and the lack of visual evidence of a cart outrunning the wind the most suspicious.
In 2007 a lot of people claimed Jack Goodman had faked his video.
Anyone who has followed this thread, or read any of the articles about this, no doubt know it wasn't faked. He proved it could be done, he did it, and if you consider the video non evidence, then good luck.
A reasonable person might consider the white rag visual evidence.
Last post by Zombies! -
Since Dave has seemingly badgered the thread, above is my favorite badger, from The Fantastic Mr. Fox. The quote on the gif is from the below.
Badger: [sighs] All right. Walt Boggis is a chicken farmer, probably the most successful in the world. He weighs the same as a young rhinoceros. He eats three chickens every day for breakfast, lunch, supper, and dessert. That's twelve in total per diem. Nate Bunce is a duck and goose farmer. He's approximately the size of a pot-bellied dwarf, and his chin would be underwater in the shallow end of any swimming pool on the planet. His food is homemade donuts with smashed up goose livers injected into them. Frank Bean is a turkey and apple farmer. He invented his own species of each. He lives on a liquid diet of strong alcoholic cider, which he makes from his apples. He's as skinny as a pencil, as smart as a whip, and possibly the scariest man currently living. The local human children sing a kind of... eerie little rhyme about him. Here, listen to this. [turns on the radio]
Children: [singing] ♪ Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. One fat, one short, one lean. Those horrible crooks so different in looks, were nonetheless equally mean. ♪
Badger: [turns off the radio] In summation, I think you just gotta not do it, man. That's all.
You know the old saying, "they go low, and we go high, and lose at every goddamn thing."
You know the old saying, "they go low, and we go high, and lose at every goddamn thing."
The problem is that it's a lot easier to win by going low if what you actually stand for is rockbottom.
Decency has a branding issue.
Parody account, but he'd die of old age before anything came of that threat anyway.The man is such a colorless fuddyduddy, even if he used twitter he would never stoop to anything that could be interpreted as character.
Quote from: ICR
In many ways, evolution has become a major barrier to evangelism. If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true. We are the product of randomly operating natural processes, and God is not necessary. Before the seed can be sown, the rubble of evolution must be cleared away and the ground prepared. For many confused products of our educational system, legitimate questions must be answered before a person can come to faith. Some have called creation ministry "the cutting edge of evangelism," and ICR outreaches (books, seminars, teaching) carry creation information to those in need.
But then a Christian must grow to maturity. Without doubt, evolution teaching proves a hindrance. Evolution teaches that the Bible has errors and cannot be trusted. Christians need to have their questions answered and doubts removed. Churches, seminaries, and denominations need to be called back to a belief in all of Scripture and to come under the authority of the Book they have been taught to doubt. This is the real message of creation.
Oh. Now we are on to asteroids.
I give up.
I give up.
It is really a very simple process:Nope.
Morris tells a simple story
This simple story fits well with the way Dave likes the see the world.
Hence we should assume that what he says is true, unless you find clear evidence that it is not. And clear evidence, in the Daveian sense, are things that are also a simple story that fits well with Dave's preconceived notions.
On the other hand, geologists tell a complex story that does not fit with Dave's preconceptions. They can be dismissed if Dave can even *imagine* a reason for them to be wrong: for instance, the mere conceptual possibility of some sort of conspiracy of silence among geologists is enough to consider one likely.
I think that if any of us really wanted to convince Dave, the way to do it is to appeal to his strong sense of superiority, as he is more convinced of it than even his religious beliefs. Praise his "discoveries" and "research" the way you would a seven year old boy, all the while gently steering him towards more complex ideas, while making sure you set him up to succeed every step of the way.
But he would need to develop some redeeming qualities to justify the effort, or else it would just be distasteful.
Morris is actually just trying to be honest with the data.
He doesn't even reference the data!!!!!
When you think about it ... it's shocking that no geologist has tried to put together a map like Morris' ... why on earth would we NOT want such a map? Where is the celebrated curiosity of the scientific community?
You can't make a map without data. Where do you think the data comes from?
Come on, guys ... someone put together some nice global (fairy tale) maps of Geologic Evolution (which I have posted) and they are very helpful to actually understand what the nature of the fairy tale actually is ...
So why not make some nice global maps of ACTUAL SANDSTONE which is ACTUALLY IN THE GROUND (as opposed to our fluffy idea of what happened in the past)
Because we don't KNOW what is in the ground throughout N America. We can only see it where it outcrops or where someone has drilled.
That doesn't stop Morris simply inventing data that doesn't exist. There is no such map because there are no such data.
What there ARE are data that show that SOME basal Cambrian sandstones are NOT uniform, NOT flat and NOT continuous with the tapeats.
Yet Morris simply makes shit up. And of course, because he's made shit up he doesn't tell us the source. Just handwaves the idea that the strata a long way from the tapeats are "correlated" with it. Sure they are correlated with it. They are also sandstone laid on pre-cambrian rock. That doesn't tell us that the sandstone is continuous with the tapeats. They could be sandstone laid down on a totally different shore, or part of the sea, in which the Tapeats was laid.
There is NO evidence that you, or anyone else has yet produced, for the vast thin flat uniform layer of sandstone that you are demanding we explain. Nobody has to explain any data that doesn't actually exist. If you think that layer exists, then FIRST provide the data that it does.
Morris doesn't. Yet still makes that demand.
It's become blindingly obvious to me, Viv, that today's geologists want to create complexity that's not actually there.
What made it obvious, Dave? You are happy for Morris to invent a simplicity that isn't actually there (or at least that he provides no data for, and is disconfirmed by much of what there IS), yet deny detailed accounts of the actual sandstone formations, including careful analysis of the depositional environments and evidence of things like braided streams?
Who is creating stuff that isn't there, Dave, in your looking glass world?
This is a very old tactic famously used by the medieval Catholic church to keep people confused and dependent upon the ruling religious class.
No, that would be ICR. "Don't worry about the science, just read our reassuring and unreferenced sciency-sounding books by Real GeologistsTM".
Dave, your capacity for self-delusion is truly epic.
I will grant that you also don't understand the age of the earth thing.
Or the computer thing.
Dave, ProTip: you are being mocked for your incompetence.We have a bright bulb here.Hugely important read ...Did you take a picture of your computer screen with your phone?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
You are startlingly un-selfaware.
He is startlingly unaware more generally. He's been told about Prnt Scrn dozens of times, but his High Speed Mind runs right past it.
I'm wondering how long till Dave starts expanding the definition of "sandstone".I've already told you where my argument goes. I've stated from the beginning that IF ... IF ... Morris' map is even close to being correct ... that is, if this sandstone layer really is this flat and this thin and this extensive ...
This whole banter back and forth about Dave's failure to define this "basal sandstone layer" is pretty tedious. However I'm quite interested to see where he goes with this argument.
Therefore, Dave, because I'm interested in seeing where your "argument" goes, I'm going to accept your claims that "continent-sized, super flat, super thin sandstone like the one in N. America which contains the Tapeats Sandstone". exists. It doesn't. Certainly not in the way you imagine, or desire it to exist, but lets pretend it does. This would be the part of the Sauk megasequence, yes?
So what's next?
PS. Don't you dare quote-mine me.
Then that is highly interesting.
Because NO process operating today that we know of has any chance of being able to produce such a layer - with that kind of areal extent and that degree of thinness and flatness - over millions of years.
And you know it.
Well, we don't "know it" but it's irrelevant, becaue there is no such area.
You seem to think, and ICR wants the YEC faithful to think, that the strata visible in the Grand Canyon are continuous throughout the US. And because they (at least the strata above the Great Unconformity) are horizontal and uniform in thickness - spectactularly so - you seem to think, and again ICR wants the YEC faithful to think - that the Grand Canyon is a representative slice through the entire country (or even the world).
We've already shown you diagrams of areas where there IS sandstone and it IS at the base of Cambrian rock but is NOT uniform in thickness - nothing like. And we've already shown you diagrams showing the areal extent of that sandstone, and that it is NOT continuous with the tapeats.
Same with the St Peter.
In other words, you, and ICR, and Morris, are looking at the GC, inferring, without data or references to data, that those layers are continuous throughout the continent, and then DEMANDING a Non-Flood explanation for "such a layer - with that kind of areal extent and that degree of thinness and flatness". No such explanation is required without evidence that such a layer actually exists.
And the very people demanding the explanation and contending that a Global Flood is the only possible explanation are a) the only people claing the layer exists and b) conspicuously fail to reference the data supporting it.
Meanwhile, in the real world, real geologists record that there IS a lot of sandstone in North America and that careful study of such rock indicates patterns indicating that it, and many other types of sedimentary strata, were formed over millions of years in a shallow sea by mechanisms perfectly observable in various deposition environments today.
Your refusal to accept that ICR is lying, despite the fact that they state this:
ICR is well known as a creation-science research group, with an additional emphasis in Biblical apologetics. But first and foremost, ICR is a Christian ministry. So what are our goals?
ICR's threefold ministry of research, education, and publication is summed up in the mission statement of the ICR Graduate School ". . . to discover and transmit the truth about the universe by scientific research and study, and to correlate and apply such scientific data within the supplemental integrating framework of Biblical creationism."
These people are not "truth seekers". They are not scientists. They are the antithesis of scientists. They are looking for explanations for data that fit a prior model. They are not trying to model the data. And as the data do not fit anything like the model they need, they at best omit, and often simply lie, about what that data is.
Look at RH Brown with his references to papers that don't say what he says they say. Look at Morris and his total lack of references for the very claim that he argues "only" a Global Flood could explain.
They are liars-for-Jesus, Dave, and from what I understand of Jesus, He would weep.