Ron Wyatt film clip
mc...@sunset.net
Ray F-L
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>
> JM
So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
And its been over 4 years and you still haven't answered some simple
questions about geology that I asked you:
What kind of rocks would expect to be cropping out on the seafloor
between 2000 and 5000 meters off the Bahamas?
What is the real structure of the earth?
How old are the oldest deposits in the ocean basins?
What is a coccolith?
How did Long Island form?
As I said 4 years ago, I expect you can answer these questions easily,
John, since you're such an expert in geology.
Raymond Freeman-Lynde
Department of Geology
University of Georgia
Ray Martinez
You are bluffing.
Debate honestly or get lost.
Ray
Dr.GH
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>
> JM
Dang- I liked Dean Stockwell. I guess that one fiction is as good as
another.
mc...@sunset.net
Ray F-L wrote:
> m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> >
> > JM
>
> So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
> no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
How many times do I have to answer this? Ever heard of mass
extinctions? This has happened in the past, do you disagree? Is there
massive world wide layers? Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
Silurian, et al? You can't have massive world wide layers without
massive world wide deposition. I disagree with your analysis.
JM
mc...@sunset.net
Ray Martinez wrote:
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> >
> > JM
>
> with the dried blood of Christ splattered on the kaporeth.
Appeal to credulity, a logic error.
JM
>
> We know you have evaded my posts = the truth hurts.
>
> Do you want a debate or do you want to keep debating moronic Darwinists
> and atheists ?
>
> I think you will continue to evade me because Darwinists and atheists
> pose no threat when the Bible and its archaeology is the issue.
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, life-long student of
> Dr. Gene Scott.
Inez
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> Ray F-L wrote:
> > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> > >
> > > JM
> >
> > So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
> > no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
>
> How many times do I have to answer this? Ever heard of mass
> extinctions?
Yes. However, Noah's flood story predicts no extinctions whatever.
That point of the ark was to prevent extinctions.
> This has happened in the past, do you disagree? Is there
> massive world wide layers?
Could you clarify what you're talking about here?
> Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
> Silurian, et al?
Yes. There were no humans then to build arks in those days, as the
fossil record shows. In fact, the Cambrian was famous for not having
worldwide floods, sinners, olive branches, gopherwood, Mt. Ararat, or
iron filled bronze-aged arks.
> You can't have massive world wide layers without
> massive world wide deposition.
Again, details would give the feeling that you weren't just making
things up as you went along.
Ray F-L
> Ray F-L wrote:
> > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> > >
> > > JM
> >
> > So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
> > no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
>
> How many times do I have to answer this?
Until you answer correctly. Try answering the questions I asked below
first to show that you know something about geology.
>Ever heard of mass
> extinctions? This has happened in the past, do you disagree? Is there
> massive world wide layers? Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
> Silurian, et al? You can't have massive world wide layers without
> massive world wide deposition.
If you knew anything about geology, you would know that there are not
massive world wide layers.
>I disagree with your analysis.
And your opinion is worth what? You know nothing about geology or you
would be able to answer the questions that I asked below.
mc...@sunset.net
Ray F-L wrote:
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > Ray F-L wrote:
> > > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> > > >
> > > > JM
> > >
> > > So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
> > > no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
> >
> > How many times do I have to answer this?
>
> Until you answer correctly. Try answering the questions I asked below
> first to show that you know something about geology.
>
> >Ever heard of mass
> > extinctions? This has happened in the past, do you disagree? Is there
> > massive world wide layers? Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
> > Silurian, et al? You can't have massive world wide layers without
> > massive world wide deposition.
>
> If you knew anything about geology, you would know that there are not
> massive world wide layers.
Funny thing, the last time I checked you could label certain strata
found in one continent as being found in another continent. Which is
why you have the geologic column.
JM
Ray F-L
About what?
That John knows nothing about geology. That's abundantly clear.
That there is no geological evidence for Noah's Flood. That's also
abundantly clear. It's been known for 175 years.
Raymond Freeman-Lynde
Department of Geology
University of Georgia
>
Dean Chesterman
Bill Hudson
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> > >
> > > JM
> >
> > Just remember that Wyatt claims to have seen the Ark beneath Mt. Moriah
> > with the dried blood of Christ splattered on the kaporeth.
>
> Appeal to credulity, a logic error.
>
> JM
Appeal to **Credulity**?[1] i.e. "This is completely believable,
therefore it is false"?? How is anyone supposed to take you seriously
when you keep making these basic errors?
Bill
1) You mean "incredulity", by the way.
Geoff
news:mccoy-11586069...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ray F-L wrote:
>> m...@sunset.net wrote:
>> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>> >
>> > JM
>>
>> So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
>> no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
>
> How many times do I have to answer this? Ever heard of mass
> extinctions? This has happened in the past, do you disagree? Is there
> massive world wide layers? Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
> Silurian, et al? You can't have massive world wide layers without
> massive world wide deposition. I disagree with your analysis.
But the depositions are not global. Any massive, global deposition from only
5000 years ago would be obvious in nature. Why are scientists hiding this
evidence?
Geoff
news:mccoy-11586080...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>> >
>> > JM
>>
>> Just remember that Wyatt claims to have seen the Ark beneath Mt. Moriah
>> with the dried blood of Christ splattered on the kaporeth.
>
> Appeal to credulity, a logic error.
I love it. Two twits fighting over whose delusions are crazier.
Inez
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> Ray F-L wrote:
> > mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > Ray F-L wrote:
> > > > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > JM
> > > >
> > > > So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
> > > > no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
> > >
> > > How many times do I have to answer this?
> >
> > Until you answer correctly. Try answering the questions I asked below
> > first to show that you know something about geology.
> >
> > >Ever heard of mass
> > > extinctions? This has happened in the past, do you disagree? Is there
> > > massive world wide layers? Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
> > > Silurian, et al? You can't have massive world wide layers without
> > > massive world wide deposition.
> >
> > If you knew anything about geology, you would know that there are not
> > massive world wide layers.
>
> Funny thing, the last time I checked you could label certain strata
> found in one continent as being found in another continent. Which is
> why you have the geologic column.
>
> JM
Try checking *before* you drink your nightly bucket of moonshine.
Ray F-L
> Ray F-L wrote:
> > mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > Ray F-L wrote:
> > > > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > JM
> > > >
> > > > So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
> > > > no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
> > >
> > > How many times do I have to answer this?
> >
> > Until you answer correctly. Try answering the questions I asked below
> > first to show that you know something about geology.
> >
> > >Ever heard of mass
> > > extinctions? This has happened in the past, do you disagree? Is there
> > > massive world wide layers? Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
> > > Silurian, et al? You can't have massive world wide layers without
> > > massive world wide deposition.
> >
> > If you knew anything about geology, you would know that there are not
> > massive world wide layers.
>
> Funny thing, the last time I checked you could label certain strata
> found in one continent as being found in another continent. Which is
> why you have the geologic column.
I did not say that strata can't be correlated globally. I said there
are not massive world wide layers as you asserted.
If you knew any geology, you would know that, for example, Cretaceous
strata are not all the same everywhere, not even on the same continent.
And when are you going to answer my questions below? I thought not, you
geological ignoramus.
Raymond Freeman-Lynde
Department of Geology
University of Georgia
> >
> > >I disagree with your analysis.
> >
> > And your opinion is worth what? You know nothing about geology or you
> > would be able to answer the questions that I asked below.
> >
> > > >
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>
>JM
Nonononono McClueless. That is not video evidence.
Care to try again?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Pot, kettle and the blackest of black spring to mind.
>
>Ray
Ray Martinez, after McClueless, the most dishonest person on the
group.
--
Bob.
rmcbane
> Ray F-L wrote:
>> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>>> Ray F-L wrote:
>>>> m...@sunset.net wrote:
>>>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>>>>>
>>>>> JM
>>>> So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
>>>> no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
>>> How many times do I have to answer this?
>> Until you answer correctly. Try answering the questions I asked below
>> first to show that you know something about geology.
>>
>>> Ever heard of mass
>>> extinctions? This has happened in the past, do you disagree? Is there
>>> massive world wide layers? Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
>>> Silurian, et al? You can't have massive world wide layers without
>>> massive world wide deposition.
>> If you knew anything about geology, you would know that there are not
>> massive world wide layers.
>
> Funny thing, the last time I checked you could label certain strata
> found in one continent as being found in another continent. Which is
> why you have the geologic column.
>
> JM
You are talking about geologic periods not rock strata or layers. You
can correlate the age of strata between different areas but that doesn't
mean they are continuous everywhere. There are no world wide layers
that you find everywhere. For example there is a big gap between the
Pleistocene and Pennsylvanian rocks where I live.
--
Richard McBane
Lee Oswald Ving
news:u82ug2t9p659cko72...@4ax.com:
Debateable. But McWelsher is at least somewhat pleasantly loony; Ray is a
full-blown sociopath to boot.
Ray Martinez
I made a mistake, please ignore the post - sorry.
Ray
Mike Painter
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>
Is this supposed to be meaningful in any way?
Two minutes of talk, a dead goat, and some concrete?
Mike Painter
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>>>
>>> JM
>>
>> Just remember that Wyatt claims to have seen the Ark beneath Mt.
>> Moriah with the dried blood of Christ splattered on the kaporeth.
>
> Appeal to credulity, a logic error.
>
Robert Weldon
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-115860531...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>
> JM
What the hell is the point of this, it is just a propaganda piece. I
thought you had finally gotten around to posting this mysterious piece of
videotape which you keep harping about as your key piece of evidence of
Wyatt's ark site. You remember, the one you keep waving in our faces but
refuse to post.
SeppoP
The dead goat ate the ark, that's why it *is* dead.
If that isn't evidence for the Flood, I don't know what is.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Wakboth
Geoff kirjoitti:
Indeed. I wonder who I should cheer for?
-- Wakboth
A.Carlson
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
All this bitching and complaining about 'you haven't seen the video,
you haven't seen the video...' and this is the best that you can
produce?
How about something a bit more substantial like:
- The name of the Israeli lab that allegedly produced a chromosome
count on what was supposedly 2000 year old blood.
- Any good evidence that validates that several Israeli officials,
dressed in ancient garb, were offed by Wyatt's god for trying to
muscle in on his claim.
- Evidence that the walls of caves crystallized, making them harder to
dig for, once they have been exposed to the elements.
- A sound defense of dowsing or an admission that both you and your
pal Ron 'The Con' were wrong on this issue and that it was wrong for
your pal the nurse anesthetist to incorporate dowsing as part of his
survey.
- Any article whatsoever written by Ron 'The Con' Wyatt that appeared
in a valid refereed scientific journal or a valid argument as to why
any of his claims should be taken seriously in the absence of such an
article.
- Any independent corroboration of *any* of Wyatt's claims of
substance that can stand up to scrutiny and actually support anything
at all that is supernatural.
Ilas
news:1158614381.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>> > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron
>> > > +wyatt&hl=en
>> > >
>> > > JM
>> >
>> > Just remember that Wyatt claims to have seen the Ark beneath Mt.
>> > Moriah with the dried blood of Christ splattered on the kaporeth.
>>
>> Appeal to credulity, a logic error.
>>
>> JM
>>
>
> Why did Wyatt make the claim ?
>
> Do I need to paste it with link ?
I've got two nieces, one aged 3 and the other aged 5. A couple of weeks
back, the 3 year old was telling us the Teletubbies and Father Christmas
are both real and live in Scotland, where "my mummy is from". "Oh no" says
the 5 year old "The Teletubbies aren't real and Father Christmas used to
live in Scotland but now he lives at the North Pole". The argument raged
for, ooh, several minutes until the younger one decided to play with her
toy pram while making car noises. For some strange reason I'm getting a
hell of a feeling of deja vu.
Richard Forrest
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> Ray F-L wrote:
> > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> > >
> > > JM
> >
> > So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
> > no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
>
> How many times do I have to answer this?
Until your answer makes some sort of sense
> Ever heard of mass
> extinctions?
Yes
>This has happened in the past, do you disagree?
No. I mean yes. There were mass extinctions in the past.
> Is there
> massive world wide layers?
No.
> Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
> Silurian, et al?
Yes, but they are geoogical ages, not sedimentary structures.
> You can't have massive world wide layers without
> massive world wide deposition.
Quite so. But as there are no massive world wide layers (on this planet
at least) the question hardly arises.
> I disagree with your analysis.
So what?
Have you ever considered learning about the subject you try to
critique? It may deprive us of a lot of amusement, but it would make
you look rather less ignorant.
RF
Richard Forrest
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> Ray F-L wrote:
> > mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > Ray F-L wrote:
> > > > m...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > JM
> > > >
> > > > So John, where's the geological evidence for Noah's Flood? If there was
> > > > no flood, then Noah didn't build an ark and Ron Wyatt didn't find it.
> > >
> > > How many times do I have to answer this?
> >
> > Until you answer correctly. Try answering the questions I asked below
> > first to show that you know something about geology.
> >
> > >Ever heard of mass
> > > extinctions? This has happened in the past, do you disagree? Is there
> > > massive world wide layers? Surely you haven't heard of Cambrian,
> > > Silurian, et al? You can't have massive world wide layers without
> > > massive world wide deposition.
> >
> > If you knew anything about geology, you would know that there are not
> > massive world wide layers.
>
> Funny thing, the last time I checked you could label certain strata
> found in one continent as being found in another continent.
Perhaps you could give us a list of these strata.
Hint: Don't confuse a stratum with its geological age.
RF
Desertphile
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
I pity the poor fool who can watch this video and still believe Wyatt
isn't a liar.
Desertphile
Don't most people do that already?
Desertphile
josephus
did anyone notice the "tradional lamb" was a goat. Jewish law would
use a "scape goat" to carray off any sins of the participants. would
this goat be suitable for RON WHYATT, who would surrely have a massive
load of sin.
josephus
mc...@sunset.net
Nobody who investigates flood geology believes that a strata is the
same everywhere. That would be impossible given a world-wide flood.
But the question is, why is cretaceous strata called cretaceous and why
is it found around the world? The nature of fossilzation is massive
destruction and burial. You will not find any mass grave yard located
from ANY modern period that destroys enmass millions of specimens in
the modern era or in history. Evolutionists naturally overlook
several things. They ignore: 1. The nature of the fossil finds (large
and extensive) 2. The conditions for fossilization. 3. The fossils
themselves (that they were alive when buried)
More can be said on this subject, all of which prove world-wide
destruction.
JM
Ray Martinez
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
>
> JM
Are Lysimachus or Hydarnes ?
If not do you know these guys ?
I happen to know both of these gentleman. They are Wyatt's bulldogs --
period. We became friends while debating history and archaeology on the
Net. Lys and Hy are brothers and they live in Wisconsin. Hy is an
expert in Egyptology and Lys is an expert in Wyatt's Noah's Ark
discoveries (?)
I respect the brothers highly even though we disagree about Mt. Moriah.
The three of us have run the table in quite a few ancient history/Bible
debates with atheists.
Did you know Lysimachus produced three MAMMOTH links defending the
Turkey site ?
For anyone who did not know and wants to read the evidence produced by
Wyatt's bulldog Lysimachus here they are from an IIDB debate:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2222753#post2222753
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2222757#post2222757
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2222763#post2222763
The first link is the beginning -- just keep scrolling as the post is
divided into three messages.
Ray
mc...@sunset.net
If you're right where are the massive fossil grave yards being produced
today?
Can show it? Why not?
JM
rmcbane
You've obviously never gone out and hunted for fossils. Fossil finds
vary tremendously from formations that consists almost entirely of
marine fossils to formations where fossils to scant and hard to find.
Sometimes there is evidence that the critters were buried alive, but
often there is evidence that the critter was dead before burial. And
yes we do see areas where fossils are being formed today, for example
just go look at any reef. It is time you quit reading creationist
drivel and go out and look at the actual rock with someone who
understands them and can explain them to you.
>
> More can be said on this subject, all of which prove world-wide
> destruction.
>
> JM
<snip>
--
Richard McBane
Richard Forrest
That's "stratum" in the singular
> is the same everywhere. That would be impossible given a world-wide flood.
Which, as a world-wide flood is impossible, is completely irrelevant.
> But the question is, why is cretaceous strata called cretaceous
Because it was named after the chalk deposits of that age found in
England and northern Europe.
> and why
> is it found around the world?
Because it covers a rather large time-scale and is relatively speaking
recent.
> The nature of fossilzation is massive
> destruction and burial.
No it isn't. I suggest that you go and collect some fossils
> You will not find any mass grave yard located
> from ANY modern period that destroys enmass millions of specimens in
> the modern era or in history.
You'll find precious few from any stratum from any time in the past
either. There are some very few deposits which preserve mass
mortalities, but in general where we have large numbers of fossils in
the same place it is the result of deposition over a long time, or a
process such as winnowing.
> Evolutionists naturally overlook
> several things. They ignore: 1. The nature of the fossil finds (large
> and extensive)
Are you serious? There is a branch of geolgical science called
taphonomy which investigates the processes by which fossilisation
occurs. There is a lot of scientific literature on the subject. How on
earth can this be ignoring the subject?
> 2. The conditions for fossilization.
It's called taphonomy. It's exensively studied. I've even made a small
contribution myself.
> 3. The fossils
> themselves (that they were alive when buried)
Am I to understand that you think that all fossils were alive when
buried?
I am studying a fossil plesiosaur whose spine was severed, had several
elements bitten off, and was apparently eviscerated before it landed on
the sea floor and became fossilised. Incidentally, it came to rest on a
very soft substrate which meant that it was partly immersed in an
anoxic sediment. This is shown by the fact that the underside of the
specimen is very well preserved, whereas the upper parts are crushed
and fragmented, and were collonised by marine organism.
How does that fit into your flood scenario?
>
> More can be said on this subject,
And there is far more said about the subject than you want to know.
> all of which prove world-wide
> destruction.
I suggest that your ignorance of the subject does not make your
conclusions viable.
RF
Richard Forrest
That's "stratum" in the singular
> is the same everywhere. That would be impossible given a world-wide flood.
Which, as a world-wide flood is impossible, is completely irrelevant.
> But the question is, why is cretaceous strata called cretaceous
Because it was named after the chalk deposits of that age found in
England and northern Europe.
> and why
> is it found around the world?
Because it covers a rather large time-scale and is relatively speaking
recent.
> The nature of fossilzation is massive
> destruction and burial.
No it isn't. I suggest that you go and collect some fossils
> You will not find any mass grave yard located
> from ANY modern period that destroys enmass millions of specimens in
> the modern era or in history.
You'll find precious few from any stratum from any time in the past
either. There are some very few deposits which preserve mass
mortalities, but in general where we have large numbers of fossils in
the same place it is the result of deposition over a long time, or a
process such as winnowing.
> Evolutionists naturally overlook
> several things. They ignore: 1. The nature of the fossil finds (large
> and extensive)
Are you serious? There is a branch of geolgical science called
taphonomy which investigates the processes by which fossilisation
occurs. There is a lot of scientific literature on the subject. How on
earth can this be ignoring the subject?
> 2. The conditions for fossilization.
It's called taphonomy. It's exensively studied. I've even made a small
contribution myself.
> 3. The fossils
> themselves (that they were alive when buried)
Am I to understand that you think that all fossils were alive when
buried?
I am studying a fossil plesiosaur whose spine was severed, had several
elements bitten off, and was apparently eviscerated before it landed on
the sea floor and became fossilised. Incidentally, it came to rest on a
very soft substrate which meant that it was partly immersed in an
anoxic sediment. This is shown by the fact that the underside of the
specimen is very well preserved, whereas the upper parts are crushed
and fragmented, and were collonised by marine organism.
How does that fit into your flood scenario?
>
> More can be said on this subject,
And there is far more said about the subject than you want to know.
> all of which prove world-wide
> destruction.
I suggest that your ignorance of the subject does not make your
conclusions viable.
RF
>
Ray F-L
What would you expect the sediments of a world-wide flood to be John?
Would you expect them to be carbonate reefs, lagoons and tidal flats?
Would expect them to be chalk?
You consider yourself to be such an expert in geology so it should be a
trivial exercise to answer the question.
The view of real geologists that have actually looked at rocks is that
carbonate reefs, lagoons and tidal flats and the chalk for which the
Cretaceous is named formed in the same manner that carbonate reefs,
lagoons and tidal flats and chalk form today in the Bahamas and atolls.
And that disproves a wold-wide flood.
> But the question is, why is cretaceous strata called cretaceous and why
> is it found around the world?
Deposition occurs around the world today. Why wouldn't it have occurred
around the world during the Cretaceous? Only a geological ignoramus
would think otherwise.
>The nature of fossilzation is massive
> destruction and burial.
No it isn't. So you are a paleontogical ignoramus as well.
>You will not find any mass grave yard located
> from ANY modern period that destroys enmass millions of specimens in
> the modern era or in history.
And you won't find any in the fossil record either.
>Evolutionists naturally overlook
> several things. They ignore: 1. The nature of the fossil finds (large
> and extensive) 2. The conditions for fossilization. 3. The fossils
> themselves (that they were alive when buried)
>
> More can be said on this subject, all of which prove world-wide
> destruction.
But none of it is true you geological and paleontological ignoramus.
And you still answer my other questions.
Ray F-L
> And you still
haven't
>answered my other questions.
Ray F-L
> > > Funny thing, the last time I checked you could label certain strata
> > > found in one continent as being found in another continent. Which is
> > > why you have the geologic column.
> > >
> > > JM
> >
> > You are talking about geologic periods not rock strata or layers. You
> > can correlate the age of strata between different areas but that doesn't
> > mean they are continuous everywhere. There are no world wide layers
> > that you find everywhere. For example there is a big gap between the
> > Pleistocene and Pennsylvanian rocks where I live.
> >
> > --
> > Richard McBane
>
> If you're right where are the massive fossil grave yards being produced
> today?
>
> Can show it? Why not?
>
> JM
So John, can you answer the questions? Why not? If you can't, I suggest
you stop telling me you know more about geology than I do.
What kind of rocks would expect to be cropping out on the seafloor
between 2000 and 5000 meters off the Bahamas?
What is the real structure of the earth?
How old are the oldest deposits in the ocean basins?
What is a coccolith?
How did Long Island form?
Dr. Raymond Freeman-Lynde
Associate Professor
mc...@sunset.net
asked you are actually relevant to the central issue at hand, yet you
continue to try to distract from the issue by asking irrelevant
questions. That's fine if you wish to do it. But the fact remains is
that you cannot explain large beds of fossil deposits. How did they
come to be and why do they continue across the continents?
JM
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
All over the world. Where animals dies and some of their remains last
long enough to be buried.
>
>Can show it? Why not?
>
>JM
Now about this cite of a textbook that promoted Piltdown Man as a
cornerstone of evolution. When are you going to give it McClueless?
--
Bob.
icarus...@gmail.com
Well I have a Ph.D. in geology as a conseqence of studying it for 10
years as an undergraduate and graduate student, teaching it for 25
years and doing original research in geology. Most people other than
myself would therefore consider me an expert in geology. Do you not
consider me an expert? If not, what should I have done differently to
become one.
Are you an expert in geology? Based on your postings, I and numerous
other posters would say that you clearly are not. So what qualifies you
to say anything at all about geology?
You are showing profound arrogance to tell me that I don't know what I
am talking about when I say there is no geological evidence for a
world-wide flood based on studying the work of other geologists and my
own research. You say there is evidence for a world-wide flood based on
.... what - pulling it out of your posterior? Who do you suppose other
posters should listen to?
>and the questions I have
> asked you are actually relevant to the central issue at hand,
And they show your profound ignorance of the field. In addition you
ignore the fact that the questions have been answered. But because the
answers don't fit your preconceived ideas, you seem to think that the
questions haven't been answered.
>yet you
> continue to try to distract from the issue by asking irrelevant
> questions.
The questions are relevant because you presume to tell me, a
professional geologist, that you know more about geology than I do. So
prove it. Answer the questions. The fact that you haven't even
attempted to answer them in more than 4 years demonstrates your lack of
good faith in posting to this newsgroup. You refuse to accept that the
evidence does not support your position.
And they are not that difficult to answer if you know anything about
geology. Take the first question - What kind of rocks would you expect
to be cropping out on the seafloor between 2000 and 5000 meters off the
Bahamas?
I'm not asking to tell me what rocks actually crop out on the seafloor,
I'm only asking what would you expect. Would you expect tidal flat and
lagoonal sediments to be there or sediments deposited in
2000-to-5000-meter-deep water? And to spice it up, how old would you
expect the deposits to be? Would you expect them to be Cretaceous in
age, or modern sediments? Why don't you just these questions to show
you have some integrity and a brain?
>That's fine if you wish to do it. But the fact remains is
> that you cannot explain large beds of fossil deposits.
And that is an outright lie. Now you presume to tell professional
paleontologists that you know more than they do.
>How did they
> come to be and why do they continue across the continents?
No large beds of fossil deposits continue across the continents. Where
did you get that absurd idea? There are bonebeds and nesting grounds of
tetrapods like dinosaurs and pterosaurs that extend for two or three
kilometers, but that is hardly across a continent. And the cause of
these deposits is well known and includes mass kills from volcanic ash
eruptions, drowning of many herd animals crossing rivers, and flash
floods. These are the exceptions in the fossil record. Most terrestrial
animal fossils are the remains of isolated individuals.
>
> JM
>
>
>
>
> Ray F-L wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > Funny thing, the last time I checked you could label certain strata
> > > > > found in one continent as being found in another continent. Which is
> > > > > why you have the geologic column.
> > > > >
> > > > > JM
> > > >
> > > > You are talking about geologic periods not rock strata or layers. You
> > > > can correlate the age of strata between different areas but that doesn't
> > > > mean they are continuous everywhere. There are no world wide layers
> > > > that you find everywhere. For example there is a big gap between the
> > > > Pleistocene and Pennsylvanian rocks where I live.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard McBane
> > >
> > > If you're right where are the massive fossil grave yards being produced
> > > today?
> > >
> > > Can show it? Why not?
> > >
> > > JM
> >
> > So John, can you answer the questions? Why not? If you can't, I suggest
> > you stop telling me you know more about geology than I do.
> >
> > What kind of rocks would you expect to be cropping out on the seafloor
Robert Weldon
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-11586948...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Fuck you are stupid.
-rest snipped
Ray F-L
The icarus reply is from me.
Raymond Freeman-Lynde
rmcbane
First, what is your definition of a massive fossil grave yard? Give me
an example of what you consider a massive fossil deposit so that I can
give you a similar deposit that is forming today.
> Can show it? Why not?
Take a look at the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. It is a pretty
massive area that is going from living critters to fossil critters as we
watch.
--
Richard McBane
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>
>mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>> You consider yourself an expert in geology
>
>Well I have a Ph.D. in geology as a conseqence of studying it for 10
>years as an undergraduate and graduate student, teaching it for 25
>years and doing original research in geology. Most people other than
>myself would therefore consider me an expert in geology. Do you not
>consider me an expert? If not, what should I have done differently to
>become one.
Oh that one is easy to answer. You should have gone to church, studied
your bible, trained as a nurse, got yourself an Indiana Jones hat and
earned yourself a good nickname like Ron "The Con" Wyatt did. Then, at
least in the eyes of McClueless, you would really be an expert.
Or maybe you could have become an "eminent" scientist by just giving
up science as Gish did :)
--
Bob.
Dean Chesterman
The centosaurus bone bed in Drumheller is dis-articulated fossilized
bones so there is no way they were alive when buried. Then there is a
layer of coal and a layer of sand and some volcanic ash then more coal
and clay lenses then some more coal.
How did a flood deposit end up with multiple coal layers and volcanic
ash layers in a flood deposit?
Dean Chesterman
Desertphile
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > If you're right where are the massive fossil grave yards being produced
> > today?
> First, what is your definition of a massive fossil grave yard?
Er, look who you're asking--- McCult avoids defining his terms about as
much as a footpad avoids a bobby (and for the same reason).
> Give me
> an example of what you consider a massive fossil deposit so that I can
> give you a similar deposit that is forming today.
IBM is a good example.
> > Can show it? Why not?
> Take a look at the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. It is a pretty
> massive area that is going from living critters to fossil critters as we
> watch.
He will not accept that: he will insist you use dowsing rods to define
the area.
> --
> Richard McBane
mc...@sunset.net
icarus...@gmail.com wrote:
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > You consider yourself an expert in geology
>
> Well I have a Ph.D. in geology as a conseqence of studying it for 10
> years as an undergraduate and graduate student, teaching it for 25
> years and doing original research in geology. Most people other than
> myself would therefore consider me an expert in geology. Do you not
> consider me an expert? If not, what should I have done differently to
> become one.
A Ph.D. means very little these days. The fact is you may consider
yourself an expert in geology but the facts show that you are not. You
neither have contemplated the significance of large strata beds and
either are ignorant of the fact that beds are composed of largely
living organisms that were buried while they were largely living
organisms.
If you want to talk about anything talk about that.
JM
Richard Forrest
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> icarus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > You consider yourself an expert in geology
> >
> > Well I have a Ph.D. in geology as a conseqence of studying it for 10
> > years as an undergraduate and graduate student, teaching it for 25
> > years and doing original research in geology. Most people other than
> > myself would therefore consider me an expert in geology. Do you not
> > consider me an expert? If not, what should I have done differently to
> > become one.
>
> A Ph.D. means very little these days. The fact is you may consider
> yourself an expert in geology but the facts show that you are not. You
> neither have contemplated the significance of large strata beds and
> either are ignorant of the fact that beds are composed of largely
> living organisms that were buried while they were largely living
> organisms.
>
And where did you get this marvelous snippet of information from?
Do you make it up as you go along, or do you rely on a source you trust
implicitly because it tells you what you want to believe is true?
Have you ever considered taking a look at some rocks? That's what
geologists do, by the way.
RF
rmcbane
> icarus...@gmail.com wrote:
>> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>>> You consider yourself an expert in geology
>> Well I have a Ph.D. in geology as a conseqence of studying it for 10
>> years as an undergraduate and graduate student, teaching it for 25
>> years and doing original research in geology. Most people other than
>> myself would therefore consider me an expert in geology. Do you not
>> consider me an expert? If not, what should I have done differently to
>> become one.
>
> A Ph.D. means very little these days. The fact is you may consider
> yourself an expert in geology but the facts show that you are not. You
> neither have contemplated the significance of large strata beds and
> either are ignorant of the fact that beds are composed of largely
> living organisms that were buried while they were largely living
> organisms.
>
> If you want to talk about anything talk about that.
What is the name of the formation(s) and location(s) of the large strata
beds you are referencing?
--
Richard McBane
Tom McDonald
> >
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> >> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4172784917732264140&q=Ron+wyatt&hl=en
> >> >
> >> > JM
> >>
> >> with the dried blood of Christ splattered on the kaporeth.
> >
> > Appeal to credulity, a logic error.
>
> I love it. Two twits fighting over whose delusions are crazier.
How fortunate for us, then, that the game is not zero-sum.
Ye Old One
when s/he wrote:
>
>icarus...@gmail.com wrote:
>> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>> > You consider yourself an expert in geology
>>
>> Well I have a Ph.D. in geology as a conseqence of studying it for 10
>> years as an undergraduate and graduate student, teaching it for 25
>> years and doing original research in geology. Most people other than
>> myself would therefore consider me an expert in geology. Do you not
>> consider me an expert? If not, what should I have done differently to
>> become one.
>
>A Ph.D. means very little these days.
We know - Gish got one.
> The fact is you may consider
>yourself an expert in geology but the facts show that you are not.
The facts say that you are a lying fraud McClueless.
> You
>neither have contemplated the significance of large strata beds and
>either are ignorant of the fact that beds are composed of largely
>living organisms that were buried while they were largely living
>organisms.
Oh dear McClueless strikes again.
Another major abuse report for excessive sig length.
--
Bob.
Harry K
Richard Forrest wrote:
> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > icarus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > > You consider yourself an expert in geology
> > >
> > > Well I have a Ph.D. in geology as a conseqence of studying it for 10
> > > years as an undergraduate and graduate student, teaching it for 25
> > > years and doing original research in geology. Most people other than
> > > myself would therefore consider me an expert in geology. Do you not
> > > consider me an expert? If not, what should I have done differently to
> > > become one.
> >
> > A Ph.D. means very little these days. The fact is you may consider
> > yourself an expert in geology but the facts show that you are not. You
> > neither have contemplated the significance of large strata beds and
> > either are ignorant of the fact that beds are composed of largely
> > living organisms that were buried while they were largely living
> > organisms.
> >
>
> And where did you get this marvelous snippet of information from?
> Do you make it up as you go along, or do you rely on a source you trust
> implicitly because it tells you what you want to believe is true?
>
> Have you ever considered taking a look at some rocks? That's what
> geologists do, by the way.
>
> RF
He obviously has looked at some rocks. He has to look that the ones
the takes out of his head and plays with.
Harry K
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-115885836...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> icarus...@gmail.com wrote:
>> mc...@sunset.net wrote:
>> > You consider yourself an expert in geology
>>
>> Well I have a Ph.D. in geology as a conseqence of studying it for 10
>> years as an undergraduate and graduate student, teaching it for 25
>> years and doing original research in geology. Most people other than
>> myself would therefore consider me an expert in geology. Do you not
>> consider me an expert? If not, what should I have done differently to
>> become one.
>
> A Ph.D. means very little these days.
A Ph.D, a real one, not a fake one like Hovind's means the person studied a
great deal about the subject.
> The fact is you may consider
> yourself an expert in geology but the facts show that you are not.
No, the fact that he's gained an education about the subject shows that he
is an expert in Geology.
> You
> neither have contemplated the significance of large strata beds and
> either are ignorant of the fact that beds are composed of largely
> living organisms that were buried while they were largely living
> organisms.
Moron, this 'fact' that he's supposedly has not "contemplated" is simply
your own ignorance. Most strata is not "composed of largely living
organisms that were buried while they were largely living orgainisms".
Anyone who's studied Geology knows this. That's why your squallings about
geology are not accepted, because even those of us who aren't "experts"
know you are wrong.
>
> If you want to talk about anything talk about that.
Perhaps Dr. Freeman Lynde would be kind enough to educate us on this matter.
Your own education is, unfortunately a total loss.
DJT
Richard Forrest
I think that the implication that his intelligence is equivalent to
that of a bunch of rocks insults rocks.
I have known many rocks which are startlingly more intelligent than he
is.
RF
Ray F-L
> icarus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > mc...@sunset.net wrote:
> > > You consider yourself an expert in geology
> >
> > Well I have a Ph.D. in geology as a conseqence of studying it for 10
> > years as an undergraduate and graduate student, teaching it for 25
> > years and doing original research in geology. Most people other than
> > myself would therefore consider me an expert in geology. Do you not
> > consider me an expert? If not, what should I have done differently to
> > become one.
>
> A Ph.D. means very little these days. The fact is you may consider
> yourself an expert in geology but the facts show that you are not. You
> neither have contemplated the significance of large strata beds and
> either are ignorant of the fact that beds are composed of largely
> living organisms that were buried while they were largely living
> organisms.
"... beds composed of largely living organisms ..." That is one of the
most inane things I have ever seen written.
> If you want to talk about anything talk about that.
I did talk about that below and you ignored it. As you did the
questions I asked. Why is that? Would it be that you know nothing about
geology? And yet you feel qualified to tell a professional geologist
that you know more about geology than he does? Relating false
information as the result of willful ignorance is equivalent to lying.
But you are a good Christian and would never lie would you?
Dr. Raymond Freeman-Lynde