Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

PD's Random Misconceptions on Science.....Re: Irrational Rasoning [sic]

Expand Messages
  • SH
    Tin: Below Phil shares his random misunderstandings of science. This is what happens when you get your science from a religious ministry rather than
    Message 1 of 91 , Aug 1 7:31 AM
      Tin: Below Phil shares his random misunderstandings of science. This is what happens when you get your "science" from a religious ministry rather than scientific sources.



      > > > rock.  You can't establish the age of a rock based on the assumed age of the fossils it contains, and then claim that the age >>>of the rock layer establishes the age of the fossils.

      Tin: Strategic ignorance of science of noted.

      Scientists have a suite of techniques for independently establishing the chronology of strata ranging from simple superposition to more precise radiometric dating. And of course all these different techniques fit together nicely but make no sense whatsoever -- either individually or collectively -- if you are a creationist.


      Furthermore, your claim above is wrong. One can logically determine relative dates by fossil succession alone. If fossil X reliably and regularly found beneath fossil y -- never together and never fossil x above fossil then we can logically conclude that the type X life form is older. And we have exactly this type of outcome with dinosaurs and modern mammals. And naturally this is supported by other types of life forms present in the dinosaur (mesozoic) ecology but not found in the mammal (cenozoic)ecology. Once again we have coherent, interlocking and independent evidence that makes no sense whatsoever if you are creationist.










      > > > Another reason for doubting the evolutionary ages for fossils has to do with "living fossils" like Coelacanth - supposedly extinct for some 85 million years, and yet it turns up alive and well, and >amazingly similar to its fossil cousins. 



      Tin: Similar and yet different. Since they aren't the same of what value are you comments.


      Also you seem to horribly confuse your general hostility to science with your more specific hostility to evolutionary common descent. It is modern science not evolutionary theory that has determined this or that form of life to be extinct.


      You seem to have this goofball idea that evolution requires the Coelacanth to be extinct. Even if it were the same the Coelancanth where did you get the thickheaded idea that this contradicts evolutionary common descent ?


      Or is this just random hostility to science and nothing more ?









      >How is that humans and chimps supposedly evolved from a common ancester just six million years ago, yet in more than ten times that amount of time the coelacanth has changed only a tiny amount - if at >all? 


      Tin: Where did you get the goofy idea that all life must change dramatically ? And if you were going to use an example why not use the fact that bacteria have around for billion of years ?


      And again the problem here is not with evolution but with Phils silly misconceptions.
    • SH
      ... Tin: But Appleton why good at your quotes if they just get the facts wrong. Remember Appleton, facts trump quotes. None of the hominid fossil below were
      Message 91 of 91 , Aug 9 8:14 AM
        > > > LA> Of course and I have done that constantly. Could it be that you do not recognise DATA when you see it. Even "absence" of evidence is DATA and Darwinian evolutionism suffers overwelmingly from such absense.
        > >
        > > Tin: So Appleton does that mean that according to you no new fossils will ever be found ?
        > >
        > >
        > > LA> please try to explain what you mean by "new fossils"?
        >
        > Tin: Well Appleton at the time of Darwin there were no hominid fossil, but now we have this.
        >
        >
        > LA> But Tin, your evolutionary experts refute that claim and tell us that we have even FEWER than Darwin had. See for yourself


        Tin: But Appleton why good at your quotes if they just get the facts wrong. Remember Appleton, facts trump quotes.

        None of the hominid fossil below were known at the time of Darwin, and thus clearly we have more evidence of known evolutionary links then we did at the time of Darwin.


        Why does the fossil record show such a gradual rich evolutionary past for hominids Appleton ?


        Hominid Evolution:
        Sahelanthropus tchadensis (320â€"380cc), ca. 6-7mya.
        Ardipithecus ramidus (dental and postcranial remains), ca. 5-6mya.
        Orrorin turgenesis (postcranial), ca. 5mya.
        Australopithecus anamensis (cranial capacity unknown), ca. 4.9-5.2mya.
        A. afarensis (mean of 470cc, range 375-540cc), ca. 3.8-2.8mya.
        A. bahrelghazali (cranial capacity unknown), ca. 2.8-3.2mya.
        A. africanus (440-480cc), ca. 2.2-2.6mya.
        A. garhi (c. 450cc), ca. 2.3-2.6mya.
        A. robustus (c. 475cc), ca. 1.4-1.8mya.
        A. boisei (c. 450cc), ca. 1.2-1.8mya.
        A. aethiopicus (c. 410cc), ca. 2-2.4mya.
        H. habilis (c. 500-800cc), ca. 1.8-2.1mya.
        H. ergaster (c. 1100-1434), ca. 1.3-1.8mya.
        H. erectus (c. 725-1250cc), ca.250kya. - 1.3mya.
        H. heidelbergensis (c. 1300cc), ca. 300-170kya
        H. neanderthalensis (c. 1350-1600cc), ca. 200-35kya.
        H. sapiens (c.1300-1500cc), ca. 170kya-present
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.