Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[crjmurray]

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.





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.

You do realize that deep time precedes evolution right?

 

[lifepsyop]

You do realize that deep time precedes evolution right?

Deep-time is the raw material of the over-arching evolutionary creation narrative, whether it be the universe, planets, life, etc. They are inseparable.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You do realize that deep time precedes evolution right?

You mean clocks that would run faster as we go backwards through time in an accelerating expanding universe? So that with an initial faster than c expansion that continued to accelerate time would of flowed exponentially faster and ages would seem long when if compared to today's time would be but a few thousand years?

I mean clocks slow under acceleration, yes? The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, yes? So clocks ran faster in the past by necessity when that acceleration was less, yes?

I.e., decay rates were not proportional to today.

 

[dad]

You do realize that deep time precedes evolution right?

False. Nothing anywhere evolved until after it was created. Life was created in the universe on this earth and we know about when Adam lived.

 

[dad]

I mean clocks slow under acceleration, yes? The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, yes? So clocks ran faster in the past by necessity when that acceleration was less, yes?

Not if it actually was created! The expansion is based on interpreting the far universe as if it was under earth rules.

 

[crjmurray]

Deep-time is the raw material of the over-arching evolutionary creation narrative, whether it be the universe, planets, life, etc. They are inseparable.

My point being, that support of deep time was around long before evolution came about. Since deep time existed before evolution then what was the motivation for supporting it originally?

 

[lifepsyop]

My point being, that support of deep time was around long before evolution came about. Since deep time existed before evolution then what was the motivation for supporting it originally?

Evolutionary beliefs have been around for thousands of years.

 

[crjmurray]

Evolutionary beliefs have been around for thousands of years.

Any evidence for that?

Are you suggesting that deep time was originally conceived to support a theory that didn't exist? Or that there's some secret cabal propagating a TOE that is a millennia old?

 

[dad]

My point being, that support of deep time was around long before evolution came about.

No. The misconceptions and wrong beliefs started quite a while ago, but they are nonsense and can't be supported.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not making an argument here. You are just hand-waiving as usual.

I always knew the Big Bang model was junk science. I always felt the so-called “evidence” used to support evolution theory was ridiculous and often silly. And now I’m more aware that the dating methods are often just an illusion -- that dates calculated do not always match the ages you expect and are routinely discarded when they don’t.

It just seems like one great, big magic show to me, a circus routine, and anyone who doesn't join the circus are labeled as ignorant or cranks, or removed from their position like RickG is trying to do here.

No "handwaving" Doveaman, I was pointing out the obvious failures of lifepsyop. And as far as the rest of science that you deny your opinion is worth nothing and only shows that you are a hypocrite. Why do you use this science on a daily basis that you deny? But let's concentrate on radiometric dating right now. Why do you think that they are wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. The misconceptions and wrong beliefs started quite a while ago, but they are nonsense and can't be supported.

Yes, but that does not stop you from posting about your misconceptions and wrong beliefs.

Unlike you scientists do have evidence that supports their claims.

 

[lifepsyop]

Any evidence for that?

Yea, the ancient Greeks believed in evolution of higher life forms from more primitive ones.

Are you suggesting that deep time was originally conceived to support a theory that didn't exist? Or that there's some secret cabal propagating a TOE that is a millennia old?

A belief in deep-time (not to mention the Big-Bang-like inception of the universe) has been around for just as long.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not if it actually was created! The expansion is based on interpreting the far universe as if it was under earth rules.

No, it's based upon interpreting the universe under today's clock and decay rate - which would have been faster in the past 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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, but that does not stop you from posting about your misconceptions and wrong beliefs.

Unlike you scientists do have evidence that supports their claims.

Yes they do. Breed mating with breed producing new breeds. So why do you deny the science you claim to have???

 

[crjmurray]

Yea, the ancient Greeks believed in evolution of higher life forms from more primitive ones.



A belief in deep-time (not to mention the Big-Bang-like inception of the universe) has been around for just as long.

So its the cabal then.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yea, the ancient Greeks believed in evolution of higher life forms from more primitive ones.



A belief in deep-time (not to mention the Big-Bang-like inception of the universe) has been around for just as long.

No the creation of the universe was around for even a longer time - which because you refuse to accept the part of your theory that says clocks slow with acceleration and therefore ticked faster in the past - you are confused about the true age of things - basing all of that age upon the rate at which clocks tick now. A simple misconception, but a misconception nonetheless that is not even in line with your own theory of the accelerating expansion of the universe; and the fact that we know clocks slow with acceleration. If you accept the BB theory you must also accept that time went at a faster rate than observed today during that long ago time. But as usual evolutionists seem to pick and choose which part of the theory they will accept any given day.

 

[crjmurray]

No the creation of the universe was around for even a longer time - which because you refuse to accept the part of your theory that says clocks slow with acceleration and therefore ticked faster in the past - you are confused about the true age of things - basing all of that age upon the rate at which clocks tick now. A simple misconception, but a misconception nonetheless that is not even in line with your own theory of the accelerating expansion of the universe; and the fact that we know clocks slow with acceleration. If you accept the BB theory you must also accept that time went at a faster rate than observed today during that long ago time. But as usual evolutionists seem to pick and choose which part of the theory they will accept any given day.

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?

 

[The Cadet]

Because we have an entire branch of forensic science dedicated to determining time of death based upon bodily decay rates. We know how fast organic matter decays and it's lifetime - just as you claim we can determine the age of rocks by the half-life of compounds.

You just don't want to accept the conclusions of the science.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes they do. Breed mating with breed producing new breeds. So why do you deny the science you claim to have???

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

 

[dad]

Yes, but that does not stop you from posting about your misconceptions and wrong beliefs.

Unlike you scientists do have evidence that supports their claims.

You have the opportunity to show that your claims are more than godless nonsense. Don't blame me.