Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth

From: J. Taylor (jota_at_gorge.NOSPAM.net)
Date: 12/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:59:45 -0800

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:47:58 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
<ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
>news:uebzd.238180$5K2.177843@attbi_s03...
>>
>> "J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> news:vdtps0tkh9i3bu6hs69e3b7293p7cgsqod@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:30:47 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
>> > <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:d8nps05eqcmj8fum1fv86e3kq5bghlcrvk@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:52:59 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
>> >>> <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> >>> >news:m3cns05g7pa3e44n7939ks68s3v1rroj98@4ax.com...
>> >>> >> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:47:18 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
>> >>> >> <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> >>> >> >news:n9cgs0tckslse5a9j8pcedr01atqmdicap@4ax.com...
>> >>> >> >> Look at this way, for me there is evidence which appears
>> >>inconsistent
>> >>> >> >> with Earth expansion, then there is evidence which seems to be
>only
>> >>> >> >> explained by an expanding Earth. Now the options, to remain
>> >>> >> >> resolutely faithful to a beloved theory, or just deny the
>evidence,
>> >>or
>> >>> >> >> look for alternate explanations.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >I agree there is much evidence against EE. There has been some
>blather
>> >>> >here
>> >>> >> >re "Supporting EE" but nothing presented that withstands close
>> >>scrutiny
>> >>> >that
>> >>> >> >will support EE.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >I have asked several that aparrently support EE to post the basis
>of
>> >>> >their
>> >>> >> >reasoning. As of this time the only response has been blather at
>best,
>> >>> >but
>> >>> >> >mostly natural fertilizer of several varieties IMHO.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> My ISP has contracted with Supernews and it is possible its
>retention
>> >>> >> rate is superior to the newsgroup you are using. It is also
>possible,
>> >>> >> you have neglected to read what is in the archive for your
>newsgroup,
>> >>> >> but prefer to select isolated post for your comments.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> In either case, it does limit you to what you are talking about.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> If you are looking for fertile ground explore Antarctica, Africa
>and
>> >>> >> the Lena River area.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> JT
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >Very broad references. Can you be more specific?
>> >>> >Ralph Nesbitt
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> The answer is NO!
>> >>>
>> >>> The only conclusions which will be of value to you are those you
>> >>> objectively explore. My arguing can only pursued you to see what I
>> >>> think I see, and can only affirm my own failure to see, if this is the
>> >>> case.
>> >>>
>> >>> JT
>> >>>
>> >>So you say EE is a fact only you can see/understand the reasons
>for/behind &
>> >>can't present supportable evidence for.
>> >>Ralph Nesbitt
>> >
>> > No, I am saying if you wanted to examine the subject you would have
>> > done a bit of independent research.
>> >
>> > The fact you have not shows you have no desire to know anything other
>> > than what you think you know.
>> >
>> > If EE had nothing to support it I would have given up my exploring it
>> > a long time ago.
>>
>Ok so you believe EE is a valid hypothesis & there is evidence of same to be
>found on Earth. IMHO it is up to you to post what you consider the
>basis/evidence/even possible indications of EE to be. What is the basis for
>your belief in EE?
>>
>> That's great, but you haven't shown us any reason why we should care about
>what
>> you believe regarding geology, simply because you refuse, or are unable to
>> present it to us in your terms, or any terms, for that matter. We are
>making it
>> very easy for you. All you have to do is post it right here for all to
>see and
>> read and comment on.
>>
>> > What I have seen on the surface of the Earth very much points to
>> > expansion and the questions are only how it could happen, or what
>> > could have happened to give the impression of expansion and PT is not
>> > it.
>> >
>> > JT
>> >
>>
>> Both Stuart and I have examined the subject and made extensive comments on
>it.
>> We are asking you to present YOUR evidence For our perusal. You expect us
>to
>> have an intelligence conversation with you, yet you are not willing to do
>your
>> part. It reminds me of a child who lets a toy sit beside him unused for
>many
>> minutes, and when another rchild sees in and decide he has to use it, the
>first
>> chaild goes off in a tantrim and fights to get his little toy back. You
>seem to
>> be the kind of person who is so afraid of presenting any findings because
>people
>> will tear it apart. And so you hold your cards like a greety little thief
>> afraid that someone will see them. Well J.T. that is science. People
>always
>> tear apart papers and try to prove of disprove them. So post it, or go
>play in
>> the sand with your pal and shovel.
>>
>IMHO both George & Stuart have both offered you the opportunity to "Put Up
>or Shut Up" when it comes to pointing out anything that will support a "EE
>Hypothesis".
>
>Look at it this way, debating the issues/dealing with/answering assorted
>questions re the issues here will save you substantial time/effort once you
>are ready to publish your EE paper.

I am at a loss how one convinces another of the obvious, since the
position presented is an unwillingness to see.

You can close your eyes then pretend everyone disappeared but it
changed nothing.

Unlike Don Findlay, I have no interest in getting you to open your
eyes. What concerns me is when Individuals like you and George think
your condition is one to inflict on others by acting as though
ignorance is some how a substitute for knowledge and once it has been
pointed out, continuing to deny it, as George does, is lying.

JT

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tommy Bishop steals again
    ... George Dance wrote: ... And it's only the evidence of your eyes that is acceptable to you, ... Whereas you don't give a damn about evidence; ...
    (rec.arts.poems)
  • Re: The Living Dead
    ... >>> Read the papers Ron. ... >>> sections to these papers and you still don't understand. ... Put your own evidence that you claim is better than the evidence for ... >> the after effects of removal of all these detrimental mutations. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bipedal Orrorin?
    ... classical alternative, i.e., an adaptation to increasing dessication, ... met simply roll their eyes up into their frontal lobes when the ATT ... paleoanthropologists they fund than they have produced in 150 years. ... evidence and what isn't, and in that sense some progress is made. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Dando killer wins right to appeal
    ... Barry George, the man serving a life sentence for murdering the television ... presenter Jill Dando, has won the right to a new appeal, the BBC ... The decision is thought to be based on doubts about forensic evidence ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with
    ... George Evans wrote: ... all the volumes of The History of Middle Earth. ... there isn't even a shred of physical evidence for the Egyptian captivity ... his monotheism from the Israelites. ...
    (talk.origins)