decommode?
(M)-adman
How convenient. No proof needed, no proof can be seen.
>
>> "Before the Glen Canyon Dam was built, the average sediment
>> transport rate through the Grand Canyon was measured to be around
>> 500,000 tons per day."
>>
>> That is a lot of sediment ma'boi
>
> Good. And what is the mass of Mexico?
>
> Do the math, support your claims, assman.
>
pfffttt..!
Did the sediment fall into the crack or did it create mexico?
create mexico... BWAhahahahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boikat
> Desertphile wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >> rossum wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:53:59 -0500, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> >>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >>>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
Oh look. The little assmonkey ran away again. What a fucking coward
he is.
Boikat
Stuart
I never said it created Mexico. You claim the volume eroded
should be the equivalent of Mexico.
Try and pay attention crack head.
The Colorado river did fill up the Salton trough.
Creatobabblers pretend that didn't happen.
Stuart
Boikat
So, you are ignorant of "Seismology" too.
>
>
> >> "Before the Glen Canyon Dam was built, the average sediment
> >> transport rate through the Grand Canyon was measured to be around
> >> 500,000 tons per day."
>
> >> That is a lot of sediment ma'boi
>
> > Good. And what is the mass of Mexico?
>
> > Do the math, support your claims, assman.
>
> pfffttt..!
Too much beer? Or was that your brain exploding with the force of a
fart in the wind?
>
> Did the sediment fall into the crack or did it create mexico?
You mean you didn't bother to read the article?
>
> create mexico... BWAhahahahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only idiots laugh at their own stupidity.
Boikat
Max
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 2:53 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >>> On 2008-10-05, adman <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion%20Problems
>
> >>>> Read some truth for a change
>
> >>> If Pitman would right some, perhaps we could.
>
> >> Math does not lie
>
> > No, but Sean Pitman does.
> > He has lied repeatedly in dialogues on this forum.
>
> > His arguments are utterly bogus.
>
> > RF
>
> You made the assertion but offer no proof why he is wrong.
>
> Everything i read from pittman makes perfect sense.
>
Then you weren't reading for comprehension.
heekster
wrote:
Yet it pales in comparison to the imbecilities that you inflict on
this group.