$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 4, 2006 10:08:07 GMT -5
There are tons of places in the earth that have no trees
Hey, idiot, there are also tons of places on Earth that have no shoreline, or shells.
Again, there are more trees in a mere thicket of woods than there are shells on a strip of sandy beach. So get over it.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 4, 2006 10:15:10 GMT -5
There are more shells in the picture I posted than any forest. Millions of them.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 4, 2006 10:28:48 GMT -5
there are freshwater mussels as well.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 4, 2006 11:18:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 4, 2006 11:28:50 GMT -5
Again, my point about seashells - the earth littered with fragments of seashells. Those don't count - if you smash one seashell into 1000 fragments, you haven't increased the earth's seashell population by one thousand, you've simply changed that one seashell into a broken seashell, which still counts as one.
If you consider that every seashell is or was once a part of a living thing - a clam, a mollusk or some other sort of ocean invertebrate, then the debate really boils down to this - are there more trees than ocean invertebrates? I don't know. I would lean toward more trees.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Oct 4, 2006 11:44:55 GMT -5
"There is unrest in the forest ... there is trouble with the trees." -- Neil Peart
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 4, 2006 11:46:33 GMT -5
Kind of an ironic statement. How many trees did Neil Peart indirectly kill with his shenanigans?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 4, 2006 12:43:15 GMT -5
but we'd be looking at dead sea creatures, not live ones...... so therefore , i still say seashells. Sally Sells Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 4, 2006 12:54:21 GMT -5
Dead or Alive. Shells on live sea creatures, shells abandoned by live sea creatures, and shells from sea creatures that have died all contribute to the earth's seashell population.
However, using those criteria, trees that are dead, but still in the ground, standing, which have yet to fall and rot away also should count. But the point I'm trying to drive here is that seashells are not like rocks...any little independent piece of solid earth may constitute a rock, and by that definition there are probably millions of new rock being created everyday. I think people are quick to classify any little fragment of shell no matter how large or small as a seashell - but in actuality the number of seashells in existence are limited to the number of sea creatures that wear or have recently worn them (obviously very old seashells have eroded into grains of sand - and don't count). So I think it STILL boils down to comparing the population of one classification of living thing (tree) to another classification of living thing (invertebrate sea creatures that wear shells).
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Oct 4, 2006 12:54:26 GMT -5
"Hey, idiot, there are also tons of places on Earth that have no shoreline, or shells"
True, but the places you do have shores have tons of countless little shells. I bet it'd be possible to to number every tree and know an exact number of them, but it'd be impossible to count how many sea shells there are at just one beach. Plus the ones you can't see. You only have so many climates than can grow tress but every continent or island, any sealine, there are millions of shells. No way there are more trees.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 4, 2006 12:55:44 GMT -5
Any cllimate that is close to the SEA, can grow trees. Anywhere to desolate to grow trees, would obviously have NO seashells.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 4, 2006 13:11:08 GMT -5
There's also a space issue. Millions of shells fit can cover the ground of just one tree. Maybe even billions. Trees may take up more space, but in number, shells win.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 4, 2006 13:24:46 GMT -5
You said, "Millions of shells fit can cover the ground of just one tree"
Yes, millions of shells CAN fit in the space that one tree occupies. But the question is DO THEY? Obviously not. I have a space, right here on my office floor that is big enough to fit the bases of 8-10 average sized trees - I see no trees nor shells here in my office.
That's like saying 20 California Condors can fit in the space occupied by one elephant, therefore there are more California Condors than elephants. No there isn't!
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Oct 4, 2006 13:37:47 GMT -5
Convergence!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 4, 2006 14:03:38 GMT -5
In the above picture, the seashells clearly outnumber the trees.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Oct 4, 2006 14:51:06 GMT -5
But on my block in Hoboken, the trees outnumber the shells.
|
|
|
Post by Chrissy on Oct 4, 2006 21:37:55 GMT -5
Do snail shells count?
What about baked clam shells?
Turtle shells?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 4, 2006 21:47:29 GMT -5
SEAshells. Key word - SEA. So the answer to your questions is no.
The clam thing came up last time and was tossed out, just like you would not count a tree that has been cut for kindling.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 6, 2006 15:34:58 GMT -5
I would think that Baked Clam Shells count....ANY kind of Clam Shell counts....it is or was once the shell of a sea creature!
What's the difference between an empty shell lying on the beach abandoned by a sea creature for reasons of either death or growth (which is being counted), and an empty clam shell in your trash can abandoned by a sea creature for reasons of being scooped up out of the ocean, cooked up, ripped out of it's shell, and shoved down you throat? It's still a SHELL from the SEA....yes???
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Oct 12, 2006 13:55:51 GMT -5
Okay with all the hoopla I forgot about my favorite most ridiculous thread ever!!!!
We keep talking about shorelines, but what about deserts that were former ocean floors?
M
And Tom, I would like to request that you revive the thread disputing that fish actually swim upstream.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 12, 2006 13:59:02 GMT -5
In all due respect, people stumbling through the desert dont trip over seashells. Again, we are not counting anything buried under sand.
The fish thing is something else altogether. There are different sides to that story. I do know for sure that a lot of those supposed videos/photos of "fish swimming up waterfalls into the mouths of bears" were total photoshops.
Basically fish "swimming upstream" are simply just like fish in your tank, that every once in a while turn around and go the other direction . Its not like they fight currents to go anywhere.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 12, 2006 14:02:45 GMT -5
Salmon swim upstream. Happens all the time.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 12, 2006 14:05:38 GMT -5
I honestly need to read up on it more, but from the sources I was presented, I am in no way convinced. Some experts were even quoted as saying salmon CAN swim upstream, but only do so when fleeing danger. And, again, I liken that to a person trying to swim upstream...you can, for a time, but its nothing that you would make a habit of. And salmon dont.
All of those pics of salmon jumping waterfalls are bunk. I even saw a site showing how they were put together as photoshops.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 12, 2006 14:09:37 GMT -5
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 12, 2006 14:12:55 GMT -5
Oh, and videos cant be faked???
You ever watch Superman? Actuallly, you have, 1000 times. Its amazing what the wonders of cinema can do.
I cant open those links at work, but that would not prove anything.
Another way to get a flying salmon into the outstretched mouth of a bear is to have someone down below throwing the fish up there. Video could catch that too. Just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 12, 2006 14:20:48 GMT -5
Tom, I might be inclined to be with you on the Trees outnumbering seashells idea. But salmon swimming upstream being a hoax reeks of Carl Everett to me.
I didn't know this was ever up for debate. There's a reason salmon swim upstream, and it's not just because they can or fleeing in fear. If it were an instantaneous fear thing, then why the hell did the salmon leave the ocean for these streams in the first place? They are there for a reason - they came to the streams because it's a safer place for them to breed than the open ocean. The salmon you see swimming upstream are returning FROM the ocean to breed, not going TO the ocean.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 12, 2006 14:23:55 GMT -5
Of course. It's all a conspiracy just to rattle Tom. Salmon swim upstream, and there are more seashells than trees.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 12, 2006 14:25:09 GMT -5
Tim Salmon has retired, and so should this thread.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 12, 2006 14:30:48 GMT -5
Again, there is a difference between a salmon swimming lazily through a weak current and a salmon battling his way upstream and leaping up waterfalls. Logic would tell you if the salmon are looking for a "safe place to breed" they would do it sometime between the ocean and the, oh, I dont know....the waterfall!
I dont think this is so much of a hoax as people simply misunderstanding the truth of the matter. What IS a hoax are doctored pictures of salmon jumping into the mouths of waiting bears, which I liken to pictures of dogs in derbies playing cards with cigars in their mouths that you see on a barbershop wall.
Salmon CAN and DO swim in streams. They do NOT battle currents. You guys are making it sound like they fight against the stream the whole way and do something almost heroic. What I am saying is they are actually taking a lazy swim in what amounts to pools.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Oct 12, 2006 15:00:15 GMT -5
I am glad that this is back. When this came up a few years in 2000-2001 I had never seen it with my own two eyes.
Last year I witnessed Salmon in Canada actually jumping out of the water, while swimming upstream - battling the current. So unless Ashton Kutcher was underwater Punking me, I feel confident that Salmon do Indeed swim upstream. At least the dozen or so Canadian Salmon I saw.
M
|
|