Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

my my my talk about staunch whatever you are -- relentless -- but you know that's ok because yes, it's teaching me something. (Thanks.)

Did you happen to learn that your "gotcha" evidence isn't so much?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The line that showed me that the writers of the article did not have a clue was this one:

"The initial age of the horse remains suggested this mare was wild; such horses lived in North America from about 50 million to 10,000 years ago"

Horses did evolve in North America, but the modern horse is only 3.5 million years old:

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

Now the horse was estimated to be of certain age by where it was buried. But do you know what scientists do? They double check their dates. By the date given it sounds like they finally used carbon dating on it. Recent life can be carbon dated. The original estimate was 14,000 to 16,000 years ago. But guess what? 365 yeas is long enough to carbon date too. It was well within the bracket of when one can carbon date such a relic. And they found that was recent. It was not the find that they hoped for.

Though that date was possible since horses still probably existed in North America at that time:

American Horses ~ Horses in North America: A Comeback Story | Blog | Nature | PBS

They went the distance on this. Radiometric dating, analysis of skeletal morphology and DNA testing. They went full on multidisciplinary.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that the flooding of the Tigris, Euphrates system that I linked earlier is a more likely culprit. The Black Sea flood buried a lot of cities. But cities cannot move. It took about a year for it to occur flowing into an already good sized body of water. The advance would have been slow but relentless. A flood that people could have easily have walked away from, but the hones where they lived could not .

I'm still sort of fond of the Black Sea origin, but it could be a mix of flood stories that winnowed down into one legend out of Mesopotamia that ruled them all. The Lord of the Floods and the one myth that ruled them all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The line that showed me that the writers of the article did not have a clue was this one:

"The initial age of the horse remains suggested this mare was wild; such horses lived in North America from about 50 million to 10,000 years ago"

Horses did evolve in North America, but the modern horse is only 3.5 million years old:

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

Now the horse was estimated to be of certain age by where it was buried. But do you know what scientists do? They double check their dates. By the date given it sounds like they finally used carbon dating on it. Recent life can be carbon dated. The original estimate was 14,000 to 16,000 years ago. But guess what? 365 yeas is long enough to carbon date too. It was well within the bracket of when one can carbon date such a relic. And they found that was recent. It was not the find that they hoped for.

Though that date was possible since horses still probably existed in North America at that time:

American Horses ~ Horses in North America: A Comeback Story | Blog | Nature | PBS

Not the "Gotcha!" moment I think it was perceived to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you happen to learn that your "gotcha" evidence isn't so much?

What I have found is that people like you continually put down people like me. But! you have a good night. (Good night.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not the "Gotcha!" moment I think it was perceived to be.

It never is. Creationists are too used to thinking in their terms. Dogma must be followed. In the science the "dogma" is at most "Trust, but verify". And if you want to be famous, show that a well accepted idea is wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do you even know that it was "scientists" that made the original estimates? They clearly were not experts in the field at all.

I wondered that too. Still do. I looked up the museum on the web. No reference to the scientific staff so no way to tell for sure, but I wonder if it was amateur enthusiasts or an overly enthusiastic professional that made the initial findings. It looks like a touristy place, so someone could have run with the initial conclusion to attract publicity.

 

[YoursTrue]

They went the distance on this. Radiometric dating, analysis of skeletal morphology and DNA testing. They went full on multidisciplinary.

Yes, after a while. And also mentioned if I understand it correctly, that many esteemed sources like museums have offered wrong dates as if that's that. Do I believe that they have done so? You betcha, and I'm not a betting person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I have found is that people like you continually put down people like me. But! you have a good night. (Good night.)

You have merely been getting your own back at you. This should not be personal but at times you do make it that way without realizing it.

When I offer to help you with the concept of evidence that is not an attack. It is a genuine offer because I am very sure that if you understood what is and what is not evidence you would have to change your arguments immensely. You might even realize that the theory of evolution is very factual.

 

[YoursTrue]

It never is. Creationists are too used to thinking in their terms. Dogma must be followed. In the science the "dogma" is at most "Trust, but verify". And if you want to be famous, show that a well accepted idea is wrong.

So a well accepted idea is wrong, at least the article presented shows that many museums have wrong dates related as if they were correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, after a while. And also mentioned if I understand it correctly, that many esteemed sources like museums have offered wrong dates as if that's that. Do I believe that they have done so? You betcha, and I'm not a betting person.

Wrong dates do happen at times. But they are the exception, rather than the rule. And do you know who finds that dates are wrong when errors are made?

And you would need to show that museums ignore corrections in dates.

When has this happened? Citation needed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I have found is that people like you continually put down people like me. But! you have a good night. (Good night.)

Where have I put you down? Should I lie and claim that you are bringing rock solid, dead on, case cracker accounts that put science in a corner? Or should I be honest and tell you that your incredulity, logical fallacies, baseless denial and this horse have put not dent one in the evidence, reasoning and explanatory power of the theory of evolution?

Did you or did you not think that this horse example was going to throw all dates into question and swing consensus to the beliefs of some random person? What if a person that believed in Thor had brought this up. You wouldn't suggest that we should all follow Thor would you?

I recall @nPeace gleefully claiming to you that posting what he believed is "truth" fell under the "the truth hurts" and you didn't protest how miserable and poor that application was.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have merely been getting your own back at you. This should not be personal but at times you do make it that way without realizing it.

When I offer to help you with the concept of evidence that is not an attack. It is a genuine offer because I am very sure that if you understood what is and what is not evidence you would have to change your arguments immensely. You might even realize that the theory of evolution is very factual.

IF I believed your evidence as I dare not say 'proof' of the theory of evolution, naturally I'd have to say the creation account is wrong. So when I offer information that shows errors or possibilities of contradictions among scientists, then you say I'm just wrong, dumb, uneducated, etc. OK, you don't say I'm dumb, you just use other words. Anyway -- it's ok. Yes, Genesis says man was created from the dust and the breath of life was put into his body. I realize the account sounds mystical, but I don't know how it was done or how the terms were used. And frankly, as I think about the construction of DNA, it seems less likely that the structure evolved by natural selection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So a well accepted idea is wrong, at least the article presented shows that many museums have wrong dates related as if they were correct.

The article did not say that the initial dating of this horse revealed that other museums had the wrong dates attributed to their findings. It suggested the possibility that some may and that information could remain hidden if so. Other findings should be re-analyzed to verify them. This was not a blanket condemnation of dating without only supposition to sustain it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrong dates do happen at times. But they are the exception, rather than the rule. And do you know who finds that dates are wrong when errors are made?

And you would need to show that museums ignore corrections in dates.

When has this happened? Citation needed.

It's in the article I linked. You say when it happened? Doesn't say, but mentions the following: "Our identification of the Lehi horse as an early domestic rather than an Ice Age horse suggests that prior misclassifications may have influenced museum collection practices and the interpretation of archaeological and paleontological assemblages, leading to gaps in the faunal record of Native horsemanship. Consequently, the reevaluation of horse skeletons in natural history collections, focusing on both osteological markers of human activity and biomolecular analyses, appears warranted—and such studies may significantly change our understanding of the timing and nature of early Indigenous horse use in the Americas." If I've interpreted this wrongly, let me know please.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

IF I believed your evidence as I dare not say 'proof' of the theory of evolution, naturally I'd have to say the creation account is wrong. So when I offer information that shows errors or possibilities of contradictions among scientists, then you say I'm just wrong, dumb, uneducated, etc. OK, you don't say I'm dumb, you just use other words. Anyway -- it's ok. Yes, Genesis says man was created from the dust and the breath of life was put into his body. I realize the account sounds mystical, but I don't know how it was done or how the terms were used. And frankly, as I think about the construction of DNA, it seems less likely that the structure evolved by natural selection.

The creation account is best viewed as an allegory. This frees people to turn their worship to God and not a story. It frees them from things like this one horse race where the winner couldn't even be picked without the help of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

The article did not say that the initial dating of this horse revealed that other museums had the wrong dates attributed to their findings. It suggested the possibility that some may and that information could remain hidden if so. Other findings should be re-analyzed to verify them. This was not a blanket condemnation of dating without only supposition to sustain it.

Well it certainly isn't a recommendation to believe all dates when presented. Furthermore, the writers and/or researchers certainly should be commended for their honesty, and yes, I believe the writers aptly centered their conclusions primarily on that type of horse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It never is. Creationists are too used to thinking in their terms. Dogma must be followed. In the science the "dogma" is at most "Trust, but verify". And if you want to be famous, show that a well accepted idea is wrong.

If I had a nickel.

You know, it took a while, but Harlen Bretz did just that in your neighborhood.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well it certainly isn't a recommendation to believe all dates when presented. Furthermore, the writers and/or researchers certainly should be commended for their honesty, and yes, I believe the writers aptly centered their conclusions primarily on that type of horse.

The writers of the scientific article in American Antiquity are from multiple different institutions and not associated with the museum from which the initial claim was made. They concluded that the horse was not a Pleistocene mare based on the evidence that came from their experiments on the skeletal remains.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well it certainly isn't a recommendation to believe all dates when presented. Furthermore, the writers and/or researchers certainly should be commended for their honesty, and yes, I believe the writers aptly centered their conclusions primarily on that type of horse.

It is certainly not an invitation to arbitrarily throw out all dates based on a desire to see a particular believed view be instituted as a fact either.