Some Surprising Facts About Evolution

[TheOutsider]

--Nature vol 240 p56 contains two book reviews, neither of them by Gale, Arden and Hutchinson. Indeed, a search of the entire Nature archive reveals no publication at any time by these three authors.

I found a letter to the editor from Nature 254, 678 - 680 that is from "Gale, Arden, and Hutchinson" about the Nakhla Meteorite. Of course the Creationists still got the issue and page number wrong and misconstrued what they are saying. Here's the link:
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v254/n5502/abs/254678a0.html

 

[MarcusHill]

Surely we can't doubt what someone with that many letters after his name says?

 

[atomweaver]

I found a letter to the editor from Nature 254, 678 - 680 that is from "Gale, Arden, and Hutchinson" about the Nakhla Meteorite. Of course the Creationists still got the issue and page number wrong and misconstrued what they are saying. Here's the link:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v254/n5502/abs/254678a0.html

A letter to the editor, cited as if it were a peer-reviewed article... How deceitful. I wonder how often the tactic was used, in the list of cited references in Inane's post?

 

[Split Rock]

(3) Gale, Arden & Hutchinson also analysed the lead isotope ratios of meteorite, but they came up with a totally different result to Patterson. When they used Patterson's reasoning on their own results they came up with a negative age for the earth.

SOURCE - CEN Technical Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, p:2-5 1992

Is it possible for a creationist to string more than a few paragraphs together without lying?

--Nature vol 240 p56 contains two book reviews, neither of them by Gale, Arden and Hutchinson. Indeed, a search of the entire Nature archive reveals no publication at any time by these three authors.

I found a letter to the editor from Nature 254, 678 - 680 that is from "Gale, Arden, and Hutchinson" about the Nakhla Meteorite. Of course the Creationists still got the issue and page number wrong and misconstrued what they are saying. Here's the link:
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v254/n5502/abs/254678a0.html

This is typical of "Creation Scientists" and their ethics and rigor.

 

[Inan3]

Is it possible for a creationist to string more than a few paragraphs together without lying?

--Nature vol 240 p56 contains two book reviews, neither of them by Gale, Arden and Hutchinson. Indeed, a search of the entire Nature archive reveals no publication at any time by these three authors.

The following information, which I am unable to access, was found at

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=2&page=0&osti_id=4581127


Title URANIUM--LEAD CHRONOLOGY OF CHONDRITIC METEORITES.
Creator/Author Gale, N.H. ; Arden, J. ; Hutchison, R.
Publication Date 1972 Jan 01
OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 4581127
Resource Type Journal Article
Resource Relation Nature (London) Phys. Sci. ;240: No. 99, 56-7(20 Nov 1972).
Research Org Oxford Univ.
Subject N56700 --Physics (Astrophysics & Cosmology)--Planetary Phenomena; CHONDRITES;CHROMATOGRAPHY;DISTRIBUTION;EARTH PLANET;ELECTROCHEMISTRY;ISOTOPE DATING;LEAD 204;LEAD 206;LEAD 207;URANIUM
Related Subject METEORITES/chronology of chondritic, uranium--lead, (E)
Country of Publication United Kingdom
Language English
System Entry Date 2001 Jun 03

But unlike most of you who prefer to use attack and debase tactics I suggest that possibly YOU are in error, rather than accusing you of lying.

I never lie. I don't need to. I may not have all the facts at times or may at times, make mistakes but I never lie. So don't accuse me of it.

And if you are going to accuse the person whose article I "copied and pasted" but DID read, then you had better have all the facts and do a little more searching because it wasn't not hard to find the truth, IF you really want to.

 

[Inan3]

This is typical of "Creation Scientists" and their ethics and rigor.

Well, if the ethics of all evolutionists is to be judged by this forum then I would say they have been "weighed and found wanton"

Look in the mirror. You have NOTHING to boast about!

 

[Inan3]

A letter to the editor, cited as if it were a peer-reviewed article... How deceitful. I wonder how often the tactic was used, in the list of cited references in Inane's post?

Perhaps you should search it out, if you can with honest motives. I have never encoutered a more shallow group than evolution supporters. They accuse and demean and use the same "tactics" on those they accuse of doing the very same thing. Such hypocrisy!

 

[Split Rock]

But unlike most of you who prefer to use attack and debase tactics I suggest that possibly YOU are in error, rather than accusing you of lying.

I never lie. I don't need to. I may not have all the facts at times or may at times, make mistakes but I never lie. So don't accuse me of it.

And if you are going to accuse the person whose article I "copied and pasted" but DID read, then you had better have all the facts and do a little more searching because it wasn't not hard to find the truth, IF you really want to.

I for one did not accuse you of lying, but the source for your information. You may well have read what you copied, but I bet you did NOT check the references he cited. Interesting that you should recommend that we search for the truth, when you don't seem to want to do so.

Well, if the ethics of all evolutionists is to be judged by this forum then I would say they have been "weighed and found wanton"

Look in the mirror. You have NOTHING to boast about!

Show me a post where I have failed either in ethics or rigor. Strange also, that you do not seem to mind the fact that your source misled you.

 

[atomweaver]

The following information, which I am unable to access, was found at

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=2&page=0&osti_id=4581127


Title URANIUM--LEAD CHRONOLOGY OF CHONDRITIC METEORITES.
Creator/Author Gale, N.H. ; Arden, J. ; Hutchison, R.
Publication Date 1972 Jan 01
OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 4581127
Resource Type Journal Article
Resource Relation Nature (London) Phys. Sci. ;240: No. 99, 56-7(20 Nov 1972).
Research Org Oxford Univ.
Subject N56700 --Physics (Astrophysics & Cosmology)--Planetary Phenomena; CHONDRITES;CHROMATOGRAPHY;DISTRIBUTION;EARTH PLANET;ELECTROCHEMISTRY;ISOTOPE DATING;LEAD 204;LEAD 206;LEAD 207;URANIUM
Related Subject METEORITES/chronology of chondritic, uranium--lead, (E)
Country of Publication United Kingdom
Language English
System Entry Date 2001 Jun 03

But unlike most of you who prefer to use attack and debase tactics I suggest that possibly YOU are in error, rather than accusing you of lying.

Gotcha, so the journal in question wasn't Nature, as cited... it was Nature Phys. Sci., which are two different publications.

I never lie. I don't need to. I may not have all the facts at times or may at times, make mistakes but I never lie. So don't accuse me of it.

No one accused you of lying. The deceit was always the responsiblity of the author you quoted, that much is clear. Was it a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and/or inflate the value of the citations (Nature is a much more widely read/regarded journal than Nature Phys. Sci.)? Or, was it a laymans error? I suppose that is between the author and his God...

 

[Inan3]

[/COLOR]

Gotcha, so the journal in question wasn't Nature, as cited... it was Nature Phys. Sci., which are two different publications.

[/COLOR]

No one accused you of lying. The deceit was always the responsiblity of the author you quoted, that much is clear. Was it a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and/or inflate the value of the citations (Nature is a much more widely read/regarded journal than Nature Phys. Sci.)? Or, was it a laymans error? I suppose that is between the author and his God...

Or possibly another publication called Nature in London.

 

[Inan3]

I for one did not accuse you of lying, but the source for your information. You may well have read what you copied, but I bet you did NOT check the references he cited. Interesting that you should recommend that we search for the truth, when you don't seem to want to do so.

Show me a post where I have failed either in ethics or rigor. Strange also, that you do not seem to mind the fact that your source misled you.

You mean the way you didn't check the references of the quotes you used in your post to me and then concluded "this is typical of Creation Scientists and their ethics and rigor. O thou hypocrite! I think you failed in your ethics and rigor right here!

 

[Split Rock]

You mean the way you didn't check the references of the quotes you used in your post to me and then concluded "this is typical of Creation Scientists and their ethics and rigor. O thou hypocrite! I think you failed in your ethics and rigor right here!

I cited the specific example that I was discussing. It never mentioned anything about getting a "negative age" and was cited incorrectly. Over the years I have seen this over and over again from "Creationist Scientists." Why does their behavior not bother you, "oh hypocrite?"

 

[Inan3]

I cited the specific example that I was discussing. It never mentioned anything about getting a "negative age" and was cited incorrectly. Over the years I have seen this over and over again from "Creationist Scientists." Why does their behavior not bother you, "oh hypocrite?"

It doesn't bother me unless I know it for sure. Then it bothers me. No matter who is doing it.

 

[Skaloop]

It doesn't bother me unless I know it for sure. Then it bothers me. No matter who is doing it.

Then you should be bothered. Creation scientists (the professional ones, like Hovind et al.) knowingly lie and distort facts all the time.

 

[Blayz]

I found a letter to the editor from Nature 254, 678 - 680 that is from "Gale, Arden, and Hutchinson" about the Nakhla Meteorite. Of course the Creationists still got the issue and page number wrong and misconstrued what they are saying. Here's the link:
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v254/n5502/abs/254678a0.html

No you didn't.

You found an article by Gale, Arden & Hutchison, NOT HutchiNson

I mean really, now I am supposed to not only look for the authors, but also check all possible versions of their surname as well? The original paper got the journal issue, page number and one of the authors wrong.

 

[TheOutsider]

Here is a well-written rebuttal to Inane's link from No Answers in Genesis:

http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/flaws_in_dating.htm

 

[TheOutsider]

Here is a well-written rebuttal to Inane's link from No Answers in Genesis:

http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/flaws_in_dating.htm

I see that Inane isn't going to respond to my link.

 

[Schroeder]

We have fossils that document the change as whales went from land dwelling animals to aquatic animals. Why is this not macroevolution?

(Psst: A secret - it is macroevolution.)

because it is made up. they looked untill they found what they needed. they found the fossils all over the place. Its the worst transitional evidence i have seen. they are not even that close together in millions of years. they have huge gaps. Macroevolution is just another term shoved into the debate to make up for a lack of proof.

 

[MarcusHill]

because it is made up. they looked untill they found what they needed. they found the fossils all over the place. Its the worst transitional evidence i have seen. they are not even that close together in millions of years. they have huge gaps. Macroevolution is just another term shoved into the debate to make up for a lack of proof.

Ah, the usual "no transitionals" rubbish. We're trying to show evolution from species 1 to species 20, and we've found fossils 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 15 and 20. Creationists say there are still gaps, so it's unproven. We find (as predicted) fossils of species 4, 7, 9, 13 and 18. Creationists say there are still gaps. We find, eventually, all the species from 1 to 20. Crearionists demand evidence of species 2.3, 8.4 and 14.52. And so the game goes on, as no mountain of evidence will ever outweigh the mistranslated legends of Bronze age nomads.

ETA: Poe. Well, my point is still valid.

 

[gluadys]

because it is made up. they looked untill they found what they needed.

And how did they happen to find what they needed if it doesn't exist?