Is it time to make the needed corrections about - ERR-atics?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

You literally posted NO data. Just google maps locations. Where is the corresponding scientific research on those rocks that shows where they came from?

Stop posting the same tireless videos over and over. You have NONE that show rocks moving hundreds of miles, so by your terrible logic that means it can't happen and it's just a guess that water did it. LOL! A big rock alone is not evidence, where are the studies that prove they don't belong there?

Well, I can't help you when the evidence is staring you in the face.

But it's now obvious, it's a waste of time responding to your comments as they lack honest and educated knowledge on the mechanics of water vs ice.

I guess ignorance is bliss for you.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

You literally posted NO data.

Dude what do you think data is? Data is information. He posted PLENTY of information - pictures of massive boulders in areas where glaciers would not have reached. Do you need some guy in a lab coat to reaffirm the obvious for you?? Think for your self.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Well, I can't help you when the evidence is staring you in the face.

But it's now obvious, it's a waste of time responding to your comments as they lack honest and educated knowledge on the mechanics of water vs ice.

I guess ignorance is bliss for you.

What evidence??? A picture of a big rock is not evidence. Show me the data proving they are erratics or carried by water for hundreds of miles. I'm curious about the Angola rocks because I can't find any scientific studies related to that. You can't call me ignorant when I am legitimately asking for research to look at here. If geologists and other experts that have studied these rocks agree with your claim, then I'll consider it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

You literally posted NO data.

Dude what do you think data is? Data is information. He posted PLENTY of information - pictures of massive boulders in areas where glaciers would not have reached. Do you need some guy in a lab coat to reaffirm the obvious for you?? Think for your self.

Data = scientific research on the rocks he is claiming to be erratics. He's literally just showing pictures of random rocks and videos of sudden floods moving rocks. That is not data or research. Massive boulders just being there isn't enough. You need to show they don't belong there or are hundreds of miles from the location they are claimed to be from. Why is it too much to ask to show research on the rocks claimed to be erratics? He is just arbitrarily naming these rocks erratics without corresponding research.

originally posted by: Barcs

Data = scientific research on the rocks he is claiming to be erratics.

You need someone in a lab coat to tell you a boulder is a boulder? Start thinking for your self, don't forfeit your right to search for knowledge to someone else.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Well, I can't help you when the evidence is staring you in the face.

But it's now obvious, it's a waste of time responding to your comments as they lack honest and educated knowledge on the mechanics of water vs ice.

I guess ignorance is bliss for you.

What evidence??? A picture of a big rock is not evidence. Show me the data proving they are erratics or carried by water for hundreds of miles. I'm curious about the Angola rocks because I can't find any scientific studies related to that. You can't call me ignorant when I am legitimately asking for research to look at here. If geologists and other experts that have studied these rocks agree with your claim, then I'll consider it.

I see, persistent.

Show me the data proving they are erratics or carried by water for hundreds of miles.

First off - there's NO DATA supporting your so-called ERRATICS. Only assumptions (and yet you accept it - that's is funny).

Second - NO DATA of how ICE SHEETS can scoop up and carry these so-called (boulder) erratics over long distances. Only assumptions (and yet you believe it).

Third - NO PICTURES or VIDEOS of these so-called (boulder) erratics - only assumptions.

Fourth - NO WITNESSES of these so-called (boulder) erratics - only assumptions.

Fifth - NOT even a MATHEMATICAL confirmation of these so-called erratics.

But we have all of these with water locomotion:

Show me the data proving they are erratics or carried by water for hundreds of miles.

Now, just to gauge/reveal the depth of your knowledge (or lack thereof) or understanding (or lack thereof) of water locomotion / water speed/ water force - F = ma, what would happen to the boulder in the video I posted above if the flood water keeps going wave upon wave or if it's a tsunami?

Any idea?

a. It will stay put.
b. It will travel as far as the FORCE of the wave takes it.

Do you need help in figuring it out?

Let me know and I'll help you figure it out.



In any case, Your answer will be very revealing. And as I said in the OP -the definition of glacial boulder / "ERRATICS" is not correct based on the information I've provided.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Data = scientific research on the rocks he is claiming to be erratics.

You need someone in a lab coat to tell you a boulder is a boulder? Start thinking for your self, don't forfeit your right to search for knowledge to someone else.

Do you even think before you post? Are you now saying that all boulders are glacial erratics? Like, huh?

I extensively searched for research on those Angola rocks, I looked through multiple journals, google scholar and all information I could find about that rock park and none of them mentioned any geological work done on figuring out their origin. I'm not making the claims here, he is, so I expect him to have a semblance of an idea of what he's talking about.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Now, just to gauge/reveal the depth of your knowledge (or lack thereof) or understanding (or lack thereof) of water locomotion / water speed/ water force - F = ma, what would happen to the boulder in the video I posted above if the flood water keeps going wave upon wave or if it's a tsunami?

This is quite comical because you argue against evolution because it extrapolates data in the same way based on the time. You claim erratics are wrong because there is no video, yet claim flood waters move rocks hundreds of miles on a whim. Extrapolating the movement of a glacier is automatically wrong based on guesswork, but extrapolating flood waters to insanely large proportions is totally legit and founded on science. Come on, dog. Make a real argument. I'd love to see the math involved on the force needed to move a several ton boulder hundreds of miles.

And still no data on the rocks you made claims about. No surprise at all. Keep grasping at those straws. One day somebody will believe you.

a reply to: Barcs

To the contrary, it's quite comical you're not able to answer a simple question.

As to this:

You claim erratics are wrong because there is no video

Nope. I said the definition is INCORRECT.

yet claim flood waters move rocks hundreds of miles on a whim

Nope. See the video below and my question:



Now, just to gauge/reveal the depth of your knowledge (or lack thereof) or understanding (or lack thereof) of water locomotion / water speed/ water force - F = ma, what would happen to the boulder in the video I posted above if the flood water keeps going wave upon wave or if it's a tsunami?

As to the Angolan - SO CALLED - ERRATIC, see Indian Butter Ball below:



www.atlasobscura.com...

Any difference?

good luck.

hehehe.

Still no evidence of a world wide flood or a divine agency committing genocide via planet consuming floods.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Still no evidence of a world wide flood or a divine agency committing genocide via planet consuming floods.

back for more?

so...

Why the obfuscation? Why the strawman argument?

Provide YOUR evidence that erratics are true and demonstrable AND REPEATABLE - as in falsifiable, otherwise, admit that it's an erroneous assumption that needs to be corrected.

I've provided ample evidence of the POWER of water over VLBs. Show, demonstrate to us the ability of glaciers or ICE SHEETS to SCOOP UP (erratics) very large boulders (VLBs) and deposit them to another location.


So again, stick to the topic at hand, don't derail the subject, please.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Still no evidence of a world wide flood or a divine agency committing genocide via planet consuming floods.

back for more?

so...

Why the obfuscation? Why the strawman argument?

Provide YOUR evidence that erratics are true and demonstrable AND REPEATABLE - as in falsifiable, otherwise, admit that it's an erroneous assumption that needs to be corrected.

I've provided ample evidence of the POWER of water over VLBs. Show, demonstrate to us the ability of glaciers or ICE SHEETS to SCOOP UP (erratics) very large boulders (VLBs) and deposit them to another location.


So again, stick to the topic at hand, don't derail the subject, please.

Provide your evidence that glacial erratics are a result of so called divine justice.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Still no evidence of a world wide flood or a divine agency committing genocide via planet consuming floods.

back for more?

so...

Why the obfuscation? Why the strawman argument?

Provide YOUR evidence that erratics are true and demonstrable AND REPEATABLE - as in falsifiable, otherwise, admit that it's an erroneous assumption that needs to be corrected.

I've provided ample evidence of the POWER of water over VLBs. Show, demonstrate to us the ability of glaciers or ICE SHEETS to SCOOP UP (erratics) very large boulders (VLBs) and deposit them to another location.


So again, stick to the topic at hand, don't derail the subject, please.

Provide your evidence that glacial erratics are a result of so called divine justice.

no need to go there - science is more than enough to explain the matter. And science says no such thing as Glacial Boulders - erratics.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: edmc^2

No. I've seen glacier deposited boulders. They look different. I've also had to identify the difference between glacial deposited boulders and water deposited ones on both the grround and from aerial photos.

Where I live was buried in ice until fairly recently geologically. There's lots and lots of examples of glacial deposition and erratics. Ocean rocks don't just climb mountains and water doesn't flow uphill.

Hey dug88, would you mind posting some videos or pictures showing boulders being moved or transported over long distances - not at just at the base of a mountain where avalanches are common.



BTW - when ice is formed they go over or around boulders - then stay frozen. They lack the power to transport large objects like boulders - especially uphill due to its low locomotive power and granularity.

Oops... forgot to post this:

Scientists say an ancient megatsunami hurled boulders nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower

www.washingtonpost.com... -tower/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4cba8f9437b1

When torrential rain falls, the ground and mud gives. Boulders are borne as surf boards upon waves. The vibrations underfoot help. Remember the old football vibration games thunder. Thunder is something the world seems to not hear anymore.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Still no evidence of a world wide flood or a divine agency committing genocide via planet consuming floods.

back for more?

so...

Why the obfuscation? Why the strawman argument?

Provide YOUR evidence that erratics are true and demonstrable AND REPEATABLE - as in falsifiable, otherwise, admit that it's an erroneous assumption that needs to be corrected.

I've provided ample evidence of the POWER of water over VLBs. Show, demonstrate to us the ability of glaciers or ICE SHEETS to SCOOP UP (erratics) very large boulders (VLBs) and deposit them to another location.


So again, stick to the topic at hand, don't derail the subject, please.

Provide your evidence that glacial erratics are a result of so called divine justice.

no need to go there - science is more than enough to explain the matter. And science says no such thing as Glacial Boulders - erratics.

nsidc.org...

www.landforms.eu...

www.britannica.com...

You clearly don't read enough.

originally posted by: edmc^2

Now show me a big boulder the size of the one in the picture below moving hundreds of miles. That boulder is tiny. That is your standard of belief for things, so since you require a video of a glacier moving, I require a video of a boulder moving hundreds of miles from flood water alone, including up and down hills, through oceans, seas, over land formations etc etc etc. A tiny little thing moving down a river bed doesn't help your case.

Now, just to gauge/reveal the depth of your knowledge (or lack thereof) or understanding (or lack thereof) of water locomotion / water speed/ water force - F = ma, what would happen to the boulder in the video I posted above if the flood water keeps going wave upon wave or if it's a tsunami?

Now tell me what would happen if a boulder that fell via avalanche onto a glacier and moved over time with that glacier? You are literally making the same argument AGAINST glacial erratics. Why it is you are allowed to extrapolate data but geologist are not when it comes to glaciers?

www.atlasobscura.com...

That's not Angola, first of all. Second, where is the research? You literally just posted a picture and an article with no relevant information,it literally just said that it's "likely a glacial erratic," and explains the folklore behind it. You got no data, no proof, nothing at all to suggest this rock is a glacial erractic or how far it moved from the origin point. You just post pictures of random rocks. Your standards are warped, buddy. If you can't back up your claims, nobody is going to buy what you are selling.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2

Now show me a big boulder the size of the one in the picture below moving hundreds of miles. That boulder is tiny. That is your standard of belief for things, so since you require a video of a glacier moving, I require a video of a boulder moving hundreds of miles from flood water alone, including up and down hills, through oceans, seas, over land formations etc etc etc. A tiny little thing moving down a river bed doesn't help your case.

Now, just to gauge/reveal the depth of your knowledge (or lack thereof) or understanding (or lack thereof) of water locomotion / water speed/ water force - F = ma, what would happen to the boulder in the video I posted above if the flood water keeps going wave upon wave or if it's a tsunami?

Now tell me what would happen if a boulder that fell via avalanche onto a glacier and moved over time with that glacier? You are literally making the same argument AGAINST glacial erratics. Why it is you are allowed to extrapolate data but geologist are not when it comes to glaciers?

www.atlasobscura.com...

That's not Angola, first of all. Second, where is the research? You literally just posted a picture and an article with no relevant information,it literally just said that it's "likely a glacial erratic," and explains the folklore behind it. You got no data, no proof, nothing at all to suggest this rock is a glacial erractic or how far it moved from the origin point. You just post pictures of random rocks. Your standards are warped, buddy. If you can't back up your claims, nobody is going to buy what you are selling.

Xactly my point - people are so used to "erratics" that pretty much any boulder found in out of places are considered "erratics'. Ask any geologist - the default is "erratics'.

All I'm saying is the definition of glacial boulder "erratics" is wrong! hence needs to be corrected. The boulders I've posted were deposited by none other than water. The data BACKS IT UP.

Here's a simple experiment that even you can do:

Lay down a rock on the ground, point a hose in front of it then turn on the spigot - if the force of the water is greater than the weight of the object the result will be very obvious. That's your own data.

With ice (build up - slow accumulation), this is not possible.

a reply to: edmc^2

All I'm saying is the definition of glacial boulder "erratics" is wrong! hence needs to be corrected. The boulders I've posted were deposited by none other than water. The data BACKS IT UP. 

Unless you post a video of a flood covering the entire planet, I can't say I'm convinced.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

All I'm saying is the definition of glacial boulder "erratics" is wrong! hence needs to be corrected. The boulders I've posted were deposited by none other than water. The data BACKS IT UP. 

Unless you post a video of a flood covering the entire planet, I can't say I'm convinced.

Actually, not even trying to convince you. You have to do that yourself.

I'm only providing the data but up to you as to what to do with it.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Xactly my point - people are so used to "erratics" that pretty much any boulder found in out of places are considered "erratics'. Ask any geologist - the default is "erratics'.

Because most of the evidence points to that. Again, just showing pictures of rocks is not backing up your claim. You have yet to give a single example of an erratic that is out of place, you just keep arbitrarily stating it with no evidence. For all you know that rock above came from a mountain nearby, not hundreds of miles away.

All I'm saying is the definition of glacial boulder "erratics" is wrong! hence needs to be corrected. The boulders I've posted were deposited by none other than water. The data BACKS IT UP.

Prove it then. You are being extremely dishonest. There is no data that backs your conclusion, you have yet to post any confirming evidence at all. You are using double standards in everything you say.

Lay down a rock on the ground, point a hose in front of it then turn on the spigot - if the force of the water is greater than the weight of the object the result will be very obvious. That's your own data.

Dumbest statement yet.