Thread: 70 million year old soft tissue?

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

1. What holes, pray-tell, are these?

Well, let's start with transitional life forms...where are they? Fossils in wrong sedimentary layers, inverted layers....to name a few.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

2. Where is science "wrong?"

It is well documented in history. And even today scientists can't agree on many topics...wine is good for you....wine is bad for you...coffee is good for you...coffee is bad for you...the earth is warming...the earth is cooling...

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

3. Holy Christianity has been wrong far more often than science. At least science changes to correct itself. Holy Christianity sweeps inconsistances under the rug and dogmatizes them. It's done it and fought tooth and nail against change since the Medieval Era. Science is self-corrective. The openess for being wrong and the ability to be falsified, change is a hallmark of good science, including Evolution. That same can't be said of any Abrahamic Religion.

Many Christians have been wrong, have interpreted the Bible wrong, have interpreted the Bible to fit their pre-conceived notions or biases, but the word of God is not wrong.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

4. Where is science contradictory in evolution?

Did I say that? I said there were aspects of evolution that are proveable and observable...there are others that are not.

You are correct in saying that science is corrective...but sometimes it takes many years due to establishment group think that is unwilling to explore contradictions in theory.

Originally Posted by conservative

I find it fascinating that people who are so closed minded are the very same who will charge others with being close-minded. There are aspects of evolution that are undeniable...but there are gaping holes in other areas. Your Holy Religion of Science has been wrong on many occasions...and continues to be wrong and contradictory...so to dismiss everything you disagree with by saying....lying....end of discussion...is just being closed minded.

Great post, Con!

Originally Posted by conservative

Well, let's start with transitional life forms...where are they? Fossils in wrong sedimentary layers, inverted layers....to name a few.

The above criticisms are inaccurate. Where from did you get the idea that there were actually fossiles in the "wrong" sedimentary layers, and thus that means that the dating is wrong and/or the earth is younger? Was it from any scientifically peer reviewed journal?

They are likely getting the information wrong, wherever you got it, or they are dishonestly withholding information and making you think that the fossiles were in the "wrong" layers.

Unless someone put them there, they couldn't have been in the wrong layer. Either it's untrue, or someone made a boo-boo in documentation. But let's see the scientific source for this information. I can guess you got it from something like tektonics.org or whatnot. They are known for lying.




[quote]
It is well documented in history. And even today scientists can't agree on many topics...wine is good for you....wine is bad for you...coffee is good for you...coffee is bad for you...the earth is warming...the earth is cooling...[/quote

You are talking about medical science, which is quite difficult. That's not all of science, though. That's not biology. Wine is both good and bad for you, depending on how much you ingest. The science isn't "wrong."

YOu also have to realize that, in medical science, you have to wait for many studies on a topic, not one or two. The news also distorts actual scientific findings because they feed off of sensationalism. Often, they will overblow the "cures" into something they never were or claim that "X is good for you" when scientists never said that.

As for global cooling, that the majority of the scientific community every believed it is:

A. A myth. A few scientists believed it. The media overblew it, as usual.
B. Partially true. It's partially true because some in the scientific community believed global warming was plausible, not that it was happening. Understanding how science works, this isn't unreasonable. Science works off of observation and emprical data. The data at the time showed it was plausible that the Earth could, based on current trends at the time, be cooling.

Additionally, the science of climate change was much younger than it is now. It has matured far more. However, ever if some scientists were wrong, that has no bearing on the validity of evolution, nor does that mean science is not to be trusted. It's correct far more often than it is wrong, and far, far more often than any religion ever has been. It's not "always wrong" or "always right" or "if it's sometimes wrong, it's always bad to trust it!"

Agreement for everyone is impossible, in any field, in any subject. As I said, within evolutionary science, there are many debates over points like tempo. Science isn't like religion. There's no dogma everyone has to agree on at all times or they are excommunicated. That's only for the Catholics.

Many Christians have been wrong, have interpreted the Bible wrong, have interpreted the Bible to fit their pre-conceived notions or biases, but the word of God is not wrong.

According to you. I however, think that the Bible is the word of Man dressed up as the word of God. You would think that, if god truely were there, all powerful, and all-knowning, he would have hissy fit that his subjects interpreted it so wrong all the time! You would think the almighty could have hired better scribes for his most important word, no?

Did I say that? I said there were aspects of evolution that are proveable and observable...there are others that are not.

Of course there are some problems. It's not 100% perfect, but it's quite good, and the best explanation so far. You never proove theories 100% in science anyway. That's not how it works. Science doesn't work off of proving theories, but substantiating them via evidence and falsifiying them. A good theory is one that hasn't been disproven, yet fits the evidence better than any other theory out there, not one that has been proven.

The vast majority of evolution is observable in some form, either directly or via predictions based off of models.

You are correct in saying that science is corrective...but sometimes it takes many years due to establishment group think that is unwilling to explore contradictions in theory.

It can take a while, true. I don't see that as a bad thing, though. Healthy skepticism makes things take long, because they have to fight it to validate it. It takes long to replicate experiments, go over data. That people don't believe everything that comes their way, thus making the process take long as debates and battles go drawn-out is a strength of the scientific method.

It keeps nonsense out.

I should add one more thing I forgot:

1. You mentioned the concept of the transitional fossil. We already have them. Many of them. You are asking for where "missing" fossiles are?

Let's assume we cannot find "missing transitional fossiles." That's not a problem because:

A. Evolution hardly relies on the fossile record. There's enough evidence in comparative embriology and other fields that you don't even need the complete fossile record.

B. An incomplete fossile record doesn't falsifify evolutionary model's predictions.

2. I wouldn't expect to have a perfect fossil record for every species with 100% gradiated transitionals. Do you realize how rare fossile are? How hard they are to find in the first place? Few survive over tens of millions of years.

3. Technically, all fossiles are transitional. You are looking at the idea from a peculiar perspective. The fossile concept isn't black and white, on/off. There's no one fossile you can go to and say: AHA! THIS is a transitional, but THIS isn't! All species that fossilies are transitions from one to the next. Fossiles and speciation isn't binary. Speciation is a gray area. Think of baldness and how someone isn't, most of the time, entirely bald or entirely full of hair. We can't exactly say 100% where the exact line is when you go from "bald" to "not bald." That doesn't mean that baldness doesn't exist. You can't always tell, with accuracy, when one species is another. They often have small changes. YOu often can see the extremes though.

We have many fossiles that we can line up and see gradations of changes. We are missing some, yes, but again, for the above reasons (in addition to the fact that sometimes, animals fossilizes in different areas, even where they weren't originally from).

The point is that one fossiled species doesn't immediately jump from species A to B. It gradiates, somewhat like baldness.

70 million year old...11-21-2006 11:56 PMPoor form

Well, it seems that someone doesn't like my "form". To spare you any further mental anguish over "form" I will cease this discussion. I know you can give a "Reddie" for anything....but that is just lame! If you want to give it out give it for someone who is being rude, swearing, belittling, bullying, or any number of bad behaviors...but poor form? That is laughable!

Originally Posted by conservative

70 million year old...11-21-2006 11:56 PMPoor form

Well, it seems that someone doesn't like my "form". To spare you any further mental anguish over "form" I will cease this discussion. I know you can give a "Reddie" for anything....but that is just lame! If you want to give it out give it for someone who is being rude, swearing, belittling, bullying, or any number of bad behaviors...but poor form? That is laughable!

I didn't give you that demerit. Especially on form. This is why I dislike a system of demerits that allows the giver to be silent.

Honestly, I didn't do it Conservative, as much as I dislike your arguments. It's rather silly to give a demerit based on style and form.

Originally Posted by conservative

Well, let's start with transitional life forms...where are they? Fossils in wrong sedimentary layers, inverted layers....to name a few.



It is well documented in history. And even today scientists can't agree on many topics...wine is good for you....wine is bad for you...coffee is good for you...coffee is bad for you...the earth is warming...the earth is cooling...



Many Christians have been wrong, have interpreted the Bible wrong, have interpreted the Bible to fit their pre-conceived notions or biases, but the word of God is not wrong.



Did I say that? I said there were aspects of evolution that are proveable and observable...there are others that are not.

You are correct in saying that science is corrective...but sometimes it takes many years due to establishment group think that is unwilling to explore contradictions in theory.

My main response to this is basically that Science is always contradicting itself because it is constantly striving to push boundries and improve our understanding and knowledge. Religion is rarely willing to question its answers and conclusions where as Science is fundamentally the questioning of conclusions.

Originally Posted by conservative

Did I say that? I said there were aspects of evolution that are proveable and observable...there are others that are not.

Oh sorry didn't notice the last bit in your post which says science is corrective..

anyway i would be curious to know which parts of evolution cannot be proven?? i am keen to discuss this with you ( DAMN I LOVE BIOLOGY ) how sad am i???