Scientists discover single gene mutation which led to multi-cellular animal life

a reply to: peter vlar

Well

Dr Todd Wood

I think most people on here should know the issues with the peer review process and it's not contained within just evolution/creation

When a view point is rejected for review because it's at odds with the mainstream thought...


It's a little unfair

Regards

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Prezbo369

Ok mate

Dream on.

Creationists dream of ever having anything to bring to the table, other than ignorance and dishonesty.

As seen here:

When a view point is rejected for review because it's at odds with the mainstream thought...

originally posted by: drevill
I think most people on here should know the issues with the peer review process and it's not contained within just evolution/creation

Most people on here believe all manner of crazy bollocks.

The only people who have a profound mistrust of science on here are those who are put out by the fact that their precious magical beliefs have been refuted by science.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: peter vlar

Well

Dr Todd Wood

I think most people on here should know the issues with the peer review process and it's not contained within just evolution/creation

When a view point is rejected for review because it's at odds with the mainstream thought...


It's a little unfair

Regards

I would hardly call Todd Wood a Doctor of anything as he uses no science at all to support his pseudoscientific worldview based on baraminology which is a literal interpretation of Noah's flood which absolutely never occurred, as well as an Earth that is less than 10KA He's right up there with Ray Comfort with regards to his scientific knowledge. Hell, ken Ham puts on a better show than Todd Wood. If he is your reference point for how to interpret science then I can see why you are so ill informed.

Now, since it is your claim that papers are rejected because they differ from mainstream science, please show some evidence of that. The fact of the matter is that people from ICR and CRSEF will not submit their data for review. It's why they print up posters and use false authors to get their "work" viewed at conferences. CRSEF created their own journal to publish papers. They're so prodigious that the entire organization published all of 2 papers in 2015. That's a really robust work load there isn't it? Their papers don't get rejected because they are never submitted. And it's not because their POV is outside the mainstream, it's because they would get too much publicity as the snake oil salesmen they are. When I worked as an Anthropologist, I never went out there looking to prove anything before I found it. I looked at what was foubnd and analyzed the data and from that data extrapolated a hypothesis. From there we would test said hypothesis and share our data and results with others to see what their opinions were and if I may have missed something. And all of that was before anything were submitted

To the contrary, these people do just that. They begin with a premise and then quote mine, use gobbledy gook data and take other peoples work out of context to prop up their bogus work and make it appear that they have evidence of something. That is not science. That's a joke. The only thing I see here that is unfair is that people who believe in YEC actually are naïve enough to think these people are doing not just scientific work, but GOOD scientific work. If you're evidentiary source material stems from Hugh Miller and Todd Wood then this conversation isn't going to go anywhere at all because you're already blinded with confirmation bias.

As for Mary Schweitzer, her work stands on its own. The biggest problem I see is that she is quote mined and has data removed from proper context by proponents of YEC to make it appear as if her data supports the YEC position. Her work does not support it at all. Most people seem to think she cut into a T-Rex femur and blood and soft tissue oozed out. That most definitely was not the case. The soft tissue was preserved, that doesn't mean it was soft. In the lab, chamicals are used to demineralize the samples. At that point, yes, the material becomes soft and easier to take tiny samples for use in SEM but the material didn't start off spongy.

That's part of why Mark Armitage was fired from his 2 day/week job of making sure the microscopes were in working order...because he pretended the find was something more than it was and left out crucial details. People make it out like he was a tenured professor who lost his ability to work because of some creationism vs. science scandal. It simply wasn't the case. He misrepresented data and then after the fact, misrepresented what he actually did at the school. He was a friggin' microscope janitor with a glorified title.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I have seen nothing proven, just more sensationalism and knee jerk reactions from those who need their respective faiths shored up by these reports.
Its not the first study and wont be the last, they might even prove something one day, who knows

One thing proven is that some will grasp at straws.

Enjoy your life Barcs, I doesnt bother me

You say you have seen nothing proven, yet haven't even pointed out any flaws or problems with the evidence. You just quoted a handful of words and went, "THERE! I TOLD YOU NANABOOBOO!" Do you really think that genetic mutations and natural selection are unproven? And they have already proven that single cells can combine together and become multi cellular organisms with multi cellular offspring. You'll probably blindly dismiss this as sensationalism.

www.dailygalaxy.com...

It sure seems like evolution bothers you by your recent posting history in this section. Attacks on science without backing do bother me and no offense, but I choose to trust the thousands of experts who have been trained extensively in their respective fields and have worked in the field and in the lab (some for decades). People like you expect science to show immediate complete results or it means nothing. That's a shame because science is a slow evolving process. They don't always get things 100% correct, right off the bat. They learn a little bit here, a little bit there, and slowly the knowledge comes together to point us in the right direction.

Evolution is one of the most comprehensively backed theories in all of science, but folks blindly hate it due to religious conflicts. It's funny how aside from climate change science and evolution, most creationist folks blindly accept the rest of science. You don't hear them nitpicking computer science or the theory of gravity as long as their Ipad works. Not trusting science to get us answers in one field (evolution), while trusting it in another (ie information technology) is pure hypocrisy.

I asked for evidence diamonds take millennia to produce

You have a funny way of "asking" for evidence. You already had the conclusion ready based on something that isn't even related. That's how it works with science deniers. They already have all the conclusions made up before they even begin to look at the evidence. Why not even attempt to google "how diamonds are dated" first? I found it on my first try.

www.gia.edu...

Enjoy. I wonder if you will dismiss this as a knee jerk reaction as well. LOL.

originally posted by: Achilles92x
Sorry. But this reply is absolutely absurd. You equate God with a "floating man?" Weird, I don't believe in floating men either. The concept of a floating man seems absolutely irrelevant considering nobody in their right mind sees God that way.
Furthermore, you're essentially saying that you don't care what something is, what it says, or who claims it--as long as it isn't about God or religion, you believe it or at least approve of it, despite the fact that you don't even understand it.
......... No comment.

All he was saying was that he trusts science over religious belief systems, and rightfully so.

Lol, that's faith. The word translated into "faith" in the Bible means "a deep rooted trust in someone or something that may not be true."

The bible is irrelevant if we are talking about word meanings. Today, the word "faith" has multiple definitions. One of them means blind belief in something without evidence (ie religious faith). The other one means trust. They are completely different concepts and the bible expects you to do both (believe and trust).

You can have faith that your auto mechanic will fix your car problems because he's an expert, that is trust. But you don't have faith in his existence, because you can see and talk to them which verifies they are a real person.

originally posted by: cooperton
If you truly were a fan of due diligence you would pursue the topic of carbon-dated dinosaurs, coal, and diamonds more thoroughly before blindly disregarding it because it does not fit your contemporary world view.

Ok I'm sorry, I can't ignore you any longer. This is flat out the silliest, most dishonest, incredulous post I've seen yet. You have no counterpoints for anything he said. He broke down all the science and debunked your claim conclusively and thoroughly and you just blindly deny it with no explanation.

That is hilariously hypocritical. I don't remember Jesus ever teaching people to lie and attack things they didn't agree with or believe in. What gives? Who is paying you?

originally posted by: drevill
When a view point is rejected for review because it's at odds with the mainstream thought...

Surely you can give us examples that were simply rejected without even considering the validity of the science contained therein. By all means list them.

Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules

Is the title

link

There are various sites linking to this from various ideals. I'm not personally paying though for the full report

Regards

Your link doesn't work.

a reply to: Barcs


the link is as sound as the premise being pushed. Is it just me or do we just having a repeating cycle of the exact same threads with minor variations in theme with new players every 6 months or so? Almost as if ICR or the Discovery Institute sends its minions here to rehearse their arguments so they come off more plausible to the scientifically illiterate who cling to their words as though they were painted in Christs own blood as it was collected dripping off of the crucifix.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You have just described absolute faith.

You are CERTAIN, that eventually all the roads "SCIENCE" goes down will eventually lead to absolute truth.

You seem to forget that "SCIENCE" is a human invention, and is controlled by humans as well.

a reply to: Barcs

Funny you call everyone who disagrees Creationists.

Many of us are NOT, and still laugh at the nonsensical attempts at figuring out what makes what in the Universe.

NOT A WIT CLOSER, are we after all these attempts.

But it must be nice having the FEELING that you actually know something, that progress is being made.

It looks like to those of us NEITHER creationist OR evolutionist that the 2 of you groups are essential to making sure no real findings are ever going to be found.

a reply to: ParasuvO

You have just described absolute faith.

The problem with this statement is that because there are varied and different definitions of the word 'faith', there is a certain amount of equivocation going on here. The implication by you and by others of the same persuasion is that this is faith in the epistemological sense - i.e belief not based on proof - when in fact what is being admitted to here by myself and people who accept the scientific consensus is trust in an individual's or group's abilities. The latter can certainly be argued to be a form of faith, and I have no problem with that, however, it is dishonest to then claim this is the same as the religious definition (belief without proof) and that it is therefore a type of dogma no better than belief in a god.

We each apply a truth-value to any and all information we receive, based on certain criteria that varies from person to person. i.e My own thought processes are something like - "Is the source reliable?", "Is the claim mundane or fantastic?", "What evidence is there for the claim?" etc. This truth value need not be absolute, and it need not be binary. I might regard a statement with a certain amount of trust, or a certain amount of suspicion, and I can even do both at the same time. This can also be provisional - I can say 'ok, explanation 'A' seems like the most probable model to me at the moment' and until something comes along to shoot that down, then that is my position on that subject.

Where science distinguishes itself from faith-based belief is in the logical processes it employs, and in the process of peer review by adhering to repeatable, demonstrable experiments and the use of empirical data. Religious belief, on the other hand, is maintained purely through faith. When a religious person promises you life after death, he has no way of proving that promise and is simply relying on the goodwill (or gullibility) of the individual involved.

Religious faith cannot be demonstrated to reveal truths about the world around us, whereas scientific enquiry can and does. This difference is striking when you compare how each doctrine has advanced human knowledge over time. Just look at what science has achieved over the last few centuries alone. Religion - not so much.

You are CERTAIN, that eventually all the roads "SCIENCE" goes down will eventually lead to absolute truth.

You seem to forget that "SCIENCE" is a human invention, and is controlled by humans as well.

Of course humans are in control, but remember, science is not some magical answer in itself - it's purely a process, a method. There is always going to be people who do science wrongly - either by mistake or by design - but again there is an inbuilt error checking mechanism built into the process of peer review and scientific consensus. Science isn't going to be correct all of the time (the notion of absolute truth) but it is in a continual state of revolution and review. It stumbles, it corrects and it moves on, always building upon knowledge, but always reviewing and re-testing that knowledge also.

a reply to: Barcs

link

a reply to: GetHyped

And as it has been shown here
People jump onto science like its infallible and trust it implicitly, and any statement from it, is accurate and true without actually doing anything. As per this thread.

Regards

a reply to: Barcs

Not going around this argument again. Whatever each side says can be laid to the other. It's just bickering.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Barcs

Funny you call everyone who disagrees Creationists.

Many of us are NOT, and still laugh at the nonsensical attempts at figuring out what makes what in the Universe.

NOT A WIT CLOSER, are we after all these attempts.

But it must be nice having the FEELING that you actually know something, that progress is being made.

It looks like to those of us NEITHER creationist OR evolutionist that the 2 of you groups are essential to making sure no real findings are ever going to be found.

If you actually know something, why don't you bother disclosing the info? Complaining about how useless science is, by itself, won't make anyone go anywhere. Get practical!

originally posted by: drevill
People jump onto science like its infallible and trust it implicitly, and any statement from it, is accurate and true without actually doing anything. As per this thread.

No, this is your strawman defence because you cannot conceive the notion that normal, rational people do not subscribe to fundamentalist religious creation myths.

a reply to: drevill

As I have already posted:

From the lady herself:


One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors. Still, it’s not surprising they’ve reacted this way—the bone that I first studied I got from Jack, and when I gave him our initial results he was rather angry—I called him a few times and by my third call he said, “Dammit Mary the creationists are just going to love you.” But I said, “This is just what the data say— I’m not making it up.”

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Barcs
Funny you call everyone who disagrees Creationists.

Sorry I'm going to call a spade a spade. When 99/100 evolution deniers are creationist, it fits the bill. When 99/100 deniers do it out of religious faith, it fits the bill.

Many of us are NOT, and still laugh at the nonsensical attempts at figuring out what makes what in the Universe.

Until one of you guys makes a valid logical argument against evolution based on something more than misunderstandings and fallacies I will call you guys whatever I want. You blindly reject evolution out of faith. You might as well be creationist.

NOT A WIT CLOSER, are we after all these attempts.

Yeah totally. Science has done absolutely nothing for the world in the last hundred years.

But it must be nice having the FEELING that you actually know something, that progress is being made.

Right back at ya.

It looks like to those of us NEITHER creationist OR evolutionist that the 2 of you groups are essential to making sure no real findings are ever going to be found.

So you pretend the evidence doesn't exist. Okay terrific. Maybe you have an arguement to make other than nitpicking how I define ignorant people that blindly deny cherry picked fields of science while pretending that all other science is legit. It's simple intellectual dishonesty, nothing more.

originally posted by: drevill


a reply to: Barcs

link

Funny. Nothing in that abstract say anything about dinosaurs living recently, nor does it claim evolution or age of the earth is wrong.