KOA's Fred Ebert Rejects Our Debate Offer

[Jefferson]

KOA's Fred Ebert Rejects Our Debate Offer

This is the show from Wednesday March 9th, 2011.

SUMMARY:

* See Below for Ebert Excerpts; His Callers Asking Him 5-to-2 to Debate Bob; Original and BEL Follow-up Letters to Fred: About 15 minutes into today's show, David from Denver calls in and turns Bob Enyart's attention to Professor Ebert turning down our offer of a debate.

* On Jan. 16, 2011 Fred Ebert: spent the first hour of his Stump the Professor show on Denver's KOA radio asking callers if he should accept the BEL debate offer on evolution/age of the earth that our BEL producer Jefferson George had sent to him. Results:
2 Callers: Don't do the debate
5 Callers: Yes, do the debate. [names and comments below]

* Dr. Ebert Talking to Bryce form Loveland:

39:55 "I think I'm going to do the debate. … I believe the people who have invited me have every intention of having a polite discussion, with no intention of attacking me, but attacking my beliefs. I'm sure there'd be no yelling… I find it distasteful to hear someone try to make an argument of why the Earth is 6,000 years old."

42:50: "I think I will take the debate Bryce, I think you and others have made it clear that it would be something that would be of value."

* Update: Dr. Ebert Suggests: Dr. Ebert links to rebuttals of young earth arguments at talkorigins.org. A quick survey shows that listing of arguments does not address at least the first fifteen arguments at our own List of Not So Old Things, things like soft-tissue from a t-rex, still liquid ink from a 155 million year old squid, and blood vessels and connective tissue from a hadrosaur.

* Here's BEL's Follow-UP Letter Sent to Dr. Ebert:

Fred, thanks for asking your listeners for their thoughts on whether they'd like to hear a debate or not. Bob doesn't use some of the arguments that you said you especially dislike, for example while he rejects neo-Darwinism he wouldn't waste time by saying that evolution is only a theory, nor will he be quoting the Bible, but is happy to restrict the discussion to scientific observations. As to what possible value could such a discussion have, public perceptions affect public policy. You undoubtedly know that according to Gallup, on the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, only 39% of Americans "believe in the theory of evolution." And to factor in education levels, for example, you can look at the surprisingly large percentage of MDs, one third, who are not committed to neo-Darwinism with only 63% of physicians agreeing that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design (Jewish Theological Seminary study of 1,472 MDs). And this is not just southern Bible-belt fundamentalists but one sixth of Jewish docs, half of Catholic, and three-fifths of protestant MDs believe that ID is a "legitimate scientific speculation."

Fred, yes, we agree, it's often wise to avoid debating tiny minority views because the debate itself can promote and give credibility to even harmful claims that most people have never seriously entertained or even heard of. However, the rejection of Darwinism is far too pervasive for that strategy to be viewed as an effective remedy to the current situation. Eventually, the truth wins out (even whether there's life after death or not, whether there is a creator or not, whatever, the truth will win out).

If you'll consider this: An article in the NY Times says that the Tuscon murderer Jared Loughner believed in two extremist theories, that our government was behind the 9-11 attacks, and that modern banking is inherently unjust and enslaves the masses. On air Bob forces himself to take time to debate these topics in order to educate people so that those misinformed have a better chance of getting educated. When such matters are kept in the dark and not openly addressed, they're allowed to fester, and the situation easily deteriorates. Having had a computer career and having worked at Microsoft and McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company, Bob debated some of the "leaders" who were profiting off of the Y2K scam. Also, Bob may be more successful than possibly any other voice in getting extremists who had advocated killing abortionists to now reject that view.

FRED NEVER SAW THIS PARAGRAPH BECAUSE WE OMITTED IT PRIOR TO SENDING: Finally Fred, we think it's only fair to let you know, even though this might make you decide to forgo a debate, that in 2005 in a moderated debate Bob and a Christian high school teacher took on a well-known geophysicist and a mathematician from CU, in an Age of the Earth Debate, before a live audience downtown Denver. Afterward, the old-earth crowd in the auditorium was disappointed in their side, and an atheist physicist who flew in from Seattle to watch the debate commented, and later wrote. that the "old earth" team lost the debate.

So an Age of the Earth debate, or an evolution or big bang debate, that interests educated and uneducated people alike, is always fascinating to audiences, and as atheist Dillon said to you on Sunday morning, as long as the discussion is civil, it's almost always illuminating in many ways. So in the spirit of the public discussion of widely-held controversial positions, we remain happy to debate if you'd like to.

Thanks for the consideration,

Jefferson George,
Producer, BEL
1-800-8Enyart

* Fred Ebert's Callers Vote on the Creation Debate with Bob Enyart:

Don't Debate:
- Richard in Boulder: said debate offer was probably a set-up
- Ed in Wiggins: I would not take the debate. There can't be a winner because God created science. [BE: Huh?]

Do Debate:
- Dillon on cell: I'm an atheist, but civil conversation is always illuminating
- David in Denver: suggested Fred also consider other creationists
- Bob from Aurora: something about creation research and debating paleontologists
- Bryce in Loveland: really good idea
- Randy in Littleton: I'm an evolutionist; it's a favorite topic; please debate, it's a scientist's responsibility

Didn't Say:
- Caller Fred: talked about eye muscles (Fred, if you're out there, please consider Bob Enyart's PZ Myers Trochlea.)

* Now Bob Tosses His Trochlea Challenge into Fred Ebert's Lap: Fred, here at Real Science Friday, we commissioned this drawing of the superior oblique muscle threading through the trochlea. Can you offer an answer to this enigma...

* Ebert Excerpts: (BEL assistant producer: "These are close to verbatim, but I couldn't type fast enough to quite keep up

Ebert 1st Hour: "Thermodynamics is very much like a religion. In fact, everything we do is faith-based. It very much depends on the faith you have in the set of primitives that makes up your subject. So the more faith, and more accepted your primitives, the more scientific as a group we think of something. But that's not to say that thermodynamics is carved in stone. It's very much based on some assumptions having to do with energy. We've just never seen a system that doesn't go to or seek its lowest energy state. We've never seen one. So we have tremendous faith in that primitive, which allows us then to build up a set of axioms based upon the assumptive primitives that we have in any science. So any science is like that. (The only one that really would violate that would be mathematics, because it's purely an intellectual endeavor, and does not necessarily have to reflect to any real world experience you might have.) It's certainly not an idiotic statement to liken science to religion. Much the same way that I feel today that string theory is more like a religion, because there's no way to test the primitives, there's no way to test the assumptions upon which it is built, because we don't have the machinery to do it, whereas we do have the machinery to test things that are thermodynamics in nature."

Ebert 2nd Hour: "The universe is homogeneous on a large scale, expanding, has reached an equilibrium. In terms of its temperature dispersion. So it's not an argument to say that the universe can't exist forever. No one said it existed forever. It just existed for a tad more than 6,000 years. In terms of one's religious views, the Bible certainly gets the events right, in it's non-scientifically form, in darkness, light, and what had to transpire to have a universe. And I've tried to be gracious in saying that, provided you don't view days as 24-hour days. Then the events in Genesis can be looked at in terms of their order of occurrence, and discussed, from a scientific perspective. But then you get someone who says, no, the events happened in six days, and God rested on the seventh. … It's a very small minority of people who are creationists, and literal biblical interpreters. And when one has this debate, it almost gives the illusion that these concepts are on equal footing. So that's part of my reticence about any form of debate. The science side has absolutely nothing to gain out of this discussion. We're well aware of the primitive set, that we assume. We understand the assumptions… that those are not provable. But we can test hypotheses. Should we ever make an observation that's not in agreement with Einstein's theory of relativity, then everything is turned on it's head. But as hard as people have tried, no one has been able to come close, in their attempt. The Bible tells us everything we need to know. All observations, comparative homologous structures, similarities of protein structures, fossil records, which are one part, of several, which look at the history of the earth, combines all of these things together. It's a daunting group of observations that are able to change. Whereas if I assume that everything the Bible tells me everything to know about… has to be banged into my theory, no matter how kludgy that gets.

Many of which have been answered, such as the eye, such as no one has seen evolution occurring. …then people have said no one has ever seen macro evolution. And there's multi-decade experiments demonstrating that. As well as the new life forms in the laboratory that show evolution. And the argument that I detest most is that evolution is just a theory, because the use of the word theory by scientists is what some creationists view as a hypothesis. The very premise is somewhat insulting, and ignorant of the process itself, but that borders on insulting the people who are making the statement, which is why I tend to shy away from the debate. Because there's nothing for me to gain. I'm not going to change anyone's opinion who has a faith system, and they're certainly never going to convince me with any argument that has so far been proffered, that will make me want to re-examine the scientific method, or the age of the universe, or the age of the earth, or evolution itself. It is not going to happen. …the school systems don't offer creation as an alternative. Children absolutely should have a faith; there's tremendous value in moral issues, etc. Vedic scriptures, the Koran, the Old and New Testament, these books, the questions they raise, I find to be very valuable. Would I send my children to Sunday School? You betcha. But do I find that anything I learned there supplants anything… [I learn from science? No.]"

---------- Original message ----------
From: Jefferson George <jeffersonageorge@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:08 AM
Subject: Mr. Ebert, want to have a fun debate on your show?
To: getfreducated@optonline.net

Hi Mr. Ebert,

I'm one of the show producers for conservative, young earth creationist talk-show host Bob Enyart here in Denver on 670am KLTT (50,000 watts). Bob thought it might make for an entertaining show if you and he were to debate whatever subjects you would like, such as:
- Age of the Earth
- Biological Evolution
- The Big Bang
- ____________ (other)

The debate could be on either your show or his (Bob Enyart Live) and if you want, the debate could include Fred Williams of EvolutionFairyTale.com. And you could also invite someone else to participate. Pretty much any format you think would be the most entertaining for an audience. Sounds like fun to me. What do you think?

Thanks,
Jefferson George
BEL Producer
1-800-8Enyart


* Today's Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown's
In the Beginning and Bob's interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You'll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez' Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media's Unlocking the Mystery of Life You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart's Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; And the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI's tremendous Creation magazine!

 

[Alate_One]

Any good lawyer knows that winning an argument/debate doesn't mean you're right! If you're simply good at arguing, you can make a total falsehood look like the truth. Because of this I can understand why plenty of people refuse to debate Bob. Bob talks and argues for a living.

But in any case, science isn't decided in the debate hall, it's decided by the data.

Data like this . . . .

 

[Stripe]

But in any case, science isn't decided in the debate hall, it's decided by the data like this . . . .

Looks like another creature buried suddenly in the global flood. :idunno:

Who painted those shadings on it?

 

[Alate_One]

Looks like another creature buried suddenly in the global flood. :idunno:

Who painted those shadings on it?

Those are feathers, Stripe. They're preserved with enough detail that scientists can tell what color they were by the shape of the melanosomes.

This is the specimen that was used for the color analysis.


Li et al. 2010. Plumage Color Patterns of an Extinct Dinosaur. Science

I'm sure according to you anything that disagrees with your position MUST be a forgery. But forging multiple specimens . . . and down to the microscopic level! That's obviously more likely than them being real, right? :loser:

 

[Stripe]

Those are feathers, Stripe.

:squint: Really? So it's a bird then?

They're preserved with enough detail that scientists can tell what color they were by the shape of the melanosomes.

How?

I'm sure according to you anything that disagrees with your position MUST be a forgery.

Not necessarily. But one should not simply accept everything without question, right?

 

[BabyChristian]

Any good lawyer knows that winning an argument/debate doesn't mean you're right! If you're simply good at arguing, you can make a total falsehood look like the truth. Because of this I can understand why plenty of people refuse to debate Bob. Bob talks and argues for a living.

But in any case, science isn't decided in the debate hall, it's decided by the data.

Data like this . . . .

And secular scientists have an agenda and ignore any data that points to a young earth and I would guess Christian scientists ignore anything that appears that earth is millions of years old.

Data is not necessarily the deciding factor when there's an agenda.

My husband and I have been studying this and what I just said seems to be the case. I know you'll deny it.

I watched a documentary on netflix where people were fired if they even mentioned I.D in various jobs they had, as a teacher (was one), a scientist and I can't remember what they others did for a living.

Seems to me that so many people just DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE IN A CREATOR.

 

[Jukia]

More "Wow, that is complicated. My brain hurts. Lets just say 'Goddidit'. soo much easier"

 

[Alate_One]

:squint: Really? So it's a bird then?

I guess you're one of those in the camp of "it had feathers, therefore it's a bird". It couldn't fly, and it had full usable claws on its hands, teeth, etc. It's a dinosaur, which is very plain from the skeleton. It predates

How?

By comparing them with modern bird feathers as well as fossil birds.

Not necessarily. But one should not simply accept everything without question, right?

There is such a thing as healthy skepticism but you immediately ASSUMED it to be a forgery.

 

[Jukia]

:Not necessarily. But one should not simply accept everything without question, right?

Well unless Walt Brown writes it or Pastor Bob or Pastor Lea support it, then it is unquestionable.

 

[Frayed Knot]

I agree with Fred Ebert that it would be a mistake to engage in a debate with creationists. If you're wanting to help educate those 60% or so of Americans who don't yet accept evolution, the worst way to do so would be a debate. Debates give the non-science side an air of legitimacy that they don't deserve. That cannot be helpful. To paraphrase Dawkins, a debate would look really good on Enyart's resume, not so good on Ebert's.

Further, I've listened to a lot of these debates in the past. Duane Gish and Henry Morris could make several false assertions in a minute, and keep it up for 30 minutes. They're very practiced at it. But showing that their statements are false would take five or ten minutes each. There's a huge imbalance there, and the science side, which depends on careful analysis and critical thinking, just can't operate in that kind of environment.

Brian Dunning has done an excellent article on this topic, Should Science Debate Pseudoscience?. Some tidbits:

The very nature of a debate presents science as if it is merely a competing opinion. When we agree to a debate, we are agreeing to drag science down to the level of a view that competes with pseudoscience. Simply by agreeing to the debate, we present the scientific method as being vulnerable to disassembly by fallacious pseudoscientific arguments.

I've received the condescending smattering of applause from the room where every single person is against me and everything I have to say, but they've "shown me that they're good people too and will treat me respectfully in spite of how misguided I am." Nice folks. And then I'd walk back to my car and every time I'd say to myself "That was a friggin ridiculous waste of time." And I guarantee that their writeup of the event in their newsletter would say I was a nice guy, I was a real trooper to come and talk, and they probably planted within me a seed that would eventually bloom into full-blown science denial, and they'd love to have me back someday to see how that seed has germinated. Going to debate at an event sponsored by the pseudoscience group is always a ridiculous waste of your time. You serve merely as a masturbation enabler for them. Next time, send them a stack of dirty magazines instead.

It has been argued that scientists have a huge advantage in debates because we have the facts on our side. Well, so we do, but that's not an advantage at all. Rather, it's a limitation. The audience members who are not scientists can rarely discriminate between facts and pseudofacts. The pseudoscientist has an unlimited supply of sources and claims and validations. He can say whatever he wants.

Science benefits the public, pseudoscience harms the public. We should be doing all we can to promote good science communication, and to refuse to admit the voice of pseudoscience, at every opportunity. They have their free speech already; we don't need to be turbocharging it for them by letting them leech off the credibility we've earned.

 

[Alate_One]

And secular scientists have an agenda and ignore any data that points to a young earth

That's really easy because there isn't any evidence for a young earth, certainly not a 6000 yr old one. We have evidence from tree rings alone for at least 10,000 years of a continuous environment.

and I would guess Christian scientists ignore anything that appears that earth is millions of years old.

Except for all the Christians in science, including myself that have no problem with the earth being billions of years old. Which is the large majority of Christians in science btw.

Data is not necessarily the deciding factor when there's an agenda.

No, Data is ultimately the deciding factor in science. Agendas don't "win" in science, ultimately, because there are always other scientists running around that would love to make a name for themselves by upending the apple cart. The big bang was against the mainstream thinking in the past, but it "won" the debate because the data supported it.

My husband and I have been studying this and what I just said seems to be the case. I know you'll deny it.

Do some reading from Christian scientists and not the ones that AiG and CO. want you to hear about.

I watched a documentary on netflix where people were fired if they even mentioned I.D in various jobs they had, as a teacher (was one), a scientist and I can't remember what they others did for a living.

Did you know that at YEC universities you can be fired for expressing a belief in Evolution/Old Earth?

Seems to me that so many people just DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE IN A CREATOR.

Believing in a creator has nothing to do with the age of the earth or evolution.

 

[Stripe]

I guess you're one of those in the camp of "it had feathers, therefore it's a bird".

Guess away. :idunno:

It couldn't fly

Why not?

And you know there are lots of birds that cannot fly, right?

and it had full usable claws on its hands

All birds have claws on their hands. Some even use them for stuff. :idunno:

teeth

So birds used to have teeth. :idunno:

etc

Dinosaur feet? Dinosaur ribs? Dinosaur legs? What?

By comparing them with modern bird feathers as well as fossil birds.

Like this one?

:idunno:

There is such a thing as healthy skepticism but you immediately ASSUMED it to be a forgery.

I'm assuming now that you can read minds. :chuckle:

Oh. And you forgot to respond to the most important question. How did this fossil form?

Well unless Walt Brown writes it or Pastor Bob or Pastor Lea support it, then it is unquestionable.

On the contrary! Everything either of those two say is questionable.

 

[Alate_One]

Further, I've listened to a lot of these debates in the past. Duane Gish and Henry Morris could make several false assertions in a minute, and keep it up for 30 minutes. They're very practiced at it. But showing that their statements are false would take five or ten minutes each. There's a huge imbalance there, and the science side, which depends on careful analysis and critical thinking, just can't operate in that kind of environment.

In general I agree, however I think there could be some potential in a debate centered around a particular piece of evidence. This piece of evidence would have to be selected by the science "side".

This is because creationists tend to pull out something that hasn't been well studied and then say "see science doesn't know anything!" which is a pointless discussion.

If the argument were over say, archeopteryx, or the Anchiornis I posted, or even something so broad as the origin of whales from land mammals (which is relatively well studied), where the scientist(s) can show *data* and the creationist offers explanations. Then we see whose explanation makes the most sense. That's about as close to fair as you could get. I doubt there are many creationists that would agree to such a thing.

That's what happened at the Dover trial. Guess which side won in that "debate"? Here's a transcript of part of the testimony. Oh and the Judge was a conservative Bush appointee.

 

[Alate_One]

And you know there are lots of birds that cannot fly, right?

So you think these three are all the same "kind"?

All birds have claws on their hands. Some even use them for stuff.

No. SOME birds have very tiny claws on their hands. One living species uses them as a chick.

Dinosaur feet? Dinosaur ribs? Dinosaur legs? What?

All of the above. Pelvis, skull, etc.

Like this one?

Ones with feather impressions obviously.

Oh. And you forgot to respond to the most important question. How did this fossil form?

The fossils from Liaoning are nearly all from fine volcanic ash burial. That is why they have such fine feature preservation. The first Anchiornis I posted is from the Tiaojishan Formation

No deep water formed rocks, sorry.

 

[Stripe]

So you think these three are all the same "kind"?

Probably not. :idunno:

All of the above. Pelvis, skull, etc.

How do you know?

Ones with feather impressions obviously.

:squint: It doesn't need to be fossilised with feather impressions to be a bird. :nono:

The fossils from Liaoning are nearly all from fine volcanic ash burial. That is why they have such fine feature preservation. The first Anchiornis I posted is from the Tiaojishan Formation

And why is it squashed flat?

No deep water formed rocks, sorry.

:chuckle: But they were deposited in water.

 

[Alate_One]

Probably not. :idunno:

They all had/have feathers. Now are they all birds?

How do you know?

Looking at the bones? Even a careful glance by a layperson makes it pretty obvious.

:squint: It doesn't need to be fossilised with feather impressions to be a bird. :nono:

Huh? You seem to have lost the train of the conversation. You asked how scientists figured out the colors of the feathers by looking at the fossils. I said they used fossil birds that had left feather impressions as well as modern birds for comparison.

And yes it is very easy to tell looking at the fossil you posted that it was a bird (and probably a flying bird) and not a feathered dinosaur even though there were no feather impressions.

And why is it squashed flat?

Oh I don't know, the tons of rock on top of it?

:chuckle: But they were deposited in water.

I'm pretty sure gsweet already pointed out to you that sedimentary does not necessarily mean "in water". These are specifically from pyroclastic flows.

 

[Stripe]

They all had/have feathers. Now are they all birds?

Show us the original fossils and describe the in situ environment and its surrounds and then I'll have an idea on how reliable the data is.

Looking at the bones? Even a careful glance by a layperson makes it pretty obvious.

Uhm .. no it doesn't. Do you know how difficult it is to identify an animal from its bones without careful investigation?

Huh? You seem to have lost the train of the conversation. You asked how scientists figured out the colors of the feathers by looking at the fossils.

No, I didn't. :nono:

I said they used fossil birds that had left feather impressions as well as modern birds for comparison.

Sounds fairly tenuous sort of work to me. And fairly useless. But, whatever. :idunno:

And yes it is very easy to tell looking at the fossil you posted that it was a bird (and probably a flying bird) and not a feathered dinosaur even though there were no feather impressions.

Good on ya. :up:

Oh I don't know, the tons of rock on top of it?

:rotfl: I thought you said it was deposited in fine ash? Where did these tons of rock come from?

I'm pretty sure gsweet already pointed out to you that sedimentary does not necessarily mean "in water". These are specifically from pyroclastic flows.

Please show us a sedimentary rock that was not formed under water. :thumb:

Please show us how pyroclastic flows mean there is no water. :thumb:

 

[Alate_One]

Show us the original fossils and describe the in situ environment and its surrounds and then I'll have an idea on how reliable the data is.

What does that have to do with what group you would put them into? For each one there are multiple fossils/individuals. Kinds are supposed to be obvious and you said earlier that things with feathers are all birds. Why aren't they all birds?

Uhm .. no it doesn't. Do you know how difficult it is to identify an animal from its bones without careful investigation?

Depends on how close you want to get on an identification. I can certainly tell a mammal from anything else when there's a mostly complete skeleton.

And it's pretty easy to tell a modern flying bird from anything else when there's a keeled breastbone floating around in the mix.

:rotfl: I thought you said it was deposited in fine ash? Where did these tons of rock come from?

You do understand the difference between fine as in the size of the particles and tons of it as total quantity of ash right? Or are you really that stupid?

Please show us a sedimentary rock that was not formed under water.

Maybe you should show us that all sedimentary rock IS formed under water?

Please show us how pyroclastic flows mean there is no water.

Have you never heard of pompeii?

A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current) is a fast-moving current of extremely hot gas (which can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F)) and rock (collectively known as tephra), which travel away from a volcano at speeds generally as great as 700 km/h (450 mph). The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill, or spread laterally under gravity. Their speed depends upon the density of the current, the volcanic output rate, and the gradient of the slope. They are a common and devastating result of certain explosive volcanic eruptions.

Successive eruptions by a volcano over a short period of time can give you this . . .

Looks like sedimentary rock in the making doesn't it? No water involved for the lower layers.

 

[Stripe]

What does that have to do with what group you would put them into?

If the creature you're trying to portray is fictional then I'm going to put it in the "fictional" kind.

For each one there are multiple fossils/individuals.

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to find a few in situ descriptions. Perhaps even a photo or two. Map locations. Strata. :thumb:

Kinds are supposed to be obvious and you said earlier that things with feathers are all birds. Why aren't they all birds?

Birds almost certainly aren't all one kind. And I don't think I've ever said kinds are obvious. And I don't think I ever said that everything with feathers is a bird.

Depends on how close you want to get on an identification. I can certainly tell a mammal from anything else when there's a mostly complete skeleton. And it's pretty easy to tell a modern flying bird from anything else when there's a keeled breastbone floating around in the mix.

:BRAVO:

You do understand the difference between fine as in the size of the particles and tons of it as total quantity of ash right? Or are you really that stupid?

So you have a single event that deposited tons of fine ash in one location? I find that difficult to believe! If you had a photo of the in situ fossil this would be a lot easier. :thumb:

Maybe you should show us that all sedimentary rock IS formed under water?

I didn't say it was.

But I guarantee you that the stuff we're talking about was.

Have you never heard of pompeii?

A butchered adjective you might use of yourself? :idunno:

]A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current) is a fast-moving current of extremely hot gas (which can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F)) and rock (collectively known as tephra), which travel away from a volcano at speeds generally as great as 700 km/h (450 mph). The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill, or spread laterally under gravity. Their speed depends upon the density of the current, the volcanic output rate, and the gradient of the slope. They are a common and devastating result of certain explosive volcanic eruptions.

Uh huh. And what about these things precludes the presence of water around them?

Successive eruptions by a volcano over a short period of time can give you this . . .Looks like sedimentary rock in the making doesn't it? No water involved for the lower layers.

They are sedimentary rocks. There's something of a vague boundary between igneous and sedimentary. And that there is no water necessary for the formation of a rock is no reason to believe there was no water around. But the non-volcanic sedimentary rock within the strata will almost certainly show that water was around (this is in reference to the site where your bird was found, not Mt. St. Helens. Though we could look at a fossil from there if you want).

If you could point out where a fossil was found in a picture like that we might be able to get somewhere! :thumb:

 

[Jukia]

Stripe wants in situ info, provide a cite to the paper and he can read it himself, but that assumes he has gotten his comprehension up to par.