Posts by WhatshallIcallmyself

56

Human Origins

by cofty in

fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.

click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....

WhatshallIcallmyself

Fisherman -

Can you think of a way that these prints could have been made before these sedimentary layers were deposited?

Can you think of a way that these prints could have been left in solid rock?

No you can not.

Therefore these prints were made sometime after the sediments being deposited and before they were buried under subsequent layers.

Therefore if the deposition rate is such that this will occur within the margin of error for the particular dating method we can date the prints by testing the rocks.

You are wrong because we can date these prints within a margin of error by testing the rocks.

You are basically asking for nothing to be tested (i.e. the lack of rock that makes the footprint visible) and that is very similar to the creationist who demands the names of all transitional species from the beginnings of time to now before they will accept evolution.

56

Human Origins

by cofty in

fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.

click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Fact is that the dating does not date the prints directly but the unknown date of the prints depend on interpretation." - Fisherman

That is wrong. The date of the prints is known to an acceptable level of error, the same level of error that is given to all radiometrically dated strata.

As I said above, the prints were not made before these sediments were laid down, they were made afterwards (that much is obvious I hope). They also had to have been made before the surface where the prints are now recorded was buried so deep that no footprints could reach them (that also should be obvious). That gives you the relative time frame for these prints being made. The absolute time frame is given by radiometric dating methods. The relative time frame is less than the margin of error for this type of testing so therefore whatever time frame the date testing gives is accurate for the purpose of understanding these imprints.

This is simple extrapolation of available evidence. The only question of relevance for this particular find is whether they are what they appear to be i.e. human footprints.

56

Human Origins

by cofty in

fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.

click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....

WhatshallIcallmyself

Fisherman -

The conclusions are based on facts; or to put it another way the facts make the conclusion.

I really don't understand what your problem is with this.

56

Human Origins

by cofty in

fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.

click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....

WhatshallIcallmyself

Fisherman -

1 - You cannot leave footprints in rocks.

2 - You cannot leave footprints in soft ground before the soft ground is there.

3 - Layers have to be buried under subsequent layers in order to lithify.

Conclusion:

The foot prints you see (assuming they are human in origin) had to have been made shortly after (years to 10s of years) the deposition of the layer(s) they disturb.

What is your take on these prints and how does that fit with known geological processes?

As an aside, where you quoted me it can be proven that footprints cannot be preserved during a period of erosion; the reasons for this should be obvious...

56

Human Origins

by cofty in

fantastic graphic produced by the smithsonian institute illustrating human origins.

click on any of the group or species labels for more detailed information.. meet your ancestors here....

WhatshallIcallmyself

"The substrate can be tested but how can one know when the footprints were actually made." - Fisherman

The substrate would need to be soft enough to allow indents to be made, therefore lithification had not occurred at the point the prints were made.

The prints must have been made during a period of deposition because if erosion was occurring we could not still see them as they would have been eroded at the time of making. Therefore as more layers were placed on top, compaction would begin the lithification process.

After the lithified strata was eroded away revealing this particular layer, the now visible surface would be too hard to leave these impressions.

Therefore, if this layer is dated to between 5-7 Ma then that is when the prints were made.

5

Creation proves JWs system is wrong

by venus in

to revolt is a natural tendency of life.

even a worm turns against the foot that crushes it.

the vitality and relative dignity of an animal can be measured by the intensity of its instinct to revolt.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Venus -

That sounds like something William Lane Craig would come up with...

Your initial premise is flawed therefore your conclusion is incorrect. A worm would react, not revolt. To revolt you first have to understand that something is happening for a reason and strive to work against that reason for reasons of your own. Are you suggesting a worm (or indeed life in general) has the capability to reason and exercises this ability in the course of its everyday life?

161

Help! Mike & Kim videos all being deleted by Youtube

by mrmagic in

due to watchtower flagging the mike & kim videos on youtube for copyright, youtube is giving them 6 days before they are shutting down their entire youtube channel.

can you help with a mass downloading program and then reuploading them on a mirror ?

would hate to lose all those good videos!

WhatshallIcallmyself

What have they done to get YT doing this?

Unless they are copy pasting entire articles, using their trade marked icons/people (sofia) or using entire videos I though the 'fair use' policy would be invoked.

YT often do these things without checking things out for themselves. That 6 days is for them to reply to these allegations...

22

As a JW how would you answer this if someone brought it up in the ministry?

by NikL in

as a jw i pretty much just went along with what was taught from the platform i didn't do any real bible study.

as a result, now that i am out of the org.

i find scriptures that blow my mind.. i am not sure how i would have reacted if someone had pointed this out to me when i was a jw but now i can't believe i've never noticed this before.

WhatshallIcallmyself

The Bible is full of crap being passed off as reality (flood, creation account etc...) so trying to make sense of the other stuff in order to figure out what god wants (or is) is pointless. You might as well read Harry Potter and try to work out the meaning of life from that. It is fiction.

I really don't understand how people, who are looking for god, think that the Bible is a good place to start.

79

Columbus Circle monument could be next statue to go

by freemindfade in

christopher columbus could be next on the monuments chopping block.. the 76-foot structure honoring the explorer at columbus circle should be among the statues reviewed by the city for potential purging, city council speaker melissa mark-viverito said on monday.. http://nypost.com/2017/08/21/columbus-circle-monument-could-be-next-statue-to-go/.

if this goes on, these people are just validating what the orange one said, where will it stop?

how will people 200 years from now look back on us?

WhatshallIcallmyself

""modern version of sustainability" is this a joke?" - Laika

No it's not. You seem to think that our farming management should be perfect and then go on to attack it because it is not perfect. What you said about native/indigenous people's view of sustainability is irrelevant to modern discourse because it applies to a different time (smaller populations and no modern technology). Perhaps I could apply the same logic you are applying and expect their understanding of their environment to be perfect for us. I won't do that though because that would be too simplistic and not realistic.

The opinion piece you linked to did not supply any primary source material or links to such things...

79

Columbus Circle monument could be next statue to go

by freemindfade in

christopher columbus could be next on the monuments chopping block.. the 76-foot structure honoring the explorer at columbus circle should be among the statues reviewed by the city for potential purging, city council speaker melissa mark-viverito said on monday.. http://nypost.com/2017/08/21/columbus-circle-monument-could-be-next-statue-to-go/.

if this goes on, these people are just validating what the orange one said, where will it stop?

how will people 200 years from now look back on us?

WhatshallIcallmyself

"The native/indigenous view of relationship to land and cultivation of the land is far superior to the European capitalist concept of owning and dominating the land (and far more sustainable)." - Laika

That view has merit where a population is small. However modern populations are far larger than anything native/indigenous peoples had to deal with/work with. Smaller populations require different management practices of land due to a lack of man power as well as a lack of technology; you should also consider the lack of defence against natural events that can decimate crops/populations.

Larger populations require different management techniques and the modern version of sustainability has little to do with the older style; indeed the older style would not work (unless you happen to be rich enough to buy enough land to support your family). So therefore our modern "European Capitalist" methods of sustainability is fit for purpose and far superior to that of ancient peoples living at different times with different needs.