Where do the flood strata start and end?

[troodon]

Just try to prove my point.

I would say the Global Flood deposited the Dakota Formation nearby the Cedar City of Utah.

What say you?

I say why do you think it's the Dakota Formation?

And thank you, ChetSinger, for the links. Reading them as I type.

 

[pshun2404]

Evidence please? In all of my years as a young earth creationist university professor NOT ONCE did I observe any such discrimination.

So tell us about YOUR first-hand experience in academia? What is your background? (Or are you just retelling tall tales?)

A "young earth creationist professor"! Clearly such a position would have to be in a Christian college or University and that is not what I was referring to, I was referring to secular Universities and colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and most all secular State colleges and Universities...in such an institution if you tried to answer their test exams insisting all the geological layers were laid down in 6 days between creation and the time of the Flood I highly doubt you would get an "A"...you would have to supply some answer at least close to what you were taught in order to pass the course (their purpose being to teach and yours to learn what they teach)...

As for "experiencing this discrimination" personally, because you have not experienced it does not mean it does not occur. You rarely get to hear the victims stories because none of their peer journals will report this news and their articles and experiments are no longer published.

So to avoid the many pages of "tall tales" (thanks for the insult...it lets me know I am doing something right) I will give you the story of one. It is the story of Robert Gentry, a Physicist doing research in radio-metric halos. in the course of his work he noted their presence in granite and unfortunately (and this is his field) he knew they only present themselves in this form when burning out and the effect only lasts a few minutes.

At first, physics researcher Robert Gentry was hailed for his amazing discovery. At first his articles were considered revolutionary to say the least, but as time passed and the pedagogues of the neo-Darwinian replacement myth realized what this discovery implied for them, they made a full scale effort to bombard any reference or discussion of this amazing fact with controversy. They held back no blows and literally inundated the web presentations of Gentry’s papers with thousands of articles and criticisms of the man and his work. So if you are willing to sit and weed through 30 or 40 web pages of mostly carefully engineered propaganda you may (or may not) get to see his work.

If you prefer to know what actually is what he said and achieved, you can explore this discovery more fully in the actual peer periodicals. For example see R. V. Gentry’s most controversial article, Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological Cosmological Perspective, from the 63rd annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; see also. Extinct Radioactivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochroic Halo, in, Nature, 1967, 213:437-490; Radiohalos; some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios of unknown Alpha Radioactivity, Science, 1971, 173:727-731; or, Spectacle array of 210po halo radiocentres in biotites: a Nuclear Geophysical Enigma, Nature, 1974 252:564 – 566! There are more but this should suffice for starters. Please, by all means, do not simply take my word for this (or anything)? The recognition of this fact as an actual reality is essential. Please go and check out some of his articles and research for yourself, even a couple, and do not believe either me or what the critics say without exploring them for yourself.

At any rate, once the Department head and board members of his university realized what this meant they inferred to him they preferred he not publish any more information on this subject. You see, if Gentry was correct, and these Polonium halos really were trapped in solid granite before they expired then this meant that the granite solidification was not a slow process over 1,000s of years from an earlier molten state but solidified within minutes.

Now granted Gentry is not a geologist (from whom he catches the most resistance) but he is a physicist and these halos are his area of study.
At any rate soon he found himself out of a job, unable to get grants, and being bombarded with efforts to discredit his work, even that which had previously been revered and held in esteem.

This is only one example of which there are many but I hope this helped clarify what I was speaking of.

In His name

Paul

And why would you say "If I do not reply to your comments, you've probably earned inclusion on my IGNORE LIST."...have I ever spoken to you before or have we ever been opponents in a debate of any type? I do not know you...this is really offensive and rude. I forgive you but I thought you should be aware this is not a great approach to engaging in an intelligent dialogue...especially for one claiming to be a "young earth creationist Professor".

 

[verysincere]

A "young earth creationist professor"! Clearly such a position would have to be in a Christian college or University and that is not what I was referring to, I was referring to secular Universities and colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and most all secular State colleges and Universities..

>"I was referring to secular Universities and colleges..."

So was I. My first appointment was at a secular university of 32,000 students in the U.S. My second appointment was in the UK. By the time I took a graduate school faculty position at my first Christian, private university in the U.S., I was in my 40's.

But during my first two appointments, whenever there was a campus debate or panel discussion concerning origins, I was usually among the first invitations.

You are speaking with no first-hand knowledge of academia and your post illustrates that fact quite well. (Tell us about your PERSONAL observations from the inside of secular academia.)

My experience had been that most of my colleagues were fine with my Christian evangelical views. What they were SURE to react against was (a) arguments without evidence, (b) bad logic, and (c) lying and dishonest quote-mines. Because I avoided those pitfalls, I had few problems. (Yes, there were OCCASIONAL anti-theists, but few and far between. And frankly, all of the incidents I recall came from a couple of campus social science faculty and a law school professor, never from one of my departmental colleagues.

Tell us how YOU were discriminated against in secular academia.



.

 

[verysincere]

Now granted Gentry is not a geologist (from whom he catches the most resistance) but he is a physicist and these halos are his area of study.
At any rate soon he found himself out of a job, unable to get grants, and being bombarded with efforts to discredit his work, even that which had previously been revered and held in esteem.
.

Gentry's work was soon discredited and debunked. Specialists in the field became frustrated with his continuing (for decades now) to parade nonsense arguments and pseudo-evidence.

And yes, that is a GREAT way to destroy one's career. Peer-review is not "optional". When your conference paper or journal article has been shredded by your peers, you take your lumps and IMPROVE your work. If you still think your original hypothesis has merits, you write a REJOINDER which addresses criticisms and demonstrates that you know what you're talking about and that your hypothesis still has merit. Gentry failed at this. Instead, he went "on the road" and tried to "win" by rhetoric and speaking engagements and publishing in Christian venues. His work becomes more laughable as it grows increasingly outdated.

Again, I doubt that you have ANY experience in the academic world. Everything you've posted sounds like Ken Ham sound bites.

No, I was part of the young earth creationist movement for many years, as a speaker/author/debater. The Biblical evidence and the evidence from creation convinced me of my errors. Been there. Done that. How about you? Tell us about your academic career.

 

[troodon]

Having read up on Polonium halos now for the first time, including the paper pshun2404 suggested, I'm not that impressed with it as a falsification for a young earth. Not only do there appear to be alternative explanations for the halos but even if the halos come from Polonium decay there's a reasonable explanation for that as well.

But pshun2404, if it makes you feel any better, I make sure to keep my politics a complete secret from academic colleagues for fear of it getting out and me experiencing negative repercussions in my career. I think it's fairly unlikely I'd face any discrimination for being a libertarian but I'm not about to risk it.

 

[Papias]

Troodon wrote:

Having read up on Polonium halos now for the first time...

Wow, I'm a little surprised that you hadn't heard that line before.

Polonium haloes are a somewhat often used creationist canard (like the RATE C-14), though of course not as common as winners like the second law, ocean salinity, or moon dust.

Here is a short summary:
CF201: Polonium Haloes


Papias

 

[juvenissun]

I say why do you think it's the Dakota Formation?

Because it is a formation sits above a regional unconformity and has the right type of sediments.

 

[pshun2404]

>"I was referring to secular Universities and colleges..."

So was I. My first appointment was at a secular university of 32,000 students in the U.S. My second appointment was in the UK. By the time I took a graduate school faculty position at my first Christian, private university in the U.S., I was in my 40's.

But during my first two appointments, whenever there was a campus debate or panel discussion concerning origins, I was usually among the first invitations.

You are speaking with no first-hand knowledge of academia and your post illustrates that fact quite well. (Tell us about your PERSONAL observations from the inside of secular academia.)

My experience had been that most of my colleagues were fine with my Christian evangelical views. What they were SURE to react against was (a) arguments without evidence, (b) bad logic, and (c) lying and dishonest quote-mines. Because I avoided those pitfalls, I had few problems. (Yes, there were OCCASIONAL anti-theists, but few and far between. And frankly, all of the incidents I recall came from a couple of campus social science faculty and a law school professor, never from one of my departmental colleagues.

Tell us how YOU were discriminated against in secular academia.

.

I never was personally discriminated against in academia and am not a professor myself, but I do believe that most of the testimonials I have read from many other with MAs and Ph.D.s in their fields are not "tall tales" but are in fact true (these are good honest men and women) so again because it has not been your experience does not mean it does not occur. And I assert again there are other, intelligently minded previously respected scientists and professors who have experienced it.

As for my scientific training (for bread and butter) it has been in human biology and biomedical laboratory technique and I have worked for a decade as a Clinical Trial Assistant. I chose to become a generalist with a focus on humans and have studied psych, phil, theo, anthro, hist, arch, and more for over 25 years.

So I am not an academic per se...but that does not discredit or tale away from the legitimacy of my perspective or the logic or reasoning of the positions and questions I have presented in this thread...

My post does not show anything of the kind...it shows the point I made...

I think you are very fortunate to have been in academic settings where they have invited you to round table discussions to support and present your YEC views (I am not YEC but OWC) and yes of course I know there are many scientists and science teachers who are of the faith (that was one of my points) but they do not share this perspective in the classroom.

So without further insults from you please be equally honest in return. Were you allowed to insert these views in the classroom curriculum? Was it okay with them to allow you to teach this or include support for this view and that which sheds doubt on the accepted view?

Also what was your subject? Were you teaching a scientific subject matter? For all we know at this point you could have been a teacher of western lit?

Truly...

In His love

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

So the 43 pages of names I have collected over the years of actual scientists and professors (most of which hold Ph.D.'s in their respective fields...some of whom have been Nobel Laureates...unlike any of you) who have rejected the neo-Darwinian model and have seen the evidence as indicating some form of Intelliigent Design all are shifty perpetrators pushing arguments without evidence, using bad logic, and are supported only by lying and dishonest quote-mines? Is that it?

As for your direct and rabid rebuttals against Gentry's early work (which no one then attacked so rabidly) they come straight from the opinion pool of those who went on the offensive...please show sources in peer journals FROM NEAR THE VERY TIME that brought forth EVIDENCE from research and experiments (as his included these) that disproved what he had observed? After all at that time he never said his observations and data PROVED anything but only indicated this alternative possibility but Nature forbid, that could never be allowed...Please I would love to read a few (from near the time and not after the bombardment campaign which began almost a decade later). You implied almost immediately after his publications (the examples I used were from the late 60's and early 70's) so use peer journal rebuttals from this time period that contain actual evidence disproving his hypothesis (since that is all he proposed)...Thanks

It seems some of you have determined that automatically if one is not an academic (according to your definition) that their viewpoint is not respected in this discussion. As if it takes an academic to know or make right assessments of what is evidence. What sadly is apparent from your comments is that freedom of thought and seeing the evidence from a different perspective WILL NOT BE TOLERATED...RESISTANCE IS FUTILE YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED...and all the public mind will be allowed to be inundated with is the opinions (and often couched in the subjunctive) of those who agree with your opinions...alternative interpretations will not be tolerated and will be actively fought against...even if it comes down to actually not proving them to be incorrect but just accusing them of things like arguments without evidence, bad logic, and using lying and dishonest quote-mines as support for their opinions. Sorry guys but this is about as closed minded as one can get.

Paul

 

[Papias]

pshun wrote:

So the 43 pages of names I have collected over the years of actual scientists and professors (most of which hold Ph.D.'s in their respective fields...some of whom have been Nobel Laureates...unlike any of you) who have rejected the neo-Darwinian model and have seen the evidence as indicating some form of Intelliigent Design all are shifty perpetrators pushing arguments without evidence, using bad logic, and are supported only by lying and dishonest quote-mines? Is that it?

There are millions of scientists in the relevant fields. Scientists are humans. Humans come in all types, and are sometimes just plain wrong, supporting UFOs, denying the reality of the holocause, AIDS, and so on. many points of data have shown that practically all scientists support evolution, and that evolution deniers are a tiny minority. Are you familiar with Project Steve? Project Steve shows that your list is insignificant. Feel free to publish your list to see if it is real. even if real, 43*30 is around 1,200.

1,200/0.01 = 120,000................ 1,200/120,000=0.01, or 1%


So your list shows that 99% of scientists support Darwinian evolution. I think you list is not helping your argument.

Did you read my link? It links to a page by a real geologist, which shows that other geologists have established that Gentry's "work" is either extremely poorly done, or outright dishonest.

I don't think it reflects well on Christian honesty to build any argument on Gentry's "work".

In His love

Papias

 

[pshun2404]

pshun wrote:



There are millions of scientists in the relevant fields. Scientists are humans. Humans come in all types, and are sometimes just plain wrong, supporting UFOs, denying the reality of the holocause, AIDS, and so on. many points of data have shown that practically all scientists support evolution, and that evolution deniers are a tiny minority. Are you familiar with Project Steve? Project Steve shows that your list is insignificant. Feel free to publish your list to see if it is real. even if real, 43*30 is around 1,200.

1,200/0.01 = 120,000................ 1,200/120,000=0.01, or 1%


So your list shows that 99% of scientists support Darwinian evolution. I think you list is not helping your argument.

Did you read my link? It links to a page by a real geologist, which shows that other geologists have established that Gentry's "work" is either extremely poorly done, or outright dishonest.

I don't think it reflects well on Christian honesty to build any argument on Gentry's "work".

In His love

Papias

Thanks Papias...actually I believe in evolution (just not Darwin's version) and I did not use Gentry's work trying to build a Christian argument...so once again I will ask (though it was not originally addressed to you) would you please show me some reputable sources from near to the time in equally reputable peer journals that rebut what Gentry observed, with some equal or adequate evidences (again his articles NEVER say he proved something, just as a physicist he observed these phenomena and it made him wonder...I thought questioning is a good thing in science? Isn't it?).

If you provide these I will read them...and by the way just because most American citizens agreed with or allowed for slavery does not mean it was right...so only 1% is fine and that does not equal them being slanted or persuaded or basing their perspective on bad arguments, faulty logic, etc. And you are right look at Dawkins who believes life probably started on the backs of crystals or Francis Crick or Carl Sagan who believed in spermeating aliens.

It just means they see in the evidence somehthing others do not...I would love to give you my Selem analogy but I would be accused of being irrelevant. Sometime we can discuss that on another thread (it is a perfect example of provisional interpretation and interpretation of data to fit a preconceived theory as opposed to letting all the data shape the theory). Anyway maybe you can show me some near to the time evidence based rebuttals in peer journals...thanks

Stephen Jay Gould, professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, explains:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'

Gould honestly admits that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is not supported by the fossil evidence and
"is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy" Now Gould definitely did not give up on evolution just the neo-Darwinian interpretation of the facts...

Thanks Stephen

Paul

 

[Papias]

Stephen wrote:

Thanks Papias...actually I believe in evolution (just not Darwin's version) and I did not use Gentry's work trying to build a Christian argument...so once again I will ask (though it was not originally addressed to you) would you please show me some reputable sources from near to the time in equally reputable peer journals that rebut what Gentry observed, with some equal or adequate evidences

Thanks for responding, especially without aggravation.

Usually, crackpot statements by people like Gentry aren't something that are worth space in a real journal. However, in this case, someone did actually bother to publish how bad Gentry's stuff is. The reference is:

Wakefield, J. Richard. 1998. The geology of Gentry's "tiny mystery". Journal of Geological Education 36 (May): 161-175.

You can access it here: Tiny Mystery Home Page

You can read another refutation by a real geologist here: MYRMEKITE 8 of 46

Note that these are from the link that I said had these references in my previous email.

(again his articles NEVER say he proved something, just as a physicist he observed these phenomena and it made him wonder...I thought questioning is a good thing in science? Isn't it?).

Sure it is. But publishing falsehoods based either on ignorance or outright deception is not.

and by the way just because most American citizens agreed with or allowed for slavery does not mean it was right...

Of course not - so why do you think your "43 page" list means anything? After all, you are the one who started with the "I've got a list 43 pages long....."

so only 1% is fine

1% shows that your "43 page" list is pointless because there are crackpots in any group of humans, and 1% could be found that believe anything.

It just means they see in the evidence somehthing others do not..

No, it doesn't. I means that they are humans, some of whom have crazy thoughts that go against the evidence - just as in any other group of humans.

Stephen Jay Gould, professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, explains:

Stephen Jay Gould was arguing that species to specie transitions are hard to find (as they should be, just as immediate parents are hard to find), while transitions from one general type (like class or order) are very common, with literally hundreds of clear transitional forms. What you posted here is one of the oldest creationist quote-mines in the book, a classic example of creationists passing off a discussion about a branch of evolution as instead a discussion of evolution itself (which it isn't).

I'm not saying you did that intentionally, only that you have been fooled into propagating a falsehood.

I have to go now, but tomorrow I can show more on that quote mine.

Thanks for listening-

Papias

 

[pshun2404]

Usually, crackpot statements by people like Gentry aren't something that are worth space in a real journal. However, in this case, someone did actually bother to publish how bad Gentry's stuff is. The reference is:
Note that these are from the link that I said had these references in my previous email.

But as previously stated, none of these rebuttals came until almost a decade later when the bombardment began. I have found no complaints before the 1980s and his research was published in the late 60’s and early 70s before he was discriminated against. These links deal with refutations after he sued for discrimination at which hearing over two dozen other academics and scientists cane forward defending his right as a scientist to publish his observations (correct or incorrect, in his conclusions as to what this meant).

And remember the point of my using him as one example was to demonstrate that people who were previously respected can be blackballed and fired from positions in academia for publically implying something other than what the ruling pedagogues hold as their consensus. The very same thing happened back further with many who questioned or demonstrated evidence which questioned the population of the Americas by more than just the Asian migration. Now finally after more than 50 years we know and admit that there were other waves from Euro and even Afro sources that over time intermingled.

And I did read and follow your link and it was interesting and also educational but there are also rebuttals against the rebuttals which were not included or at least discussed. That being said, I asked for the missing links…rebuttals in peer reviewed journals and periodicals from the time he was being held in esteem and people were excited to see something that offered fresh reasons to investigate further.


(again his articles NEVER say he proved something, just as a physicist he observed these phenomena and it made him wonder...I thought questioning is a good thing in science? Isn't it?).
Sure it is. But publishing falsehoods based either on ignorance or outright deception is not.

Well that my friend indicates something lacking in the editorial staff who follows up and reviews before publishing. Besides, legitimate scientists publish their observations and posit hypotheses all the time that turn out to have more to them, or in some cases even fail in the crucible of time (just look at the racist Chuck Darwin for a perfect example)…but that does not mean Gentry was a moron, or being scholastically irresponsible, or trying to insert a falsehood and pass it off as real science.

Editors of Science and Nature and other periodicals certainly thought enough of his work to publish it (or were they part of the hoax as well?). You do know the articles which get published must be reviewed first?

1% shows that your "43 page" list is pointless because there are crackpots in any group of humans, and 1% could be found that believe anything.

Pishtosh! Your 1% was totally contrived…you made up the math for that, we certainly have no actual idea how many there are in total and certainly more and more are modifying or backing away as we speak…if I said 4,000 that rejected the neo-Darwinian model you would have multiplied that by your formula…you could have come up with any percent you wished to engineer.

And to compare a nuclear physicist to a “real geologist” is absurd…I never claimed Gentry was a geologist or proficient in that field. That’s like comparing a Chemist with a Brain Surgeon. The Chemist can and has a right to make observations, and even draw hypotheses, based on his assessments of the brain. To accuse the chemist of chicanery of some sort if he disagrees with what is generally agreed to by the Neuro-Surgeon community does not negate his assessments or the theories he hypothesizes based on those assessments.


(staff edit )

It just means they see in the evidence something others do not..
No, it doesn't. I means that they are humans, some of whom have crazy thoughts that go against the evidence - just as in any other group of humans.

See, and now these “crackpots” (though they all hold Ph.Ds and MAs in their fields) are mentally lacking having crazy thoughts?

Evidence is often a matter of interpretation even among the pro-consensus groups (again I would love to demonstrate this in my own sphere of knowledge…but alas it is allegedly irrelevant so I will open a thread that deals in that area).

As for the OP I already addressed that, and gave a straight forward honest answer. Because the different layers differ in number and content in different places and because of things like subduction and various causes of allocthonous materials laid down in drainage pits the world over, and all the very present yet rarely honestly explained “problematic” fossils in many of the layers, the answer to the OP is no (actually the discussion should have ended right there but I obviously hit a nerve).


Stephen Jay Gould, professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University:
Stephen Jay Gould was arguing that species to specie transitions are hard to find (as they should be, just as immediate parents are hard to find), while transitions from one general type (like class or order) are very common, with literally hundreds of clear transitional forms. What you posted here is one of the oldest creationist quote-mines in the book, a classic example of creationists passing off a discussion about a branch of evolution as instead a discussion of evolution itself (which it isn't).

I know what Gould was speaking about I have probably have read more of his stuff than you have. He was such a bulldog for Darwinism for years that his switch to Punctuated Equilibrium was indeed a shock to many. Listen Papias, I was an honest agnostic raised by a dad who was a strict naturalist…believe me for at least two decades I was closed to anything that questioned the run of the mill story line. I was an avid subscriber to Nature and Science magazines for about three years each (among other things). My own library consisted of 100s of books. And I knew you would accuse me of “quote mining”. Of course you would…offering support and quoting others must be belittled and made to appear to be bad…I am sure that’s what you were taught (I was). But the only problem with that approach is it is done all the time in articles and books written by legitimate scholars but as long as their quotations and references support the accepted (high financed and media pushed) model it’s okay.


I'm not saying you did that intentionally, only that you have been fooled into propagating a falsehood. I have to go now, but tomorrow I can show more on that quote mine.

No need, it’s in my May 1977 edition of “Natural History” magazine, I read it a dozen times. Gould changed lanes as did Antony Flew and scores of others…he never rejected evolution just the gradualism of the neo-Darwinian model …other went even further…I still give the man credit for at least becoming honest with the evidence as it is rather than interpreting it to fit into the theory.


Thanks for listening-

 

[verysincere]

Most people wince when they hear Ken Ham and his Creation Museum staff and "creation scientists" use their mantra: "Same evidence; different interpretations." It is even a major exhibit in the Creation Museum where they say, "If you wear evolution-glasses you interpret the data one way but if you wear your Bible-glasses you interpret the same data another way."

Do most people "buy into" the claim that evidence for a long-established scientific theory is that subjective and malleable? Is this simply a rephrasing of "Everybody's interpretation is just as good as anybody else's"? (Or is it really "Your guess is as good as mine?" stated a bit more carefully?)

(Confession: The first time I heard "Same evidence; different interpretations" applied to standard scientific theories, I thought it was a tongue-in-cheek jest. And I immediately wondered if there was a way to salvage the statement and perhaps extract some meaningful nugget from it. I was trying to find relevance within it.)

 

[pshun2404]

Most people wince when they hear Ken Ham and his Creation Museum staff and "creation scientists" use their mantra: "Same evidence; different interpretations." It is even a major exhibit in the Creation Museum where they say, "If you wear evolution-glasses you interpret the data one way but if you wear your Bible-glasses you interpret the same data another way."

Do most people "buy into" the claim that evidence for a long-established scientific theory is that subjective and malleable? Is this simply a rephrasing of "Everybody's interpretation is just as good as anybody else's"? (Or is it really "Your guess is as good as mine?" stated a bit more carefully?)

(Confession: The first time I heard "Same evidence; different interpretations" applied to standard scientific theories, I thought it was a tongue-in-cheek jest. And I immediately wondered if there was a way to salvage the statement and perhaps extract some meaningful nugget from it. I was trying to find relevance within it.)

I must admit I have heard of Ken Ham but never read any of his claims. I heard he offered some sort of wager (that's all I know about him). So if this was a reflection or response to my post you are in error with such an unfounded accusation. I also am not a "people like Ken Ham" character.

I would never question (and don't) the findings of most in the field of geology, as to what these layers are composed of and what items they contain, etc. and as I pointed out I am not a YEC but an OWC but much of what individuals say these things mean is conjecture...here is what I mean. It has been my laboratory experience that when one type of testing is inadequate to definitively indicate a specific measurement a number of different tests are utilized (and we are blessed, like with dating, to have a number of these), the results of repeated tests are combined with the results of these alternative tests and the data is plotted on a graph (one of the approaches used) and then from there we determine a line of best guess (however sometimes this line is influenced by the human factor in determining the results and is influenced as well by what we believed we would find based on other such sets of tests).

Now as a scientist or person who works in a scientific field (not just a teacher of what you are taught to teach) then I suspect you know what I am saying is true (that is if you are a scientist). So add up (again as in dating) the line of best guess (from many tests done which produce variant detail in the results), plus the potential of simple human error, plus seeing these results as they fit the expectation of what we will find (and sometimes hope to find or intend to find) and then you have what I have been speaking about.

Take for example the classic case of Nutcracker Man. All textbooks I have ever seen give the implication to most readers that he is 1.75 million years old. However in the better texts (say College or University level) do not use this date emphitacally but more honestly say "He is determined to be" or "most researches agree that" or "by thus and so and there and then we can well assume that"...and so on. See the admission of variant possibility here? This area is not only (and should be if one is being objective) to interpretation based on other factors as well as human opinion.

Louis and Mary Leaky, assessing by the layers and other items found nearby (admittedly before laboratory tests were done) assessed these remains to be around 600,000 years old and in the Laboratory results varied using different dating methods from about 300,000 years to nearly a billion years. So based on the actually data obtained, nutcracker could as well have been only 400,000 years (or younger) or even 7.5 million years (or in fact anywhere in between) so based on what one would expect to find in this layer, plus what dating has been determined in other finds in relative layers elsewhere...the 1.75 million determination (which was sold and imprinted into the minds of generations of honestly inquiring students) was the result of "the line of best guess".

It is true. And I have no idea what Ken Ham or anyone else would say but I know this...they have no idea whatsoever as to exactly where Nutcracker fits in time...they have a narrowed down range...they have a placement based on alleged relativity to other finds...and they have where they THINK or BELIEVE he should fit in (and by the way he is just an Australopithicine not a "man", i.e., an ape, and in fact not that different from many modern apes).

Now that is what is actual...if you want to tow the packaged and sold (and well profited on) assessment then go for it. You are entitled to accept the general at will...but I know what I am saying here is what actually happens in most cases (thus even much of dating the layers is subjective and colored by the theory one believes in going into the research) so this is what I have been trying to make clear. Others who may not agree does not mean they are incorrect, or baffoons, or that they are trying to persuade, or that they are using bad science, or have faulty logic...they simply see the facts in a different light and this is okay in "real science"...the argumentation over differences and the indications presented to support one anothers reasoning over time brings us closer and closer to the actual.

Now I am not saying everything goes through this process! Certainly if an item weight 24 grams it weighs 24 grams, or if it is composed of certain elements, then that is what it is composed of....but where it fits in the scheme of things and what this means in terms of historical reality is greatly influenced by the subjective.

Finally, the best in the fields of all science know what I am saying and have no problem with it and would never make biased assumptions such that only "the hamites" or "creation scientists" push this "mantra". I could care less about their "mantra" what I am saying is true even if it is "irrelevant to your simple question" which in reality it is not and which I already simply answered.

Paul

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I read recently that lucy was an australopithecine, and was an ape, with curved hands and feet, more curved than a chimp, and that the evo's are basically lying about it, making models having upright stance and human hands and feet.
If the australopithecines were upright walking, then fair enough, but an on-going deception, is a little bit despicable, in my opinion.

 

[pshun2404]

In all fairness Cosmic, after many scientists examining the actual fossils and casts of the fossils concluded she was a knuckle walking, tree swinging, ape (see the work of Stern and Susman for one example) Johanson admitted a bit of hopeful "interpretation" and apologetically said "I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain" Which is exactly what I have been talking about above...his hopefulness and preconceived beliefs got a little in the way of his true scientific objectivity (and thus the world was fooled, trusting in the presumptions based on his alleged authority in this area, and as a result many are still brainwashed and cannot let go, still insisting Lucy was an upright bi-pedal pre-human creature for which no actual evidence exists outside of consensus among the neo-Darwinian pedagoguery).

In the March 31, 1994 issue of "Nature" him and his team admitted that Lucy possessed chimp-proportioned arm bones and that her alleged descendants (even Homo Habalis) had ape-like limb proportions as well. Also in the textbook images of this fossil find in the lower right corner in a small box is the picture of a human joint added to impress and imprint the association between the actual ape fossils and human beings...it is not related at all...is not part of the Lucy fossil...and is 100% modern human.

There is nothing in the Lucy find that can say her later offspring or relatives ever became human. But we must be careful here to distinguish the somewhat racist in its logical conclusions if true "gradualism" that sees modern Caucasians as an epitome of human evolution and African types as closest to the evolutionary ancestors and what Darwin himself actually postulated. Darwin never said that ancient apes BECAME humans (though he was obviously racist and sexist personally...the cultural norm for his time and place). Darwin implied that apes and men share a common ancestor in the remote past and this is actually quite different.

Plus we have two pieces of interesting evidence...the actual oldest human skeleton found so far is from Asia (between 30,000 and 63,000 years old) which appears to have been washed into a cave with other debris and various fauna and covered in layers of sedimentary material (like what might happen in very powerful and agitated flood waters)...and also the findings of research into what is now called Mitochondrial Eve...(just interesting to explore for your edification)...where non-creationist molecular genetics is implying we all came from a single "human" female host. Hmmm?

Paul

 

[Papias]

Paul wrote:

But as previously stated, none of these rebuttals came until almost a decade later when the bombardment began.

Well, crackpots outside of their field are lucky to be given a response at all, which they don't deserve - especially one so incompetent as Gentry who didn't even understand the kind of rock he was talking about. I don't understand why you think an immediate response is relevant, aside from a way to duck the clear responses made.

And remember the point of my using him as one example was to demonstrate that people who were previously respected can be blackballed and fired from positions in academia for publically implying something other than what the ruling pedagogues hold as their consensus.

As has been pointed out to you on this thread by someone who actually taught as a creationist in academia, the "blackballing" is for being habitually dishonest, failing to use logic, ignoring evidence, and so on, not for being creationist. This has been shown in too many cases to count.

And I did read and follow your link and it was interesting and also educational but there are also rebuttals against the rebuttals which were not included or at least discussed.

The rebuttals to the rebuttals are again, as before, by people incompetent in the field they are talking about, as opposed to the actual statements by real geologists based on an actual understanding of the evidence.

but that does not mean Gentry was a moron, or being scholastically irresponsible, or trying to insert a falsehood and pass it off as real science.

Arguing for a conclusion not supported by the evidence, based on falsehoods, and arguing outside of one's field, contradicting the actual experts, is certainly either being a moron or scholastically irresponsible.

Editors of Science and Nature and other periodicals certainly thought enough of his work to publish it (or were they part of the hoax as well?).

Which articles are you specifically talking about?

Pishtosh! Your 1% was totally contrived…you made up the math for that, we certainly have no actual idea how many there are in total

It was not contived, it was based on the actual data of project steve. Plus, it is consistent with other sources of data (available if you like) that have repeatedly shown that practically all scientists in their fields reject young earth creationism and support common descent. That's why I didn't have to make up anything.

and certainly more and more are modifying or backing away as we speak…

Another long running creationist lie. Source?

And to compare a nuclear physicist to a “real geologist” is absurd…I never claimed Gentry was a geologist or proficient in that field. That’s like comparing a Chemist with a Brain Surgeon. The Chemist can and has a right to make observations, and even draw hypotheses, based on his assessments of the brain.

A chemist cannot draw any meaningful conclusions that contradict the experts and have any basis to stand on. Do you go to your auto mechanic to get your cavities filled, or ask your accountant to fix your car? A chemists "assessments of the brain" are as worthless as your or my "assessments of the brain". They are better called "uninformed opinions". To try to pass them off as anything else is indeed chicanery.

Here is the sad thing…can you see how you (an alleged Christian) have been drawn right into the whole prejudicial discrimination thing? You do not know these men and women on my list and you have absolutely no basis for accusing them of being “crackpots”…

Sure I know something about them. I know that they are disagreeing with the scientific consensus, and even worse, from your post, doing so from outside their area of competence. When people do that, and advertise it to the public instead of simply publishing their data in a scientific journal and accepting their nobel prize, they are crackpots.

See, and now these “crackpots” (though they all hold Ph.Ds and MAs in their fields) are mentally lacking having crazy thoughts?

As stated before, having a Ph.D or MA in some other field means nothing outside that field. Do you get your brain surgery done by someone with a Ph.D in Astrophysics?

Because the different layers differ in number and content in different places and because of things like subduction and various causes of allocthonous materials laid down in drainage pits the world over, and all the very present yet rarely honestly explained “problematic” fossils in many of the layers, the answer to the OP is no (actually the discussion should have ended right there but I obviously hit a nerve).

"problematic" fossils? What are you talking about? Are you seriously proposing that there is a worldwide flood layer, or that there are "problematic" fossils? All fossils have confirmed, thousands of times, common descent.

No need, it’s in my May 1977 edition of “Natural History” magazine, I read it a dozen times. Gould changed lanes as did Antony Flew and scores of others…he never rejected evolution just the gradualism of the neo-Darwinian model …other went even further…I still give the man credit for at least becoming honest with the evidence as it is rather than interpreting it to fit into the theory.

You missed the whole point. Gould's discussions of punk eek are routinely misportrayed by creationists to mislead people into thinking that the fossils don't show hundreds of clear transitional fossils. It happened so much that Gould himself said:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
​

Papias

P.S. HisCosmicGolfish - Sounds like you've been reading falsehoods about Lucy. Her skeleton is consistent with walking upright, and scientists aren't "hiding" anything about her. Maybe start with a google search to learn more if you like.

 

[troodon]

Because the different layers differ in number and content in different places and because of things like subduction and various causes of allocthonous materials laid down in drainage pits the world over, and all the very present yet rarely honestly explained “problematic” fossils in many of the layers, the answer to the OP is no (actually the discussion should have ended right there but I obviously hit a nerve).

I would also like information about what these problematic fossils are and where they come from. Like most paleontologists when I hear "problematic" I think "publication".

 

[verysincere]

Paul wrote:

But as previously stated, none of these rebuttals came until almost a decade later when the bombardment began.​

Well, crackpots outside of their field are lucky to be given a response at all, which they don't deserve - especially one so incompetent as Gentry who didn't even understand the kind of rock he was talking about. I don't understand why you think an immediate response is relevant, aside from a way to duck the clear responses made.

.

But it is fascinating how a position void of supporting evidence has to hunt through past decades to find obscure and deeply flawed "research" which was rightfully ignored (except to use as a great example of poor scholarship) and then to try and concoct a sinister conspiracy theory around it. They want us to believe that the enormous volume of evidence for billions of years of earth history can be ignored while a minor side show incident gets magnified as if it somehow topples scientific facts. It amplifies "missing the point" into a bombastic exercise in futility.

If a hypothesis has merit, it should become MORE EVIDENT with time. And it MATTERS whether the hypothesis is significant enough to deserve our attention. Even if one gives Gentry massive doses of benefits of the doubt---and ignores how his science got debunked long ago--- the polonium halos side show was never anything but a minute curiosity. For young earth creationists to obsess on Gentry's work is like someone denying the Civil War happened because the author of some antique-collector's newsletter posted a blog suggesting that the "genuine lead bullet from the Battle of Gettysburg" (which was sold at a flea market held in a small town Walmart parking lot) might have been a fake.