29 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThose types of bogus statistical probability arguments, all based on events being completely independent when they are almost certainly linked, have been addressed ad nauseum on this forum, most notably by Telerion.
Oh, that? That wasn't his tripe; that was mine. He says it much more eloquently, with more profound effect. Of course, with your staggering intellect, I'm sure you'll crush his writings with a simple, "He's an idiot," "LOL! Does anyone actually BELIEVE this load of crock?" or some such keen insight.
29 Mar 06
3 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseYou might want to actually read your own post; it pretty much says that paleontology is NOT a "soft science" by the definition given.
[b]How paleontology can be labelled a "soft" science is beyond comprehension...
Your ignorance is showing:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science
[i/]Hard science is a term, which often is used to describe certain fields of the natural sciences, usually physics, chemistry, and many fields of biology. The hard sciences are said to rely o oing off half-cocked again, try reading up on those long words you don't understand. 😛[/b]
EDIT: From wikipedia:
Modern paleontology sets ancient life in its contexts, by studying how long-term physical changes of global geography ("paleogeography"😉 and climate ("paleoclimate"😉 have affected the evolution of life, how ecosystems have responded to these changes and have changed the planetary environment in turn, and how these mutual responses have affected today's patterns of biodiversity. So paleontology overlaps with geology, the study of rocks and rock formations, and with botany, biology, zoology, and ecology, fields concerned with living creatures and how they interact.
Which of those fields that paleontology overlaps with is not a "hard" science in your "mind"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNice try. Is ancient life repeatable? Can we repeat the Mesozoic era? Maybe the Cambrian? Paleontology is a science of the life of past geologic periods based on fossil remains. Is this really so hard to understand in your "mind"? Paleontology relies on qualitative data compared to the quantitative analysis of the hard sciences. Have fun trying to wrangle your way out of that one.
You might want to actually read your own post; it pretty much says that paleontology is NOT a "soft science" by the definition given.
EDIT: From wikipedia:
Modern paleontology sets ancient life in its contexts, by studying how long-term physical changes of global geography ("paleogeography"😉 and climate ("paleoclimate"😉 have affected the evolution o ...[text shortened]... is not a "hard" science in your "mind"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology
Overlapping does not necessarily improve the credibility of a field; it merely implies application. You are committing the association fallacy – “honour by association”.
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYes. In terms of observational science ancient life is repeatable.
Nice try. Is ancient life repeatable? Can we repeat the Mesozoic era? Maybe the Cambrian? Paleontology is a science of the life of past geologic periods based on fossil remains. Is this really so hard to understand in your "mind"? Paleontology relies on qualitative data compared to the quantitative analysis of the hard sciences. Have fun trying to wrangle y ...[text shortened]... ely implies application. You are committing the association fallacy – “honour by association”.
I can go and examine fossliferous strata and create taxonomies based on the fossil organisms I observe. You can repeat the observations.
I can go and collect rock samples from fossliferous strata and create time lines based on the isotopic ratios I observe. You can repeat the observations.
I can create models and theories based on the data I collect. You can repeat the process.
This is what repeatable means.
I don't remember paleontology relying on qualitative data when I studied it. The phylogenies of amonites rely on quantative data for example. Do you understand the difference between quantative and qualatative data?
30 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI assume geology isn't a "hard science" by that criteria. Or astronomy. And what else is "soft science" by the criteria you have created out of whole cloth (or more likely, have had a YEC create for you)?
Nice try. Is ancient life repeatable? Can we repeat the Mesozoic era? Maybe the Cambrian? Paleontology is a science of the life of past geologic periods based on fossil remains. Is this really so hard to understand in your "mind"? Paleontology relies on qualitative data compared to the quantitative analysis of the hard sciences. Have fun trying to wrangle y ...[text shortened]... ely implies application. You are committing the association fallacy – “honour by association”.
Your ignorance of science shows when you try to discredit the fact that paleontology "overlaps" with other fields. What that means is that similar methods are used; a fossil is a mineralized remmant of a biological creature after all. What a shock that the methods used in those fields would "overlap"!
30 Mar 06
I was reading about Noah's Ark recently and it's origins in the eleventh tablet of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Utnapishtim is the wise king of the Sumerian city state of Shuruppak who, along with his unnamed wife, survived a great flood sent by Enlil to drown every living thing on Earth. This was the origin of the flood myth in your bible.
It appears your religion at the very least is evolving and maybe we should start discussing the micro- and macroevolutionary shifts over time?
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by JadeMantisHere lies an interesting way of demonstrating how the scientific process works.
Is it really the origin, or is this (and the many other flood myths) finding their origin in a major past flood?
First a theory:
Two senior scientists from Columbia University have proposed a theory that a massive transfer of water occurred about 5600 BCE - over seven and a half millennia ago. They wrote: "Ten cubic miles of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls." "The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days." 60,000 square miles of land were inundated. The Black Sea shoreline significantly expanded to the north and east. The lake's its water level was raised many hundreds of feet. It changed from a fresh-water landlocked lake into a salt water lake connected to the world's oceans.
They have drawn on the findings of experts in agriculture, archaeology, genetics, geology, language, development of textiles and pottery, etc. They postulate that this deluge had catastrophic effects on the people living on the shore of the Black Sea. It triggered mass migrations across Europe and into the Near East, Middle East and Egypt. It may have been the source of many flood stories in the area. Some researchers believe that the story of Noah's flood in the Biblical book of Genesis is a myth that had its origin in this cataclysmic event.
This theory makes predictions. These are either confirmed or shown to be wrong by further independent investigation:
In 1999-summer, maritime explorer Robert D. Ballard and his team located the ancient coastline, almost exactly where Ryan and Pitman said that they would find it. The team dredged up samples of rocks from the old shore line of the New Euxine Lake. They found seven distinct species of salt-water mollusks, all of which were carbon dated as being from 2,800 to 6,820 years old. They also found two species of freshwater mollusks which ranged from 7,460 to 15,500 years old. This supports the theory that the Black Sea switched from being a fresh water lake to a salty sea about 7,000 years ago.
A survey of the floor of the Black Sea shows that the river beds of the Dniester, Dnieper, Danube, Don, Volga and other rivers continue beyond the present sea shore for as much as a hundred miles. The river beds all stop at the same level. This would have been the ancient shoreline of the New Euxine Lake.
A number of features have been detected on the bottom of the Black Sea near its old shoreline. They are shaped like tells -- a characteristic shape of the remains of ancient towns or cities.
At one site, some 150 meters (500 feet) under water, archeologists found more than 30 stone blocks, pieces of wood and other objects -- possibly ceramics. The site "appeared uniquely rectangular." The stone blocks did not appear to be part of a natural geological formation. They tentatively conclude that they have found a site that was once occupied by people.
A tell near Ilipinar which is south of the Bosporus Straight, has been excavated. At the approximately 5500 BCE level the excavation reveals a sudden change in pottery design. Archeologists have studied other tells in the area which also showed similar abrupt changes in pottery at the same time. This shows that one society was overrun by another culture at about the same time that the New Euxine Lake was flooded. Presumably the more recent culture were refugees from the flooded lake.
We can then claim that the original theory best fits the current evidence. If further evidence is found that contradicts the theory or the current evidence then the theory may be reassessed. Interesting to note that this flood happened before creation if you believe the Young Earth Creationists.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerPlease define 'kind' as to my knowledge it is a word only used by creationists.
I don't deny that there are variations within every created kind.
It's the "fact" that all species evolved from one common ancestor, as announced by the TOE that is rather hard to swallow...
Why is it hard to swallow? There is no significant difference.
Even Darwin said in his Origin of Species that there would be millions of transitional fossils everywhere if this were the case…
Every fosil and living organism is transitional. And theres millions of both. Wheres the problem?
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou can see what you call an echo of the big bang, you are assigning
We can to this day see the echo of the Big Bang in the form of background electromagnetic radiation, it was exactly where (in the spectrum) it was predicted to be.
a name and meaning behind something you witness to make it fit
your beliefs, much like what is done with fossils. Connecting the dots
is a matter of faith/belief, you get it right or no? Did someone else
get it right or no, can you prove what occurred billions of years ago,
or must the rest of the world take your analysis as gospel?
Kelly
31 Mar 06
Originally posted by KellyJayUh uh, wrong!
You can see what you call an echo of the big bang, you are assigning
a name and meaning behind something you witness to make it fit
your beliefs, much like what is done with fossils. Connecting the dots
is a matter of faith/belief, you get it right or no? Did someone else
get it right or no, can you prove what occurred billions of years ago,
or must the rest of the world take your analysis as gospel?
Kelly
Assigning a name and meaning behind something you witness to make it fit your THEORY not belief! Were it a belief, we couldn't change it as you so eloquently (or maybe notso eloquently) demonstrate.
In science we use the term THEORY because it can change if evidence or experimental data arises that does not fit the THEORY.
In religion you use the term FAITH because it doesn't matter what evidence shows - the FAITH remains.
31 Mar 06
Originally posted by KellyJayIf someone found the background radiation and then decided to call it the echo of the Big Bang perhaps you'd have an argument.
You can see what you call an echo of the big bang, you are assigning
a name and meaning behind something you witness to make it fit
your beliefs, much like what is done with fossils. Connecting the dots
is a matter of faith/belief, you get it right or no? Did someone else
get it right or no, can you prove what occurred billions of years ago,
or must the rest of the world take your analysis as gospel?
Kelly
That's not what happened though, the existance of the echo was predicted and certain things were estimated about it. Then it was observed and shown to correspond to the estimations (Actually while one group was searching for the background radiation they expected to be there, a seperate group was struggling to get rid of it).