Science falsely so called documentary

[Brightmoon]

And there is nothing there for your list to explain why life happens or why it develops, or what chemical properties it's following, or nothing. I got nothin. Just more religion. And way less dogma becasue no list or principles exist explaining the reason life exists over non-life.

you could start with the Wikipedia articles on Abiogenesis and RNA world. And just FYI , science has no dogmas! If there is verifiable evidence that something is wrong, then it’s wrong , period.

 

[tas8831]

Sorta, yeah.

Well, if your geology knowledge is on par with your biology knowledge, I will see if I can get my 8 year old neighbor to come debate you.

 

[tas8831]

"Perplexing" to who?

"Relevant science" = "strong delusion".

Right - and black is white, day is night - all in a creationist's days work...

 

[tas8831]

No need for anyone to 'splain it to me.

Wow - Mr.Dunning? Meet Mr. Kruger.

 

[tas8831]

When I read the 'science' I see more brainstorming than anything else.

This is because, by your own admission, you do not understand it.

You are the fat dude on the couch yelling "You suck!" at the professional athlete for dropping the ball.

 

[Jimmy D]

I haven't compared him with other Atheists with YouTube channels yet, but we don't need to worry about this one. His video posts get very little notice and no sign of increasing popularity. He's had some video's in the thousands of views but that's dropping to the hundreds now. And a few thousand views for one video is nothing these days.
The Raging Atheist

Most posts here get more views than this guy gets on his videos.

Hardly surprising given what I saw from him.... he’s no Dawkins.

 

[tas8831]

It's a small problem. Visit Yellowstone.

Hmmm...

I don't know much about such processes - can you explain to me how a tree can become perminieralized with what appears to be a uniform saturation while the earth around it exhibits distinct banding, i.e., lithification of apparently different layers.

 

[tas8831]

After 20 years I would think the light would go on.

It went on a long time ago - that is why I began becoming less and less religious - because I actually understood what I was seeing, and realized that screeching egotistical religious zealots were clueless.

"Argument from Awe"; guilty as charged. (I like that almost as much as 'argument from incredulity'.)

And both are equally fallacious. Glad you admit that you rely on fallacies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It went on a long time ago - that is why I began becoming less and less religious - because I actually understood what I was seeing, and realized that screeching egotistical religious zealots were clueless.


And both are equally fallacious. Glad you admit that you rely on fallacies.

You said that...I didn't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It went on a long time ago - that is why I began becoming less and less religious....

Do you believe the world needs science more than it needs religion?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Or you could provide it and show how wrong I am.
______________________________________?

I imagine you are being nice and trying not to embarass me.
Becasue that's your style.

Here's a readable account, by the BBC, of abiogenesis research, that covers the main areas of study - it's a couple of years out of date, so things will have moved on a bit, but it's got pictures and everything

 

[USincognito]

It's a small problem. Visit Yellowstone.

A. None of those are in Yellowstone.
B. Most of them aren't trees. I recognize at least one as being a Joggins Formation (Nova Scotia) lycopsid and this isn't a polystrate "tree".
C. None of them are "polystrate" as the "layers" represent annual or seasonal accumulations of mud and are not geologic layers.

Did you seriously think I haven't put any thought or investigation into this issue and that you'd just spam a bunch of photos and I'd be wowed into submission?

Huh? Who claimed that polystrate fossils don't exist?
The one who did, was wrong.

They don't exist. Creationists claim that "polystrate" fossils, and trees in this specific case, are found in "millions of years" worth of layers. No such fossils exist anywhere. As they above graphic I made shows, the lycopsids and other plants were covered in annual or seasonal flooding that built up mud layers, not geologic layers.

 

[Brightmoon]

If that’s Yellowstone , then those are most likely ash falls because Yellowstone is very volcanic . Trees that die upright can take decades to fall over . An ash fall burying the base of a tree would prevent it from falling over . From the limited amount of info I have, I’m guessing that these are repeated ashfalls

 

[USincognito]

If that’s Yellowstone , then those are most likely ash falls because Yellowstone is very volcanic . Trees that die upright can take decades to fall over . An ash fall burying the base of a tree would prevent it from falling over . From the limited amount of info I have, I’m guessing that these are repeated ashfalls

I just did some checking you're 100% spot on. The petrified forest in Yellowstone was caused by volcanic activity and actually are trees. The objects in SR's post are all lycopsids from what I can tell, and all of them appear to be from Tennesse or Nova Scotia. Specifically the six in the first image, upper right is the same one as in the Dave Reves below that and that one is in Tennessee. Lower left is the same one as my image in #112 and is from the Joggins Formation in Nova Scotia.

 

[SkyWriting]

A. None of those are in Yellowstone.

As I said, visit the petrified forests in yellowstone.
There are entire hillsides with stone trees.

Yes, they are layers built up quickly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Did you seriously think I haven't put any thought or investigation into this issue and that you'd just spam a bunch of photos and I'd be wowed into submission?

What you do with the information I find is up to you. It may take you decades to process your conconclusions. So I, correctly, do not expect any quick change.

When you visit such places, you find that current explanations of geologic formations will replace older, much different, explanations and you can predict that future explanations will replace those as well. And you will find that multiple theories exists at any one time for any geologic guess currently in place. For example the redwood forest trees in Yellowstone have no root systems so were shown to be deposited in sediment upright rather than buried in place.

 

[SkyWriting]

you could start with the Wikipedia articles on Abiogenesis and RNA world. And just FYI , science has no dogmas! If there is verifiable evidence that something is wrong, then it’s wrong , period.

Certainly not. It's just one piece of data. There is never a period. People are still verifying gravity on an ongoing basis.

"....that something is wrong, then it’s wrong , period." This is the definition of Dogma, when something is considered "Right" or "Wrong" period.
Wow, did you mess up on that one!

 

[Brightmoon]

M

Certainly not. It's just one piece of data. There is never a period. People are still verifying gravity on an ongoing basis.

"....that something is wrong, then it’s wrong , period." This is the definition of Dogma, when something is considered "Right" or "Wrong" period.
Wow, did you mess up on that one!

not sure what you meant but there is a book called “Life on a Young Planet” by Andrew Knoll which describes life before the Cambrian and the geological and biochemical evidence for it. I made sure my library had a copy of it.

Not sure why that family tree showed up there ^but just to give you the idea of what a tiny part of life and how closely related multicellular eucaryotes (animals,plants, and fungi) are .

 

[Brightmoon]

For example the redwood forest trees in Yellowstone have no root systems so were shown to be deposited in sediment upright rather than buried in place.

this is the exact reason the geologists biologists and paleontologists DONT use the term” polystrate trees ”. There are too many different processes that result in trees (or other organisms with trunks )being buried upright and fossilized. We on this forum know what you’re talking about but it’s an inaccurate terminology that lumps disparate and important details together into a jumble

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a small problem. Visit Yellowstone.

Vertical fossils, yes. Polystrate, no. A stratum is not necessarily a thin layer. Those trees tend to occupy one stratum.