Mother Earth Terrorizes Environmentalists

It doesn't matter who wins the pointy fingers argument.

The boat is still sinking.
 
GeoffP said:
It doesn't matter who wins the pointy fingers argument.

The boat is still sinking.
Click to expand...

I agree (to some extent) however an argument should not be made from a false premise, which is precisly what OIM has done with comments like:

"The brazillian Oilfields are based in Miocene rocks that are no more than 24,000 years old, therefore it could not have come from dinosaurs, and biogenesis requires millions of years, therefore this proves that Biogenesis is wrong"
 
Trippy said:
I don't need to state a position to demonstrate that your claims are false.
Click to expand...
If my claims are false, then that means the only alternative or opposite must be true. Like I said, you aren't capable of recognizing contradiction and you are unfamiliar with Aristotle. If something is not blue it cannot be blue at the same time and in the same respect.
 
Last edited:
Trippy said:
I agree (to some extent) however an argument should not be made from a false premise, which is precisly what OIM has done with comments like:

"The brazillian Oilfields are based in Miocene rocks that are no more than 24,000 years old, therefore it could not have come from dinosaurs, and biogenesis requires millions of years, therefore this proves that Biogenesis is wrong"
Click to expand...
That was a typo on Corsi's part. And is a red herring. Some oil is only 3 years old, not 24,000 years old. Some oil is only seconds old. Some has yet to be born.
 
OilIsMastery said:
If my claims are false, then that means the only alternative or opposite must be true. Like I said, you aren't capable of recognizing contradiction and you are unfamiliar with Aristotle. If something is not blue it cannot be blue at the same time and in the same respect.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

I don't neccessarily have to believe the opposite to be true in order to point out your errors and your contradictions, an argument presented by you, and based on wrong facts is still a wrong argument, irrespective of whether I think that the basic premise your espousing is right or wrong..

You still haven't concretely demonstrated any contradiction.
 
OilIsMastery said:
That was a typo on Corsi's part. And is a red herring. Some oil is only 3 years old, not 24,000 years old. Some oil is only seconds old. Some has yet to be born.
Click to expand...


A typo would be leaving a zero off the figure, not being out be three orders of magnitude.

A typo would have the right numbers in it, as the age of the oil in question is 16 million - 28 million years old.

This gross error can not be dismissed so easily.
 
Of course, all of this is simply a distraction from the fact that you then went on to promulgate that erroneous claim, even if it was just a typo on the part of the author.
 
Trippy said:
Of course, all of this is simply a distraction from the fact that you then went on to promulgate that erroneous claim, even if it was just a typo on the part of the author.
Click to expand...

After reading the discussion I have to side with Trippy. But OIM, I don't disagree with your overall claim, I have no stance.

OIM; I don't think Trippy is debating the origins of Oil at all. He's simply stating that in this specific instance the citation you've given does not support your overall claim.

Rather than the methane deposits in this specific example were long-standing and larger temporal events.
 
I saw a UFO in the photo on the first page. Did anyone else see the UFO.

One of the other photos clearly captured the rods.
 
This forum is about solid, reliable Pseudoscience.

Or at least we seem to be reaching for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top