Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟12,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
First of all your assumption that life beginning with self-replicating molecules is likely is not anywhere in evidence either

Yes, that's what I was saying.

, and yes, we do not have the earliest rocks or material from Earth's history until the first Cyanobacteria.

What you mean is we can't have evidence for the earliest life in the earliest rocks because the earliest life would have left no trace. That's one of the problems with trying to reconstruct how life started. But we can put together likely scenarios.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jan Volkes

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2015
1,302
231
44
UK
✟2,674.00
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Hitch, how would you like to be reported?
Why would you even think about reporting him? why not just tell him why he is wrong? explain to him why it is you never give a straight answer to 95% of questions you're asked? why not enlighten him instead of reporting him.
I can read so I know you are not good at giving answers to questions you're asked, why do you think that is?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So... Got good evidence? Let's see it.

Like I said, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of reports throughout the 19th century in America.

1897
8-ft-Giant-Ohio-Daily-public-ledger.-Maysville-Ky.-May-31-1897-pg-4.jpg


You can read through all the original reports yourself if you want, they're all compiled together here, sorted by state in North America.
http://greaterancestors.com/greater-humans/

You could certainly say some of them were exaggerations or flat out hoaxes, but in my opinion it is quite a stretch to say the enormous record of these discoveries was nothing but a collective imagination.

Though this is probably a discussion for another thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,165.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Like I said, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of reports throughout the 19th century in America.

1897
8-ft-Giant-Ohio-Daily-public-ledger.-Maysville-Ky.-May-31-1897-pg-4.jpg


You can read through all the original reports yourself if you want, they're all compiled together here, sorted by state in North America.
http://greaterancestors.com/greater-humans/

You could certainly say some of them were exaggerations or flat out hoaxes, but in my opinion it is quite a stretch to say the enormous record of these discoveries was nothing but a collective imagination.

Though this is probably a discussion for another thread.
We can all play this game!
http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/
 
Upvote 0

Jan Volkes

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2015
1,302
231
44
UK
✟2,674.00
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
You could certainly say some of them were exaggerations or flat out hoaxes, but in my opinion it is quite a stretch to say the enormous record of these discoveries was nothing but a collective imagination.
It's just a very big pity that none of those incredible skeletal finds have found their way down to us so we will never know if it was a hoax, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's just a very big pity that none of those incredible skeletal finds have found their way down to us so we will never know if it was a hoax, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Ya ... all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be in on this hoax, wouldn't they?
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,165.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Do you think aliens are beaming messages into our brains from telephone poles at night?

After all, some of them do hum.
There do seem to be fashions for hoaxes, big skeletons in the 19th, early 20th century. UFOs from the late 40's and 50's. One explanation for some of the big bone skeletons is simple misinterpretation of the bones, papers competing with each other, hoaxes such as the Cardiff Giant.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
One explanation for some of the big bone skeletons is simple misinterpretation of the bones, papers competing with each other, hoaxes such as the Cardiff Giant.
And every bone in all fifty states and the District of Colombia has been checked and verified a hoax?

Do you believe Jimmy Hoffa is buried in the endzone of the Kansas City Chiefs?

After all, they've been penalized for having too many men on the field before.
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,165.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And every bone in all fifty states and the District of Colombia has been checked and verified a hoax?

Do you believe Jimmy Hoffa is buried in the endzone of the Kansas City Chiefs?

After all, they've been penalized for having too many men on the field before.
Unfortunately there is no credible evidence of these mythical Giants, old newspaper stories and old photos do not cut it, please pass me the scientific research, and the bones themselves. You are left with a conspiracy theory along the same lines as UFO's, chem trails and the illuminati.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Unfortunately there is no credible evidence of these mythical Giants,
Maybe Thetans ordered all fifty states and the District of Columbia to destroy all physical evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,165.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Maybe Thetans ordered all fifty states and the District of Columbia to destroy all physical evidence?
I did not realise the Thetans were included in your edition of the bible, is it the Scientology edition?
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think you're wrong here. "Calcified collagen fibres" is clearly talking about a mineralized tissue. The lower density and diagnostic structures don't mean that the tissue is soft, merely that those structures are preserved.

I don't see any mention in the article about the tissue being mineralized.

From the collagen scanning notes:
"Bright-field STEM micrograph depicting fibre fragments showing a banded pattern consistent with banding typically observed in collagen fibrils...Diagram representing the structure of a generic collagen molecule that produces 67nm banding; I banded collagen fibrils surrounded by bone mineral matrix; II individual fibrils are composed of numerous collagen molecules arranged to produce 67nm banding; III the canonical collagen triple helix."

What exactly do you believe they found when they are describing fibrous material that is virtually indistinguishable from the original protein?

Extrapolation is not the same thing as speculation. Untreated blood vessels turned to ooz in days while the treated vessels were preserved two years later. Clearly iron has the power to preserve tissues. Schweitzer's experiment is a proof of concept, not the final answer and she did not present it as such, despite what Armitage claims. And Armitage's video is pretty bad. He starts by saying that the test is bogus because of the laboratory conditions, then by the end of the video he's claiming that iron doesn't actually preserve tissue which is objectively false. You can't honestly be convinced by his absurd argument that if iron could really preserve tissue he would already know about it and rich people would be using it to prolong their lives and therefore it must not have this property. Schweitzer's experiment proves that it does regardless of whether you accept the extrapolation. And the isolation of certain tissues from blood is basically irrelevant, if it is even true. He seems to be unaware that groundwater is often rich iron. I have worked on literally dozens of dinosaur specimens encased in and impregnated by ironstone. Ironstone is the result of copious amounts of iron in the groundwater so it is ridiculous to say
that any tissue would be isolated from a source of iron. It is empiracle fact that iron preserves tissue and that iron is common in environments where fossilization takes place. It does not therefore seem unreasonable that the structure of tissues could be preserved for far longer than previously supposed.
And again, Schweitzer's work is something new. It's just the beginning, not the final word. It is entirely likely, as is so often the case, that there is more than one process at work. Just because a new hypothesis is proposed to explain a new phenomenon doesn't make it ad hoc or invalid, particularly when the fundamental concept is backed up by empiracle observation.

It is ad-hoc speculation in every sense of the word. You should at least be able to admit it. You would eviscerate YEC's for speculating in the same manner to try and resolve how a seemingly old structure may have formed rapidly, or a seemingly eolian deposit be formed aqueously, etc.

And I maintain if you were truly approaching the issue scientifically, you would at least consider that conventional dating techniques may be in question and dinosaur remains may not be 65+ million years old. You don't have to conclude that of course, but you should be allowed to discuss such ideas. But you and I both know such blasphemous talk would mean immediate excommunication. The faith of 65+ million year old dinosaurs will not be questioned under any circumstances.


Sorry, but this reads like a cop-out because you have not even bothered to explain why this analogy is not really analogous. Please state your case explicitly instead of brushing off the point entirely.

Because you were comparing an entire history of old-earth geology with a dispute over the territoriality of cougars.

At least do me the courtesy of answering the simple question I posed in the context of the analogy itself: is it more parsimonious to start with the idea that all the indications of cougars being present are valid and that the previous understanding of their distribution was flawed than to assume all those congruent observations are wrong? Yes or no?

Yes. Now what if the party promoting the presence of cougars already concluded that they were correct before investigation, and decided any contradictory data would be discarded as something nature did to confuse their preformed conclusion.

Declaring that your suspicions beat equal weight to a practicing geologist does not make it so. In the end you justnkeep falling back on your unsubstantiated insistence, despite qualified testimony to the contrary which you have not even addressed let alone refuted, that contamination is assumed rather than identified.

Heavily discordant dates are not useful for building a geologic time model where the goal is to calibrate radiometric data with fossil content. Why is it unreasonable to assume that such discordant dates are discarded?

And your point here ignores the fact that the idea of an old Earth had to overcome immense resistance from the mainstream young earth view.

Yes it overcame a young-earth view with admittedly flawed uniformitarian assumptions. When it was realized their assumptions were wrong, nobody wanted to go back and question whether or not they were wrong about deep-time. The old-earth belief was entrenched as an unquestionable philosophical dogma from its inception. From that point onward, the job of "science" was to find evidence for what they believed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I did not realise the Thetans were included in your edition of the bible, is it the Scientology edition?
I'm trying to see this vast continental conspiracy from your POV.

All fifty states and the District of Colombia were motivated to write these articles from somewhere.

And if they are truly hoaxes, then maybe the FBI should check and see where it is originating?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why would you even think about reporting him? why not just tell him why he is wrong? explain to him why it is you never give a straight answer to 95% of questions you're asked? why not enlighten him instead of reporting him.
I can read so I know you are not good at giving answers to questions you're asked, why do you think that is?
Why not follow the rules and discuss the topics and issues rather than making remarks about the person? If you don't like the way I post and discuss those topics and discussions don't interact with me. It is really very simple.

It seems that those I interact with on the forum from the opposing side have a real problem with questions themselves and feel they are free from making any attempt to substantiate their own view. There are a few on here that spend their time making snide remarks about the person rather than taking part in meaningful dialog.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, that's what I was saying.



What you mean is we can't have evidence for the earliest life in the earliest rocks because the earliest life would have left no trace. That's one of the problems with trying to reconstruct how life started. But we can put together likely scenarios.

So let me get this straight, we can put together likely scenarios as long it is the "likely" ones that you agree with?
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟12,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
So let me get this straight, we can put together likely scenarios as long it is the "likely" ones that you agree with?

I don't think the scientists have me in mind when working out the most probable ways life began, do you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes it overcame a young-earth view with admittedly flawed uniformitarian assumptions. When it was realized their assumptions were wrong, nobody wanted to go back and question whether or not they were wrong about deep-time.

Yeah, because the evidence they had collected showed processes that simply could not have happened on a young earth. What, you think every time we find out we were wrong, we should toss everything out the window?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.