Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Lawsuit because science is silenced

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Just a side note here, what evolutionist ever predicted that soft tissue could survive so long? Why wouldn't the discovery of soft tissue be evidence that these fossils may not be nearly as old as we thought?
    I've already written about that. The brief answer to your questions is that they were utterly shell-shocked - that's a huge understatement! What they then did - in typical, predictable fashion - was to begin concocting hypotheses as to how it "COULD" happen! I kid you not.

    Their own science (physics, biochemistry) indicated the maximum amount of time that biological material could remain intact - even under ideal conditions. Results varied but the consensus was a maximum of tens of thousand of years (I'm going on memory here so don't hold me to the fire). In any event, there was NO WAY that this biological material (soft tissue, red blood cells, DNA) could remain intact for a million years - let alone tens of millions - physics and chemistry prohibited this.

    So they found some - oops!!! Their warped reasoning must have been something like this: millions/billions of years are a fact. CHECK! Physics/chemistry say 'No way!". CHECK! Yet we found some. CHECK! Ergo, physics and chemistry must be wrong!

    And so they proceeded to find out HOW the physics and chemistry were wrong. Concoctions began pouring out of their prestigious journals. They then tested some things for a few months/years and extrapolated these results into tens of millions of years. Yup - 'science' at its best.

    Note that their 'logic' (actually, their adherence to their religious beliefs) DOES NOT ALLOW them to even consider the possibility that perhaps, just maybe, the "millions/billions of years" is NOT a fact. Nope - that is a "Sacred Decree" that is untouchable even when direct evidence contradicts it. They would rather revise the laws of physics and biochemistry than to consider that possibility.

    And so here we are ...

    Hope that helps.

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      And to nobody's surprise Jorge defends YECs "Expelling" those who he doesn't agree with including in some instances fellow YECs who aren't doctrinally pure enough.
      Predictably, you are unable to directly and honestly address what I've stated.
      Par for the course ...

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        I've already written about that. The brief answer to your questions is that they were utterly shell-shocked - that's a huge understatement! What they then did - in typical, predictable fashion - was to begin concocting hypotheses as to how it "COULD" happen! I kid you not.

        Their own science (physics, biochemistry) indicated the maximum amount of time that biological material could remain intact - even under ideal conditions. Results varied but the consensus was a maximum of tens of thousand of years (I'm going on memory here so don't hold me to the fire). In any event, there was NO WAY that this biological material (soft tissue, red blood cells, DNA) could remain intact for a million years - let alone tens of millions - physics and chemistry prohibited this.

        So they found some - oops!!! Their warped reasoning must have been something like this: millions/billions of years are a fact. CHECK! Physics/chemistry say 'No way!". CHECK! Yet we found some. CHECK! Ergo, physics and chemistry must be wrong!

        And so they proceeded to find out HOW the physics and chemistry were wrong. Concoctions began pouring out of their prestigious journals. They then tested some things for a few months/years and extrapolated these results into tens of millions of years. Yup - 'science' at its best.

        Note that their 'logic' (actually, their adherence to their religious beliefs) DOES NOT ALLOW them to even consider the possibility that perhaps, just maybe, the "millions/billions of years" is NOT a fact. Nope - that is a "Sacred Decree" that is untouchable even when direct evidence contradicts it. They would rather revise the laws of physics and biochemistry than to consider that possibility.

        And so here we are ...

        Hope that helps.

        Jorge
        Ok, thanks
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Yeah, ol' Mary. I'm fascinated by her story as details emerge. She appears to have had violent mixed feelings about her discovery. On one hand, she couldn't deny the evidence she had found. On the other, she thought, "If I report this, my career is over.". Even being as cautious as she was - as if walking on egg shells - I'll bet that she received messages along the lines of "You MUST be mistaken" ... "Check your findings" ... "Something MUST be wrong" ... and so on.

          Hey, now that's an idea that I would love to pursue (if I had the time), namely, to research the living heck out of that case (but would Mary even talk to me? -- I wonder). What kind of 'spin' did she have to put on her findings so as to retain her job and career? How did she have to word her findings? How did she have to report it at symposiums? How did she 'get around' the physics and chemistry? Was she told to "hush up" and that if she found any more soft tissue to "promptly dispose of it through the back door, quietly"? Poor girl - must be a living hell!

          Just as stated in a movie, she must have had the extremely conflicting feeling
          of seeing her mortal enemy plunge off a cliff in her brand new Lamborghini.

          Jorge
          Wow, evidence-free hand-waving to the max.Not even supported by rumor.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            .
            News like this certainly doesn't surprise me - no, not in the least. The 'howling deniers', however, are sure to be backpedaling and concocting excuses over this one. Here's the latest in the world of "open-minded, objective science" and the consequences of trying to practice it:

            "A scientist was terminated from his job at a California State University after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil, and then publishing his findings... While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue... [this] discovery stunned members of the scientific community..."

            Armitage reported his findings and ...

            ... "shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

            So, reporting a scientific finding is "religion"???

            Oh yeah, I get it! This finding is further evidence against the established religious dogma and so if you dare oppose that religious dogma then, like any other heretic, you must be banished! The proper thing for Armitage to do was to bury this finding, not publish it.

            Good thing the old 'stake' isn't around or Armitage would've been roasting right about now.

            Yup - modern 'science' at its best!

            http://www.pacificjustice.org/press-...saur-discovery

            Jorge
            Just finished a very brief 'scan' of Armitage's paper -- Acta Histochemica 115 (2013) 603– 608 --
            Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus

            Mark Hollis Armitage,∗, Kevin Lee Anderson
            Department of Biology, California State University, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8303, USA
            Department of Biology, Arkansas State University Beebe, Beebe, AR, USA

            A few brief comments: (1) purely scientific and peer-reviewed. (2) I wouldn't know from the paper if the authors were Atheist, YECs, Old Earth, Evolutionists, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam or Snake God Worshipers or of any other religious persuasion. (3) last sentence of the report: "The most straightforward interpretation of the evidence is that intact cells and tissues have been preserved in this Triceratops fossil." (4) They reference Mary Schweitzer's work extensively.

            Nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this paper indicates anything other than observable, verifiable, scientific evidence. Of course, as I know all too well and have been trying to communicate here, it's not the science that's the problem. It's the religious implications that ruffled the feathers. Specifically, anything that contradicts the Reigning Religious Dogma is heresy and must be dealt with!

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JonF View Post
              Wow, evidence-free hand-waving to the max.Not even supported by rumor.
              I've just finished down-grading your IQ from 'Moron' to 'Sub-par Moron'.
              Quit while you're ahead, Duffus.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Ok, thanks
                You're welcome.

                This doesn't concern you? I did not exaggerate - check it out for yourself. This is what's actually going on out there and the uninformed public is then fed a pile of BS higher than K2. It is worth being informed so as to not let these people get away with their intellectual and spiritual criminality.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  You're welcome.

                  This doesn't concern you? I did not exaggerate - check it out for yourself. This is what's actually going on out there and the uninformed public is then fed a pile of BS higher than K2. It is worth being informed so as to not let these people get away with their intellectual and spiritual criminality.

                  Jorge
                  It is concerning but not surprising. "Science" is not always as pure as some suggest. I remember reading awhile back about the whole "Punctuated Equilibrium" thing, that has always seemed like a Ad hoc invention to plug a serious hole in the theory of evolution.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Yeah, ol' Mary. I'm fascinated by her story as details emerge. She appears to have had violent mixed feelings about her discovery. On one hand, she couldn't deny the evidence she had found. On the other, she thought, "If I report this, my career is over.". Even being as cautious as she was - as if walking on egg shells - I'll bet that she received messages along the lines of "You MUST be mistaken" ... "Check your findings" ... "Something MUST be wrong" ... and so on.

                    Hey, now that's an idea that I would love to pursue (if I had the time), namely, to research the living heck out of that case (but would Mary even talk to me? -- I wonder). What kind of 'spin' did she have to put on her findings so as to retain her job and career? How did she have to word her findings? How did she have to report it at symposiums? How did she 'get around' the physics and chemistry? Was she told to "hush up" and that if she found any more soft tissue to "promptly dispose of it through the back door, quietly"? Poor girl - must be a living hell!

                    Just as stated in a movie, she must have had the extremely conflicting feeling
                    of seeing her mortal enemy plunge off a cliff in her brand new Lamborghini.

                    Jorge
                    I know for a fact that many have questioned her findings. That is SOP for any radical new find in any field of science. Doubt arises until further substantiating evidence can be gathered. I don't think that there ever is an exception to this.

                    Some have proposed that it might have been a bacterial biofilm of some sort. But Schweitzer didn't act like typical YEC "scientists" by crying that she was being picked on and folks were trying to suppress and oppress her. Instead she continued with her research which has brought the biofilm objection into serious doubt. She has even found evidence that iron embedded in blood proteins was responsible for the preservation.

                    One thing that does bother her as revealed in an interview by Helen Fields with Smithsonian.com is how creationists are continually misrepresenting her and the work she is doing. She said she is beginning to take such nonsense personally.

                    One particularly egregious example that I'm aware of is how Creationwiki contributor "nepillimfree" proclaimed on youtube that "The scientist who discovered soft tissue in dinos, you know what they did to her? They fired her!!!" To which she personally responded, "If they fired me, why did they give me a $300,000 grant to investigate further?"

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      It is concerning but not surprising. "Science" is not always as pure as some suggest. I remember reading awhile back about the whole "Punctuated Equilibrium" thing, that has always seemed like a Ad hoc invention to plug a serious hole in the theory of evolution.
                      Um, no.

                      I'll be glad to explain if you're interested.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Just finished a very brief 'scan' of Armitage's paper -- Acta Histochemica 115 (2013) 603– 608 --
                        Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus

                        Mark Hollis Armitage,∗, Kevin Lee Anderson
                        Department of Biology, California State University, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8303, USA
                        Department of Biology, Arkansas State University Beebe, Beebe, AR, USA

                        A few brief comments: (1) purely scientific and peer-reviewed. (2) I wouldn't know from the paper if the authors were Atheist, YECs, Old Earth, Evolutionists, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam or Snake God Worshipers or of any other religious persuasion. (3) last sentence of the report: "The most straightforward interpretation of the evidence is that intact cells and tissues have been preserved in this Triceratops fossil." (4) They reference Mary Schweitzer's work extensively.

                        Nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this paper indicates anything other than observable, verifiable, scientific evidence. Of course, as I know all too well and have been trying to communicate here, it's not the science that's the problem. It's the religious implications that ruffled the feathers. Specifically, anything that contradicts the Reigning Religious Dogma is heresy and must be dealt with!

                        Jorge
                        So Schweitzer (who describes herself as "a complete and total Christian”) gets grants to continue studying soft tissues and Armitage gets fired despite both discoveries having essentially the same supposed "religious implications."

                        And you wonder why I said that this doesn't pass the smell test? It seems that something very important is being left out by Armitage in his account.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Um, no.

                          I'll be glad to explain if you're interested.
                          Mighty big IF there, pardner, considering that (1) this description of punctuated equilibrium bears no relation to the actual proposal; and (2) the internet is thick with detailed yet understandable explanations of what this proposal claims, what it's based on, what its implications are, and how it has fared (and been modified and refined) since the initial proposal.

                          Bottom line: the interest shown seems to have gone no further than reading a congenial misinterpretation, being satisfied with it, and stopping right there.

                          (As things stand today, PE has obliged most evolutionary biologists to regard speciation as a much more important driver of evolutionary change than they did before, and conversely those biologists obliged Gould and Eldridge to concede that speciation is far from the sole driver.)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            So Schweitzer (who describes herself as "a complete and total Christian”) gets grants to continue studying soft tissues and Armitage gets fired despite both discoveries having essentially the same supposed "religious implications."

                            And you wonder why I said that this doesn't pass the smell test? It seems that something very important is being left out by Armitage in his account.
                            WOW! ........ speechless .............

                            Speaking of "not passing the smell test" - you rarely do.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              So Schweitzer (who describes herself as "a complete and total Christian”) gets grants to continue studying soft tissues and Armitage gets fired despite both discoveries having essentially the same supposed "religious implications."

                              And you wonder why I said that this doesn't pass the smell test? It seems that something very important is being left out by Armitage in his account.
                              FYI, there's a good interview with Mary Schweitzer recently added to the BioLogos website, discussing her scientific discoveries and her faith: http://biologos.org/blog/not-so-dry-...ary-schweitzer

                              Here's an excerpt:
                              Source: BioLogos


                              One of the churches I go to is very conservative—But the pastor and I have discussed what I do, and we have agreed to disagree on some things. I think that’s the appropriate attitude to have—after all, God is the only one who knows for sure—he is the only one who was there.
                              I go to church because I want to learn and be held accountable. I want to learn more and more about what the Bible teaches, and in a lot of progressive churches you don’t get that as much—you get politics, building projects, etc. Everyone has to figure out what they need and why they go to church. The hunger in me which is fed in the churches I go to has to do with the fact that they preach right out of the Bible, and I need that. I guess I don’t go to church to hear political views and hear about how they need money—I go to hear about God.

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              Last edited by Kbertsche; 07-26-2014, 07:52 AM.
                              "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                                FYI, there's a good interview with Mary Schweitzer recently added to the BioLogos website, discussing her scientific discoveries and her faith: http://biologos.org/blog/not-so-dry-...ary-schweitzer

                                Here's an excerpt:
                                Source: BioLogos


                                One of the churches I go to is very conservative—But the pastor and I have discussed what I do, and we have agreed to disagree on some things. I think that’s the appropriate attitude to have—after all, God is the only one who knows for sure—he is the only one who was there.
                                I go to church because I want to learn and be held accountable. I want to learn more and more about what the Bible teaches, and in a lot of progressive churches you don’t get that as much—you get politics, building projects, etc. Everyone has to figure out what they need and why they go to church. The hunger in me which is fed in the churches I go to has to do with the fact that they preach right out of the Bible, and I need that. I guess I don’t go to church to hear political views and hear about how they need money—I go to hear about God.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                *************************************************

                                One of the churches I go to is very conservative—But the pastor and I have discussed what I do, and we have agreed to disagree on some things. I'd give a pretty penny to learn what those "things" are. Suppose (just suppose!) that this pastor has said to her: "Mary, your findings unequivocally point towards a conclusion that opposes the present paradigm. Why don't you boldly state this?" To which Mary replies, "I can't do that ... I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree." Again, I'd love to know what those "things" are.


                                I think that’s the appropriate attitude to have—after all, God is the only one who knows for sure—he is the only one who was there. Yes, that is true. But never forget that IN HIS WORD God told us some of the things that He felt we needed to know. Are we to discard those things or re-interpret them in order to suit our own agendas or those of a secular world?


                                I go to church because I want to learn and be held accountable. That's good - every Christian ought to say and do the same. Except that we don't have to go to church to be held accountable - we will all be held accountable regardless of what we do or don't do.


                                I want to learn more and more about what the Bible teaches, and in a lot of progressive churches you don’t get that as much—you get politics, building projects, etc. Everyone has to figure out what they need and why they go to church. Okay ... (sort of ...) ... there's too much "we / I / me" for my taste. IOW, instead of each of us figuring out what "we" need, why not consider only what GOD wants - period?


                                The hunger in me which is fed in the churches I go to has to do with the fact that they preach right out of the Bible, and I need that. Sounds good - "they preach right out of the Bible." Okay, so if the Bible says something that opposes what the worldly establishment teaches and demands of its "intellectuals", what do you do, Mary? Specifically, if your own research discovers tangible, irrefutable evidence that points away from "million/billions of years" and towards "thousands of years" thereby supporting what a direct reading of Genesis yields, what then, Mary?


                                I guess I don’t go to church to hear political views and hear about how they need money—I go to hear about God. Mostly agree. The potential problem here is the belief in 'compartmentalization' - a lengthy topic - 'nuff said.

                                Jorge
                                Last edited by Jorge; 07-26-2014, 10:57 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X