Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

You are laboring under some serious misconceptions, Mr. Bond. Piltdown Man played little, if any role in evolutionary thinking. It was always held somewhat suspect by scientists. That is why it was carefully examined and found to be a fake. It was the evolutionary scientists themselves that documented this, not YEC people, by the way. The reason it took so long to carefully examine it, is that museums are always very reluctant to have any of their objects fiddled with by scientists.
I realize that some complain our origin is far too humble if we came from apes. However, consider the Bible. The Bible says God created us from dust. Isn't that a humble origin, being crated out of mere dust? So why should we complain if God created us out of monkeys?

My misconceptions? (Eyeball just rolled out of my sockets.) Got revisionist history? Where do you get these myths?

I mean why do you ignore the news and history? The story is from two days ago and Piltdown Man tricked a generation into believing in evolution (macroevolution) and we descended from apes.

Charles Dawson claimed to have found pieces of a human skull from a gravel pit in Piltdown, England. He also claimed that he found ape-like lower jaw with human-like teeth after additional digging. The two claimed finds were assigned to the same person who was said to be at least 500,000 years old. In 1912 it was announced that Darwin's missing link had been found. The discovery of Piltdown man was announced in the New York Times under the headline, "Darwin Theory Proved True".

The "find" was featured in textbooks and encyclopedias for the next four decades. It was assigned the name Eoanthropus dawsoni in honor of the discoverer. The scientists who worked on the fossil and verified its authenticity (Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum, Arthur Keith, and Grafton Elliot Smith) were all knighted. The British Museum displayed plaster casts of Piltdown Man viewed by thousands, which led to the ridicule of clergy who had denounced evolution.

In 1953 scientists subjected the find to chemical analysis which proved the ape-like jawbone was of recent origin. Close inspection also revealed file marks on the teeth, which had been shortened to make them appear human-like. In addition, the bones had been treated with chemicals to increase the appearance of their age. It was quickly concluded that the jaw had been intentionally planted, and bore no resemblance to the human skull, which was later determined to be from the Middle Ages. Later in 1982, collagen testing proved conclusively that the jawbone was from an Orangutan.

That was huge news. So, what did these evolution scientists do to counter that? They didn't do anything!!! I'm not trying to criticize, but are you so naive???

Next, what misconception are you referring to and why do you mention YEC? What did they have to do with finding a missing link?

Your last statement is the most perplexing. God did not create us from monkeys. He created us from dust, but what else did He use? The dust signifies what? It signifies uniqueness (no other creature was made from dust) and while lowly, what else made it of high order? Put t all together and what does it all mean? There is a significance to all of it. That's the key part. Piltdown Man is just more embarrassment fo the evos. They're usually wrong.

 

[ashkat1`]

Despite the sensationalistic headlines, Piltdown Man was suspect in many scientific quarters since day one ( e.g., Waterson, Boule, Weidenreich) and right up to 1951, when Montagu took a look at it and felt it wasn't genuine. That's why it was taken out of the case, a carefully examined and debunked in 1953.
Although important and interesting, Piltdown Man never was the centerpiece in evolutionary science or theory. Evolution doss not stand or fall with Piltdown Man. And s to debunked findings, you will find plenty in the YEC camp, such as the alleged human footprints with the dinosaurs. It's interesting here to observe that the evolutionary scientists were open to admit Piltdown was out. However, many YEC people continue to use the human-footprints-with dinosaurs argument, even though their contemporaries in the movement admit it has been debunked.
We don't know what God created the other creatures out of. The Bible doesn't tell us. Dust does not signify our uniqueness. It signifies our humble origins.

 

[james bond]

Parsimony, here's an example of a news article that is based all on evolution. It's misleading from my pov. If evolution is fact, then why tell us how many million years ago (66 million) the K-Pg extinction was? We should all know by now.

I'm impressed by the equipment and that they were able to go deep and retrieve the asteroid samples.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36377679

I think this is the drilling exploration company, so a lot of hyperbole but it list the compilation of news articles.

http://dosecc.com/about-us/news/

 

[james bond]

Despite the sensationalistic headlines, Piltdown Man was suspect in many scientific quarters since day one ( e.g., Waterson, Boule, Weidenreich) and right up to 1951, when Montagu took a look at it and felt it wasn't genuine. That's why it was taken out of the case, a carefully examined and debunked in 1953.
Although important and interesting, Piltdown Man never was the centerpiece in evolutionary science or theory. Evolution doss not stand or fall with Piltdown Man. And s to debunked findings, you will find plenty in the YEC camp, such as the alleged human footprints with the dinosaurs. It's interesting here to observe that the evolutionary scientists were open to admit Piltdown was out. However, many YEC people continue to use the human-footprints-with dinosaurs argument, even though their contemporaries in the movement admit it has been debunked.
We don't know what God created the other creatures out of. The Bible doesn't tell us. Dust does not signify our uniqueness. It signifies our humble origins.

You're keen on downplaying this as scientific evolution fraud. It's not the first time fraud was committed either. It wasn't just headlines, but revisions of history books and Darwin's Theory was true. I asked you what they did? Basically, they did nothing for over 40 years to voice their suspicions. The encyclopedia article I posted raised suspicious because no other fossils were found which is what I am saying now. What other transitional forms are we finding? To creation scientists, it's either ape or human. What evidence is there to think something else? I already showed that we can't have an ape-human hybrid by experiment. Yet, you can't get past your worldview and consider another view. I also showed that we can't new information in a genome by mutation to have a species rise to a new level above their current species. It's impossible, but yet evos are not convinced. They just ignore the scientific evidence. There's more and we can discuss as we go along.

If all these transitional forms were true, then we would see it and all believe in it. However, probably about 51% do not believe in evolution. That probably explains why we have to be told how old the fossils, earth, universe is in every news article.

The most recent find from last fall was homo naledi. Could that be a fraud just like Piltdown Man? I am skeptical, but we do not have all of the findings in yet. I'm still trying to gather all the facts.

I'll explain the dust next time. I'm going to bed.

 

[metis]

What is so disingenuous with some creationists (fortunately, not most of them in my experience), is that they repeatedly cite a single fraudulent incident (Piltdown in this case), which took place many decades ago, so as to discredit the entire ToE, and yet they are so hypocritical whereas how many cases of religious fraud have we seen over these same decades, and yet these same people don't use those to discredit their religion.

 

[james bond]

Good grief man, if you''re going to sling BS at least make it credible BS.


.

Since you can't answer the valid criticisms of racism with evolution ha ha...

I heard this a while ago, but just remembered it from you talking about bananas. Chimpanzees like to eat bananas and they can swing through trees quite well to get it. So, how do you explain their evolution -- one of them decides one day that walking to get food is better?

 

[Parsimony]

I want to discuss a couple of points in detail -- the homo naledi find and stratigraphy (before raidometric dating). We can come back to the rest after.

I did some minor digging into the homo naledi find. If we were to go spelunking (assuming we're both beginners), we would start with maps. Assuming we each had a map of how to get to our meeting place in South Africa, here is a map of the burial area.

While we're both beginning spelunkers, we know that it's common to find skeletons of animals and sometimes humans in the caves, caverns and places we visit. We also know that finding any fossil anywhere is rare even though it's not unheard of. We look at the above map of the burial chamber, roll our eyes and go that's not for us. So, we hire some professional spelunkers to go in, take video and pictures and explain their expedition and what they found. One, they have a steep descent just to go into the areas where one can walk. They would need equipment to do this such as:

It could be extreme, such as in the movie The Descent. The following is dramatized, but it does explain what can happen during extreme spelunking.

That's all the time I have for now. Will return probably in the evening.

Thanks for the map. Looks like them getting washed through "Dragon's Back" isn't particularly plausible. However, there is a new hypothesis based on manganese dioxide stains on the bones: that lichen once grew on the skeletons which points to light having been present in the Dinaledi chamber at some point. This, in turn, suggests that another entrance may have existed in the past (which is where the light is proposed to have come from). I had also thought of another possibility (although it doesn't explain the manganese dioxide), and that is that the group was chased into the cave by predators and ended up in the Dinaledi chamber because they were trying to find an alternative exit in order to avoid running into the predators again. Once in the chamber, they were trapped and starved. That's just another piece of speculation on my part.

Help me out here Parsimony. I assume you've taken a great deal of interest in homo naledi, so you probably know much more about it than I. I apologize if I was harsh in presenting my skepticism earlier. I should have added that the skeptics have questions since it is a puzzle.

Here are the statements from the Berger team, i.e. the pros we hired to make findings and report (I still want to use spelunking in my rebuttal, so hope I was able to set it up to everyone's understanding):

"This anatomical mosaic is reflected in different regions of the skeleton. The morphology of the cranium, mandible, and dentition is mostly consistent with the genus Homo, but the brain size of H. naledi is within the range of Australopithecus. The lower limb is largely Homo-like, and the foot and ankle are particularly human in their configuration, but the pelvis appears to be flared markedly like that of Au. afarensis. The wrists, fingertips, and proportions of the fingers are shared mainly with Homo, but the proximal and intermediate manual phalanges are markedly curved, even to a greater degree than in any Australopithecus. The shoulders are configured largely like those of australopiths. The vertebrae are most similar to Pleistocene members of the genus Homo, whereas the ribcage is wide distally like Au. afarensis.”4
Another mystery about the find is the ‘age’ of the bones.

In addition to the Berger et al. paper describing the morphology of the Homo naledi fossils, a companion paper by Dirks et al. was also published in the eLife online journal, which described the physical context of the Dinaledi Chamber within the Rising Star cave, where the fossils were found.5 One of the many big mysteries surroundingHomo naledi is how the fossil material got into the Dinaledi Chamber, with occupation, predator accumulation and water transport hypotheses considered unlikely, but mass mortality or death trap and deliberate body disposal scenarios considered plausible—the latter explanation preferred by the authors.6 Apparently the bones recovered so far represent only “a small portion of the total fossil content”, and “no other large animal remains were found in the chamber, and … the bodies had not been damaged by scavengers or predators”.7"

4 Berger, ref. 3, pp. 17–18.
5 Dirks, P.H.G.M. et al., Geological and taphonomic context for the new hominin species Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, eLife 4:e09561, 2015 | doi:10.7554/eLife.09561.
6. Dirks, ref. 5, pp. 28–30.
7. Dirks, ref. 5, pp. 1–2.

Looks like they are also suggesting alternatives to the burial hypothesis here. If there was another entrance, as suggested in the article I linked, I could see a flash flood or something washing a family of H. naledi into the the cave chamber where they drowned.

Parsimony, here's an example of a news article that is based all on evolution. It's misleading from my pov. If evolution is fact, then why tell us how many million years ago (66 million) the K-Pg extinction was? We should all know by now.

I'm impressed by the equipment and that they were able to go deep and retrieve the asteroid samples.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36377679

I think this is the drilling exploration company, so a lot of hyperbole but it list the compilation of news articles.

http://dosecc.com/about-us/news/

You really expect everyone to know all the important dates in the history of the Earth? A lot of people probably don't remember these things (much like how many of us forget the dates of historic events that we learned in history class). Even a shamefully large portion of the American public doesn't know that the Earth goes around the Sun. People not knowing the date of the dinosaur extinction being evidence against evolution is a massive non-sequitur. I can't even begin to follow that line of reasoning.

C. Sorry evolution and atheism go hand-in-hand. They're both religions.

What definition for "religion" are you using here? That one you posted earlier that said "a belief or activity that is very important to a person"? If that's true, then someone who thinks spending time with their family is very important is making a religion out of it. People who think freedom of speech is very important are making a religion out of it. In fact, each individual belief that is strongly held in a religion would then be its own distinct religion. So that definition is an impractically broad one.

I also showed that we can't new information in a genome by mutation to have a species rise to a new level above their current species.

You did nothing of the sort. You didn't even reply to my last statement about nylonase. Nylonase actually represents at least three new genes: nylA, nylB, and nylC. Each one has a slightly different function (by breaking down different forms of nylon oligomers) and together they can accomplish things that none of them alone can do (like breaking down complex oligomers into monomers). So here we have a series of mutations that (1) increased the total number of genes in the Flavobacterium genome, (2) gave it new adaptive functions that gives it an advantage over other strains in its environment, and (3) work synergetically to do things that each gene alone can't do.

Imagine that you have some kind of 3D printer, assembly line or some other construction machine. This machine builds a device based on a program in a computer. Now let's say that program has been modified such that your construction machine can now build three new devices that it could not build before and each of them have new functions which the original device did not have. When the program is examined, it is revealed to be longer than the original program and has a different digital sequence from the original program. How could anyone possibly be justified in saying that "this second program does not contain any information that the original program did not have". How can a machine build a new, functional device without any new information? That's exactly what you seem to be arguing with the nylonases. It's a case of a molecular machine with modified programming (mutated genes) producing new, synergetically-functional molecular devices (the three nylonase enzymes). If that doesn't fit your personal definition of new information, then your definition is irrelevant to evolution in the first place.

 

[Skwim]

It's in the news, mon.

Then how about pointing us to this news. None of us want to be kept in the dark. Or is this one of those "Look it up yourself" ploys; you knowing your statement is a fabrication and that we'll never be able to prove a negative?


.

 

[Parsimony]

Then how about pointing us to this news. None of us want to be kept in the dark. Or is this one of those "Look it up yourself" ploys; you knowing your statement is a fabrication and that we'll never be able to prove a negative?
.

Not to mention that "evolution is racist" is an argument from consequences fallacy (or argument from emotion fallacy) because that has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

 

[Skwim]

You're keen on downplaying this as scientific evolution fraud. It's not the first time fraud was committed either. It wasn't just headlines, but revisions of history books and Darwin's Theory was true. I asked you what they did? Basically, they did nothing for over 40 years to voice their suspicions. The encyclopedia article I posted raised suspicious because no other fossils were found which is what I am saying now. What other transitional forms are we finding? To creation scientists, it's either ape or human. What evidence is there to think something else? I already showed that we can't have an ape-human hybrid by experiment. Yet, you can't get past your worldview and consider another view. I also showed that we can't new information in a genome by mutation to have a species rise to a new level above their current species. It's impossible, but yet evos are not convinced. They just ignore the scientific evidence. There's more and we can discuss as we go along.

If all these transitional forms were true, then we would see it and all believe in it. However, probably about 51% do not believe in evolution. That probably explains why we have to be told how old the fossils, earth, universe is in every news article.

The most recent find from last fall was homo naledi. Could that be a fraud just like Piltdown Man? I am skeptical, but we do not have all of the findings in yet. I'm still trying to gather all the facts.

I'll explain the dust next time. I'm going to bed.

Ah yes, nothing like a solid anthropological source like a Jack Chick comic book. (CLICK ON BIG DADDY? TO SEE ITS CONTENTS)

http://foo.ca/wp/chick-tract-satire/whos-your-daddy/



.​

 

[ashkat1`]

You're keen on downplaying this as scientific evolution fraud. It's not the first time fraud was committed either. It wasn't just headlines, but revisions of history books and Darwin's Theory was true. I asked you what they did? Basically, they did nothing for over 40 years to voice their suspicions. The encyclopedia article I posted raised suspicious because no other fossils were found which is what I am saying now. What other transitional forms are we finding? To creation scientists, it's either ape or human. What evidence is there to think something else? I already showed that we can't have an ape-human hybrid by experiment. Yet, you can't get past your worldview and consider another view. I also showed that we can't new information in a genome by mutation to have a species rise to a new level above their current species. It's impossible, but yet evos are not convinced. They just ignore the scientific evidence. There's more and we can discuss as we go along.

If all these transitional forms were true, then we would see it and all believe in it. However, probably about 51% do not believe in evolution. That probably explains why we have to be told how old the fossils, earth, universe is in every news article.

The most recent find from last fall was homo naledi. Could that be a fraud just like Piltdown Man? I am skeptical, but we do not have all of the findings in yet. I'm still trying to gather all the facts.

I'll explain the dust next time. I'm going to bed.

The fact of the matter is that the Piltdown Man did not play a central role in evolutionary thinking. From the 20's onward, new discoveries, such as Java Man, seriously challenged Piltdown. In 1920, Teilhard de Chardin, who , as you know, worked on the dig, wrote but a short article on Piltdown Man. In 23 volumes of his later collected works, he mentions Piltdown Man less than a dozen times. One of the main reason why scientists wanted to carefully examine the Piltdown display was because solid evidence from the field was suggesting otherwise.
Many transitional fossils have been found and they are genuine.
Whether the laity dos or doe not believe in evolution or any other scientific concept is no measure of the validity of that concept.
When it comes to funny business, creation-science is no stranger to that. I have carefully studied this movement and find it is loaded with unqualified individuals sporting bogus credentials trying to make a dishonest living by creating a huge propaganda mill. Their claims have all been carefully reviewed by science and every one has been solidly debunked.

Also, I am not at all fond of talking with laity who think they are so much smarter and better equipped than all these scientists and therefore qualified to sit in judgment on them. Those are persons who have a very big ego, but unfortunately lack the intelligence to go along with it.

 

[james bond]

Thanks for the map. Looks like them getting washed through "Dragon's Back" isn't particularly plausible. However, there is a new hypothesis based on manganese dioxide stains on the bones: that lichen once grew on the skeletons which points to light having been present in the Dinaledi chamber at some point. This, in turn, suggests that another entrance may have existed in the past (which is where the light is proposed to have come from). I had also thought of another possibility (although it doesn't explain the manganese dioxide), and that is that the group was chased into the cave by predators and ended up in the Dinaledi chamber because they were trying to find an alternative exit in order to avoid running into the predators again. Once in the chamber, they were trapped and starved. That's just another piece of speculation on my part.

Looks like they are also suggesting alternatives to the burial hypothesis here. If there was another entrance, as suggested in the article I linked, I could see a flash flood or something washing a family of H. naledi into the the cave chamber where they drowned.

You really expect everyone to know all the important dates in the history of the Earth? A lot of people probably don't remember these things (much like how many of us forget the dates of historic events that we learned in history class). Even a shamefully large portion of the American public doesn't know that the Earth goes around the Sun. People not knowing the date of the dinosaur extinction being evidence against evolution is a massive non-sequitur. I can't even begin to follow that line of reasoning.

What definition for "religion" are you using here? That one you posted earlier that said "a belief or activity that is very important to a person"? If that's true, then someone who thinks spending time with their family is very important is making a religion out of it. People who think freedom of speech is very important are making a religion out of it. In fact, each individual belief that is strongly held in a religion would then be its own distinct religion. So that definition is an impractically broad one.

That's a good hypothesis and evidence. It still leaves the possibility of being chased by a animal predator and then being trapped or being bullied into their death chamber because they were lesser humans. suppose it could still be a burial chamber, but don't think the author is arguing that. So, the creation scientists are still waiting to hear from the Berger group. They even offered to pay to date a sample if they would provide one.

If it's a fact, then we'll probably know it like 9/11/01, 11/22/63 or use some mnemonic. 66 million years ago would represent the K-Pg dinosaur extinction. I think they taught my kids that dinosaurs being extinct by an asteroid was a fact. Now, that theory has been changed. My point is if it's hypothesis, then they keep quoting these years to you. If we lived in the 1700s, then we still would think Noah's Flood killed them (which it did).

Well, my bad I gave you the simple definition. The full definition is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Key word is faith.

 

[james bond]

Ah yes, nothing like a solid anthropological source like a Jack Chick comic book. (CLICK ON BIG DADDY? TO SEE ITS CONTENTS)

.​

Even if it came from a comic book, it's still a good infograph because comics can be used as a teaching tool for kids. The fact remains that there was fraud and embarrassment for the evos and creation scientists arguments are left our of science (they aren't published in Science or Nature).. Even ashkat1 admits there were suspicions from day1, sot do you have further explanations for it? Was there any protest lodged by the evolutionist community? What it further did was criticize the Christian leadership unfairly, and mislead a whole generation. Do you think that the scientists who investigated Piltdown Man deserved to be knighted? That's why today, we do not have a majority believing in evolution in my opinion. If true, the facts of evolution would speak for themselves instead of being rammed down our throats and dissenting voices squashed.

 

[james bond]

Not to mention that "evolution is racist" is an argument from consequences fallacy (or argument from emotion fallacy) because that has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

Then how about pointing us to this news. None of us want to be kept in the dark. Or is this one of those "Look it up yourself" ploys; you knowing your statement is a fabrication and that we'll never be able to prove a negative?


.

I didn't come up with the argument, but stating that the black South Africans did. I guess you guys don't read ahem... Scientific American ha ha.

"A paper in the journal eLife last month that pegged Homo naledi as a new member of our genus Homo prompted a leader on the South African political scene to engage in a muddled questioning of the theory of evolution and a denial that humans were in any way related to other primates. The comment provoked a flare-up that highlights the still-open wounds from the country’s apartheid’s past. Blacks during the apartheid era were often depicted, even in the universities, as less than human. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)

The spat began when trade unionist Zwelinzima Vavi tweeted: “No one will dig old monkey bones to back up a theory that I was once a baboon.”1 South African Council of Churches President Bishop Ziphozihle Siwa concurred: “To my brother Vavi, I would say that he is spot-on. It’s an insult to say that we come from baboons.” The interdenominational council, which unites 36 churches today, played a major role in the anti-apartheid struggle when it was led by the likes of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu. Siwa’s words were echoed by African National Congress politician Mathole Motshekga who said “… it is offensive that the findings made are used to say that we are the descendants of baboons, because we are not.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...entangled-with-south-africa-s-apartheid-past/ .

And Skwim, one can prove a negative. Skwin did not show up for school today. I ask the teachers if he did and they say he did not.

 

[james bond]

The fact of the matter is that the Piltdown Man did not play a central role in evolutionary thinking. From the 20's onward, new discoveries, such as Java Man, seriously challenged Piltdown. In 1920, Teilhard de Chardin, who , as you know, worked on the dig, wrote but a short article on Piltdown Man. In 23 volumes of his later collected works, he mentions Piltdown Man less than a dozen times. One of the main reason why scientists wanted to carefully examine the Piltdown display was because solid evidence from the field was suggesting otherwise.
Many transitional fossils have been found and they are genuine.
Whether the laity dos or doe not believe in evolution or any other scientific concept is no measure of the validity of that concept.
When it comes to funny business, creation-science is no stranger to that. I have carefully studied this movement and find it is loaded with unqualified individuals sporting bogus credentials trying to make a dishonest living by creating a huge propaganda mill. Their claims have all been carefully reviewed by science and every one has been solidly debunked.

Also, I am not at all fond of talking with laity who think they are so much smarter and better equipped than all these scientists and therefore qualified to sit in judgment on them. Those are persons who have a very big ego, but unfortunately lack the intelligence to go along with it.

Still think you're skipping the historical significance, but since you've moved on the Java Man or homo erectus, there was controversy over it. Are you neglecting that, too? There has been much controversy over both the identification and dating of the strata where the fossils were found, and whether the fossils belonged to the same species.

What makes you think I think of myself as being smarter than your scientists whom you quote, and the you use the fallacy of resorting to authority instead of arguing against what I said. I provided my scientists who got knighted for being wrong. I provided the evidence that Dawson committed deliberate fraud and its ramifications. Doesn't that show that what they did not do a thorough job, but just verify the evolutionary thinking. I think that's what you're doing now. You're neglecting the facts against it and going onto to generalizations.

In regards to dust and our uniqueness, we were the only creatures that God took from dust (meaning natural) and breathe into to create life. God's breath shold make us proud, not lowly. Other creatures, he just commanded into existence and we became stewards over them, the earth and our own selves until we f-d up due to free will. Some of the angels f-d up before that due to free will.

 

[Parsimony]

That's a good hypothesis and evidence. It still leaves the possibility of being chased by a animal predator and then being trapped or being bullied into their death chamber because they were lesser humans. suppose it could still be a burial chamber, but don't think the author is arguing that. So, the creation scientists are still waiting to hear from the Berger group. They even offered to pay to date a sample if they would provide one.

Why would the creationists want it to be dated when they won't believe the date in the first place? What dating methods for a fossil do creationists even accept as valid? I thought they doubted them all.

If it's a fact, then we'll probably know it like 9/11/01, 11/22/63 or use some mnemonic. 66 million years ago would represent the K-Pg dinosaur extinction.

So you expect every single fact in the world to be represented by a mneumonic? Life doesn't work that way. There are way too many facts for there to be a commonly-known mneumonic for each one. What is the mneumonic for sulfuric acid reacting with sodium hydroxide to form sodium sulfate and water? I sure don't know of any but it's any easily testable fact.

I think they taught my kids that dinosaurs being extinct by an asteroid was a fact. Now, that theory has been changed.

Changed how? The asteroid impact is still the leading model for the dinosaur extinction.

My point is if it's hypothesis, then they keep quoting these years to you.

Articles quote facts all the time. I find that is especially true with science articles dealing with quantum physics such as quantum entanglement. This is a very weird argument you have here: "If a news article says something like it's a fact, then it's not a fact but just a hypothesis." Big, fat non-sequitur.

If we lived in the 1700s, then we still would think Noah's Flood killed them (which it did).

So you are saying that Noah failed to follow God's instructions then? He left a massive number species off of the ark and that they then became extinct? If Moses and Cain are any examples, then failure to follow God's instructions in the Old Testament resulted in punishment. So where was it stated that Noah was punished by God for leaving dinosaurs off of the ark?

Well, my bad I gave you the simple definition. The full definition is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Key word is faith.

Which would make one's faith that their company is going to do well in the marketplace a religion. The Civil Rights movement would have been a religion to those blacks that had faith in it. Faith in democracy and human rights would be a religion, so on and so on.

You probably didn't see this before, but I edited this into my last comment earlier:

You did nothing of the sort. You didn't even reply to my last statement about nylonase. Nylonase actually represents at least three new genes: nylA, nylB, and nylC. Each one has a slightly different function (by breaking down different forms of nylon oligomers) and together they can accomplish things much better than they can alone (like breaking down various complex oligomers into monomers). So here we have a series of mutations that (1) increased the total number of genes in the Flavobacterium genome, (2) gave it new adaptive functions that gives it an advantage over other strains in its environment, and (3) work synergetically to do things even better.

Imagine that you have some kind of 3D printer, assembly line or some other construction machine. This machine builds a device based on a program in a computer. Now let's say that program has been modified such that your construction machine can now build three new devices that it could not build before and each of them have new functions which the original device did not have. When the program is examined, it is revealed to be longer than the original program and has a different digital sequence from the original program. How could anyone possibly be justified in saying that "this second program does not contain any information that the original program did not have". How can a machine build a new, functional device without any new information? That's exactly what you seem to be arguing with the nylonases. It's a case of a molecular machine with modified programming (mutated genes) producing new, synergetically-functional molecular devices (the three nylonase enzymes). If that doesn't fit your personal definition of new information, then your definition is irrelevant to evolution in the first place.

I didn't come up with the argument, but stating that the black South Africans did. I guess you guys don't read ahem... Scientific American ha ha.
"A paper in the journal eLife last month that pegged Homo naledi as a new member of our genus Homo prompted a leader on the South African political scene to engage in a muddled questioning of the theory of evolution and a denial that humans were in any way related to other primates. The comment provoked a flare-up that highlights the still-open wounds from the country’s apartheid’s past. Blacks during the apartheid era were often depicted, even in the universities, as less than human. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
The spat began when trade unionist Zwelinzima Vavi tweeted: “No one will dig old monkey bones to back up a theory that I was once a baboon.”1 South African Council of Churches President Bishop Ziphozihle Siwa concurred: “To my brother Vavi, I would say that he is spot-on. It’s an insult to say that we come from baboons.” The interdenominational council, which unites 36 churches today, played a major role in the anti-apartheid struggle when it was led by the likes of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu. Siwa’s words were echoed by African National Congress politician Mathole Motshekga who said “… it is offensive that the findings made are used to say that we are the descendants of baboons, because we are not.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...entangled-with-south-africa-s-apartheid-past/ .
And Skwim, one can prove a negative. Skwin did not show up for school today. I ask the teachers if he did and they say he did not.

First of all, evolution doesn't say that we evolved from baboons. Second of all, being offended by something does nothing at all to refute it. It is, at most, the argument from emotion fallacy. If I was offended by the Sun rising it wouldn't mean that the Sun didn't rise. Their argument is nonsense.

 

[ashkat1`]

Hi, James,
The problem I have with your argument is that you want to invalidate all evolutionary science on the grounds that Piltdown Man proved to be a hoax. That is an invalid argument, as Piltdown Man has played no role in evolutionary science in the last 63 years. In fact, one scientist said that by the 40's, he could have written a history of evolution without Piltdown Man. Evolutionary science does not stand or fall with Piltdown Man.
Yes, you do present yourself in a very arrogant manner, as some sort of authority capable of sitting in judgment on science and condemning it. Hence, I find you making all sorts of paranoid, delusional comments such as all the evo's lie, etc. Today, people are very anxious and mistrustful. The "in" thing to do is to see a conspiracy everywhere. The media goes into a feeding frenzy over conspiracies. We all know the moon landing was a fake, we all know Princess Di was murdered, we all know aliens built the pyramids. etc. So, why not cash in and now argue all mainstream science is also a fake? Well, I'm not falling for this nonsense. If you want to go for it, that's your privilege, but leave me out. Also, as I mentioned earlier, when I take a look at the people pushing this, the creation-science folks, I find fakery all over the place, from bogus credentials to bogus arguments and evidence. If you want to swing with that crowd, be my guest, but leave me out.
As to dust, the Bible does not say what other creatures were made out of. It is a way of humbling us, because, to use a bit of hyperbole, it means we are just so many dust mops running around, in the eyes of God.

 

[james bond]

Why would the creationists want it to be dated when they won't believe the date in the first place? What dating methods for a fossil do creationists even accept as valid? I thought they doubted them all.

So you expect every single fact in the world to be represented by a mneumonic? Life doesn't work that way. There are way too many facts for there to be a commonly-known mneumonic for each one. What is the mneumonic for sulfuric acid reacting with sodium hydroxide to form sodium sulfate and water? I sure don't know of any but it's any easily testable fact.

Changed how? The asteroid impact is still the leading model for the dinosaur extinction.

Articles quote facts all the time. I find that is especially true with science articles dealing with quantum physics such as quantum entanglement. This is a very weird argument you have here: "If a news article says something like it's a fact, then it's not a fact but just a hypothesis." Big, fat non-sequitur.

So you are saying that Noah failed to follow God's instructions then? He left a massive number species off of the ark and that they then became extinct? If Moses and Cain are any examples, then failure to follow God's instructions in the Old Testament resulted in punishment. So where was it stated that Noah was punished by God for leaving dinosaurs off of the ark?

Which would make one's faith that their company is going to do well in the marketplace a religion. The Civil Rights movement would have been a religion to those blacks that had faith in it. Faith in democracy and human rights would be a religion, so on and so on.

You probably didn't see this before, but I edited this into my last comment earlier:



First of all, evolution doesn't say that we evolved from baboons. Second of all, being offended by something does nothing at all to refute it. It is, at most, the argument from emotion fallacy. If I was offended by the Sun rising it wouldn't mean that the Sun didn't rise. Their argument is nonsense.

I had a feeling you would say that. Again, the creation scientists do not have a forum to speak in regards to radiometric dating. Science has shut them out. I would think they would do carbon-14 dating. They would probably do the radiometric dating (more expensive), too, to see if it matches the results of what the evos come up with. They also can see if the isotopes are in equilibrium or "gone."

It's irrelevant.

See, even you think that's true. The THEORY is now Chicxulub asteroid, then came Deccan Traps volcanoes and finally climate change that did the dinos in ha ha.

Irrelevant.

Noah had dinosaur eggs and babies. It's explained at Ark Encounter.

Irrelevant.

It's not the same thing. You can't compare what it takes for new information for a genome with a simple printer. Thus, we have change within species, but not a level beyond it. I think you believe in scientific myths and fairy tales.

 

[james bond]

Hi, James,
The problem I have with your argument is that you want to invalidate all evolutionary science on the grounds that Piltdown Man proved to be a hoax. That is an invalid argument, as Piltdown Man has played no role in evolutionary science in the last 63 years. In fact, one scientist said that by the 40's, he could have written a history of evolution without Piltdown Man. Evolutionary science does not stand or fall with Piltdown Man.
Yes, you do present yourself in a very arrogant manner, as some sort of authority capable of sitting in judgment on science and condemning it. Hence, I find you making all sorts of paranoid, delusional comments such as all the evo's lie, etc. Today, people are very anxious and mistrustful. The "in" thing to do is to see a conspiracy everywhere. The media goes into a feeding frenzy over conspiracies. We all know the moon landing was a fake, we all know Princess Di was murdered, we all know aliens built the pyramids. etc. So, why not cash in and now argue all mainstream science is also a fake? Well, I'm not falling for this nonsense. If you want to go for it, that's your privilege, but leave me out. Also, as I mentioned earlier, when I take a look at the people pushing this, the creation-science folks, I find fakery all over the place, from bogus credentials to bogus arguments and evidence. If you want to swing with that crowd, be my guest, but leave me out.
As to dust, the Bible does not say what other creatures were made out of. It is a way of humbling us, because, to use a bit of hyperbole, it means we are just so many dust mops running around, in the eyes of God.

I didn't say that, but add it to the other frauds and sketchy evidence and the theory becomes very shaky. Even the australopitecus exhibit was a failure.

If I am arrogant, then that's your opinion. Look at the stuff I get tossed. I can read and understand more than basic science. As for conspiracies, that's also opinion and usually people discuss as news. It's irrelevant to what we are discussing. Scientific theory is just that. Sometimes, it's the best theory that we have, it becomes law or principle or we glean scientific truths from it. Evolution is a theory and it can become pseudoscience, too. People were fooled and believed in pseudoscience in the past.

 

[Parsimony]

I had a feeling you would say that. Again, the creation scientists do not have a forum to speak in regards to radiometric dating. Science has shut them out.

Because their arguments against it have no substance. They rely on quote-mining and physics-defying ideas in an attempt to invalidate it. Scientists have ways of detecting contamination or loss of isotopes (which I have already explained) so that base is covered and they have performed multiple different radiometric dating tests to demonstrate that different techniques reveal the same age for the same tested object. I've already provided you with more than one link showing exactly that. If radiometric dating was unreliable or random, then convergent dates by different methods should not be possible.

I would think they would do carbon-14 dating.

It's not likely that they will, since the remains are believed to be too old for accurate carbon-14 dating to work.

They would probably do the radiometric dating (more expensive), too, to see if it matches the results of what the evos come up with.

I think it would be great to teach some creationists how to properly radiometrically date an object so they can see first hand how it works. The question then becomes, if the date turned out to be millions of years, what would they do?

They also can see if the isotopes are in equilibrium or "gone."

What do you mean "in equilibrium"?

It's irrelevant.

I agree. So why did you bring it up in the first place?

See, even you think that's true. The THEORY is now Chicxulub asteroid, then came Deccan Traps volcanoes and finally climate change that did the dinos in ha ha.

Climate change was always an aspect of the asteroid impact idea.

Irrelevant.

So why'd you bring it up?

Noah had dinosaur eggs and babies. It's explained at Ark Encounter.

So then the dinosaurs didn't go extinct in the Flood?

Irrelevant.

You're darn right it's irrelevant, just as irrelevant as calling evolution a religion.

It's not the same thing. You can't compare what it takes for new information for a genome with a simple printer. Thus, we have change within species, but not a level beyond it. I think you believe in scientific myths and fairy tales.

What makes it different for a macroscopic machine to produce something new versus a microscopic machine to produce something new? Is it possible or not possible for a system to produce something new and functional without any new information to base it on? If you don't think that the nylonase genes represent the presence of new information in the Flavobacterium genome, then your definition of information either isn't reflective of reality or is just irrelevant to evolution. The creation of new genes which provide new functions and increase the length of the genome represent just the needed ingredients for macroevolution.