• 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, you can do a quick study by yourself, But you will have to keep an open mind for the results. Yes, an open mind, exactly what you claim we don't have.

Go to a beach and/or a stream, grab some sand samples. Look at them under magnifying glasses. Examine the grains. See how rounded or angular they are, how much they deviate from sphericity.
At
http://www.cmis.csiro.au/ismm2002/proceedings/PDF/28_drevin.pdf
you will find a template for sphericity (table 1). Don't let the math intimidate you. All you will need is that table.
At
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/courses/eosc221/sed/sili/siligsize.html
tables for sorting
At
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/courses/eosc221/sed/sili/siligrshap.html
tables for roundness.

Check how many different mineral types you can identify. If the sandstone you think is composed by scales is, say, from a fluvial environment, try looking more closely at recent fluvial sands.

Do the same with your alleged serpent sandstone. Fragment the "scales" down to the individual grains. Study samples from other nearby layers, without the "scales".

At
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-420/Figure1-Ternary.pdf
You will find a mineralogy-based sandstone classification triangular graph. I really do not think you will be able to recognize the minerals from your samples by yourself (needs some training in mineralogy). Aniway, at
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/courses/eosc221/sed/sili/sedclue1.html you'll find some tips.

In the end, you will be able to see that:

1. Sandstone composition is variable (its not just quartz).
2. The mineral composition of your samples will fall at some places in those graphs.

Note that there will be variations due to different beds bein deposited at different conditions. The deposits of a stream will different at dry and rainy seasons, for example. Even the location within the stream (bars, channels, etc.) system will determinate differences in the sediments. In doubt? Look at a river.

Your next step is to consider your results. You will have to answer these questions (among others):

How much compositional, roundness, etc. variability would be expected at scales from a creature? How does this fits with the observed variability in sandstones?

If the composition, roundness, etc. of what you think are "scales" are similar to those from nearby sandstones that are not composed by "scales", what should you conclude?

If the material from the alleged scales is very similar to recent loose sand grains, what should you conclude?

So, Buzz, sorry, your idea is nothing but a fantasy. And some people already had some similiar fantasies. And there are fictional books, tv series, etc. about it...
 
Tricky said:
Um.... where's the part where you take the LSD?
Click to expand...
Aw, carp! I knew I forgot something!!!
:mgduh


Buzz is a nature guy, he would not want to poison his body with manufactured industrialized chemicals, would he?

Better try peyote, epadu, mushrooms...

On the other hand...
Thin sections under polarized lights + LSD... mmmmmmmmmmm:wackygoofy:
 
Tricky;2651713But since I'm always interested in people's beliefs said:
Well Tricky, I am not sure whether to be flattered or insulted now that my classification has been altered from "troll" to "looney tune".

I had never really understood what the title "troll' inferred, so it is good that you have informed me.

I too am very interested in peoples beliefs, so we have that in common.
I am particularly fascinated as to why a small group of people, who call themselves skeptics, believe that unless somethig can be measured or observed it doesnt exist. This is beyond me. I prefer to keep an open mind, it gives freedom from dogma.

Anyway, so "the evidence", hey!
Probably best to clear up some missconceptions first. From Correa Neto's post I get the idea that he believes I consider only the polygons are the creatures remains.
I believe all what is called "Hawkesbury sandstone" to be created by this creature. This formation covers thousands of acres aroud Sydney, in some places to a depth a hundred meters or more.
Approximately the area circled in this pic.



So if you want to get funky it could be considered an "alien city".
OK?
Click to expand...
 
buzz lightyear said:
I am particularly fascinated as to why a small group of people, who call themselves skeptics, believe that unless somethig can be measured or observed it doesnt exist.
Click to expand...
Funny, I know a lot of skeptics and few if any think that. Most of them, like myself, believe that there are many things for which we don't yet have evidence, but if there is no evidence for a thing, then there is no reason to believe in it. After all, how does a non-skeptic decide, among the nearly infinite things that there is no evidence for, which ones to believe in? Do they just believe in the ones they think would be cool?

buzz lightyear said:
This is beyond me. I prefer to keep an open mind, it gives freedom from dogma.
Click to expand...
LOL. Yeah. Except for shamanic religions. I guess their dogma is okay. But true freedom from dogma, in my opinion, consists of applying the same criteria to everything. The criteria are evidence. If you don't apply evidence, and learn how to tell good evidence from poor evidence, then what is to keep you from accepting anything you are told?

buzz lightyear said:
Probably best to clear up some missconceptions first. From Correa Neto's post I get the idea that he believes I consider only the polygons are the creatures remains.
Click to expand...
It is hard to tell what your belief-du-jour is. Sometimes you seem to be saying that most of the rock was serpent poop. Of course, you've never explained how the critter digests rock and leaves behind sandstone, so I don't know if you're sticking with that story or not.

buzz lightyear said:
I believe all what is called "Hawkesbury sandstone" to be created by this creature. This formation covers thousands of acres aroud Sydney, in some places to a depth a hundred meters or more.
Approximately the area circled in this pic.
Click to expand...
And what is the geometric configuration of the Hawkesbury Sandstone? What do you want to bet it is a roughly planar sheet that is overlain and underlain by other roughly planar sheets?

Oh! Looky! It is!
1803_tomkinsk-2.gif


This is exactly the sort of configuration that we would expect from a sedimentary rock. We know that because we can actually observe sediments being deposited in roughly these configurations in modern depositional situations.

You want to see a photo? Here is a road cut and the text that goes with it.
04_h34.jpg


The Hawkesbury Sandstone is a Triassic sedimentary quartzose sandstone (mainly quartz) with a smaller proportion of feldspar, clay, and iron compounds such as siderite (FeCO3). It was formed from the sands which came from Antarctica about 200 million years ago, carried by a vast river system. Over millions of years these sands were consolidated into sandstone up to 50 metres thick on the peninsula. "

Don't believe it? That's good. They could be wrong. You'd need to examine their evidence. However, as a geologist I can tell you that their scenario is a great deal more plausible than yours. On the other hand, this website contends that the features in the Hawkesbury were a result of the Biblical flood, something that might seem plausible if you didn't look carefully at their evidence.

That's why I like evidence. It helps you sort between the stuff that is deserving of belief and the stuff that people imagine or pick up from myths, whether shamanic or biblical.
 
buzz lightyear said:
...snip...Probably best to clear up some missconceptions first. From Correa Neto's post I get the idea that he believes I consider only the polygons are the creatures remains.
I believe all what is called "Hawkesbury sandstone" to be created by this creature. This formation covers thousands of acres aroud Sydney, in some places to a depth a hundred meters or more.
...snip...
Click to expand...
First misconception to be cleared:
That sedimentary unit is a product of a river system (please read Tricky's post), and not of an alien space-fairing dragon.

Buzz, if the grains that compose the Hawkesbury sandstone are very similar to the grains that compose the sediments being carried and deposited by a river nowdays, what would that mean?
 
Correa Neto said:
Buzz, if the grains that compose the Hawkesbury sandstone are very similar to the grains that compose the sediments being carried and deposited by a river nowdays, what would that mean?
Click to expand...
Good example. The present is key to the past. Any geologist worth his salt could be given three samples of modern-day quartz sand, one from a river, one from a beach and one from the desert, and tell you, with a high degree of accuracy which is which. Therefore, it is reasonable to extrapolate that ancient sands also will retain many of the characteristics of their original environment of deposition, even though modified by burial, diagenesis and tectonic history.

Of course, this method could work for Buzz's theory too. All he needs to do is find a modern-day serpent that is excreting sand and compare that sand to the grains found in the Hawkesbury Sandstone.
 
Correa Neto said:
First misconception to be cleared:
That sedimentary unit is a product of a river system (please read Tricky's post), and not of an alien space-fairing dragon.

Buzz, if the grains that compose the Hawkesbury sandstone are very similar to the grains that compose the sediments being carried and deposited by a river nowdays, what would that mean?
Click to expand...

Gosh, let me think about that, could it be that they are weathered sandstones???????? huh.
Like, which came first the chicken or the egg.

Anyway on with the show.
It is interesting that Tricky has bought up the subject of bible bashers and sandstone. It seems that they are using, what they see, are discrepencies in its formation, to promote the Noah's flood theory.

And it seems that some have even done the Uni Geology trip, like you guys. Such as this dude.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp

Not that I go along with their ideas, but it is remarkable that these people, who bat for the opposite team to me , use the same formations as evidence for their theory.

So guys, like they say, " where there is smoke there is fire".

And if you were a winged critter who had just chewed it's way through a pile of sediment where would you roost?
VishnuSide.jpg


Up there maybe?
Now, I havn't been up there, but I'll bet that there is a cave up there and in the ceiling there are marks like this.



Any takers?
 
buzz lightyear said:
Gosh, let me think about that, could it be that they are weathered sandstones???????? huh.
Like, which came first the chicken or the egg.

...snip...
Click to expand...
Sorry Buzz, flawed reasoning.

Think about this:
What do you see at the deposits of a river?
Ripple marks, cross bedding, sand bars, channels filled by gravel, erosional surfaces, etc.

What do you see at the sandstone unit you consider as produced by a giant alien space-travelling dragon?
Ripple marks, cross bedding, sand bars, channels filled by gravel, erosional surfaces, etc.

And if the if the grains that compose the Hawkesbury sandstone are very similar to the grains that compose the sediments being carried and deposited by a river nowdays, even if Hawkesbury or any other sandstone are not present along its course?

In other words, why sandstone units created by a space-fairing dragon have the same compositon and sedimentary structures that nowdays one can see being formed at river deposits?

Buzz, maybe you don't know, but unis have labs with equipments that reproduce the formation of these structures (some are so simple that you can probably build them by yourself). Sedimentologists also have computer programs that simulate them. And water flow is all it takes.

And how can you explain the presence of fossils at the sandstones created by your dragon?

Weathering (perhaps coupled with diagenesis) Buzz, is what's causing some of the features you consider anomalous.
 
Correa Neto said:
What do you see at the sandstone unit you consider as produced by a giant alien space-travelling dragon?
Ripple marks, cross bedding, sand bars, channels filled by gravel, erosional surfaces, etc.

In other words, why sandstone units created by a space-fairing dragon have the same compositon and sedimentary structures that nowdays one can see being formed at river deposits?

And how can you explain the presence of fossils at the sandstones created by your dragon?
Click to expand...

Good points, Correa Neto.

There is the possibility that both explanations are correct.
A formation called "sandstone" could, and does form from the compression of river deposits .
There may be a property of silicon that creates the grain structure you see in sand grains, no matter how it crystalises. Whether it be from volcanism, or my "creature".
And since the areas of Hawkesbury sandstone look very much like the compressed river deposits, geologists have labelled them the same thing.

To my knowledge, no fossils have actually been found in the Hawkesbury sandstone. Some in the adjacent shale lenses, but the only piece of material in the actual stone is this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp

Appart from the polygons, the other major evidence of this "creature" is these shallow caves, which it used for habitation.



And in the ceiling of these structures, it moulded patterns representing things that it could see from that point. So if there is a cave in that formation that I spoke about in my previous post, the ceiling would have a representation of the surrounding landscape, like this;

 
Last edited:
buzz lightyear said:
Anyway on with the show.
It is interesting that Tricky has bought up the subject of bible bashers and sandstone. It seems that they are using, what they see, are discrepencies in its formation, to promote the Noah's flood theory.

And it seems that some have even done the Uni Geology trip, like you guys. Such as this dude.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp

Not that I go along with their ideas, but it is remarkable that these people, who bat for the opposite team to me , use the same formations as evidence for their theory.
Click to expand...
It is indeed quite interesting, because you have a lot in common with them. Like you, they have a belief, in their case, a worldwide flood occurring about 6000 years ago. Like you they are looking at the same features that everyone else is looking at, but rather than trying to figure out what really happened, they are trying to force-fit the evidence into their pre-conceived beliefs. Like your beliefs, their beliefs cannot bear any weight of scrutiny as they immediately collapse under the weight of things they cannot explain and under the weight of self-contradiction.

Yes, it's very interesting.

buzz lightyear said:
So guys, like they say, " where there is smoke there is fire".
Click to expand...
Let me tell you a little story. In the early 1900's a cowboy in what is now New Mexico was out riding in the early evening and saw smoke over the Guadalupe Mountains. He went to investigate and discovered that there was no fire. There was not even smoke. It was an enormous colony of bats leaving the mouth of what we now call Carlsbad Caverns. The caverns are now one of the largest tourist attractions of the southwest US.

So the cliche about smoke and fire should be taken for what they are: cliches. There is a good reason why the phrase "Where there are tesselated sandstones, there is a flying, space-travelling, rock-eating, giant serpent," has never become a cliche.

buzz lightyear said:
And if you were a winged critter who had just chewed it's way through a pile of sediment where would you roost?
http://www.jwoolfden.com/jpg/VishnuSide.jpg

Up there maybe?
Now, I havn't been up there, but I'll bet that there is a cave up there and in the ceiling there are marks like this.

[URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1432345da09331ba2e.jpg"]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1432345da09331ba2e.jpg[/URL]

Any takers?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll take that bet. Evidence shows us that the uppermost parts of areas that have been eroded are usually the most resistant. A hollow rock wold not be nearly as resistant and would crumble quickly. Also, it is almost unheard of to have a cave perched on top of a tall peak.

Yes, I'll take that bet and give you odds.
 
buzz lightyear said:
Good points, Correa Neto.

There is the possibility that both explanations are correct.
A formation called "sandstone" could, and does form from the compression of river deposits .
There may be a property of silicon that creates the grain structure you see in sand grains, no matter how it crystalises. Whether it be from volcanism, or my "creature".
Click to expand...
Buzz, we can trace back the provenance of the quartz grains that compose a sandstone to their magmatic (volcanic or plutonic) or metamorphic source rocks. Its routine for some researchers.

Geologists can predict the composition and structures of sedimentary units that will be present at a sedimentary basin. Geologists will tell you how the grains will look like. All we need to know is source rock, climate and tectonic environment. And the predictions match whats observed at ancient and recent examples (active deposition sites).

You saw the ternary diagram of sandstone composition? If you saw it, you now know that sandstones are not only composed by quartz. Regardless of their mineral composition, fluvial (as well as marine or eolic) sandstones will have a distinct set of sedimentary structures, generated by the processes that were responsible by the transport and deposition of the sediments that compose them. Be the sands composed by quartz or feldspar grains (this will be a function of climate, proximity to source area and tectonic environment), the sedimentary structures will be the same, as long as their depositional environments are the same. No unknown properties of silica are needed here.

buzz lightyear said:
And since the areas of Hawkesbury sandstone look very much like the compressed river deposits, geologists have labelled them the same thing.
Click to expand...
Very much? They are identical.

Sedimentary structures, grain composition, roundness, sphericity, packing, architecture of sedimentary beds, paleocurrents, sedimentary facies and fossil content (see bleow) match with whats expected from large river systems. There's no reason to invoke a giant space serpent.

buzz lightyear said:
To my knowledge, no fossils have actually been found in the Hawkesbury sandstone.
Click to expand...
How can you explain the presence of fossil wood there? Makes sense if its a fluvial deposit, doesn't it? Trees grow at river banks, are carried by the stream, are buried in sand and will become fossils in sandstone.

Interlayered pellitic units contain fossils of fishes. How can you explain this, specially when you consider that river deposits do have interlayered silty or argilaceous units (product of sediment deposition at abandomned channels, flood plains, lakes, etc.)?

At
http://www.acay.com.au/~linnsoc/subjfoss.html
There are several papers dating from the XIX century about fossil amphibians from that unit (note- the unite definition may have changed since then).

How can you explain the fact that paleocurrent measures (inferred from riple marks, cross bedding, erosional fetures, etc.) from that and other worldwide sandstone units match the current patterns nowdays observed in river systems?

Nothing you pointed so far as "evidence" for the presence of these creatures withstood a surficial analysis. The features are explained by differential erosion, weathering and diagenesis.

Your giant space serpent is an ancient river system.
 
Tricky said:
It is indeed quite interesting, because you have a lot in common with them. Like you, they have a belief, in their case, a worldwide flood occurring about 6000 years ago. Like you they are looking at the same features that everyone else is looking at, but rather than trying to figure out what really happened, they are trying to force-fit the evidence into their pre-conceived beliefs. Like your beliefs, their beliefs cannot bear any weight of scrutiny as they immediately collapse under the weight of things they cannot explain and under the weight of self-contradiction.
So the cliche about smoke and fire should be taken for what they are: cliches. There is a good reason why the phrase "Where there are tesselated sandstones, there is a flying, space-travelling, rock-eating, giant serpent," has never become a cliche.
Yeah, I'll take that bet. Evidence shows us that the uppermost parts of areas that have been eroded are usually the most resistant. A hollow rock wold not be nearly as resistant and would crumble quickly. Also, it is almost unheard of to have a cave perched on top of a tall peak.

Yes, I'll take that bet and give you odds.
Click to expand...
You have a belief system too, Tricky.
You believe that you can see back in time using the assumptions that have been taught to you.

What if something like your "hollow rock" theory was incorrect, would it make you question your beliefs.
Because this rock is on top of a peak, and it is hollow.
The slot you can see opens up into a cavern about 4 meters high and 5
meters across.


And my guess is that little dark spot on the front of the "shiva temple" pic is similar. So how about you rock on up there with a good strong telephoto lens and get me a pic.
See if you do really know your stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom