Jennifer Rothnie
Well-Known Member
Exactly, which is why I said 'in general' and not 'in every instance.'
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Indeed, we have numerous examples of elephants, humans, cats, birds, plants, insects, etc. getting smaller over time in some cases. It's called a "rule" rather than a law, because it isn't true in all cases.
Well you certainly used scientific knowledge but had a pay check coming in no matter what. No need for grants or publications. So since the living is secure and no ground breaking achievements expected, you wouldn’t know the competition out there.Most of my career, I was in the engineering department of a large insurance company. So I was most often designing workplaces to minimize hazards from material handling and repetitive motion disorders. Closest I got to designing furniture would be things like organizing computer workstations or assembly line layouts.
I have no doubt it requires a lot of science. I mean it.Truth is, one has to be more familiar with human anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics than with what we normally think of as engineering.
I’m sure there are. But the insurance company pays you, not federal grants.Most employers expect one to be a CSP and a voting member of the Human Factors society. And you have to be a competent biologist to understand the mechanics of it all. So there were some obstacles to entering the profession.
I’m sure it requires brains.You might want to take a look at Chaffin and Anderson's Occupational Biomechanics to get an idea of that segment of ergonomics.
Actually you don’t. Those who work at universities, not for comercial businesses like Insurance compies apply for government grants. They have to publish or they’re unemployed. Or they opt for commercial organizations and have secure but non-research jobs.There's a lot of communication between people on those things. Not many people prepare a "manuscript" for it. Most commonly, it's a poster session at a meeting, or telephone conversations, or even talk in the break room. I don't think you know much about the way daily work goes for scientists.
How come copies of the completed manuscripts are NOT shared? Because others in your field will steal your work. You’ve never had to compete in real research. No job or fame depended upon you publishing first your work.A poster presentation, at a congress or conference with an academic or professional focus, is the presentation of research information, usually peer-reviewed work,[contradictory] in the form of a paper poster that conference participants may view. A poster session is an event at which many such posters are presented. Poster sessions are particularly prominent at scientific conferences such as medical congresses.[1][2][3]
Just enough info is given to show something new but not enough to replicate the research until the paper is submitted.Typically a separate room or area of a trade show floor is reserved for the poster session where researchers accompany a paper poster, illustrating their research methods and outcomes.[3] Each research project is usually presented on a conference schedule for a period ranging from 10 minutes to several hours. Very large events may feature a few thousand poster presentations over a matter of a few days.[4]
If you have to quote Wikipedia as to how research conferences go, you’ve never done research hoping to publish.That's how it works. Aren't they afraid of other stealing their research?
Like read wikipedia? I’ve been to them. This is the grade school description like one might explain the election process. Sound so great on wikipedia.Spend a little time learning about it, and we'll talk.
Then how is it that indigenous cultures all over the world that never had any contact with the Bible, Christians or Jews all have their worldwide flood story with their ancestors as the only survivors?
Well you certainly used scientific knowledge but had a pay check coming in no matter what. No need for grants or publications. So since the living is secure and no ground breaking achievements expected, you wouldn’t know the competition out there.
How come copies of the completed manuscripts are NOT shared?
If you have to quote Wikipedia as to how research conferences go,
Exactly, which is why I said 'in general' and not 'in every instance.'
Why are these mutually exclusive except for the guesses at million of years?The Bible literalists say that is proof positive of a universal flood as the Bible describes. Those of us who know science however go with the scientific opinion that this area was once a vast shallow sea and that relatively young mountain was pushed up out of that sea (along with the rest of our state) by seismic activity and shifting of minor tectonic plates roughly 10 million years ago.
I respect both beliefs but I can only go with one of them.
Why are these mutually exclusive except for the guesses at million of years?
Why are these mutually exclusive except for the guesses at million of years?
You say you know science. I say that is your problem. You don't. You have faith in what amounts to political positions propped up by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Because of the internet he raw data is out there for anyone that is willing to really put time and effort into studying it so one can come to their own rational conclusions. Few do though.I have long believed and teach that pretty much every ancient culture has its own flood story(ies). But the fact is that floods occur all over the world. And if you are an ancient one without benefit of books, extensive travel, radio, television, reports from outside your society, and you see flood waters extending as far as you can see in every direction, you likely would believe the flood covered the entire world. And would record your impression of that.
I resist trying to stretch the fossil record to conform to our literal 21st Century interpretations of the Biblical texts however much I appreciate and believe the Bible. For instance, I live near a 10,000+ foot mountain, and on top of it there are sea fossils clearly visible in the rocks along several foot paths.
The Bible literalists say that is proof positive of a universal flood as the Bible describes. Those of us who know science however go with the scientific opinion that this area was once a vast shallow sea and that relatively young mountain was pushed up out of that sea (along with the rest of our state) by seismic activity and shifting of minor tectonic plates roughly 10 million years ago.
I respect both beliefs but I can only go with one of them.
First off I said 30 million plethora of animals not Woolly Mammoths. And no. One published research paper that numbers frozen carcasses in the hundreds of thousands does not create a scientific consensus because dozens of research papers say the tens of millions. My number 30 mil. is the middle ground.I suspect that the 150 million number is inaccurate.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...east-siberia/27ED09ABFB82CD74DAD7589EBB5432A5
published research appears to suggest the numbers in the 100 thousands and its not just mammoths but its a plethora of animals.
I assume you made a mistake by calling these carcasses fossilized because they are not and you noted that in another comment of yours. On to your point though. Since Noah's flood modern science does not have any records of examples of the mass burial or mass fossilization of animals outside of perhaps some local volcanic activity or a flash flood. Everything is eaten by scavengers and microbes. There is nothing outside of massive world wide flood that could produce the conditions needed for the trillions of fossils present. Yes you can imagine all you want but that is faith not observable science. Secondly the animals in Siberia are temperate climate, sub tropical or even tropical animals and the tabloid science media publishes stories of tropical forests and animals in the arctic and ant-arctic all the time. Was a new one yesterday as a matter of fact. Science knows of no mechanism that can produce a 100% temperate or subtropical world. Yet and as usual the Bible beat them to their discoveries of a temperate world without polar ice caps. It says among other phenomena that in the world before the flood there was no rain.Regardless, if you have tens of thousands of years of fossilized bones, then its not hard to imagine how say...10 million might become fossilized. Say we have 20,000 years and 1 million fossils. That's only 50 animals per year being frozen in an area that spans hundreds of thousands of square miles (all of northern Russia and Alaska). Which is nothing. You might have a bad winter that could have killed thousands in a single year. Even if we assumed 10 million animals, this wouldn't be an issue.
I'll look into that.On the flip side, a flood cant explain this. You cant have regional metamorphosis occurring side by side with an ice age. Much less the 10s of ice ages in which there is evidence for, occuring within perhaps a single year? Somehow these mammoth fossils were allegedly scooped up and deposited in a flood, but simultaneously metamorphosed rock below was also deposited. It doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that a flood cant explain the succession among many other things.
That's your story on why you don't research yourself and you just take the "experts" at their word?This may be hard to believe, but there's a lot of stuff on the internet that isn't true.
That's your story on why you don't research yourself and you just take the "experts" at their word?
First off I said 30 million plethora of animals not Woolly Mammoths. And no. One published research paper that numbers frozen carcasses in the hundreds of thousands does not create a scientific consensus because dozens of research papers say the tens of millions. My number 30 mil. is the middle ground.
Further, what you just did sounds exactly like the slight of hand tricks the government funded website Talk Origins tries to pull. Did you even read the short little "paper" you provided? It says MANY hundreds of thousands. How many is many? is ten one hundred thousands many? 50? 300? 3000 hundred thousands many? In other words there are WAAAAAY to many carcasses of temperate or semi tropical animals buried in the frozen mud in Siberia for any "reasonable" "scientific" discussion to be had on just how such a phenomenon could occur. So Talk Origins falsifies the paper they got their number from so they don't have to discuss it and can continue to claim we have science and we refuse to discuss matters of "faith."
I assume you made a mistake by calling these carcasses fossilized because they are not and you noted that in another comment of yours. On to your point though. Since Noah's flood modern science does not have any records of examples of the mass burial or mass fossilization of animals outside of perhaps some local volcanic activity or a flash flood. Everything is eaten by scavengers and microbes. There is nothing outside of massive world wide flood that could produce the conditions needed for the trillions of fossils present. Yes you can imagine all you want but that is faith not observable science. Secondly the animals in Siberia are temperate climate, sub tropical or even tropical animals and the tabloid science media publishes stories of tropical forests and animals in the arctic and ant-arctic all the time. Was a new one yesterday as a matter of fact. Science knows of no mechanism that can produce a 100% temperate or subtropical world. Yet and as usual the Bible beat them to their discoveries of a temperate world without polar ice caps. It says among other phenomena that in the world before the flood there was no rain.
I'll look into that.
Well your right. Couldn't find any data on what kind of sediment layers are beneath the muck. Did however stumble on the new new theory on the burying of Siberian animals. Dust storms after the flood. Claiming the region was far more temperate during the ice age than after and could support Woolly Mammoth populations. On the first page of a search there was one secular scientists theorizing how the dust storms over hundreds of years buried the animals. All the rest are creation scientists though using the during\ after flood upheavals caused such massive dust storms. Seems dust, called loess in the articles fits the evidence. Would make the argument over when and how they occurred.On the flip side, a flood cant explain this. You cant have regional metamorphosis occurring side by side with an ice age. Much less the 10s of ice ages in which there is evidence for, occuring within perhaps a single year? Somehow these mammoth fossils were allegedly scooped up and deposited in a flood, but simultaneously metamorphosed rock below was also deposited. It doesnt make any sense. Not to mention that a flood cant explain the succession among many other things.
Well your right. Couldn't find any data on what kind of sediment layers are beneath the muck. Did however stumble on the new new theory on the burying of Siberian animals. Dust storms after the flood. Claiming the region was far more temperate during the ice age than after and could support Woolly Mammoth populations. On the first page of a search there was one secular scientists theorizing how the dust storms over hundreds of years buried the animals. All the rest are creation scientists though using the during\ after flood upheavals caused such massive dust storms. Seems dust, called loess in the articles fits the evidence. Would make the argument over when and how they occurred.
Search: Dust storms buried the Mammoths? (Did not use Google)
No I specifically said 30 million and listed a number of animals included in that 30 million. I said this article claims 150 million. But if your going to stretch what I said was a claim to discredit me have at it. I As far as fossils are concerned. I am trying to distinguish between turned to stone fossils verses an actual ivory trade in mammoth tusks and Woolly Rhinoceros horns. Perhaps they might be called fossils but they are not fossils of the type where minerals replace cells. They find some of these with flesh intact and often wolves eat the flesh of mammoths that get eroded out of the permafrost. A flesh covered frozen animal is not what most people consider a fossil.Let's see your quote.
"Here is a more modern article I had read on the subject. It claims 150 million Mammoths but it is referring to the modern ivory trade and how it is hoped Woolly Mammoth Ivory will satisfy the markets demands for illegal ivory."
Ok, so you did throw out the 150 million number.
Second. Yes they are fossils. I don't know why you don't think they are. The articles are referring to fossils, that's just what they are.
Lastly, you keep bringing up semi tropical environments, but no mammoths are locked in strata of tropical climates. You're mistaken so try again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?