Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[HAPMinistries]

Happy Thanksgiving.

I am not presenting any more videos since, and I am not accusing anyone in here, but I am being falsely DMCAed.

So without further adieu:

A leap second is a positive or negative one-second adjustment to the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) time scale that keeps it close to mean solar time.

Leap second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, accoring to empirical evidence we do have, on occurrence about 1 time every 18 months, we gain a second in our year.

BUT, according to the 'Time of the Gaps' fallacy, we only gain a second 1 time every 200 years.

Do you see any Difference between what we 'know' and what the 'hypothesis' suggests?

With the rate being 1 every 18 months, then it would be impossible for the earth to sustain life in the not too distant past, and not giving any possibility for Abiogenesis or the Time of the Gaps time-line for evolution to occur.

Now we have something we know [Leap Second], and a impossible, unproven hypothesis [1 every 200 years, long time-line for abiogenesis and evolution].

Another reason why the anti-science movement is to be blamed on scientists.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Forensics trumps testimony.

How can you have forensics of what you have no evidence of?

 

[Cabal]

How can you have forensics of what you have no evidence of?

You're denying that fossils and genes exist now?

Btw, your statement is tautologous. It's forensics that shows what we observe to be evidence of evolution, not that forensics works because we have evidence for evolution.

 

[HAPMinistries]

You're denying that fossils and genes exist now?

Btw, your statement is tautologous. It's forensics that shows what we observe to be evidence of evolution, not that forensics works because we have evidence for evolution.

I am not denying the existence of fossils.
I am showing that evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis when it assumes a fossil evolved into a completely different species.

Like, for 1, give evidence that that fossil had children, I would believe that would be the first step. If you can not prove or disprove if a fossil had children, then it is 'voodoo science' to assume it not only reproduced, but it's reproduction was a different species over time.

*awesome use of tautologous, btw.

 

[Cabal]

I am not denying the existence of fossils.

Hurrah.

I am showing that evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis when it assumes a fossil evolved into a completely different species.

Except it doesn't assume, it gives evidence, or at least purports to.

Like, for 1, give evidence that that fossil had children, I would believe that would be the first step.

Why does that specific fossil need to be shown to have reproduced? It's incredibly unlikely that only one member of that species existed, and the odds of only discovering mutant individuals is unlikely on the scale of a 747-after-a-tornado-in-a-junkyard.

If you can not prove or disprove if a fossil had children, then it is 'voodoo science' to assume it not only reproduced, but it's reproduction was a different species over time.

Except we're not claiming that that specific individual was the ancestor of modern species, only that it was representative of the SPECIES that spawned them. Even if you don't pass on your genes, that doesn't mean none of your genes will be passed on if you have reproducing relatives.

Regarding the comparison of evolution to forensics, it is completely apt. We take the contemporary observable traces of past, unrepeatable, unobserved events, and using processes that we know to be correct having observed them in the present, we infer what occurred in the past.

Forensic criminology is no different than evolution, and yet somehow I suspect you aren't wanting to have all criminals convicted on forensics to be freed for miscarriages of justice.

 

[matthewgar]

I am not denying the existence of fossils.
I am showing that evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis when it assumes a fossil evolved into a completely different species.

Like, for 1, give evidence that that fossil had children, I would believe that would be the first step. If you can not prove or disprove if a fossil had children, then it is 'voodoo science' to assume it not only reproduced, but it's reproduction was a different species over time.

*awesome use of tautologous, btw.

Except that as with many many strawman arguments not something scieintists argue, no fossil is ever truly claimed to be the ancestor of modern animals, this tends to be more how the Media presents it. As the famous quote mine goes, "There are no fossils that could difinitivly be shown to be the ancestors of any existing species." because we don't have the DNA or such. BUT chances are where there 1 in individual there are many others, and other species. Archeorapteryx is too late to be the ancestor of modern birds, but it shows the transitional features that the species that did lead to Modern birds had. It's the same with many other fossils, these are likly the sister species or descendant species of the sister species that gave rise to modern animals.

 

[HAPMinistries]

no fossil is ever truly claimed to be the ancestor of modern animals, this tends to be more how the Media presents it. As the famous quote mine goes, "There are no fossils that could difinitivly be shown to be the ancestors of any existing species."

Thank you.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Forensic criminology is no different than evolution, and yet somehow I suspect you aren't wanting to have all criminals convicted on forensics to be freed for miscarriages of justice.

Huge difference in concluding who's the baby daddy on the springer show, and concluding all life evolved from a single cell organism.

 

[Cabal]

Huge difference in concluding who's the baby daddy on the springer show, and concluding all life evolved from a single cell organism.

The conclusions may differ, but it is the same process.

Why do you inconsistently accept it for some cases but arbitrarily reject it for others?

 

[Cabal]

Thank you.

I think you might need to look up what "quote mine" is.

What matthewgar posted doesn't help your case in the slightest.

 

[HAPMinistries]

I think you might need to look up what "quote mine" is.

What matthewgar posted doesn't help your case in the slightest.

Matt gave an intelligent answer that got to the bottom of the problem.

You ask questions that create fallacies. Why do I say that?

Ok, what is this thread?

Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

So, eventually, the debate should go back to agreeing or disagreeing with this statement. If you are unaware of this, then you really need to learn.

So, my questioning of the fossils, which matt intelligently answered, is that in the end, fossils do not prove anything other than at one time, that fossil existed.

"There are no fossils that could difinitivly be shown to be the ancestors of any existing species."

Now, when dealing with a testable form, say a pregnancy test, we can tell the accuracy of the test by simply waiting until the pregnancy reaches a later state or even wait until the woman gives birth to know whether it was accurate or not.

When you deal with something over an unknowable time frame I call the time of the gaps fallacy, and a science that says a species can become a completely different species over that time, also unknowable, then you simply have a hypothesis.

A hypothesis.

That is not meant to be an insult, but a true reflection of what the assumption is.

Now, if you turn on tv, and watch a show that says "MILLIONS of years ago Dinosaurs walked the earth..." like it is a proven fact.

That is where people lose trust in the scientific community, and thus the rise of the anti-science movement.

I posted a video showing the complexity of a cell and how the time allowed never makes any sense.

I posted a video about how ludicrous it is to believe life formed from a rock and space sugar, aka Abiogenesis. That alone is quite batty to believe.

I have even posted the "Leap Second", that no one yet has even attempted to refute.

As I stated in the beginning, evidence does not suggest the time of the gaps time-line is even possible, much less rational. That does not make me a YEC, it makes me observant to my environment.

And again, as I said in the beginning, science would be respected a WHOLE LOT MORE if it was honest and said, "We do not know, but the best hypothesis today is..." Instead of trying to pass a hypothesis off as a known fact. That is and was my point this whole time, on why scientists have their portion of blame to take in the rise of the anti-science movement.

 

[Cabal]

Matt gave an intelligent answer that got to the bottom of the problem.

You ask questions that create fallacies. Why do I say that?

Ok, what is this thread?

Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

So, eventually, the debate should go back to agreeing or disagreeing with this statement. If you are unaware of this, then you really need to learn.

So, my questioning of the fossils, which matt intelligently answered, is that in the end, fossils do not prove anything other than at one time, that fossil existed.

Incorrect - and that wasn't the point of what matt was saying. You've completely ignored my pointing out that you've essentially committed a strawman fallacy regarding what evolution claims - yet again.

Now, when dealing with a testable form, say a pregnancy test, we can tell the accuracy of the test by simply waiting until the pregnancy reaches a later state or even wait until the woman gives birth to know whether it was accurate or not.

Except we know all about means of heritability, which allows for genes to be passed on via litter-mates, so it does not matter if that exact fossil reproduced or not. Unless you're claiming that the exact same genes in the exact same locations arose by chance twice, independently (which is not what evolution claims, but is incredibly improbable compared to evolution). As I said before - THAT is that real 747 in a junkyard here.

When you deal with something over an unknowable time frame I call the time of the gaps fallacy, and a science that says a species can become a completely different species over that time, also unknowable, then you simply have a hypothesis.

Except we have evidence for the specific length of time involved, and we also have evidence for speciation, which I posted already. So neither of your points here hold water.

A hypothesis.

Actually, a theory.

That is not meant to be an insult, but a true reflection of what the assumption is.

It's not insulting. It's just wrong

Now, if you turn on tv, and watch a show that says "MILLIONS of years ago Dinosaurs walked the earth..." like it is a proven fact.

It is.

That is where people lose trust in the scientific community, and thus the rise of the anti-science movement.

Most people don't have an issue with that. Only backwater creationists.

I posted a video showing the complexity of a cell and how the time allowed never makes any sense.

I posted a video about how ludicrous it is to believe life formed from a rock and space sugar, aka Abiogenesis. That alone is quite batty to believe.

I will watch them when my computer decides to start playing sound again (rrrr).

And again, as I said in the beginning, science would be respected a WHOLE LOT MORE if it was honest and said, "We do not know, but the best hypothesis today is..." Instead of trying to pass a hypothesis off as a known fact. That is and was my point this whole time, on why scientists have their portion of blame to take in the rise of the anti-science movement.

There is no reason science should not tell the truth, that it has strong and conclusive evidence for its claims. I'm all for being approachable to those not versed in science, but I will not stoop to pandering to people incapable of handling the truth. It's a two-way process.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Incorrect - and that wasn't the point of what matt was saying. You've completely ignored my pointing out that you've essentially committed a strawman fallacy regarding what evolution claims - yet again.

So you are saying you can tell if the fossil had children AND the children had children, and they became a different species?

This is already debunked, and you continue?

Except we know all about means of heritability, which allows for genes to be passed on via litter-mates, so it does not matter if that exact fossil reproduced or not. Unless you're claiming that the exact same genes in the exact same locations arose by chance twice, independently (which is not what evolution claims, but is incredibly improbable compared to evolution). As I said before - THAT is that real 747 in a junkyard here.

You are talking about genes when I say fossil, when I say genes, you say fossil. Everyone knows the game, why do you continue to play?

Except we have evidence for the specific length of time.

No you do not. You have a hypothesis

It's not insulting. It's just wrong

The truth is not wrong.

There is no reason science should not tell the truth, that it has strong and conclusive evidence for its claims. I'm all for being approachable to those not versed in science, but I will not stoop to pandering to people incapable of handling the truth. It's a two-way process.

Sadly, while I present point after point after point, all you do is create fallacies.

Now in any of this, did you approach the complexity of a cell? no
Did you approach Abiogenesis? no
Did you approach world population? no
Did you approach the Leap Second? no

You pretty much accused me of a fallacy, which is quite the opposite and did this

And in the end, did you make a conclusion on why scientists are not responsible for the anti-science movement? About the closest you got is:

I will not stoop to pandering to people incapable of handling the truth. It's a two-way process.

So it is simply, to you, people not willing to accept the 'truth'.
Did you approach the complexity of a cell? no
Did you approach Abiogenesis? no
Did you approach world population? no
Did you approach the Leap Second? no
But you believe people are just not willing to accept the truth.

Right

 

[Psudopod]

Now, if you turn on tv, and watch a show that says "MILLIONS of years ago Dinosaurs walked the earth..." like it is a proven fact.

There is enough evidence that this can be considered a fact. Even though all of science is tentative and not proven, there comes a point were your certainty in something might as well be treated as fact.

That is where people lose trust in the scientific community, and thus the rise of the anti-science movement.

This is a problem with education about science, not science itself. And probably varies from country to country. There aren’t many people where I live who would be put off by the idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago.

I posted a video about how ludicrous it is to believe life formed from a rock and space sugar, aka Abiogenesis. That alone is quite batty to believe.

Yes, it is batty. Good thing abiogenesis is nothing like that.

And again, as I said in the beginning, science would be respected a WHOLE LOT MORE if it was honest and said, "We do not know, but the best hypothesis today is..." Instead of trying to pass a hypothesis off as a known fact. That is and was my point this whole time, on why scientists have their portion of blame to take in the rise of the anti-science movement.

Anyone who understands science knows that science is tentative – it is proved wrong, not proved right. However, as I have said above, the more you accumulated evidence that agrees the more certain you become. Also, much of the problem with things being reported as fact is nothing to do with the scientists, but with poor reporting in the media. A scientific paper will have error bars, a piece in a news paper will generally just say “Scientists say X” without qualifying it any further.

 

[Cabal]

So you are saying you can tell if the fossil had children AND the children had children, and they became a different species?

Point completely missed. Establishing direct ancestry is irrelevant, because traits are not always passed on to future generations through one specific individual, but through litter-mates/siblings, etc.

This is already debunked, and you continue?

You debunked yourself when you issued yet another strawman fallacy.

You are talking about genes when I say fossil, when I say genes, you say fossil. Everyone knows the game, why do you continue to play?

Genes are the methods by which physical traits are expressed and passed on, many of which are reflected in a fossil line. Try and keep up.

No you do not. You have a hypothesis

Nope. Radiometric dating. Thanks for playing, run along now.

The truth is not wrong.

It is if it's not truth in the first place.

Sadly, while I present point after point after point, all you do is create fallacies.

Now in any of this, did you approach the complexity of a cell? no
Did you approach Abiogenesis? no
Did you approach world population? no
Did you approach the Leap Second? no

As I said, I haven't got the means to watch your videos yet, although given the standard of your knowledge displayed on the thread, I'm not exactly holding my breath. That said, I did address the remainder of your points, which was either a strawman or simply unreasonable.

You pretty much accused me of a fallacy, which is quite the opposite and did this

Again, you've shown yourself to be utterly incompetent when it comes to identifying fallacies, so cry me a river

And in the end, did you make a conclusion on why scientists are not responsible for the anti-science movement? About the closest you got is: So it is simply, to you, people not willing to accept the 'truth'.

It's more about objection being reasonable, and creationism is anything but reasonable. I am more than happy to face any reasonable and honest discussion on evolution.

But someone who barges in, declares an entire field to be wrong despite displaying absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the topic they've unequivocally dismissed and tells people more informed than him that they don't know what evolution is? Nuts to that - take what you get in response, and be darn grateful for that.

Did you approach the complexity of a cell? no
Did you approach Abiogenesis? no
Did you approach world population? no
Did you approach the Leap Second? no
But you believe people are just not willing to accept the truth.

Right

These objections have doubtless been addressed elsewhere, many times - originality isn't a creationist strongpoint. Eventually it is time to just shake the dust from your feet, so to speak, and leave those who want to cavort around in the dark ages behind.

 

[HAPMinistries]

There is enough evidence that this can be considered a fact. Even though all of science is tentative and not proven, there comes a point were your certainty in something might as well be treated as fact.

That is absurd.
I showed example of carbon dating a living snail to be 27,000 years old. I laugh, and for good reason, because i know the snails age.

Let me repeat, I know the snails age.

...Let me say that again, I know the snail's age.

Why did I say that so many times? To let you know that for something to be 'reliable', you have to be able to know if the results are accurate. In dealing with ANYTHING over the gross periods of time, that you would ignorantly call a 'fact', there is absolutely no way of knowing it is accurate. There is no way of knowing, and because there is no way of knowing, it is simply a educated guess, a hypothesis, and that is all it is and will be untill we have a way of truly knowing.

This is a problem with education about science, not science itself. And probably varies from country to country. There aren’t many people where I live who would be put off by the idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago.

Neither here. Still, as I stated in what we truly know, and what we are making an educated guess at, and stop blurring the lines.

Yes, it is batty. Good thing abiogenesis is nothing like that.

It is already proven. Space sugar, check. Rock, check.
Your ignorance of Abiogenesis is glaring.

Anyone who understands science knows that science is tentative – it is proved wrong, not proved right.

Incorrect, science is to be an observation and analyzing of our environment, not a negative marathon.

However, as I have said above, the more you accumulated evidence that agrees the more certain you become. Also, much of the problem with things being reported as fact is nothing to do with the scientists, but with poor reporting in the media. A scientific paper will have error bars, a piece in a news paper will generally just say “Scientists say X” without qualifying it any further.

I agree, it is represented horribly.

 

[Gracchus]

That is absurd.
I showed example of carbon dating a living snail to be 27,000 years old. I laugh, and for good reason, because i know the snails age.

Let me repeat, I know the snails age.

...Let me say that again, I know the snail's age.

What you apparently don't know is that carbon dating is not used to date marine organinsms, because they do not obtain their carbon from the atmosphere.

Why did I say that so many times? To let you know that for something to be 'reliable', you have to be able to know if the results are accurate.

And you have to be aware of the conditions you are testing. Carbon dating can be used for terrestrial plant and animal material that got its carbon from the atmosphere. Scientists know that it cannot be reliably used to date material from marine organisms. Only ignorant or dishonest creationists would try.

And carbon dating has been callibrated against tree-ring dating, gases trapped in ice by seasonal glacial layering and by organic material in seasonal varves. In short, it has been independently tested against three different systems of dating and has proven reliable.

 

[HAPMinistries]

What you apparently don't know is that carbon dating is not used to date marine organinsms, because they do not obtain their carbon from the atmosphere.

Let me repeat this a third time:

I showed example of carbon dating a living snail to be 27,000 years old. I laugh, and for good reason, because I know the snails age.

Let me repeat, I know the snails age.

...Let me say that again, I know the snail's age.

Why did I say that so many times? To let you know that for something to be 'reliable', you have to be able to know if the results are accurate. In dealing with ANYTHING over the gross periods of time, there is absolutely no way of knowing it is accurate. There is no way of knowing, and because there is no way of knowing, it is simply a educated guess, a hypothesis, and that is all it is and will be until we have a way of truly knowing.

 

[Gracchus]

Let me repeat this a third time: I showed example of carbon dating a living snail to be 27,000 years old. I laugh, and for good reason, because I know the snails age.
Let me repeat, I know the snails age.
...Let me say that again, I know the snail's age.

Carbon-14 is generated in the atmosphere by cosmic rays from the sun. The ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere does fluctuate but not wildly. Moreover, this fluctuation does leave a traceable record in glacial ice, tree rings, and seasonal sediments called varves, all of which can be dated without using radiometric dating. Thus, three independent histories tell us how the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has varied over the useful range of carbon dating (about 50,000) years.,

Why did I say that so many times? To let you know that for something to be 'reliable', you have to be able to know if the results are accurate.

I understood you the first time. You, apparently, have not understood me: Marine organisms gain much of their carbon from sources other than the atmosphere, including such sources as dissolved carbonates from ancient corals.
Those who use carbon dating are well aware that it cannot be used to reliably date material from marine organisms. (Nor can you use it to date organic material much over fifty thousand years old.)
You have to know more than that the method is accurate. You have to know whether or not the method is suitable. No matter how accurately you determine the ratio of carbon-14/carbon-12 it is not suitable for dating material from marine organisms.

In dealing with ANYTHING over the gross periods of time, there is absolutely no way of knowing it is accurate. There is no way of knowing, and because there is no way of knowing, it is simply a educated guess, a hypothesis, and that is all it is and will be until we have a way of truly knowing.

There is a way to know: By a well understood and suitable method. But even educated guesses are more to be trusted than ignorant assertions, and well understood methods are more to be trusted than folklore, superstition and myth.
Real scientists do not use the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio to date marine organisms. It is not a suitable method in such cases. It matters not if you are accurate to fourteen decimal places in such an attempt: The carbon-14 method is not a suitable method to date marine organisms. (e.g. snails, fish, seals, whales, sea-weed, etc.)
Only ignorant or dishonest people would attempt to use it so.

 

[matthewgar]

okay since it seems my point was missed...and ironicly partly quote mined *it's the same, but he leaves out the explanation* wich makes the quote even funnier.

Lets do a thought experiment here to show why direct ancestral fossils are not needed. For this thought experiement we will assume evolution is true, you don't have to in RL, but this is just for the context of my point.

Lets say over millions of years after somethings happened to humans, ravens eventually evolve into something close to us. They figure out evolution, and find fossils of their ancestors. They find fossils of various birds, and some that look very simular to them, now they could be ravens, crows, magpies, or other simular species, along with many species beyond that point leading to them. It's not important that they only crow fossils even though they didn't evolve from crow's, because they were a sister species to ravens having a common ancestor. They found the fossil with the right features at the right time, or maybe they found the ancestors of crows a million years for now that were following the same path but died out, it wouldn't matter either as again they be seeing the features.

This is what it's like in the fossil record, archeopteryx isn't the ancestor of modern birds, but the ancestor of modern birds would have been very simular to archeopteryx, and they likly both share a common ancestor that was simular to archeopteryx. Wether or not you agree with evolution, this is what evolution works on and expects and finds. The fossils show transitional forms, transitional species is a misnomer, why forms is better as it shows the features and forms of the transitions. This is the point I was trying to make

If you come from a small town in italy, and I find graves at that town with your family name, I don't have to prove they were your ancestors to know they were from your family even if far removed. This is a nonsensical argument requiring yet again something evolution never requires nor expects too. If your going to argue against evolution have the decency to argue against what is really said and understand why it's said.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&c...wOGrCw&ved=0CBkQvwUoAQ&q=archeopteryx&spell=1