Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Justatruthseeker]

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

He can't. Which is why all he can do is make claims. He can't show you that life propagates any other way than breed mating with breed producing new breeds through exchange of genetic information or through the replication of that information and variations from recessive and dominant genes. All he has is claims - which is why that is all he ever makes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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!

Because Schweitzer refused to question the age of the soft tissue - despite no one ever believing it could last that long. And now you want us all to believe that even though all the carbon 14 in the bones is supposed to be gone - another belief like not bothering to look for soft tissue - even if that carbon material (soft tissue) was found on these same fossils in which the carbon is "believed" to be all gone, as soft tissue was believed to be all gone.

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.

You mean your theory of age was called into question so it is quicker to get rid of the opposing voice since no valid answer exists why it should survive but the carbon in fossils shouldn't? Not that anyone ever bothered to check for carbon in fossils - it is just believed to be impossible like soft tissue was believed to be impossible. Of course after soft tissue was "accidentally" found, some decided to check the claim that fossils lack carbon and found that "belief" to be wrong too.

 

[The Cadet]

Because Schweitzer refused to question the age of the soft tissue - despite no one ever believing it could last that long.

Well... yeah. Testing showed quite conclusively that the bone was millions of years old; the discovery of soft tissue does nothing to negate that, and testing it again would be expensive and could damage the fragments. Trying to carbon-date it would be a complete waste of time.

You mean your theory of age was called into question so it is quicker to get rid of the opposing voice since no valid answer exists why it should survive but the carbon in fossils shouldn't?

You're right, it's been a massive conspiracy for the past 150 years involving countless life scientists over every continent. How could I have been so blind?

The dude was fired from a no-security position for trying to inflate his non-existent credentials with the school he was working with at the time and lying to the student body. There's no cover-up, no conspiracy, just a loon pushing bad science in a university and getting removed from a temporary position.

Oh, and as for a valid answer existing, have you actually looked at Mary Schweitzer's research? It's not an unsolveable problem - it's one we might have already solved.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

No, it just goes to show that as long as you don't question established belief and propagate the popular belief - everything is fine.

So tell me, how does soft tissue (carbon material) survive this long while carbon is "believed" to be absent in fossils as soft tissue was believed to be absent? Maybe that belief in carbon not being present is as correct as is the belief that soft tissue could not exist either????????

It seems some doubted that assumption as well and when tested there was indeed carbon in the fossils and they all dated consistently to within the accuracy of those tests.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

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!

You have answered your own question; you have latched on to this story about Mark Armitage's discovery of soft tissue in fossil dinosaurs proving that these fossils are much less than 75 million years old and are treating it as established fact even though you know that the 'science intelligentsia' say that Armitage is wrong. I will ask you a simple question; is there any evidence that would convince you that Armitage is wrong?

Moreover, I expect that some of the biology students share your beliefs, that they have latched on to Armitage's claims, and that, regardless of the evidence, they will give precedence to these claims rather than to the conclusions of professional biologists. In all probability that is why Armitage has been sacked, because he is knowingly giving a handle to young-earth creationists among the students; he, rather than the professors, is the man that you and they will cite as the scientific authority for their opinions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well... yeah. Testing showed quite conclusively that the bone was millions of years old; the discovery of soft tissue does nothing to negate that, and testing it again would be expensive and could damage the fragments. Trying to carbon-date it would be a complete waste of time.

What testing??? Show me any testing ever done on the fossil of any dinosaur bone? You won't, because they believed it was as impossible for carbon to exist as they did for soft tissue to exist - based upon pre-conceived beliefs about the age of the fossils.

Supposedly we can't rely on those tests with sea life because they were in water - can't rely on it to date sedimentary rock because it was formed in water - can't use it to test any fossil because they were all buried through sedimentary actions in water - so can't date actual fossils or fossil bearing rock at all. So exactly what test are you relying on to make the claim that those bones were millions of years old? Your "pre-conceived belief" that they are?

You're right, it's been a massive conspiracy for the past 150 years involving countless life scientists over every continent. How could I have been so blind?

That's your claim - not mine. I claim no conspiracy. Just the pre-conceived beliefs of fallible humans being inserted into the evidence.

The dude was fired from a no-security position for trying to inflate his non-existent credentials with the school he was working with at the time and lying to the student body. There's no cover-up, no conspiracy, just a loon pushing bad science in a university and getting removed from a temporary position.

You could at least get the facts correct. He was fired after presenting a paper which simply surmised that the finding of soft tissue may call into question the age of those fossils. Here is the paper, find the creationist claim? All he did is "prove" that it is indeed soft tissue that has been found - and no excuses needed for claiming "unknown polymers" through "unknown processes" as an excuse.

http://www.creationmoments.com/sites/creationmoments.com/files/pdf/Armitage_Triceratops_final.pdf

Oh, and as for a valid answer existing, have you actually looked at Mary Schweitzer's research? It's not an unsolveable problem - it's one we might have already solved.

What - an unknown polymer through an unknown process?

Schweitzer’s article says that the soft tissues were subjected to several cycles of dehydration/rehydration—without losing their elasticity! So they appear to have been elastic (soft and stretchy, not hard and brittle) in both the dry and wet state.

Hmmm … it seems that on the one hand, we’re told that they are very resistant to breakdown, presumably an argument being used to support the fact that they’ve been preserved. Then we’re told that they are not preserved, i.e. ‘not the original blood vessels’. So why the argument as to their toughness?

(It reminds me of the letter to the editor of an Australian newspaper many years ago. The writer had just been given the spiel at a national park about the long ages assigned to indigenous rock art. He said something like: ‘I’ve just bought a can of the best house paint around, and I’m told if I’m lucky, it’ll last 15 years. Yet I’m shown where some Aboriginal has blown some soggy ochre onto a rock and I’m told it’s lasted 40,000 years. Where can I get a can of that stuff?’)

I'm just wondering where I can get a can of the stuff you are peddling?

 

[Doveaman]

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.

Enough with the distraction tactics.

Present something of substance in response to the OP.

*snip*

Rubbish

 

[Doveaman]

What a spectacular non-answer. So it's because you believe they ignore dates that don't fit the model

Yes.

(even though that's been debunked by an active geologist and several others actually reading the sources in question)

Yes.

 

[lifepsyop]

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.

Why stop there? Shouldn't it be a crime of child-abuse for parents to teach children anti-Evolution heresies? Really, why should the Darwinian priesthood have to waste time correcting all of the parents' "misinformation" ?

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.

No, it just shows that your career is probably safe as long as you remain publicly committed to the evolutionary faith like Schweitzer.

What's really funny is that you guys bullhorn a "scientific consensus" about Evolution, and simultaneously advocate firing anyone in the academic system that questions Evolution. It would be pure comedy if peoples' livelihoods weren't at stake.

 

[Goonie]

What testing??? Show me any testing ever done on the fossil of any dinosaur bone? You won't, because they believed it was as impossible for carbon to exist as they did for soft tissue to exist - based upon pre-conceived beliefs about the age of the fossils.

Supposedly we can't rely on those tests with sea life because they were in water - can't rely on it to date sedimentary rock because it was formed in water - can't use it to test any fossil because they were all buried through sedimentary actions in water - so can't date actual fossils or fossil bearing rock at all. So exactly what test are you relying on to make the claim that those bones were millions of years old? Your "pre-conceived belief" that they are?



That's your claim - not mine. I claim no conspiracy. Just the pre-conceived beliefs of fallible humans being inserted into the evidence.



You could at least get the facts correct. He was fired after presenting a paper which simply surmised that the finding of soft tissue may call into question the age of those fossils. Here is the paper, find the creationist claim? All he did is "prove" that it is indeed soft tissue that has been found - and no excuses needed for claiming "unknown polymers" through "unknown processes" as an excuse.

http://www.creationmoments.com/sites/creationmoments.com/files/pdf/Armitage_Triceratops_final.pdf



What - an unknown polymer through an unknown process?

Schweitzer’s article says that the soft tissues were subjected to several cycles of dehydration/rehydration—without losing their elasticity! So they appear to have been elastic (soft and stretchy, not hard and brittle) in both the dry and wet state.

Hmmm … it seems that on the one hand, we’re told that they are very resistant to breakdown, presumably an argument being used to support the fact that they’ve been preserved. Then we’re told that they are not preserved, i.e. ‘not the original blood vessels’. So why the argument as to their toughness?

(It reminds me of the letter to the editor of an Australian newspaper many years ago. The writer had just been given the spiel at a national park about the long ages assigned to indigenous rock art. He said something like: ‘I’ve just bought a can of the best house paint around, and I’m told if I’m lucky, it’ll last 15 years. Yet I’m shown where some Aboriginal has blown some soggy ochre onto a rock and I’m told it’s lasted 40,000 years. Where can I get a can of that stuff?’)

I'm just wondering where I can get a can of the stuff you are peddling?

Where to begin, well
1, as a lab tech it was not his discovery to publish, perfectly good grounds for dismissal in most universities.
2, as for dating I refer you to http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age.htm bit sophisticated for creationists I admit.

Enough to be getting on with.

 

[Goonie]

Why stop there? Shouldn't it be a crime of child-abuse for parents to teach children anti-Evolution heresies? Really, why should the Darwinian priesthood have to waste time correcting all of the parents' "misinformation" ?



No, it just shows that your career is probably safe as long as you remain publicly committed to the evolutionary faith like Schweitzer.

What's really funny is that you guys bullhorn a "scientific consensus" about Evolution, and simultaneously advocate firing anyone in the academic system that questions Evolution. It would be pure comedy if peoples' livelihoods weren't at stake.

Priesthood? Sorry the only priesthood comes with creationism. Evolution is a science part of biology, accepted by all credible universities and scientists on planet earth as a science. And note I do not say that all scientists accept It as true, though about 95% do, just that it is a science in the same way that the theory of gravity is part of physics.

 

[The Cadet]

What testing??? Show me any testing ever done on the fossil of any dinosaur bone? You won't, because they believed it was as impossible for carbon to exist as they did for soft tissue to exist - based upon pre-conceived beliefs about the age of the fossils.

...You are aware that there are numerous dating methods other than C14, right?

Supposedly we can't rely on those tests with sea life because they were in water

We can't rely on C14 testing. Do you know anything about this subject?

 

[The Cadet]

What's really funny is that you guys bullhorn a "scientific consensus" about Evolution, and simultaneously advocate firing anyone in the academic system that questions Evolution. It would be pure comedy if peoples' livelihoods weren't at stake.

Was this guy a teacher? A professor? Did he have tenure?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Priesthood? Sorry the only priesthood comes with creationism. Evolution is a science part of biology, accepted by all credible universities and scientists on planet earth as a science. And note I do not say that all scientists accept It as true, though about 95% do, just that it is a science in the same way that the theory of gravity is part of physics.

Argumentum ad populum.

 

[Goonie]

Oops mispost.

 

[The Cadet]

Argumentum ad populum.

Eh... Not really. Just because the vast majority of people believe something does not mean that it is true. However, when we are talking about scientific disciplines, the consensus view really does help us understand what the experts think the evidence points to. Or, to put it another way, if you've got 10,000 people who intensely study a complex topic, and 9,999 come away with the same opinion, is it really unreasonable to think that they may have it right?

 

[Doveaman]

Priesthood? Sorry the only priesthood comes with creationism. Evolution is a science part of biology, accepted by all credible universities and scientists on planet earth as a science.

Peer Review is a sacred cow and the priesthood of that sacred cow is a bunch of evolutionists and Big Bang proponents who deny unbelievers any access to that sacred cow because they don’t want the public to know it is just a cow.

And note I do not say that all scientists accept It as true, though about 95% do, just that it is a science in the same way that the theory of gravity is part of physics.

How many of that 95% are actual biologists or can actually understand all the complexities of evolution theory?

Do you understand all of its complexities, or are you just going by hear-say like most people?

 

[Goonie]

Peer Review is a sacred cow and the priesthood of that sacred cow is a bunch of evolutionists and Big Bang proponents who deny unbelievers any access to that sacred cow because they don’t want the public to know it is just a cow.

Sorry, the only sacred cow here is in religion, peer review is always under review, no better option found so far. And it is scientists who are involved, not this mythical religion known as evolutionism, and hey guess what some of these scientists are christians.

 

[The Cadet]

Peer Review is a sacred cow and the priesthood of that sacred cow is a bunch of evolutionists and Big Bang proponents who deny unbelievers any access to that sacred cow because they don’t want the public to know it is just a cow.

And computer scientists.

(Anyone from other disciplines, feel free to chime in!)

 

[Goonie]

And computer scientists.

(Anyone from other disciplines, feel free to chime in!)

Arcaeologists.