Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: SirLinksalot

Creationists cherry-picking and misrepresenting the scientific research of others? A shocking development.


3 posted on 05/01/2006 8:32:25 AM PDT by Sols
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sols
"maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization."-article "Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says"-article

It wouldn't be the first time the textbooks were wrong about fossilization. They used to say it took millions of years, but scientists have shown under the right conditions fossilization can occur in a matter of weeks.

"“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens." - article

Yet another example of how evolutionary theory hindered true research instead of promoting it.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not the decay that the textbooks have wrong. Maybe what is wrong is this..." Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. "

I'm not saying she wants too. But Dr. Schweitzer would be laughed out of the so-called scientific community if she attemtped to dispute the geologists. She's lucky that enough scientists have taken her to be credible that they even bothered to check other fossils and confirm her findings.

40 posted on 05/01/2006 9:06:28 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Sols
Creationists cherry-picking and misrepresenting the scientific research of others?

Why, next you'll be telling us that Democrats want to raise your taxes.

146 posted on 05/01/2006 10:45:41 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Sols
Creationists cherry-picking and misrepresenting the scientific research of others? A shocking development.

Hmmmm....

Scientists cherry-picking and misrepresenting the scientific research of others? A shocking development...

741 posted on 05/02/2006 2:02:58 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Sols

"But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data"

How's this different than "scientists" misrepresenting their own data, to fit their own agenda?


1,695 posted on 05/31/2006 8:13:31 PM PDT by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Sols
Creationists cherry-picking and misrepresenting the scientific research of others? A shocking development.

The best way to deal with the ignorant with an agenda is to ignore them.
I can easily dismiss the "fundamentalists" statements quoted in the article. Mixing science and faith is a fool's errand, in this case, literally.

In order for a challenge to be taken seriously, I would have to accept that those moonbats challenging science know all the final answers about decay, and how it has been viewed up to now by everyone. I tend to accept the scientist's view that "We don't know what we thought we knew" about decay.

Which after all, is the subject of this article. It puzzles me that a scientist would have the time to be frustrated by fundamentalist challenges.

1,696 posted on 04/12/2007 7:03:57 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson