It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

fighting ignorance

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Recently, a member said that scientists had found a fossilised miners helmet that could not have been over seventy years old.
This is not meant to be classroom.. it is meant to be about conspiracies yet it has gotten to the point that before any productive discussions can begin we have to explain why a buried helmet is not a fossil, why turnips don't turn into bumble bees, why the sun is not 10,000 years old [let alone the earth], how apes and humans just share a common ancestor, why dinos and humans could not have co-existed and many other things that boarder on the ridiculous.
Evolution has won in the courts yet the dissinformation campaign continues.. for the creationalists reading that aren't quite sure what evolution entails or think it's complete nonsense.. could each of you you tell us specifically why you have a problem with it [keep it simple] and post links so we can analise the evidence ourselves? Thankyou.




posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Evolution has won in the courts

Thats really irrelevant. Evolution is a scientific idea, judicial courts have nothing to do with it.


could each of you you tell us specifically why you have a problem with it [keep it simple] and post links so we can analise the evidence ourselves?

I think that that's what people do though, no?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
In fact they do not. I have seen many make claims and then they fail to provide evidence and sources when asked. I am interested in what these sources are as they are spreading disinformation which usually has to be debunked on this forum. I think sorting out who the conspirators are is relevent.. unless we are only meant to be playing teacher?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
But riley, these are the people who after killing millions finally admitted the Earth was round, do you think something small like evidence is going to make them admit to Evolution?

These people killed you for SNEEZING to much, having a birthmark, using herbal medicine, saying Earth wasn't center, being born with cerebal palsy or other mental disorder, women for answering math questions, having a rash, because another person said you used magic to kill his cow, because of a belief. Right now they have a belief that creation, not evolution, is correct.

Why a helmet is a fossil(Which it isn't) or dinosaurs and man lived together, because they believe this. It isn't true, but hey, that's what they believe and nothing can change that.

Thankfully I'm a liberal Methodist, been going to church for more then two decades, but I, unlike some, evolve my ideas and beliefs over time. Did God create the Universe? maybe, but if he did, why would he waste his time in working on one little planet? Ok so God didn't make the Universe, he just appeared, and decided to have a hobby. Now why would he spend his time making a planet, then making it habital, then slooooooooowly make single celled organisms, then multi celled organisms, then more advanced life, then more, then dinosaurs, kill them off, work on mammals, then make humans? If he wanted humans he would have, like in the bible, just made them.

But evidence, science, points to a long time to get to humans. That we weren't poofed into existence. So what does this mean? Maybe ID is right, but that is BS, cause again why would God waste his time with that?

We could be one of a billion universes, much like the galaxies in this universe, and God while does 'play' with his toys, has better things to do. Isn't it being slightly egotistical to say the man, thing, woman, that created everything would waste their time on little ol' us?

Maybe God just lets things do as they do. You raise your kid, but then let them go out into the workforce, college, life, you let them do what they do as they do it. Yes you helped create them, but do you control every aspect of their life since then? NO! You let things lay as they fell. Means you have more time to sleep with Jewish Virgins.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
But riley, these are the people who after killing millions finally admitted the Earth was round, do you think something small like evidence is going to make them admit to Evolution?

It's not so much I want them to admit to it.. I just want to know where they are getting their ideas from. The miners helmet.. [just one example of many] ..I googled and nearly exactly the same thing was said on another forum. I could find little else. No proof- just someone parroting someone else's stupidity. I am not surprised when I asked for a source the person disapeared as they'd know urban myths would not qualify as proof.
IMO.. if creationalists genuinely believe these things are scientific and based on logic.. they should have no problem providing sources and having them held up to be scrutinised. That would be faith and occasionally some IDs do try back things up [eg. Rren]. The more extreme opinions though.. I suspect that deep down they know these things are not true and don't want their faith put at risk.

We could be one of a billion universes, much like the galaxies in this universe, and God while does 'play' with his toys, has better things to do. Isn't it being slightly egotistical to say the man, thing, woman, that created everything would waste their time on little ol' us?

Egotistical yes. Perhaps it's also because people don't like to be alone or not be in control.. if their concept of god is disproven they might see themselves as orphans with no direction. Religion can be a spiritual safety net.. and as ID is not provable god is 'protected' from science.. unfortuantly this doesn't work both ways. What happens when even ET life is found? We know this is inevitable- wonderful as it will be it will feel like a demotion for many.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by riley]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Recently, a member said that scientists had found a fossilised miners helmet that could not have been over seventy years old.


Tried to find some info on this but couldn't find much. Found one page here where the Op says "when you look at the fact the Fossilized Miners helmets have been found in Britain (Yes you guessed it fossils don't take thousands or even hundreds of years to be created)." Unfortunatley he didn't post a ref or link of any sort to back it up... *shrug* i guess that's your point though eh.

I know in one of the 'dating techniques are flawed' type threads around here there's a similar argument (living snails with fossilized shells or some-such.) I'm pretty sure this type of argument is exclusively a YECism thing... so i checked those sites.

Here's what i found at AIG on the miner's helmet:


'fossil' hat



'Fossil' hat
This miner's hat is rock hard. It was found in a mine in Tasmania where it had been covered with water for more than 50 years.

Over that time the chemicals in the water precipitated within the open structure of the felt material of the soft hat, thus turning the soft hat into stone by a process called calcification, which means that solid calcium carbonate has impregnated the original felt material of the hat.



The hat is now on display in a mining museum on Tasmania's west coast.

This quick-forming 'stone' hat adds weight to the claims that creation scientists are correct when they say that thousands or millions of years are not needed to form rocks and fossilize animals and plants.



*that's actually the entire article... not a whole lot to go on there. Here's another essay on DNA degredation and how that fits the young earth model:


www.answersingenesis.org...
Brian Sykes in the prestigious journal Nature clearly states that the rate at which DNA breaks down in the laboratory is such that after 10,000 years no DNA should be left. Writing about the magnolia leaf fossils (and others in the same ‘ancient’ layer found to also have DNA, including oak, cypress and tulip tree fossils) he says:


‘This means these compression fossils defy the prediction, from in vitro estimates of the rate of spontaneous hydrolysis, that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years. What a good job not everybody knew that, grant reviewers included.’

snip
1)In the absence of the repair machinery of a living cell, DNA breaks down, by itself, at an observed, measurable rate which would mean that after 10,000 years there should be none left.

2)Therefore, any specimen which has DNA still in it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

However:
3)Intact DNA has been found in specimens which evolutionists ‘know’ to be millions of years old. (Because it is found in lavers which, according to the geological age-dating system, are assigned this age—17–20 million years in the case of the plant fossils mentioned here.)

4)If this system of vast ages is not correct, the whole evolutionary scenario collapses.

5)Therefore, the logical deduction in the first two points above (based on real science—that is, an observable process) must be flawed. There must be some special conditions which can somehow ‘hold up’ the breakdown of DNA quite dramatically.

Notice how point 3 brings in the assumption/belief that the vast evolutionary age assigned to these fossils is correct. That belief becomes the justification for discarding the prima facie implications of the laboratory data.


If you're interested in the YECists position/arguments on fossils here's AIG's Fossils Questions and Answers Q&A page. If the miner's hat got you POed you're gonna love this page.






This is not meant to be classroom.. it is meant to be about conspiracies yet it has gotten to the point that before any productive discussions can begin we have to explain why a buried helmet is not a fossil, why turnips don't turn into bumble bees, why the sun is not 10,000 years old [let alone the earth], how apes and humans just share a common ancestor, why dinos and humans could not have co-existed and many other things that boarder on the ridiculous.


I'd be interested to know how many conspiracy "theories," do you think, do not border on the ridiculous? Turnips into bumble bees is, while a little disingenuous, just a dramatic way of pointing out they evolved from the same thing (LUCA.) Not the greatest argument in the world but not entirely innacurate either.


Every time someone comes in and makes the mistake of saying man evolved from an ape/monkey he/she gets it from all sides. "Hey dummy they share a common ancestor... BIG difference." They evolved from an 'ape-like' species and not an actual ape, why do some folks get so worked up over the distinction? I could give you some links from ToE supporters around here whom mis-understand/represent evolution as much as any creationist, those guys seem to get a free pass though.


Basically, unless i misunderstood your post, you're saying that YECists shouldn't be allowed to post on ATS? While i disagree with their scientific and Biblical interpretations, they have as much of a right to post on this discussion board as the next guy imho. You could always just ignore them.


I don't know whether or not this is supposed to be a classroom, but i know i've learned alot here. I was familiar with this stuff prior and have read dozens of books on the subject. But the give and take of a discussion board and the chance to talk with actual scientists is invaluable to someone like me who has no such outlet in real life.




Evolution has won in the courts yet the dissinformation campaign continues..


I don't think the courts/judges are qualified to make such determinations, you do? I'm not advocationg teaching creationism (of any kind) in the public schools for many reasons, but i could honestly care less what a specific judge's opinion is of the ToE, creationism or ID. I believe it'd be unfair to push creationism (of any kind) in our public schools, which should be secular imho; ID is too incomplete and high school teachers have enough to do already just teaching basic science to students... i see no reason to further complicate matters. There will always be those who disagree and think it's neccessary to teach the deceived masses the "truth." *shrug* YE creation science has been refuted by everyone from OECists to atheists and their still here, gotta admire their dedication at least.



What happens when even ET life is found? We know this is inevitable- wonderful as it will be it will feel like a demotion for many.


There's nothing in Scripture that says life was only created here on Earth. Many religious people (yup including Christians) believe in ET life, some even use the Bible as proof ET has visited Earth in the past. What if ET is religious? What if they are montheists? What if they too have a messiah? IF, if, if etc. etc. Why is it the assumption that ETs will be atheists and their existence with be the death blow to religion?



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
These people killed you for SNEEZING to much, having a birthmark, using herbal medicine, saying Earth wasn't center, being born with cerebal palsy or other mental disorder, women for answering math questions, having a rash, because another person said you used magic to kill his cow, because of a belief. Right now they have a belief that creation, not evolution, is correct.


You seem more like a deist, someone who believes there was a God but he has left us, then a methodist.


Originally posted by Rren

Evolution has won in the courts yet the dissinformation campaign continues..

I don't think the courts/judges are qualified to make such determinations, you do?


I think Riley meant this as a metaphor.

Nice thread Riley.


[edit on 14/3/06 by byhiniur]

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
*that's actually the entire article... not a whole lot to go on there.

Thanks Rren.. might've been the 'helmet' in question. I tried looking further into it but all I could find was that same one photograph and no mention of which museum it's meant to be in. Things do indeed calcify but I'm still unsure how that supports their young earth idea.. concrete exists. They may as well dip something in it and call it a fossil.

Here's another essay on DNA degredation and how that fits the young earth model:


www.answersingenesis.org...
Brian Sykes in the prestigious journal Nature clearly states that the rate at which DNA breaks down in the laboratory is such that after 10,000 years no DNA should be left. Writing about the magnolia leaf fossils (and others in the same ‘ancient’ layer found to also have DNA, including oak, cypress and tulip tree fossils) he says:


‘This means these compression fossils defy the prediction, from in vitro estimates of the rate of spontaneous hydrolysis, that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years. What a good job not everybody knew that, grant reviewers included.’

-snip-

References
Bryan Sykes, in Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991, p. 381. In this context, his statement is sarcastic. Sykes is not denying that the fossils are multimillions of years old. He is saying that if the inferences from the laboratory data had been completely trusted, no one would have bothered to look for DNA in such old sediments. The fact that it exists is to him evidence that the inferences were wrong, not the age

This is what happens when scientists jump to conclusions.. he spoke too soon.
there would be many things that could keep dna somewhat intact like amber and ice.

I'd be interested to know how many conspiracy "theories," do you think, do not border on the ridiculous?

Conspiracies need facts. I don't believe in reptilians but actual evidence might make me reconsider.

Turnips into bumble bees is, while a little disingenuous, just a dramatic way of pointing out they evolved from the same thing (LUCA.) Not the greatest argument in the world but not entirely innacurate either.

Innacurate desciption of the evolution process. When comparisons like this are made it's designed to make ToE sound silly.

Every time someone comes in and makes the mistake of saying man evolved from an ape/monkey he/she gets it from all sides. "Hey dummy they share a common ancestor... BIG difference." They evolved from an 'ape-like' species and not an actual ape, why do some folks get so worked up over the distinction?

Because some folks actually think thats what evolution asserts. Like when they say "How come there are still apes then?" It would be nice if these people consulted more than one source before going on the attack.

I could give you some links from ToE supporters around here whom mis-understand/represent evolution as much as any creationist, those guys seem to get a free pass though.

I guess they get tolerated as they aren't attacking ToE.

Basically, unless i misunderstood your post, you're saying that YECists shouldn't be allowed to post on ATS?

No. I've just become irritated at creationalists [young earthers] posting without anything to back up their opinions. Their arguments rest on discrediting evolution yet they usually don't offer a credible alternative or proof.

While i disagree with their scientific and Biblical interpretations, they have as much of a right to post on this discussion board as the next guy imho. You could always just ignore them.

Yeah I could just ignore them.. but some of those posting might be doing so trying to spread propoganda [ats gets alot of traffic]. Have we forgotten the DrHovind agent [my opinion] who got banned about 4 times? This forum wasn't designed to further their agenda.
I've got no problem with people learning.. I've learnt alot as well but when I find myself explaining to someone why koalas couldn't have been fed or even reached the ark it gets frustrating.. and worst still they don't listen, eventually leave and are soon replaced by someone with the similar arguments.

Noah fed crocodiles milk.


These are very infantile ideas.. and yes it's a shame that people are this ignorant. We deny it as the motto says.. thats fab and all but it's time consuming and in the meantime we've lost track of what the anti-evolutionists are up to. It's possible that those 'silly' arguments posted are meant to distract us from their goals. Are we immune from cyber terrorism? The internet seems to be the battle field for the present culture wars now. I know I sound overly suspicious but when googling I found a forum talking about how to get around being banned from ats.. thats definently premeditated trolling.

I don't think the courts/judges are qualified to make such determinations, you do?

No. If it had've gone the other way science would've just ignored it and waited it out but it would've drastically changed the political atmosphere and funding and valuable rescources would've been lost. I was overly optomistic that this judgement would kill the aspirations outlined in the 'wedge document' but sadly I was wrong. I think perhaps they have a seperate motivation than just getting religion in schools. They fear science. There is always the possibility that science may one day find evidence of a creator [being really open minded now- I'm an atheist] ..that could be 200 years down the track but if their faith is justified they'll be proven right in due time anyway.

Why is it the assumption that ETs will be atheists and their existence with be the death blow to religion?

I guess people assume they would be more evolved than us.. but a narrassistic alien filling the role of long lost messiah is possible. The universe is full of opportunites for missionaries.
Religion wouldn't die, it would change along with human progress like it always has. Some however don't like change and will continue to resist it.


Originally posted by byhiniur
I think Riley meant this as a metaphor.

Both metaphor and literal.

Nice thread Riley.

Thanks.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by riley]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Every time someone comes in and makes the mistake of saying man evolved from an ape/monkey he/she gets it from all sides. "Hey dummy they share a common ancestor... BIG difference." They evolved from an 'ape-like' species and not an actual ape, why do some folks get so worked up over the distinction? I could give you some links from ToE supporters around here whom mis-understand/represent evolution as much as any creationist, those guys seem to get a free pass though.



It really comes down to belief and science. Everyone has the right to believe as they will, and they have the right to express their beliefs. However when people start using science to prove their beliefs, that science can and will be analyzed. If it is based on incomplete, misinterpreted or just plain faulty data... it will be pointed out.

The importance about making the distinction you mentioned is that when a creationist is arguing against evolution and says 'we did not evolve from apes' they are usually implying MODERN apes. The argument I have seen many times right in this forums goes like this 'If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes around and why did they stop evolving?' It goes hand in hand with the whole 'missing link' argument, that scientists cannot provide a fossil link between man and modern apes, open and shut case. Such a link cannot be provided simply because it does not exist, the argument is based solely on a misinterpretation of what evolution is saying human evolution.

I myself have pointed this distinction out a couple of times here, but I’ve tried to do so in a 'hey dummy..' manner

I don’t do it to be condescending, just trying to do what I can to prevent a common misconception from spreading any further than it already has. Bad data has a way of propagating, especialy if it says when people want to hear.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Thanks Rren.. might've been the 'helmet' in question. I tried looking further into it but all I could find was that same one photograph and no mention of which museum it's meant to be in. Things do indeed calcify but I'm still unsure how that supports their young earth idea.. concrete exists. They may as well dip something in it and call it a fossil.


This is relatively old and imo the fact that nobody is really talking about it (on either 'side') shows there's probably nothing to it. Sort of a scientific urban myth i guess. Some YECist runs out of stuff to argue and hits 'em with a "oh yeah i heard they found a 70 year old fossilized miner's hat... explain that." Why is it in a museum and not some geologists lab? Like i said i doubt there's anything (much) to this... outside of being an interesting anomaly, maybe.




References
Bryan Sykes, in Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991, p. 381. In this context, his statement is sarcastic. Sykes is not denying that the fossils are multimillions of years old. He is saying that if the inferences from the laboratory data had been completely trusted, no one would have bothered to look for DNA in such old sediments. The fact that it exists is to him evidence that the inferences were wrong, not the age

This is what happens when scientists jump to conclusions.. he spoke too soon.
there would be many things that could keep dna somewhat intact like amber and ice.


I think what they (YECists) are saying is that there's no evidence to support what your saying, IOW no reason to suggest that the fossil was 'specially preserved' if you will (they have a few examples of finding DNA where we shouldn't/previously thought impossible.) I believe this falls into the "we're not sure how to explain this" category, perhaps it's jumping the gun but not entirely illogical imo. If you're looking to back up a young earth model this is the type of evidence you'd need, and it's a conclusion based on real data and what we know about chemistry, DNA and fossil formation.

I'm sure there will be a 'normal' explanation for this too, but isn't this exactly the type of argument you're looking for from YECists? Currently i don't think there's any known way to keep DNA intact for millions sometimes hundreds of millions of years... either what we known about DNA disintergration/preservation is flawed or how we date fossils is. Obviously the YEers are favoring the latter. I actually find this one pretty interesting and i could list a few dozen (very strong reasons imo) why the earth/universe can't be +-10kyo, i'm just as biased/convinced as any YEC opponent about an old earth. I see no reason to shut these guys out though; if only just to keep us on our toes, or with something out of the ordinary to ponder.


Anywhoo... lest i be branded a young earther (and burned on the ATS deny ignorance altar j/k) i'll stop here. You might like this link, it's a short list of quotes from journals pertaining to some of the DNA/fossil finds, implications and such. www.creationscience.com...




These are very infantile ideas.. and yes it's a shame that people are this ignorant. We deny it as the motto says.. thats fab and all but it's time consuming and in the meantime we've lost track of what the anti-evolutionists are up to. It's possible that those 'silly' arguments posted are meant to distract us from their goals.


Like i said you could easily just ignore them or give 'em a link to a thread where the issue has been discussed previously. Look at Byrd and Nygdan they still get in the mix every once in a while. Nygdan's been here for a few years and Byrd since ATS started (i think) and i'm sure they've had the same discussions many many times by now... ask 'em how they do it and manage to keep their sanity.

Of course i'm pretty sure they're both programs belonging to the hive mind super computer known as S.I.M.O.N. I'm pretty sure no human can know as much stuff as Byrd does... Nygdan ain't no slouch either (pick a topic, any topic.) I have this all down on paper with the mathematics, schematics, documents and such to back up my theory... unfortunately my scanner is out of order right now (i'm at a B&B in Switzerland) so you'll just have to take my word on that.

BTW who exactly are the "anti-evolutionists" you're talking about? Got a defintion for me on what makes someone an "anti-evolutionist?" You think YECism is just a front by the 'anti's' to keep you off their trails? Who says Darwinists are paranoid?


FYI YECists think OECists like me do more damge to God's word/plan than atheists do (i know i've seen Ken Hamm say that before) ... IOW to a young earther i'm just as evil and corrupt as you are, believe it or not.




Are we immune from cyber terrorism? The internet seems to be the battle field for the present culture wars now. I know I sound overly suspicious but when googling I found a forum talking about how to get around being banned from ats.. thats definently premeditated trolling.


Not sure what you saw on that forum but if it seems a little shady to you (hacker type stuff?) i'd let admin know about it. Of course they could just avoid a banning by reading the T&C, that works too.



Rren
Why is it the assumption that ETs will be atheists and their existence with be the death blow to religion?



Riley
I guess people assume they would be more evolved than us.. but a narrassistic alien filling the role of long lost messiah is possible. The universe is full of opportunites for missionaries.
Religion wouldn't die, it would change along with human progress like it always has. Some however don't like change and will continue to resist it.


Can't be a narcissist and an atheist at the same time eh... Why is it us theists think atheists are egotistical and vice versa? We can't both be right... can we?

Oh come on, that was some deep quantum stuff right there... i don't care who you are. I think i just made a fact.

*hello... hello, is this thing on?*


Regards and God bless,
-Rren



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join