[_ Old Earth _] Considerations about science

[Barbarian]

I always find it strange that in conversations with EBs whenever they quote a section of an article or work it’s called “support”, and when someone making a point they would like to avoid or that analyzes their conclusions (in my case pointing out the wiggle room factor in what is sometimes presented as established fact) they call it “quote mining” (rather convenient and somewhat prejudice if you ask me).

In science, quotes don't mean anything. Only evidence. So what someone might have said, (most often edited) is not relevant. If you want to talk science, go to the literature and find facts.

You are well educated and intelligent (unlike yourself I do not make personal insults part of my defense)

Just did.

….so you should know there is a difference between an accepted fact and actual fact.

Science only has facts. If it can't be confirmed by other investigators, the author is in big trouble.

Hence even if we just go by the data we can KNOW, 1.75 million is a convenient “best guess” conclusion that fits the theory, and Nutcracker ape could just well have been closer to 2 million years or even only 1 million years.

No. Both of those dates are outside the error bars.

So public school biology texts which give this as his age are tweaking the facts to fit the theory (similar to New Guinea Man for decades).

Never heard of it. And I've been studying its since the 1960s.

I said "Nutcracker Man is not even a man….it turns out he is a form of southern ape."

Barbarian observes:
Which is what "Australopithecus" means. Yes, some australopithecines made crude tools

(only if you assume there were no humans at the time…

And no extraterrestrials and no stone tool faries, and so on. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

And since chimpanzees, with smaller brains than the robust Australopithecines, make tools in advance of their use, it's not surprising that a primitive hominin could do it. The lack of any human evidence from that time in any strata, anywhere, makes it a very bad idea to suppose humans were there.

Yeah I loved the Jane Goodall studies (for one example) they were amazing, but nothing I did not expect, and nothing like hand shaven and shaped stone tools,

Not shaven. Flaked. And chimps do use stones as tools, but have a difficult time flaking them (although they have been taught to do so, and can do it with difficulty) because they lack the "three-jawed chuck" arrangement that Australopithecus and Homo have with fingers and thumb. The chimp thumb is not positioned well for a strong and adjustable grip like that.

and neither have any demonstrated the tendency or ability to build a monolithic structure

Apes have been known to build ladders to escape zoo enclosures:
A great ape escape caused panic in Germany when five clever chimpanzees broke out of their zoo compound, using a ladder they had fashioned together out of tree branches.

After scaling the wall on Wednesday, the primates were able to walk among the 2,500 visitors to Hanover's Experience Zoo.

While the chimps were content to taste life on the other side of the fence, a five year old girl and an an elderly man were hurt in the panic as staff hurriedly evacuated the park.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reate-makeshift-ladder-branches-jump-pen.html

, or produce foot prints without a rear or separated thumb/big toe.

Australopithecine foot prints at Laetoli show a foot very close to that of H. sapiens. No opposable big toe, a definite arch, showing that A. afarensis (the gracile species of Australopithecine living then) was essentially bipedal. The almost complete lateral skeleton of Lucy shows hips, knees, and back organized for bipedal movement.

 

[Barbarian]

Like when National Geographic reported "...the Denisovans—likely roamed Asia for thousands of years, probably interbreeding occasionally with humans like you and me, according to a new genetic study" it is equally as Likely they Probably may not have! But in discussions with other EBs on other forums I have had them presented as a factual group related to early humans (allegedly mating with Neanderthals which are only early humans anyway, but they spin the language to make it seem like two separate creatures instead of two variations of the same creature).

Actually, Neandertals appeared after the first H. sapiens. In fact, very ancient Neandertals looked more like modern humans than the later ones did. They are a subspecies of H. sapiens, probably arising from archaic H. sapiens like H. heidelbergensis. The Denesovans were another subspecies genetically different than either of the other two subspecies, but still with some evidence of interbreeding.

 

[turnorburn]

Neanderthal Hoax Exposed

A sensational archaeological hoax has been exposed in Germany. It's been revealed that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a professor at a University in Frankfurt, has been systematically lying about the ages of skulls he found, claiming that they were far older than they actually were. In one instance he said that a skull was 21,300-years-old, although it was only 1300-years-old. As the Guardian reports:

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/neanderthal_hoax_exposed

tob

 

[brother Paul]

I had said

So public school biology texts which give this as his age are tweaking the facts to fit the theory (similar to New Guinea Man for decades).

Barbarian replied “Never heard of it. And I've been studying its since the 1960s”.

Earlier on when I stated that public school biology texts use the 1.75 million as if it is a fact, I was told “I often review textbooks” and had never seen this (asked for a couple of examples) so here goes…

The 2000 edition of Biology by Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich copyrighted in 1986, on page 264 says “The skull which was later determined to be almost 1.75 million years old…” (a 7th grade PS text)

Biology of Animals (Hickman and Hickman, 1976, C. V. Mosby Co.) a senior year High Text, on page 345, states “Its age has been determined by the potassium-argon method to be 1,750,000 years.

I am sure there are 100s more....

Paul

 

[Milk-Drops]

I had said

So public school biology texts which give this as his age are tweaking the facts to fit the theory (similar to New Guinea Man for decades).

Barbarian replied “Never heard of it. And I've been studying its since the 1960s”.

Barbarian pointed out something you really need to be address. What public school books said this stuff? Who published them? What schools used them?

Plus I'm also starting to see the window into your thought process. You take corrections as tweaks to facts. You claim to have worked in a lab, but it shows you don't know thing one about how science works. If something comes out that doesn't fit the current model, the model is changed. Evolution has changed a lot since Darwin, yet you still want to argue Darwin. Heck you were arguing about Darwin being racist a few pages ago and spent several pages trying to defend Bergman's actions. I'm wondering if you understand that neither of those instances change the theory of evolution.

Earlier on when I stated that public school biology texts use the 1.75 million as if it is a fact, I was told “I often review textbooks” and had never seen this (asked for a couple of examples) so here goes…

The 2000 edition of Biology by Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich copyrighted in 1986, on page 264 says “The skull which was later determined to be almost 1.75 million years old…” (a 7th grade PS text)

The book seems to have actually be out of print for some time now, plus when I google the specific page you quoted, it seems to be about cells. Have you actually read this book?

Biology of Animals

(Hickman and Hickman, 1976, C. V. Mosby Co.) a senior year High Text, on page 345, states “Its age has been determined by the potassium-argon method to be 1,750,000 years.

Oh look another out of print book from the last millenia. I don't think I've seen you source a single current article. Most of your sources also tend to be ripped directly from answers in Genesis...........I'm seeing a pattern here Mr. Lab worker.

 

[brother Paul]

The book seems to have actually be out of print for some time now, plus when I google the specific page you quoted, it seems to be about cells. Have you actually read this book?

I still own it and page 264 has a plate of Mary Leaky with about three paragraphs on their work in the gorge. Yes I still think Darwin was a racist and that HIS version of evolution lends a scientific reasoning which supports it (remember poor Ota). Yes I do know a thing or two about science. I was tutoring cell biology before your were born.

Yes I am proud that science does indeed change (a point that I in fact made). And what I started here was not an anti-Darwin rant….post 2 begins that process and on at least two occasions I tried to bring it back on point with the OP.

I'm wondering if you understand that neither of those instances change the theory of evolution.

I’m sorry which theory of evolution…my understanding is closer to front-loaded evolution (the earliest of each kind or original species contains all the material – genetic or otherwise – to eventually have produced all the variety we see)…Gould’s was “punctuated equilibrium” which though allowing a type gradualism sees sudden bursts, sudden appearances of totally new already functional species as what the evidence demonstrates…then there are Catastrophe theorists and perhaps structuralist evolutionists…all who believe in evolution believe in some of what Mayr called the 5 basic concepts we can imply from Darwin but for example I have not been sold on “common descent of all organisms”. All that is is one way of interpreting the evidence based on the theory, nothing really demonstrates that, it has never been observed, and no tests indicate it is true.

Most of your sources also tend to be ripped directly from answers in Genesis...........I'm seeing a pattern here Mr. Lab worker.

Not true but thanks for the insult….did you see the point I made regarding di-sulphide bonds or the symbiotic reality of functional DNA and its host cell? Would you be so kind as to quote these in Answers to Genesis? I didn’t think so….

And I already told you, I will not play the shrinking box game where your definition of proof or evidence is only accepted if it is from very recent EB sources….science is science and yes it changes over time…but some is best guess (often a good one but still a guess)…probably, likely, could be, may well have, is believed to be, and on and on….is subjunctive language which by nature is not “established fact” but possibility. If consensus were the basis for establishing truth then slavery would still be alive and well in America.

And it does not matter if the two I still own only cover only four or five decades of indoctrination (one from Cambridge Public Schools and the other from Prospect Hill Academy charter High School) from many years ago, because many more (even today) still make the same unsubstantiated claim that the date is established, but it is not, it is agreed upon (the 1.2 or 1.4 date or even the 1.8 or 1.9 date are all equally possible) and that is not the same.

I am no youngster I realize that, but reasonable logic is still sound even since my prehistoric times....If the only real or acceptable science only exists since you cut your teeth, then all the Nobel Prize winners must be non-relevant or fakes, and not credible in their fields. Now really, does that make sense?

Paul

 

[brother Paul]

Along the lines of the OP I would say humanly applied scientific method is limited by our perceptual abilities, our intelligently designed instruments and experiments, and our ability to rightly (without hoped for bias) interpret properly the evidence free of preconceived conclusions influencing that interpretation.

Secondly, it is mostly limited to the present regarding these factors (not accurately knowing the past, and only able to speculate on possible futures).

Thirdly it is impotent in revealing most purpose of things. It can tell us how something happens but not always why.

Finally the applied scientific method cannot deal with the unique personal experience. Even those confirmed by many cannot always be tested or defined (or denied) by anything science can do. However that does not make these any less important or true.

Paul

 

[Milk-Drops]

The book seems to have actually be out of print for some time now, plus when I google the specific page you quoted, it seems to be about cells. Have you actually read this book?

I still own it and page 264 has a plate of Mary Leaky with about three paragraphs on their work in the gorge.

Ok, still don't see what you were trying to get at though.

Yes I still think Darwin was a racist and that HIS version of evolution lends a scientific reasoning which supports it (remember poor Ota).

Except that I've actually read Origins of Species, and there really isn't anything that could be used to justify racism, plus modern genetics shows that most of the differences between human races are not as varied as once thought.

Yes I do know a thing or two about science. I was tutoring cell biology before your were born.

That is why most of your sources tend to come off of answers in genesis and seem to be formed from either outdated research or straw man arguments right?

Yes I am proud that science does indeed change (a point that I in fact made). And what I started here was not an anti-Darwin rant….post 2 begins that process and on at least two occasions I tried to bring it back on point with the OP.

You are the one who brought up both those tangents.

I’m sorry which theory of evolution…

You aren't a biologist.

my understanding is closer to front-loaded evolution (the earliest of each kind or original species contains all the material – genetic or otherwise – to eventually have produced all the variety we see)…

So you subscribe to the stuff from answers in genesis.

Gould’s was “punctuated equilibrium” which though allowing a type gradualism sees sudden bursts, sudden appearances of totally new already functional species as what the evidence demonstrates…

That isn't punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't state that sudden appearances, but that fast adaptation and a more varied selection pool is posible and noted within a population after events that allow for a broadening of a niche.

then there are Catastrophe theorists

Which would be part of PE

and perhaps structuralist evolutionists…

You will have to define that one for me.

all who believe in evolution believe in some of what Mayr called the 5 basic concepts

About specialization right? Also this work is from 1904. Why are you always posting extremely outdated information?

we can imply from Darwin but for example I have not been sold on “common descent of all organisms”. All that is is one way of interpreting the evidence based on the theory, nothing really demonstrates that, it has never been observed, and no tests indicate it is true.

Have you looked anything in the last 20 years?

Most of your sources also tend to be ripped directly from answers in Genesis...........I'm seeing a pattern here Mr. Lab worker.

Not true but thanks for the insult….did you see the point I made regarding di-sulphide bonds or the symbiotic reality of functional DNA and its host cell? Would you be so kind as to quote these in Answers to Genesis? I didn’t think so….

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/Genetics_Coat_Color_II.pdf
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/evolution-or-adaptation/
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/

Think again.

And I already told you, I will not play the shrinking box game where your definition of proof or evidence is only accepted if it is from very recent EB sources….

The problem is you are posting stuff from the early to mid 20th century and we are currently in the 21st century. A lot of the stuff you claim evolutionists support or can't find answers for are from books and papers printed over 50 years ago.

science is science and yes it changes over time…

Which is why its a good idea to make sure that when you posts stuff debunking something or challenging something, you present the most current information you can get your hands on.

but some is best guess (often a good one but still a guess)…probably, likely, could be, may well have, is believed to be, and on and on….is subjunctive language which by nature is not “established fact” but possibility. If consensus were the basis for establishing truth then slavery would still be alive and well in America.

More answers in genesis talk. You didn't seem to give a single example in that string there.

And it does not matter if the two I still own only cover only four or five decades of indoctrination

Except the books you metioned were opinion pieces and not definitive studies.

(one from Cambridge Public Schools and the other from Prospect Hill Academy charter High School) from many years ago, because many more (even today) still make the same unsubstantiated claim that the date is established, but it is not, it is agreed upon (the 1.2 or 1.4 date or even the 1.8 or 1.9 date are all equally possible) and that is not the same.

Except you haven't demonstrated any of this, just plastered this info, claimed its going on and then got mad when I pointed out that the book you referenced was old as dirt.

I am no youngster I realize that, but reasonable logic is still sound even since my prehistoric times....

Unless its severely outdated and making claims that have been demonstrated since the publishing of your sources.

If the only real or acceptable science only exists since you cut your teeth,

You are aware that when old information is shown to no longer be accurate, its no longer taught outside of historical reference right? The Reason why E=mc^2 hasn't been thrown out is because no one has shown anything that would supersede it. However, most if not all of what you posted is no longer relevant or shown to be false after the publication. That would seem to be the reason why you can't find more modern works.

then all the Nobel Prize winners must be non-relevant or fakes, and not credible in their fields. Now really, does that make sense?

Paul

Paul you don't make sense. A Nobel Prize is awarded when someone makes a great stride in their field. The information can still be shown to be wrong and replaced later. Nobel Prizes are also not evidence in itself. Also, it wouldn't mean they are fake because at the time that is what they knew about the information given. It seems you hold awards and status above evidence and application here Paul.

 

[brother Paul]

No! What it means is older is not necessarily less or incorrect!

 

[brother Paul]

The book seems to have actually be out of print for some time now, plus when I google the specific page you quoted, it seems to be about cells. Have you actually read this book?

I still own it and page 264 has a plate of Mary Leaky with about three paragraphs on their work in the gorge.

Ok, still don't see what you were trying to get at though.

First it was a reply to a comment of Barbarian. Second you were incorrect. Third the point was we were discussing how sometimes information that is only estimated or approximate is reported as actual fact…

And how sometimes the conclusion is only a matter of interpretation (to fit a favored theory – earlier I gave the example of the Clovis people theory – when this was a favored dogma of the pedagogues, to express any variant or different view was ridiculed discredited etc.).

Science is really important and exciting and very useful but one must sometimes read between the lines to get to the truth….like the stone tools, monolith, and footprints at the gorge….this COULD BE not IS evidential of the apes using tools and being semi human but NOT NECESSARILY. It could also mean what they found was indicative of early humans and a dead ape nearly a football field away (I believe the Leaky’s said 750 feet away but I would have to dig out my notes).

Imagine if a couple of 100 thousand (or a million) years from now some intelligent being found the remains of a functional toilet and 700 feet away the remains of part of a dog….does this mean the dog or their family made or used such toilets? No! Such an association between the two would be (and is) a huge erroneous leap of assumption.

So because it is “accepted” dogmatically that humans did not exist at the time of the gorge find, the evidence which could be early evidence of humans is ignored and reinterpreted to fit the favored theory. I would have to dig but the same thing happened at the site of original Peking man….evidence possibly pointing to early humans was reinterpreted as ape related…

2) but some is best guess (often a good one but still a guess)…probably, likely, could be, may well have, is believed to be, and on and on….is subjunctive language which by nature is not “established fact” but possibility. If consensus were the basis for establishing truth then slavery would still be alive and well in America.

More answers in genesis talk. You didn't seem to give a single example in that string there.

Dude! Really? I gave examples (plural). This is simple logic and has nothing to do with any website….it’s all me! Keep repeating this untruth and maybe you will convince yourself. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda Minister once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

The articles being previously discussed with Barbarian were full of language in the subjunctive mood (please show examples where this is discussed in “answers to genesis” as you have twice accused)….”probably” or “most likely” does not equal “Is”….

Don’t you agree? I hope so….you should if you are a scientist. Clearly such language discusses possibility only! Even if “it is reasonable to assume” based on probability, it may not be so.

3) And it does not matter if the two I still own only cover only four or five decades of indoctrination

Except the books you mentioned were opinion pieces and not definitive studies.

No they are not! These were textbooks allegedly reporting facts in order to TEACH trusting young minds…and the alleged FACTS were allegedly based on definitive studies…

Except you haven't demonstrated any of this, just plastered this info, claimed its going on and then got mad when I pointed out that the book you referenced was old as dirt.

I have and I have not gotten mad and am not mad now (I laugh). I was tutoring cell biology 1 before you were born. I attended the victory cruise/dinner (in Boston Harbor) of the Human Genome project when you were 12! The books today still teach this is accurate info when it is not it is approximate at best (so why not get honest and just say that)….just tell the truth….a number of tests were done….a number of dates were derived as being possible (within a 700,000 year variance) an so we chose a line of best guess (maybe by attaining the mean or median) but truly it could be anywhere in this potential time frame. YOU KNOW….the truth!

That would seem to be the reason why you can't find more modern works.

Ah yes…”SEEM TO BE”…in other words an opinion from YOUR imagination….I could find them but I do not need to….please show a “more modern” source that tells the truth about the dating of Nutcracker or admits the POSSIBILITY that the dog or his family did not build or use the toilet (analogous to the stone tools and monolithic structure)

I won’t even answer the final one it is so logically absurd and so totally missed the point….

 

[brother Paul]

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/Genetics_Coat_Color_II.pdf
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/evolution-or-adaptation/
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/

Think again.

These articles YOU gathered from Answers in Genesis have absolutely nothing to do with my points regarding di-sulphide bonding in protein folding or the symbiotic dependency of functional DNA and its host cell.....not one....were you trying to appear impressive? As for Miller-Urey (if that's what you driving at) just read their own conclusions...then read public school textbook presentations (very different)....where they totally admit the limits of their intelligently designed and tweaked experiment the textbooks (and paid media presentations) paint a different picture....they try and use this as evidence to indoctrinate trusting young minds into the favored theory by implying it supports the view (when it in fact does not)....no one needs any Answers in Genesis just honesty with the evidence (like the ape stone tool fiasco).

Why not just tell the truth (It was still good science and ingeniously designed)...they had to juggle the pretend atmosphere many times to get the right combination to get the result (to produce the desired chemical product) and the alleged amino acids continuously denatured (even in their tweaked non-life supportive environment), the results WERE of the wrong type for LIFE, and to even preserve these they had to use a intelligently designed cold trap device (which does not even exist in nature)...Miller and Urey never claimed to have demonstrated the beginnings of life in a test tube, but that is the implication repeated over and over to innocently inquiring new generations (remember Geobbels). The true FACT is we do not find free floating amino acids amiable to life in nature (but who knows one day we may - but until then...tell the truth)

 

[Milk-Drops]

No! What it means is older is not necessarily less or incorrect!

You did post some incorrect stuff. I pointed it out when you posted it.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Ok, still don't see what you were trying to get at though.

First it was a reply to a comment of Barbarian. Second you were incorrect. Third the point was we were discussing how sometimes information that is only estimated or approximate is reported as actual fact…

Usually its because its the most current information we have, its then changed when the evidence no longer points in that direction.

And how sometimes the conclusion is only a matter of interpretation (to fit a favored theory – earlier I gave the example of the Clovis people theory – when this was a favored dogma of the pedagogues, to express any variant or different view was ridiculed discredited etc.).

The problem is you are trying to force a conspiracy theory where there is none. I'm more skeptical of your behavior due to your use of quote mines, obscure sources ( the fact this text book is hard to find in the first place and I can't seem to find any reviews), and sourcing extremely outdated information.

Science is really important and exciting and very useful but one must sometimes read between the lines to get to the truth….like the stone tools, monolith, and footprints at the gorge….this COULD BE not IS evidential of the apes using tools and being semi human but NOT NECESSARILY. It could also mean what they found was indicative of early humans and a dead ape nearly a football field away (I believe the Leaky’s said 750 feet away but I would have to dig out my notes).

The thing is you aren't replacing any of the stuff you are trying to debunk with any new information or evidence. You haven't given a why to your reasoning, only attempts at debunking.

Imagine if a couple of 100 thousand (or a million) years from now some intelligent being found the remains of a functional toilet and 700 feet away the remains of part of a dog….does this mean the dog or their family made or used such toilets? No! Such an association between the two would be (and is) a huge erroneous leap of assumption.

The problem with your analogy is that unlike the dog scenario we have other evidence that Man and apes use tools. Its observable in nature. Its also not the only site where both tools and pre-man have been found. Did you pay attention during your time in college?

So because it is “accepted” dogmatically that humans did not exist at the time of the gorge find, the evidence which could be early evidence of humans is ignored and reinterpreted to fit the favored theory.

Ok, here is the problem with what you just said, you are claiming scientists are accepting things dogmatically, but you aren't demonstrating this. When stuff is found, it is compared to what is currently known in science. Then the new information is used to contrast. If it changes our current knowledge, it replaces it. That is the farthest from dogma anyone could be. Dogma would me that nothing would ever change, yet science does. Because of your use of outdated books and studies, I think you are plain out unaware of just how much the theory of Evolution has changed since Darwin's penning of the Origin of Species. If it was dogma, then that book would be held as a holy book, its not. Its actually extremely outdated and findings since then have replaced most of it. I can't take you seriously because you seem to get caught up on the basics.

I would have to dig but the same thing happened at the site of original Peking man….evidence possibly pointing to early humans was reinterpreted as ape related…

Oh look another answers in Genesis reference.

[2)

but some is best guess (often a good one but still a guess)…probably, likely, could be, may well have, is believed to be, and on and on….is subjunctive language which by nature is not “established fact” but possibility. If consensus were the basis for establishing truth then slavery would still be alive and well in America.

More answers in genesis talk. You didn't seem to give a single example in that string there.

Dude! Really? I gave examples (plural).

And when challenged you return back to the dogma/conspiracy nonsense.

This is simple logic

No its not. Most of what you sated has been misconception, misconstruing facts, quote mines, straw men, and outdated information. The problem is I actually know something about the field you are talking about.

and has nothing to do with any website….it’s all me!

Now you are just a plain out liar since you claiming to have done research on stuff you clearly didn't. 90% of what you have presented here is on Answers in Genesis. Your arguments are almost copy paste of what I find on Answers in Genesis. Its the most popular Creationist/ Intelligent design resource on the internet. The Founder is a prominent figure in creation/Evolution debates and events ( Ken Ham).

A good example is your siting of Peking man and Nutcracker man. Guess where are the only places where this stuff is laid out at? Answers in Genesis and sites that reference Answers in Genesis.

Keep repeating this untruth and maybe you will convince yourself. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda Minister once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

And now you have Godwinded. Its actually quite impressive that it took this long. You've now lost the last shred of credibility with me.

The articles being previously discussed with Barbarian were full of language in the subjunctive mood

Mainly because when you are submitting your papers to peer review, that is how you are supposed to wright your stuff, because science isn't dogmatic. The information can be changed.

(please show examples where this is discussed in “answers to genesis” as you have twice accused)….”probably” or “most likely” does not equal “Is”….

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/information-theory/some-quantitative-evaluations-of-semantics/

Don’t you agree? I hope so….you should if you are a scientist.

Not with your methods or true scottsman fallacies.

Clearly such language discusses possibility only! Even if “it is reasonable to assume” based on probability, it may not be so.

Of course

3) And it does not matter if the two I still own only cover only four or five decades of indoctrination

Except the books you mentioned were opinion pieces and not definitive studies.

No they are not!

Yes they are.

These were textbooks allegedly reporting facts in order to TEACH trusting young minds…and the alleged FACTS were allegedly based on definitive studies…

The book you references was the professors experiences and inferences on the attitudes of students at the time, but it was by no means a full study. Also a lot of what he was claiming was demonstrated wrong, some of it within the decade.

Except you haven't demonstrated any of this, just plastered this info, claimed its going on and then got mad when I pointed out that the book you referenced was old as dirt.

I have and I have not gotten mad and am not mad now (I laugh). I was tutoring cell biology 1 before you were born. I attended the victory cruise/dinner (in Boston Harbor) of the Human Genome project when you were 12!

That makes a lot of your actions more detestable now then before. Neither of those events makes your sources less outdated or true. Just like Darwin being a Racist doesn't disprove evolution. To me you sound like a person lieing on the internet, claiming credentials that make you sound like an authority, but your actions speak otherwise. You are the standard creationist.

The books today still teach this is accurate info when it is not it is approximate at best

You have not demonstrated this once. the closest you ever came was by referring to a 2000 edition that was a reprint of a book from 1986.

(so why not get honest and just say that)….just tell the truth….a number of tests were done….a number of dates were derived as being possible (within a 700,000 year variance) an so we chose a line of best guess (maybe by attaining the mean or median) but truly it could be anywhere in this potential time frame. YOU KNOW….the truth!

The truth is, you are wrong and use fallacies and manipulation to get people to say or agree with tings you want them to agree with. I'm not going to do that.

That would seem to be the reason why you can't find more modern works.

Ah yes…”SEEM TO BE”…in other words an opinion from YOUR imagination….I could find them but I do not need to….please show a “more modern” source that tells the truth about the dating of Nutcracker or admits the POSSIBILITY that the dog or his family did not build or use the toilet (analogous to the stone tools and monolithic structure)

I won’t even answer the final one it is so logically absurd and so totally missed the point….

And you are done.

 

[brother Paul]

No are you? Your personal opinion has been noted. So what are your responses to the OP....lets get off the "evolurtion" rant and start with the first three...

1) Scientific research can only find that which our methods and instruments are capable of finding.

true or false

2) Every observation includes an observer, and every experiment, an experimenter who designs it. Thus one can never be totally free of the somewhat subjective element in one’s conclusions.

True or false


3) Each scientific conclusion includes the physical analysis (which is concrete and for the most part objective) and a resultant mathematical and logical speculation (which is abstract and can contain unconscious bias)

True or false

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

So we're back to the old "we can't know everything, so we know nothing" ploy.

Predictable.

 

[turnorburn]

Not exactly Barbarian its a young earth after all..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

So we're back to the old "we can't know everything, so we know nothing" ploy.

Predictable.

What does that mean? We certainly can and do know many things (thank God for science, experience, and historiography), but others are an educated guess, and yet others merely dogmas we accept (for whatever reason and on every side of these debates). Also my true false questions were for Milk-Drops hoping one final time to move the discussion back to the OP. You gave your responses which I appreciate (though some did not directly address the points).

Take number 1 for example "Scientific research can only find that which our methods and instruments are capable of finding." That is so obviously true it should require no further explanation, but you MAY BE surprised at how many EBs and YECs on other forums have dragged that one into multiple posts....

One of my desires is always to make people consider other possible views. Each of the sides (and there are a few, not just two) of this discussion make some really valid points, while other points are colored by our unique rose colored glasses. The type of questions these issues incite help bring those distinctions to light. I sense this thread is about to end so thank you (and ToB and Milk-Drops), you have been a most worthy adversary. I look forward to future discussions.

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

From your link:
"Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

In fact, Mt. Carmel fossils show Neandertals and anatomically modern humans coexisted in what is now Israel for a long time.

In Europe, the Neandertals continued to exist long after anatomically modern humans arrived. In one case, it was shown that a group of Neandertals adopted the Cro-magnon tool kit, and of course genetics has since shown that Neandertal genes remain in many modern humans of European descent.

Prof. Protsch wasn't the only guy finding Neandertal skulls. They are nearly as ancient as our own particular subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens. The first people who looked pretty much like us in face and skull were about 200, 000 years ago. Below the neck, humans haven't changed much since H. erectus, millions of years ago. A small change in hand musculature, reduction in curves of the digits, and a slight remodeling of the shoulder joint are the salient changes. The last allows a very efficient throwing motion, which may explain why anatomically modern humans were apparently the first to fashion projectile weapons.

 

[turnorburn]

From your link:
"Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

In fact, Mt. Carmel fossils show Neandertals and anatomically modern humans coexisted in what is now Israel for a long time.

In Europe, the Neandertals continued to exist long after anatomically modern humans arrived. In one case, it was shown that a group of Neandertals adopted the Cro-magnon tool kit, and of course genetics has since shown that Neandertal genes remain in many modern humans of European descent.

Prof. Protsch wasn't the only guy finding Neandertal skulls. They are nearly as ancient as our own particular subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens. The first people who looked pretty much like us in face and skull were about 200, 000 years ago. Below the neck, humans haven't changed much since H. erectus, millions of years ago. A small change in hand musculature, reduction in curves of the digits, and a slight remodeling of the shoulder joint are the salient changes. The last allows a very efficient throwing motion, which may explain why anatomically modern humans were apparently the first to fashion projectile weapons.

Are you saying Adam and Eve produced Neanderthals?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Are you saying Adam and Eve produced Neanderthals?

Only in the sense that Adam and Eve produced all humans. Neandertrals and anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic H. sapiens.