"I don't give damn what your trilobite buddies do, We are not going to go swimming!"
Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.
Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.
Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.
Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasn’t stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.
Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.
Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.
The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.
Please cite your source for this nonsense. (I have had nearly 600 radiocarbon dates done, and interpreted the results of thousands more, so make it good.)
[There is no evidence of this. It’s based upon biblical presuppositions.]
I’m sorry, but it’s based on scientific facts aNd on evidences of the fossil records that show fully completed species that have reamined the same all the way from the Cambrian explosion to now
[I wonder how you expect us to demonstrate this in the lab when the change you’d like takes much longer than many human lifespans.]
Again, I’m sorry, but lab experiments on fruit flies replicated millions of years through intense radiation and gene manipulation.
[You said that the author had left out thousands of cynodonts that showed this thread did not exist, although you didn’t have a shred of evidence to prove this.]
No that’s not correct- I didn’t say the authors left out thousands of Cynodonts- I brought up the fact that species were left out and only a coupel of examples are given for the supposed evolution of the ear hearing- again we’ll go back to the apple/pinapple example to illustrate that there are many many other species in the millions of years that simply aren’t taken into account-
[When we find a close evolutionary ancestor of the first cynodont, will you retract your objections?]
Again- it would be irresponsible to retract the statement that only a couple of examples are given between dissimiliar species- comparisons are made, and assumptions are utilized to fill in the huge gaps- these gaps are not small and not insignificant.
Pakicetus was reported to be the species that was aquatic based on a fragment of the the jaw and fragment of the skull, and was dropped into the ‘ear hearing evolution’ charts to show the supposed evolving ear hearing. What the writer didn’t tell you was that this creature was later discovered to be fully terrestrial with feet for running- not swimming. “A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.2 The commentary on this paper in the same issue3 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp
Coyote: Ah- ?Tukana boy, whos skull was within the range of fully human species. Tools foudn in same layers? Egads, whoda thunk humans used tools? Oh and molecular biology disproves the chimp to man hypothesis. While the skulls you showcase repeatedly are indeed interesting glimpses into the past, they show nothign more than fully human or fully ape species, and even those in field can’t agree on which ones should be classified as human or ape- yet folks continue to trot out hte wall posters as though the questions have been resolved and everyone agrees.
“Therefore, the most accurate date (see note below) for the origin of modern humans indicate that the last common ancestor to modern humans must have existed less than 50,000 years ago (16). Such a recent date left only one potential ancestor for modern humans, that is, Homo neandertalensis (Neanderthals), which lived between 400,000 and 28,000 years ago. Previous anatomical studies had cast doubt on the possibility of Neanderthals being the ancestors of modern humans (23-27). These studies showed differences in Neanderthal’s brain case (23) and the presence of an internal nasal margin, a medial swelling of the lateral nasal wall, and a lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove (24-25). None of these features are found in Homo Sapiens, and the last feature is not found in any other terrestrial mammal! A recent analysis of Neanderthal hands has revealed that modern humans and Neanderthals differed markedly in the kind of grip they could use” http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html
Seems there’s all kinds of serious problems as pointed out in detail by the link provided that are simply glossed over when trying to claim man came from apes
Such as?
What is the time limit for evolution? Is there a specific rate of change organisms have to hold to? Is there a maximum species life span where the species has to either become extinct or speciate? Where can I find the literature that describes these limits?
"Again, I’m sorry, but lab experiments on fruit flies replicated millions of years through intense radiation and gene manipulation."
Where did the scientists working on fruit flies say it was equivalent to millions of years? In which publication did those same scientists specify which time period a specific mutation corresponded to? Where is it mentioned that the experiments were an attempt to produce speciation? From what you imply, they must have tried an accumulation of mutations in order to ratchet more than one feature in a specific direction. Where is the documentation for this?
Now the big question - what changes in the morphology of a fruit fly are necessary for that fruit fly to become something other than a fruit fly?
[What is the time limit for evolution? Is there a specific rate of change organisms have to hold to? Is there a maximum species life span where the species has to either become extinct or speciate? Where can I find the literature that describes these limits?]
Any scientific textbook that discusses the factual (and not the hypothesised yet unproven) capabilities of genes- time plays no part in moecular biological fact
[Where did the scientists working on fruit flies say it was equivalent to millions of years? In which publication did those same scientists specify which time period a specific mutation corresponded to? Where is it mentioned that the experiments were an attempt to produce speciation? From what you imply, they must have tried an accumulation of mutations in order to ratchet more than one feature in a specific direction. Where is the documentation for this?]
Where? Online or library- help yourself- “Tried an accumulation of mutations? No- they let the process take it’s ‘natural’ course. The result? Freakish fruitflies- no fruit bats!
[Now the big question - what changes in the morphology of a fruit fly are necessary for that fruit fly to become something other than a fruit fly?]
Genetic sequences. The mutated fruitflies retained their unique fruitfly genetic information- the sequence reamined intact and was limitted to fruitfly only caps- centuries of selective breeding have proven that species specific information can’t be altered enough to move a species outside it’s own KIND. No amtter how hard we’ve tried- it is simply biologically impossible to do so. Time doesn’t solve the biolgical problem- the evidnece doesn’t show creation of new organs or systems not unique to a species. We’ve been over and over the species specific limitations many times here with many links given- There simp-ly are no evidneces that support the idea that species gain NEW information not unique to the species and not spcific to the species. Each species has limits as to how altered their information can become, and we Dhese limits in nature and the record
“Science magazine in 2001 says: “The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today”.30 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:”
“Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the “Cambrian Explosion”, which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:
A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth’s first complex creatures. ...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.”
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php
Lots of info on this site- take your time- go through it slowly.
post 117: Gosh, lots of incomplete skulls there- Now heres a site that tells you what that site you copied from WON’T tell those who won’t bother to look into the facts further- most of those skulls are fully ape and highly contested throughout hte evolutionary camp. Following is a site that discusses the work by evolutionsits that refutes most of those skulls as being any kind of ‘intermediaries’
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10.php
Here- buy the book-
http://creationwiki.org/The_Mythology_of_Modern_Dating_Methods
[]Please cite your source for this nonsense. (I have had nearly 600 radiocarbon dates done, and interpreted the results of thousands more, so make it good.)[]
the number one reason why dates are often ‘consistent’ is that the ones that show inconsistencies are not accepted and are explained away as the samples having been ‘contaminated by leeching’ and are thusly not accepted- The reason why most published dates are ‘consistent’ is because they fit a priori beleif. I’ts noteworthy to note how convenient it is to explain somethign away by claiming leeching/contamination happened when the dates don’t fit.
The book goes on to describe the illusion played on the public by convenient methods used by archeologists and paleantologists and how the data is manipulated. Of course- I’m sure we’ll see ad homminem attacks against Woodmorappe in an attempt to hush up what he says.
http://creationwiki.org/The_Mythology_of_Modern_Dating_Methods
the number one reason why dates are often ‘consistent’ is that the ones that show inconsistencies are not accepted and are explained away as the samples having been ‘contaminated by leeching’ and are thusly not accepted- The reason why most published dates are ‘consistent’ is because they fit a priori beleif. I’ts noteworthy to note how convenient it is to explain somethign away by claiming leeching/contamination happened when the dates don’t fit.
The book goes on to describe the illusion played on the public by convenient methods used by archeologists and paleantologists and how the data is manipulated. Of course- I’m sure we’ll see ad homminem attacks against Woodmorappe in an attempt to hush up what he says.
http://creationwiki.org/The_Mythology_of_Modern_Dating_Methods
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
You keep spouting this creationist nonsense about radiocarbon dating and how those evil archaeologists manipulate the data.
Son, I am one of those "evil archaeologists," and I do a lot of radiocarbon dating; I have been studying the subject pretty carefully for over 35 years. Neither you nor any of those silly creationist websites you keep citing have any idea of what I or my colleagues do -- you make that clear with every ridiculous comment you make and every link you post on the subject. You simply don't have a clue, yet you insist on braying loudly your ignorance for all to see.
If you were a scientist and made comments as poorly reasoned as you do here, you could look forward to an immediate retirement.
For the lurkers who might be interested in more information on radiocarbon dating, here are some good links:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
What is the point of challenging someone’s belief system? Science will progress regardless of what people believe.
True, but I am not challenging anyone's belief system.
I am pointing out deliberate distortions and outright lies in matters of science.
I do not tell anyone that their belief in one, three, or multiple gods is correct or incorrect (science has no data on that). Rather when somebody posts falsehoods about matters of science with which I am familiar (such as radiocarbon dating and archaeology), I challenge those falsehoods.
Science in conflict with religious beliefs? Quick, call 60 Minutes!
But consider this first:
A) The bible isn’t peer-reviewed.
B) It’s pretty obvious that America won’t be leading in science in the 21st century.
C) Many, many people cannot personally reconcile science and belief. They never have and they never will.
“Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.”
Just because they provide an answer does not mean it is correct. I am sure Jim Jones had all the answers for his sheeps questions right up until the moment they lined up and drank the kool-aid.
[I am pointing out deliberate distortions and outright lies in matters of science.]
Lool- yup you sure are- just like when you said a ‘creationist website made the claims about radiocarbon dating’ I guess you musta missed the point that it was woodmorappe and NOT that website- but alas- I guess you insist on braying loudly your ignorance for all to see.
[Rather when somebody posts falsehoods about matters of science with which I am familiar (such as radiocarbon dating and archaeology), I challenge those falsehoods.]
No you don’t- you misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it to a site that simply points to what the geologist Woodmorappe had to say on the matter- refute what he has to say. Butr again, I’m sure you’ll simply engage in ad hominem attacks against him per usual instead of tackling what he has to say on the subject.
No you don’t- you misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it to a site that simply points to what the geologist Woodmorappe had to say on the matter- refute what he has to say. Butr again, I’m sure you’ll simply engage in ad hominem attacks against him per usual instead of tackling what he has to say on the subject.
The link you posted contains little other than an ad trying to sell me a book. There is nothing there for an "ad hominem attack."
And I "misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it?" The links you cite all together amount to a few hours of "study" by their respective authors -- all with the intent of finding a few scientific sounding terms which will serve to fool those who don't know any better.
Son, I know better. The tripe on those links doesn't fool me; it just makes me shake my head in disgust at how gullible their intended audience really is.
I am sorry to have to tell you this, but I must include you in that audience. You clearly know little of science, but are willing to take the word of any creationist website, no matter how ridiculous their arguments are shown to be, because you want to believe them.
That may be fine in creationist circles, but it is not science and I think you know it.
(Are you ever going to support some of the silly comments you have made about radiocarbon dating? Or have you given up?)
[Son, I am one of those “evil archaeologists,” and I do a lot of radiocarbon dating;]
Pappa, So is Woodmorappe, and I’m willing to bet He’s studied the radiometric dating game much more extensively than you which is why you’ll need to divert attention from his facts by engaging in ad hominem attacks, and by pettily insulting me- your very own Son, as though that will somehow make all the ugly little secrets about dating problems go poof in the night. It’s a well known fact that archeologists and paleantologists practice baby sacrifices and conjure up evil spirits before they fix the dates given by the preferred methods of their choices., and If you were a scientist and made comments as poorly reasoned as you do here, you could look forward to a long and lucrative career in the fields of science because quite frankly, you’d be in good company.
"I don't give damn what your trilobite buddies do, We are not going to go swimming!"
"Bummer dude!"
Pappa, So is Woodmorappe, and I’m willing to bet He’s studied the radiometric dating game much more extensively than you...
Woodmorappe is the pseudonym for a high school science teacher. I am willing to bet he has never done a radiocarbon date in his life. I have read a lot of his writings, and I doubt he has studied radiocarbon dating to any great extent either. He is a creationist; he doesn't need scientific facts because the fervor of his religious belief is enough for his intended audience.
But if you think he's so hot, call him up bring him to FR, and we can have a debate on these very threads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.