ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[Guest]

DrW,

Is that your best shot? How lame. I would think on a science thread one would actually post data or a theory and then try and defend it. Of the two of us I am the only one doing that. Your name calling and rule setting does not bring anything of value to the thread. So you should sit back and enjoy the conversation that takes place.

You may bully some but not me.

Franktalk,

I am stunned and slightly offended that you would characterize my attempt to help you out as bullying.

Just to set the record straight, I have not called anyone names, and have not set any rules (that is the job of the moderators).

What I did do in the OP was to point out the foolish and demonstrably false statements of an Apostle of the LDS Church regarding the natural history of the Earth. I then mentioned geologic stratigraphy and plate tectonics as two (well established) geological theories, or working models, which preclude the possibility that Elder Holland's statement is anything but a tall tale told by an individual who should know better.

Perhaps you have not been reading for comprehension.

You, on the other hand, have come on the thread with some half-baked erosion theory that would be irrelevant if it were valid, and looks just plain silly because it is not.

Worse yet, you have apparently been advised of this fact by fellow faithful believers on another board. And now you claim to have 40 years experience in a technical field.

As mentioned above, I am simply stunned.

[_Franktalk]

Frankentalk,

What I did do in the OP was to point out the foolish and demonstrably false statements of an Apostle of the LDS Church regarding the natural history of the Earth. I then mentioned geologic stratigraphy and plate tectonics as two (well established) geological theories, or working models, which preclude the possibility that Elder Holland's statement is anything but a tall tale told by an individual who should know better.

No names but you purposely misspell my name. Then you call an Apostle a fool and a liar. What you should have said that in your opinion he was wrong. But you did not do that.

[_jon]

No names but you purposely misspell my name. Then you call an Apostle a fool and a liar. What you should have said that in your opinion he was wrong. But you did not do that.

I thought DrW said it was a tall tale told be someone who should know better...

Frank, what's your view on Elder Hollands presentation at Conference that included the holding up of Brother Hyrum's actual Book of Mormon, with the actual page he was reading from indicated by the corner being turned down, when in fact it wasn't Hryums book at all?

[_Phillip]

No names but you purposely misspell my name. Then you call an Apostle a fool and a liar. What you should have said that in your opinion he was wrong. But you did not do that.

I'm sure DrW does not consider him to be an Apostle [someone sent by God] or someone who commands our respect. You have to understand that many of us on this board do not believe in the LDS faith and feel that we have been lied to and misled by an organization that claims to be all about the truth. You shouldn't be surprised that those who have left the LDS church often have little respect for that institution or its leaders. As your own prophets have said: there is no middle ground.

[_hatersinmyward]

No names but you purposely misspell my name. Then you call an Apostle a fool and a liar. What you should have said that in your opinion he was wrong. But you did not do that.

Read the Call for Hollands Resignation thread, then you can admit he is both a fool as well as a big fat liar.

[_DrW]

Franktalk,

What I did do in the OP was to point out the foolish and demonstrably false statements of an Apostle of the LDS Church regarding the natural history of the Earth. I then mentioned geologic stratigraphy and plate tectonics as two (well established) geological theories, or working models, which preclude the possibility that Elder Holland's statement is anything but a tall tale told by an individual who should know better.

No names but you purposely misspell my name. Then you call an Apostle a fool and a liar. What you should have said that in your opinion he was wrong. But you did not do that.

Sorry for misspelling your name. It was an unintentional mistake (Freudian perhaps to be sure, but unintentional). I have corrected the spelling, and again I apologize. I don't like it when people do that and did not mean to do it with your name. Please note that I have spelled your name correctly up until the last post.

As to my characterization of Elder Holland, "liar" is your word, not mine.

And whether he was wrong or not is definitely not a matter of opinion. What he stated about the renting of the Earth is no more subject to opinion than is the age of the Earth itself.

Holland is in questionable company on this, many Apostles and Prophets of the Church, claiming inspiration and knowledge from by God, have stated that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

The Earth is far older than 10,000 years as confirmed geologic stratigraphy and plate tectonics (as mentioned) as well as paleontology, archeology, astronomy, astrophysics, biology (especially molecular biology and genetics), and no doubt other disciplines.

In fact, data from the disciplines named are consistent with an Earth that was first formed about 4.5 billion years ago. So Holland and his creationist cronies are only off by a factor of 50,000 of so.

[_Sethbag]

I just want Franktalk to admit that his "erosion disproves geology" claim is dead in the water since it fails to consider plate tectonics (and I should have added vulcanism as well) as competing phenomena.

[_Tarski]

I just want Franktalk to admit that his "erosion disproves geology" claim is dead in the water since it fails to consider plate tectonics (and I should have added vulcanism as well) as competing phenomena.

Yes, his ability to avert his attention from the other side of the geological equation that even 6th graders know about is a really stark example of a faith induced cognitive failure.

It reminds me of the very weird phenomenon of hemineglect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect

It is also comic that he rushes to big religious/anti-science conclusions when the answer to his little conundrum is one simple sentence:

Erosive processes are counter-balanced by well known geological "building up" processes such as mountain creation due to tectonic plate collision.

[_Buffalo]

I just want Franktalk to admit that his "erosion disproves geology" claim is dead in the water since it fails to consider plate tectonics (and I should have added vulcanism as well) as competing phenomena.

Not to mention, the Mississippi simply doesn't have access to all the land in North America to erode. And some of the soil lost to water erosion presumably will be replaced by soils transported through wind erosion shifting.

I don't have the math to evaluate Franktalks's calculations.

[_keithb]

I just want Franktalk to admit that his "erosion disproves geology" claim is dead in the water since it fails to consider plate tectonics (and I should have added vulcanism as well) as competing phenomena.

Not to mention, the Mississippi simply doesn't have access to all the land in North America to erode. And some of the soil lost to water erosion presumably will be replaced by soils transported through wind erosion shifting.

I don't have the math to evaluate Franktalks's calculations.

But, the great thing is that you don't personally have to evaluate his claims. You have the entire weight of the scientific community to back you on this.

People that don't do science for a living fail to realize that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of academic journals on a given subject that publish collectively thousands of articles per year on any given topic. That's part of the beauty of science -- it's a collaborative effort carried on by millions of people around the world, and no one man has to know everything.

This is why I give so little weight to off-the-cuff science, like the stuff Franktalk was trying to do earlier in the thread. I don't have to discredit it personally, because I know that the correct version of science has been confirmed literally thousands of times by experts in the field.

As an example, consider a short list of geology journals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals_in_earth_and_atmospheric_sciences

Geology

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin
Andean Geology
Bulletin of Volcanology
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Geological Society of America Bulletin
Geology
Geophysical Journal International
International Journal of Speleology
Journal of Geology
Journal of Geophysical Research: sections B (Solid Earth), F (Earth Surface), G (Biogeosciences)
Journal of Sedimentary Research
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
Palaios
Revista de la Asociación Geológica de Argentina
Revista Geológica de Chile
Scripta Geologica
Sedimentary Geology

[edit] Mineralogy and Petrology

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology
Mineralium Deposita

[edit] Geophysics

Astronomy & Geophysics
Geophysical Journal International
Geophysical Research Letters
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering
Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
Reviews of Geophysics
Tectonophysics (journal)

I am sure that there are others besides these too.

So, once someone like Franktalk addresses the literally thousands or tens of thousands of articles published in these journals, then I will start to listen to him. It seems like he has a lot of work cut out for him.