Question for AronRa

[csprague95205]

What's with the authori-tah sunglasses?

[benthemiester]

Aronra doesn't do well with scientific orientated details that challenge his assumptions. He regards all critique of his videos as religious foolery.

[WAZZA1235]

' I am a creationist. I will now watch one of Aron ra's videos.'

'Evidence overload, emptying memory core.'

'Memory core now empty,'

'WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION ARON'

[benthemiester]

@WAZZA1235  " "Memory core now empty"

You can say that again.

[benthemiester]

@WAZZA1235 Sorry wrong person.

[AronRaa]

I'm a theist, lol

[lazyperfectionist1]

@AronRaa ??

[AronRaa]

@lazyperfectionist1

I'd hate to imagine you and AronRa singing Triumph with Wu Tang

[lazyperfectionist1]

@AronRaa ?? and ?? again.

[AronRaa]

@lazyperfectionist1

SAY WHAT AGAIN !

SAY WHAT.. AGAIN !

I DARE YA !

I DOUBLE DARE YA, MOTHERFUCKER !

Pulp Fiction ezekiel 25:17

[playadominical]

isn't possible that it was covered and fossilized, then was exposed 2 million years later, then another ape came along, checked it out, was like "whats this" and then had a heart attack and died right there on the spot?

[panterguy]

Or a third possibility;geological changes over millions of years exposed the monkey fossil where ida died and they were covered again.

[cortezangelfish]

Hey.....Bob Backlund!

[lazyperfectionist1]

@cortezangelfish No, no, no. His hair's way too long.

[SicSeb]

No shit! You are the voice of Stephen Hawkins!

[lazyperfectionist1]

That's "Hawking."

[SicSeb]

@lazyperfectionist1 Ow dear me, I made a spelling mistake. What a terrible shame!

[erin321321]

@lazyperfectionist1 lol



[thisis3d]

holy shit its neo. just messing with ya

[lazyperfectionist1]

Huh. I'm usually compared to Agent Smith.

[GforceXYZ]

I hope AronRa doesn't respond to this dumb ass post... you look retarded, sound retarded... and obviously are trying to act like AronRa, which means you are retarded. If you're gonna ask a question like that, consult the book that you plagerized to make the script that you were reading, which you couldn't even read in 1 take... and you still had mistakes! fkkin dummmy...

[lazyperfectionist1]

Yes I sometimes make mistakes when I speak, but if you are so certain I'm plagiarizing here, can you come up with the book? I can furnish you with a transcript if it will aid your search.

[PaleBlueEye1]

@krocotto

You, sir, are a mess.

Get help.

[lazyperfectionist1]

Nice.  Can you do any better?

[lazyperfectionist1]

@PaleBlueEye1 I'm sorry. I don't know how I missed it, but I thought this comment was directed at me.

[shagster1970]

A good question. For all the conditions for fossilisation to occur - I am surprised there as many fossils as we have found to date. Perhaps the pit was like a peat bog where you can have certain conditions to create the fossil but those conditions are always there. I'm not saying the pit was a peat bog - it may have been a pit where dangerous gases accumulate and so preserving the remnants until full fossilisation could happen in one go. Who knows. I guess thats your question.

[lazyperfectionist1]

The problem was with my understanding here. I was picturing a lake at the mouth of a river. I saw animals falling into the lake, drowing, and sinking to the bottom where sediments carried on the river current were encountering the slower currents within the lake and settling to the bottom over the dead animal remains. But no. The fossilization process here began with these carcasses sinking into the sludge consistently at the bottom of the lake the whole time.

[lazyperfectionist1]

This is how the necessary anaerobic conditions were established.

[Krocotto]

Sneaky, sneaky.

Doesn't work.

I've heard better long before you were even a randy thought in your daddy's head.

You are using phrases straight out of creationist literature.

And you are wrong. We do not need even one fossil to prove evolution.

If you were as informed about this topic as you pretend to be, you would already know that.

Bait and switch, lie and cheat.

Hell, boy, you could be a preacher!

You're already showing great potential!

[swordhunter12]

Uh yeah actually we do need fossils to prove evolution (and we have them by the way)

[lazyperfectionist1]

Actually, they're not completely necessary. On their own, they are enough to prove evolution, but evolution can also be proven abundantly with evidence from a wide variety of different fields.

The problem with this comment is that he's strawmanning me. That is, instead of dealing with what I actually said, he has accused me of saying something else entirely and criticized me for it.

[patrickledford420]

@swordhunter12 no we dont need fossils we have enough evidence besides fossils

[KiptaviusFuzz]

@swordhunter12 Yeah we can still make a phylogenetic tree free of fossil specimens. Our DNA is a library of old and new mutations.

[Krocotto]

Ah, I see I haven't made myself clear.

I have no respect for someone who can't do the learning for themselves.

Yes, there is something VERY wrong about 'asking' AronRa about the fossilization process.

You can learn the data YOURSELF, just like AronRa did. And then you can cite the sources you read and studied and if you have questions you can *go to the source* and ask the authors.

That's how research is done.

That's how the grownups do it, 'dude'.

[Krocotto]

Ah, the slippery slope begins....

If you really wanted to know about evolution, you would know that *we don't need even one fossil* to prove evolution. Fossils merely frost the cake.

As for the phrase "avalanche of evidence", why son, if you're going to try to sound erudite, don't copy the phrases from creationists.

So, we see a little bit of your agenda coming through.

See how easy that was?

Almost as easy as actually learning about the topic, 'dude'.

[lazyperfectionist1]

"*we don't need even one fossil* to prove evolution."

Now what I said.  Look again.

[Krocotto]

To simply demonstrate your coy disingenuousness, you were not even asking a question about evolution.

You were asking a question about the fossilization process.

Which, as you *should know* has *nothing* to do with evolution.

Care to make any more blunders?

[lazyperfectionist1]

Huh. Perhaps there is another flaw in my understanding here. I'm under the *impression* that the fossilization process is how fossils are produced. I'm also under the *impression* that fossils are part of the avalanche of evidence that proves evolution true. Am I mistaken about some part of this?

[Krocotto]

Reading comprehension, 'dude'.

If you really were curious about the situations you were asking AronRa about, you could have used the time you spent making an asshat of yourself on this video to LOOK THE DATA UP.

Is that any more clear?

You were NOT questioning evolution, 'dude', you were questioning AronRa.

Again, read this slowly: no one asks question of someone like AronRa when they could just as easily LOOK IT UP THEMSELVES.

They ALWAYS have an agenda.

And that agenda is NEVER real curiosity.

[lazyperfectionist1]

You accused me of wanting to prove AronRa wrong. I'm asking you to point to some point in the video at which I make this allegation or hint a it.

When I don't understand something I ask questions about it. Is there something wrong with that?

[Krocotto]

And of course, you can not prove AronRa wrong. He has no agenda, just the truth.

But you would have known that if you were truly an honest, curious person, because you could have looked the answers up *yourself*, just like he did.

Good frickin' god, coyboy, do I have to get out the crayons?

Would that help you understand it all just a teensy-weensy tiny, little bit better?

[lazyperfectionist1]

Where do I try to prove AronRa wrong?

[Krocotto]

Coyness does not suit a man, 'dude'. Coyness is for little girls.

Do not even *try* to pretend you are *honestly* 'seeking answers'.

You went on a public medium to question another person about something you could have simply looked up for yourself.

No one, ever, does that without an agenda. I repeat, no one *ever* does that.

If you were truly curious, you would have looked the answers up yourself.

What, then, if you *are* honest, is your agenda?

[lazyperfectionist1]

Are you going to answer my question?

[Krocotto]

I will admit, however, to making a fatal assumption here, 'dude':

I am assuming you have the intelligence necessary to learn.

Yes, that is a fatal flaw.

You have proven that by the fact that you have exposed yourself on the world wide web for all time as an idiot who can use a web-cam but can't push the keys necessary to learn the answers to his own questions.

Now then, why don't you try and learn on your own, instead of making a first class ass out of yourself for all and sundry to witness.

[Krocotto]

I say this because if you really, truly want the answers, you can learn them for yourself.

You see, that's what intelligent people do: they learn things. When they have a question, they seek the answer, using all the tools available to them, like the very computer you used to 'ask' for answers.

You want respect?

You get shit from me and any other intelligent person, no matter how much faux 'respect' you pay until you learn some shit on your own!

Great moniker! You are a 'lazy' fuck, aren't you?

[Krocotto]

The only time 'dudes' like you ask questions like this, it is because 'dudes' like you have an axe to grind. You really don't care about the answer, you just want to gain time to pronounce the other person wrong.

I know this for a fact because, once again, all the knowledge you need to answer any dumbass question like you just 'asked' can be obtained on the machine you are using to 'ask' your betters.

Try it, 'dude', and you will find all the answers you need.

[lazyperfectionist1]

Where, here, do I pronounce the other fellow wrong?

[Krocotto]

Dude, (The only pejorative applicable to you) you, like, seriously, totally, *need* to go to school.

In school (you know, the place where you didn't pay any attention) you will learn about the things you are asking about.

If you had not just spaced out twelve years of your life, you would have learned what you are asking about.

You reveal yourself to be ignorant, and willfully so, because you are using a computer, the very tool you *could* use to learn the answers you *say* you are seeking.

[Tait011]

..So, honest question here -

do you take yourself seriously, as in,

do you actually act like this in real life?

seriously question..

[lazyperfectionist1]

In life I don't usually have a script. But at the time I was wondering this, I really did want to know. I was operating from a misunderstanding of the fossilization process which has been cleared up by some of the comments I have received.

[Tait011]

So, what conclusion have you come to then,

my friend?

[lazyperfectionist1]

Well my conclusion is that there was an endemic flaw in my question. I was picturing the fossilization process beginning with the remains of the animal, the plant, or whatnot being buried in sediment only because its remains settled on the bottom of a body of water, downstream from a water current of some kind that was carrying these sediments. But now, as I understand it, the remains are buried through the act of simply sinking into the sludge on the bottom of the lake in question.

[Tait011]

i see, atleast you have the balls to admit to a wrong accusation, or judgment, unlike some.

interesting videos by the way!

Peace.

[lazyperfectionist1]

What accusation? What judgment?

[ThorGoLucky]

Reject evolution for the stories of ancient superstitious goat herders, eh?

[lazyperfectionist1]

The evidence of me rejecting that life has changed over time as a result of mutation and natural selection is where?

[ikvsabre]

You missed one thing that aronra said....

Despite what Geer said, ALL of the fossils are from the same time period, not 2 million years apart.

[lazyperfectionist1]

The same period, not exactly the same time. All the fossils are the same age?

[ikvsabre]

roughly.

[lazyperfectionist1]

How much accuracy do dating methods yield?

[ikvsabre]

Radiometric dating is generally accurate to within a couple %.

Dating is not limited only to C14 dating (which has a practical dating limit of ~60,000 years)

[lazyperfectionist1]

Well now I don't know about other dating methods, but with C14, it depends on how far back you look, doesn't it? If you want, you can use it to date a piece of metal that came out of the forge just yesterday, and in this case, it's much more accurate, right?

[ikvsabre]

C-14 dating can only be used to date formerly living things. So it can't be used to date metal.

And yes, it is more accurate the younger it is, but even still, it is accurate to within a couple decades for anything less than 10K years old.

[lazyperfectionist1]

Formerly living things because they were carbon-based?

Can rock-strata itself be dated by other methods, or only based on the fossils found therein?

[ikvsabre]

"Formerly living things because they were carbon-based?"

Yes, and there is a carbon exchange that takes place, but only in a living organism. So C14 dating can tell fairly accurately when the creature died.

Other methods of radio dating are used for strata and such. They are based on isotopes with a much longer half-life than C14

[JonLTD]

And to correcy ikvsabre, it doesn't have to be formally living to use C14, it just needs to be Organic, ie. contain Carbon. And to date other rocks without fossils [Igneous, Metamorphic and Sedimentary], they use isochron, radiometric and other dating techniques on minerals as opposed to fossils. Methods include: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, U-Lb, Sm-Nd, U-Th and many more. These accurately date when a mineral is either formed OR recrystallised via methamorphism or diagenesis.

[lazyperfectionist1]

How does this work without a carbon exchange?

[JonLTD]

Hmm. Not quite. The Geological time table is quite complex. Eons are 1/2 a billion years or more, Era's last for 100's of millions, and the time ime frames get subsequently smaller through Periods, Epoch & Ages. For instance, should a fossil be found in some strata dated from the beginning of the Silurian [~417 Ma], and a fossil at the end of the Silurian [~354].. That's a time span of 63 Ma.. That's almost the time between Humans and Dinosaurs.. And that's a blink of an eye in Geological time.

[lazyperfectionist1]

I hope you'll pardon my crude understanding, but what does "Ma" stand for?

[JonLTD]

Not a problem, Ma is "million years" in short-hand. Radiometric dating is quite complex, but I'll try and simplify it. Known elements have a natural decay rate and it is known how long it takes for the original "parent" atom to break down, usually via radioactive decay, to form it's "daughter" atom. Measuring the isotopes current state of decay, it can be deduced how old it is.. I've over-simplified it, but just by typing "Radiometic Dating" in Wikipedia gives a brief yet concise article.

[lazyperfectionist1]

I believe you've misunderstood my question. I mean I've seen potholer54's video about this, but that focused on radiocarcon dating, not dating with other elements. RC dating works with fossils from living things because while they lived, they exchanged carbon with their environment. Do living things regularly exchange other elements like argon?

[jtrubilla]

The video is good, but you are one creepy dude.

[darkdragonsoul99]

I'd say whats your with your understanding is simple

you don't realize geerup lies through his teeth

[lazyperfectionist1]

One little problem here, though. My questions here do not draw on any propositions put forth by Geerup; only those from AronRa and my own understanding of the subject which GU does not advise.

[middlekk]

Well, if you read the paper, which you can get online for free, you'd see that ALL of the primate specimens found in the pit date to around 47 MYA.

Various dates of between 50 and 47 MYA were proposed for the site. Radiocarbon dating pins the collection at the conservative low end of the scale.

So, you may have a case where one scientist uses a "generous" date for 1 find and one uses a "conservative" date.

In other words, no conflict, and easily discovered online.

Do your own research.

[middlekk]

BTW: It would have been a lot better if you would have just gotten to the point and not gone on about the pronunciation of the guy's name.

It was a rather lame argument from ridicule, frankly.

[lazyperfectionist1]

It was not my intension to argue. I wonder at the source of this perception of ridicule. Surely there is no objection to a few questions.

[middlekk]

Not if they're legitimate in an attempt to learn something. But you disable ratings like a good creationist, you spend the first half of the video on an inane commentary on the guy's name, and then you ask a question which even a lazy perfectionist could discover for himself in 10 minutes or so.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

[lazyperfectionist1]

Does the word "votebot" mean anything to you? Where is the attempt to strawman evolution?

You say that each fossil in this pit is dated between 47 and 50 million years old, but in one of Aron's video responses to Geerup, he explains that Ida is dated at 27 while the monkey is dated at 29. So either he is mistaken or you are. Which is it?

[middlekk]

Votebot? HA! That's a good one. That's a creationist tactic.

I've read the paper and the descriptions of the pit, how the age of the pit was derived, and other assorted work (ignore the popular press, especially the Brits - they're idiots).

The pit is aged at about 47 MY based on measurement of the age of the BASAL rock rock below the sediment. So, the fossils are no older than that.

[lazyperfectionist1]

That insteresting. So now you're saying that 47 MYO is the age of the basal rock, while before you were saying it was the age of some of the fossils.

You are either mistaken now or you were mistaken then. Which is it?

[middlekk]

And again, YOU can read the entire paper, with all of the descriptions of the pit, how the pit was dated, as well as descriptions of the other primates found there. It's a free download, which should be more than sufficient for even a lazy perfectionist.

I'm done here. Educate your own self.

[lazyperfectionist1]

I see. It's easier to give someone a reading assignment and criticize him for behaving in a manner that fails to meet with your complete approval than to simply answer his questions.

[IlyaPetrovich]

on the other hand, two minutes on google and wikipedia got me a map of the pit, which itself is well in excess of a kilometer wide.

[lazyperfectionist1]

So the sedimentation traveled a little over a kilometer in about 2 million years? That's about 2 thousand years per meter. So if the remains of Ida and/or the monkey were each at least half a meter long that would be about a thousand years each just to be buried. For this to happen, surely there were changes to the rate of sediment accumulation.

[IlyaPetrovich]

Noooo...firstly, the pit is not the lake, the pit is the quarry made to get at the oil shale formed by the particularly anoxic ancient lakebed. Secondly...sediment accumulates in horizontal layers and doesn't "travel" anywhere. Carcasses would settle to the bottom, sink into the ooze, and eventually compact and mineralize.

[lazyperfectionist1]

Ah. Now this is what I was asking.

[middlekk]

As I said, educate your own self. You should take anyone's word for it when the plain language of the paper is there for everyone to see.

You read the paper and tell ME what you think.

Rhetorical questions are the last bastion of a fool who has nothing to say.

[lazyperfectionist1]

Catchy piece of rhetoric. So you have the ability to label. Kudos. You get the gold star.

The fact remains that you contradicted yourself and all I'm asking is which time you were mistaken.

[Mephistophilus]

It seems to me he's made an attempt. Telling him not to ask those who have more knowledge than him in field that he is not in sounds like a ridiculous request. It's amusing people will take the time to educate creationists who don't care what you have say yet scoff at those who want to know more.

Also "You should take anyone's word for it when the plain language of the paper"....where have we heard that?

I guess you had an off day as I usually find your comments brilliant.

[lazyperfectionist1]

This is clearly not his mentality. He took me for a creationist. He said so.

[sablechicken]

Bravo...nothing wrong with your understanding.

[mordinvan]

But plenty to do with yours however.

[MrJastin]

I liek socks :D

[lazyperfectionist1]

Um... okay.

[IAmTheBlurr]

I like science! :D

[BornWithoutReligion]

I hope he answers this! It will definitely help the rest of us answer questions when facing creationist ridicule.