Evolution of religious bigotry

[fossten]

Deville, stop trying to establish a moral equivalence between Christians and Muslims. There isn't any. Nobody's scared of Christians getting offended over an art exhibit of a crucifix in a jar of urine, but Muslims can and will lop off your head if you mock Mohammed.

 

[KD00LS]

Back in the day, wasn't Islam one of the more tolerant religions? What happened there?

 

[hrmwrm]

What? It seems you may not fully understand what you are posting. Everything I said was consistent with what was posted and wasn't spin, as you try to imply, and you know it.

The argument is that evidence suggest that there was more diversity then previously thought before the Cambrian Explosion, and that can explain the huge explosion of diversity in the Cambrian period because it really wasn't such a huge thing.

The problem is, the evidence still says nothing about evolution. All the evidence shows is adaptation, which it implies is evolution.

It is also based on questionable evidence. New, unproven techiques with questionable accuracy (new techniques based on "estimates"). The study also bases the info on fossilized dung where much of the genetic material is highly degraded, and a lot of admitted "trace evidence". All this (mixed with the fact that it is only one study) suggests that these findings aren't near as conclusive as you are trying to imply by posting it here.

It also makes some pretty big intellectual leaps and assumptions. Because we can find evidence of a more diverse population of worms in the pre-cambrian period then we originally thought, that shows that there was much more diversity across the board and that lessens the possibility that there was an "explosion" of diversity in the Cambrian period.

It also never shows anything that can be viewed as evidence of evolution, which is the whole point of this debate. Only adaptation is every shown (and questionably, at that).

Your whole point in posting that (that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't an "explosion" as there was already much more diversity they originally thought in the pre cambrian) is hardly conclusively proven. At best, a little doubt is cast on the Pre-Cabrian explosion by this study, but one study, no matter how accurate, cannot disprove something like the Cambrian Explosion (which this study really doesn't try to do, by its own admission). More studies and much more evidence is needed to logically disprove the Cambrian Explosion. The study really only suggests a reasonable diverse population of worms, likely in the pre-cambrian. The rest is mere speculation and inference based on assumptions and leaps in reasoning.



So new methods must not be questioned?! That's hardly logical. A new method of study (techniques, ect) has to be proven reliable before it can be view as having any credibility. It must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. It's not like unproven and/or unreliable techniques haven't distorted findings before, leading to faulty or false conclusions, or been used before to intentionally spin the evidence and distort the issue (Computer models and global warming).



You prefer? So you are dictated by your own bias? You should not "prefer" any technique or answers over others. Otherwise you compromise your intellectual honesty in any search for the truth. You go where the info leads, not where you want it to lead; a uninterested search for the truth.

When it comes to old techniques vs new; old techniques are proven and consistent; giving a known degree of reliability that has been proven. New techniques don't have that, so logically must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. If they are proven to be consistently more reliable then old techniques, then they eventually replace the old technique. When it comes to new vs old (in almost anything), the burden of proof always logically lies with the new, not the other way around, as you are trying to spin it. It's called the precautionary principle.

You are trying to spin logical, disinterested, critical thinking as "non-progressive" which is an ad homenem, underhanded rhetorical tactic.

Again, You need to make the argument easy to read to your audience. Break it down, summarize it in your own words, etc. If your audience can't understand the argument, then it is irrelevant, and suggests that you may not understand it and thus cannot break it down (which is becoming more and more likely in my mind).

i reiterate. read the article. it is you who does not understand. there is nothing about genetic testing of dung. it is merely the evidence of a higher form of worm, as opposed to something else that left trails.

stop putting up lies of ideals until you have carefully read and understand what you are talking about. trying to denigrate me without a proper understanding of the facts only makes you look less to those who would bother to read.

new species still arose from something. if you take religious ideals, all species would have arrived at once. yet the path is gradual. why? evolution. not biblical type creation.

and old techniques in science or anythng were new techniques at some time. you have proof that would discredit genetic divergence?

 

[fossten]

stop putting up lies of ideals until you have carefully read and understand what you are talking about. trying to denigrate me without a proper understanding of the facts only makes you look less to those who would bother to read.

new species still arose from something. if you take religious ideals, all species would have arrived at once. yet the path is gradual. why? evolution. not biblical type creation.

and old techniques in science or anythng were new techniques at some time. you have proof that would discredit genetic divergence?

It is incumbent upon you to prove that new species "arose" at any time in history. There is simply no evidence of this. When we discover a species of deep sea fish in the ocean, why do we assume this is a "new" species simply because we didn't discover it before? That's absurd.

There is no evidence of a gradual evolution of species, simply because you have ZERO intermediates! If a reptile evolved into a bird, surely there must have been dozens if not hundreds of intermediates, yet there are NONE!

Here's an excerpt from an article written by a PhD in physics regarding the mathematical probability of there being no intermediate fossils:

Assume a particular amphibian "A" that is allegedly ancestral to a particular reptile "R", both represented in the fossil record. Presume that the gap could be bridged by a mere 9 intermediates, none of which left fossils to be discovered. A uniform probability distribution would lead you to expect that one of the other 9 intermediates is just as likely to leave a fossil. If a mere 10 fossils of "A" have been found, consider that the odds against each find are 1 in 10, and that this collection of 10 fossils has an improbability of one in 10 billion (10 raised to the 10th power) -- if the evolutionary lineage is true!

Furthermore, each additional discovery of "A" or "R" is affirmative evidence -- a factor of 10 each time -- that there are NO intermediates. Fossils represented by scores or hundreds or thousands of fossils make the odds "as impossible" as the odds against functional protein formation via random amino acid chemistry.

Who's using science to prove his point now?

 

[ground_zero298]

It seems like this is a pretty one sided discusion. Their is way more information on religion then on fossils and evolution.

 

[shagdrum]

i reiterate. read the article. it is you who does not understand. there is nothing about genetic testing of dung. it is merely the evidence of a higher form of worm, as opposed to something else that left trails.

stop putting up lies of ideals until you have carefully read and understand what you are talking about. trying to denigrate me without a proper understanding of the facts only makes you look less to those who would bother to read.

I never said genetic testing, only that they were looking at genetic material.

From your post (#29):

...recent genetic evidence reveals a different pattern, sometimes known as the ‘slow burn’ or ‘early arrival’ hypothesis. Age estimates derived from calibrated gene divergence studies...​

...There can be little doubt, on the basis of trace evidence alone...​

There are no "lies of ideals" going on here, that is an intentional mischaracterization on your part. They are looking at trace DNA in the dung to come to the conclusion that there were a wide variety of worms. The dung alone would never indicate that, they have to look at the genetics, there is no other way. Apply a little critical thinking here.

It is more and more obvious that you are cutting and pasting stuff to prove your point that you don't fully understand, and don't take the time to fully read and figure out. I assume that is why you cannot break the articles down that you post, or accurately summarize them.

and old techniques in science or anythng were new techniques at some time. you have proof that would discredit genetic divergence?

This is totally irrelevant and tangental (at best) to my point, which still stands, as you are avoiding it. You are saying that things that are at point "B" were once at point "A", so things that are at point "A" are valid. My whole argument was on the difference between the two and how one became the other, which you aren't even addressing. My point still stands.

The burden of proof is not on me to discredit calibrated gene divergence, it is logically on you (or whoever cites info gained through that technique, or advocates it's use) to prove it's credibility. You are simply trying to shift the burden of proof (again), which is an underhanded arguing tactic, and lessens your credibility.

Again...
When it comes to old techniques vs new; old techniques are proven and consistent; giving a known degree of reliability that has been proven. New techniques don't have that, so logically must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. If they are proven to be consistently more reliable then old techniques, then they eventually replace the old technique. When it comes to new vs old (in almost anything), the burden of proof always logically lies with the new, not the other way around. It's called the precautionary principle.

 

[hrmwrm]

"There can be little doubt, on the basis of trace evidence alone, that bilaterian metazoans existed in the Vendian, and possibly early in the Vendian. Although some traces are simple, rather featureless, winding trails, "others display transverse rugae and contain pellets that can be interpreted as of fecal origin. The bilaterian nature of these traces is not in dispute. Furthermore, such traces must have been made by worms, some of which had lengths measured in centimetres, with through guts, which were capable of displacing sediment during some form of peristaltic locomotion, implying a system of body wall muscles antagonized by a hydrostatic skeleton. Such worms are more complex than flatworms, which cannot create such trails and do not leave fecal strings" (Valentine 1995, p. 90)."

traces of featureless , winding trails sounds like dna to me. riiight! there is no genetic testing, no genetic material. the pellets found prove a higher order of worm, with full intestinal tract. but you would know that if you read the article, and not quoted my c/p. it is trace fossil evidence. meaning, there isn't a lot found.

your copy/paste techniques to prove unfounded claims and arguements on your part is amazing. once again, read and understand. otherwise your arguement is null.

and from much farther up in the page, not having anything to do with DUNG
"Whereas a literal interpretation of the Cambrian fossil record requires the near-simultaneous, ‘late arrival’ of nearly all metazoan phyla, recent genetic evidence reveals a different pattern, sometimes known as the ‘slow burn’ or ‘early arrival’ hypothesis. Age estimates derived from calibrated gene divergence studies tend to vary considerably today – the science is new – but a consistent pattern emerges, nevertheless. These studies all conclude that the major animal groups became separated from one another hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian. Some studies (e.g. the classic Wray et al. 1996) place the age of the primary division of animals into protostomes and deuterostomes at around 1,200 Ma – much more than twice the age of the Cambrian Explosion."

i suggest you study up on genetic divergence to understand, before you come to wrong conclusions again.

 

[hrmwrm]

essentially in a breakdown of very common wording. just because there is a huge cache of fossils within a given time period, doesn't mean that the family of animals that left them necessarily came from (originated) that time period. new fossils, and new evidence of creatures that didn't leave body fossils, but still left evidence of themselves, is being found. genetic divergence is a way of going back to find when animals parted from common ancestors. there are certain family lines still around of some ancient simple creatures(ie. sponges) that can be used to roughly date the creatures of common past. like it says, depending on who's data, they vary, but can still come up with an overall time frame.

like in the example quoted above, conservative to liberal, hundreds of millions of years before to 1.2 billion years before the cambrian. thats the new part of the science. it gives answers, but more study needs to be given to narrow down the accuracy(although it's hard over the given time frame.) newer(meaning later in time) studies like humans are more accurate.

 

[hrmwrm]

and fossten, you would have to re-write genesis to account for the fossil record. but the bible is truth now, isn't it?

 

[fossten]

and fossten, you would have to re-write genesis to account for the fossil record. but the bible is truth now, isn't it?

Your replies are getting shorter and shorter, and full of fewer and fewer actual arguments, but more and more sarcasm and hostility.

Genesis is consistent with the fossil record. There are many articles that explain this. I am sure you will take the time to read all of them. In the meantime, rather than making baseless claims, why don't you show me where Genesis is wrong based on the fossil record?

 

[hrmwrm]

the amount of time for one. all existance should be all at once. yet it isn't. from your link.this ones a hoot.

http://answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

dinosaurs on the ark? why aren't they here now? that was only about 4000 years ago. sorry fossten. most of the claims there are more incredible than scientologists views.

 

[hrmwrm]

the age of the earth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

would you believe this one fossten?

 

[fossten]

the amount of time for one. all existance should be all at once. yet it isn't. from your link.this ones a hoot.

http://answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

dinosaurs on the ark? why aren't they here now? that was only about 4000 years ago. sorry fossten. most of the claims there are more incredible than scientologists views.

Still haven't heard you scientifically refute anything. All you do is mock. You have failed to live up to your own standard of science and are nothing but a demagogue. FAIL.

the age of the earth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

would you believe this one fossten?

Don't tell me you understand even half of what you just read, assuming you read it all. I did.

If you are interested, here's an article that rebuts it completely:

http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp

In the future, instead of cluttering up the thread with scattered numerous posts, when you get a new thought, why don't you consider editing your previous post?

 

[fossten]

.

 

[hrmwrm]

it doesn't rebut it fossten. it makes it's claims for why it doesn't believe the truth, then briefly at the end states some nonsense about certain accelerations, while giving no actual proveable date or dating technique of it's own.

"It has been suggested that these increased decay rates may have been part of the rock-forming process on the early earth and/or one of the results of God’s judgment upon man following the Creation, that is, the Curse or during the Flood."

the only thing it seems to make towards the end is a conspiracy case against charles lyell, while creating some of it's own unproveable and answerless theories.

through all the threads i have argued in, i've given scientific proofs of things. it is your unwillingness to believe or accept. i have still not seen any proof from you of god. your rationale is i'm to disprove something you can't prove. science has volumes of evidence that stand in front of you. you stick blindly by faith that has no answers for, only arguements against.

when you have proof that comes up with true irrefutable evidence and answers, post it up. i'll look into it.

and sorry about that last one for mocking. i just never heard of anyone within religious ideals saying there was dinosaurs on the ark. took me by surprise. i've only heard about ancient fossils being the devils work and a few others. and , yes, i do understand scientific ideals better than you probably give me credit for. here is a rundown of the dating technique.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

 

[fossten]

Just because you can post a link of someone's opinion doesn't mean you've proven anything. I can do the same, and I have reputable scientists on my side as well, who by the way don't need to rely on errors in order to discredit their opponents' work.

Nice try though. I can see that appealing to your reason will always be trumped by your stubbornness and pride. If you want to make this a pee-ing contest, so be it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radioisotopes-earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Link.asp?http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/kids.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/creation-research

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/creation-research

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp

http://trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp

http://trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp

http://trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp

 

[shagdrum]

traces of featureless , winding trails sounds like dna to me. riiight! there is no genetic testing, no genetic material. the pellets found prove a higher order of worm, with full intestinal tract. but you would know that if you read the article, and not quoted my c/p. it is trace fossil evidence. meaning, there isn't a lot found.

How else can they determine that there are a large number of worms, using fossilized dung alone, if not through genetics, of which traces are in the dung. Looking at the dung alone would only suggest there were worms of different sizes. That could mean a few different breeds of worms, or simply older and younger worms. If they are not using DNA from the fossils, that makes their argument less beliveable.

and from much farther up in the page, not having anything to do with DUNG

Ahh, now I see. you posted different parts of the article right next to each other...

If you are cutting and pasting an article for proof of of a claim, then it is your job to clearly break up the quotes to separate various thoughts, set the context for the quote, summarize it and point out how it is relavant, not my job. That is imposing a lot on the reader. I am not going to go read all those articles or watch every long video linked. It isn't my job to be convinced, it is your job to convince me. If you are just gonna post links, or cut and paste sections of long articles without summing the article(s) into a coherent argument then there is no debate, and it is a waste of my time.

When I read a book, report, whatever, I don't go read every footnote the author cites. They use quotes to strenghthen their argument, not to make their argument. Your argument shouldn't be dependant on the reader following links to other info.


The way post #29 is structured, it seems like one long, connected idea. I doubt it was intentional, but that effectively mischaracterizes the article, and that mischaracterizied representation of the article is what I was reacting to.

Sorry.

 

[hrmwrm]

answer to your first link.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

and from the bottom of your link

"The experiments the RATE project commissioned have clearly confirmed the numerical predictions of our Creation model.... The data and our analysis show that over a billion years worth of nuclear decay has occurred very recently, between 4000 and 8000 years ago."

sure don't elaborate on their dating process, do they. and a billion years of rapid dating still doesn't knock down 4.5 billion to 4000-8000 years.

and fossten, if you appealed to my reason, it might work. but nothing within your ideals is reasonable to me. i'm sure the same is in reverse. science has nothing to gain from a better understanding of a natural world except the knowledge of what is and how it can be put to the human condition.

religions, on the other hand, have a lot to lose and fight there vested interests strongly. they locked someone up for trying to say the earth revolves around the sun for christs sake. but i suppose thats wrong too. i sit a little suspicious of religions intentions.

something i found regarding data from some of your said scientists.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=262108

 

[hrmwrm]

edit time has gone by. found a little something that kinda trashes the helium dating by humphreys in your links. seems his methods are a little unethical scientifically.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=262108

i'll track down others.

and a quote from larry vardiman

"The most telling argument for me in rejecting evolution, however, is the meaninglessness and lack of value it signifies. If evolution occurred, then my existence is not a special event in the Creator’s plan. Yet, the Bible says I am special; I was created for a purpose."

slight bias there.and another interesting thing from larry.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d62b218009a96f3e?hl=en

kind of sounds to me that the data is right, but they're gonna look at it and create their own interpretation to fit their standards. wanna be pissy?

 

[fossten]

What, back already? I know you couldn't possibly have read all of those articles.

This is a worthless peeing contest.

Oh, and Russell Humphreys answers his critics here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

I'll listen to you on dating methods if you can answer one question to my satisfaction:

Why do we still find carbon 14 in coal?

 

[hrmwrm]

one possibility.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

not just in coal, but in fossil fuels. a short answer here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

i don't know though. life is funny. they're finding bacteria that grow in rock. form's that grow without oxygen. could be from bacteria that have been found in coal and fossil fuels. no apparent decisive answer. but you would be pushing into a flood theory i'm assuming. you may want to check here for the doubts on that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

and if you read the theologyweb link, it's not regarding anything in your trueorigin link. a few well informed folk point out his errors. i'll quote a small section.

"But here's the real clincher that demonstrates how deceitful and deceptive Hupmhreys' "research" is:

Figure 6(a) from the recent article presented at ICC#5 shows, as I've already detailed, steps 15-44 of Farley's data. So Humphreys excluded the data from the initial run up to 500degC, which also happens to be the steepest, straightest data, giving the highest activation energy and the lowest diffusion rates.

The graph also show sample FTC1 from Reiners' paper (linked above). Did Humphreys show all the data from this sample?
No. Once again, he couldn't let us see all the data, he had to pick out the best parts (meaning the data that fits his model).

Did Humphreys use the same criteria when choosing which data points to include in the graph?
Yes and no. He again excluded the steepest, straightest data, keeping the erratic, higher diffusion steps. But this time he kept the initial steps, and threw out the down steps!

In both cases he keeps the data that helps his model, throwing out the data that supports the opposition. Obviously he wasn't trying to find the straightest, smoothest Arrhenius plot, because he excluded the best-fitting data in both sets. He wasn't consistently dropping the initial run-up to 500degC, because he kept it in the FCT sample. A more odious example of scientific hypocricy could not be found, in my opinion.


But WAIT! That's not all. To top it off, he multiplied the Reiners data by 10, moving it up on the graph above the Jemez zircon line.

The total effect of all this data-massaging is to make the measured diffusion data in figure 6(a) and figure 8 appear to line up very neatly with the Creation model derived points 1 through 5 in figure 8. He brags about how nicely they match:

"Figure 8 shows the zircon data from the Jemez Granodiorite, along with the two models. The zircon data are fully consistent with the creation model. These new data are also quite consistent with all published zircon data, as Figure 6(a) shows. As of this writing (February, 2003) we do not have reliable data on the Jemez zircons below 300ºC. But notice that the data have the same slope as the creation model points for samples 3, 4, and 5, and the data nearly touch point 5."

This is all hogwash, as I have shown.

If all the data were plotted on figure 8, especially the smooth straight plots from Reiners' samples, they would line up with the Uniformitarian Model points 1 through 3, and points 4 and 5 would be just below it.

The Creation Model points would be left high and dry, floating above the real diffusion values like a mirage. "

 

[fossten]

i don't know though. life is funny. they're finding bacteria that grow in rock. form's that grow without oxygen. could be from bacteria that have been found in coal and fossil fuels. no apparent decisive answer.

Yes, the uncertainty of evolution again rears its ugly head. So much for the "Evolution is FACT" bullcrap.

 

[hrmwrm]

it's not uncertainty as much as it is discovery. in situ generation is the hypothesis they're working on. from the short link.

"New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add "modern" 14C to coal are:
Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.

Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure. "



the 14c that is found still dates samples beyond time frames of late earth creation. but you'll allow your unethical scientists to explain that away. the quote i have in my above reply is from an analysis of humphreys helium dating of zircon. and i'm sure you clicked the link where larry vardiman admits that the data states that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but he's gonna tool around with it to see if he can change it.



and since you're working along a line of needing proof of things, i'd have to see proof of the flood for your scientists hypothesis to be believable.

 

[fossten]

it's not uncertainty as much as it is discovery. in situ generation is the hypothesis they're working on. from the short link.

"New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add "modern" 14C to coal are:
Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.

Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure. "



the 14c that is found still dates samples beyond time frames of late earth creation. but you'll allow your unethical scientists to explain that away. the quote i have in my above reply is from an analysis of humphreys helium dating of zircon. and i'm sure you clicked the link where larry vardiman admits that the data states that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but he's gonna tool around with it to see if he can change it.



and since you're working along a line of needing proof of things, i'd have to see proof of the flood for your scientists hypothesis to be believable.

Even if I showed you proof you wouldn't believe it. You're wrapped up in your own beliefs. This thread is a waste of time. Neither one of us is going to convince the other. I will now desist and allow you the last word.

 

[Mick Jagger]

N.J. High School Football Coach Has No Right To Encourage Student Prayers, Federal Appeals Court Says.....

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063890p.pdf