You scientists have no idea what I just said.
I thought maybe one of you could speak on my level.
I guess I should just be quiet.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[_ Old Earth _] Reliable science?
- Thread starter Corn Pop
- Start date
I thought maybe one of you could speak on my level.
I guess I should just be quiet.
Milk-Drops
Member
http://imgur.com/gallery/EUTZcdn
I currently have a level 8 Lizard Folk Alchemist character I use when I play D&D. Don't tell me you like 4th addition?!
Think of the crickets!
Doulos Iesou
Member
When it comes to science it basically comes down to this, you have to ask the question... "well do you have a better explanation for all the data?"
No Theory is sacred and beyond testing and attempting to disprove, in fact in science the more you try to disprove something the stronger it becomes if it holds up to the evidence.
brother Paul
Member
When I compare chemistry and physics to evolutionary biology I note a strong difference. Many, many things revealed by chemistry or physics are solid testable consistent proofs (not all) whereby we discover lawful guidance of processes and development that will always occur under the same conditions, in evolutionary biology most of it is assumption based conclusions, provisional interpretation of the evidence, and a total lack of actual observation, demonstration, and testable truth.
Things do not blindly construe reliable testable laws that can be shown to be applicable everywhere the same circumstances are met....no, no, no, in fact things (forms, forces, and functions) are rather subject to them, and respond/react according to them...physics and chemistry prove this to be true but EB cannot "prove" itself true.
Things do not blindly construe reliable testable laws that can be shown to be applicable everywhere the same circumstances are met....no, no, no, in fact things (forms, forces, and functions) are rather subject to them, and respond/react according to them...physics and chemistry prove this to be true but EB cannot "prove" itself true.
turnorburn
Member
turnorburn
Member
Its not a bad idea at all God is everywhere, maybe you need to read this..
http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-bible-text/Ps-139.html
tob
Doulos Iesou
Member
Could you present a recent scholarly biological research paper that fits this description?
It's different than Chemistry and Physics, but that doesn't mean the science is bad.
But since we are talking about science, let's see some evidence to support your claims.
All I see is assumptions and a total lack of observation, demonstration and testable truth.
So please provide some kind of evidence to support these claims. If none is offered then please expect your opinion to be noted with the highest skepticism.
brother Paul
Member
…in evolutionary biology most of it is assumption based conclusions, provisional interpretation of the evidence, and a total lack of actual observation, demonstration, and testable truth…
Could you present a recent scholarly biological research paper that fits this description?
Well first off you should probably explore the other threads a lot these issues have already been discussed. But please notice the boxed in limitation your question demands.
a) Only recent (what does that even mean? In the last few years? A decade? Since the Genome Project?)
b) Scholarly biological (a lot of good science is in the Journals we have but in peer reviewed Journals are also built in biases selectively excluding articles that even could imply Design for example.
c) Research Paper….in these sources of course there will be no admissions of these things
But as you know because of the changes in defining “species” it has been broadened to include the possibility of defining speciation to imply the eventual transmigration of genus and even cross-ohyletic morphism….in other words because we have discovered the mechanism the produces “variety” they interpret this to support the idea of fish becoming amphibians becoming reptiles becoming birds (the most weak) which science has never proved, or demonstrated, neither have we observed this and all tests only prove not only that all life only comes from previous life but from the same kind of host parents. Dogs are always dogs and vary due to breeding and inter-breeding…but notice that there is not one iota of evidence that they became bears. One of the issues for me in any discussion of reliability must include…
It is established in other threads that such a concept of "peer reviewed" equals ONLY those publications that agree with your position...and that articles submitted that disagree (or show contrary positions, such as scientific articles implying design) are selectively excluded (thus stacking the deck).
Secondly, it has also been shown that many "peer reviewed" articles that are accepted for publication are shown later to be either fraudulent or demonstrate the willingness among the so-called peers to fudge data or intentionally exclude contrary data....
Indeed it is not admitted by many but it is a fact. Many articles peer reviewed and accepted and published have later been discovered by non-members of the review committee in these fields (but other scientists) to be full of misstatement, fudged data, and outright fraud, and only upon pressure from these non-committee criticisms are papers and articles retracted.
In 2012, R Grant Steen of Medical Communications Consultants, out of Chapel Hill, NC, pointed out that "Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication r falsification), error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud...suggests the incidence of fraud is increasing"
Even not counting the long list of major intentional misrepresentations going all the way back to Chuck Dar, cases of scientific fraud are increasing not decreasing in this field. Steen reveals there were 8 times as many fraudulent presentations discovered and retracted in 2009 than in 2006. This means that as more of these frauds are being exposed, the greater the fervency to commit more seems to be occurring.
In other words, some scientists are intentionally determined to do whatever is necessary to shape, mold or engineer public as well as professional opinion that they will even lie and misrepresent data. For every one they catch (and even trying to catch them is only something new) four or five escape notice and IMO brainwash us if we believe it must be sound because it is published in a Peer Reviewed Journal.
In an article from the “National Institute of Health” we receive this report (EMBO Rep. 2007 January; 8(1): 1), titled, “Fraud in our laboratories?”, by Frank Gannon, we learn "With depressing regularity, the media continues to uncover cases of scientific fraud...although the scientific community regards publicized cases of fraudulent behavior an exceptional and deviant from acceptable scientific standards - fraud IS and inevitable component of today's research"
So how many “finds” and “determinations” believed in today, are actually the result of these spurious interpretations, fudged statistics, and/or doctored data? How many have escaped notice and now plague the modern mind being believed? More than have been caught I assure you. He states “these people are not above disregarding and not reporting data that is contrary to their own alleged conclusion.” How many or which ones can we or should we consider factual beyond a reasonable doubt?
In another article titled, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98), author Brian Martin tells us "One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself" (see P. B. Medawar, 'Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought', Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42-43). It sometimes presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments, and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis. "The misrepresentation in the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method." (see John A. Schuster and Richard R. Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986). So in effect "No scientist publishes ALL the raw data...inappropriately done, this process can be called cooking, trimming, fiddling, fudging or forging the data."
Sadly when this occurs the story you are told, that the press goes crazy with, that textbooks may represent as established fact, are in fact hogwash but yet we believe them all unquestionably as students. Never accept or reject solely on the basis of the premise it is only sound if accepted and published in Peer Reviews Journals.
A second factor is the presumption of conclusions on the basis of alleged authority. Even evolutionist David Pilbeam, when curator of the British Museum of Natural History, in an article found in Pro-Evolution, Vol. 14, p.127, says “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted ”
This represents the notion that when alleged authorities declare something true (especially effective when they site consensus OPINION) and repeat it enough (maybe having artists make up totally contrived images for imprinting) the masses swallow it whole without question. They automatically see it in terms of the accepted view of the pedagogues. This IS not good science. The pedagogues insisted on their accepted Clovis-First theory so adamantly that historian Josh Clark in Were the Clovis the first Americans tells us “they jealously guarded their ideas and evidence. A "Clovis barrier" shielded by the scientists who formed a sort of "Clovis police" discounted any other theory that placed other cultures in the Americas earlier than the Clovis.” We know from testimonies that scientists and professors who saw and expressed other possibilities were immediately discredited and often removed from positions of authority (for whatever reason they could find or invent) and so on.
In my opinion, over the past century we have seen the presence of a Darwinian Barrier (not blaming Charles) complete with a whole host of Darwinian Police who discount any alternative theory as “not scientific”, and who have proactively discredited any other scientists or professors who propose alternative theories or interpret the evidence differently (selectively excluding papers and studies that bring legitimate questions to light from being published in their Peer Journals).
Now this is as far as I will take this one for now as I have said quite a bit, but I hope you read it and consider it with an open mind.
Could you present a recent scholarly biological research paper that fits this description?
Well first off you should probably explore the other threads a lot these issues have already been discussed. But please notice the boxed in limitation your question demands.
a) Only recent (what does that even mean? In the last few years? A decade? Since the Genome Project?)
b) Scholarly biological (a lot of good science is in the Journals we have but in peer reviewed Journals are also built in biases selectively excluding articles that even could imply Design for example.
c) Research Paper….in these sources of course there will be no admissions of these things
But as you know because of the changes in defining “species” it has been broadened to include the possibility of defining speciation to imply the eventual transmigration of genus and even cross-ohyletic morphism….in other words because we have discovered the mechanism the produces “variety” they interpret this to support the idea of fish becoming amphibians becoming reptiles becoming birds (the most weak) which science has never proved, or demonstrated, neither have we observed this and all tests only prove not only that all life only comes from previous life but from the same kind of host parents. Dogs are always dogs and vary due to breeding and inter-breeding…but notice that there is not one iota of evidence that they became bears. One of the issues for me in any discussion of reliability must include…
It is established in other threads that such a concept of "peer reviewed" equals ONLY those publications that agree with your position...and that articles submitted that disagree (or show contrary positions, such as scientific articles implying design) are selectively excluded (thus stacking the deck).
Secondly, it has also been shown that many "peer reviewed" articles that are accepted for publication are shown later to be either fraudulent or demonstrate the willingness among the so-called peers to fudge data or intentionally exclude contrary data....
Indeed it is not admitted by many but it is a fact. Many articles peer reviewed and accepted and published have later been discovered by non-members of the review committee in these fields (but other scientists) to be full of misstatement, fudged data, and outright fraud, and only upon pressure from these non-committee criticisms are papers and articles retracted.
In 2012, R Grant Steen of Medical Communications Consultants, out of Chapel Hill, NC, pointed out that "Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication r falsification), error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud...suggests the incidence of fraud is increasing"
Even not counting the long list of major intentional misrepresentations going all the way back to Chuck Dar, cases of scientific fraud are increasing not decreasing in this field. Steen reveals there were 8 times as many fraudulent presentations discovered and retracted in 2009 than in 2006. This means that as more of these frauds are being exposed, the greater the fervency to commit more seems to be occurring.
In other words, some scientists are intentionally determined to do whatever is necessary to shape, mold or engineer public as well as professional opinion that they will even lie and misrepresent data. For every one they catch (and even trying to catch them is only something new) four or five escape notice and IMO brainwash us if we believe it must be sound because it is published in a Peer Reviewed Journal.
In an article from the “National Institute of Health” we receive this report (EMBO Rep. 2007 January; 8(1): 1), titled, “Fraud in our laboratories?”, by Frank Gannon, we learn "With depressing regularity, the media continues to uncover cases of scientific fraud...although the scientific community regards publicized cases of fraudulent behavior an exceptional and deviant from acceptable scientific standards - fraud IS and inevitable component of today's research"
So how many “finds” and “determinations” believed in today, are actually the result of these spurious interpretations, fudged statistics, and/or doctored data? How many have escaped notice and now plague the modern mind being believed? More than have been caught I assure you. He states “these people are not above disregarding and not reporting data that is contrary to their own alleged conclusion.” How many or which ones can we or should we consider factual beyond a reasonable doubt?
In another article titled, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98), author Brian Martin tells us "One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself" (see P. B. Medawar, 'Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought', Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42-43). It sometimes presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments, and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis. "The misrepresentation in the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method." (see John A. Schuster and Richard R. Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986). So in effect "No scientist publishes ALL the raw data...inappropriately done, this process can be called cooking, trimming, fiddling, fudging or forging the data."
Sadly when this occurs the story you are told, that the press goes crazy with, that textbooks may represent as established fact, are in fact hogwash but yet we believe them all unquestionably as students. Never accept or reject solely on the basis of the premise it is only sound if accepted and published in Peer Reviews Journals.
A second factor is the presumption of conclusions on the basis of alleged authority. Even evolutionist David Pilbeam, when curator of the British Museum of Natural History, in an article found in Pro-Evolution, Vol. 14, p.127, says “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted ”
This represents the notion that when alleged authorities declare something true (especially effective when they site consensus OPINION) and repeat it enough (maybe having artists make up totally contrived images for imprinting) the masses swallow it whole without question. They automatically see it in terms of the accepted view of the pedagogues. This IS not good science. The pedagogues insisted on their accepted Clovis-First theory so adamantly that historian Josh Clark in Were the Clovis the first Americans tells us “they jealously guarded their ideas and evidence. A "Clovis barrier" shielded by the scientists who formed a sort of "Clovis police" discounted any other theory that placed other cultures in the Americas earlier than the Clovis.” We know from testimonies that scientists and professors who saw and expressed other possibilities were immediately discredited and often removed from positions of authority (for whatever reason they could find or invent) and so on.
In my opinion, over the past century we have seen the presence of a Darwinian Barrier (not blaming Charles) complete with a whole host of Darwinian Police who discount any alternative theory as “not scientific”, and who have proactively discredited any other scientists or professors who propose alternative theories or interpret the evidence differently (selectively excluding papers and studies that bring legitimate questions to light from being published in their Peer Journals).
Now this is as far as I will take this one for now as I have said quite a bit, but I hope you read it and consider it with an open mind.
brother Paul
Member
It's different than Chemistry and Physics, but that doesn't mean the science is bad.
Definitely not, much of it is great.
But since we are talking about science, let's see some evidence to support your claims.
Which ones specifically (read our other threads)
All I see is assumptions and a total lack of observation, demonstration and testable truth.
Should read the other threads
So please provide some kind of evidence to support these claims.
I have given much to support MY claims
If none is offered then please expect your opinion to be noted with the highest skepticism.
Note away my brother, but also note I believe in evolution, I am not a YEC, however I do not believe much of what Darwinians conclude. What he called natural selection and what he believed it implied was and still is assumption based (like abiogenesis and many other ideas)
Definitely not, much of it is great.
But since we are talking about science, let's see some evidence to support your claims.
Which ones specifically (read our other threads)
All I see is assumptions and a total lack of observation, demonstration and testable truth.
Should read the other threads
So please provide some kind of evidence to support these claims.
I have given much to support MY claims
If none is offered then please expect your opinion to be noted with the highest skepticism.
Note away my brother, but also note I believe in evolution, I am not a YEC, however I do not believe much of what Darwinians conclude. What he called natural selection and what he believed it implied was and still is assumption based (like abiogenesis and many other ideas)
Doulos Iesou
Member
Please use the proper quoting system on the forum so that observers can know who you are quoting.
I've been around this forum for a long time and have read through many discussions, all of them are filled with an extraordinary lack of evidence on the side of creationists.
This is just my estimation based upon my personal exploration which you told me I should do.
Recent meaning something that is a study based upon a current understanding of evolutionary biology. Many creationists like to attack ideas no longer held by evolutionary biologists and attack the discredited view as a form of straw man argument.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? You seem to be inferring that because peer reviewed journals don't contain articles that imply design that they are rejected for that reason. I see several possible more rational reasons for why they aren't included, 1) they simply aren't submitted, 2) they don't meet the criteria for being regarded as science (creationism is not science), 3) poor writing, 4) poor organization, etc.
Assertions without evidence will be met with the highest skepticism. So far we have zero evidence to support your claims, so this assertion is also dismissed.
This is a perfect example of a strawman argument. You build an argument off of a fictitious example of speciation, a dog becoming a bear, and then assert that there is no evidence of dogs becoming bears. Let me just say... DUH!
They do however share a common ancestor, and modern day dog has only been around for about 33,000 years (http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/article00929.html). This indeed is now just an extinct ancestor, but it demonstrates that dogs which are distinct from a fox or wolf as a species were artificially bred by humans through domestication and how create the variety we see today. This is just a small snapshot of evolutionary history that we have though, which is the period after the extinction of dinosaurs and the rise of mammals. Creationists claim that kinds only come from the same kind, but that is simply because the common ancestors are extinct.
The fact of the matter is that bears, weasels, seals, dogs, and wolves all share a common ancestor and are of the sub order Caniformia. One of these ancestors is the Miacis cognitus.
When compared to the skull of a bear and a wolf, its similarities across these species is definitely noted.
(Black Bear Skull)
(Wolf skull)
As you can see the similarities are quite apparent.
Doulos Iesou
Member
Established in what other thread? You're alluding to evidence I have never seen, and therefore you need to provide it.
It has been shown? Shown to who? Don't expect me to take your word for it, provide evidence for your claims please.
So the fact that a paper is withdrawn supports its faultiness? How often do you see an article on answers in Genesis withdrawn for faulty information (though they should take down every article)? Zero. Scientific fraud is definitely unacceptable, but it is in no way supporting the idea that one of the foundational theories of modern science is wrong. The scientific community is self-correcting on this matter, and that is why articles such as these get retracted.
Yes, it is all an evil scheme to brainwash people into not believing creationism. This is something that I find quite common, how creationists will interpret anecdotal evidence as somehow being proof of something being false.
Not all scientists are created equal, and our understanding and knowledge of the natural world is only increasing with time. And the more we learn, the more we understand the error of creationist ideas.
Is his opinion gospel now? These poor evolutionists.. if they only saw how they were being misrepresented by creationists.
You did not provide a recent scientific research paper that fit your description. You provided anecdotal evidence, featuring quotes from people that you interpret to broadly reject peer reviewed journals.
Your post is met therefore with the highest degree of skepticism.
brother Paul
Member
You will pardon me I hope, if I do not respond to every picki-une point of your volumous response... apparently I struck a nerve! I am so amused though because you so remind me of myself 20 years ago...I will try to go back and address some...the problem is before I can address even a few you will be bombarding the thread with many many more....
So I will start here....and let me let you know its not about winning, as you are entitled to your opinion, but for me it is about learning to reason for one's self and to do so as logically as one is able and not to buy into the mantra (like how the Clovis theory retarded scientific process and discredited the work and destroyed the careers of so many fine men and women researchers for decades)...I worked in the field for well over a decade and was a regular subscriber to Science, Nature, and The Cell for at least three years and then moved on....SO
Could you present a recent scholarly biological research paper that fits this description? Please use the proper quoting system on the forum so that observers can know who you are quoting.
I gave you the names of the source articles, the author, the Vol., date, etc., for all the papers quotes were taken from. They were all from respected members of the scientific community. I fully realize these would be rejected by you because you are insisting that only “recent” papers from current “Evolutionary Biologists” be accepted. For your mind to be able to reason upon possibilities we must close the box and not allow alternative explanations thus “a study based upon a current understanding of evolutionary biology” which by its nature precludes that all that is concluded by this “current understanding” is the only possibility that will be allowed or considered. Rather closed minded I would say.
What is one to do who does not agree with all the conclusions of this “current understanding”? If they have papers offering alternative explanations of the data, where do they publish for innocently inquiring minds to consider? The so called EB Journals will not publish these. For people to reach their own information based conclusions they should have all the views and all the data (for and against) presented for THEIR review.
And if you are a Christian then you are also a creationist (or a hypocrite), albeit not a YEC (which I also am not).
Well first off you should probably explore the other threads a lot these issues have already been discussed. But please notice the boxed in limitation your question demands.
I've been around this forum for a long time and have read through many discussions, all of them are filled with an extraordinary lack of evidence on the side of creationists. This is just my estimation based upon my personal exploration which you told me I should do.
Then you are just dismissing things given for consideration or rejecting alternate plausible possibilities of explanation regarding the same data (and only accepting the theory based EB view…some of which is fine, and other merely assumption based because it fits the theory). When I was an agnostic (for the first 3 decades of my life) I was trapped in this mode of thought, so I know also from ”experience” (which is a great teacher) that if it did not agree with my indoctrination (many YECs suffer from this same inability to see outside the box) then I rejected it and used all the articles and quotes to support my dismissal of the reasonable thought of others questioning the accepted mantra.
My quotes were support and their's was always quote mining....(rather convenient and crafty now that I think back but I was convinced....but sadly in many cases just incorrect and indoctrinated)
a) Only recent (what does that even mean? In the last few years? A decade? Since the Genome Project?)
Recent meaning something that is a study based upon a current understanding of evolutionary biology. Many creationists like to attack ideas no longer held by evolutionary biologists and attack the discredited view as a form of straw man argument.
First off on every forum I have or do participate in, your side always shrinks the box of "acceptability" usually by who, then by what Publications, then by what fields of expertise, then by date, etc., until the only thing a person has with which to allegedly intelligently DISCUSS are the only scientists YOU will accept, from ONLY the publications YOU will accept, in accordance with a timeline ONLY YOU can define as acceptable (all these varying as convenient to YOUR side only).
And thus the box shrinks smaller and smaller until all we have for a basis for alleged rational thought on the subject are those perspectives and what papers ONLY agree with YOU (this is called "stacking the deck"…a typical propaganda template effectual on most common people and of course young children in school who are always a primary target group…hence propaganda media pieces like Walking with Dinosaurs serve to imprint visually that which the narrator intends to program in).
Now undoubtedly you are a very intelligent person as far as I can tell, so how come you are unable to see the limitation this imposes on new creative insights, freedom of thought, and the ability to true critical reasoning (and I do not mean thinking up ever newer criticisms which itself violates true critical thinking)?
Can't you see that if it is the RULE that
a) one can only believe or think the same as the current consensus,
b) only draw from the camp that agrees with you,
c) and that there must be a line of others already declaring what you will espouse,
That in fact this hinder eventually coming to the truth and leaves very little room for progress?
If that were the rule of thumb politically here in America we would still have slavery and woman would not vote…in physics the Universe would still be defined by Newtonian Mechanics…How sad….how truly sad….
Interesting that you point out “ideas no longer held by evolutionary biologists”.
I always love this twist of fiened admission, because for decades when people were offering other perspectives or questioning the accepted mantra these older perspectives offered (some of which may yet still prove true) the opposition were looked at as wrong, sometimes publicly discredited, academically humiliated, or accused of dwarfing education, or not understanding tried and true science, or being antiquated, or superstitious or bigoted...But alas, what this really means the truth is…is that...many earlier EBs (only a few decades ago, and far more incorrect as we go back in time) were just plain ol’WRONG! As are many today…time will reveal this if you choose not to believe me…better to stay open minded now....
So I would say…"Science is reliable! Some Scientists however are not." All conclusions reached even when there appears to nbe consensus in a given time (even if many collude to agree or just do because they doi) are not “the truth” (some are and others may be). Many are just opinions (shared or taught), and some are just best guess (these are imaginary but within certain plausible parameters) like the dating of Zinn for example.
Just because their interpretation of the evidence seemingly fits the accepted assumption based theory (like you are offering below with your example of the dog skulls, and I know you cannot see other options, I was there once….thank you so much Lord) does not mean what they conclude is correct.
Scholarly biological (a lot of good science is in the Journals we have but in peer reviewed Journals are also built in biases selectively excluding articles that even could imply Design for example).
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? You seem to be inferring that because peer reviewed journals don't contain articles that imply design that they are rejected for that reason. I see several possible more rational reasons for why they aren't included, 1) they simply aren't submitted, 2) they don't meet the criteria for being regarded as science (creationism is not science), 3) poor writing, 4) poor organization, etc.
All your “rational reasons” are possibilities for some cases and of course the EB Journals will not be parading evidence of selective exclusion. But I will give you one example…(there is a more recent obvious one but this one I will present was so blatant...in my next post)….
c) Research Paper….in these sources of course there will be no admissions of these things...
Assertions without evidence will be met with the highest skepticism. So far we have zero evidence to support your claims, so this assertion is also dismissed.
Plenty of examples have been given in other posts so either your programming will not let you reason upon the examples or arguments or else you are not being honest (I will assume number one because allegedly you are a brother in the Lord)
So I will start here....and let me let you know its not about winning, as you are entitled to your opinion, but for me it is about learning to reason for one's self and to do so as logically as one is able and not to buy into the mantra (like how the Clovis theory retarded scientific process and discredited the work and destroyed the careers of so many fine men and women researchers for decades)...I worked in the field for well over a decade and was a regular subscriber to Science, Nature, and The Cell for at least three years and then moved on....SO
Could you present a recent scholarly biological research paper that fits this description? Please use the proper quoting system on the forum so that observers can know who you are quoting.
I gave you the names of the source articles, the author, the Vol., date, etc., for all the papers quotes were taken from. They were all from respected members of the scientific community. I fully realize these would be rejected by you because you are insisting that only “recent” papers from current “Evolutionary Biologists” be accepted. For your mind to be able to reason upon possibilities we must close the box and not allow alternative explanations thus “a study based upon a current understanding of evolutionary biology” which by its nature precludes that all that is concluded by this “current understanding” is the only possibility that will be allowed or considered. Rather closed minded I would say.
What is one to do who does not agree with all the conclusions of this “current understanding”? If they have papers offering alternative explanations of the data, where do they publish for innocently inquiring minds to consider? The so called EB Journals will not publish these. For people to reach their own information based conclusions they should have all the views and all the data (for and against) presented for THEIR review.
And if you are a Christian then you are also a creationist (or a hypocrite), albeit not a YEC (which I also am not).
Well first off you should probably explore the other threads a lot these issues have already been discussed. But please notice the boxed in limitation your question demands.
I've been around this forum for a long time and have read through many discussions, all of them are filled with an extraordinary lack of evidence on the side of creationists. This is just my estimation based upon my personal exploration which you told me I should do.
Then you are just dismissing things given for consideration or rejecting alternate plausible possibilities of explanation regarding the same data (and only accepting the theory based EB view…some of which is fine, and other merely assumption based because it fits the theory). When I was an agnostic (for the first 3 decades of my life) I was trapped in this mode of thought, so I know also from ”experience” (which is a great teacher) that if it did not agree with my indoctrination (many YECs suffer from this same inability to see outside the box) then I rejected it and used all the articles and quotes to support my dismissal of the reasonable thought of others questioning the accepted mantra.
My quotes were support and their's was always quote mining....(rather convenient and crafty now that I think back but I was convinced....but sadly in many cases just incorrect and indoctrinated)
a) Only recent (what does that even mean? In the last few years? A decade? Since the Genome Project?)
Recent meaning something that is a study based upon a current understanding of evolutionary biology. Many creationists like to attack ideas no longer held by evolutionary biologists and attack the discredited view as a form of straw man argument.
First off on every forum I have or do participate in, your side always shrinks the box of "acceptability" usually by who, then by what Publications, then by what fields of expertise, then by date, etc., until the only thing a person has with which to allegedly intelligently DISCUSS are the only scientists YOU will accept, from ONLY the publications YOU will accept, in accordance with a timeline ONLY YOU can define as acceptable (all these varying as convenient to YOUR side only).
And thus the box shrinks smaller and smaller until all we have for a basis for alleged rational thought on the subject are those perspectives and what papers ONLY agree with YOU (this is called "stacking the deck"…a typical propaganda template effectual on most common people and of course young children in school who are always a primary target group…hence propaganda media pieces like Walking with Dinosaurs serve to imprint visually that which the narrator intends to program in).
Now undoubtedly you are a very intelligent person as far as I can tell, so how come you are unable to see the limitation this imposes on new creative insights, freedom of thought, and the ability to true critical reasoning (and I do not mean thinking up ever newer criticisms which itself violates true critical thinking)?
Can't you see that if it is the RULE that
a) one can only believe or think the same as the current consensus,
b) only draw from the camp that agrees with you,
c) and that there must be a line of others already declaring what you will espouse,
That in fact this hinder eventually coming to the truth and leaves very little room for progress?
If that were the rule of thumb politically here in America we would still have slavery and woman would not vote…in physics the Universe would still be defined by Newtonian Mechanics…How sad….how truly sad….
Interesting that you point out “ideas no longer held by evolutionary biologists”.
I always love this twist of fiened admission, because for decades when people were offering other perspectives or questioning the accepted mantra these older perspectives offered (some of which may yet still prove true) the opposition were looked at as wrong, sometimes publicly discredited, academically humiliated, or accused of dwarfing education, or not understanding tried and true science, or being antiquated, or superstitious or bigoted...But alas, what this really means the truth is…is that...many earlier EBs (only a few decades ago, and far more incorrect as we go back in time) were just plain ol’WRONG! As are many today…time will reveal this if you choose not to believe me…better to stay open minded now....
So I would say…"Science is reliable! Some Scientists however are not." All conclusions reached even when there appears to nbe consensus in a given time (even if many collude to agree or just do because they doi) are not “the truth” (some are and others may be). Many are just opinions (shared or taught), and some are just best guess (these are imaginary but within certain plausible parameters) like the dating of Zinn for example.
Just because their interpretation of the evidence seemingly fits the accepted assumption based theory (like you are offering below with your example of the dog skulls, and I know you cannot see other options, I was there once….thank you so much Lord) does not mean what they conclude is correct.
Scholarly biological (a lot of good science is in the Journals we have but in peer reviewed Journals are also built in biases selectively excluding articles that even could imply Design for example).
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? You seem to be inferring that because peer reviewed journals don't contain articles that imply design that they are rejected for that reason. I see several possible more rational reasons for why they aren't included, 1) they simply aren't submitted, 2) they don't meet the criteria for being regarded as science (creationism is not science), 3) poor writing, 4) poor organization, etc.
All your “rational reasons” are possibilities for some cases and of course the EB Journals will not be parading evidence of selective exclusion. But I will give you one example…(there is a more recent obvious one but this one I will present was so blatant...in my next post)….
c) Research Paper….in these sources of course there will be no admissions of these things...
Assertions without evidence will be met with the highest skepticism. So far we have zero evidence to support your claims, so this assertion is also dismissed.
Plenty of examples have been given in other posts so either your programming will not let you reason upon the examples or arguments or else you are not being honest (I will assume number one because allegedly you are a brother in the Lord)
brother Paul
Member
But as you know because of the changes in defining “species” it has been broadened to include the possibility of defining speciation to imply the eventual transmigration of genus, and even cross-phyletic morphism….in other words because we have discovered the mechanism the produces “variety” they interpret this to support the idea of fish becoming amphibians becoming reptiles becoming birds (the most weak) which science has never proved, or demonstrated, neither have we observed this and all tests only prove not only that all life only comes from previous life but from the same kind of host parents. Dogs are always dogs and vary due to breeding and inter-breeding…but notice that there is not one iota of evidence that they became bears. One of the issues for me in any discussion of reliability must include…
This is a perfect example of a strawman argument. You build an argument off of a fictitious example of speciation, a dog becoming a bear, and then assert that there is no evidence of dogs becoming bears. Let me just say... DUH!
The point was the first part....and you know this....did you exert much energy finding this gnat swallowing your camel whole? I do not care nor was making the point of a dog becoming a bear thats the kind of reasoning I oppose which fills the EB camp...I KNOW one type of creature NEVER becomes another type of creature....speciation ONLY proves variety. No new organs or organisms ever come about by speciation even if 300 people believe it does and form a professional consensus insisting on this point. ALL scientific testing (even running bacterial cultures with intentional mutations for 50,000 generations) for over half a century proves ONLY variety (which he Bible indicates from 1,000s of years ago) not one thing proves Darwinian transmigration of genus or phyletic morphism. I would quote you some Evolutionsts that admit this but then you would ACCUSE me of quote mining, or say their research (however foundational and correct) is no longer relevant.
They do however share a common ancestor, and modern day dog has only been around for about 33,000 years (http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/article00929.html). This indeed is now just an extinct ancestor, but it demonstrates that dogs which are distinct from a fox or wolf as a species were artificially bred by humans through domestication and how create the variety we see today. This is just a small snapshot of evolutionary history that we have though, which is the period after the extinction of dinosaurs and the rise of mammals. Creationists claim that kinds only come from the same kind, but that is simply because the common ancestors are extinct.
First of all I have used this article to expunge the "grey wolf" theory (though it was imposed over and over as and "established fact" for decades....sadly more brainwashing technique...it succeeded on many )....yeah we have known about cross-breeding at least since Jacob...and a few basic kinds of dog with the genetic propensity to produce all this variety is what the Bible shows, even with regards to men, (though not being a science book it does not make an issue of discussing the hows in detail)...genetic differences (alleles) and preference where lighter skinned varieties of humans going off and mating with others and darker skinned varieties grouping off (by preference of circumstance) would cause traits to be reinforced and so on but this obviously true and demonstrated kind of God designed natural selection does not cross the line...So of course this shows a common dog ancestor of all varieties present time dogs, but I disagree with the conclusion that weasels, bears, seals, and dogs all share a common ancestor.
For a Tiger and a Lion to become a Liger takes an outside intelligent force imposing itself on the natural God designed order of things and they still will never become an Elephant (now please do not insult me by accusing me of saying this happenes OR that I am accusing EBs of saying it does I am only generalizing on the absurdity of the neo-Darwinain notion of fish becoming amphibians, becoming reptiles, becoming birds and so on, which are totally assumption based conclusions via interpreting evidence to fit the preconceived theory rather than letting the evidence dictate the theory)....similarities in design do not prove common ancestry across genus or phylum...homology is merely a man-made system of taxinomic classification....apples and oranges are both fruit and did not exist millions of years ago when other fruit existed but that does not mean one came from the other...they likewise share about 50% in common in their DNA which likewise only speaks to structural need to qualify as fruits but this does not mean they are cousins in a nested hierarchy or representative of convergent evolution. We share about he same amount in common with bananas but as a-peeling as this is thy are not our ancient ancestors or even our cousins...that conclusion again would be interpreting the data to support the preconceived theory....
Paul
This is a perfect example of a strawman argument. You build an argument off of a fictitious example of speciation, a dog becoming a bear, and then assert that there is no evidence of dogs becoming bears. Let me just say... DUH!
The point was the first part....and you know this....did you exert much energy finding this gnat swallowing your camel whole? I do not care nor was making the point of a dog becoming a bear thats the kind of reasoning I oppose which fills the EB camp...I KNOW one type of creature NEVER becomes another type of creature....speciation ONLY proves variety. No new organs or organisms ever come about by speciation even if 300 people believe it does and form a professional consensus insisting on this point. ALL scientific testing (even running bacterial cultures with intentional mutations for 50,000 generations) for over half a century proves ONLY variety (which he Bible indicates from 1,000s of years ago) not one thing proves Darwinian transmigration of genus or phyletic morphism. I would quote you some Evolutionsts that admit this but then you would ACCUSE me of quote mining, or say their research (however foundational and correct) is no longer relevant.
They do however share a common ancestor, and modern day dog has only been around for about 33,000 years (http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/article00929.html). This indeed is now just an extinct ancestor, but it demonstrates that dogs which are distinct from a fox or wolf as a species were artificially bred by humans through domestication and how create the variety we see today. This is just a small snapshot of evolutionary history that we have though, which is the period after the extinction of dinosaurs and the rise of mammals. Creationists claim that kinds only come from the same kind, but that is simply because the common ancestors are extinct.
First of all I have used this article to expunge the "grey wolf" theory (though it was imposed over and over as and "established fact" for decades....sadly more brainwashing technique...it succeeded on many )....yeah we have known about cross-breeding at least since Jacob...and a few basic kinds of dog with the genetic propensity to produce all this variety is what the Bible shows, even with regards to men, (though not being a science book it does not make an issue of discussing the hows in detail)...genetic differences (alleles) and preference where lighter skinned varieties of humans going off and mating with others and darker skinned varieties grouping off (by preference of circumstance) would cause traits to be reinforced and so on but this obviously true and demonstrated kind of God designed natural selection does not cross the line...So of course this shows a common dog ancestor of all varieties present time dogs, but I disagree with the conclusion that weasels, bears, seals, and dogs all share a common ancestor.
For a Tiger and a Lion to become a Liger takes an outside intelligent force imposing itself on the natural God designed order of things and they still will never become an Elephant (now please do not insult me by accusing me of saying this happenes OR that I am accusing EBs of saying it does I am only generalizing on the absurdity of the neo-Darwinain notion of fish becoming amphibians, becoming reptiles, becoming birds and so on, which are totally assumption based conclusions via interpreting evidence to fit the preconceived theory rather than letting the evidence dictate the theory)....similarities in design do not prove common ancestry across genus or phylum...homology is merely a man-made system of taxinomic classification....apples and oranges are both fruit and did not exist millions of years ago when other fruit existed but that does not mean one came from the other...they likewise share about 50% in common in their DNA which likewise only speaks to structural need to qualify as fruits but this does not mean they are cousins in a nested hierarchy or representative of convergent evolution. We share about he same amount in common with bananas but as a-peeling as this is thy are not our ancient ancestors or even our cousins...that conclusion again would be interpreting the data to support the preconceived theory....
Paul
brother Paul
Member
You insisted I give you examples of “selective exclusion” from Peer Reviewed Journals…you provided some possible reasons and those are noted but not always the case…you wanted an example of the one I pointed out so here you go…first I will present a person who as being published regularly and then was excluded….
“Science” June 1968: Vol. 160 no. 3833 pp. 1228-1230; DOI: 10.1126/science.160.3833.1228, Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos, Robert Gentry, from the Institute of Planetary Science, Columbia Union College, Takoma Park, Maryland 20012
“The distribution of alpha-radioactivity in the vicinity of uranium and of certain variant radioactive halos in biotite was investigated by the fossil alpharecoil method. Within the limits of the method I could not confirm a previously proposed hydrothermal mechanism for the origin of certain variant halo types due to polonium isotopes.”
“Science” April 1974: Vol. 184 no. 4132 pp. 62-66, DOI: 10.1126/science.184.4132.62, Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective, Gentry, Chemistry Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
“New photographic evidence, data on halo ring sizes, and x-ray fluorescence analyses provide unambiguous evidence that polonium halos exist as a separate and distinct class apart from uranium halos. Because of the short half-lives of the polonium isotopes involved, it is not clear how polonium halos may be explained on the basis of currently accepted cosmological models of Earth formation. “
In other words the presence of them as trapped in granite opposes the previously believed “interpretation” of granite (still held by many despite being proven to be incorrect by nuclear physics) taking 1,000s or 1,000,000s of years to form.
Dr. Robert V. Gentry, lecturing at The Atomic Energy Commission, 1985, says our Earth's outer shell includes a largely “granite” layer of rock (6 1/2) miles thick all around the planet. Geologists confirm this to be about 75% in most places!
Gentry points out that “Along the way there are some other isotopes generated which have very short half-lives, such as Polonium...” (a few minutes at best)
Trapped in the granite rocks in their crystaline structure, 'polonium Halos' (they appear as tiny black spots to the naked eye) recorded the radioactive decay of uranium 238 during the formation of the solid granite stone. “In order for these radioactive decay paths to be recorded, the solid granite had to form while this isotope was decaying.” The half-life of polonium 218 is only minutes. Therefore, this indicates that the solidification into present granite was less than three minutes!
“… other radioactive decay tracks are frozen in the stone, such as polonium 210 and polonium 214. The half-life of polonium 214 is only 0.00164 seconds, so in less than one second all of the polonium would have disappeared and would not have left it's now recognized decay path, had the granite rock not solidified while this decay process was under way.”
Draw your own conclusions! For further study and evidence of the rapidity of the factual formation of Granite as opposed to the neo-Darwinian theoretical model see the following articles:
Extinct Radioactivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochroic Halo, in, Nature, 1967, 213:437-490; Spectacle array of 210po halo radiocentres in biotites: a Nuclear Geophysical Enigma, Nature, 1974 252:564 – 566; Also explore the presentation of Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological Cosmological Perspective, from the 63rd annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Now aside from the mountainous onslaught of anti-Gentry propaganda that followed once the “Peer Reviewers” realized what this implied (some of which is found on the propaganda site Talk Origins…much like the YEC propaganda site Answers in Genesis), the man was working as a well respected researcher in his own field of expertise, and did not go looking for this but rather discovered it. He was published over 30 times in “Peer Reviewed” Journals and once the implication of this fact hit home, he was never published again though he continued to attempt publication and eventually could no longer receive grants for research and eventually he could not even get a decent job in his field.
Many of his peers at the time supported his work and were intrigued by his findings but you will never learn of this on anti-Gentry propaganda sites…for example for a few consider….
Truman P. Kohman, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Senior Research Associate in Physics Departments of Chemistry and Physics, Carnegie-Mellon University, has testified as to his professional and serious work in nuclear physics in general.
Georgii Nikolayevich Flerov, a Russian Nuclear Physicist, has supported Gentry’s scholarship and his right to publish his opinions.
Emilio Gino Segrè, also a physicist and a Nobel laureate (he discovered antiprotons) commented on the assurance of Gentry’s personal and professional integrity and to professional quality of his data.
Paul Ramdohr, a winner of the Roebling Medal, is a Mineralogist who specializes in ore microscopy he found Gentry as a responsible scientist and his work irreproachable.
Eugene Wigner, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Princeton University, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1963, also supported Gentry’s integrity in research, professional presentation of data, and his right to continue his research.
Chemical Researcher, E. H. Taylor, co-author of many articles in the Journal of Chemical Physics also supported Gentry.
Francis S. Johnson, Assistant Director, National Science Foundation, 1982, wrote this to the hearing of Gentry’ discrimination case, “—"Mr. Anderson is correct when he states in his letter that Dr. Robert Gentry is the world's leading authority on the observation and measurement of anomalous radio-active haloes. Because of his recognized capabilities, Dr. Gentry's research was funded by the Foundation during the early 1970's."
W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and Abrupt Appearance, Vol. 1 (New York: Philosophical Library, 1991), p. 80, notes Gentry’s work as important but admits it is not as yet conclusively…but later he says
"The absence of uranium (or thorium) movement out of, or polonium movement into, halo-containing rocks has been shown by a number of experiments. One experiment used alpha-recoil analysis . . Other experiments reaffirming the same point were fission track and neutron flux techniques. If any question is raised about the sheet-like nature of mica, it is important to note that polonium halos without uranium traces are also found in cordierite...Finally, it is important to note that not all halos are in the uranium decay sequence; there are also halos of bismuth-212 .”
"The objection that the polonium was a decay product of uranium, rather than an original element in the rocks containing the halos, has been countered by numerous experiments using sophisticated techniques, such as fission-track and neutron flux methods, electron microscope x-ray fluorescence, fossil alpha recoil analysis, and ion microprobe mass spectrometry, which showed that the polonium did not migrate into and the uranium (or thorium) did not migrate out of the rocks, and that the lead isotopes present resulted from polonium rather than uranium decay. " (W.R. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited, Vol. 1 (1987), pp. 419-422).
The massive onslaught of anti-Gentry propaganda that buries this researcher’s work on the web comes almost entirely from the EB camp with a handful of Geologists on Board. This is one of the things we always witness…an attempt to pile up so many opinion based arguments that long before you can get to Gentry’s work to consider it rationally you already are made to feel you are outside the “consensus” group and therefore rejected by your peers (which if you know what’s good for you or any hopes of a career you’d better heed)! Dis-fellowship is one of propaganda and brainwashing’s most powerful tools to keep people from stepping outside the box and thinking for themselves…
Paul
“Science” June 1968: Vol. 160 no. 3833 pp. 1228-1230; DOI: 10.1126/science.160.3833.1228, Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos, Robert Gentry, from the Institute of Planetary Science, Columbia Union College, Takoma Park, Maryland 20012
“The distribution of alpha-radioactivity in the vicinity of uranium and of certain variant radioactive halos in biotite was investigated by the fossil alpharecoil method. Within the limits of the method I could not confirm a previously proposed hydrothermal mechanism for the origin of certain variant halo types due to polonium isotopes.”
“Science” April 1974: Vol. 184 no. 4132 pp. 62-66, DOI: 10.1126/science.184.4132.62, Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective, Gentry, Chemistry Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
“New photographic evidence, data on halo ring sizes, and x-ray fluorescence analyses provide unambiguous evidence that polonium halos exist as a separate and distinct class apart from uranium halos. Because of the short half-lives of the polonium isotopes involved, it is not clear how polonium halos may be explained on the basis of currently accepted cosmological models of Earth formation. “
In other words the presence of them as trapped in granite opposes the previously believed “interpretation” of granite (still held by many despite being proven to be incorrect by nuclear physics) taking 1,000s or 1,000,000s of years to form.
Dr. Robert V. Gentry, lecturing at The Atomic Energy Commission, 1985, says our Earth's outer shell includes a largely “granite” layer of rock (6 1/2) miles thick all around the planet. Geologists confirm this to be about 75% in most places!
Gentry points out that “Along the way there are some other isotopes generated which have very short half-lives, such as Polonium...” (a few minutes at best)
Trapped in the granite rocks in their crystaline structure, 'polonium Halos' (they appear as tiny black spots to the naked eye) recorded the radioactive decay of uranium 238 during the formation of the solid granite stone. “In order for these radioactive decay paths to be recorded, the solid granite had to form while this isotope was decaying.” The half-life of polonium 218 is only minutes. Therefore, this indicates that the solidification into present granite was less than three minutes!
“… other radioactive decay tracks are frozen in the stone, such as polonium 210 and polonium 214. The half-life of polonium 214 is only 0.00164 seconds, so in less than one second all of the polonium would have disappeared and would not have left it's now recognized decay path, had the granite rock not solidified while this decay process was under way.”
Draw your own conclusions! For further study and evidence of the rapidity of the factual formation of Granite as opposed to the neo-Darwinian theoretical model see the following articles:
Extinct Radioactivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochroic Halo, in, Nature, 1967, 213:437-490; Spectacle array of 210po halo radiocentres in biotites: a Nuclear Geophysical Enigma, Nature, 1974 252:564 – 566; Also explore the presentation of Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological Cosmological Perspective, from the 63rd annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Now aside from the mountainous onslaught of anti-Gentry propaganda that followed once the “Peer Reviewers” realized what this implied (some of which is found on the propaganda site Talk Origins…much like the YEC propaganda site Answers in Genesis), the man was working as a well respected researcher in his own field of expertise, and did not go looking for this but rather discovered it. He was published over 30 times in “Peer Reviewed” Journals and once the implication of this fact hit home, he was never published again though he continued to attempt publication and eventually could no longer receive grants for research and eventually he could not even get a decent job in his field.
Many of his peers at the time supported his work and were intrigued by his findings but you will never learn of this on anti-Gentry propaganda sites…for example for a few consider….
Truman P. Kohman, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Senior Research Associate in Physics Departments of Chemistry and Physics, Carnegie-Mellon University, has testified as to his professional and serious work in nuclear physics in general.
Georgii Nikolayevich Flerov, a Russian Nuclear Physicist, has supported Gentry’s scholarship and his right to publish his opinions.
Emilio Gino Segrè, also a physicist and a Nobel laureate (he discovered antiprotons) commented on the assurance of Gentry’s personal and professional integrity and to professional quality of his data.
Paul Ramdohr, a winner of the Roebling Medal, is a Mineralogist who specializes in ore microscopy he found Gentry as a responsible scientist and his work irreproachable.
Eugene Wigner, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Princeton University, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1963, also supported Gentry’s integrity in research, professional presentation of data, and his right to continue his research.
Chemical Researcher, E. H. Taylor, co-author of many articles in the Journal of Chemical Physics also supported Gentry.
Francis S. Johnson, Assistant Director, National Science Foundation, 1982, wrote this to the hearing of Gentry’ discrimination case, “—"Mr. Anderson is correct when he states in his letter that Dr. Robert Gentry is the world's leading authority on the observation and measurement of anomalous radio-active haloes. Because of his recognized capabilities, Dr. Gentry's research was funded by the Foundation during the early 1970's."
W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and Abrupt Appearance, Vol. 1 (New York: Philosophical Library, 1991), p. 80, notes Gentry’s work as important but admits it is not as yet conclusively…but later he says
"The absence of uranium (or thorium) movement out of, or polonium movement into, halo-containing rocks has been shown by a number of experiments. One experiment used alpha-recoil analysis . . Other experiments reaffirming the same point were fission track and neutron flux techniques. If any question is raised about the sheet-like nature of mica, it is important to note that polonium halos without uranium traces are also found in cordierite...Finally, it is important to note that not all halos are in the uranium decay sequence; there are also halos of bismuth-212 .”
"The objection that the polonium was a decay product of uranium, rather than an original element in the rocks containing the halos, has been countered by numerous experiments using sophisticated techniques, such as fission-track and neutron flux methods, electron microscope x-ray fluorescence, fossil alpha recoil analysis, and ion microprobe mass spectrometry, which showed that the polonium did not migrate into and the uranium (or thorium) did not migrate out of the rocks, and that the lead isotopes present resulted from polonium rather than uranium decay. " (W.R. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited, Vol. 1 (1987), pp. 419-422).
The massive onslaught of anti-Gentry propaganda that buries this researcher’s work on the web comes almost entirely from the EB camp with a handful of Geologists on Board. This is one of the things we always witness…an attempt to pile up so many opinion based arguments that long before you can get to Gentry’s work to consider it rationally you already are made to feel you are outside the “consensus” group and therefore rejected by your peers (which if you know what’s good for you or any hopes of a career you’d better heed)! Dis-fellowship is one of propaganda and brainwashing’s most powerful tools to keep people from stepping outside the box and thinking for themselves…
Paul
brother Paul
Member
Ah! I never brought up three accusations you make...I did not speak of creationism though I believe God indeed created this Universe...my comments on propaganda and brainwashing are about technique used to indoctrinate no matter who is the source (even Answers in Genesis which does sometimes imply truth regarding info which is false or unsubstantiated...sad for sincere Christians trying to defend their faith) and thirdly the OP is about reliable science and I am addressing un-reliable aspects which occur because of some scientists not science or the method...(I did a 5 years study on propaganda technique, brainwashing, prejudice, stereotyping, etc., to find the way these are used by our politicians right and left and then I could not help but see where it is used in other areas....)...but I did want to clarify my position on what I was sensing from you (if I am incorrect on those three points and you were not implying me in them then I apologize).
Doulos Iesou
Member
Not sure how anyone can find the time to reply to four different packed posts.
I work most of the time and have very limited time to post, so it might be awhile before I can respond to everything you said. In the ToS it also mentions that one should "Please keep posts down to a respectable length" and four posts to my one post is a bit excessive.
Just saying..
I work most of the time and have very limited time to post, so it might be awhile before I can respond to everything you said. In the ToS it also mentions that one should "Please keep posts down to a respectable length" and four posts to my one post is a bit excessive.
Just saying..
brother Paul
Member
Yes you are correct but you asked a lot and made some serious assumptions/accusations! The posts are getting too long. I think if we are going to discuss further after your next responses, perhaps we should limit the topics to a couple of points or positions at a time. Success at work and get your rest brother. Look forward to hearing from you when you can get to it as I am retired from my career in the Biotech industry and now work only part time for a ministry.
Milk-Drops
Member
I have the full article here. http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1968-fossil-alpha-recoil.htm
""An attempt to determine whether the halo nuclei were capable of acting as selective fixation sites for certain radionuclides, by electron-microprobe analysis of the halo inclusions, failed because of the small size involved. However, refinement of techniques may lead [p. 224] to clarification of the nature of the inclusions (14). Thus a more sensitive technique is required for testing of the hypothesis regarding genesis of the polonium halos from a uranium-bearing solution.
Fission-track techniques (15) may serve this purpose. Uranium-238 fissions spontaneously, and the damaged regions in the host mineral, produced by the fission fragments, can be enlarged sufficiently by acid etching for visibility under an optical microscope. Immersion of biotite samples, containing the polonium and uranium halos in hydrofluoric acid for a few seconds and subsequent observation of the areas in the vicinity of the inclusions reveal a striking difference: the polonium halos are characterized by complete absence of fission tracks, whereas the uranium halos always show clusters of fission tracks.""
It seems you left out a large chunk of the article and ignored the abstract that pointed out that this paper was going to try and show the usefulness of several different methods and techniques. Why did you omit that?
http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm
http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm
http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm
brother Paul
Member
Ah yes MD, I see you have found some of the mountain! It is really quite irrelevant because for decades no one presented him (while publishing in peer reviewed journals) as a creationist. He was well reviewed and accepted.
Have you noticed we are getting the same thing now with the new insights into the role of information? As scientists (mostly physicists but also some biologists) and philosophers comment on its essential role, pointing out that it is neither mass or energy yet indeed exists (in fact is essential) the mountains of opposing response are already beginning to appear. As for Gentry, whether or not he believes in a Creator does not negate his science or his methods. Those that say Polonium 214 for example can exist during a very long process from its molten state to solidification are lying...it is not possible (and yes I read your articles)...even (as Kuban stated and Gentry himself pointed out) when they leak into pourous rock they still burn out...what we should see is the residue of their presence, not their being captured at the moment of burn out and I do mean a MOMENT.
Gentry's scientific research articles do not talk about God....he leaves the conclusion to the reader. Your first article negates nothing and Kuban sadly is NOT a nuclear physicist...
Have you noticed we are getting the same thing now with the new insights into the role of information? As scientists (mostly physicists but also some biologists) and philosophers comment on its essential role, pointing out that it is neither mass or energy yet indeed exists (in fact is essential) the mountains of opposing response are already beginning to appear. As for Gentry, whether or not he believes in a Creator does not negate his science or his methods. Those that say Polonium 214 for example can exist during a very long process from its molten state to solidification are lying...it is not possible (and yes I read your articles)...even (as Kuban stated and Gentry himself pointed out) when they leak into pourous rock they still burn out...what we should see is the residue of their presence, not their being captured at the moment of burn out and I do mean a MOMENT.
Gentry's scientific research articles do not talk about God....he leaves the conclusion to the reader. Your first article negates nothing and Kuban sadly is NOT a nuclear physicist...
Last edited:
brother Paul
Member
MD history provides for us many fine scientists (highly intelligent) who believe(d) in God, and who made very important discoveries and whose research is foundational to much of today's scientific perspective. Just as we who believe in God must not stereotype all unbelievers into the extreme of the Atheist camp, you also should be careful not to stereotype all believers into what YOU call "creationists". The sharp and critical fundamentalist view came as a response and many (in fact most) did not and do not adhere to the extreme in that camp. Though we all may believe there was initially a creator many are not opposed to believe He used "evolution" as one of the inherent means of bringing about development and change. When one uses this term (evolution) that does not mean one must accept ALL of the details Darwin proposed and so it is with those who believe in a Creator...they ALL do not adhere to the strict literalist approach or in every detail to what you are referring to when you say "creationist". Copernicus (Astronomy), Kepler (Cosmology), Newton (gravity and motion), Boyle (Chemistry), Pascal (Math), Steno (Anatomy), Faraday (Light), Lord Kelvin (Thermodynamics), Maxwell (electro-magnetism, foundation of Quantum Physics), Mendel (Genetic inheritance), Maury (Oceanography), Pastuer (Bacteriology), Tesla and Marconi (Telegraph and Radio), Edison (Telephone and Lighting), Muller (Biological research) and over 50 Nobel Laureates in modern times have been believers in a Creator. That does not mean there was anything wrong with their science or research, it only provides a difference of interpretation of the data in some cases.