Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-25-2017 9:26 AM
90 online now:
kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 83 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Porosity, Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,417 Year: 24,023/21,208 Month: 1,988/2,468 Week: 81/416 Day: 36/45 Hour: 2/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
jar
Member
Posts: 29365
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 136 of 220 (662144)
05-12-2012 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ScottyDouglas
05-12-2012 4:10 AM


Re: Giants
I'm willing to bet that you have not even been to any of the Mississippian Culture mounds.

Yet you think you can teach us anything about them?

Have you visited any of those 'mounds'? Have you even been to Etowa? Bear Mountain? Jaketown? Ocmulgee?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 4:10 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 8:19 PM jar has responded

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 137 of 220 (662150)
05-12-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by jar
05-12-2012 7:21 PM


Re: Giants
http://jmilor.startlogic.com/...he%20Giant%20Conspiracy.html
This one site!

http://www.layevangelism.com/...sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm
another

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/dann.html
and another

So people today namely science can determine and say that these old recounts are false and untrue. That the people recording them are in fantasy land.Not to mention that the smithsonian have enormous amounts of giants and some one display.

I have been to several mounds and know what I did not find bones because I looked and not touched as applied when I was there.

Even the smithsonian keeps paper trials and alot of trials lead to claims that they found and have giants. Just a simple detailed look at thier paper work show something abnormal.

How can you date fossils anyway but a previous estimate of one you think is that old and then tests will run off that example to then run test on other things by the age of the previous sample. Saying the very first sample has to be a figment estimate.

How do have fossils anyway by sudden death and burial.Only a catastphe brings.

Evolutionist stick to thier gunns that no flood within the last 4000 years but the evidence is the opposite. Whale fossils found deep inland only something that can happen if the land was once submerged. Ocean life on top of mountain? That can only happen if the mountain was once submerged.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines after paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 05-12-2012 7:21 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by jar, posted 05-12-2012 8:39 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2012 10:18 PM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 140 by Coyote, posted 05-13-2012 2:18 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 141 by JonF, posted 05-13-2012 8:51 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29365
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 138 of 220 (662151)
05-12-2012 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by ScottyDouglas
05-12-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Giants
You did not answer my question.

Have you actually been to ANY of the Mississippian Mounds?

Have you ever been to the Smithsonian?

The Biblical Flood has been absolutely refuted and anyone claiming that the Biblical Flood happened is simply wrong. If you want absolute evidence that the Biblical Flood is just another fraud, hoax, misinformation and lack of education simply check the thread No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood.

Sorry but again, you have nothing but more examples of Creationist Frauds, Hoaxes, misinformation and lack of education.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 8:19 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18974
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 139 of 220 (662157)
05-12-2012 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by ScottyDouglas
05-12-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Giants
Hi again ScottyDouglas,

This one site!
another
and another

More hearsay anecdotal testimony rather than objective empirical evidence, mixed with a little conspiracy theory and alien fantasy. Let me know when you come to hard empirical objective evidence.

I did a google on smithsonian "giant human" display and did not find any reference to one. Lots of blog reports of such skeletons being "repressed" with more hearsay conspiracy talk.

If you can find a picture of one, let me know.

How can you date fossils anyway but a previous estimate of one you think is that old and then tests will run off that example to then run test on other things by the age of the previous sample. Saying the very first sample has to be a figment estimate.

There are many ways to date fossils, but none as ludicrous as you describe. If you want to discuss some of these dating methods I can point you to several threads where they are discussed. In terms of validating how the various dating methods actually works I suggest you read Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.

How do have fossils anyway by sudden death and burial.Only a catastphe brings.

And there are plenty of localized catastrophes to bury fossils, from landslides to volcanic eruptions.

Curiously, however, there are other means that can result in fossils: being frozen, being mummified, being deposited in an anaerobic environment ... any means that result in a dead body not being subject to decay can result in a fossil.

The slow accumulation of foraminifera skeletons at the bottom of the sea is another method ...

http://web.archive.org/...57/gly.fsu.edu/tour/article_7.html

... there is a continuous record of foram fossils from over 66 million years of accumulation on the sea floor.

Evolutionist stick to thier gunns that no flood within the last 4000 years but the evidence is the opposite. Whale fossils found deep inland only something that can happen if the land was once submerged. ...

Indeed we find that various parts of what is now dry land were under water at various times. We do NOT find evidence of these occurring at the same time, and the fossil evidence clearly shows completely different ecologies and other information that point to separate small incidents of sea floor being lifted out of the water being more consistent with the dates, and with geological and biological information.

... Ocean life on top of mountain? That can only happen if the mountain was once submerged.

Or that the land that is now mountain top was one time at the bottom of an ocean, but has since been lifted by plate tectonics.

Curiously we can measure the rate of rise in mountain ranges, and we find, for instance, that the current rate of rise of Mount Everest is entirely sufficient to raise sea floor to the elevations of Mount Everest in the time since the fossils found on Mount Everest were deposited. We can do the same in other places and we find a consistent pattern of uplift being within the amount that results from the measured rates of uplift.

Ocean life on top of mountain?

Now, if you want to look at this objectively, then you must know that the fossils found are all of mature marine ecosystyems, with organisms that show development consistent with growing for many years, decades in the case of fossils like brachiopods that have growth rings on their shell ... one of the kinds of fossils found on Mount Everest ... so if they grew there during a flood, then the flood must have lasted decades for each layer ... and there are hundreds of layers.

A similar pattern is found in all other places of marine fossils on mountains, but the types of organisms in the deposits vary from location to location, depending more on the age of the mountains than any other factor. Centuries of marine growth are recorded in layer after layer of marine fossils.

The duration of the purported flood was not long enough for any of this kind of growth to occur, so rather than this being evidence for a noachin flood, it is evidence that invalidates such an event as supposedly recorded.

According to this, and all the other similar bits of evidence from mountains all over the earth, either the global flood lasted centuries or it did not occur.

Anyone telling you that marine fossils are evidence of a global flood are deluding you, either intentionally or through their own ignorance of what the evidence actually shows.

For more on this see Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

Enjoy.

ps ... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : grmr


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 8:19 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 3:03 AM RAZD has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5992
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 140 of 220 (662169)
05-13-2012 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by ScottyDouglas
05-12-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Giants
So people today namely science can determine and say that these old recounts are false and untrue. That the people recording them are in fantasy land.Not to mention that the smithsonian have enormous amounts of giants and some one display.

Yes. If there were such skeletons around, they would be available for scientific study. But they always disappear before scientists can track them down. Face it--they never existed in the first place!

Even the smithsonian keeps paper trials and alot of trials lead to claims that they found and have giants. Just a simple detailed look at thier paper work show something abnormal.

I have many of the old Smithsonian volumes that you refer to in my library, as well as a large collection of modern texts on human skeletal analysis and biology. Your anecdotal claims are not supported by modern data. They are stories from untrained amateurs writing 100 or more years ago. Their claims do not stand up against modern observations. Every one of those claims that has been investigated has gone up in a puff of smoke, and in no case has the skeletal evidence been found. Where are all the skeletons of individuals 10 or 12 feet in stature now? They all just disappear?

How can you date fossils anyway but a previous estimate of one you think is that old and then tests will run off that example to then run test on other things by the age of the previous sample. Saying the very first sample has to be a figment estimate.

These would be bones, not fossils. Bones are easily dated using carbon-14 dating. By the way, I am currently writing a monograph for archaeologists on using radiocarbon dating, so if you want to start a thread I'll be happy to explain some of the details to you. We also have another poster here (kbertsche) who is a lot more knowledgeable that I am in the technical aspects of that dating method, so he could explain that part to you.

How do have fossils anyway by sudden death and burial.Only a catastphe brings.

Incomprehensible. Try again.

Evolutionist stick to thier gunns that no flood within the last 4000 years but the evidence is the opposite.

I can prove that there was no flood ca. 4,350 years ago from my own archaeological research. (Any good archaeologist can do the same.) I have tested probably over 100 sites which cross-cut that time period, and in none of them was there evidence of a flooding event (heavy sedimentary deposit or erosional evidence). Rather, there was continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, deposition, and most importantly human DNA. This latter is absolute proof there was no flood ca. 4,350 years ago. There are numerous cases of continuity of human DNA from before to after the 4,350 year date in American Indian sites. I have one from my own work. If there had been a flood as described in the bible the earlier peoples would have been wiped out and their DNA eliminated, only to be replaced by the DNA of Noah's group. This has been shown not to have been the case.

But lets turn this around--you can help show that there was such a flood! A worldwide flood would have left evidence everywhere, including your back yard. All you need to do is learn some archaeology, do a test excavation, and find the depositional or erosional evidence of that flood. If you can find evidence of that nature around 4,350 years ago in a number of locations you will have supported the global flood story.

But here's a hint: early geologists were creationists trying to find evidence of the flood. They gave up just about 200 years ago. Since then the evidence against a global flood during historic times has accumulated to the point that no credible scientists entertain the flood notion any longer. The story of a global flood during historic times is only pushed by folks who put religious belief ahead of empirical evidence.

Whale fossils found deep inland only something that can happen if the land was once submerged. Ocean life on top of mountain? That can only happen if the mountain was once submerged.

There are existing threads that discuss these topics. Please do a search and refer to them.

Edited by Coyote, : Grammar.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 8:19 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:29 AM Coyote has responded
 Message 154 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:22 PM Coyote has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3962
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 141 of 220 (662188)
05-13-2012 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by ScottyDouglas
05-12-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Giants
Ocean life on top of mountain? That can only happen if the mountain was once submerged.

As is well known by those who follow this controversy. Leonardo da Vinci figured out that the fossils of sea life found on the tops of mountains were not deposited there by a flood.

I.e. you're about 500 years behind modern science. I suggest some learning before you make claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 8:19 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:05 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 142 of 220 (662246)
05-14-2012 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by JonF
05-13-2012 8:51 AM


Re: Giants
Though evolution is not science! There is not any true observable scientific evidence. To claim that evolution is science you must have actual observed it happening and no one has seen evolution take place. If evolution was real then practically every species today would still have sub species still left and also sub species going into our next evolve would be taking place. Saying it would never stop the process is in fact not evolution becasue it is a continual state of motion. It would be taking place always and sub species would be and always been.
In fact you are being unscientific to claim facts to things unwitnessed.
Impersonations of fossil records and fossil beds is just that. Its theory and fairytales are accepted, only because Creationism is clearly not possible.
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)
You can not deny that, esp. if you claim no flood, that million upon millions of all different varities of species bones and sub species and then so on and so on. Our grounds all over the planet should be filled of fossils but it is not. No one has found one fossil that is deemed signifiant enough to account for billions upon billions of years of life and in the complexitity we have today. The links for all forms today is not in the fossil record because it simply never occured that way. This also proves that billions of years of life has not been on earth for that long.
Evolution and life is like playing darts. And the darts are theories. And the board is truth. Points are facts. You can throw and miss entirely. You can hit a point. and sometimes you'll hit the inside of the bullseye. But hardly never do you hit spot on. This is evolution they get so good at throwing and hitting points but miss the bullseye. They hit all around the bullseye but never hit spot on because they have blinded their ability to see it.
Once again I will state that evolution is not science and is nothing but a storytellers worldview with acceptable facts that fit neatly in, nothing more.
What is even more sad is scientist who support it are bein unscientific at the least. And evolutionist are constantly out to propulse their propaganda.
"Darwin is liked by evolutionist because he liberated science from the straightjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job sercurity so they can wander through biology labs as if they belonged there." -David Coppedge
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by JonF, posted 05-13-2012 8:51 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 2:15 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2012 8:52 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5992
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 143 of 220 (662251)
05-14-2012 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 2:05 AM


Re: Giants
You forgot to say, "Amen" after your post. That would be most appropriate because all you're doing is preaching.

(Are you ever going to respond to my posts in detail? I raised some good points, and I'm waiting for a response.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:05 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 144 of 220 (662252)
05-14-2012 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Coyote
05-14-2012 2:15 AM


Re: Giants
Im speaking about actual recorded history and clear evidence is abound. You can deny the truth from as false as much as you want. The fossil record is not there for evolution and it is essential to verifing your theory and it is not there clearly making that theory untrue and not possible.
I havent read your poat, I will.

Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 2:15 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 145 of 220 (662255)
05-14-2012 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Coyote
05-13-2012 2:18 AM


Re: Giants
I will take the reliablity and documented record of goat herders, nomads, native indians, norse, china, greece, roman, egyptian, babolonian, sumerian, daninites, Jasher, Enoch, and history of Israel which has never been disproven.
Not modern science and storytellers such as yourself who thinks thier insignifiant 50 or such years of life can account for what thousands of years of men have not.
You think you have more ability and knowledge than our ancestors and we do not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Coyote, posted 05-13-2012 2:18 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 10:05 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 146 of 220 (662258)
05-14-2012 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by RAZD
05-12-2012 10:18 PM


Re: Giants
We have millions of animals today to have so would been million upon millions of species before us. Not only does multi-species(hybrids) between species would and should still be taking place in every species all over the world. But also we would have a fossil record littered of these animals of every species, but we do not. We have a few so called evolved examples and even they do not show exstinsive example of evolving. Even if evolutionist had a few examples of animals evolving which they do not that is only partcial evidence because billions should be found. With the rigour you all support and preach evolution accross the web shows either lack of true scientific evidence for anyone to see without evolutionist propoganda in the way.
You have practically no fossil record.
You can not witness it happening.
And our simple form from the beginning to create our form today can not be found or repeated. End of story you have no emperical evidence except from biology which only proves animals have simliar traits and dna.
Your storified palentologist find bones then create a story of thier history and nothing more.

Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2012 10:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 05-14-2012 8:53 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 148 by Admin, posted 05-14-2012 9:15 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2012 9:14 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29365
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 147 of 220 (662270)
05-14-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 3:03 AM


Fossils
You do know that there are quite a few fossil collections, even in the US don't you?

The University of Texas has over 100,000 specimens cataloged.

Berkeley has over 100,000 Vertebrate specimens.

Harvard has a collection of over 20 million vertebrate and invertebrate specimens of both extant and fossil critters.

And that is just three examples.

Does that sound like practically no fossil record?

What do any of your posts have to do with the topic which is "Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes " other than support the fact that Creationists continue to make assertions that are patently false?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 3:03 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 1:23 PM jar has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12528
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 148 of 220 (662272)
05-14-2012 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 3:03 AM


Re: Giants
ScottyDouglas writes:

You have practically no fossil record.

This isn't really about the topic. Asserting that the fossil record doesn't exist is only a bald declaration, but more to the point it has nothing to do with the topic. If you want to say the fossil record is fraudulent that would at least be on topic, but then it would be incumbent upon you to provided evidence of the fraud.

Thanks for placing spaces after punctuation. Could you please also place a blank line between your paragraphs?

No reply to this message is necessary.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 3:03 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5992
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 149 of 220 (662275)
05-14-2012 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 2:29 AM


Epic fail!
You have failed to respond to the points I made in Message 140. Your blanket denial is meaningless.

Can you address the points I made or not?

(My guess is not. When it comes to data that refutes your contentions you remind me of Sergeant Schultz -- "I see nothing–NOTHING!")


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:29 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 150 of 220 (662288)
05-14-2012 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by jar
05-14-2012 8:53 AM


Re: Fossils
No I still suggest that all of the recent theory of evolution is a hoax in the highest degree. It is quite easy to have a theory be assumed true when it can and does change to accept new evidence. If a theory can change and accept any evidence then it does not mean its true. It could be just as untrue as true if it can change by the evidence. That is nothing more than changeable theory to fit within the facts. The facts and evidence should prove the theory not the theory change and prove the facts and evidence. Two comepletely different ideas of science and truth.
Furthermore if evolution as exstintsive as you suggest not only should be view by all as fact. But it would have been happeninf forever and it would no longer have theory behind it and be provided as absolute but it is not. It is taught in school but so is creationism. If evolution was factual beyond needing furthert proof then that would reflect in all society and teaching without any equal or teaching.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 05-14-2012 8:53 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Panda, posted 05-14-2012 1:37 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 152 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 2:01 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 153 by frako, posted 05-14-2012 2:01 PM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 157 by jar, posted 05-14-2012 2:51 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017