Buzz lightyear and the JREF Challenge

[GzuzKryzt]

Technically, a count of buzz lightyear's epilogues should include all his posts and not just the ones in this thread. Does anyone want me to go there?

 

[The Atheist]

Shhhhhhhh!

He might have decided to retire on 101 while he explores the depths of his ignorance in the science forum.

 

[buzz lightyear]

The old " ignorance" is not doing too bad in the science forum , Athiest .
So far the only thing that I have learned is that there is a shortage of geologists that know anything about sandstone except how to find oil beneath it .
Tricky has googled a few dead ends .
Zep has a library of info by learned gents but nothing that can tell him about the polygons .

As it stands the " dragon skin " theory still looks good .

Give my regards to Gzuz ...................... and of course #00000000000102

 

[The Atheist]

The old " ignorance" is not doing too bad in the science forum , Athiest .
So far the only thing that I have learned is that there is a shortage of geologists that know anything about sandstone except how to find oil beneath it .
Tricky has googled a few dead ends .
Zep has a library of info by learned gents but nothing that can tell him about the polygons .

As it stands the " dragon skin " theory still looks good .

Give my regards to Gzuz ...................... and of course #00000000000102

Well that's ok, then. I'll e mail Randi and tell him to get the cheque book out.

Dragon skin, eh? All those thousands of geologists since the dawn of geology and they all missed it. Duhhhh!

Congratulations.

 

[EHocking]

The old " ignorance" is not doing too bad in the science forum , Athiest .
So far the only thing that I have learned is that there is a shortage of geologists that know anything about sandstone except how to find oil beneath it ...

That quote certainly demonstrates *your* geological knowledge. In light of that, you may wish to reconsider your opinions on the information given to you by other posters?

 

[Tricky]

The old " ignorance" is not doing too bad in the science forum , Athiest .
So far the only thing that I have learned is that there is a shortage of geologists that know anything about sandstone except how to find oil beneath it .
Tricky has googled a few dead ends .
Zep has a library of info by learned gents but nothing that can tell him about the polygons .

As it stands the " dragon skin " theory still looks good .

The old "ignorance" is doing quite poorly. Even most of the tribesmen don't believe those legends anymore, from what I can tell. They just like to tell the legends.

I've googled some possibilities and Zep has provided other possibilities. His look better than mine. (See, geologists can change their opinions if there is evidence). But we both have stated that you can't tell about geology without being in the field. The geologic hypotheses that have been presented all are based on known processes which have been shown to occur in some places. The "dragon skin" hypotheses is based on the presumption of the existence of a mythical creature which does things no creature has ever been known to do. If you think that "theory" looks good, then you must want, very much, to believe it because it looks downright silly, as all of the geoscientists on this forum have tried to tell you. Yet I am quite sure that nothing we say and no evidence that is presented will sway the view of someone who very much wants and perhaps needs to believe in magic.

So you will continue to believe in magic while the rest of the world finds real answers. And you will continue to feel superior. This is no surprise to any of us. However, you are more polite than most people here who choose to believe magical things, so that is a strong point in your favor.

 

[Belz...]

As it stands the " dragon skin " theory still looks good .

That's why, in science, one person is never enough to prove a theory. Otherwise, every single person on Earth thinks his own theory "still looks good" despite the evidence.

 

[Belz...]

However, you are more polite than most people here who choose to believe magical things, so that is a strong point in your favor.

But not in favour of the theory, I might add.

 

[buzz lightyear]

There is a big difference between people who believe in magical things and those who can "do" magical things , Tricky .
This is probably why I dont feel the need to be rude to those who disagree with my ideas . I have nothing to prove .

I realise that my ideas may sound silly , but there was a time when the idea that the earth is round was inconcievable .

My ideas are based on field research , repeated experiments and photographic and written documentation in what could be considered a scientific approach .
The last phase of this system is to discuss the findings with people , such as yourselves , who have an interest in both geology and the occult .

As could imagine people with these interests are fairly rare so I am grateful for the internet and JREF for giving me this opportunitity .

 

[Tricky]

There is a big difference between people who believe in magical things and those who can "do" magical things , Tricky.

A big difference indeed. There is a great deal of evidence for the existence of people who believe magical things. There is a million dollars waiting for the first person who can "do" magical things.

This is probably why I don't feel the need to be rude to those who disagree with my ideas. I have nothing to prove.

If you don't care if anyone believes you, that is true. But if you are trying to convince anyone that your scenario is correct, then you absolutely do have something to "prove", or at least give evidence for. I've seen some of your evidence. It is not good. Not at all.

I realise that my ideas may sound silly , but there was a time when the idea that the earth is round was inconceivable.

Yes, but with evidence, we discarded the flat-earth scenario. It wasn't discarded by going back to an ancient myth. In fact, virtually all creation myths have been discarded because they are in conflict with the evidence. You see, primitive people had no way of gathering evidence, so instead, they made up stories. Some of those stories are very interesting and fun (I'm a big fan of Greek mythology myself), but they don't really help explain how the world works.

My ideas are based on field research , repeated experiments and photographic and written documentation in what could be considered a scientific approach.

It would be interesting if we could see some of your experimental procedures. We might be able to help refine them. There are a lot of scientists here. Something tells me you're missing some critical steps. Some of the documentation would be good too. I'm thinking you need to have a better idea of what the "scientific approach" entails.

You needn't worry that anyone here will try to steal your ideas. Since this is a public forum, that would be impossible. The record is here for all to see that this is *ahem* your new theory about the Brontosaurus geology.

The last phase of this system is to discuss the findings with people , such as yourselves , who have an interest in both geology and the occult.

Well, I used to study astrology and have séances. I guess that could be considered "interest" in the occult, though it could no longer be called "belief".

As for the discussion, I've made several points as to why your "serpent" hypothesis is flawed, yet you have not discussed them. Have you made any progress in determining how a living creature could eat, digest and excrete silicates? That would be very interesting to me.

As could imagine people with these interests are fairly rare so I am grateful for the internet and JREF for giving me this opportunity .

Oh, I don't think they're rare at all. Skeptics, especially people who have read Randi's books, are probably more familiar with the occult than most. Before Randi, Houdini was one who investigated the occult quite a bit. We skeptics have a proud history of dealing with the paranormal.

 

[buzz lightyear]

I'm not sure how silicates become fuel for this creature , or for that matter if they are the fuel . So far I only know that they are a residue .
I do know that a bucket load of energy is present , enough to fuse silicon into iron .
In the attatched pic , its grip has melted the silicon into a fused mass .

 

[Tricky]

I'm not sure how silicates become fuel for this creature , or for that matter if they are the fuel . So far I only know that they are a residue .
I do know that a bucket load of energy is present , enough to fuse silicon into iron .
In the attatched pic , its grip has melted the silicon into a fused mass .
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1432345ecd5b6ba6f0.jpg[/URL]

Silicon cannot be fused into iron. I suspect it just means that it is hard. Perhaps you mean that it contains some iron. Many many rocks contain iron silicates. It is not at all uncommon. There are also many things that make rocks hard, such as intergranular cement, metamorphism, or even melting. Certainly, no form of digestion ever discovered would do such a thing. Once again, natural processes are more likely to have caused "hardening" than mythological creatures.

When you ignore very obvious problems such as how silicates become fuel, then you are simply sweeping aside any serious inconsistancies with your hypothesis so that you can continue. This is not how science works. If there is a problem which is a "show stopper" for your hypothesis, then it must be accounted for or else your hypothesis can go nowhere. I think it is pointed that direction already.

Also unaccounted for is how your "serpent" managed to leave behind it's scaly skin, but no other parts of its anatomy. Normally, skin is one of the least easily preserved parts of a vertebrate.

So as you can see, your hypothesis is running into all sorts of problems that it cannot account for. Perhaps you'd better reconsider your support for it.

 

[Zep]

Hey Buzz, I haven't ever read this thread. And I find it MOST insulting that you make disparaging remarks about me behind my back. ESPECIALLY when they are completely untrue.

For example, while I do indeed have access to leading Australian geologists, many of whom are experts on the Sydney basin geology, I have not yet contacted them. The simple reason is that I have answered your questions myself perfectly adequately straight out of my own (admittedly ancient) knowledge gleaned while doing a science degree two decades ago. I have even provided additional information that explains new stuff you have just posted recently! If you would only care to read it...

What is more, there is oodles more info that you can find yourself on the Internet that goes into great detail on the subjects and precise objects you have brought up. YOU need to go look it up, though. We are not a library service.

And having taken a cursory glance through the last few pages here, all I can say is that your are really up against it when it comes to the Sydney basin geology. Any notion that you have about what causes the formations are fanciful flummery at best, or just plain looney in normal parlance. I think I'll just put it down to "Nimbin's Best", and really not bother to converse with you until you get coherent or sober again.

Alternatively, perhaps, for my own sake and possibly for everyone else's, could you get your "claim" into a few succinct paragraphs, stating what EXACTLY it is, and also your evidence/proof of same.

Think that's possible?

 

[The Atheist]

Hey Buzz, I haven't ever read this thread. And I find it MOST insulting that you make disparaging remarks about me behind my back. ESPECIALLY when they are completely untrue.

Jesus, Zep. You're asking a lot here - right from the very first line he posted it's been abundantly clear that Buzz hasn't got a clue about any subject, except for a cursory (Google) knowledge of Aboriginal fairy tales.

To expect him to now start stating facts and tell the truth is just out of bounds.

Remember how it works - you provide actual evidence, Buzz dreams up some other absurdity... etc.

 

[The Atheist]

Actually, just re-reading some of the posts again - mea culpa - I can't believe that anyone's trying to engage Buzz in any kind of rational discussion. He's clearly a wind-up, and a very average one at that.

 

[Zep]

Nah. Nimbin is responsible.

 

[buzz lightyear]

Had no intention of insulting you Zep .
But if you had looked over the last couple of pages of this thread you would have seen that insults are the norm in this forum .

And if you could provide links to these web sites that clarify the origins of the objects that I have bought up , I would be most apprecative .

So far the only explination that is slightly plausible for any of the formations is the "mud crack" theory for the polygons .
This falls apart when the cracks decend vertically .
Desertyeti suggested that this was dewatering diagenesis , but Soapy Sam has the polygons forming from the drying of an exposed sandbar .
Both can't be correct .
But like most geology , no one knows exactly what happened millions of years ago , they can only suggest theories .

 

[Zep]

And if you could provide links to these web sites that clarify the origins of the objects that I have bought up , I would be most apprecative .

Have you actually TRIED Google??

So far the only explination that is slightly plausible for any of the formations is the "mud crack" theory for the polygons .
This falls apart when the cracks decend vertically .
Desertyeti suggested that this was dewatering diagenesis , but Soapy Sam has the polygons forming from the drying of an exposed sandbar .
Both can't be correct .
But like most geology , no one knows exactly what happened millions of years ago , they can only suggest theories .

You're no expert in this subject as you admit, and yet you are trying to dismiss these ideas out of hand as though you are. Any wonder you attract criticism for being so childish?

Seriously (and this may be the last time I will attempt this) all these ideas are (1) compatible, and (2) very similar. However to arrive at a better understanding, we need more evidence than you seem willing to provide. So is it worth asking you again for more details? Or is that just too difficult for you to comprehend?

Or is that the waft of the Byron Peninsula I'm getting?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Had no intention of insulting you Zep .
But if you had looked over the last couple of pages of this thread you would have seen that insults are the norm in this forum .
...

You have had ample opportunity to provide us with evidence for your numerous claims, buzz lightyear. Not only did you fail to do so, but it is was you who started with the insults, remember?

You did not show any interest in a productive discussion, hence I started treating you accordingly by taking you up on your own words.

 

[The Atheist]

Nah. Nimbin is responsible.

No, dope's not hallucinogenic enough.

Here's the stuff: