Re: Fine-grained Mudstones and Current Deposition

On Jan 1, 11:06 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 3:06 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Dec 31 2007, 11:03 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
snip
Next time
you present a reference, please also present what you think is a
relevant quote along with what you think the passage actually means.

So why did you post the extracts from the papers *you* posted? What do
you think that they demonstrate, and how do they support you "theory"
of a global flood?

Of course, I've asked you to do this before and you simply refuse.
You keep on with your worthless reference mining - something even
worse than quote mining.

What bull***, Sean! Every scientific paper uses references in the way
I do. It's standard practice in science as you well know.

What a hoot! Richard's arguments on t.o. are somehow like scientific
papers!

No, but to dismiss what is, after all, standard practice in all
scientific papers as "worthless" is rather revealing.

I'll let you in on a little secret, Richard. It isn't standard
practice in discussions or arguments either in person or on Usenet to
"use" references in the way you do. And scientific papers aren't
"discussions".

You have severe problems in reading for comprehension. I didn't say
they were, or that Usenet is a scientific paper.




Tell you what: why not read this?http://www.sepm.org/sedrecord/sedrecord1.2.pdf

Or does the idea of actually *learning* anything frighten you so much
that you'll snip the reference?

Does the idea of presenting an actual quote along with one of your own
arguments worry you? Why not try it sometime?

So the idea of actually learning something *does* frighten you.

So Sean cites references and uses quotes and paraphrases, asks you to
do the same, you outright refuse, and you think he is frightened of
learning something???

Sean uses quotes in a way with is usually deliberately misleading. He
is setting himself up as an expert in a particular field of science,
but refuses to learn anything about it. I'm offering him sources from
which he can learn. One cannot learn a subject from a few isolated
snippets of text.


Your
ignorance of taphonomy is profound, and you won't learn anything about
it by my posting "quotations" from a few papers.

That's a stupid opinion. Unless you don't think your arguments are
effective. Not providing quotes would still be stupid, but the opinion
might be better informed. In your case.

It's not "my" arguments. It's the evidence and arguments produced by
centuries of research in the field of taphonomy, a field in which Sean
is profoundly ignorant.

You need to educate
yourself on the subject if your posts are to do anything other than
expose your ignorance. That's up to you, not up to me.

Friggin over and over and over again with the same bull***. You need
to educate yourself. Just making claims without support doesn't show
an opponent to be wrong or ignorant. It shows you to be ignorant.

I've offered plenty of evidence to show that Sean is wrong. That's why
I offer references to scientific papers which deal with the subjects
on which he is pontificating, some of why are available on-line. He
refuses to read the papers or address the evidence they offer.

It may have passed you by (you do, after all, have great difficulties
in reading for comprehension) that Sean is purporting to offer an
alternative explanation for the evidence garnered by centuries of
research and which all working geologists interpret within the
framework of an ancient earth with a rich and complex history. Sean
claims that the geological record can be equally well interpreted as a
series of closely-spaced catastrophic events, one of which was a
global flood.

It's up to him to support his assertions with evidence. The best he
seems to be able to offer is that most rocks were laid down in water,
a flood involves a lot of water, and that therefore all rocks were
laid down by a global flood. The rest of his arguments seem to be
saying that there are phenomena in the geological record which
mainstream science can't explain - though, as is shown in the case of
predator traps, he is usually doing no more than exposing his
ignorance - and that therefore his model is supported.

Of course, we all know that you don't know much about science and how
scientists work, preferring to stew in your ignorant self-
righteousnesses, but Sean has published scientific papers (or co-
authored them: I can't find any references to papers in which he is
the principal author, but that may simply be because any such papers
don't show up on the internet) and presumably knows how science works.
All I expect of him is that if he wants to have his "theory" accepted
as a scientific proposition, he presents it in a scientific format.

RF

.