COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

[Rip]

Rip,

According to science…

80 million years ago Pangaea broke in half. The two halves insanely went to the poles, where they were 80 million years ago (if you forget common sense.)

 

-Neal

But "science" doesn't support this claim. Your making a false arguement

According to the sites I linked to this is not the case.

 

If you have data supporting your claim, post it. You can't just say "According to science…"

Rip,

 

Honest Injun, my friend, I have given you the facts. No Geological source disagrees with these facts.

 

I have simply drawn, traced, the landmasses and put them where science says they have to have been. These are not 'my' facts. My perspective, I’m pretty good at perspective.

 

It's the inbetweeners that provide false maps, bad graphics and fudge the space.

 

Everything I said on that page is absolutely the truth. I beg you to look it up. Not those shoddily made and contrived maps. Known facts.

 

Can I get a witness here?

 

Uh,.... ! I'll paypal the first person a dollar if they can tell me what's wrong with your logic.

 

 

All I can find are these damn "inbetweeners"

 

http://geowords.com/lostlinks/j01/1.htm

http://www.st-agnes.org/~dcrank/student/liz/yourpag1.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html

http://geowords.com/lostlinks/j01/1.htm

 

 

Neal , show me your sources

[Sal]

Such an inference, my dear Mr. Sal, would be a grave mistake. I would expect anyone to be duly impressed with Mr. Adams' ability to draw ellipses, circles and straight lines freehand as I've seen him do on countless occasions with my very own two eyes. Mr. Adams' choice to apply this ability when needed, and at other times to use other means available to him in order to perform a more complicated task than a mere freehand drawing of an ellipse, circle or straight line, (such as in this case), should in no way compromise your being impressed with his freehand drawing abilities.

 

don't call me dear! you haven't even bought me dinner yet! actually, considering you're in Israel, and I haven't asked the wife how she would feel about such an arrangement, more's the better. and i feel comfortable in allowing myself no small level of impress...errr...impressed-ness *coughcough* vis a vis Mr. Adams's ability to draw purt near anything. unless he's been tracing all this time. j'accuse! not really.

 

We developed many such obstacles to sound perception and functional thinking processes in school, that's true. I later discovered that tracing paper was one of the greatest aids in developing drawing skills.

 

that i don't know. i do know that trash paper is really good for modifying plan drawings and refining elevations without having to redo everything from scratch. plus, if you ink in the back side, it gives a nice, even grey on the front. but don't roll any of them wacky tobaccy cigarettes in it, unless you are fond of coughing. a lot. just what i hear.

 

The act of drawing comic books is a means and a prelude to developing creative thinking skills which also find expression in Holmesian acumen and clue recognition abilities, amongst others.

plus, it's fun!

 

It is in the second drawer on the left side of your desk, under the folded newspaper which you placed there eight weeks ago in order to preserve the review of Batman Begins which it carried.

actually, my desk has drawers on the right hand side. and i, oddly enough, have little interest in Batman Begins. Marvel zombie. whatcha gonna do, ya feel me?

 

this is fun. thanks for indulging me

[selegue]

Jack,

 

Slow down, and thanks. I'll answer later tonight. Meanwhile, can you help me with Rip?

 

 

Yes, I can help you a lot with Rip.

 

Rip seems very knowledgeable about geology, plate tectonics, sources of information, and logical inference.

I haven't diagreed with anything he's written so far.

I recommend that you look carefully at the information he's presented. There's nothing to be gained by reflexively disagreeing with him instead of considering the information he presents.

 

I hope that helped.

 

 

No, I don't think magic will do, do you?

 

 

My tongue was slightly in cheek, but I believe that the "initial singularity" is the wall that our knowledge and measurements can't get around. Imagining where it came from requires a leap of something. Faith, belief in a supreme being, or belief in one of the "eternal cycle" ideas that becomes an unsatisfying chicken/egg chase. The "initial singularity" step might as well be described as magic. NOTHING from there on has to be though. We can and have made measurements that provide good evidence for everything that happened after the first 10^-40 or so of a second.

 

Jack,

 

If India crashed... and stopped, how much energy would it take to overcome inertia again and again to not only move itself but to collapse thirty miles deep of granite and basalt for miles and miles and hundreds of miles. I figure it backed up and crashed into Asia over and over again like a pile driver, and oddly, you know, Physics, with that equal and opposite thingy should have made all of India into mountains. Worse yet, that vast expanse of flat land at the top of India is quite odd, don't you think? More for the fact that "experts" conveniently don't notice thousands of square miles of impossibly flat land. Give it a look.

 

 

The "starting up and stopping" part is baffling me. There's no starting and stopping. India and Eurasian plates are like Ol' Man River, moving together constantly, slowly, about the speed of your fingernail growing, for millions of years. The "corrugations" = mountains appear where they collide.

 

 

You do live in a unique Universe, Jack. And on a unique planet, a planet where all continents on one hemisphere move apart and all continents move together on the other hemisphere.

 

Bloody unique.

 

 

Best one I've ever seen too! I think I'll keep it.

 

 

P.S. A diamond is not a clump of carbon.

 

 

 

AAAUUUUGGGGHHHHH!

 

 

You're surely baiting me with that one. Taunt me with things like cosmology or geology all you want. I can be a good sport and will happily admit my limitations. Deny the composition of possibly the best characterized pure allotrope of an element, I can't even be polite. If you try to defend this statement with crystallography, break out your asbestos jockey shorts.

 

 

Jack

[Aces]

Aces,

370. Did you fellows check my dinosaur note?

 

I was noticed!

[selegue]

Rip,

According to science…

80 million years ago Pangaea broke in half. The two halves insanely went to the poles, where they were 80 million years ago (if you forget common sense.)

 

-Neal

But "science" doesn't support this claim. Your making a false arguement

According to the sites I linked to this is not the case.

 

If you have data supporting your claim, post it. You can't just say "According to science…"

Rip,

 

Honest Injun, my friend, I have given you the facts. No Geological source disagrees with these facts.

 

I have simply drawn, traced, the landmasses and put them where science says they have to have been. These are not 'my' facts. My perspective, I’m pretty good at perspective.

 

It's the inbetweeners that provide false maps, bad graphics and fudge the space.

 

Everything I said on that page is absolutely the truth. I beg you to look it up. Not those shoddily made and contrived maps. Known facts.

 

Can I get a witness here?

 

Uh,.... ! I'll paypal the first person a dollar if they can tell me what's wrong with your logic.

 

 

All I can find are these damn "inbetweeners"

 

http://geowords.com/lostlinks/j01/1.htm

http://www.st-agnes.org/~dcrank/student/liz/yourpag1.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html

http://geowords.com/lostlinks/j01/1.htm

 

 

Neal , show me your sources

 

None of the sources I've seen show the continents widely separated at the poles 80 million years ago. Where did you draw and trace the landmasses from? What is the source of your data? Surely you didn't make your own measurements!

 

[[Keep your dollar, Rip. Use it to find a quarter bin, buy four comic books, read them with the cover folded back, then roll them up and stick them in your pockets. Yes, ROLL THEM UP. You know you want to.]

 

Actually, you (Neal) wrote earlier:

 

"The people who did that map know little about perspective around a sphere. To verify this, if you have a globe, how far away do you have to hold it level simply to SEE Antarctica?"

 

This suggests that you're drawing a perspective view of the sphere -- no one doubts your ability to draw in perspective -- you could do with one hand tied behind your back. This will look very different from the "spread out on an ellipse" projection (I think it's a Mollweide projection --

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/mapproj/mapproj.html) of the maps Rip referenced -- in fact the geo sites seem to use this projection almost universally. Is that where some of the disagreement comes from?

 

Jack, inbetweener Dead Head, Esq.

[Aces]

I'm simply saying that religion and science are two sides of one essential coin. There shouldn't BE scientists who reject all types of religion and creationists who reject science. A scientist should realize that cold facts aren't able to explain all the complexities that are so uniquely human, and religious zealots need to wake up and realize that a book written two thousand years ago can't explain the dinosaurs, evolution, or planetary revolutions. Both sides have their share of myopic militants; I just hope most people can see the folly in this pointless struggle.

 

The book you are refering to was/is authored by God. It doesn't attempt to describe, at least in great detail, the process of life and creation but the purpose of it.

 

One doesn't need revelation to understand process, that is learned though experience.

 

Fire is hot, don't stick your hand in the fire.

Hmmm... Fire makes food taste better.

Me like cooked food.

 

However the only way to understand purpose is through revelation.

 

You know how I post on this board right?

But you'll never know why I do it unless I reveal it to you.

[october]

The book you are refering to was/is authored by God. It doesn't attempt to describe, at least in great detail, the process of life and creation but the purpose of it.

 

I think we are in agreement. Regardless of how specific The Bible is, people still interpret it as containing just those things you say it doesn't describe. For every person who interprets the Garden of Eden as allegory, there is another who insists on a literal interpretation. My contention isn't that The Bible is irrelevant. To the contrary, I don't understand why some people insist that in order for The Bible to contain "truths" it has to be seen as a literal, factual work. Can't it be just as powerful, and relevant, as an abstract?

[HouseofComics.Com]

Well, I'm about ten pages behind on this thread so I don't think I'll jump into any of the debates. But I will note how surreal I found it to

 

1) be reading the latest Back Issue magazine two hours ago at the office where it's discussing how 35 years ago Neal Adams did a mystery art assist on Andru's pencils in the Superman/Spider-Man treasury that only a few pros knew about

 

2) and then come to the boards and look at who's online and see that Neal Adams is online

 

3) and that he's, of course, reading the Neal Adams thread.

 

Just a bit much for me tonight.

 

Marc

[Neal Adams-migration]

Your old question H2. H2 is after all a molecule and so the protons don’t join. Their spin is affected by temperature… which is fine.

 

My earlier reference days ago was that in compounds with metals, the hydrogen atom acquires a second electron forming a negatively charged hydride ion and that is the power for the fu8ture that I was speaking of.

 

Let me step you back a bit. Atom’s shells depend for much of their nature on the structure of the electrons around their nuclei (nucleuses, heh).

 

If the outer shell is complete, the radius is smaller. Incomplete, it is larger. The nature of the electron shells define its nature, gas, metal, etc.

 

All this without requiring a series of protons made of different things. These ATOMS are massively different, but the same stuff.

 

I say to you. Yes there is a difference when the electron surrounds the proton than if the electron becomes buried within the body of the neutron as is (I say) the positron. This is a far more profound difference than eight electrons and twelve electrons.

 

But you will say different atoms with different characteristics does not mean their constituents are different. They are the same.

 

Spectrum or not. Half-life difference or not, these differences can be explained by the loss…or integration of the electron into the body of the proton to become a neutron.

 

In addition, when an electron enters a proton, the shuffling of energies among the prime matter particles must be profound. After all, the proton has accepted a particle of equal, but opposite power as the power that assembled it into a proton. A neutron and a proton can trade off the electron and switch, making the proton a neutron and a neutron into a proton, in a laboratory situation.

 

Why then do you not see the logic and the sense when I say a hydrogen atom heated and expanded may accept into itself its own electron? And so a hydrogen atom becomes a neutron.

 

Have you not said to yourself as a student and now as a teacher…”why the hell is the hydrogen atom the only atom that does not have a neutron?” I’ve asked myself a thousand times, so basic is the question.

 

“Because a hydrogen atom IS a neutron…” Is the answer. And thereby we can build all the higher atoms. Tricked into joining by the neutron.

 

Well, I placed my trust in you JACK. I thought you would, out of courtesy go to a globe, if you had one, and look at it contemplatively.

 

You’d first, imagine Eurasia rising up and North America rising up to close over and join Greenland and closing the North Pole with land. As science says Laurasia did.

 

Then I imagined you would look at the Antarctic and the over 2000-mile gap between Africa and Antarctica and Australia and Antarctica and pretend to pull the two down to join Antarctica, 2000 miles down.

 

Then knowing, perhaps you do, that South America’s tail wrapped under and around Africa, you could ‘see’ it joining the Antarctic Peninsula as twin snakes wrapping under Africa.

 

You would know the East Coast of South America went under the “armpit” of Africa. The trip also for South America, tails wrapped, 2000 miles.

 

Add the Gulf of Mexico into the Americas, and the Mediterranean, add to the closing of the Artic Ocean at least half way, you’d be thinking that my estimation of 2000 miles was quite conservative.

 

Ah, it’s never like it is in the movies.

 

Did I measure it? Of course!! Many times.

[Rip]

I love you as an artist, but oh boy as a debater...

 

Its really quite simple.... see it goes like this, I ask you to provide me with a source, then YOU show me a source so we can look at it together. See that's how research works. Otherwise you can make up any story you want.

 

If I'm doing a term paper and don't provide sources, I'll get an F.

Right now Neal, (I love ya) but you've got an F.

 

Start providing some sources.

 

 

Maybe we should take a break, how about a comic question?

Who's you favorite artist?

[Neal Adams-migration]

I don't think you understand.

I propose the whole field of geology makes false maps that they copy from each other , cause...its easy.

Its innofensive and it defends an increasingly illogical argument.

I do it with THEIR facts. They say Antartica was subtropical and was located at Australia's position

Pangea broke in half and the bottom half rode all the way to the South Pole.If it did as they say, that's 2000 miles, minimum to the South Pole. It doesn't compute any other way. No matter how they draw the maps.

They had to concoct this story because, well , Antartica is way down there, two thousand miles away

from its origin point..Why don't the maps show it? Who's gonna do it ..... and lose their job?

The refference is the facts and most agree with them within a sort of range. The maps are all nuts.

[Michael Netzer]

Rip seems very knowledgeable about geology, plate tectonics, sources of information, and logical inference.

I haven't diagreed with anything he's written so far.

 

This is a perfectly logical assessment between two people who read the same books and hold their content as irrefutable fact.

 

A whole generation of science led astray because of its proud contention against the possibility of spontaneous generation of matter, claiming it smells of creationism.

 

A whole generation of science dimming civilization's knowledge and understanding with outrageous excuses for why matter cannot continue to be generated - putting forth some of the most absurd ideas and then palming them off as science with books and charts and maps - leading a whole generation of people astray with faulty fiction pretending to be fact.

 

So science conconcted the big bang, pangea and subduction because it strayed from its scientific principles and didn't leave the possibility open for spontaneous generation of matter. This thread is a wonderful example of how proudly closed-minded science has become and of the debate tactics it employs which puts to shame any sembelance of scientific integrity..

 

Neal's point about the pangea formation 80 million years ago, is mute within the overall argument he makes. Still his map takes into account the curved perspective at the north and south poles. All the scientists' maps and charts don't. That's why in Neal's map, there's a gap between the north and south pangea formations.

 

So the scientists attempt to ridicule the reasercher's ability to debate because he dosen't show how any of their FAULTY source material support his argument. Because he dosn't bow to their textbooks. Armed with a feeling of pride and employing tactics of ridicule and academic snobbery, the scientists wage their war on the true thinkers amongst them, with a misleading academic superiority complex and snobberistic character cannabalism tactics previously reserved for the jungle predators of dark ages long gone. And this they call science. How pathetic.

 

Their books and theories, supported by the charts and maps they've conjured as a smokescreen for their pompous ineptness, are full of nothing more than repulsive odor emmitting rudimentary organic fertelizer, of the male cow variety. (take that, auto-censor!)

 

Aside from that, I love this place.

[Michael Netzer]

I'm simply saying that religion and science are two sides of one essential coin. There shouldn't BE scientists who reject all types of religion and creationists who reject science. A scientist should realize that cold facts aren't able to explain all the complexities that are so uniquely human, and religious zealots need to wake up and realize that a book written two thousand years ago can't explain the dinosaurs, evolution, or planetary revolutions. Both sides have their share of myopic militants; I just hope most people can see the folly in this pointless struggle.

 

Well said and courageously thought out, O.F.

 

The substance of this coin which binds its two sides together is perhaps what both sides need to consider.

 

Religionists have misread the accounting of creation because they're led by a pompous holy pride which blinds their understanding of the text.

 

They claim to take it literally, yet they don't, really.

 

The writer of Genesis obviously connected with the developmental process of evolution which science has only recently begun to discover.

 

Science denies the veracity of the scientific theory which the text of Genesis puts forth - and in doing so, they stifle their own ability to understand the model under which the universe came into being. So they conjure up outlandish theories that have no sound basis in logic or fact.

 

Just as a simple example, Genesis clearly states that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans on Earth. Just the opposite, the planet was full of the human species, still at the dawn of their rise to intelligence.

 

According to the text, Adam and Eve were perhaps the first intelligently aware people in their environment, but not the first humans. Their story puts forth a model for the beginning of collective community intelligence, fueled by Adam and Eve's role as teachers and the influence they had on their environment.

 

Science would fare well to study this aspect of human development in order to more fully understand the evolutionary process of mankind and the universe.

 

Religius zealots would do well to begin to accept science as the mechanical verifier of the essence of their faith.

 

Both sides would benefit immensely by accepting what the other has to offer.

 

Scientific research, guided by the model for creation in Geneses, holds the key for the next phase of scientific discovery.

 

With it, we'll conquer the the forces which bind us to this planet and become able to traverse the vast solar system with previously unimagined ease.

 

When the two great tastes that tase great together, Science and Genesis, become like a Reese's peanut butter cup, we'll achieve all this in a matter of a few short years.

[Rip]

So the scientists attempt to ridicule the reasercher's ability to debate because he dosen't show how any of their FAULTY source material support his argument. Because he doesn't show any of their textbooks.

 

I think you've summed it up quite nicely here.

 

So, who's your favorite Batman villian, the Ridder, or the Scarecrow?

[Rip]

Rip,

 

Honest Injun, my friend, I have given you the facts. No Geological source disagrees with these facts.

 

I have simply drawn, traced, the landmasses and put them where science says they have to have been. These are not 'my' facts. My perspective, I’m pretty good at perspective.

 

It's the inbetweeners that provide false maps, bad graphics and fudge the space.

 

Everything I said on that page is absolutely the truth. I beg you to look it up. Not those shoddily made and contrived maps. Known facts.

 

Can I get a witness here?

I don't think you understand.

I propose the whole field of geology makes false maps that they copy from each other , cause...its easy.

Its innofensive and it defends an increasingly illogical argument.

I do it with THEIR facts. They say Antartica was subtropical and was located at Australia's position

Pangea broke in half and the bottom half rode all the way to the South Pole.If it did as they say, that's 2000 miles, minimum to the South Pole. It doesn't compute any other way. No matter how they draw the maps.

They had to concoct this story because, well , Antartica is way down there, two thousand miles away

from its origin point..Why don't the maps show it? Who's gonna do it ..... and lose their job?

The refference is the facts and most agree with them within a sort of range. The maps are all nuts.

 

With this I believe our debate has come to a close. Neal, best of luck to you.

So is Norman Rockwell your favorite artist? I believe I remember you mentioning him in an interview.

[Michael Netzer]

So the scientists attempt to ridicule the reasercher's ability to debate because he dosen't show how any of their FAULTY source material support his argument. Because he doesn't bow to their textbooks.

 

I think you've summed it up quite nicely here.

 

But it wasn't intended to bring the discussion to an end. This version of a semi-summation was meant to raise the heat of the debate and either turn the whole affair into a mud-slinging contest or cause both sides to reach for new material around which to center their confrontation - depending on the mood of the participants. I do fear I may have underestimated your observation skills RIP, and went a trifle overboard in the process. Please do forgive me.

 

So, who's your favorite Batman villian, the Ridder, or the Scarecrow?

 

I always like the villains typed in bold characters more. How'd you know to do that?

[october]

become a like a Reese's peanut butter cup

 

 

I agree with most of what you said, but I am not sure science will ever, or should ever, look at Genesis as some sort of general model of creation. When I said scientists should embrace religion (be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even just general spirituality), I meant that they should look to that type of practice as a better method of explaining, and helping improve, relationships, emotions and other things that don't have their grounding in fact or logic.

[Michael Netzer]

that i don't know. i do know that trash paper is really good for modifying plan drawings and refining elevations without having to redo everything from scratch. plus, if you ink in the back side, it gives a nice, even grey on the front.

 

Tracing is truly a great drawing excercise and always a good learning experience, even for the most seasoned of artists.

 

but don't roll any of them wacky tobaccy cigarettes in it, unless you are fond of coughing. a lot. just what i hear.

 

I'd almost suspect you've been strapped without any Rizlas handy and had to make due with the lightest weight paper in your art supply cabinet. As I also might have been, on one or more occasions. Very harsh indeed.

 

actually, my desk has drawers on the right hand side. and i, oddly enough, have little interest in Batman Begins. Marvel zombie. whatcha gonna do, ya feel me?

 

I feel for you implicitly. I must have momentarily confused you with your persona in the Alternate Earth where your desk drawers are on the left and Batman Begins reviews line your office, expressing your disdain for everything Marvel. Aside from that, everything else about these worlds appears to be identical.

[Neal Adams-migration]

Rip.

 

Guy says to me aren’t you afraid if you discuss your theory and reveal it, some one will steal it and claim it for their own and 40 years of work will be lost and down the drain.

 

To which I say, after I stop laughing, “That’s the LEAST of my troubles.” Just trying to loosen people’s death grip on these unproven theories will take all my energy, and besides who’d want to unless you can show how to make a buck at it?

 

The sun is still peacefully circling the Earth, and if ya want proof just look at the vault of the sky for 24 hours, you’ll be convinced.

 

Norman Rockwell is probably the best American artist in the 20th Century. He combined all classical skills with incredible talent and used them to tell the world more about America, it’s past and present and future than any dozen artists, but that’s just my opinion.

 

Mucha’s great and his slav epic is the single greatest art project outstripping the Sistine chapel and all other projects by a country mile (but that’s just my opinion.)

 

I like Goudi. Mike (Angelo’s sculpture, not painting.), Maxfield Parrish, Peake (fantastic), Drew Struzan, and maybe about a hundred others all based in reality referencing and a critical eye. I like skilled artists.

[Michael Netzer]

become like a Reese's peanut butter cup

 

 

I agree with most of what you said, but I am not sure science will ever, or should ever, look at Genesis as some sort of general model of creation. When I said scientists should embrace religion (be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even just general spirituality), I meant that they should look to that type of practice as a better method of explaining, and helping improve, relationships, emotions and other things that don't have their grounding in fact or logic.

 

This is a very good point. A kind of behavioral/spiritual basis that could help scientists better face their human condition and thus positively influence the way they put forth their theory - and its substance.

 

I do stand by the notion of both sides utilizing each other's assets for their own essential needs, though. Religionists, for example, can strengthen their faith and steer themselves away from superstition and a belief in magical miracle special effects, by embracing sound scientific discovery.

 

Science can learn about the division of forces in the universe from an in-depth study of the accounting of creation in Genesis, which would give them a framework under which to form a more whole theorem for the structure of the universe, and gradually fill in the missing details with experiment and discovery.

 

We're not too far from influencing both sides to looking in the other's direction.

 

A good step forward would be to bring Neal's work to the limelight and catapult it to the status of socially relevant national debate.