Which is?Which what is?
What mechanism?
The mechanism to accelerate the rock?
And where exactly does the excess energy go?
Which is?Which what is?
What mechanism?
The mechanism to accelerate the rock?
And where exactly does the excess energy go?
Which is?
The mechanism to accelerate the rock?
And where exactly does the excess energy go?
I can show you the same thing with animals alive today.
Also if uniformitarian ideas of geology were correct.
All your enemies are made of straw.
What belief?
Depends. The fastest stuff had to be going around 11km/s .. if what I remember as Earth's escape velocity is correct.
Of course. Simple variation and speciation have been directly observed. What the fossils can do, is show us that process over a very long period. And then, the changes amount to something much bigger. Are you sure enough of your assumptions to test them?
Why?The part that chokes you seems to be how. Why not just admit you don't have a clue how, but you believe it anyway?
Yip. You show us the rock, the locations and describe the in situ state of all the fossils and we can talk.
Why?
Rock type, geology and in situ description, thanks. :up:Great. Here's the first one:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/hyracoskel.jpgNotice rather generallized mammalian characters. Flexible spine, relatively short face with low-crowned teeth good for browsing on bushes, and flexible limbs for moving about in heavy brush. Kind dog-sized. Note the toes. Here's what comes a bit later...http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/oroh.gif Both from N. America, and these two have overlapping deposits. Do they differ by more than you can find in a species of modern mammals? If you'd like more anatomical details, I can enlarge on each of them.
Rock type,
geology
and in situ description,
Locations.more information
On that errata page Bob says this:Um...Bob puts a link to his errata page right on the front page of his website. Try again Grainite.
Sometimes Bob corrects the errors within the discussion threads. But in a number of cases, I have not seen that he has acknowledged his error at all. For example:At BEL, once we become aware of a significant error we've made, we attempt to reduce the spread of that error by correcting the record. … We correct discovered transient errors made in the course of a single program, typically ones of fact, in the summary for that particular show.
One science claim that fits squarely in this category is when, in multiple shows (including his debate with Zakath) Bob claimed that the HDF would be a failure at seeing far back to early ages of the universe, when in fact it was a spectacular success.When I become convinced of a substantive error repeated over a period of time, we will correct that error here on this BEL Errata page.
How about you, Phy? Are you willing to admit you were wrong when you said a change in mass would not affect the moon's orbit?On that errata page Bob says this: Sometimes Bob corrects the errors within the discussion threads. But in a number of cases, I have not seen that he has acknowledged his error at all. For example:
Bob was wrong in mocking the direction in which Moslem’s pray, showing that Moslem scholars of several centuries ago knowing more about shape of the earth than Bob does.
Nothing about Velikovsky, one of the classic pseudo-scientists of the last few decades
How about his claim that “Either the universe was always here, or a creator made it. That is the only choice. Either an eternal God or eternal matter”? As though the majority of the scientific world accepting the big bang wasn’t even an option.
Or how about his stumbling over big numbers – on a show where he was pointing out how many people are incompetent at big numbers?
How about his misrepresentation of what the law of angular momentum says about the way planets must spin?
How about when Bob says that Lord Kelvin staunchly defended the Bible, but conveniently stayed silent on the fact that Lord Kelvin also staunchly defended the idea that the earth was millions of years old?
How about Enyart misrepresenting Sagan’s ideas on the likelihood of collisions in the nascent solar system? One science claim that fits squarely in this category is when, in multiple shows (including his debate with Zakath) Bob claimed that the HDF would be a failure at seeing far back to early ages of the universe, when in fact it was a spectacular success.
One other fallacious idea that crossed several show boundaries was Bob’s claims about Io’s heat and volcanism.
************
For some strange reason, I am not much impressed by Bob's demonstrated willingness to admit error, his errata page notwithstanding.
Not much interested in your childish dedication to that. You very clearly abrogated any credibility in understanding orbits back in this thread.How about you, Phy? Are you willing to admit you were wrong when you said a change in mass would not affect the moon's orbit?
And you could be a little more specific. It's kinda given that fossiliferous rocks will be sedimentary.
The in situ description I was looking for was orientation of the fossil. Was it found all together as one skeleton or is it a collection of fragments? Stuff like that.
Not much interested in your childish dedication to that. You very clearly abrogated any credibility in understanding orbits back in this thread.
If you have anything actually relevant to say on my prior post, please do so.
The two I showed you were from single specimens found in N. America.
There are a lot of them, likely scores of each genus, so they are very well characterized.
You are probably right. The errors Enyart has made have been laid out for several years, and he and his fawning followers apparently could care less. All I can do is lay it out. If they choose to keep their blinders and pretend the errors are not there, that is their choice. That is one measure of what “Christianity” really means in their lives.Well then I doubt anyone is much interested in your dedication to undermining Pastor Enyart. :idunno:
You are probably right. The errors Enyart has made have been laid out for several years, and he and his fawning followers apparently could care less. All I can do is lay it out. If they choose to keep their blinders and pretend the errors are not there, that is their choice. That is one measure of what “Christianity” really means in their lives.
Right, simple physics. Your choice of a falling apple and the moon orbiting the earth is instructive, since both of those are governed by exactly the same law. Put the apple at the moon’s orbital distance and speed, and it would follow the path the moon does.
In the case of those posts about Enyart that we are discussing, definitely not. On almost every one of them, if you will go to them and read them, I take some care to direct the reader past me to the primary source materials (including Enyart’s own archived radio shows).Or perhaps you think people should have faith in the likes of you?
I realize in Taiwan some children have toys that they simply refuse to outgrow, even though their peers have long since moved on.Are you going to concede your error in this trivial matter?
I guess that's a "No". lain:In the case of those posts about Enyart that we are discussing, definitely not. On almost every one of them, if you will go to them and read them, I take some care to direct the reader past me to the primary source materials (including Enyart’s own archived radio shows). I realize in Taiwan some children have toys that they simply refuse to outgrow, even though their peers have long since moved on.
Great. Locations, in situ descriptions, please.