Evolution is contradictory?

[Roseeurekacross]

We could take this much further , and discuss how one palaeontologist’s potential discovery, as yet unverified, has been hijacked by young earth creationists to refute evolution.

And how she feels about that. Shall we?

She isnt the one carbon dating anything. She may have isolated material, and if substantiated,

Has

Nothing

To
Do
With
Carbon
Dating
Bones

 

[Roseeurekacross]

And how that agenda is attempting to be pushed

On this thread by buffalo.

Maybe we could go into how one paelentologist came to study paelentology.

That would put a few tears in young earth creationists weetbix

 

[rossum]

Nope. Check the ages of the one found in Poland.

Irrelevant. You are using the creationist definition of a transitional, not the scientific definition. A transitional in science has certain characteristics. If it has characteristics from two different groups, then it is transitional between those groups. Tiktaalik has characteristics of both Rhipidistian fish and land Tetrapods. That makes it a transitional. No doubt whatever made those Polish tracks is also a transitional with characteristics of both clades.

rossum

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Please people, bring valid , thoroughly researched arguments to the table.

And if you are going to drop names, ensure you have ALL the facts.

It’s a public forum

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Where’s my can of worms.

Here you go , for those following along, since buffalo name dropped to Support his claim

Quote from the good palaeontologist

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

From Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

We all know the Smithsonian

 

[Aloysium]

Mary Schweitzer

A very Interesting person, doing very interesting research.

 

[Bradskii]

buffalo:

Bradskii:

Well, now you’re comparing science with theology. And I heard somewhere that you shouldn’t treat the bible as a science book.

That is a historical narrative.

And the stone, bronze and iron age tools? Don’t forget that your point doesn’t include them. So what was the explanation?

And what are Fischer’s qualifications? And how did A and E get all those stone/bronze/iron age tools secreted away everywhere?

Take a break from getting beaten up by everyone and answer some easy questions.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Read

Above

And she is not doing any research to support his claim.

Don’t you start buying into it.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Gets out her can opener…

 

[rossum]

Really? They never did in the past. Show me the evidence they did?

Mary Schweitzer dated her T-Rex bone to 68 mya, and she didn’t use Carbon-14 dating.

Oh yes, we have a lot of very recent dinosaur bones if you really want. In fact a living dinosaur flew past my window just now.

One of the problems with trying to shoot down evolution, without fully understanding it is that living fossils (or recent dinosaur bones) are not a problem. We have Coelacanths and Wollemi pines as living fossils, and they are not a problem for evolution: “Oh look, that clade isn’t extinct after all.” Things appearing after their ancestors is not a problem, that is what is expected from common descent.

What you really need is something appearing before its ancestors, that would be a big problem for evolution. Huxley’s Precambrian rabbit is the classic example.

rossum

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I have wollemi pines . They are awesome. They hate the sun, love the shade , and go into ice cap hibernation, they protect their extremities with a large white cap each year.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Show me the independent verification of Miller’s finding.

I’m not sure what you mean. To retest the sample would produce the same results.

Maybe, maybe not. Errors can be made in testing, right?

The question has to do with the source of the organic material - whether it belonged to the dinosaur or some creature which met its death on the petrified remains which could have been open to the elements at one point in the last 50,000 years and later covered up again.

That too, is a question. But why must one test the same sample? Why not test other samples? Surely if dinosaurs were living 40,000 years ago there would be more than one sample found among all the various bones found.

And besides, the only reason we are talking about the age of dinosaur bones is to support or tear down evolution as a theory. If somehow a small population of dinosaurs did survive in some Skull Island scenario, right along side of King Kong, that would be surprising, but it would not refute evolution. Such a thing is consistent with evolution. To refute evolution one would have to establish that not just one dinosaur survived that long, but that every dinosaur lived not too long ago. Therefore buffalo would need to show that not just Miller’s dino bone is young, but that every dino bone in existence is that young. So we could just walk into the museum in Hill City SD and test those bones, and then test “Sue” at the Chicago museum, etc. This rabbit hole of age of dino bones is a dead end as far as refuting evolution goes.

 

[buffalo]

Your inability to understand that natural selection is not chance is becoming tedious I’m afraid. By all means criticise evolution for what it is.

Is evo unguided - yes
Is evo blind - yes
Is evo chance - yes (unless your claim is random mutations are programmed)

 

[buffalo]

Yup. That is about as far back as C-14 dating can measure. If I stand on my kitchen scales I weigh about 20 pounds. All you are doing is maxing out the measure.

Take some time to notice that your creationist sources always use C-14 dating, never one of the other methods, which would give more reasonable results, like my bathroom scales: 149 pounds. All that 20 pound result showed was the limit on my kitchen scales, and nothing about my weight.

We already went over this ad nauseum. The dates are around 28,000YA well withing the dating limits.

 

[Aloysium]

the only reason we are talking about the age of dinosaur bones is to support or tear down evolution as a theory.

Evolution doesn’t need evidence showing dinosaur bones to be less than millions of years old to be invalidated.

Skull Island scenario

Could be.

To refute evolution one would have to establish that not just one dinosaur survived that long, but that every dinosaur lived not too long ago.

To refute evolution, like refuting the rising and setting of the sun, involves the formulation of a more concise, more comprehensive way of understanding what is creation, that includes the psychology and the spiritual/existential reality of individual living beings in themselves and in relation to the environmental systems of which they are a part.

we could just walk into the museum in Hill City SD and test those bones

There appear to be special circumstances where organic matter is preserved. I would expect this to occur rarely, and sure enough it takes a lot of looking to find acceptable specimens

 

[o_mlly]

Toolmaking and advance planning seem ‘sapiens’ to me.

Humans are not as special as we sometimes like to think.

Tool-making and planning indicate intelligence (as adaptive behavior) but not “sapiens” (sapiens, present participle of sapere “be wise”). The study cited stretches to apply numbers so as to generate graphs to look scientific but, I think, fails to make a case for its speculative conclusions. It’s been a decade since that study. Now if those “scientists” observed that chimp in the intervening decade conducting a planning meeting with the colony then we’d have something to review.

The specialty of humans is reason, not merely an intelligence which can adapt to an environment. Animals have imagination and intelligence but no rationality. We are special. That is why we observe animal behavior, take notes, make arguments, draw conclusions, and tell others (publish) our findings. Animals, not so much.

 

[buffalo]

Irrelevant. You are using the creationist definition of a transitional, not the scientific definition. A transitional in science has certain characteristics. If it has characteristics from two different groups, then it is transitional between those groups. Tiktaalik has characteristics of both Rhipidistian fish and land Tetrapods. That makes it a transitional. No doubt whatever made those Polish tracks is also a transitional with characteristics of both clades.

Unless it is much older than the supposed ancestor it came from.

 

[buffalo]

Mary Schweitzer dated her T-Rex bone to 68 mya, and she didn’t use Carbon-14 dating.

Of course she didn’t. It has to be 68MYO. So now they have to make the claim soft tissue can last that long, which they said it couldn’t happen. Real findings causing a major reversal.

 

[buffalo]

Things appearing after their ancestors is not a problem

Things appearing before their ancestors are.

 

[Aloysium]

Toolmaking and advance planning seem ‘sapiens’ to me.

Humans are not as special as we sometimes like to think.

The problem with editing quotes is that, in addition to unintelligible sentences like “

”, it produces “fake news”. I did not write what is being attributed to me. I was responding to those statements. What I said was:

I would add simplistic and laughable.

Oops, now I’m attributing to you, something I wrote. Where does this end?