₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
What an immature nuisance. the first one was from wikipedia and i DULY NOTED THAT. That is why the first word reads thus - [size=18pt]Wikipedia[/size]

I wasnt "copying" from wikipedia, i simply did what i have now become accustomed to doing, running posts from empty headed blowhards like you through software that automatically fetches the websites you are plagiarizing from. turns out mazaje's alleged claim on polystrate fossils is suspiciously too similar to one used on wikipedia which of course had no source.

The source on Prof Rupke did not come from wikipedia, that is common knowledge dude . . . we are not all brain dead like you fools. I thought mazaje would know . . . afterall he claimed to be a "geologist".

davidylan:
Recycled material VERBATIM from - http://www.destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58490
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=268352
https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=77293&start=0

Just a few of the websites i could paste . . . there are literarily tons of them recycling the same material. And we thought these dudes had a brain. He's just trawling the internet copying and pasting.

By the way didnt this fool Bindex talk about NOT CITING SOURCES?

davidylan:
The funny thing is NOT ONCE on this thread did i even attempt to address the topic (since neither of you is addressing it anyway) so what exactly did i copy from wikipedia?  

Wikipedia - The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials. (unfortunately there was no citation for this claim . . . as usual).

you accused him of using non-standard geological terms . . . when in fact you dont know, you're simply parroting what you saw on wikipedia. the term "polystrate fossils" was coined in the 1970s by a Dutch Geologist with a PhD from Princeton University here in the USA

noetic2:
I would appreciate it if I am not the subject of ur LIES.

There are free software's online that help u track contents to see where they have been copied from, . . . . .until u can prove I copied from anywhere. . . . pls do me the favour refraining from lying.  and why do u and mazaje have a problem with stating facts from ur head without resorting to copy-paste?

I asked in very simple terms, if u guys wanted to debate the probability of noah's flood happening or the scientific evidences I claimed.

Mazaje said u guys prefered the scientific evidences. . . , . now u both have a problem answering the posers raised, , . .very "intelligent"

If u have any problems with noah's flood. . . . open a new thread. . , ,

Cant you see that there is a link to where some of your points came from on talkorigin?

davidylan:
Including the one i pointed out? 

What a shame.

And what has this to do with "source"? Why cant you DEBATE like you keep bleating WE should do? why are you merely copying and pasting? Is your brain that empty? so if google never existed you'd just be staring into the sky?

all these emergency "google-assisted" intellectuals.

davidylan:
dont waste your time, y[b]ou're just going to get websites back in return. [/b]They dont know . . . cant debate.

davidylan:
ah talkorigins again . . .

davidylan:
notice also that EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE speaking against the plystrate fossil theory simply uses the SAME TWO PHOTOS!

noetic2:
They are simply interested in just disagreeing for no concrete reason.
Didnt u wonder why they have no scientific, intellectual or logical basis for the non-existence of GOD?. . . . . .they are as guilty as the religions they accuse of using faith.

b]Noetic said[/b] Some of these fossil plants are found in Nova scotia strats in sydney as well as the united states and europe and other parts of the world. There are several evidences that suggest that these fossils were not planted in their current location but were transported there by massive water. . . . . NOAH'S FLOOD. Do u at least now have an idea of what a polystate fossil is now?

1. Quite unlike primordial geologist assumptions that these fossils were planted because of their long root, on closer observation, these assumption is found to be false based on the composition of these fossils,   . . . .I will lay more emphasis in other evidences.
There are massive sheet-like, sedimentary, flat lying deposits all over the world, which could NOT have been planted.

. The top of the fossils on closer inspection is as preserved as the base of the fossils when unearthed from their burial spot. These other facts are deducible
a. The roots are truncated:
b. The roots are two feet long
c: The top is broken of, it is assumed that the top might be 10-15 feet high.

The truncated root implies that these trees were uprooted.     . . ,  . . . .mazaje, from where?
The broken off top suggests that it was taller and did break off along a transporting process. . . . . . . .mazaje, how did it break off?

An appreciative understanding of this is deducible from the fact that many of these rootless fossils are buried individually. . . . This lay credence to the fact that these trees did not grow there but were deposited there.

The Stigmaria has derived its name from the regularly arranged pits or spots left by its rootlets, which proceeded from it on all sides. The Sigillaria has been named from the rows of leaf-scars which extend up its trunk, which in some species is curiously ribbed or fluted. One of the most remarkable peculiarities of the stigmaria-rooted trees was the very regular arrangement of their roots, which are four at their departure from the trunk, and divide at equal distances successively into eight, sixteen, and thirty-two branches, each giving off, on all sides, an immense number of rootlets, stretching into the beds around, in a manner which shows that these must have been soft sand and mud at the time these roots and rootlets spread through them.

"It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position."

[b]Given that an "in place" occurrence was convincingly determined by observations made in the 19th century for this and many other "fossil forest" localities, it is surprising that these conclusions have not been recognized by modern "young Earth global flood" [YEGF] creationists as clear evidence of non-global-flood deposition for much of the geologic record. They often hinge their current arguments on the occurrence of upright trees in Yellowstone National Park, point to their volcanic setting, and then point to floating upright trees floating in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens [2], and "See? They could be transported during the flood.". This argument is completely fallacious, because most "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol (fossil soil) [besides Joggins, see also 3]. One occurrence is even associated with dinosaur footprints on the same surface, on top of a coal seam [4, 5, 6]. The "transported floating upright stumps" model [2] is a complete red herring that does not apply to the vast majority of "fossil forest" occurrences. [/b]

As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not.

noetic2:
Its surprising, I was honestly expecting a healthy debate,  . ,  . . ,   .
To say I am disappointed is an understatement,  . ,  , to think they keep claiming to be more intelligent and "scientific".

davidylan:
you actually expected him to intelligently pick thru your arguments? All you're going to get is a long long tome from another website. Dont waste your time.

they are so stupid they even copy and paste personal correspondence - The following is a more detailed post on polystrate fossil trees I presented previously in talk.origins:

In article <1994May22.133828.562@alc-ohio.alc.com> malone@alc-ohio.alc.com (Bruce Malone) writes:

davidylan:
thou fool . . . what's the problem with what i wrote?

You accuse someone of quoting from other websites best not be quoting from A RIVAL WEBSITE in response.

If you cant understand that then you have a warped mind.

I find it funny that many of you foolish atheists usually have NOTHING of substance to contribute to threads besides chipping in insults from time to time. When someone has nothing to complain about but grammatical structure then you know something is amiss.

davidylan:
- you accused him of quoting creationist websites . . . then went ahead to quote talkorigins.com

noetic2:
No one has ever denied this. Evolution is not the only "theory" to "unprovably" claim this.

The bible records a flood that wiped all living creatures off the earth. This biblical account is buttressed by several scientific evidences including:

1. polystrate fossils
2. The existence of these fossils
3.  Turbudity currents
4. Extensive Strata and pancake layering
5. Fossil Whales and several others.

huxley2:
While it is true that there are atheistic relgions (such as Taoism, Zen, some forms of Budhisms), these atheistic religions tend to be far less harmful to society as a whole. The real cultural battle is between irrationalism, of which ALL religions ar a part, and rationalism. Philosophical atheism is founded on rationalism and abhors all forms of irrationalisms and superstition which is the bread and butter of theistic religions.

Am Alone:
H3LLO DUMI3!


Now you need to go back to school, spend the rest of your life there
And when you get to understand that 'Motion' is not equal to 'rotational motion' the you can come back


Who they mess cares! about what you meant when you say motion?!
Now go back to school and lear how to be more specific with words!

My friend go back to school!

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME THAT THERE IS NO [B]GOD?![/B]

3VOLUTIONARY IDIOT!

KAG:
No offence, but um, what the hell are you on about? There is no offical party line. There is the need for scepticism with claims that have little going for them, though. That the whole Ida debacle may be flawed doesn't invalidate the other independent, empirical and potentially falsifiable lines of evidence for evolution. Evolution occurs.

Am Alone:
All this Bastard pipu wey dey come Nairaland con teach us Words and Meaning chey you forget say na internet we dey abi!

http://ardictionary.com/Christ


Christ 1
Definition: The Anointed; an appellation given to Jesus, the Savior. It is synonymous with the Hebrew Messiah.


christ 2
Definition: any expected deliverer


Christ 3
Definition: a teacher and prophet born in Bethlehem and active in Nazareth; his life and sermons form the basis for Christianity (circa 4 BC - AD 29)



BASTARD!

Am Alone:
I don't need to talk too morons to make my day GO THERE!

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/qsun_motion.html

They take ppl shit for fact
No GOD my A$$

The Sun does rotate around its axis, although it rotates faster at the equator than at the poles. At the equator, the rotation period is 25 Earth days, while at the poles it is 35 Earth days.
The Milky Way also rotates, although different parts rotate at different rates. This keeps the arms from all running into each other.


There is evidence that the Sun is moving. First, the Sun (and our solar system with it) rotates around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The center of the Milky Way is found by looking in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius. Sagittarius is a summer constellation in the northern hemisphere. The Milky Way then moves around the center of the galaxy. Scientists deduce thi s information by observing thousands of nearby stars.


The Moon and the Sun both rotate counterclockwise. They exhibit direct orbital motion (as opposed to retrograde) - or counterclockwise when viewed from the north pole of the celestial sphere.


The Sun orbits around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at a rate of about 200-300 kilometers/sec


The Babcock model has to do with the Sun. In 1960, the American astronomer, Horace Babcock, theorized that the Sun's 22-year cycle is caused by the fact that the Sun experiences differential rotation and that it has a convective envelope. Because the Sun is a ball of gas, it experiences differential rotation, i.e., the gases at the equator rotate faster than the gases at the poles. So the magnetic field (which is "carried" in the gases of the Sun) tends to get wrapped around the Sun. The magnetic field gets bunched up because of the differential rotation. Convection in the photosphere causes the bunches or kinks of the magnetic field to erupt through the surface of the Sun. This causes a sunspot group which many think is related to solar activity.
For an activity concerning solar rotation, please see our Tracking an Active Region exercise!



This is just 10 of a 1,00o,000,000,000,000,000,000,

And One More Thing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GET A LIFE!!!!!

Am Alone:
Blah! Blah! Blah!
Execpt you begin to see the bible the as a WISE ONE YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND SHIT!
The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life!----

Ecc 1:5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.

Am Alone:
Oga the Bible never states in any verse that the sun moves from place too place
But it instead suggest that t[b]he sun is in motion![/b]
and if you are too dump to understand what kind of motion is sun exibit
then you need to first quote to me the greatest law of motion and that of space!

Ecc 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

toneyb:
So very well said, excellent post. about 3000 years ago volcanoes could not be explained. Common era thinking and present science at that time was simply NOT there. Volcanoes could only be explained as "its too incredible, massive, and unbelievable so god must have done it!" Or, god must be angry with us, he spews this stuff out of the floor that is hotter than anything, and could wipe out entire lands of people because of our disbelief or sins, because it could not be understood, or explained at that time it was there for god that did it (or so they thought). Anytime in human history, whenever something can't be explained, people cling to the idea that god did, rather than thinking that maybe we can't explain it NOW, but it doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

People thought that plagues the experienced at that time was a curse from god. They thought that it was brought upon the people because of the times they were in. If you ever said that they were getting the disease because of micro-organisms and that the plague was actually a micro-organism that could wreak havoc on the smallest of biological cells, they would laugh in your face about how ridiculous you answer was, Of course, as science came into existence we completely accept the rationale of what the plague is because we have proof of what it is, how it works, and how it affects us and how to prevent it. So a big question theists ask which is a stupid one in my mind is this, "Well the universe is here, so god must have done it." so the question to theists who believe this idea is, don't you think that your answer for the existence of the universe is the same as how the ancient  jews  thought they had the asnwer for the plague, volcanoes, diseses, the sun movements of the sun. That maybe just because we CAN'T explain it , doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation? Apply to this to everything in life. Just because you saw something in the sky doesn't mean its a UFO (in the alien sense).it just means there is something that is explainable, but you just don't have the explanation yet. I am especially fond of the way god used lightning for a while, until science figured out what actually caused it, and how to stop it from destroying tall buildings like churches.

2 Samuel 22:14-15 The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice. And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and routed them.

Job 36:32-33[b] He covers his hands with the lightning, and commands it to strike the mark[/b]. Its crashing declares concerning him, who is jealous with anger against iniquity.

davidylan:
did you READ his post at all? Let me repeat it here again . . .

[size=15pt]The key part of Christianity is "salvation" and the acknowledgement of Christ as "GOD". This acknowledgement coupled with grace makes one heaven bound.     Issues about sects or denominations are very very secondary.[/size]

The words of Christ - John 3:15  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Salvation is about WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH . . . nothing about sects here.

davidylan:
Pretty daft . . . the Romans captured and enslaved the jews . . . it had nothing to do with gods. Ditto the Babylonians, Persians . . .
the jews were slaves of Egypt for close to 500 yrs . . . i doubt Pharaoh knew who was Jehovah before Moses appeared before him.

but as usual go ahead with the long long posts that are desperately short on anything intellectual. Posting shld not be solely about stringing words together.

davidylan:
What i have basically come to conclude is that many of you "God doesnt exist" fools HAVE NO IDEA WHY YOU HAVE THAT BELIEF. You really dont understand where you stand, you are only here seeking validation of your state of mind . . . which is why we CONSTANTLY get all of you asking basically the same question - prove that God exists.

If you already WERE SECURE IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT GOD DOESNT EXIST, i doubt you'd be bothered to spend even 10 secs on this section.

Krayola:
haha, stop stealing my lines. come up with ur own sh!t.

The more you learn about other religions, the more you know about yours. [b]The reason why religions are so insulated is because religion and state used to be one and the same thing. So back then for example, state 1 vs state 2 in a war was the same thing as our God vs your God. SO every other God is evil, the enemy, and of the devil. [/b]They think the same of you. The religions themselves have noble beginnings. . . it is man (politics, the quest for territorial expansion, etc) that turned them all into the nonsense they are today. The truth will set you free. . but you have to genuinely seek it. . with an open mind.

davidylan:
On what basis? Why show himself to the uninterested? you dont have to belief . . . you're doing just fine.

I dont think you understand what "reality" really is. Reality is not that narrow piece of the world we choose to focus on.

davidylan:
1. A lot of biblical terms are routinely abused by those seeking a cloak for their unrighteousness. Telling you the plain FACT that you are unsaved is not a judgement. Christ, John the Baptist all said as much to the pharisees and sadducees who at least still believed in the God of Moses.

2. God condemns judgement, He doesnt condemn the truth. Infact He endorses it.

3. I'm not sure you understand what it means to be an ambassador of my faith . . . you seem to assume it entails kowtowing to you. Christ called the pharisees sons of vipers.

4. You were never interested in knowing my God. Dont let us waste both our time. Christ told the disciples to wipe the dust off their feet when they leave the homes of those uninterested in the gospel . . . we are also told not to cast pearls before swine.
Whether you choose to serve God or not is your own business . . . you wont have the excuse that you didnt hear on the last day.

davidylan:
same ol' same ol' . . . plenty of scoffing, very little substance.