Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[dad]

No, it's based upon interpreting the universe under today's clock and decay rate

- Oh really? Source?

They claim some stars are 15 billion light years away and getting further away based on 'today's clock and decay rate'??

Good one. Funny.

which would have been faster in the past

No. Only within the insane scenario of the big bang, which means no creation by Jesus. You swallow that???

and therefore the age of things would appear older than they actually are under today's clocks. And thus the confusion of interpreting those vast amounts of time by using the rate of clocks as they tick today.

I thin space is involved, and light also, not just time in their models?

 

[Subduction Zone]

- Oh really? Source?

They claim some stars are 15 billion light years away and getting further away based on 'today's clock and decay rate'??

Good one. Funny.


No. Only within the insane scenario of the big bang, which means no creation by Jesus. You swallow that???

I thin space is involved, and light also, not just time in their models?

The Big Bang theory does not say that Jesus was not involved in making the universe. It is only an observation of how the universe was made. It may go against your personal interpretation, but then your beliefs are based upon neither science nor the Bible.

 

[dad]

The Big Bang theory does not say that Jesus was not involved in making the universe.

Yes it does loud and clear. Does the big bang say Jesus created the heavens and stars and sun and earth, and formed man? No. It is a godless dream based on misinterpreting the universe by using a godless belief system, designed to destroy faith in God. Most disciples of that idiot theory will not realize it is inspired, but that doesn't mean much. One way we can KNOW what is inspired of God is His word. By that we can also know what is not inspired by Him.

It is only an observation of how the universe was made.

Utterly false. It was not observed in any way. It is a model based on a belief system imposed on stars and space etc.

 

[crjmurray]

This might just be the silliest thing I've heard in this thread. It is well-understood that normally, organic matter decays at certain rates. However, it is also well-established that various factors can affect how fast something decays. Even in forensic science, I think nobody would look at two corpses at similar stages of decomposition and assume they were the same age if one had been frozen solid and the other had been drowned in a swamp.

Hold on.....are you telling me that a body will decay differently depending on the environment its in? Oh God......I uh....I need to go over some cold cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it does loud and clear. Does the big bang say Jesus created the heavens and stars and sun and earth, and formed man? No. It is a godless dream based on misinterpreting the universe by using a godless belief system, designed to destroy faith in God. Most disciples of that idiot theory will not realize it is inspired, but that doesn't mean much. One way we can KNOW what is inspired of God is His word. By that we can also know what is not inspired by Him.

Why do you think that it is necessary to even mention Jesus? You have no valid evidence that he is even real. Once again science says nothing about where he was real or not. All that it is said is how the universe began. You don't like it because it goes against your mistaken beliefs.

Utterly false. It was not observed in any way. It is a model based on a belief system imposed on stars and space etc.

You do not know how science observes events. We can observe the cosmic background radiation made by the Big Bang. We can observe the distribution of light elements that the Big Bang theory predicts. And we can observe distant galaxies moving away more and more rapidly the further away that they are. Meanwhile you only have a book, filled with errors, self contradictions, failed prophecies and bad morality.

 

[dad]

Why do you think that it is necessary to even mention Jesus?

Because He is the One who created all things, and without Him was not anything made that was made. When they start excreting claims about how man or the universe was created, obviously they will not mention anyone, since they have concocted a creation that created it's little self!

You have no valid evidence that he is even real.

Wrong thread for insanity or last Thursdayism...sorry.

Once again science says nothing about where he was real or not.

Yes by claiming creation made itself in a long series of freaks, they say everything about where their lying inspiration comes from.

You do not know how science observes events.

get a grip man, have a lollipop or something. Such childish nonsense has no place in a science forum. What science is and what it observes is not some secret, that only the special few know about!

We can observe the cosmic background radiation made by the Big Bang.

You can observe waves and light and etc. and impose your godless religion on them, to cook up foolishness like a big bang. You observed no big bang.

We can observe the distribution of light elements that the Big Bang theory predicts.

No. You can fit the light distribution into the BB. Hey, the whole universe was smaller than a BB you guys claim!

The creation light does not need to fit into any big bang theory. Sorry. Not at all.
You don't even know what you see.

And we can observe distant galaxies moving away more and more rapidly the further away that they are.

Besides red shifted light which could be explained by a plethora of other causes, what proof do you have of this expansion?

Meanwhile you only have a book, filled with errors, self contradictions, failed prophecies and bad morality.

Those who know, know better. Funny how so many of those that appoint themselves knights in the defense of so called science obviosuly have a hatred for God and His word. That's what it's all about lurkers, in case that is news.

 

[Doveaman]

No "handwaving" Doveaman, I was pointing out the obvious failures of lifepsyop.

No, you were not. You were doing what you do best -- insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

And as far as the rest of science that you deny your opinion is worth nothing and only shows that you are a hypocrite.

And there you go again. Typical.

Why do you use this science on a daily basis that you deny?

The only science I deny is yours.

But let's concentrate on radiometric dating right now. Why do you think that they are wrong?

Read the thread.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I'm pretty sure that is referring to normal calcification of bone, and not related to fossil mineralization. Elsewhere in the study we read:

"In addition to the erythocyte-like structures, in four other specimens the SEM analysis also showed fibrous structures similar to calcified collagen fibres found in modern bone. "

[and here they reference studies like these which are studies on bone development]
Organization of apatite crystals in human woven bone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12633787?dopt=Abstract&holding=npg
"The organization of collagen fibrils differs in woven bone and lamellar bone, and it reflects certain aspects of the nature of the mineral crystals associated with them..."

And they go on to describe the discovery of internal structure entirely consistent with the original organic material.

Hmm. I guess that seems like a reasonable interpretation. But I would stress that calcified collagen fibres should not be considered soft tissue as it is mineralized. And in fact during fossilization the mineral content of bone remains mostly unaltered even in regular preservation. It's a degree of preservation that was not anticipated, but there are more likely explanations than geochronology being off by millions or billions of years. Did you read the article Cadet linked about Schweitzer's recent research into the way iron fixes the structure of soft tissues in a way similar to formaldehyde? That's first hand observation, not speculation attempting to salvage deep time.

I think there's some ambiguity there between parsimony and just protecting a theory. Evolutionary deep-time has been assumed as unquestionable truth since its inception. One question is how many time indicators have been filtered through this dogmatic confirmation bias and absorbed ad-hoc since then. It's hard to get a good picture because evolutionists characteristically sweep things under the rug and only present sanitized pictures to the public. From now on, students will be taught that it has been 'proven' that endogenous organic material can survive intact for upwards of 100 million years because the discovery has been swallowed up by the belief in evolution. The belief is imposed on our conception of how reality works. I have to wonder how many times that has happened in the past.

This is mostly a reiteration of your suspicions. Could you address the analogy I provided? Is it not more parsimonious to start with the idea that the provincial government's understanding of cougar distribution was flawed rather than the idea that all these signs that indicated the presence of cougars were misleading?

I believe if a date is totally inconsistent with a preferred model then it will be assumed to be contaminated or otherwise anomalous and likely be discarded. It's hard for me prove the existence of something that is not publicized, though I think I've presented quotes from the literature that at least seem to suggest it is probably happening to some extent. And I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest in general. There is only so much time in the day and a researcher can either spend his time on what he believes is a productive working towards establishing a consistent geologic time scale, or by chasing down every "outlier" that happens to appear.

A working geologist has told you that contamination is generally identified rather than assumed. I just can't give your suspicions that this is not the case equal credence unless you can back it up with something. And I know it has been pointed out that your quotes were talking about excluding methodological rather than experimental data. But even if your quotes suggest that incongruous data is being excluded "to some extent", it seems to me that you need more than that to support the notion that geochronology is so extremely inaccurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because He is the One who created all things, and without Him was not anything made that was made. When they start excreting claims about how man or the universe was created, obviously they will not mention anyone, since they have concocted a creation that created it's little self!

Really? If that was the case surely you have some evidence that supports your claim. And why would it be necessary to mention Jesus even if he did what you claimed?

Wrong thread for insanity or last Thursdayism...sorry.

People reading your posts can see your hypocrisy. And who even mentioned AV?

Yes by claiming creation made itself in a long series of freaks, they say everything about where their lying inspiration comes from.

What "freaks"? And they have shown how the universe could have created itself? You don't seem to realize that if you claim "something" needed to make the universe the exact same logic says that "something" had to make your God.

get a grip man, have a lollipop or something. Such childish nonsense has no place in a science forum. What science is and what it observes is not some secret, that only the special few know about!

Oh my, there go the irony meters again. The man with no concept of how science is attacking me because he believes a .... Oh well don't want to get into too much trouble here for pointing out your inability to reason.

You can observe waves and light and etc. and impose your godless religion on them, to cook up foolishness like a big bang. You observed no big bang.

No, that is no religion, that is observable testable science.

No. You can fit the light distribution into the BB. Hey, the whole universe was smaller than a BB you guys claim!

The creation light does not need to fit into any big bang theory. Sorry. Not at all.
You don't even know what you see.

So you are finally admitting that you are wrong. That's a relief.

Besides red shifted light which could be explained by a plethora of other causes, what proof do you have of this expansion?

Then name them. Your first one failed terribly.

Those who know, know better. Funny how so many of those that appoint themselves knights in the defense of so called science obviosuly have a hatred for God and His word. That's what it's all about lurkers, in case that is news.

How can people have hatred for something that does not exist? And you know that calling the Bible "God's word" is extremely blasphemous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you were not. You were doing what you do best -- insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

That was not an insult.

And there you go again. Typical.

How was that an insult?

The only science I deny is yours.

Wrong again, to deny evolution, to claim that there was a worldwide flood, to deny the Big Bang theory you have to deny all of science.

Read the thread.

No need. We both know that you live in denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And dad, you claim that the entire universe could have fit into a BB is not accurate. Perhaps the entire observable universe could have fit inside of a BB, but not necessarily the entire universe. Here is a very short video that may help you to understand:

 

[The Cadet]

Read the thread.

What a spectacular non-answer. So it's because you believe they ignore dates that don't fit the model (even though that's been debunked by an active geologist and several others actually reading the sources in question), or what?

 

[lifepsyop]

Hmm. I guess that seems like a reasonable interpretation. But I would stress that calcified collagen fibres should not be considered soft tissue as it is mineralized. And in fact during fossilization the mineral content of bone remains mostly unaltered even in regular preservation.

I think they investigated the calcified bone and found the collagen preserved underneath.

"...Serial sectioning of one sample presenting fibres and of one presenting the erythrocyte-like structures revealed that these fibres are less dense than the matrix surrounding them and that an internal structure is present inside the erythrocyte-like structures. With a transmission electron microscope (TEM) we observed that the fibres show ~67nm banding, which could possibly be considered collagen fibre remains. Finally, using mass spectrometry, we found peaks that are consistent with fragments of amino acids present in collagen. The spectra obtained from the erythrocyte-like structures are surprisingly similar to the spectra obtained from the whole blood of an extant emu.

...Detection of fragments of the amino acids normally found in collagen supports the results obtained from TEM analysis where the ~67nm banding is consistent with potential preservation of the original quaternary structure of the protein."

It's a degree of preservation that was not anticipated, but there are more likely explanations than geochronology being off by millions or billions of years. Did you read the article Cadet linked about Schweitzer's recent research into the way iron fixes the structure of soft tissues in a way similar to formaldehyde? That's first hand observation, not speculation attempting to salvage deep time.

Those experiments were conducted over a couple years in a controlled environment. That is the definition of speculation to extrapolate that to 75 million years. Additionally the already wildly speculative hypothesis relies on preserved samples being encased in blood for its iron content, yet soft tissues are being discovered that are located on parts of the body that generally do not come into contact with blood.

Mark Armitage, (a technician that was fired for publishing a soft-tissue discovery) addresses this claim and explains in more detail here.

I might remind you that evolutionists castigate young-earth creationists for appealing to similar ad-hoc speculations. Yet there is no shame when evolutionists do the same in order to protect their age-of-the-earth beliefs.

When YEC's speculate to protect an idea it is "religion". When Evolutionists speculate to protect an idea it is "In science we admit when we don't know".. just an interesting double-standard.

This is mostly a reiteration of your suspicions. Could you address the analogy I provided? Is it not more parsimonious to start with the idea that the provincial government's understanding of cougar distribution was flawed rather than the idea that all these signs that indicated the presence of cougars were misleading?

I find the analogy too simplistic to relate.

A working geologist has told you that contamination is generally identified rather than assumed. I just can't give your suspicions that this is not the case equal credence unless you can back it up with something. And I know it has been pointed out that your quotes were talking about excluding methodological rather than experimental data. But even if your quotes suggest that incongruous data is being excluded "to some extent", it seems to me that you need more than that to support the notion that geochronology is so extremely inaccurate.

Equally dubious is the claim that dating methods unequivocally support geologic time, when we know for a fact that geologic time has never been allowed to be questioned since its acceptance. If an idea cannot be questioned, it is hard to imagine that research is not inevitably biased towards supporting it and data ultimately filtered towards those ends.

 

[The Cadet]

Mark Armitage, (a technician that was fired for publishing a soft-tissue discovery)

Mark Armitage was a part-time tech worker with essentially no job security who got fired for telling students at a biology institution he was not teaching at that his discoveries proved the current model wrong. This is a little like if the janitor at a hospital is caught telling patients not to take chemotherapy but instead try the Gerson protocol - they could have fired him for virtually anything, and in this case, they had a damn good reason to.

 

[lifepsyop]

Mark Armitage was a part-time tech worker with essentially no job security who got fired for telling students at a biology institution he was not teaching at that his discoveries proved the current model wrong. This is a little like if the janitor at a hospital is caught telling patients not to take chemotherapy but instead try the Gerson protocol - they could have fired him for virtually anything, and in this case, they had a damn good reason to.

Uh huh, is that the latest spin? And I'm sure you believe it's just a coincidence that he just so happened to get fired immediately after publishing the soft-tissue discovery.

Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414624

By the way, why would a university feel so threatened that a "part-time tech worker" was sharing his earth history beliefs with students that they had to fire him? Apparently the entire university's science intelligentsia feels they are not up to the challenge of competing with the 'janitor' down the hall. Laughable!

Oh and I love your analogy. Promoting alternative earth-history ideas to students is like trying to kill them with experimental medications. Ideas are dangerous aren't they?

 

[The Cadet]

Uh huh, is that the latest spin? And I'm sure you believe it's just a coincidence that he just so happened to get fired immediately after publishing the soft-tissue discovery.

No, it's not, because it's this which prompted him to start telling students of the institution that the earth was 6000 years old. I think it's worth noting that Mary Schweitzer was not fired for her work, and she was the one who first discovered this soft tissue to begin with!

By the way, why would a university feel so threatened that a "part-time tech worker" was sharing his earth history beliefs with students that they had to fire him? Apparently the entire university's science intelligentsia feels they are not up to the challenge of competing with the 'janitor' down the hall. Laughable!

Why should they have to? I reckon that at most universities, professors would be more than a little irked if they had to correct misinformation that their students picked up from part-time lab techs. The man is a completely replaceable part-time lab worker with no job security who has been spreading misinformation around campus. If the staff that actually knows stuff doesn't want him around, that's a pretty good reason not to keep him around. I'm rather surprised they took him on to begin with, given that they knew he was a young earth creationist from the start. Maybe they just assumed a certain degree of professionalism.

 

[lifepsyop]

Why should they have to? I reckon that at most universities, professors would be more than a little irked if they had to correct misinformation that their students picked up from part-time lab techs. The man is a completely replaceable part-time lab worker with no job security who has been spreading misinformation around campus. If the staff that actually knows stuff doesn't want him around, that's a pretty good reason not to keep him around. I'm rather surprised they took him on to begin with, given that they knew he was a young earth creationist from the start. Maybe they just assumed a certain degree of professionalism.

So you're saying a school janitor should be fired if he shares anti-Evolution ideas with students. You guys sure have come a long way from pretending there is no ideological suppression in the academic system. Personally, I appreciate the honesty.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you realize that you never actually read the posts you respond to? Nor do you ever check and see who you're responding to?

What, you think I'm going to let a Christian get away with Fairie Dust just because they are Christians????? I could care less if a person is an evolutionist or a Christian. Fairie Dust is Fairie Dust.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who and what are you responding to? Your post makes no sense.

Strawmen don't help you SZ. You claim science backs you, yet you can show me nothing but breed mating with breed producing a new breed. Not through evolution by mutation, but through the exchange of genetic information and recessive and dominant genes producing all the different varieties. So when are you going ro accept reality and apply that knowledge to the fossil record???

 

[The Cadet]

So you're saying a school janitor should be fired if he shares anti-Evolution ideas with students. You guys sure have come a long way from pretending there is no ideological suppression in the academic system. Personally, I appreciate the honesty.

Ideological suppression in the academic system? The dude is a lab tech! This isn't a case of a professor losing an opportunity for tenure for going against the orthodoxy, this is the case where a lab tech was trying to spread his baseless assertions among the student body and lost his (unsecure) job as a result. If it was a "right to work" state, they wouldn't have even needed anything resembling a reason. What's more, the comparison to janitorial duties is admittedly flawed in at least one way: patients wouldn't assume a janitor has any specific insight into the science, while students might very well make that mistake with this guy. In any case, I'd personally prefer that no young earth creationist work at any position in any academic realm. I afford the same general opinion to flat-earthers, homeopaths, and holocaust deniers.

And of course, the fact that Mary Schweitzer is still very much active in academia puts the lie both to the idea that this guy was fired because of the paper he punished and to the idea that soft tissue found in fossils proves a young earth.