Are Scientists Lying about Evolution?

[Segev Moran]

you do know that Expelled has been thoroughly debunked and shown to be nothing more than fanciful fiction, right?

That's because none of their claims are valid...
Claiming something cannot be true because it is too complex is not a valid claim.
SHOW AND EVIDENCE that falsify Evolution, and no scientist in the world will be able to deny it!!!!!

If you have a valid claim that I am unaware of.. i would love hearing it...

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I think that most things don't get fossilized. Thus, if something is a fossil, it's an aberration. Accordingly, I don't understand why scientists love looking at known aberrations and saying, "This must be typical of all members of the species alive at that time." I just don't get how that follows.

I would be interested in knowing what makes you think that it takes aberrant examples of a species to create fossils.

 

[Segev Moran]

I agree, of course. My point is that a person CAN be educated in the areas you present and STILL believe the earth is 8 thousand years old. How that's reconciled in their mind is beyond me.

If we consider educated as literate about a subject.. then yes.. you can be a creationist and educated about evolution...
The thing is that most creations don't even bother learning what evolution really means because they know it goes against their belief.

If you really learn evolution, than claims like "There is no evidence" are obsolete.. there are thousands of evidence that they can see for yourself...
So i think that if one will truly study the evolution theory it will be very hard to deny it and still hold the claim that the earth is only a few thousands of years old...

There is a great debate with Bill Nye about evolution, where he explains using only common logic why the (biblical) creation story cannot be true especially if you consider the great flood from Noah's era.

 

[Zosimus]

I would be interested in knowing what makes you think that it takes aberrant examples of a species to create fossils.

All right–let's take it from the beginning to see where we disagree. I will post a few statements and you respond either agree or disagree. We'll take it from there.

1. Not every animal that dies is fossilized. Agree or disagree?
2. Accordingly, the animals that are fossilized are aberrations. Agree or disagree?
3. Since the fossils that exist are aberrations, there is no reason to believe that they are typical of the species as a whole. Agree or disagree?
4. Since fossils are not typical of the species as a whole, it is dangerous and misleading to make inferrences about the species as a whole from fossils. Agree or disagree?

 

[Zosimus]

I agree, of course. My point is that a person CAN be educated in the areas you present and STILL believe the earth is 8 thousand years old. How that's reconciled in their mind is beyond me.

It's not that hard, really. Let's set up a simple belief system.

Approximately 5775 years ago, God created the solar system from formless, chaotic matter that already existed.
The solar system, the Earth, and all life on it were made out of a special type of matter that never aged, broke down, wore out, or got old. Death was impossible.
Two special trees were created and planted in a garden where Adam, the first man, dwelt.
Although it was forbidden, Adam and his wife ate the fruit from one of the trees. After this happened, the type of matter changed from what it was before to what we see now.
Similarly, the laws of nature that governed the old type of matter were no longer valid for the new type of matter. Things aged, broke down, got old, wore out, and people could die.
----------------------
That's the base belief system. So now we have science. Science finds a rock and reasons:

Science: This rock contains a radioactive element. The rock also contains an element that is created when the radioactive element decays. Accordingly, we can do some calculations and reason that the amount of time for the "daughter" element to be created from the parent element is some 45,000 years.
Believer: Yes, but doesn't that violate the idea that the laws of nature changed 5,775 years ago?
Science: Well, yes, but we're assuming that this is just a fable invented by ignorant shepherds.
-----------------------

Okay! So you start by assuming that the belief system is false, then you reason around in a circle to prove the belief system false. Then you proclaim victory. It's nice, neat, and appeals well to those who already believe as you do.

It's just not likely to convince people who start out believing differently from you. Circular logic is not persuasive to most people.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I dig up a graveyard. Some humans buried there are still recognizable as human and many are just dust. Since not all humans are still recognizable, they are aberrations and cannot be representative of humanity as a whole?

 

[Zosimus]

I dig up a graveyard. Some humans buried there are still recognizable as human and many are just dust. Since not all humans are still recognizable, they are aberrations and cannot be representative of humanity as a whole?

Well, I see that someone doesn't want to play by the rules. You were supposed to say AGREE or DISAGREE with each claim so that we could see where the disagreement lies. Instead, you have tried to misrepresent the argument.

Naughty naughty.

Let's try this metaphor so you can see where I am coming from.

Someone goes into Egypt and starts digging. He finds only mummies that have been preserved with formaldehyde. He finds that the mummies have been buried with gold, treasure, food, and other riches.
He concludes that everyone who lived in Egypt some 5,000 years ago was rich, was buried with gold, treasure, and food, and was preserved with formaldehyde and mummification.

Is this a valid conclusion? Or is it just that the very rich were preserved in this way whereas the poor have decayed into dust by now?
---------------------
While we're at it, let's consider this question:

Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930
the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters
working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have
worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer's argument?

(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

 

[BSM1]

Like what? just for an Example?

Throw a dart...

 

[Brickjectivity]

Tell you what would be very good. It would be good if there were a way to easily explain that atomic decay rates have always been the same. I don't think there is. Its always explained Mathematically and assumed to be predictable. We derive decay rates with Math using initial condition problems. Do we know for sure why atoms age?

 

[Zosimus]

Tell you what would be very good. It would be good if there were a way to easily explain that atomic decay rates have always been the same. I don't think there is. Its always explained Mathematically and assumed to be predictable. We derive decay rates with Math using initial condition problems. Do we know for sure why atoms age?

Most pro-Darwin arguments rely on radioactive halos.

Radioactive halos prove the Earth is young.
no wait...
They prove the Earth is old.
No! The Earth is young!
No, The Earth is old!
Young!
Old!
Young!
Old!
Young!
Old!

Etc.

 

[Sapiens]

Tell you what would be very good. It would be good if there were a way to easily explain that atomic decay rates have always been the same. I don't think there is. Its always explained Mathematically and assumed to be predictable. We derive decay rates with Math using initial condition problems. Do we know for sure why atoms age?

Yes we do ... on a statistical basis.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes we do ... on a statistical basis.

Ok, but we are among the first generation of people to test the decay rates. It seems that we are extrapolating. What if the decay rates have changed?

 

[Zosimus]

Ok, but we are among the first generation of people to test the decay rates. It seems that we are extrapolating. What if the decay rates have changed?

Well, decay rates are believed to change depending on the number of neutrinos that the mineral in question encounters.

 

[Sapiens]

Ok, but we are among the first generation of people to test the decay rates. It seems that we are extrapolating. What if the decay rates have changed?

Then the cross-comparisons with things of known age would not agree and the technique would be abandoned.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, decay rates are believed to change depending on the number of neutrinos that the mineral in question encounters.

That is good news for other reasons. For example it suggests it may be possible to prevent fission. If you can speed up atomic aging, then perhaps we can also slow it down or block it. Imagine areas that could not be nuked.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Then the cross-comparisons with things of known age would not agree and the technique would be abandoned.

Makes sense. Some time I should sit down and make a spread sheet. It will be good for me.

 

[Zosimus]

Makes sense. Some time I should sit down and make a spread sheet. It will be good for me.

Here is an interesting article on radiometric dating. It is footnote 1 from the Wikipedia entry.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

All right–let's take it from the beginning to see where we disagree. I will post a few statements and you respond either agree or disagree. We'll take it from there.

1. Not every animal that dies is fossilized. Agree or disagree?

Agree.

2. Accordingly, the animals that are fossilized are aberrations. Agree or disagree?

I currently disagree. Because i do not understand why being an aberrant member of a species increases the likelihood of being fossilised.

3. Since the fossils that exist are aberrations, there is no reason to believe that they are typical of the species as a whole. Agree or disagree?
4. Since fossils are not typical of the species as a whole, it is dangerous and misleading to make inferences about the species as a whole from fossils. Agree or disagree?

I can not answer these question until you clarify question 2.

 

[Zosimus]

Agree.

So far so good.

I currently disagree. Because i do not understand why being an aberrant member of a species increases the likelihood of being fossilised.

What if I said that fossils are anomalies rather than aberrant? Then would you agree?

I can not answer these question until you clarify question 2.

Since the fossils are anomalies, there is no reason to believe that they are typical of the species/population as a whole.
Since the fossils are not necessarily typical of the species/population as a whole, drawing inferences from the fossils based on the assumption that they are typical is dangerous and counterproductive.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

What if I said that fossils are anomalies rather than aberrant? Then would you agree?

That would change the meaning of what you said.

What i am trying to figure out is if you mean:

A.) That the actual process of fossilisation requires a set of circumstances specific enough that the formation of a fossil is an anomaly?

or

B.) That the individuals who have been fossilised are morphologically different from the rest of its species?