[_ Old Earth _] religion ans science

[jasoncran]

he never said that science that does that was bad at all. he said the assumptions that are assumed and the interpreatation of the data is bad.

is that really hard to get?

NO.

case in point how does a dinosaur femur that is in the air(half of it) be 68 million years old?

its not. it cant be over a few thousand at the the most.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja954077c

http://www.dsch.univ.trieste.it/~benedetti/amide.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2518966/#R2

and it was found in the air in parts from a side of a cliff.

and here it says that it still 68 MILLION years old

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412140942.htm

come on!

so how is it possible. one and two studies contradict the last one.

 

[jasoncran]

[video=youtube;DB69zCwbBPY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DB69zCwbBPY[/video]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]The trouble with peer review arises when the 'peers' are all convinced that XYZ is true and correct.

All the biology peers are convinced that evolution is gospel truth, and therefore pass many papers that are sheer nonsense, and based on heavily flawed premises.

Here's Austin Hughes in PNAS writing about the use of computer generated 'lineages' which are extremely common today. and appear with an appearance of authority and correctness that is totally belied by the facts, and creates an impression which is totally false.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sequences of DNA provide documentary evidence of the evolutionary past undreamed of by pioneers such as Darwin and Wallace, but their potential as sources of evolutionary information is still far from being realized. A major hindrance to progress has been confusion regarding the role of positive (Darwinian) selection, i.e., natural selection favoring adaptive mutations. In particular, problems have arisen from the widespread use of certain poorly conceived statistical methods to test for positive selection (1, 2). Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution on the basis of computational analyses alone, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations. But it would be a mistake to dismiss Yokoyama et al.'s (3) study, in this issue of PNAS, of the evolution of visual pigments in vertebrates as more of the same. For, unlike all too many recent papers in the field, this study is solidly grounded in biology.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If I read that correctly, Hughes has just consigned innumerable papers, all peer reviewed, and all deemed fit for publication, straight to the garbage heap.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And for a reason I have raised many times in these debates.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The proponents of the theories that X arose from Y by any number of intervening steps, do so with the assurance of computer generated garbage.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And with no regard whatever for the practical biology that may be involved.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Take for instance, the alleged transition of fish into amphibians. That is an assured conclusion, based on I don't know how many computerised 'lineages', and extremely little fact.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But as Hughes said above, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Which means, effectively, that even if mutations occurred which produced legs, the impossibility of a water-breathing animal moving out to breathe on land never seems to occur to our optimistic 'biologists' who spend their lives in the molecular biology labs with very little contact with the real world of living creatures.

Yet, their papers are 'peer reviewed' and passed as fit for publication. So much for the 'peers' who review![/FONT]

 

[jasoncran]

for the record my grandfather is a tad bit older then you. he died at the age of 84. you arent old enough for ww2. sorry.

and my other grandfather was born in 1907. and died in 1991.

i am 38 and not some college kid. i have twenty plus years in service.

 

[Nick]

Thread moved to the science forum.

Go to Settings / Permission Groups to request access.

 

[jasoncran]

ok.

and here. this says many dinos were in water.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21207-watery-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html

and said location of that b-rex was also in water at one time.

hmm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

so okay, either the water thing is off or its not that old.


and here another that is old and yet underwater and has soft tissue.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/triceratops-secret-location-found-in-south-dakota-badlands.html

underwater for 65 million years old?

 

[Barbarian]

Not that it means much to some, but I have spent 10 years studying evolutionary doctrine and the "smoke and mirrors" and shifting definitions used in order to make TOE seem what it is not.

Here's some advice: if you want to learn about capitalism, don't ask Fidel Castro to explain it to you. Just saying...

In truth, it is a science of adaptation taken far beyond what the limitations of the facts allow. Any other fields of science (such as those dealing with the age of the universe and of the earth) are based upon so much assumption that they are not reliable for anything except great science fiction stories!

Well, trot out a few, and we'll take a look at them.

 

[MarbleShooter]

[FONT=&quot]The trouble with peer review arises when the 'peers' are all convinced that XYZ is true and correct.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Except that when Darwin originally introduced the Theory of Evolution and the mechanism of Natural selection, he was heavily challenged by the system at the time. His theory gained headway with the study of genetics and ecology. So your statement is false.

All the biology peers are convinced that evolution is gospel truth,

False. If you are stating this then you have no idea of the many changes and correction to the theory of evolution. There are massive chunks of what Darwin thought that have been removed from the theory and replaced by people trying to prove him wrong. Your second statement is false.

and therefore pass many papers that are sheer nonsense, and based on heavily flawed premises.

Peer review is where experiments are redone and the research is checked for accuracy. Your third statement is false because I don't think you even understand what peer review is.

Here's Austin Hughes in PNAS writing about the use of computer generated 'lineages' which are extremely common today. and appear with an appearance of authority and correctness that is totally belied by the facts, and creates an impression which is totally false.

SO you want to disprove the theory of evolution by attacking something else? Sorry you need to attack the actual theory. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sequences of DNA provide documentary evidence of the evolutionary past undreamed of by pioneers such as Darwin and Wallace, but their potential as sources of evolutionary information is still far from being realized. A major hindrance to progress has been confusion regarding the role of positive (Darwinian) selection, i.e., natural selection favoring adaptive mutations. In particular, problems have arisen from the widespread use of certain poorly conceived statistical methods to test for positive selection (1, 2). Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution on the basis of computational analyses alone, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations. But it would be a mistake to dismiss Yokoyama et al.'s (3) study, in this issue of PNAS, of the evolution of visual pigments in vertebrates as more of the same. For, unlike all too many recent papers in the field, this study is solidly grounded in biology.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If I read that correctly, Hughes has just consigned innumerable papers, all peer reviewed, and all deemed fit for publication, straight to the garbage heap.[/FONT]

[/quote] No he didn't. I Don't think you understand the language used. Here. Hughes is pointing out that more research needs to be done in certain areas because they are mostly done through simulation. This is no more significant then an engineer that is told that certain parts of their design won't necessarily work the same way when made. What the engineer needs to do is redo the parts that won't work. That's it.

[FONT=&quot]And for a reason I have raised many times in these debates.[/FONT]

Now its time for you to defend it.

[FONT=&quot]The proponents of the theories that X arose from Y by any number of intervening steps, do so with the assurance of computer generated garbage.[/FONT]

Show us an example or this will be ignored.

[FONT=&quot]And with no regard whatever for the practical biology that may be involved.[/FONT]

Source it, if you don't this is pure nonsense that applies to nothing.

[FONT=&quot]Take for instance, the alleged transition of fish into amphibians. That is an assured conclusion, based on I don't know how many computerised 'lineages', and extremely little fact.[/FONT]

False, we have tictalik. A real creature that shows a clear transition from fish to a newer clade. That is not computer generated. I don't think you understand what is being compared.

[FONT=&quot]But as Hughes said above, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations.[/FONT]

Hughes didn't say that at all. You are taking an out of context remark by Hughes and trying to shoehorn it in with what you think happened. You have to source your claims. Otherwise its obvious you are unaware of what you are talking about. Your statement has shown to be either false or dishonest.

[FONT=&quot]
Which means, effectively, that even if mutations occurred which produced legs, the impossibility of a water-breathing animal moving out to breathe on land never seems to occur to our optimistic 'biologists' who spend their lives in the molecular biology labs with very little contact with the real world of living creatures.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] This is even more nonsense. Now you are claiming biologists don't have actual contact with the specimens. You are vastly unaware of the discoveries of Tictalic and other fish/ amphibian organisms, and doing nothing but speculating based on an out of context quote you misunderstood in the first place.

Yet, their papers are 'peer reviewed' and passed as fit for publication. So much for the 'peers' who review!

[/FONT] Congratulation on not showing any evidence and basically saying a bunch of nonsense. You have shown my that you have no idea how biology works, how peer review works, basic knowledge on fish/amphibian discoveries, and your dishonesty by quote mining. Good day.

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot] Except that when Darwin originally introduced the Theory of Evolution and the mechanism of Natural selection, he was heavily challenged by the system at the time. His theory gained headway with the study of genetics and ecology. So your statement is false. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

He was encouraged by his FRIENDS TO PRODUCE SOME FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS THEORY. He couldn't, and the mish mash of fantasy and optimism he did produce was worthy of the scorn many of the premier palaeontologists and senior biologists of the day heaped on it.

Somehow it survived. Pity that.

[/FONT]

False. If you are stating this then you have no idea of the many changes and correction to the theory of evolution. There are massive chunks of what Darwin thought that have been removed from the theory and replaced by people trying to prove him wrong.

Correction. Practically the whole thing has been replaced. Ever heard of 'neo-Darwinism'? It was an effort to patch up the great holes everybody could see in it.

The only people today who can't see that it is still rubbish are people like you who haven't bothered to examine it critically. Note that word.

If you go on to the threads I have started, you will become acquainted with some of the enormous holes which exist, and which can only be patched with pure bluff and optimism.

[FONT="] Your second statement is false. Peer review is where experiments are redone and the research is checked for accuracy. [/FONT]

You read this?

Peer review – where articles submitted to an academic journal are reviewed by other scientists from the same field for an opinion on their quality – has always been recognised as problematic. It is time-consuming, it could be open to corruption, and it cannot prevent fraud, plagiarism, or duplicate publication, although in a more obvious case it might. The problem with peer review is, it's hard to find anything better.

So get those silly stars out of your eyes and wake up to reality. Just suppose an experiment took 5 years to complete. Do you really think any reviewer is going to spend another 5 years repeating the experiment? Especially if it was done in the Arctic, or somewhere lile it? Wake up man!

[FONT="]Your third statement is false because I don't think you even understand what peer review is. SO you want to disprove the theory of evolution by attacking something else? Sorry you need to attack the actual theory. [/FONT]

I have done so extensively on this site, and the responses have invariably been totally inadequate, and full of guesswork and hopeful hypotheses. Go see for yourself.

In case you fancy yourself as a serious evolutionist. try accounting for the origin of the echolocation system in bats, or the ability of the godwit to fly without parents to guide it, from Alaska, across 7000 miles of ocean non-stop to New Zealand.

When you can do that then perhaps we can talk sensibly to one another.

[FONT="]Sequences of DNA provide documentary evidence of the evolutionary past undreamed of by pioneers such as Darwin and Wallace, but their potential as sources of evolutionary information is still far from being realized. A major hindrance to progress has been confusion regarding the role of positive (Darwinian) selection, i.e., natural selection favoring adaptive mutations. In particular, problems have arisen from the widespread use of certain poorly conceived statistical methods to test for positive selection (1, 2). Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution on the basis of computational analyses alone, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations. But it would be a mistake to dismiss Yokoyama et al.'s (3) study, in this issue of PNAS, of the evolution of visual pigments in vertebrates as more of the same. For, unlike all too many recent papers in the field, this study is solidly grounded in biology.[/FONT]

[FONT="]If I read that correctly, Hughes has just consigned innumerable papers, all peer reviewed, and all deemed fit for publication, straight to the garbage heap.[/FONT]

No he didn't. I Don't think you understand the language used.

Your ability to understand is probably poorer than mine, because of what follows.

Here. Hughes is pointing out that more research needs to be done in certain areas because they are mostly done through simulation.

It's not 'certain areas'. It's the whole of modern evolutionary biology that uses these 'garbage in, garbage out' computer simulations to produce these foolish 'lineages' which con people like you into thinking that they are right.

I have given you the example of the evolution of amphibians from fish, and posed the crassly obvious problems which exist with the 'lineages' so-called. Have you ever looked at what is actually proposed?

This is no more significant then an engineer that is told that certain parts of their design won't necessarily work the same way when made.

What Hughes is saying is that the TOOLS being used are producers of garbage, because they fail to consider some terrifically serious problems - in this case, called the 'phenotypes'. Do you know what those are?

False, we have tictalik. A real creature that shows a clear transition from fish to a newer clade.

You know nothing about the matter. Your ignorance is obvious from the fact that you can't even spell Tiktaalik correctly.

It's not a tick you can find on cows, nor is it a clock ticking. It's something completely different. But you haven't even read what happened recently, and here are you pontificating. Go find out, and then we can talk again.

That is not computer generated. I don't think you understand what is being compared. Hughes didn't say that at all. You are taking an out of context remark by Hughes and trying to shoehorn it in with what you think happened. You have to source your claims. Otherwise its obvious you are unaware of what you are talking about. Your statement has shown to be either false or dishonest.

This is strong language indeed. Are you sure you don't want to withdraw it?

[FONT="]This is even more nonsense. Now you are claiming biologists don't have actual contact with the specimens. You are vastly unaware of the discoveries of Tictalic and other fish/ amphibian organisms, and doing nothing but speculating based on an out of context quote you misunderstood in the first place.[/FONT]

How many different ways do we have to spell the name of Tiktaalik?When you learn to spell, we can talk again.

Congratulation on not showing any evidence and basically saying a bunch of nonsense. You have shown my that you have no idea how biology works, how peer review works, basic knowledge on fish/amphibian discoveries, and your dishonesty by quote mining. Good day.

Hmm. I think Barbarian and Lordkalvan could show you a thing or two about manners. Go take some lessons, and when you've learnt some, we'll talk again.

Happy Christmas to you and yours. :xmas:xmas:xmas

 

[MarbleShooter]

He was encouraged by his FRIENDS TO PRODUCE SOME FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS THEORY. He couldn't, and the mish mash of fantasy and optimism he did produce was worthy of the scorn many of the premier palaeontologists and senior biologists of the day heaped on it.

I'm guessing you have never read the origin of species then. The book is a massive tone and really dry because most of the book is Darwin referencing what he is talking about. Calling his theory a mishmash is just obvious hand waving.

Somehow it survived. Pity that.

It works and no model has been able to replace it. Come up with a model that fills in the gaps that Evolutionary Biology has filled and you'll get a lot of recognition.

Correction. Practically the whole thing has been replaced.

I'm wondering if you can name anything specific? I have a massive hunch that you are vastly unaware of what is even in the Origin of Species.

Ever heard of 'neo-Darwinism'? It was an effort to patch up the great holes everybody could see in it.

Vague creationist terms don't phase me. Unless you can name these holes, I'm not intimidated.

The only people today who can't see that it is still rubbish are people like you who haven't bothered to examine it critically Note that word.

Yeah, about that. I've been in labs, been part of studies on a college level. Had several hours long lecture classes and reading biology books since I was 10. Telling me I haven't critically thought about this subject is hilarious. I have to ask, What is the highest level of education you have had where you have studied evolution or even basic biology? You seem to be talking a big game, but not able to really play it. Hence the lack of sources and how you've misrepresented some very basic ideas.

If you go on to the threads I have started, you will become acquainted with some of the enormous holes which exist, and which can only be patched with pure bluff and optimism.

I've seen you post a lot of random topics where the information you give is poorly collected, and when LordKalvin and Barbarian challenge you on it, the thread becomes abandoned or the thread shoots off into several tangents. Most of the stuff I've seen you post can be answered by an undergrad. Like your chimp foot thread. Several people tried to point out what is wrong with your op, but you ignored it and kept trying to force through with the same argument, when other tried to correct some of your basic misunderstandings. Thing is, talk is cheap. Demonstrating you know what you know is what will convince me, and so far your demonstration has been really weak.

You read this?

Yep, and I understand it. Are you going to post the source like asked? The quote isn't saying what you want it to say.

So get those silly stars out of your eyes and wake up to reality.

Did ages ago when I decided to actually study the subject instead of letting laymen on the internet tell me what they "think" the theory of Evolution is. How about you do the same?

Just suppose an experiment took 5 years to complete. Do you really think any reviewer is going to spend another 5 years repeating the experiment? Especially if it was done in the Arctic, or somewhere lile it? Wake up man!

Hey, think you can reference a real experiment instead of made up hypothetical statements? Maybe it will convince me that you know what you are talking about and not just making stuff up and using your own ignorance of the subject mixed with a snooty attitude. ;)

I have done so extensively on this site, and the responses have invariably been totally inadequate, and full of guesswork and hopeful hypotheses. Go see for yourself.

I've already looked around. How about you skip the parade and just source what I asked you to source please.

In case you fancy yourself as a serious evolutionist. try accounting for the origin of the echolocation system in bats, or the ability of the godwit to fly without parents to guide it, from Alaska, across 7000 miles of ocean non-stop to New Zealand.

I'm not a specialist in either category. I also don't have to account for those to show how the theory of evolution is pretty strong. Your challenges don't affect the validity of evolution but do show that there are interesting things to study and figure out.

When you can do that then perhaps we can talk sensibly to one another.

I doubt it. Most of this reply of yours has just been you claiming to have information and status, but unable to demonstrate either. I'm working towards a degree that shows that I've done the work and I am authoring papers that reference what I've been studying and hope to study.

 

[jasoncran]

richard dawkins calls it neo darwinism

[video=youtube;m2GY9AHqeKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2GY9AHqeKM[/video]

care to write him?

 

[Barbarian]

Which means, effectively, that even if mutations occurred which produced legs, the impossibility of a water-breathing animal moving out to breathe on land never seems to occur to our optimistic 'biologists' who spend their lives in the molecular biology labs with very little contact with the real world of living creatures.

There are such fish living today. If we still have some around, it's pretty foolish to deny they couldn't have existed back then. You should probably know that lungs evolved before legs. Just saying...

And yes, it's absurd to suppose that the palentologists who found these fossils don't spend long hours learning about the actual anatomy and live of fish. You have a very naive idea of what biologists do.

 

[MarbleShooter]

richard dawkins calls it neo darwinism

[video=youtube;m2GY9AHqeKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2GY9AHqeKM[/video]

care to write him?

Alright Dawkin's uses the words Darwinism and Neo Darwinism, but as far as I can tell its just his personal way of stating the differnece between what Darwin knew at his time and how the theory has changed due to all the new information. It dose not effect any of my other statements. I'm still waiting for Asyncritus to back up his statements, until then I am not swayed by his argument. If Asyn believes he/she has the information on his/her side, then I'm ready to read that evidence and challenge it if need be. If its just more insults and posturing I'll just chuckle and be on my way with other threads. Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[Barbarian]

In case you fancy yourself as a serious evolutionist. try accounting for the origin of the echolocation system in bats,

You've already learned about this. Even you have a primitive echolocation system. Vikings used it to navigate in foggy fiords. Go to a large, empty space inside a building. Close your eyes and walk about, slapping your foot on the floor. You'll find you can begin to estimate how far away a wall is.

Bats, using much higher frequencies, have much finer detail in their perceptions.