Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: claptrap; Right Wing Professor; blowfish
Why not postulate your junk science to mind numbed robots

...says the guy who thinks that there's a valid scientific argument in his following ramble:

Besides fossil evidence is tripe stalagtites can form in as little time as fourteen years and petrify. So literally anything could be a fossil.

Ooookay...

What can I say -- you're apparently the local expert on "junk science" and MNRs.

But just for fun, perhaps you might want to answer the following questions about your, um, amazing claim.

1. What in the hell is a "stalagtite"?

2. Did you perhaps mean "stalactite" or "stalagmite"?

3. If so, which one?

4. Do you even know the difference?

5. Do you even think it matters whether you know or not before you spout off about geology and what its alleged implications for evolutionary biology might be?

6. Are you aware that the only kind of "fast-growing" stalactites are of the gypsum or concrete/mortar type, and are easily distinguished from the more common calcium carbonate stalactites, which are indeed very slow growing?

7. Are you aware that the creationists who spout the "fast stalactites" garbage are lying to you when they pretend that there's no difference between gypsum stalactites and calcium carbonate stalactites?

8. Do you care that they're lying to you in order to dishonestly propagandize in favor of creationism?

9. Are you somehow under the impression that gypsum or mortar stalactites have anything whatsoever to do with the processes of fossilization?

10. Are you really that enormously ignorant?

11. Are you under the bizarre impression that the speed of fossilization is somehow relevant to the *age* of the fossil?

12. Why?!? Not even the creationist pamphlet-writers are dense enough to try to make that claim. When they write about fast-growing stalactites, they do it in order to try to (fallaciously and disingenuously) attack age-of-earth evidence, not fossils.

13. Are you so unfamiliar with the science you attempt to hand-wave away that you're entirely unaware of the many ways in which the age of fossils are independently determined and cross-checked?

14. Even if, as you incorrectly allege, "anything could be a fossil", how would this actually support your broad claim that "fossil evidence is tripe"? Wouldn't the morphology of the fossils be useful evidence even if "anything could be a fossil"?

15. Are you so arrogant that you're proud to snottily denounce the sciene without actually knowing the first thing about it?

16. How did you turn out that way?

17. Was your screen name consciously chosen for its aptness to the content of your posts, or is that just a fortuitous happenstance?

Thank you in advance for your elucidating answers.

234 posted on 09/26/2005 9:58:52 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies ]


To: Ichneumon

Okay stalagmite is a mound of deposited minerals.
Stalactite forms in a downward direction.
In Colorado there is a place called Cave of the Winds
I have been there many times and they can form quite rapidly, blocking out whole sections of open areas.
The abundance or redeposited minerals should suggest the transitory nature of geological formations, if earthquakes dont do it for you.


240 posted on 09/26/2005 10:42:31 PM PDT by claptrap (optional tagline under re-consideration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies ]

To: Ichneumon

Calcim carbonate is formed from carbonic acids leaching minerals from soil and rocks, underground there is also sulfuric acids combined with a slurry of other materials.
With all these possible interactions millions of years are not required for petrification, On Mt Evans there are bristlecone pines that are half petrified and some completely petrified and some are still growing they are well above the treeline( elevation at which trees grow )
so I still insist that stone can form rapidly, by my own
observation, and Ive seen seashells stuck in half granite half quartz rocks way above 9000ft which suggests tremendous geologic activity which would render layer dating useless yet thats how most supposed fossils are dated.


242 posted on 09/26/2005 11:02:10 PM PDT by claptrap (optional tagline under re-consideration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson