Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

[Job 33:6]

do your homework please. If they are PhD in geology then we can proceed to use their works, however if it's merely a peer review in a geology type of journal, that is not good enough. So please check.

Do my homework? Hahaha. Why don't you read the paper? I've done my homework. I've gotten my degree, I've published my research in paleontology. I have nothing to prove here.

If you would actually read the paper, perhaps you could see that the author is a PhD.

But you won't read.

Perhaps you don't really care enough about the topic to...read.

Me, I read about geology and paleontology, almost every day and have for years. I've done my homework, I have my license. I have a career. I've been doing homework for years.

You have to willing to read, if you want to learn anything. And if you aren't willing to read, then there is just no point in even talking.

And it's not even like I'm asking you to read a whole book. You want to know about nautiloids, and why they point upward when they sink and die, I found a very short, 11 page peer reviewed paper on this very topic. I'm not even asking you to read the whole thing, I asked you for your opinion on one paragraph, which is very specific to your questions. And you will never know what that paragraph says because...you're...clearly just uninterested in learning.

I found it for you (which took me time to do), I read it myself, I made this effort for you so that you could learn. And it's free, it's easily accessible (it's on Jstor), it is peer reviewed, it is written by a PhD, and now you won't even take who seconds of effort to read it. What do you think that says about your true interest in the science? It tells me that you don't actually care.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do my homework? Hahaha. Why don't you read the paper? I've done my homework. I've gotten my degree, I've published my research in paleontology. I have nothing to prove here.

If you would actually read the paper, perhaps you could see that the author is a PhD.

But you won't read.

Perhaps you don't really care enough about the topic to...read.

Me, I read about geology and paleontology, almost every day and have for years. I've done my homework, I have my license. I have a career. I've been doing homework for years.

You have to willing to read, if you want to learn anything. And if you aren't willing to read, then there is just no point in even talking.

appeal to authority sir. Just because someone has a degree and has published 9 articles in paleantology magazine, does not guarantee that the tenth will be published or even accurate for that matter.

That is why I ask for PhD's in geology.

also I posted quotes of all my papers. And I ask that you do the same. Prove your points with quotes, if you can't do that, I won't do you homework for you, that is just lazy debating. I debate way to many people to entertain that. So if you good with our conversation as it stands, I am good. But if you want to go on, I am game. Just quote your evidence on the thread, from a phd source.

 

[Job 33:6]

appeal to authority sir. Just because someone has a degree and has published 9 articles in paleantology magazine, does not guarantee that the tenth will be published or even accurate for that matter.

That is why I ask for PhD's in geology.

also I posted quotes of all my papers. And I ask that you do the same. Prove your points with quotes, if you can't do that, I won't do you homework for you, that is just lazy debating. I debate way to many people to entertain that. So if you good with our conversation as it stands, I am good. But if you want to go on, I am game. Just quote your evidence on the thread, from a phd source.

You also posted links to papers and websites. And guess what...I looked Steve Austin's paper up and I read it. I even quoted the paper directly myself. It's actually a very simple and easy read, and the sections of discussion were no more than a couple paragraphs.

Because guess what, I am interested in the topic. I actually care enough about the topic, to read about it. Which clearly isn't the case for both of us.

And again, if you would read the paper, perhaps you would see that it has been written by a PhD.

 

[Job 33:6]

"But if you want to go on, I am game. Just quote your evidence on the thread, from a phd source."

That's alright. When you're ready to read, id be happy to continue. But if you aren't actually willing to read scientific literature, then there is no way you will ever understand science, and if that's how you want to approach science (by choosing not to read scientific literature), then that's your loss and though disappointed in your sincerity, I'm ok with that.

And again, I can help you read if you have trouble with things. Sometimes reading these papers can be hard, they can be technical. But that's why I offered to help earlier on. This is what it takes to learn science. And if you arent...basically literate, then there is nothing anything can do for you.

Being scientifically literate, is necessary in understanding science, because if you aren't willing to read, you aren't allowing yourself access to 99% of information in science.

And if you are able to read and to understand the paper, then there is no good excuse for not reading a short paper or even just the single paragraph 4 on page 11.

 

[createdtoworship]

"But if you want to go on, I am game. Just quote your evidence on the thread, from a phd source."

That's alright. When you're ready to read, id be happy to continue. But if you aren't actually willing to read scientific literature, then there is no way you will ever understand science, and if that's how you want to approach science (by choosing not to read scientific literature), then that's your loss and though disappointed in your sincerity, I'm ok with that.

And again, I can help you read if you have trouble with things. Sometimes reading these papers can be hard, they can be technical. But that's why I offered to help earlier on. This is what it takes to learn science. And if you arent...basically literate, then there is nothing anything can do for you.

Being scientifically literate, is necessary in understanding science, because if you aren't willing to read, you aren't allowing yourself access to 99% of information in science.

sir you are pushing your burden of proof onto others, that is a fallacy. And with a fallacy already before even beginning to debate, it's not starting out on the right foot.

 

[Job 33:6]

sir you are pushing your burden of proof onto others, that is a fallacy. And with a fallacy already before even beginning to debate, it's not starting out on the right foot.

Uh no. The burden of proof is on you, who claimed that nautiloid shells cannot be fossilized in a vertical fashion by natural means.

And then when refuted (or just when your idea is disputed), you aren't even willing to read the paper detailing the refutation or denying the concept.

This is akin to an atheist saying God isn't real, and you hand the atheist the Bible (the ultimate word and truth) and the atheist says "well, I just don't feel like actually reading any verses in scripture, but the burden of proof is on you!".

Please. The proof is being provided, it's just that one party doesn't care enough about the topic to read. Not even a single paragraph of a free and easily accessible scientific paper.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let me ask you this...

Why don't you want to read the paper? Or not even a single paragraph of it?

Personally, I was happy to read over Austin's paper. Because I enjoy the topic. I was happy to go out of my way to find a paper that fit your interests and I was happy to read that paper too. I read literally every page. Because I enjoy it, I am interested in it, and I care about the subject.

But I ask for your opinion on a single paragraph (paragraph 4, page 11) and your response is that I'm not providing proof and that for whatever unknown reason, you aren't willing to read. Which tells me either that you can't read (maybe the paper is too technical?) Or that you don't care enough about the topic to read.

And I'm offering my efforts to help you translate anything in that paper that might be difficult to read. So the only remaining alternative, is that you don't care enough about the topic to learn about it. And if you don't care, then I cannot care to discuss the topic with you.

It shouldnt be the worlds burden providing you fish. Fishing can only be learned by being taught how to fish and being willing to learn. So humble yourself learn how to fish, or don't bother criticising fisherman.

 

[Job 33:6]

And how about this. If you read paragraph 4 of page 11, and for every page or paragraph you read of mine, I'll offer to read whatever you read, 5 fold.

So even if I asked you to read a 10 page paper, I would read a 50 page paper for you, if you wanted me to see it. (Assuming you aren't asking me to purchase a 30 dollar book or anything, my wife wouldn't let me spend for this). But if it's free and accessible, I'll read whatever you read times 5.

 

[createdtoworship]

Uh no. The burden of proof is on you, who claimed that nautiloid shells cannot be fossilized in a vertical fashion by natural means.

yes logic itself proves that, no external sources needed. with the weight of a shell in water, it's logical that it wouldn't stand upright. It's weight is in the shell. That would be like me putting a weight belt on in a the water, and it floating. Doesn't make sense. Then you said in some journal that as the flesh decays air can be trapped. But we don't know the qualifications of the peer review, or anything you just posted it like it was objective evidence. Well you have to explain their qualifications first.

And then when refuted (or just when your idea is disputed), you aren't even willing to read the paper detailing the refutation or denying the concept.

yes because mine was from a phd, and you never to this day, have not followed through with saying that all of the journals posted were from phd's .

This is akin to an atheist saying God isn't real, and you hand the atheist the Bible (the ultimate word and truth) and the atheist says "well, I just don't feel like actually reading any verses in scripture, but the burden of proof is on you!".

well using the Bible to prove christianity is for the most part a circular argument, but you can use prophecy, which is an external logic. And use it to prove it. But most scripture require a semblance of innerancy to believe it. So I guess that is a good point. That is like you quoting biased peer reviews that believe in uniformitarian thought. I can just dismiss them as biased and move on. As bias affects how we do our science. But I am humoring you and listening at least to it.

 

[Job 33:6]

yes logic itself proves that, no external sources needed. with the weight of a shell in water, it's logical that it wouldn't stand upright. It's weight is in the shell. That would be like me putting a weight belt on in a the water, and it floating. Doesn't make sense. Then you said in some journal that as the flesh decays air can be trapped. But we don't know the qualifications of the peer review, or anything you just posted it like it was objective evidence. Well you have to explain their qualifications first.
yes because mine was from a phd, and you never to this day, have not followed through with saying that all of the journals posted were from phd's .


well using the Bible to prove christianity is for the most part a circular argument, but you can use prophecy, which is an external logic. And use it to prove it. But most scripture require a semblance of innerancy to believe it. So I guess that is a good point. That is like you quoting biased peer reviews that believe in uniformitarian thought. I can just dismiss them as biased and move on. As bias affects how we do our science. But I am humoring you and listening at least to it.

Please. The proof is being provided, it's just that one party doesn't care enough about the topic to read. Not even a single paragraph of a free and easily accessible scientific paper.

Nothing really matters if you aren't willing to read, it is a key necessity of an education.

Let me know when you're willing to read, otherwise there is nothing more to be said on my part.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nothing really matters if you aren't willing to read, it is a key necessity of an education.

Let me know when you're willing to read, otherwise there is nothing more to be said on my part.

Sir you don't want to do the leg work. I get it. But don't tell me it's my fault. Because again I literally do my own homework and write up my own articles including peer review quotations to use in debate. But it's work. And I get that you don't want to do that work. And that is ok. But realize it for what it is. Ultimately you are failing to quote your works here on the thread and are expecting other users to glean page upon page of peer review to find quotes that you say are there from writers that you claim are official sources, but have not even mentioned their credentials. So again I am all for peer reviews, but I don't have time for one to do your work for you, when I am debating several debates right now, and writing my own articles on them. I posted my official sources, and they were PhD in geology and it was written in an official geological source literature. Now I expect you to do the same, if you can't. Then just say you don't have time to do so.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sir you don't want to do the leg work. I get it. But don't tell me it's my fault. Because again I literally do my own homework and write up my own articles including peer review quotations to use in debate. But it's work. And I get that you don't want to do that work. And that is ok. But realize it for what it is. Ultimately you are failing to quote your works here on the thread and are expecting other users to glean page upon page of peer review to find quotes that you say are there from writers that you claim are official sources, but have not even mentioned their credentials. So again I am all for peer reviews, but I don't have time for one to do your work for you, when I am debating several debates right now, and writing my own articles on them. I posted my official sources, and they were PhD in geology and it was written in an official geological source literature. Now I expect you to do the same, if you can't. Then just say you don't have time to do so.

I'm not asking you to gleen through page after page, I asked for your opinion of a single paragraph. Why is that such a hard task for you? And even still, the paper is only 10 pages (many figures included). You're acting like I asked you to read a novel.

Why don't you simply want to read?

And I haven't mentioned who my sources are because anyone literally in less than a minute can click on a link and can read them.

But why is that so hard for you?

I think that you're hiding from something but I can't quite put my finger on it. For those truly interested in the sciences, we jump out of our chairs to look at these papers. But you, for some reason are fighting against the most simple request.

I suspect that perhaps you aren't able to understand the article and therefore aren't willing to read.

If you aren't interested in reading, this suggests that you're disabled in your ability to learn, and that is nobody's fault but perhaps your own. And you will never be able to understand science, if you aren't willing to take this step.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll tell you what. As a compromise, I will post a screenshot of paragraph 4 on page 11. That way you don't even have to click your mouse to turn pages.

It was already a simple task, but I'll make it even easier for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[Job 33:6]

Now I will try again, what do you think of paragraph #4

Taphonomy of Ammonites from the Santonian-Lower Campanian Santa Marta Formation, Antarctica: Sedimentological Controls on Vertically Embedded Ammonites on JSTOR

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not asking you to gleen through page after page, I asked for your opinion of a single paragraph. Why is that such a hard task for you? And even still, the paper is only 10 pages (many figures included). You're acting like I asked you to read a novel.

Why don't you simply want to read?

And I haven't mentioned who my sources are because anyone literally in less than a minute can click on a link and can read them.

But why is that so hard for you?

I think that you're hiding from something but I can't quite put my finger on it. For those truly interested in the sciences, we jump out of our chairs to look at these papers. But you, for some reason are fighting against the most simple request.

I suspect that perhaps you aren't able to understand the article and therefore aren't willing to read.

If you aren't interested in reading, this suggests that you're disabled in your ability to learn, and that is nobody's fault but perhaps your own. And you will never be able to understand science, if you aren't willing to take this step.

well sir, accusing someone of a mental disability simply because they disagree with you on evolution, is a bit harsh and uncalled for. Again I debate. I have debating since 2004. I cut my teeth on the creation evolution debate. I can shut you down on most evolutionary topics, in a few posts. But I know you are probably a scientist, and I put more time in with scientists. I respect them. I know that they are able to carry a conversation like this. And that is good. However I don't read links unless I know they are good sources. A good source is a peer review from a PhD in related field of study. A bad source would be a peer review that either is too old, or a peer review from someone who is not qualified by their degree to write such an article. My peer review was both quoted, and provided that the author was a PhD in geology and the article was posted in a honorable geological journal. So again, I did my part. All my logic is solid and all my arguments have been documented here on this forum. Yours have not been. So I ask you to not just be a scientist, but also be a better debater. I am trying to help you. See I don't even have to try to defeat the arguments, your not giving me anything to work with. It's really not fair to you. So I am trying to help you be a better debater. And part of that means formulating your arguments and rebuttals in bullet fashion, quoting the peer review sections that apply. See posting a peer review and not quoting it means you agree with the whole article, and all I need to find is an error in logic somewhere. Again that is too easy to dismiss. And seeing you know an awful lot, I want us both to learn here. I desire to go deeper into this and learn something, and I hope you do as well. So if you want to go to another topic, we can talk about the 10,000 duck bill dinosaurs buried rapidly in montana if you want.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is the author, note that he is a PhD. Note that the article is published in palaios, a very prestigious peer reviewed journal of paleontology.

 

[Job 33:6]

well sir, accusing someone of a mental disability simply because they disagree with you on evolution, is a bit harsh and uncalled for. Again I debate. I have debating since 2004. I cut my teeth on the creation evolution debate. I can shut you down on most evolutionary topics, in a few posts. But I know you are probably a scientist, and I put more time in with scientists. I respect them. I know that they are able to carry a conversation like this. And that is good. However I don't read links unless I know they are good sources. A good source is a peer review from a PhD in related field of study. A bad source would be a peer review that either is too old, or a peer review from someone who is not qualified by their degree to write such an article. My peer review was both quoted, and provided that the author was a PhD in geology and the article was posted in a honorable geological journal. So again, I did my part. All my logic is solid and all my arguments have been documented here on this forum. Yours have not been. So I ask you to not just be a scientist, but also be a better debate. I am trying to help you. See I don't even have to try to defeat the arguments, your not giving me anything to work with. It's really not fair to you. So I am trying to help you be a better debater. And part of that means formulating your arguments and rebuttals in bullet fashion, quoting the peer review sections that applicable. See posting a peer review and not quoting it means you agree with the whole article, and all I need to find is an error in logic somewhere. Again that is too easy to dismiss. And seeing you know an awful lot, I want us both to learn here. I desire to go deeper into this and learn something, and I hope you do as well. So if you want to go to another topic, we can talk about the 10,000 duck bill dinosaurs buried rapidly in montana if you want.

I notice that you're different than the typical anti-status quo creationist. And that is why it is all the more important for me to tell you that you should be the one willing to take that extra step and to read that scientific article.

It's not about who is doing their homework. It's not about a painstaking reading of a novel.

It's about learning. And I'm telling you that 99% of information is locked up in these articles. You have to be ready, willing and able to open them up and to dive in. And if it is true that if you can't handle this simple task (me asking for your opinion on a single paragraph), then that tells me that there is a world of information that you do not have access to, either willfully or not. And that's a problem. It's a big problem because it suggests to me that you either aren't willing or aren't able, to go to the next level. For reasons that only you know.

It also suggests that perhaps you aren't interested enough in the topic.

When you're interested in a topic, nothing stops you from digging into it. Nothing. And if you aren't interested in digging in and aren't interested in the topic, that is another large obstacle. Because you have to be interested.

You have to be interested, you have to be willing and you have to be able, or you simply won't survive (or at least your ideas wont).

 

[createdtoworship]

I notice that you're different than the typical anti-status quo creationist. And that is why it is all the more important for me to tell you that you should be the one willing to take that extra step and to read that scientific article.

It's not about who is doing their homework. It's not about a painstaking reading of a novel.

It's about learning. And I'm telling you that 99% of information is locked up in these articles. You have to be ready, willing and able to open them up and to dive in. And if it is true that if you can't handle this simple task (me asking for your opinion on a single paragraph), then that tells me that there is a world of information that you do not have access to, either willfully or not. And that's a problem. It's a big problem because it suggests to me that you either aren't willing or aren't able, to go to the next level. For reasons that only you know.

Well I verified his credentials, something you should have done TBH. It was in spanish, his resume. I had to translate it with google scholar. And he is a phd in geology. So now to step two. Verifying the material. Your premise if I understand it correctly is that because this peer review mentions a natural explanation of shells standing up in the fossilization process, that therefore this can carry forward into why nautiloid fossils are standing up. Now if you look at an image of nautiloids, not the modern but the ancient ones, you will find they are very long. And your specimen in the peer review looks like a snail. So saying a snail shell is standing up is sort of relative. But a long nautiloid shell is like four times the width of the body, it would take much much more pressure to stand a nautiloid shell up, than it would to stand a ammonoide shell up logically speaking, just from an obeservation. So therefore, this work is non sequitur to discussion. They are two completely different animals, and when you look at a picture you can see this.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well I verified his credentials, something you should have done TBH. It was in spanish, his resume. I had to translate it with google scholar. And he is a phd in geology. So now to step two. Verifying the material. Your premise if I understand it correctly is that because this peer review mentions a natural explanation of shells standing up in the fossilization process, that therefore this can carry forward into why nautiloid fossils are standing up. Now if you look at an image of nautiloids, not the modern but the ancient ones, you will find they are very long. And your specimen in the peer review looks like a snail. So saying a snail shell is standing up is sort of relative. But a long nautiloid shell is like four times the width of the body, it would take much much more pressure to stand a nautiloid shell up, than it would to stand a ammonoide shell up. So therefore, this work is non sequitur to discussion. They are two completely different animals, and when you look at a picture you can see this.

You're not reading the article. I'll keep posting photos to help you along.

You know, it's a free article. You can do this.