|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2007 : 12:25:59 [Permalink]
|
I have a degree in geology and geophysics, and I see no problem with the stuff filthy quoted above, and with what Dave W. said. To say that erosion around Mt. Saint Helens is in any way an analog to the Grand Canyon is mind bogglingly stupid. Truly, words fail to describe it.
That a PhD in geology like Steve Austin would make a career out of this stuff just shows the creationist's desperation to have something, anything, to hold up as evidence. I guess if you can't find real evidence, you just make it up. You only have to convince the (geologically) ignorant. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 12:33:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Well, crap, pleco, sorry this is so boring.
Here, look at my new kitten!
Isn't she cute?
That's about as relevant to this discussion (well, embryo of a discussion) as Jerome's link.
|
Sorry I wasn't clear. The YAWN was not intended for you.
And, yes, your kitten is cute.  |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 14:36:27 [Permalink]
|
leoofno wrote: | To say that erosion around Mt. Saint Helens is in any way an analog to the Grand Canyon is mind bogglingly stupid. Truly, words fail to describe it. |
The problem is that Jerome (who told me to start this thread because supposedly he was going to state his argument in his words and provide a link or links to article defending his claim) didn't claim that the layers of sediment of Mt. St. Helens were analog to the Grand Canyon, but rather, were identical to certain layers of sediment that are thought to have developed over millions of years. Perhaps he meant the Grand Canyon and didn't say so, but he didn't say so, so I don't want to assume.
Jerome, seriously, wtf? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 18:37:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
leoofno wrote: | To say that erosion around Mt. Saint Helens is in any way an analog to the Grand Canyon is mind bogglingly stupid. Truly, words fail to describe it. |
The problem is that Jerome (who told me to start this thread because supposedly he was going to state his argument in his words and provide a link or links to article defending his claim) didn't claim that the layers of sediment of Mt. St. Helens were analog to the Grand Canyon, but rather, were identical to certain layers of sediment that are thought to have developed over millions of years. Perhaps he meant the Grand Canyon and didn't say so, but he didn't say so, so I don't want to assume.
Jerome, seriously, wtf?
|
I concede.
I do find it amusing that you said "going to state his argument in his words" and then proceed in the same sentence to state my argument for me.
Silly, do you not think?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 19:31:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by marfknox
leoofno wrote: | To say that erosion around Mt. Saint Helens is in any way an analog to the Grand Canyon is mind bogglingly stupid. Truly, words fail to describe it. |
The problem is that Jerome (who told me to start this thread because supposedly he was going to state his argument in his words and provide a link or links to article defending his claim) didn't claim that the layers of sediment of Mt. St. Helens were analog to the Grand Canyon, but rather, were identical to certain layers of sediment that are thought to have developed over millions of years. Perhaps he meant the Grand Canyon and didn't say so, but he didn't say so, so I don't want to assume.
Jerome, seriously, wtf?
|
I concede.
I do find it amusing that you said "going to state his argument in his words" and then proceed in the same sentence to state my argument for me.
Silly, do you not think? |
Only silly if you can't read. Obviously, you and marf had discussed the problem in a recent SFN chat, and so she had some basic summary of your argument. So when she was hoping to see things in your words, she was kind of expecting an elaboration of evidence beyond the basic thrust of your case. It's how it works in the non-delusional world.
Re-read the first post here. I know you have trouble actually understanding what you read, so feel free to move the goalposts or change topics so as to suit your cognitive dissonance. But marf did nothing wrong, and your trumped-up claims to the contrary only serve to make you look as delusional as ever. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 19:39:44 [Permalink]
|
Cune, do you have the ability to converse with those you disagree with, without insults. I learned this skill in elementary school.
How does hard rock sediment form curves without being broken over millions of years?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 19:40:17 [Permalink]
|
!
Well that was easy. It was the cute kitten, wasn't it. No one can resist the power of cute. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 19:43:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
!
Well that was easy. It was the cute kitten, wasn't it. No one can resist the power of cute.
|
I do love animals. More than people in many cases.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 19:46:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, do you have the ability to converse with those you disagree with, without insults. I learned this skill in elementary school.
How does hard rock sediment form curves without being broken over millions of years? |
I bet that's all you learned in elementary school. We passed the point of having normal discussion long ago, after repeated efforts to dodge my points, change the topic, and accuse me of being unable to understand your argument because I've been brainwashed by the KGB. I'm not sure what kind of discussion you'd like to have.
And in any case, you refuse (is anyone surprised?) to address the fact that marf did nothing wrong and that there was no transgression on her part in simply re-phrasing the argument as she understood it as made in the initial post! |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 20:13:42 [Permalink]
|
Cune, I clearly said I thought it amusing. Are you just looking for a battle you think you can win.
I am not here to battle. I have no need to best another's argument. I am simply looking for enjoyable conversation. Thinking is fun, try it once or twice. Most of what you believe is probably wrong; same goes for me(but I don't believe it). We have seen "facts" throughout history disproven many times; what makes you believe the knowledge you posses today is correct reality?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 20:21:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, I clearly said I thought it amusing. Are you just looking for a battle you think you can win. |
I'm not sure of the point here. So if I say "I think it's amusing that you're a lunatic" then it's OK?
| I am not here to battle. I have no need to best another's argument. I am simply looking for enjoyable conversation. Thinking is fun, try it once or twice. Most of what you believe is probably wrong; same goes for me(but I don't believe it). We have seen "facts" throughout history disproven many times; what makes you believe the knowledge you posses today is correct reality? |
Cool. So what I believe is wrong, but what you believe is wrong too, but you don't believe it. So you're.... right? Or something? Whichever. Great. You're just a cool always-right guy who believes in nothing who's here for conversation. Great. How's the weather? |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/18/2007 20:21:48 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 20:27:03 [Permalink]
|
Cune, I do think you are taking it too serious. It is good to defend ones point of view. When it devolves into name calling and armchair psychological pronouncements, it becomes nothing more than a joke.
By the way, its hot and humid.
Edit:weather |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 06/18/2007 20:28:45 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 20:33:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, I do think you are taking it too serious. It is good to defend ones point of view. When it devolves into name calling and armchair psychological pronouncements, it becomes nothing more than a joke.
|
I guess I misunderstood; I thought the joke was you trying to accuse marf of putting words in your mouth. Ha ha. I mean, your comments weren't accusatory. In context, your comments about marf were comic gold. A real gem of humor and wit. I think the rest of SFN also thought that you only meant innocent humor in accusing her of putting words in your mouth. Cool. I'm really sorry. Please-- carry on and keep being so amusing! |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 20:37:37 [Permalink]
|
Cune, Websters is free online.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 21:38:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
How does hard rock sediment form curves without being broken over millions of years?
|
Not sure what you mean by this. All rocks weather when exposed to the elements. Weathering is the breaking down of rock into smaller bits that can then be moved away by erosion. For hard rocks, weathering can take a long time. For unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is already broken up, it can happen quite rapidly, as in the case of MSH.
The Grand Canyon meanders because the land was originally flat, and rivers on flat land meander (like the Mississippi in Louisiana). Millions of years ago the land lifted up and the meandering river eroded into the rock, becoming "entrenched" and preserving its shape. Incidentally, I don't think this shape would be expected to develop from any kind of a catastrophic flood.
I hope that comes close to answering your question. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Mt St Helens/geological dating/creationism
