Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, really, lots of, probably most creationists are
honest enough. it is, though, impossible to be both informed and honest.

Exhibit A would be Dr. K Wise, a paleontologist.

"If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Please note that I used qualifiers and said most creationists are a combination of not being honest and ignorant. That means that there is range from honest and ignorant to dishonest and educated, Kurt Wise would clearly fall into the latter category. And yes, I agree that most are "honest enough" but that is only because they do not debate the issue. One can't debate this issue and remain honest. One has to lie to oneself at the very least once exposed to the endless evidence for the theory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution supporters certainly do love the word “tend”, don’t they?

I simply have not had time to post the support for two reasons. One, I have this thing I call “a life”, and two, a a Jew, I don’t post on Sabbath and had this holiday of Passover to do. I will post it soon as I can. You are free to close your mind instead of waiting to read it, of course. But that doesn’t mean you’re right.

You seem to be here now. Why not just just include the evidence in your post?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Evolution supporters certainly do love the word “tend”, don’t they?

Scientists like tentative terms because they are not dogmatists.

I simply have not had time to post the support for two reasons. One, I have this thing I call “a life”, and two, a a Jew, I don’t post on Sabbath and had this holiday of Passover to do. I will post it soon as I can. You are free to close your mind instead of waiting to read it, of course. But that doesn’t mean you’re right.

People who don't have the evidence they claim to have also tend to make these types of excuses.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You very very obviously have never been able to think the way I do, nor do you have anything remotely resembling my background, so dont bother pretending you do, and then acting as if you have gone beyond into deeper
understanding. You do not, and have not.

Another difference, I dont make things up.

You made up the "Scandal" that you were talking about.

And then misrepresent some words from a kiddie-science site to
try to smokescreen what you did.

True enough--I can hardly replicate your stance, since when I was a skeptic I neither persecuted Christians nor was an ever-half-empty glass on life issues.

 

[BilliardsBall]

BilliardsBall that just states how they go about it. And if I look at books from 50 years ago it seems using such methods produced very good results. While finding thousands more skeletons they have added to the numbers but what was presented back then has remained very stable.



But in many cases entire skeletons are found. And in others thousands of overlapping parts from multiple animals. Can't see what the problem is. We build our knowledge over time. I see no great scandle.

Is that the only article you can point to?

How many articles are required for you to understand this is routine? Sayak said it's a part of what is done...

 

[Audie]

True enough--I can hardly replicate your stance, since when I was a skeptic I neither persecuted Christians nor was an ever-half-empty glass on life issues.

I see-you cannot replicate my stance about not making things up.
I noticed that.

That bit about persecuting Christians and half empty glass is out of the blue,
has nothing to do with what I said,. It appears to be a grab for the high ground, which is not yours to grab.

For lo, you made up that thing about a "scandal" and, as I pointed out,
tried a smokescreen to get out of it.

Do you think your god would condone making things up and then evading
responsibility for it?

How about you show us the "Scandal" or admit you made it up.

(and dont again pretend you are the least bit like me. you are not)

 

[Audie]

How many articles are required for you to understand this is routine? Sayak said it's a part of what is done...

Just one (not from AIG or the like)will do. Just one about a scandal.

I know very well what is done in a paleo prep lab.
I have worked there myself. You?

You claimed a scandal, some sort of dishonesty.
But you just made it up, right?

 

[Nigel Hoath]

How many articles are required for you to understand this is routine? Sayak said it's a part of what is done...

But you posted as though you had some knowledge!!! Then you just hide posting any random link. Either post something that supports your point or be honest enough to say "sorry I was mistaken".

So I repeat where is your evidense of the scandal?

 

[Audie]

But you posted as though you had some knowledge!!! Then you just hide posting any random link. Either post something that supports your point or be honest enough to say "sorry I was mistaken".

So I repeat where is your evidense of the scandal?

All this goes, as they like to say in TV shows,
to the credibility of the witness.

Nothing else should be discussed with the "witness"
until this matter is clarified.

Prediction: the use of the word was his choice,
and his choice to consider the use of,
say, some manufactured ribs to fill out an
incomplete skeleton for display is
"scandalous".

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you posted as though you had some knowledge!!! Then you just hide posting any random link. Either post something that supports your point or be honest enough to say "sorry I was mistaken".

So I repeat where is your evidense of the scandal?

Seeking it, I remember some New York articles I read there that people were taken way back when they learned most of the fossils in the Museum of Natural History were CSI-made. That is, you might have 5% fossil and 95% best guess per specimen.

 

[Audie]

Seeking it, I remember some New York articles I read there that people were taken way back when they learned most of the fossils in the Museum of Natural History were CSI-made. That is, you might have 5% fossil and 95% best guess per specimen.

Well, this is not true, and, there is no scandal.

Your credibility is shrinking to zero if you cannot just accept that you are wrong,
and cannot back your absurd claim of a scandal.

 

[sayak83]

Seeking it, I remember some New York articles I read there that people were taken way back when they learned most of the fossils in the Museum of Natural History were CSI-made. That is, you might have 5% fossil and 95% best guess per specimen.

This is ridiculous. No specimen is shown unless enough bones are recovered for a reasonably trustworthy forensic reconstruction. I have been to the NY museum, its excellent presentation of science.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you posted as though you had some knowledge!!! Then you just hide posting any random link. Either post something that supports your point or be honest enough to say "sorry I was mistaken".

So I repeat where is your evidense of the scandal?

I do have some knowledge, from memory, I've been seeking the article, since it was local to NYC, where I no longer reside.

Do you have evidence that I care for you, despite no official articles? I believe you do.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, this is not true, and, there is no scandal.

Your credibility is shrinking to zero if you cannot just accept that you are wrong,
and cannot back your absurd claim of a scandal.

I'm currently seeking those local articles I read, as I know longer reside in NYC. I knew from childhood that many, not all, fossils in museums are at least partial reconstructions, thus allowing original specimens to remain in working laboratories, but I remember people being fairly ticked off to find most everything in MONH NYC and elsewhere are really close to 95% reconstructed fantasies.

This is a riff on the evolutiondidit fantasies of even modern paleontology and evolutionary biology. I say this humbly to you.

 

[Audie]

I do have some knowledge, from memory, I've been seeking the article, since it was local to NYC, where I no longer reside.

Do you have evidence that I care for you, despite no official articles? I believe you do.

Shall we assume, then, despite there being no article, and no "scandal" you will continue to bring this up from
time to time as evidence of something wrong with
the science of ToE in general, and paleontology in particular?

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is ridiculous. No specimen is shown unless enough bones are recovered for a reasonably trustworthy forensic reconstruction. I have been to the NY museum, its excellent presentation of science.

It is an excellent museum, however good specimens often remain in working labs. Ring the museum--I know if I do, I will be less than trusted, and ask re: percentages. Or you see more at these resources:

https://www.quora.com/When-you-see-...ld-are-they-real-bones-held-together-by-wires

Which exhibits in a museum are genuine?

 

[Audie]

I'm currently seeking those local articles I read, as I know longer reside in NYC. I knew from childhood that many, not all, fossils in museums are at least partial reconstructions, thus allowing original specimens to remain in working laboratories, but I remember people being fairly ticked off to find most everything in MONH NYC and elsewhere are really close to 95% reconstructed fantasies.

This is a riff on the evolutiondidit fantasies of even modern paleontology and evolutionary biology. I say this humbly to you.

Ok so your "scandal" is backed by a vague memory or some people being "ticked off".

So there no demonstrable basis to there being a 'scandal". Shouldnt you take down that claim?

That goes also for your statement that "most everything in MONH NYC and elsewhere are really close to 95% reconstructed fantasies.".

You have no demonstrable basis for this claim either do you?

Give us even one (1) example, if you can.

 

[Audie]

It is an excellent museum, however good specimens often remain in working labs. Ring the museum--I know if I do, I will be less than trusted, and ask re: percentages. Or you see more at these resources:

https://www.quora.com/When-you-see-...ld-are-they-real-bones-held-together-by-wires

Which exhibits in a museum are genuine?

quote from link 2 in your post

Visitors are often confounded by the idea that some specimens are not originals, but this does not make them fake or guesswork

There is a T res skeleton to be seen in most every museum around the world
that wants one.

If you know what to look for, you will see that they are all the same
individual.

In what sense is the one in Berlin not "genuine", when the original is in Chicago?

Is there a problem with copies? Does it make creationism real, and science fake?

As in, if you have a point to make what is it?

 

[sayak83]

It is an excellent museum, however good specimens often remain in working labs. Ring the museum--I know if I do, I will be less than trusted, and ask re: percentages. Or you see more at these resources:

https://www.quora.com/When-you-see-...ld-are-they-real-bones-held-together-by-wires

Which exhibits in a museum are genuine?

Its silly to expect actual bones openly in exhibit. They are too valuable and fragile. However, become a part of an amateur paleontology group and reserve a private visit to the backroom lockers. There you would see the actual bones kept in storage.

 

[Audie]

Its silly to expect actual bones openly in exhibit. They are too valuable and fragile. However, become a part of an amateur paleontology group and reserve a private visit to the backroom lockers. There you would see the actual bones kept in storage.

A mistake to always expect that, anyway. There are a great many originals on display.

I have been trying to figure out what it is that is the
grain on fact in the assertion of a scandal.

I think it is in the idea that some people were ticked off when they found out they were mistaken in their belief
that all displayed fossils are originals.

And, well, maybe they were. How this affects the
validity of ToE has not been explained.