Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-02-2009, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,891,958 times
Reputation: 3767

Advertisements

I just came back from travelling and find C34 up to his usual. He's as reliable as the Geological Column! Not matter how deep we dig here, we'lll always find a fossilized mind at work!

I rebuked Tom's nonsense, out-of-context claims of Henry Gee's commentary about 6 days ago, and posted links and quotes that showed what Gee really meant.

C34 did not respond.


I've asked Tom which particular part of the known and proven component parts of evolution he would like to pick apart in detail. Which process is incorrect.

He did not respond.

He knows he cannot compete with the truth do goes off to find another windmill to tilt at, finding instead some tripe presented by AiG or the Creationist Institute to bolster some perceived flaw in our thinking.

This, somehow, discredits ALL the vast array of scientifically (i.e.: logically and painstakingly) refined and accredited information)????

I mean,if we're simply keeping a vote score of reliable evidence versus the occasional misgivings of a scarce minority, who wins then, Tom?

(Especially, as I clearly showed 6 days ago, [and you ignored, of course] you quote-mine and purposefully mis-quote Henry Gee's intent. Impressive!)

Your single case does nothing to rebuke evolution, and any honest evaluation of the basics we know of in it's simple, logical processes can only led to inevitable acceptance.

Well, except by you. Stubborn boy!

(Oh BTW, Tom, in a few weeks a few thousand more graduate biologists will graduate in the US and Canada alone, all accepting evolution for the truth it is. Evidence does not lie. Meantime, the number of Christian acolytes who claim to have access to the truth diminishes. Soon, purposeful denialism will be dead. Long live denialism!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2009, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,726 posts, read 16,704,675 times
Reputation: 14887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And this was just three months before she died. And I quote.

"Since scientists can never prove a particular scenario of human evolution"
Leakey said "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, (THAT'S A LOT OF NONSENSE)." 12/9/1996

And Gee and Leakey are not alone with this opinion.
I bolded a phrase here that's extremely important, just as I did with Gee's comments. I'll just leave it at that, because it's painfully obvious that anymore typing would go to waste. For the record, I would love to see how Gee would respond to your interpretation of his comments. I'd pay fifty American dollars to see it in person or on video, in fact. If anyone can figure out how to arrange this, please do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 01:17 AM
 
Location: Texas
4,346 posts, read 6,603,786 times
Reputation: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
We know there is natural selection. We can see evolutionary links in many kind of creatures. The fossil evidence gives support to the working of evolution over long periods of time. The biological work shows further family links. Gaps or not, all the evidence so far supports evolution and none supports creation.

I can see what Campell 34 means, but he is really concentrating on particular statements and over-applying them in a way that is really not valid. And apparently editing in his own views and grafting them into sentences where they never belonged.
Thanks for a pointed yet respectful post AREQUIPA.

So do claims made by Bible believers about inaccurate dating methods have any validity? (the dating of fossils I mean - not the other kind of dating). Lord knows I've heard those claims many many times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 02:03 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927
At the risk of supplying the YE Creationists with ammunition, there is always room for error. However, tree ring dating is good, C 14 dating is good where you have a uncontaminated sample, and even contamination only seriously affects the sample in something where you are working to the last 1,000 years plus or minus error of a century. In organic material 10, 15 or 20,00 years old, it hardly makes much difference. It pretty much pulls the rug out from under a YE scenario.

I did look up once about thermoluminescence dating and the way ice cores are dated. It actually seemed a bit difficult to get a result for 'how does prehistoric dating work' as opposed to 'what are they'. Since you bring the matter up, I might try again to get information on how its done and how reliable it is.

For more recent dates there's pottery and that's pretty well known. To a great extent one has to trust that these methods are reliable. I can understand the creationists suspicion that it's all a conspiracy and dates are fudged to agree with with what it expected and, if it turns out to support creationism, the dates are revised.

I have heard that samples are submitted blind and there is no expectation of what the date might be, though it's hard to believe that the people who got bits of the Shroud didn't know what they'd been given!

I have also seen one or two examples of people who were given samples that returned dates that didn't quite fit and then a revised date was supplied later. That would certainly feed the dating conspiracy theory.

As opposed to this, the other methods, going by Bible genealogy, seems open to much more than a 150 - year =/- error, when lifetimes are estimated at 900 years.

Of course, if a bit of waterlogged tree root from off the coast of India where a sunken antedeluvian city is reputed to be, gives a date of 10,000 B.C the C14 date is as true as Holy Writ. However, it shouldn't be about Creationist or science preferences but about how provenly reliable the methods are.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2009 at 02:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 03:55 AM
 
Location: Brussels, Belgium
970 posts, read 1,697,847 times
Reputation: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstborn888 View Post
Thanks for a pointed yet respectful post AREQUIPA.

So do claims made by Bible believers about inaccurate dating methods have any validity? (the dating of fossils I mean - not the other kind of dating). Lord knows I've heard those claims many many times.
Well no. I mean, of course no dating method will give a 100% accurate date - there's always a specified margin of error (1% for the age of the Earth, according to Wikipedia). It's also possible that a particular fossil has been mis-dated because scientists forgot to take into account some very special conditions in which it was preserved. And it's not inconceivable that the error margin of a particular method turns out to be few percent higher than previously thought.

However, what YEC are claiming is that all long-term dating methods are wrong by a factor of more than 45 million. And none of the millions of scientists that have been using and studying these methods for years have noticed.

If that was true, given that the science on which radiometric dating is based is also in use in nuclear power plants, I think we'd have more pressing worries than proving evolution wrong .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 05:31 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,491,140 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan View Post
Well no. I mean, of course no dating method will give a 100% accurate date - there's always a specified margin of error (1% for the age of the Earth, according to Wikipedia). It's also possible that a particular fossil has been mis-dated because scientists forgot to take into account some very special conditions in which it was preserved. And it's not inconceivable that the error margin of a particular method turns out to be few percent higher than previously thought.

However, what YEC are claiming is that all long-term dating methods are wrong by a factor of more than 45 million. And none of the millions of scientists that have been using and studying these methods for years have noticed.

If that was true, given that the science on which radiometric dating is based is also in use in nuclear power plants, I think we'd have more pressing worries than proving evolution wrong .

Well when you say it that way, it makes it all seem kind of silly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 06:01 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,342,306 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplight View Post
I bolded a phrase here that's extremely important, just as I did with Gee's comments. I'll just leave it at that, because it's painfully obvious that anymore typing would go to waste. For the record, I would love to see how Gee would respond to your interpretation of his comments. I'd pay fifty American dollars to see it in person or on video, in fact. If anyone can figure out how to arrange this, please do.
In my view, science should (and must) be animated by that spirit of untrammelled free enquiry: people will be surer about a conclusion if they have discovered it for themselves, than if they are told by an authority that it is so, and that’s that. It occurs to me that peer-review fulfils this function – the reviewer is there to pick holes in the authority of the experimenter, so you don’t have to, time being limited. In the esoteric field of phylogenetic systematics, the cladists were motivated by an urge to make science democratic, to allow anyone to test hypotheses of evolutionary relationship, rather than bowing to the authority of old-fashioned evolutionary storytelling (I explore this in my book Deep Time). In short, science is the ultimate democracy – it belongs to everyone, whether they are a Nobel laureate or the merest schoolchild. Nobody should be afraid to ask a silly question. - Henry Gee

Ashtrays and Authority - I, Editor - Henry Gee's blog on Nature Network

He even talks about his own daughters studying of Evolution. If the man doesn't believe in evolution, why is he telling his daughter to study it.

He doesn't support Intelligent design, but he does support your asking the question about it. He wants the information to be peer reviewed, something that ID and Creationists can't have, because it always disproves their argument.

Here is another interesting video


YouTube - Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists

Notice that these scientists say that Evolution has wholes, but they explain why evolution is accepted as fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 08:23 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,956,552 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
I just came back from travelling and find C34 up to his usual. He's as reliable as the Geological Column! Not matter how deep we dig here, we'lll always find a fossilized mind at work!

I rebuked Tom's nonsense, out-of-context claims of Henry Gee's commentary about 6 days ago, and posted links and quotes that showed what Gee really meant.

C34 did not respond.

I've asked Tom which particular part of the known and proven component parts of evolution he would like to pick apart in detail. Which process is incorrect.

He did not respond.

He knows he cannot compete with the truth do goes off to find another windmill to tilt at, finding instead some tripe presented by AiG or the Creationist Institute to bolster some perceived flaw in our thinking.

This, somehow, discredits ALL the vast array of scientifically (i.e.: logically and painstakingly) refined and accredited information)????

I mean,if we're simply keeping a vote score of reliable evidence versus the occasional misgivings of a scarce minority, who wins then, Tom?

(Especially, as I clearly showed 6 days ago, [and you ignored, of course] you quote-mine and purposefully mis-quote Henry Gee's intent. Impressive!)

Your single case does nothing to rebuke evolution, and any honest evaluation of the basics we know of in it's simple, logical processes can only led to inevitable acceptance.

Well, except by you. Stubborn boy!

(Oh BTW, Tom, in a few weeks a few thousand more graduate biologists will graduate in the US and Canada alone, all accepting evolution for the truth it is. Evidence does not lie. Meantime, the number of Christian acolytes who claim to have access to the truth diminishes. Soon, purposeful denialism will be dead. Long live denialism!)




Under the post, SCEINTIST UNVEIL MISSING LINK IN EVOLUTION (EVIDENCE,EVOLUTION,DIFFERENT,PROOF) Post 247
rifleman states.

There's nothing "missing" any more; no necessary links. Rather, we simply put newly found pieces of the puzzle into their correct positions, but we already know what the overall picture is going to look like. Just like on the front of the ***-saw box. All this is without contest from rational men and woman.

Henry Gee editor of Nature states.

Fossils are isolated points in deep time and (CAN NEVER) be linked with certainty. The fossil evidence is unable to support evolutionary narratives. These scenario's can never be tested by experiment and so are (UNSCIENTIFIC!) Traditional palaeontology (IS STORY TELLING). We can never be certain that Archaeopteryx is the missing link between birds and dinosaurs.

So rifleman, when Henry Gee states fossils (CAN NEVER BE LINKED TOGETHER WITH CERTAINTY,) do you agree with Gee? Or do you believe what you stated back on post (247). You stated there, "we simply put newly found pieces of the puzzel into their correct positions,"

It's pretty obvious according to Gee, you can never be sure what those correct positions are.

Perhaps Henry Gee, is not one of those rational men you speak about at the end of your post? Because it appears to me, he does not imbrace your posted view.

(Oh BTW rifleman, a recent Poll finds more Americans believe in the devil than in Darwin. And that figure has remained unchanged since the question was asked back in 2005. And those thousands of students who will graduated, will they be teaching the Old Theory of Evolution, or the New Theory that states there is no fossil evidence to prove it's reality?

Last edited by Campbell34; 09-03-2009 at 08:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,891,958 times
Reputation: 3767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Under the post, SCEINTIST UNVEIL MISSING LINK IN EVOLUTION (EVIDENCE,EVOLUTION,DIFFERENT,PROOF) Post 247
rifleman states.

There's nothing "missing" any more; no necessary links. Rather, we simply put newly found pieces of the puzzle into their correct positions, but we already know what the overall picture is going to look like. Just like on the front of the ***-saw box. All this is without contest from rational men and woman.

Henry Gee editor of Nature states.

Fossils are isolated points in deep time and (CAN NEVER) be linked with certainty. The fossil evidence is unable to support evolutionary narratives. These scenario's can never be tested by experiment and so are (UNSCIENTIFIC!) Traditional palaeontology (IS STORY TELLING). We can never be certain that Archaeopteryx is the missing link between birds and dinosaurs.

So rifleman, when Henry Gee states fossils (CAN NEVER BE LINKED TOGETHER WITH CERTAINTY,) do you agree with Gee? Or do you believe what you stated back on post (247). You stated there, "we simply put newly found pieces of the puzzel into their correct positions," It's pretty obvious according to Gee, you can never be sure what those correct positions are.

Perhaps Henry Gee, is not one of those rational men you speak about at the end of your post? Because it appears to me, he does not imbrace your posted view.

(Oh BTW rifleman, a recent Poll finds more Americans believe in the devil than in Darwin. And that figure has remained unchanged since the question was asked back in 2005. And those thousands of students who will graduated, will they be teaching the Old Theory of Evolution, or the New Theory that states there is no fossil evidence to prove it's reality?
It's simple, Tom. I speak for literally millions of accredited biologists, engineers and astronomers. You've mis-quoted one guy's thoughtful musings and have placed it here as some sort of absolute proof at evolution does not exist.

So: Your score: one misquote versus millions who know what's going on. You lose.

I stand by my statement. All of credible science, and all those newly minted graduates who annually pour from the system you no doubt hate, all know that evolution is a fact.

Again; we have the process, the biochemistry and the fossils and living organisms. We know how DNA replicates, how little errors [called "mutations] creep in to the organism's genome, or are forced by external events (radiation, chemicals, etc.). We no have the irrefutible evidence of DNA lineage tracking which shows where we came from (lesser animals when we go back far enough). We know the entire idea of an earth that's only 6 -10,000 years old is entirely bogus because we can count sedimentary deposition layers that are at least 100 million years old. Even with an outrageous and impossible error rate of, say, 50%, that still totally debunks the 6-10k allowance for the Creationist fairy tale.

At that point, to suggest that some organism would not utilize a distinct advantage would be like saying you would not pick up a $20 bill the wind blew by in front of you.

Apparently you'd say "There is no wind! There is no $20. There is nothing but The Lord! I'll ignore the $20! Praise the Lord!"

In other words, you callously ignore what's right in front of you.

So. We need no missing link. We found them all is why! I also note that most everything you post, dug up on a fundy webiste of course, is at least 20, and usually, 40 years old. Kinda old stuff, wouldn't you say?

As I challenged you once before, Tom, I dare you to come up with info that refutes current science that is no older than 3 years. Betcha can't!

I could care less about the numbers of scientifically illiterate who love to demonize a man who had the incredible insight to step away from Christian dogma and realize what was going on. My point is, and remains; millions of new minds graduate each year knowing that creationism is fantasy and that evolution is how the diversity of organisms arrived on this planet. And of course, they will contribute to an ever-more accurate and provable description, down to the nitty-gritty details you count on to disprove the entirety of our knowledge. Sorry; that one's old and withered.

The complex interactions that define evolution's processes and outcomes, and how adaptation to genetic variation will function within the greater bios is full of little intricacies that no doubt ellude your comprehension skills, you having no training nor interest in the life sciences. You, like all children of God, prefer fantasy and fairy tales.

It shows in your endlessly desperate strategies, lies and mis-quotes. I'd be thoroughly ashamed to be so effusive and dishonest if I were you, but then, I"m not am I?

Last edited by rifleman; 09-03-2009 at 08:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,342,306 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Under the post, SCEINTIST UNVEIL MISSING LINK IN EVOLUTION (EVIDENCE,EVOLUTION,DIFFERENT,PROOF) Post 247
rifleman states.

There's nothing "missing" any more; no necessary links. Rather, we simply put newly found pieces of the puzzle into their correct positions, but we already know what the overall picture is going to look like. Just like on the front of the ***-saw box. All this is without contest from rational men and woman.

Henry Gee editor of Nature states.

Fossils are isolated points in deep time and (CAN NEVER) be linked with certainty. The fossil evidence is unable to support evolutionary narratives. These scenario's can never be tested by experiment and so are (UNSCIENTIFIC!) Traditional palaeontology (IS STORY TELLING). We can never be certain that Archaeopteryx is the missing link between birds and dinosaurs.

So rifleman, when Henry Gee states fossils (CAN NEVER BE LINKED TOGETHER WITH CERTAINTY,) do you agree with Gee? Or do you believe what you stated back on post (247). You stated there, "we simply put newly found pieces of the puzzel into their correct positions,"

It's pretty obvious according to Gee, you can never be sure what those correct positions are.

Perhaps Henry Gee, is not one of those rational men you speak about at the end of your post? Because it appears to me, he does not imbrace your posted view.

(Oh BTW rifleman, a recent Poll finds more Americans believe in the devil than in Darwin. And that figure has remained unchanged since the question was asked back in 2005. And those thousands of students who will graduated, will they be teaching the Old Theory of Evolution, or the New Theory that states there is no fossil evidence to prove it's reality?
Did you read the post by Henry Gee that I put in my post a little earlier? The man doesn't believe in creationism, he simply wants its to be able to be debated, peer reviewed, and then judged.

Of course, creationists don't want this, because everytime they provide evidence for peer review, their evidence is quickly diproven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:36 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top