• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buzz lightyear and the JREF Challenge

buzz lightyear said:
I'll respond to you first Little 10 Toes.

I take it from your post, that you havn't done much hunting,.... I have.
If you take your hunting seriously, then you have learn as much about your quarry as you can. If fact, to be a great hunter you have to "become" the creature you are pursuing. And when you are on the hunt, you are locked into a relationship with it and its habitat.
This relationship gets even more personal once you bring it down. If it is only wounded, you have to look into its living eyes knowing that you are going to kill it. If it is something "beautiful" like a deer, then some emotion becomes involved.
If you want the meat to be at its best, it is good to bleed it. To do this you get up close and personal. You grip the creatures head, feel under its jaw to find the point where the neck meets, and drive your knife through and cut forward.
You then pull its head back and twist to break the kneck, as it thrashes in its death throes.

The next process is to skin it while it is still warm, as the skin comes of easier. It is remarkable how similar a warm animal body feels to that of a human,..........enough said!
In the skinning process the you become covered by the creatures smell, it lingers for days.
Then you slit open the belly to pull out the guts.

You can understand why I am a vegetarian,....... it is the "understanding".
Click to expand...
Ah, you are a vegetarian, because you don't hunt.

And for once, you are correct; I don't hunt. Don't want to, don't need to. The wonderful world of McDonalds helps provide some of my meat as well as the local supermarkets. I like a nice juice sirloin steak every once and a while. Don't care if I have fish caught in the ocean, or raised in a pen. Glad to know that there are butchers who will kill my food for me.

Nice to know you picked a "cute" animal to use in your example too. The American turkey looks preaty ugly, and I don't think people would bond to it like your Bambi example.

Oh, and nice putting words into Tricky's mouth when he hadn't responded to your Navajo example.
 
Last edited:
buzz lightyear said:
I,m grooving with you Tricky, like I can dig where you are at.
But sorry this "senario" doesn't wash, particularly in this pic.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1432345c5858025ea3.jpg

Same stone, same depth of pressure, one is "cracked" as buggery, the adjacent is as smoothas a baby's bum.
Not even a wisp of a crack.
Click to expand...
Did you notice that they uncracked formation is separated from the cracked formation by what appears to be a bedding plane? It is most likely a different composition, possibly even a different formation. Different compositions react differently to decompression. The tesselated sandstone is a fairly unusual geomorph, so it is not surprising that a small change in rock properties would mean that the cracks don't occur. Again, pictures are useful, but they don't tell the whole story.

buzz lightyear said:
I'll go with the exfoliation thing and the pressure relief but here it is "fairy tails".
You are grasping at straws old chum.
Click to expand...
I am not claiming to know exactly what is going on here without a more in-depth study, but I defy you to find one single geological text that supports your theory. The decompression theory is much more likely because it is known from many places and is supported by modelling as well as physics.

You don't buy it? That's fine. Go back to your fairy tails. Maybe someday the handsome Prince Knowledge will rescue you from the evil Serpent Ignorance.
buzz lightyear said:
And what about those holes in the Navajo formation?
Let me guess, erroded by a stream, when the water level was at that height. Like, the water flowed in one hole and out the other, yes! thats it! in one hole and out the other, so simple. Huh ....derrr.
Click to expand...
Potholes in rock formations are well known, and much less rare than tesselated formations.

It really is sad that you must invent (or accept) a supernatural origin for everything that you, personally, are incapable of explaining by natural processes. It only shows how little you understand natural processes, and how unwilling you are to say "I don't know." Did you see where I said it just above? It didn't hurt.
 
Tricky said:
It really is sad that you must invent (or accept) a supernatural origin for everything that you, personally, are incapable of explaining by natural processes. It only shows how little you understand natural processes, and how unwilling you are to say "I don't know." Did you see where I said it just above? It didn't hurt.
Click to expand...


I think some people find "I am wrong" even more painful than "I don't know".

(And I leave the determination of how this applies to the current thread as an exercise for the reader . . .)
 
Hokulele said:
I think some people find "I am wrong" even more painful than "I don't know".
Click to expand...
Oh, definitely. It is one of the hardest things to say, however, I will say this for the great institution of marriage. It teaches you the net benefit of learning to say "I was wrong". Even when you aren't.

And happy birthday, Hokulele. May the volcano goddess give you a full life and a peaceful heart. Or do it yourself, if she's not available.
 
Hokulele said:
I think some people find "I am wrong" even more painful than "I don't know".

(And I leave the determination of how this applies to the current thread as an exercise for the reader . . .)
Click to expand...

Music to my ears Hokulele ............... ( I don't know)......beautiful.

Hau'oli La Hanau
 
Mahalo to both Buzz Lightyear and Tricky. :)

(On a side note, I have heard that the volano goddess can be a bit of a fickle deity, although gin has been touted as the bribe of choice. Note that I have no idea (I don't know!) where on earth ancient Hawai'ians would have found juniper berries . . .)
 
Tricky said:
Did you notice that they uncracked formation is separated from the cracked formation by what appears to be a bedding plane? It is most likely a different composition, possibly even a different formation. Different compositions react differently to decompression. The tesselated sandstone is a fairly unusual geomorph, so it is not surprising that a small change in rock properties would mean that the cracks don't occur. Again, pictures are useful, but they don't tell the whole story.

I am not claiming to know exactly what is going on here without a more in-depth study, but I defy you to find one single geological text that supports your theory. The decompression theory is much more likely because it is known from many places and is supported by modelling as well as physics.
Potholes in rock formations are well known, and much less rare than tesselated formations.
It really is sad that you must invent (or accept) a supernatural origin for everything that you, personally, are incapable of explaining by natural processes. It only shows how little you understand natural processes, and how unwilling you are to say "I don't know." Did you see where I said it just above? It didn't hurt.
Click to expand...

Well Tricky it has been a long haul, almost a thousand posts and we seem to have finally put the dreaded "mud cracks" out of their misery...R.I.P.

Now it's the "decompression" theory, bless it's little heart.
Is that your last "call" or have you another "hypothesis" up your sleve?

So to debunk it, I will need an example of polygons and non polygons together in the same "rock" and in the same bedding plane? Yes/No? Huh.

As for the horizontal "pot holes",........ whoah,..... come on, they appear to be halfway up a cliff face. They are almost perfectly round and the strata follows the shape of the holes.
I know water and a few rocks can bore down vertically through almost anything,....... but horizontal?? Would need a pretty wierd set of factors for that to happen. Nah, you are starting to make it up now.

And my ideas are not "supernatural". I would have thought a few old skins and a pile of dung was pretty natural.
 
buzz lightyear said:
I,m grooving with you Tricky, like I can dig where you are at.
But sorry this "senario" doesn't wash, particularly in this pic.

Same stone, same depth of pressure, one is "cracked" as buggery, the adjacent is as smoothas a baby's bum.
Click to expand...

Are you going to pester Tricky with every rock formation in the world before you accept his answers ? Even if you were to find a picture of a rock formation that he couldn't explain it wouldn't help your theory.

You are grasping at straws old chum.
Click to expand...

Says the stoned-up layman to the expert.

Now it's the "decompression" theory, bless it's little heart.
Is that your last "call" or have you another "hypothesis" up your sleve?
Click to expand...

If you are so utterly convinced of your ridiculous Dragon theory that you won't even consider other people's naturalistic explanations, then why are you here ?

It's amazing how ignorant people can be condescending to their betters.

And my ideas are not "supernatural". I would have thought a few old skins and a pile of dung was pretty natural.
Click to expand...

Skin from a world-sized Dragon is natural ?

Nah, you are starting to make it up now.
Click to expand...

More argument from incredulity. Enjoy your fantasy world.
 
buzz lightyear said:
Well Tricky it has been a long haul, almost a thousand posts and we seem to have finally put the dreaded "mud cracks" out of their misery...R.I.P.
Click to expand...
Well, it's not completely out of its misery. Though it is most likely incorrect, it is still a far better explanation than any you have offered.

buzz lightyear said:
Now it's the "decompression" theory, bless it's little heart.
Is that your last "call" or have you another "hypothesis" up your sleve?
Click to expand...
LOL. I do my best to explain to you how this could work and you respond with scorn? Did you even think for one second about the things I told you? If you think refusing honest discussion is somehow making a case for your correctness, then you are sadly delusional. Not that this surprises anyone.

buzz lightyear said:
So to debunk it, I will need an example of polygons and non polygons together in the same "rock" and in the same bedding plane? Yes/No? Huh.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to understand or are you trying to debunk?

And no, that wouldn't "debunk" anything. Changes in composition can occur laterally within the same formation. Different histories of burial can result in different surface expression. Now if you learned geology and carefully examined these things, it is quite likely that you would discover some flaws in the theory. That's how science is supposed to work. But you would not throw out a theory that "mostly worked" simply because you found a few flaws. You'd try to better understand what was wrong with it. You certainly would decide to replace it with a theory that is even more deeply flawed.

buzz lightyear said:
As for the horizontal "pot holes",........ whoah,..... come on, they appear to be halfway up a cliff face. They are almost perfectly round and the strata follows the shape of the holes.
I know water and a few rocks can bore down vertically through almost anything,....... but horizontal?? Would need a pretty wierd set of factors for that to happen. Nah, you are starting to make it up now.
Click to expand...
You really are unbelievable. Tell me mister "making it up", are you aware that rocks can be uplifted by tectonic forces? Are you aware that beds can be tilted, folded, even flipped upside down by these forces? Are you aware that coral reef fossils can be found at the tops of some mountains? If you are determined to be willfully ignorant of even the fundamentals of geology, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

buzz lightyear said:
And my ideas are not "supernatural". I would have thought a few old skins and a pile of dung was pretty natural.
Click to expand...
You have given no evidence of skins. You have given no evidence of dung. The creature which supposedly is the origin of these things has never been shown to exist, although from your description, it bears a strong resemblance to the sorts of beasts that appear in fiction. (Depending on how you envision it on any given day). In short, you have done nothing to indicate that your theory has any relationship to the natural world. Plus, you freely admit that some of your insight is obtained while under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs. I don't know what else I can (politely) call it besides "supernatural".
 
buzz lightyear said:
Well isn"t' this interesting, one moment the "geological" clan is swearing by the desication or "mud crack" theory, now come "hell or high water" it's "expansion and contraction".
Come on guys,.............. at least I am sticking to the one hypothesis.

So since this "expansion and contraction" is flavour of the month,...snip...
Click to expand...
I guess you have not noticed that expansion and contraction are related to the formation of polygonal joints, be them mudcracks in clays or collumnar jointing in basalts. Have you ever noticed that dry mud has less volume than wet mud? Contraction, Buzz...

Ever noticed that hot magma has greater volume than cold rock? Contraction, Buzz...

Isotropic (homogeneous) materials (rock, in this case) when loose volume, form polygonal joints. Non-isotropic materila will not form such well-developed patterns.

Buzz, you are sticking to a "hypothesis" full of holes. Its not wise to stick to a sinking ship. Let it go.

buzz lightyear said:
From what I know this is weathered down sandstone, close to the equator.
So these formations occured pretty much where they are and in a fairly constant temperature.
Click to expand...
.
Read, Buzz, read... Get in touch with the external world. Pics and dreams are not enough for evaluation of reality. It may hurt your feelings, but its about time to let your fantasies behind...

Read, Buzz, read! Nowdays those rocks are outcropping in the Equator. But in the past, where they were? Think, Buzz, think! Consider their current environment. Imagine the heat difference cycles these rocks suffer! Noon, night, noon, night! No fairly stable temperature!

Areas with wet and hot climates develop due to seasonal phreatic level changes, concentrations of hidroxides and silica (laterites, silcretes, calcretes, etc.). These materials have different mechanical properties, suffer differential weathering, erosion, etc. All these variants can lead to striking morphological differences. Contraction-expansion included. These materials follow ancient phreatic levels, quite often using bedding planes.

buzz lightyear said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1432346592700416d5.jpg[/qimg]
I particularly like how the strata follows the shape of the holes.
Click to expand...
It seems we are being quite unsucessfull on throwing knoweledge around. Otherwise you would realized the obvious errors in your sentences above.

There are no concentric bedding planes at those pics!

Read a physical geology book. Among other things, you will learn the differences between bedding, fractures, foliation, etc.

Here, take a look at this:
Ponte de Pedra, Ibitipoca, here in Brazil. The river once flew to the right of the pic, its old bed is quite visible in areophotos.
ppedra.jpg

Its carved in quartzites, that are nothing but metamorphosed sandstone. See? Fluvial erosion, nothing more, nothing less. No giant serpent burrowings. By the way, a forum member (desert yeti) is an expert in paleoichnology. If you feel Tricky, Soapy Sam and I do not have enought expertise, perhaps you should contact him...

Here, more for you, from the same place, quartzite caves. The first two pics are from Bromélias cave (more than 2.7 km-long); the last one from Pião cave (a bit less than 200m long). At none of them there are evidence pointing to an origin related to burrowing giant serpents.
ibiti3.jpg

ibiti6.jpg

ibit2.jpg

Use this site's "search" funcion for "sanding" and you will find at this very thread an explanation on how these features form.
 
I am probably on Buzz's ignore-list because of the 'contest-thingy', but there is something that I do not understand.

Why would anyone who is obviously not versed in geology go to a forum of sceptics and try to convince them?

I would have gone to the nearest university/research facility and would have asked them the questions.
 
realpaladin said:
I am probably on Buzz's ignore-list because of the 'contest-thingy', but there is something that I do not understand.

Why would anyone who is obviously not versed in geology go to a forum of sceptics and try to convince them?

I would have gone to the nearest university/research facility and would have asked them the questions.
Click to expand...
As I recall, he did talk to a friendly person at a local school. In what must have been one of the greatest kindnesses ever shown, the fellow told Buzz his "theories" were "unconventional" if I recall correctly. Buzz somehow took this as acceptance. Never has he ever had the backing of any geoscientist for his "theories".
 
buzz lightyear said:
Herein lies the truth of it all Tricky.
I put also put this question to you.

ARE "YOU" TRYING TO UNDERSTAND OR ARE YOU TRYING TO DEBUNK?????????
Click to expand...
I'm trying to understand. Answer the questions that have been offered to you about the nature of this beast. How does it digest rocks, for example? Why does it leave skin but no skeleton, when bones and teeth are so much more easily preserved than soft tissue? How was the skin fossilized? Was it a cast or was it mineral replacement or some other kind of fossilization process? Where is the fossil lineage for this beast? How does such a large beast fly, especially weighted down by rocks in its tummy?

Now if you can answer those questions in a manner which is consistant with what we know about the world, then I'm prepared to understand. If you can't, then I don't see what there is to understand besides the observation that you have had hallucinations which seem real to you. That part, we all understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom