26
   

Does everyone agree that we evolved from Africa?

 
 
Helloandgoodbye
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2018 07:01 pm
@Setanta,
What about that link? It reeks of evolutionary religious bias.
Big deal, ppl giving different interpretations of the same evidence on a field trip.

You guys always trying to make monkeys outta ppl, haha. Absolutely incredibly awesome what the sinful mind of mankind can drum up. The god of time and chance is quite something!
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2018 07:23 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
Quote:
I too used to teach and preach evolutionism
Did you experience any direct courses on the subject? Your knowledge appears quite limited if you dont know about stratigraphy
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2018 07:29 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
scientists ultimately test and either accept or drop "that evolutionist stuff". We dont ccept "different interpretations" because that is like saying "Alternative facts" and thats just bullshit .

I know youre lying about teaching evolution. You have no concept of the scientific method. And what a theory is.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2018 07:32 pm
@Setanta,
accchh, yes, it was the Garden of the Gods, not the Grand Canyon, although several dune deposits exist in the GC.

Shows ya how important I thought this was. I was more interested in the grad students taking him apart.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2018 07:44 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
The amount of bullsh*t that gets peddled around here by the god squad is just incredible.


You really ought not to be pointing fingers, Setanta. It keeps highlighting your hypocrisy.

You still haven't replied to the post where I showed how you were peddling your bullshit.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 02:49 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
Austin makes a fool of himself--he doesn't need any help from me.
0 Replies
 
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2018 10:06 am
Here is another example of interpreting evidence.
This person embraces The idea that humanity is billions of years old.

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/anomalous.htm
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2018 03:16 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
ever hear of simulacra ? The world is loaded with em. How an the hell would you explain the greek letters INSIDE a rock?

The coin in the well is like the tool encased with sulfide crystals, it int evidence of really anything mysterius, Its a coin that fell into the well nd became encased due to unique Eh/pH condition that encased the coin.
We used to do it all the time. Wed place a gavanized chicken wire fence bag full of old beer cans (The thick cone top kind) nnd throw it into a copper mine waste water pond. In about a month wed hve the beer cans fused into a thick mass of beer cans covered with copper/nickel crust. The mining companies began thyre own "beer can" secondary recovery programs. Some people say this doesnt work but they didnt know about how plating by copper is done over steel.
Same thing's happened to old piles of silver coins from pirate treasures in the ocean. Most often the lettering on the coinage is still readable (as was the label on our beer cans.
Jever see "stalagmites" form under a bridge made oh high magnesian cement? Thats why we dont make cement out of any dolomite or aragonite limestone. It dissolves and makes these "stalagmites"(actually helictites)
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 05:51 am
@farmerman,
Quote: ‘How an the hell would you explain the greek letters INSIDE a rock?’

For the most part, MosT of such artefacts can be explained The same way Upside down trees cutting through multiple layers of rock can be explained....
They were buried during a catastrophic flood.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 08:48 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
ya know, youve left the planet. Even simple physics and civil nginering escapes your wholly biased unintelligent thinking.

The issue of "polystrate fossils" (not a standard geologic term that describes anything factual), was put to bed over 150 years ago from a geological report from the Canadian Geol Survey about the coal measures near Joggins Nova SCotia
Here, go find it on the open file in the cloud.(Getting the report is easy, and its quite self evident and it fails to support a "global Flood" tale in any way that doesnt use quote mining)
Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:03 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
Quote:
This person embraces The idea that humanity is billions of years old.
biggest problem with you is that you guys lie like our president and dont give a ****. Guys like ole Grumpy (Quahog) dont say anything and just deny everything without any knowledge base
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 10:18 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
biggest problem with you is that you guys lie like our president and dont give a ****.


You can't open your mouth without sticking your foot down your throat, farmerman. You lie like a sidewalk/Trump about scientific things and you know you are lying AND you pretend you are a scientist or you are a highly disreputable scientist.

Quote:
Guys like ole Grumpy (Quahog) dont say anything and just deny everything without any knowledge base


Stop pointing fingers, you stunning hypocrite!!!
0 Replies
 
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 10:47 am
@farmerman,
Sure, will do, in the meantime, here is something for your reading purposes:
https://evofantasy.blogspot.com/2011/08/polystrate-tree-fossils.html?m=1
0 Replies
 
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 11:52 am
@farmerman,
Seems like there are different interpretations of Polystrate trees, like this Dawson guys interpretation of course, But nothing overly clear, convincing and reliable. Got anything better?
So much trash to sift through...
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 12:12 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
no , not diff interpretations (two different interpretations would allow that both sides are equally informed

First Dawson was a REAL geologist your reporter was a Creationist "something else".

Geologists can easily tell when a log i born by a rapid current in between layers (its evidenced by directional sediments called "sole marks" and by hydrology, where energy of a system is easil shown to be high by investigation of the sizes of stream particles and directionality indicators within the sediment lens.

In your own article was a comment by one of my old undergraduate teachers DU Wise, who taught me some structural geo while he was up at U Mass.
Quote:
But even more telling was what that article said about rates of depositation. While Steve Austin was being paid by the ICR to get a post-graduate degree in geology (so that they could finally claim to have a degreed geologist on staff) he would write creationist articles for them using a pseudonym, "Stuart Nevins". As Stuart Nevins, he wrote an article in which he claimed that geologists believed that strata formed at a completely gradual and constant rate, even though even undergraduate geology students know full well that that is a complete and utter lie -- and Austin was writing that while he was a graduate student. He had to know better and yet he still repeated that lie!

Well, had Austin actually read that article (I learned to not make such an assumption about creationists with the ICR's NASA document moon-dust debacle), he would have learned what he should have learned years ago in his undergraduate classes: geologists can distinguish between layers formed by rapid depositation and layers formed by slow depositation. It's described in Broadhurst's article. Those "polystrate" tree stumps were buried in layers formed by rapid deposition
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 12:48 pm
@farmerman,
just because someone in embraces evolutionism, doesn’t make them a real geologist (or to have the proper interpretation) by default.
Was it not piltdown man which was interpreted improperly for several decades? ‘By professionsls’ ....Or Lucy which ended up being a pig‘s tooth. Misinterpretations happen all the time. Dating techniques are laughable, yet you refer to those who use them real scientists too.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 01:27 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
piltdown was discovered and marketed by a hobbyist fraud who was trying to deceive. Ultimately It was unraveled and set right by scientists who discovered that it was faked with lacquers and misfit teeth. It fooled science for a while, including several famous paleontologists but there was always a question that took almost 40 years an advances in science tools to unravel.
"Lucy" was discovered by Johannsen and was certainly NOT a "pig's tooth"(please get your facts right.
DAWSON was a trained geologist from Canada and Do Wise is a world renowned geoscientist who was the first geoscientist brought on board to NASA to help analyze moon rocks and surface deposits and bedrock lunar geology. Doc Wise is about 88 years old and probably sharper in memory than are you . Ill see him on Oct 4 for a field trip .

Ill tell him that Creationists are still trying to get his goat. He will laugh Im sure.


Ive made it a point not to argue radionuclides and radioisotope dating with morons because no matter what I say you will misinterpret it and show how dim you guys really are. So keep on keepin on and believe as you wish, radioisotopic dating is a powerful tool used in most all geo topics
Helloandgoodbye
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 07:04 pm
@farmerman,
https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/

....the issue is not the hoax as such; the scandal of Piltdown is that such an amateurish, clumsy and obvious fraud (even showing filemarks on the teeth) went undetected for over 40 years. Generations were indoctrinated into the ‘fact of evolution’ *sigh*
Evolutionists always so desperate to swallow anything which supports their religious position.

And it was Nebraska man fabricated out of a pigs tooth lol. My bad.

Interpretations. Interpretations. Lame interpretations.


https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/

Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained CONSTANT.By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.
Oh Farmerman, Rocks aren’t clocks.

Keep in mind, something as simple as observing our surroundings, and we see flesh eating everywhere.
However it is terribly wrong that evolutionists to ASSUMEthat what we observe today has always been CONSTANT.
The truth is God created this creation vegetarian.

These are reasons why conclusions like Millions of years, and flesh eating are purely fantasy/fairytale.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2018 05:43 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
youre hardly an expert in anything youve mentioned. Science proved "without a doubt" that Piltdown was forgery based on new scientific techniques that werent available until the l;ate 1940's
However, from the dte of Piltdown's find in 1912, it wqs suspected to be a fraud by science as early as 1913,(but new finds by Dawson who claimed to have supportive evidence that vaildate Piltdown (including a fake canine tooth), were all part of a growing fraud that , for a brief time, even fooled top scientists , even though most came to be suspicious of the whole story. The sample was ultimately found to be a forgery based on advanced and more simple forensic testing.

1 The separate mandible was seen to have been "polished" under electron microscopy(which wasnt available till the 1940's)

2 Chemical analyses of certain parts showed that they were treated with potassium permanganate to darken the mandible

3 X ray diffraction showed the bone and tooth ages were different, and especially the flourine content of the skull and teeth were quite different from skull to mandible (flourine was an early means of doing relative age testing of bone material.(the technique of diffraction wasnt available till the late 1930's)

Some of the techniques were evolving over the 35 years but the doubts of the skulls veracity were there from the get-go. It was all based on a suspicion that the skull cap, the mandible, and other teeth werent from the same specimen.Ultimately it was called Scotoanthropus fraudatus.

Your problem is that you thik science happens in between the commercials of a 60 minute drama. We still dont have a cure for cancer ya know, and there are still people who believe in Creationism and dont accept human affected Global warming




camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2018 08:27 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
youre hardly an expert in anything youve mentioned. Science proved "without a doubt" that Piltdown was forgery based on new scientific techniques that werent available until the l;ate 1940's


And you also are not an expert in some areas of science, in fact you have shown yourself numerous times to be very willing to lie, obfuscate, distract on issues of science.

Little wonder that folks do not trust what you say.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 07:48:19