Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because of the way he acted on this thread I have to wonder when he said that if indeed others in the past have presented peer review...he just denigrated it.
This is his biggest problem. In asking for peer review then never addressing it only denigrating it he has established that he may be less than honest on these things.
It is sad. That is why I have reported his post. I hate reporting posts, but people who act thusly certainly should be held accountable.
Yeah, well that's just your opinion man. (Big Lebowski) - YouTubewell thats your opinion, you have nothing to base your conclusion on, no premises, no arguments, no anything.
Fractal wrongness strikes again.
The Nuatiloid Cephalopods of the Pennsylvanian System in the Mid-Continent Region, Miller, A.K., Dunbar, C.W. Condra, G.E., 1933, Bulletin, Number 9 : 240 pages (LINK)
The cephalopods of the Eagle sandstone and related formations in the western interior of the United States, Reeside, J.B., (LINK)
Miller, A.K., Lane, J.H., Unklesbay, A.G., 1947,A Nautiloid Cephalopod Fauna from the Pennsyvlanian Winterset Limestone of Jackson County, Missouri, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PALEONTOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS MOLLUSCA, ARTICLE 2, PAGES 1-11, (LINK)
Teichert, C., Glenister, B., 1952,Fossil Nautiloid Fauna from Australia, J. Paleonotology, v26, pp730-752 (LINK)
Frey, R.C., 1989, Paleoecology of a well-preserved nautiloid assemblage from a Late Ordovician shale unit, southwestern Ohio, J. Paleontology, v63
W. W. Nassichuk, 1971,Permian ammonoids and nautiloids, southeastern Eagle Plain, Yukon Territory Journal of Paleontology, v. 45, p. 1001-1021
Gosh that was just a couple seconds of Googling!!!!
And that doesn't even include just about every standard intro paleontology textbook on the planet!
LOL!
So this quip from Gradyll earlier is starting to make more sense every post!
well thats your opinion, you have nothing to base your conclusion on, no premises, no arguments, no anything.
then explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!
if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?
but then again you have dodged every single creationist argument, why start now?
When we claim rapid deposits of 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs, you say it was a sea.
"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)
quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments
but then again you have dodged every single creationist argument, why start now?
I'm always amazed when young earth creationists tell me that this is OBVIOUSLY a "proof" of Noah's Flood. But I would really like to know if that sounds like "common sense" to anyone.
I've also wondered this: Does it seem likely that a FLOOD would leave behind the same kind of environment as an ancient ocean or lake?
Also, if these observation and evidence are "obvious", why are young earth creationists never able to use that evidence to identify THE GEOLOGIC STRATA OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD? That is, if the flood evidence is easy to see, why can't the strata location be named so that I know where I can find the flood evidence wherever I happen to be in the world?
Peer reviewed???
As far as I can tell Austin's only "publications" on this are a couple of abstracts talks at a GSA conference in 1999 (HERE) and 2002 (HERE). Of course Gradyll may not know that talks and their abstracts are often not peer reviewed.
It looks like Dr. Austin analyzed 160 nautiloids in the 1999 paper. But in the 1999 paper Dr. Austin also draws a conclusion of a "toxic event" that may have lead to this. I also cannot find how many nautiloids were analyzed for the 2002 paper where the 15% figure comes from
So correct me if I'm wrong but we find one area where 15% of some unknown number of nautiloids had their shells preserved in a non-horizontal orientation and reverse grading in a packstone in this formation accompanied by "escape tunnels" (did nautiloids have that capability or are these skolithos burrows????) as evidence that the Noachian Flood is real and the rest of geology, physics and hydrology should be tossed out.
Hmmmm. Maybe Gradyll should describe how this all works in a bit more detail and using his own "requirements" of peer reviewed literature.
Just an idea. I know it won't happen. We are now in the "YEC Whack-a-mole" zone where every 3rd post will bring up a new topic and no topic will be discussed by Gradyll in detail. Just move to the next one.
Peer reviewed???
Another example of you just making stuff up.
There is nothing to dodge. All you are presenting is stories with no evidence to back them up.
What evidence did you present that these fossils were produced by a recent global flood? Any?
Are you seeing a pattern here?
However, you have not mentioned any alternatives.
Either it was an ocean, or it was a huge body of water moving very fast to do this.
okay you are right, it would be an argument from silence to assume the duckbill dinasaurs were covered by noahs flood. However, you have not mentioned any alternatives. See the trend here? Either it was an ocean, or it was a huge body of water moving very fast to do this. What we know for certain is that it was a catastophic water event. (some others on this forum, said there were ancient oceans over the US before)
Is there any reason why this could not fit the model of Noahs flood?
but then again you have dodged every single creationist argument,
When we claim rapid deposits of 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs, you say it was a sea.
Then we talked about sedimentary layers forming fossils by injection of chemical under pressure.
And you quote all these abstract fossilization techniques that have nothing to do with the typical sedimentary rock formations in question.
You are building a reputation here.
then explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!
if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?
"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)
quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments
but then again you have dodged every single creationist argument, why start now?
When we claim rapid deposits of 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs, you say it was a sea.
But please tell the difference between noahs flood, and an ocean?
Then we talked about sedimentary layers forming fossils by injection of chemical under pressure.
And you quote all these abstract fossilization techniques that have nothing to do with the typical sedimentary rock formations in question.
You are building a reputation here.
none of us know exactly, however theorizing is okay. I theorize a body of water rushing over the surface of the earth, burying 10,000 dinasaurs as it stormed through the area we now call montana.I don't know is a fine answer.
I don't need an alternate explanation in order to show that you have not supported your claims.
You are making up stories again.
so it's okay for you to submit a different subject for evidence of evolution, but not for me?
Also I never mentioned peer review in anything I said regarding steve austins works on nautiloids. I simply asked a question, if they are in fact upright (15%), then why are they upright?
.
I have provided many, many peer reviewed articles which you have denigrated over and over again.
Now you want me to treat your references with "respect"?
Hypocrisy much?
But again we are going on very limited data here. But that doesn't bother you.
Again I'm not entirely certain why you think your points deserve even a modicum of respect! People on here have provided you much more respect than you have earned or deserve.
You are rude. You have been reported a couple times now. Hopefully some of your co-religionists will teach you something like common courtesy.
again, this is misinformation.
please see this ID'er who is definately NOT christian! And doesn't ever want to be!....
Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design: Bradley Monton: 9781551118635: Amazon.com: Books
that would technically be poisoning the well. Because even if I treated you rudely, and I don't believe I did. My references have nothing to do with me. So you let that slip a bit.
telling me I need to go to school and learn the basics of biology, paleantology, and geology is respect?
good job, that is what you should do. If moderators believe this in violation and that you have in fact not flamed as much or more, then it will be a point or two.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?