Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Undermining long-held paradigms
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 124 (345770)
09-01-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 2:57 PM


Re: Yet More Untruths
Trilobite found contemporaneously with Coelacanth, fossilized footprints over trilobite, T-rex found with red blood cells, another T-Rex found with palpable flesh, then of course there are all the demonstrable frauds that were once unassailable "proof", such as the Heidelberg jaw, Haeckel's drawings, peppered moths, Ramipithecus, Piltdown Man, Java Man, on and on and on.
I think this belongs in a new thread. Especially 'cause the list lumps a ton of utterly different and unrelated things together. First three are flat wrong, the third is misinterpreted, none of the frauds (except Piltdown), were in fact frauds, and Haeckel has been done to death. Open a thread, give some narrative to the claims, and I'll be happy to blow them out of the water for your edification.
Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 2:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-02-2006 11:11 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 32 of 124 (345779)
09-01-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 2:57 PM


Re: Yet More Untruths
NJ writes:
Do you really not see the profundity of such a discovery? It is said that T-Rex went extinct 70 million years ago.
It's a wonderful discovery, but not because it alters anything about T Rex's extinction date (65 million years ago).
That means, according to evolutionists, that the specimen in question is at least 70 million years old, if not several millions of years older.
The estimates I saw said 68 million years.
Now, the tissue was found to be pliable.
True.
As well, the specimen was unfossilized and unfrozen.
***WRONG***
Another flat tire for the juggernaut.
Everything else you say just waxes dramatic from the basic falsehood that the fossil is not really a fossil.
But how can a logical person think that unfossilized bone, much less soft tissue, can survive decay past a few hundred years? Given the fact that examples of many human skeletal remains rarely surviving decay past 50 years indicates that in 70 million years nothing could survive past this unbelievable length of time. Oxygen accelerates the rate of putrefaction and overall decomposition, greatly. However, despite being in an airtight coffin, buried six feet under ground, many human remains rarely survive decay past half a century without the intervention of embalming techniques. Many instances where a body had been exhumed for legal cases of suspected homicide were found without any soft tissue, and sometimes, no bones survived decay altogether.
I mean, I think people have been inundated with literature speaking about millions and billions of years of time with a certain frivolity. Do you really believe that soft tissue can survive decay this long?
The juggernaut just blew out another tire.
You mention how difficult it is for soft tissue to survive 'past half a century.' This makes it obvious the material has been specially preserved--fossilized--in some way. Else, we would not have it.
Read the article from the BBC. Read the scientists' descriptions of the fossilization process. Please respond.
Otherwise, you may as well drop the subject. It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about. If you keep ignoring the information you have been provided, it will be equally apparent that you don't want to.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Credited quotes.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 2:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 124 (345789)
09-01-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 2:57 PM


Yet More Untruths
then of course there are all the demonstrable frauds that were once unassailable "proof", such as the Heidelberg jaw,
Someone has been lying to you. The Heidelberg jaw has not been demonstrated to be a fraud.
Here's a piccie, by the way. Heidelberg on the left, modern H. sap. on the right.
Nor, by the way, is it particularly cited as proof of anything except that there were once people with really big jaws.
Haeckel's drawings,
Someone has, at least, been misleading you. Haekel's drawings were faked to support a theory which was non-Darwinian and therefore false.
peppered moths,
The creationist claim that there was fraud in any, let alone all, the experiments done on the peppered moth is vicious and malevolent lie against persons in many cases still living, and you should be ashamed of yourself for reciting this slander without taking the trouble to find out if it's true.
Ramipithecus,
Someone has been lying to you. Ramapithecus has not been demonstrated to be a fake.
I think what has confused creationists on the subject is that Ramapithecus (note spelkling, it'll help you look it up) was once thought to have been an ancestor of modern humans; in the light of futher evidence from the fossil record, however, is seems that it wasn't. This is of course a far cry from demonstrating it to be a fraud.
Piltdown Man,
Piltdown Man was indeed proved to be a fraud - by real scientists, please note - which is a good thing too, 'cos it would have been a massive inexplicable anomaly in the history of human origins.
You guys ought really to argue that it's genuine, but that Evil-utionists are hushing it up 'cos it doesn't fit their theories.
Java Man,
Someone has been lying to you. Java Man has not been demonstrated to be a fraud. On the contrary, subsequent, more complete fossil finds have shown that the bones found are an example of Homo erectus.
on and on and on.
Yes, I'm sure that you could keep this barrage of vicious, baseless slander up all night.
What do you suppose it says to an onlooker to discover that so many of your allegations of fraud are themselves fraudulent, and that the only two actual frauds you've mentioned contradict conventional scientific wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 2:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-01-2006 4:39 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 34 of 124 (345792)
09-01-2006 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
09-01-2006 4:30 PM


Re: Yet More Untruths
Dr Adequate writes:
Someone has been lying to you. The Heidelberg jaw has not been demonstrated to be a fraud.
May we expect to see a retraction of these falsified assertions, NJ?
Heidelberg on the left, modern H. sap. on the right.
[...]
Nor, by the way, is it particularly cited as proof of anything except that there were once people with really big jaws.
Some of whom are still playing rugby.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2006 4:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 124 (345794)
09-01-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Archer Opteryx
09-01-2006 2:05 AM


Re: Timescales
An object hit the Yucatan Peninsula area 65 million years ago--the time of the K-T event.
Lots of objects have hit the earth that purportedly could have triggered a cataclysmic event. In the last state I lived in, Arizona, rests an enormous and impressive crater known as Meteor Crater. Another serious impact can be found in Australia at the Wolfe Crater site. The point is that these are significant impacts that did not destroy life on earth, the other point is, though the theory that a meteor hitting the Yuccatan Peninsula is attractive, it isn't something that is a certainty. That's all I said and that's all that I meant. If you've deduced anything more than that I can't help you with that.
No one is 'guessing' about the impact.
Neither am I. That's why I said that its a fact that meteor's have struck the earth, but what is theoretical is that it caused a K-T extinction level event.
The crater has been found and it's the right age. The environmental effects would have been severe all over the world. But the exact role of the impact in the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs and the other large species is debated. No one is 'carried away.' Other natural factors are implicated, as is always the case with mass extinctions.
Perhaps. Its not a stupid theory. But as I pointed out, there have been much more recent impacts, significant ones, that have not destroyed the earth's ecosystem. Why not? Is possible that a dust cloud couldn't throw the earth in a radical climate change? Is it possible that its an embellishment or a temporal explanation for how that many animals can disappear at once?

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-01-2006 2:05 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by kuresu, posted 09-01-2006 5:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 09-01-2006 5:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 36 of 124 (345799)
09-01-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 5:01 PM


Re: Timescales
here's the difference between the K-T asteroid and the one that made metoer crater in arizona
meteor crater, AZ
1.186km in diameter
chicxulub crater (k-t asteroid)
170km in diamter.
that meteor that made that hole in arizona was tiny compared to the 10-20 kilometer in diameter asteriod
also, there was one other unlucky (for everyone but our ancestors) factor. the k-t asteroid hit an area with a ton of sulfur. you can read more here:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm
scroll down to find the pictures, and scroll down even further to find another impact that's 100 km in diameter.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 5:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2006 10:38 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 124 (345800)
09-01-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 5:01 PM


Re: Timescales
rests an enormous and impressive crater known as Meteor Crater.
Enormous and impressive, yes, at 1.2 kilometers in diameter. But Chicxulub is 150 times that large. It would be a mite more impressive if it were at the surface.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 5:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 124 (345806)
09-01-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 1:46 AM


Re: Timescales
quote:
I didn't think the argument was going to make or break the entire theory of evolution, its just one more clue to build a case against and demonstrates that much of the theory has to keep reinventing itself.
Since when is "changing in the light of new evidence" a weakness in science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 1:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 124 (345843)
09-01-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jazzns
09-01-2006 9:30 AM


Re: Science reinventing itself is good!
A religion that keeps reinventing itself may be suspect.
Isn't evolution the Special Creation event for atheists?
A scientific theorey that keeps reinventing itself is a wonderful thing. The whole point of good theories is that they get adjusted when new evidence comes into play.
Don't misunderstand me. Surely, more evidence is always good to improve on theories. But what if the evidence doen't improve on it, but rather bring parts of it into disrepute? And if those proponents just change times that are supposed to have been based on empirical testing, then what is that saying about the validity of that testing, the validity of the experimentors? Isn't giving an opponent of theirs more ammunition to believe that those who swore, hand to Origins, that they were right all along end up being proven false?
NJ, how do you think this find alters the Theory rather than simply our understanding of mammal evolution?

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 09-01-2006 9:30 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 09-01-2006 9:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 42 by obvious Child, posted 09-01-2006 11:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 79 by Jazzns, posted 09-02-2006 4:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 124 (345850)
09-01-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 8:45 PM


Re: Science reinventing itself is good!
Isn't evolution the Special Creation event for atheists?
Wrong on so many levels. First evolution says nothing about creation nor does it have ANY relation to either atheism or theism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 8:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 124 (345872)
09-01-2006 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 8:45 PM


Isn't evolution the Special Creation event for atheists?
No. I guess the chief difference is that evolution actually happened, hence all the evidence for it. This is why it is supported by scientists of all religious views and none.
Don't misunderstand me. Surely, more evidence is always good to improve on theories. But what if the evidence doen't improve on it, but rather bring parts of it into disrepute?
Then scientists would cease to support it. This has not, however, happened.
And if those proponents just change times that are supposed to have been based on empirical testing, then what is that saying about the validity of that testing, the validity of the experimentors? Isn't giving an opponent of theirs more ammunition to believe that those who swore, hand to Origins, that they were right all along end up being proven false?
You don't say what you're talking about. Can you be specific?
---
Could you also learn the difference between the theory of evolution and the history of evolution? This is downright painful to me, like hearing someone sing out of tune. You might at least make an effort to know what you're talking about. So might the idiot journalist who wrote the story in the OP, if it comes to that.
---
I notice that you have not retracted your libelous statements. C'mon, surely a creationist can display integrity once without having an apoplectic seizure?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 8:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 42 of 124 (345896)
09-01-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 8:45 PM


Re: Science reinventing itself is good!
Isn't evolution the Special Creation event for atheists?
If you consider that religions that aren't literal interpretations of judaism, christanity or Islam to be atheist sure. That would be insane though, especially calling Pagans atheists, not to mention calling millions of metaphorical Jews and Christians atheists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 8:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 124 (345910)
09-01-2006 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Chiroptera
09-01-2006 11:41 AM


Herbivores
I don't understand the problem. Previously, all the known fossils of Mesozoic mammals were small herbivorous or scavenging mammals, so the reasonable assumption was that mammals were a small part of the ecosystem. Now fossils have been discovered that indicated otherwise. So now we have a better picture of what the Mesozoic looked like. What is the problem?
As I said, just this one thing is no enormous deal. The purpose of the thread is to show that more and more of these situations that were once empirical fact are being undermined with the advent of greater and more sophisticated technology. I mean, why and how did Crocs, Alligators, and their direct progeny survive the extinction if all large reptiles succombed to the elements? The Mesozoic and upper Creataceous should have had very small mammals that were herbovires, but now we have dog-sized carnivorous mammals.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2006 11:41 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by kuresu, posted 09-01-2006 11:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 45 by kuresu, posted 09-02-2006 12:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2006 12:17 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2006 12:25 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 09-02-2006 12:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 44 of 124 (345911)
09-01-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 11:43 PM


Re: Herbivores
i resent your use of the word "undermining".
"changing" is a better word to use here.
why?
the foundations of our knowledge about these eras aren't changing, just superficial things--like the addition of new species not represented among today's species.
undermining implies that we are destroying the foundation of our building, or that we are doing something subversively to erode something.
There's nothing subversive or destructive going on.
and, the empirical facts aren't being undermined. They are either changed or scrapped--like the flat earth was scrapped. Was that position undermined by Columbus? No.
Okay, my point's been kind off lost. Basically, I just don't like your choice of words. They seem wrong for some reason--almost like a mischaracterization. I don't know. damn.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 11:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2006 1:16 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 45 of 124 (345912)
09-02-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 11:43 PM


Re: Herbivores
I'm not sure about the crocs, but I think the reason they wre able to survive was this.
They are true reptiles, and they lived in the water.
as true, cold blooded reptiles, they can often go for a year without eating if they've eaten a good sized meal.
Being in the water conveyed an advantage to surviving the k-t extinction event, but I'm not sure what exactly. possibly the water was warmer. I know the water has to help somewhere--reason being--less life was destroyed in water than on land.
someone else can probably offer a better explanation.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 11:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-02-2006 12:29 AM kuresu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024