43 Dinosaur Eggs Discovered in China by Construction workers.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Phantom423

I wouldn't hold your breath. He won't debate you. He'll claim that he's being persecuted and that besides no-one has given him any of the information that he asked for, not really. Then he'll move the goalposts again so that his definition of evidence changes. He has a record on this, as you know.

Yes - have made the offer more than a few times - disappears into the aether - then reappears with the same posts. Very transparent.

As I have said in the past Phantom, lets make it clear again

You dont strike me as an intellectual person and I would not enjoy debating you with your spitefulness.
It wouldnt be fun and I would gain nothing from it, just have to put up with more of your strawman rants and personal attacks, no thanks.

You dont need to debate, if you can offer more than

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.


Then answer my question

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions

we may get somewhere

What to tough

(Facepalm)

Why do we all bother? Oh yes, to try and prevent the ongoing spread of creationist idiocy.

a reply to: borntowatch

Interesting how everything is loaded and lopsided to allow you to make unfounded, unsupported accusations and then hide behind strawman rationalizations in order to avoid dealing with or replying to others questions. You demand from others what you are unwilling to give or demonstrate yourself while simultaneously accusing them of your own crimes. Why should anyone continue to engage with you when you consistently demonstrate that you don't understand or even want to understand, the science you demand answers to. No matter how many times something is demonstrated or explained, you come back with the same response..."its circular reasoning because you date the fossils by the rocks and then date the rocks by the fossils" which is a complete fallacy that does little more than shine a spotlight on your willful ignorance.

Whybreguse to explain what is wrong with the science? If you can't, as you readily admit to, then the onus is not upon others to demonstrate why the science(that has been peer reviewed to death) is correct when you can't demonstrate a fault other than your own disbelief and inability to understand the actual science. All you do is parrot unsupported claims by YEC proponents and their websites. The only logical conclusion is that you're a troll posting for your own jollies based on your scripted responses and logical fallacies which you refuse to support, explain or discuss.Every post by you reeks and oozes of hypocrisy with your double standards. I've seen more well thought out posts by middle school students in Sunday catechism class.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Its a pointless exercise in futility. We would have better luck attempting to swim up an incoming tidal wave or fly unassisted like superman. I must be a glutton for punishment. Its like driving pat an accident and trying not to look.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Here we go again -

Exactly what "exceptions" are you referring to?? If you know anything about statistics, which you obviously don't, anomalies (or exceptions as you phrase it which is actually incorrect) must fall into a specific range of values in order to be included or excluded from data. These are commonly called "P" values or Chi squared analysis.

So pick your poison - cite an article in which you have observed these "exceptions" and give your analysis on the citation - i.e. why the methods were wrong, why the conclusions were incorrect, etc.

jeez - I think we've been here before

Well dont go again

I didnt create the link or the question, its a statement By Peter Vlar, its his

i just want to know what the exceptions are and why they are wrong and why the conclusions are incorrect. I want to know why they are exceptions and not the rule.

Its not my statement

Please read the post, please read the question, then please try to understand it, its called comprehension.

I dont want to debate you because you dont understand anything and want to argue. You have formed an opinion and cant think logically. You dont even have the capacity to ask me to clarify something if you dont understand my position.

You are like my mother, just ranting when someone disagrees with her

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Phantom423

I wouldn't hold your breath. He won't debate you. He'll claim that he's being persecuted and that besides no-one has given him any of the information that he asked for, not really. Then he'll move the goalposts again so that his definition of evidence changes. He has a record on this, as you know.

Yes - have made the offer more than a few times - disappears into the aether - then reappears with the same posts. Very transparent.

As I have said in the past Phantom, lets make it clear again

You dont strike me as an intellectual person and I would not enjoy debating you with your spitefulness.
It wouldnt be fun and I would gain nothing from it, just have to put up with more of your strawman rants and personal attacks, no thanks.

You dont need to debate, if you can offer more than

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.


Then answer my question

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions

we may get somewhere

What to tough

BTW, this is the document that you are quoting:






If you had bothered to read the entire flowchart, you would have seen this:



and this:



These are exactly the methods that I have discussed previously - chemical analysis, isotopic ratios and spectroscopy.

Apparently you don't agree with Indiana University's geology department. Why not write them a letter and let them know how far off they are?




www.google.com...~g302%2Ftime.pdf&ei=Blw-Vd60BMjGsAWtuoHoAg &usg=AFQjCNFPIIUPoVF1zB8x4XhgB2il6xKtSQ&sig2=VBHCaiiX6h0bd7ppIGDckQ

Hey again pete

Awesome answer to the question

OH WAIT you didnt, you just moaned that I wouldnt listen.

Over and over again, why do I bother.

You made a statement,

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.




I read it and then asked a simple question replying

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions



and then what
This from you


Interesting how everything is loaded and lopsided to allow you to make unfounded, unsupported accusations and then hide behind strawman rationalizations in order to avoid dealing with or replying to others questions. You demand from others what you are unwilling to give or demonstrate yourself while simultaneously accusing them of your own crimes. Why should anyone continue to engage with you when you consistently demonstrate that you don't understand or even want to understand, the science you demand answers to. No matter how many times something is demonstrated or explained, you come back with the same response..."its circular reasoning because you date the fossils by the rocks and then date the rocks by the fossils" which is a complete fallacy that does little more than shine a spotlight on your willful ignorance.

Whybreguse to explain what is wrong with the science? If you can't, as you readily admit to, then the onus is not upon others to demonstrate why the science(that has been peer reviewed to death) is correct when you can't demonstrate a fault other than your own disbelief and inability to understand the actual science. All you do is parrot unsupported claims by YEC proponents and their websites. The only logical conclusion is that you're a troll posting for your own jollies based on your scripted responses and logical fallacies which you refuse to support, explain or discuss.Every post by you reeks and oozes of hypocrisy with your double standards. I've seen more well thought out posts by middle school students in Sunday catechism class.



So the way I read it

You statement

Me question

You crazy rant

Its a pointless exercise in futility. I would have better luck attempting to swim up an incoming tidal wave or fly unassisted like superman. I must be a glutton for punishment. Its like driving past an accident and trying not to look.

I dont understand why you wont address the question, I can only assume you dont have an answer or you cant be bothered.

I hope its the second one because I feel that way only to often.

If its the first I would suggest you believe in the geological table as a faith, its something you accept verbatim and thats religion.

a reply to: borntowatch

And by the way, when you quote an authenticated source, you are supposed to list or link the citation. This is NOT your work and I would make a bet in Las Vegas that stratigraphy is not your career of choice.

originally posted by: Phantom423

BTW, this is the document that you are quoting:

If you had bothered to read the entire flowchart, you would have seen this:

and this:

These are exactly the methods that I have discussed previously - chemical analysis, isotopic ratios and spectroscopy.

Apparently you don't agree with Indiana University's geology department. Why not write them a letter and let them know how far off they are?




www.google.com...~g302%2Ftime.pdf&ei=Blw-Vd60BMjGsAWtuoHoAg &usg=AFQjCNFPIIUPoVF1zB8x4XhgB2il6xKtSQ&sig2=VBHCaiiX6h0bd7ppIGDckQ

Phantom please stop and comprehend my question, pretty please.

I am asking a simple question to a statement made by peter Vlar

See Phantom, Peter obviously quoted that link (?) and I read it.

That link quoted by Peter left me with a question and I asked that question. I thought it was simple to comprehend, maybe I was wrong

So lets try again


Peter offered this statement as conclusive proof that the GTS was valid

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.




I read it and then asked a simple question replying

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions
So yes I read it and had some simple questions to clarify what I didnt understand

Oooohhh questions, scary arnt they, nothey are not, they are questions. Questions are good, we learn from asking the


Did you read petes answer


My question again


Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions




Petes definitive answer

Interesting how everything is loaded and lopsided to allow you to make unfounded, unsupported accusations and then hide behind strawman rationalizations in order to avoid dealing with or replying to others questions. You demand from others what you are unwilling to give or demonstrate yourself while simultaneously accusing them of your own crimes. Why should anyone continue to engage with you when you consistently demonstrate that you don't understand or even want to understand, the science you demand answers to. No matter how many times something is demonstrated or explained, you come back with the same response..."its circular reasoning because you date the fossils by the rocks and then date the rocks by the fossils" which is a complete fallacy that does little more than shine a spotlight on your willful ignorance.

Whybreguse to explain what is wrong with the science? If you can't, as you readily admit to, then the onus is not upon others to demonstrate why the science(that has been peer reviewed to death) is correct when you can't demonstrate a fault other than your own disbelief and inability to understand the actual science. All you do is parrot unsupported claims by YEC proponents and their websites. The only logical conclusion is that you're a troll posting for your own jollies based on your scripted responses and logical fallacies which you refuse to support, explain or discuss.Every post by you reeks and oozes of hypocrisy with your double standards. I've seen more well thought out posts by middle school students in Sunday catechism class.


So no I didnt read the flowchart, sorry you assumed such, i read Petes statement and replied with questions


Now apparently your comprehension skills suggest i dont agree with some irrelevant US university that could be some backyard computer hack for all I know. But no thats irrelevant, its irrelevant, comprehend that. I dont care about the university

I asked some questions

Here they are.....again

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions


Now Phantom can you comprehend what I am asking, if not please clarify before going on and on about something not pertinent to what I am saying

Debate you, seriously.....

a reply to: borntowatch

"Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions"

When you can put that into the King's English, I'll be happy to respond. As I said, anomalies, or exceptions, are analyzed statistically. There are standards for data samples in every field of science. If you don't agree with the standards or take issue with the "exceptions", then cite an example. To date, you're just blowing hot air.

Sorry for the misunderstanding on the flowchart - but in any case, if you review the flowchart, you will see that at the bottom, as I pointed out, all the methods that have been discussed on this board are listed. But once again, I have no doubt that your "exceptions" can't be addressed by science -

originally posted by: borntowatch
I am against the big bang on scientific grounds, an atom so dense that it explodes into the universe, thats not science its stupidity.

The big bang theory doesn't state that it was a single atom, where did you read this? It states that all the matter was very close together (compacted) soon after the expansion started. It doesn't comment on how it got there or what started the expansion, because that is unknown and impossible to study. We don't even know for sure that it was a singularity. We can only go back so far before we can't tell what happened. For all we know it could be a stream of energy that crossed from one dimension to another, or be based on membrane collisions. We generally don't know the answer to that question, but we do know that energy and matter started close and have been expanding ever since.

Anyways I'm asking WHY you disbelieve it, you didn't really answer my question. You gave a generalized statement that isn't related to the big bang at all. You don't have the same disdain for nuclear fusion, cell theory or gravity, so there has to be a reason WHY you choose to actively preach against this concept out of all of them? No offense, but we all know you haven't researched it. I want to know why you think it conflicts with your worldview, not why you don't like / understand the science. I'm not going to debate the science with you. I just want to understand your view on this. Let's put our differences aside, I'm not looking to ridicule, I just want to know why. You wouldn't argue against it, if it didn't conflict with your worldview, so why is it? Give me a honest answer, please.

a reply to: Barcs

It becoming a broken record isn't it.
Born coming in with zero knowledge and not accepting any evidence.
I suggest to all to not feed it.
No point wastong our time. I wish we had ignore buttons.

originally posted by: Barcs

It states that all the matter was very close together (compacted) soon after the expansion started.

It doesn't comment on how it got there or what started the expansion, because that is unknown and impossible to study.

We don't even know for sure that it was a singularity.

We can only go back so far before we can't tell what happened.

For all we know it could be a stream of energy that crossed from one dimension to another, or be based on membrane collisions.

We generally don't know the answer to that question, but we do know that energy and matter started close and have been expanding ever since.

You asked me why i dont believe it


You just answered your own question for me

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: borntowatch

"Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions"

When you can put that into the King's English, I'll be happy to respond. As I said, anomalies, or exceptions, are analyzed statistically. There are standards for data samples in every field of science. If you don't agree with the standards or take issue with the "exceptions", then cite an example. To date, you're just blowing hot air.

Sorry for the misunderstanding on the flowchart - but in any case, if you review the flowchart, you will see that at the bottom, as I pointed out, all the methods that have been discussed on this board are listed. But once again, I have no doubt that your "exceptions" can't be addressed by science -

Seems I had a few posts deleted and thats fair enough you felt insulted, I was patronising you, or treating you like a child,

Irrespective my questions still stand

Now you might not understand the questions, but I copied them from Peter Vlars link from a US university.

Here they are again in the language the university used assumedly

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.


So lets whip this dead horse

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions

and I will ask this again because its relevant.
Are assumed statistics classified as empirical evidence. Can you prove it

That question is probably worth a whole thread

Sooooo.... this thread isn't about a clutch of dinosaur eggs; amirite? huh? huh? did i guess it?

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
Sooooo.... this thread isn't about a clutch of dinosaur eggs; amirite? huh? huh? did i guess it?

Oh it's still about the eggs. We're just having a little chat about if the eggs are actually dinosaur eggs or if Satan planted them there because: Religion! Borntowatch is trying, once again, to question science. He is failing, but he's going to claim that he's winning because no-one can answer his questions to his own satisfaction based on his own shifting standards that he never really qualifies.

As you can tell I just might be a tad cynical.