40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago

[Sonic247]

The point is that if I did you would work for as long as it took to explain it away. Everyone will go to great lengths to defend what they believe.

news.nationalgeographic.com/.../1010_021010_dinomummy.html

 

[tumbleweed41]

The point is that if I did you would work for as long as it took to explain it away. Everyone will go to great lengths to defend what they believe

On the contrary. If you did, I would do an immense amount of research to see if your claim panned out. If it did pan out I would want to know why mainstream evolutionary biology was practicing such bad science and expose it myself here and in other forums and blogs.

And how is this...
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../1010_021010_dinomummy.html

related to an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

 

[Sonic247]

Maybe you are just assuming somethings true because evolutionary scientists say it is. And I doubt that everything tested is run through all those verifying tests with the same results.

 

[Sonic247]

On the contrary. If you did, I would do an immense amount of research to see if your claim panned out. If it did pan out I would want to know why mainstream evolutionary biology was practicing such bad science and expose it myself here and in other forums and blogs.

And how is this...
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../1010_021010_dinomummy.html

related to an example of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.

What is “gobsmacking” about this find is that given the millions of years this dinosaur has supposedly been dead, these soft tissue structures should absolutely not be there anymore. What is known empirically about Dakota, Leonardo,4 “B. rex,” and other dinosaur remains is that they contain organic molecules, including either intact or partially-decayed proteins from the original dinosaur.

Maybe this is from a creation scientist, but so what: He got his masters like anyone else. Why should anything said by a scientist that believes be invalid, or even slightly more invalid.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Any research that must conform to predisposed conclusions, and discards or ignores any findings that conflict with with these conclusions is the worst type of bad science.

People studying evolution do the same thing.

Of course they will rationalize it in the same way creationist scientists do to match what they believe. But when their radio isatope dating ends up being younger then it should be they assume there is something wrong with the machine. Or if something is in a rock layer where it shouldn't exist yet they will ignore it.

The point is that if I did you would work for as long as it took to explain it away. Everyone will go to great lengths to defend what they believe.

news.nationalgeographic.com/.../1010_021010_dinomummy.html

Maybe you are just assuming somethings true because evolutionary scientists say it is. And I doubt that everything tested is run through all those verifying tests with the same results.

So then, you do not have any examples of an accepted scientific conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence?

All you have are guesses and doubts? Yet you still feel confident enough to make the claim of "People studying evolution do the same thing"?

 

[Sonic247]

It's the one above you. Just an example of the process evidence goes through.

 

[Sonic247]

There was great hope for evolutionary thinking after it was popularized by Darwin. Now it is being streched thin after not finding the millions of intermediate species Darwin predicted. But it is to strong of an ideology now. I don't know how many would admit it but there pride would be hurt if they were convinced evolution is wrong. They are far from objective.

 

[Tristesse]

Maybe you are just assuming somethings true because evolutionary scientists say it is. And I doubt that everything tested is run through all those verifying tests with the same results.

Unlike religion, where people make appeals to authority. The scientific method doesn't work that way.

 

[johnhanks]

There was great hope for evolutionary thinking after it was popularized by Darwin. Now it is being streched thin after not finding the millions of intermediate species Darwin predicted.

Could you please give me a page reference in the Origin where Darwin predicted how many millions of intermediate species we should find? And, specifically, show me how the number of intermediate forms we have found falls short of the figure in question?

 

[Sonic247]

Not exactly the same way. But the title "scientist" can be compared to "prophet." If a group of scientists says something it is true. Of course the scientific method is pure in itself, but people assume to quickly that scientists follow it objectively.

 

[Sonic247]

Could you please give me a page reference in the Origin where Darwin predicted how many millions of intermediate species we should find? And, specifically, show me how the number of intermediate forms we have found falls short of the figure in question?

Are you implying he didn't say that or just trying to bog me down with busy work?

 

[johnhanks]

Not exactly the same way. But the title "scientist" can be compared to "prophet." If a group of scientists says something it is true.

Look, there's drivel, and there's abject drivel. What you have written here is the latter.

If a group of scientists says something it is subject to test. If it fails the test, it is gone. Look up 'cold fusion' as a case in point.

 

[Tristesse]

There was great hope for evolutionary thinking after it was popularized by Darwin. Now it is being streched thin after not finding the millions of intermediate species Darwin predicted. But it is to strong of an ideology now. I don't know how many would admit it but there pride would be hurt if they were convinced evolution is wrong. They are far from objective.

Actually on the contrary, scientists revel in being proven wrong, or refining a hypothesis or theory. Nothing in science is unquestionable. In fact, questioning is encouraged. And as for the fossil record, first of all, it's amazing that we have any fossils. Fossils are incredible hard to find, because not all animals fossilize. And secondly, we have a very accurate fossil record of various different species. This whole business of "missing link" is a myth. If evolution were found wrong tomorrow, my pride wouldn't be hurt at all. But also, if evolution were found wrong that doesn't mean that some other hypothesis wins by default.

 

[Tristesse]

Not exactly the same way. But the title "scientist" can be compared to "prophet." If a group of scientists says something it is true. Of course the scientific method is pure in itself, but people assume to quickly that scientists follow it objectively.

No, you're mistaken. Scientists get into debates with each other over little nuances of theories or hypothesizes. It's nothing like a prophet. Because in science you are encouraged to find faults or mistakes in a theory, thats how science expands in knowledge. Science is not authoritarian!

 

[johnhanks]

Are you implying he didn't say that or just trying to bog me down with busy work?

I'm suggesting that nowhere in the Origin (or elsewhere) did Darwin specify how many millions of intermediate species we should find; hence, that there is no referent for determining whether the number of intermediate forms we have found falls short of that figure, as your post #467 implies.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What is “gobsmacking” about this find is that given the millions of years this dinosaur has supposedly been dead, these soft tissue structures should absolutely not be there anymore. What is known empirically about Dakota, Leonardo,4 “B. rex,” and other dinosaur remains is that they contain organic molecules, including either intact or partially-decayed proteins from the original dinosaur.

Maybe this is from a creation scientist, but so what: He got his masters like anyone else. Why should anything said by a scientist that believes be invalid, or even slightly more invalid.

Well, first of all, he ignores the actual findings of the "Dino Mummy".

"His fossilized skeleton is covered in soft tissue—skin, scales, muscle, foot pads—and even his last meal is in his stomach. The actual tissue has decayed over the millennia, and has been replaced by minerals. What's left for scientists to study is a fossil of a dinosaur mummy."
"Mummified" Dinosaur Discovered In Montana

In the "Dino Mummy", the soft tissue has decayed and been replaced by minerals, known as permineralization. Scientists can study the soft tissue of Leonardo because the actual structure of the tissue has been preserved by minerals which have replaced the tissue, and retained the original form of the tissue. The original tissue, however, is long gone. The so called "mummy" is nothing more than a fossil.

Your Creation Scientist ignores the permineralization and claims organics that are not there.

This is an example of a creation "science" conclusion about biological evolution that is the result of ignoring overwhelming evidence.​

 

[Tristesse]

Are you implying he didn't say that or just trying to bog me down with busy work?

Darwin never predicted how many fossils will be found. Fossils are not easy to find. But without the fossil record evolution is still confirmable. We have dna and also the genome.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Are you implying he didn't say that or just trying to bog me down with busy work?

Do not make a claim without being prepared to back it up.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I am also amazed that Brian Thomas, Masters in Science (No specialty is mentioned in any of his bios) ignores the millions of fossilized Dinosaurs that consistently show an age well beyond the appearance of humans on the Earth, and instead focuses on the "mummy" to try and "prove" a young earth.
And while his attempt is an abysmal failure, it is akin to dumping a bag of multicolored M&Ms in your hand, finding one white one, and concluding that they all must be white.

 

[Jose Fly]

The other part of it is, creationists make it seem like when they cracked open the bones of these fossils, bone marrow and other "soft tissue" came oozing out, looking fresh or something.

The reality is something different entirely. If you read the actual papers and reports (something creationists are loathe to do), you'll see what I'm talking about.