CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I'll bite. Can't you give us your own opinions? I'd like to see some genuine thoughts and not references to websites with agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I'll bite. Can't you give us your own opinions? I'd like to see some genuine thoughts and not references to websites with agendas. You want steakandchips to post his own thoughts and opinions rather than just mindlessly regurgitating those of other incredibly stupid people? How long have you got?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I am baffled as to why the fine folk of VT have allowed this to get to 80+ pages. Let them live in there little fairy tale World if they want, just ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I am baffled as to why the fine folk of VT have allowed this to get to 80+ pages. Let them live in there little fairy tale World if they want, just ignore them. Youve obviosuly not read the further attempts by steaknchips to try to explain or play advocate for certain parts of old testament and very literally... I have no problem with religion myself. I don't think its all the cliche source for bad like some atheists think. But is pretty hilarious to hear steaknchips trying to explain geology being all wrong , and whether dinosaurs were demons or not etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I am baffled as to why the fine folk of VT have allowed this to get to 80+ pages. Let them live in there little fairy tale World if they want, just ignore them. Booooo. I think it's a great thread for laughs, a bit disturbing but better read than pretty much 99% of topics in OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 13, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 13, 2011 As he appears to still presently work for the US Geological Survey in Flagstaff Arizona, perhaps VT should email him and ask him to explain how HE interprets the geological evidence available and beleif in the Flood of Noah's Day? Being as he isn't a young earth creationist, why would we bother? I can find plenty of geologists that believe in God, has that ever been in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 13, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 13, 2011 Leviathan could have been... Whoa! Stop right there. You used the word "could", that usage implies *gasp* interpretation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Being as he isn't a young earth creationist, why would we bother? I can find plenty of geologists that believe in God, has that ever been in question? TBF Bicks.. that's not what I was saying is it?.. I said as to why this particular Geologist - Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka would be a renowned, published modern Geologist who works for the USGS and has himself looked at the available evidence regarding the geological record of the Earth and interpretated said evidence to come to the conclusion that the Bible is indeed correct and beleives that a global flood took place in Noah's day. I can't be bothered to trail back through 82 pages but I'm sure posters have made comments or certainly inferred in their posts that only "stupid people" could possibly beleive in a Noatian Flood because the Geological record proves otherwise. Obviously some Geologists disagree. It was tongue in cheek to suggest that VT should email him, but it would indeed be interesting to hear his exact views on the global deluge and details such as the water or ice canopy, the springs or water bursting forth from the crust of the earth etc which are details mentioned in the account.... as a viable explanation and a counter argument to the posts that the global flood of Noah's day could have never taken place and the Bible is completely scientifically inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 13, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 13, 2011 And how many geologists are there in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robojoel Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 And how many geologists are there in the world? And could they all fit on Noah's Ark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 13, 2011 Author Share Posted November 13, 2011 Dr Neville Hollingworth, paleontologist with the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon, talking about the fossils found at Wootton Bassett mud spring. ‘There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Dr Neville Hollingworth, paleontologist with the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon, talking about the fossils found at Wootton Bassett mud spring. ‘There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old’ He never said that at all. Seriously, stop copy pasting with no fact checking. The vast majority of the quotes you've posted on here are either: 1) badly misinterpreted 2) misattributed 3) completely made up. In the case of the Wootton Bassett fossils, all that was said was: Neville Hollingworth of the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon has found a fossil of Sigaloceras calloviense whose outer shell has dissolved away to reveal the outline of adductor muscles and tentacles in the honey-coloured calcite inside. OUTLINE being the key word. No organic material, merely an outline of where it was. How exactly do you expect to be taken seriously when you don't even verify your sources? You just repost the same refuted sources over and over again with no regard for the accuracy of the claims made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 And how many geologists are there in the world? I'm sure there's lots and no doubt they have different opinions and interpretations of alsorts of matters regarding the subject. As you said there are plenty of geologists in the world who beleive in God as there will be plenty who do not, like yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 13, 2011 Author Share Posted November 13, 2011 Dr Neville Hollingworth, paleontologist with the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon, talking about the fossils found at Wootton Bassett mud spring. ‘There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old’ He never said that at all. Seriously, stop copy pasting with no fact checking. The vast majority of the quotes you've posted on here are either: 1) badly misinterpreted 2) misattributed 3) completely made up. In the case of the Wootton Bassett fossils, all that was said was: Neville Hollingworth of the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon has found a fossil of Sigaloceras calloviense whose outer shell has dissolved away to reveal the outline of adductor muscles and tentacles in the honey-coloured calcite inside. OUTLINE being the key word. No organic material, merely an outline of where it was. How exactly do you expect to be taken seriously when you don't even verify your sources? You just repost the same refuted sources over and over again with no regard for the accuracy of the claims made. Read the bottom of this page. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14819981.700-iridescent-fossils-rise-up-from-volcano.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 How exactly do you expect to be taken seriously when you don't even verify your sources? You just repost the same refuted sources over and over again with no regard for the accuracy of the claims made. TBF to Steak & Chips on this occasion, I Googled Neville Hollingsworth and quotes attributed to him are indeed on answersingenesis.org Taken from the article:- A ‘165 Million Year’ Surprise Some of these supposedly 165 million year old ammonites are previously unrecorded species, says Dr Hollingworth, and the real surprise is that ‘many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells’.1 According to Dr Hollingworth these ‘pristine fossils’ are ’the best preserved he has seen … . You just stand there [beside the mud springs] and up pops an ammonite. What makes the fossils so special is that they retain their original shells of aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] … The outsides also retain their iridescence …’6 And what is equally amazing is that, in the words of Dr Hollingworth, ‘There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old’!1 Then the article uses his quotes to make the following argument - Perhaps what is more amazing is the evolutionary, millions–of–years mindset that blinds hard–nosed, rational scientists from seeing what should otherwise be obvious—such pristine ammonite fossils still with shimmering mother–of–pearl iridescence on their shells, and bivalves still with their original organic ligaments, can’t possibly be 165 million years old. Upon burial, organic materials are relentlessly attacked by bacteria, and even in seemingly sterile environments will automatically, of themselves, decompose to simpler substances in a very short time.7,8 Without the millions–of–years bias, these fossils would readily be recognized as victims of a comparatively recent event, for example, the global devastation of Noah’s Flood only about 4,500 years ago. I have no knowledge whether or not his quotes have been twisted to fit their argument or they are telling outright untruths however they do list all the sources for these quotes at the bottom of the page:- Footnotes N. Nuttall, ‘Mud springs a surprise after 165 million years’, The Times, London, p. 7, May 2, 1996.) W.I. Stanton, ‘Mud springs in Britain’, Geology Today 4(6):187, November–December, 1988. W.I. Stanton, ‘Wootton Bassett: fame at last for mud springs’, Geology Today, 11(5):172, September–October, 1995. W.I. Stanton, ‘Mud springs in Britain: an update’, Geology Today 8(5):175, September–October, 1992. R.P. Gosnell, ‘Mud springs at Wootton Bassett’, Geology Today 5(3):87, May–June, 1989. Anonymous, ‘Iridescent fossils rise up from volcano’, New Scientist 148(1998):10, October 7, 1995. T. Lindahl, ‘Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA,’ Nature 362(6422):709–715, 1993. H.N. Poinar, M. Höss, J.L. Bada and S. Pääbo, ‘Amino acid racemization and the preservation of ancient DNA’, Science 272(5263):864–866, 1996. Ian Gale, personal communication, August 16, 1996. R.P. Gosnell, ‘Wootton Bassett: fame at last for mud springs’, Geology Today 11(5):172–173, September–October, 1995. R.P. Gosnell, ‘More on the Wootton Bassett mud springs’, Geology Today 12(2):61–62, March–April, 1996. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 13, 2011 Author Share Posted November 13, 2011 You cant use that site though Julie "because they tell lies"... So ive taken the link from a "science" site instead....Maybe a "science" site wont tell lies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 lol... that made me smile. As did the tale of the woman Steve Wright on Radio 2 once told who always hid behind the curtains when JWs knocked on the door.... one day she heard a knock on the door and took up her usual hiding place where she could see who they were without being seen. Just as the woman was walking down the path to leave the door...the door flung open and the houesholder shouted. "Oh it's OK you're the Avon lady, I was just hiding.. I thought you were those bloody Jehovah's Witnesses again"..... when the Avon lady reached the door with catalogue in hand she quietly smiled at the householder and said... "Well actually I am one" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 You cant use that site though Julie "because they tell lies"... ooops sorry I haven't been keeping up with everything that has been posted.. I just wanted to point out that those quotes you posted do seem to be attributed to have indeed been taken from the Scientific papers and articles listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts