Fake Fossils Bring Big Money

[Cardinal Carminative]

Then stop trying to limit imposing your fear and superstitions. You might find out that creation science uses the same scientific studies and information that secular science does. The interpretation is different, not the science.

Yes and no. Usually when Creation scientists do science they do it incorrectly. A good example is what Steve Austin did when he attempted to show the flaws in radiometric dating by misdating the Mt. St. Helens dacite. The details of his scientific malpractice are laid out in detail HERE.

Probably the most egregious flaw was trying to use a technique with a sample having values well below the detection limit. This is something you have to know before doing ANY analytical chemistry. It's pretty foundational. And it's easy enough to mislead people by interpreting noise for signal.

You are complaining about something that does not exist, supernatural science. You should also understand that creation science isn't trying to prove the God exists either. Only through faith and God's desires to let you know they exist (Father, Son, Holy Ghost).

Agreed. Religion is predicated on faith. Evidence of things unseen. As such science really doesn't have a say. It is an attempt by YEC to leverage science to support their beliefs but it is disingenuous at best.

Creation science is simply put using the same information you do starting from a different point of view and seeing if it can fit the Genesis Story. Why would you object to this?

Because when it FAILS they usually just either ignore it or they twist it so that a failure is somehow presented as "truth". This is another word for "lie". I will be generous and assume that many Creation Scientists are NOT lying, just really bad at science.

How does it affect you negatively? If Creation science turns out to have some or all truth, it would only benefit you.

So long as when it fails it is tossed aside. That isn't what happens, though.

 

[Cougarbear]

Yes and no. Usually when Creation scientists do science they do it incorrectly. A good example is what Steve Austin did when he attempted to show the flaws in radiometric dating by misdating the Mt. St. Helens dacite. The details of his scientific malpractice are laid out in detail HERE.

Probably the most egregious flaw was trying to use a technique with a sample having values well below the detection limit. This is something you have to know before doing ANY analytical chemistry. It's pretty foundational. And it's easy enough to mislead people by interpreting noise for signal.



Agreed. Religion is predicated on faith. Evidence of things unseen. As such science really doesn't have a say. It is an attempt by YEC to leverage science to support their beliefs but it is disingenuous at best.



Because when it FAILS they usually just either ignore it or they twist it so that a failure is somehow presented as "truth". This is another word for "lie". I will be generous and assume that many Creation Scientists are NOT lying, just really bad at science.



So long as when it fails it is tossed aside. That isn't what happens, though.

Secular science does the same thing. They make mistakes all the time. And, sometimes try to justify it incorrectly as well. Science isn't doing an experiment only is it comes out correctly. How many times did Edison fail before the light bulb finally worked? 1,000? So, why should creation scientists stop after one error? That would not be science. And, I have no problem with anyone's science to be shown to be wrong. That's part of science, life. There are flaws in radiometric dating and has been proven to be wrong many times and you know it. I think science would get further if both sides worked together. Much like in politics. But, we are now separated into tribes and fighting instead of working together.

 

[Hollie]

Then stop trying to limit imposing your fear and superstitions. You might find out that creation science uses the same scientific studies and information that secular science does. The interpretation is different, not the science. You are complaining about something that does not exist, supernatural science. You should also understand that creation science isn't trying to prove the God exists either. Only through faith and God's desires to let you know they exist (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). Creation science is simply put using the same information you do starting from a different point of view and seeing if it can fit the Genesis Story. Why would you object to this? How does it affect you negatively? If Creation science turns out to have some or all truth, it would only benefit you.

Creationer science uses none of the scientific studies used by secular science. As we know, creationer science does no research and publishes in no peer reviewed journals. The priorities of creationerism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationers in the first place. That is why creationer hacks agree to a “statement of faith” which precludes any integrity or objectivity. The term "Intelligent design creationism" is nothing more than a slogan. The fraudulent movement is based on propaganda and image manipulation. The main characteristics of ID’iot creationerism -- rejection of naturalism, denial of evolution, belief in abrupt appearance and supernatural design, emphasis on gaps in the fossil record, claims of scientific support, claims that evolution is a threat to society, and support for "teaching the controversy" -- are essentially unchanged from young-earth creationism of the 1970s.

 

[Cougarbear]

Creationer science uses none of the scientific studies used by secular science. As we know, creationer science does no research and publishes in no peer reviewed journals. The priorities of creationerism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationers in the first place. That is why creationer hacks agree to a “statement of faith” which precludes any integrity or objectivity. The term "Intelligent design creationism" is nothing more than a slogan. The fraudulent movement is based on propaganda and image manipulation. The main characteristics of ID’iot creationerism -- rejection of naturalism, denial of evolution, belief in abrupt appearance and supernatural design, emphasis on gaps in the fossil record, claims of scientific support, claims that evolution is a threat to society, and support for "teaching the controversy" -- are essentially unchanged from young-earth creationism of the 1970s.

I stopped after the first sentence because this is false.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Secular science does the same thing. They make mistakes all the time.

I have yet to see any Creationist science that was done well. I could be wrong. Their primary problem is starting with a conclusion and then seeking to provide evidence for that conclusion.

How many times did Edison fail before the light bulb finally worked?

Edison wasn't doing real science. He was throwing darts in a dark room. There's a reason the phrase "edisonian" is not always a good appellation in science.

1,000? So, why should creation scientists stop after one error?

I agree that people are people and prone to error. I just haven't seen any creationist science which seems to stand up to actual basic science. Again there may be some. I just haven't seen it.

There are flaws in radiometric dating and has been proven to be wrong many times and you know it

I do, but violating the concept of detection limits isn't just an error...that's incompetence.

. I think science would get further if both sides worked together.

I don't see how they can work together given that Creation Scientists start with a pre-determined answer and then attempt to find evidence for that. That isn't how science is done.

 

[Cougarbear]

I have yet to see any Creationist science that was done well. I could be wrong. Their primary problem is starting with a conclusion and then seeking to provide evidence for that conclusion.




Edison wasn't doing real science. He was throwing darts in a dark room. There's a reason the phrase "edisonian" is not always a good appellation in science.



I agree that people are people and prone to error. I just haven't seen any creationist science which seems to stand up to actual basic science. Again there may be some. I just haven't seen it.



I do, but violating the concept of detection limits isn't just an error...that's incompetence.



I don't see how they can work together given that Creation Scientists start with a pre-determined answer and then attempt to find evidence for that. That isn't how science is done.

There's enough incompetence to go around with secular science as well. String and parallel universe theories come along and you all are fighting over it now. There are plenty of good analysis and science with creation scientists who got their PhD's from the same universities as secular scientists as well. I have no problem when they make mistakes and are called out. I just wish secular scientists could do the same thing without their brains being threatened.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

There's enough incompetence to go around with secular science as well. String and parallel universe theories come along and you all are fighting over it now.

Those are hypotheticals at this point. That is not a case of scientific malpractice. Understanding how detection limits work or how to treat samples for preparation IS.

There are plenty of good analysis and science with creation scientists who got their PhD's from the same universities as secular scientists as well.

Could you share some of those? I'd be genuinely interested.

I have no problem when they make mistakes and are called out. I just wish secular scientists could do the same thing without their brains being threatened.

Real scientists live with constant error-correction. I even had to review an article once that found an error in my analysis. I voted to publish it quickly because I was glad they found the error.

 

[Hollie]

I stopped after the first sentence because this is false.

You stopped after the first sentence because you have no rebuttal. Present some of the peer reviewed studies submitted to science organizations by any of the ID’iot creationer ministries. ID’iot creationerism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. This is why the ID’iot creationer organizations are typically fronts for Christian ministries.


Creationers do not advocate equal time for evolutionary theory in church services. Why?

 

[Cougarbear]

You stopped after the first sentence because you have no rebuttal. Present some of the peer reviewed studies submitted to science organizations by any of the ID’iot creationer ministries. ID’iot creationerism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. This is why the ID’iot creationer organizations are typically fronts for Christian ministries.


Creationers do not advocate equal time for evolutionary theory in church services. Why?

They have tried to get published in your comic magazines but are refused. So, don't talk about getting published when you have the control on the publications to keep them out. I take it you are a Democrat with the same tactics as the billionaire Democrats who run the social media tech companies that keep conservative voice out. Some things never change.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

They have tried to get published in your comic magazines but are refused.

To be fair scientific journals tend not to publish articles on perpetual motion machines or N-rays either.

So, don't talk about getting published when you have the control on the publications to keep them out. I take it you are a Democrat with the same tactics as the billionaire Democrats who run the social media tech companies that keep conservative voice out. Some things never change.

I attempted to have a reasoned conversation with you. I'm sorry it went this way. Thanks.

 

[Hollie]

They have tried to get published in your comic magazines but are refused. So, don't talk about getting published when you have the control on the publications to keep them out. I take it you are a Democrat with the same tactics as the billionaire Democrats who run the social media tech companies that keep conservative voice out. Some things never change.

Yours are the typical conspiracy theories floated by creationers to excuse the lack of research done by creationer ministries. Why don’t you provide some specific references to studies prepared by creationer ministries rejected by “comic magazines”. I’m guessing you don’t see your own obvious bias as your revulsion for science colors your posts. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review. Perhaps the point you’re missing is the point which discredits ID is not that it has virtually no peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few? ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

 

[Cougarbear]

To be fair scientific journals tend not to publish articles on perpetual motion machines or N-rays either.



I attempted to have a reasoned conversation with you. I'm sorry it went this way. Thanks.

You have tried to denounce creation science recognize none of it expecting me to accept your opinions. I've also reasoned out my points as well. And, why would science publications not publish articles on perpetual motion machines? Publish them and let the readers decide. Heck, maybe someone sees something in them and figures out a way? There was a guy in my company that taught business at a local JC that had two friends who claimed they did it. This guy isn't stupid either. He saw the demonstrations as well did others. The two men took their invention to Southern California Edison to see if they would buy it. One of the guys ended up dead, assassinated, while the other ended up in prison for years on a trumped up charge unrelated to this. Science isn't just about the physical tests done. It's about imagination along with logic and reasoning.

 

[Cougarbear]

Yours are the typical conspiracy theories floated by creationers to excuse the lack of research done by creationer ministries. Why don’t you provide some specific references to studies prepared by creationer ministries rejected by “comic magazines”. I’m guessing you don’t see your own obvious bias as your revulsion for science colors your posts. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review. Perhaps the point you’re missing is the point which discredits ID is not that it has virtually no peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few? ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

Here are some different types of articles to read.

The Five Rules of Flood Paleontology

Most people assume that both geological and fossil evidence support the story of evolution. Geology textbooks portray the formation of canyons, mountains, oil deposits, and other features as representing millions of years. And charts and diagrams line up fossils that supposedly show seamless...

www.icr.org

Speculation, Invention, and the Invisible Hand

Evolution is broadly and almost unequivocally accepted as fact. Creationists who try to present the evidence contradicting it are often met with “How can you go against proven science?” But is evolution really based on science? How Does Science Work? The scientific method is an investigative...

www.icr.org

Mendel's Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection

by John Sanford, Ph.D., John Baumgardner, Ph.D., Wesley Brewer, Ph.D., Paul Gibson, Ph.D., and Walter ReMine, M.S. In A. A. Snelling (Ed.) (2008). Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (pp. 87-98). Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas, TX: Institute...

www.icr.org

 

[Hollie]

Here are some different types of articles to read.

The Five Rules of Flood Paleontology

Most people assume that both geological and fossil evidence support the story of evolution. Geology textbooks portray the formation of canyons, mountains, oil deposits, and other features as representing millions of years. And charts and diagrams line up fossils that supposedly show seamless...

www.icr.org

Speculation, Invention, and the Invisible Hand

Evolution is broadly and almost unequivocally accepted as fact. Creationists who try to present the evidence contradicting it are often met with “How can you go against proven science?” But is evolution really based on science? How Does Science Work? The scientific method is an investigative...

www.icr.org

Mendel's Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection

by John Sanford, Ph.D., John Baumgardner, Ph.D., Wesley Brewer, Ph.D., Paul Gibson, Ph.D., and Walter ReMine, M.S. In A. A. Snelling (Ed.) (2008). Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (pp. 87-98). Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas, TX: Institute...

www.icr.org

Im sure you realize that you linked to perhaps the most notorious anti-science, fundamentalist Christian charlatans on the web, right?

Here is their “Statement of faith”

Foundational Principles

www.icr.org

Notice they clearly and unequivocally reject facts and evidence that would counter their fundamentalist views.

You shouldn’t expect anyone with a shred of integrity to accept the extremist religious beliefs of charlatans and frauds.

 

[Cougarbear]

Im sure you realize that you linked to perhaps the most notorious anti-science, fundamentalist Christian charlatans on the web, right?

Here is their “Statement of faith”

Foundational Principles

www.icr.org

Notice they clearly and unequivocally reject facts and evidence that would counter their fundamentalist views.

You shouldn’t expect anyone with a shred of integrity to accept the extremist religious beliefs of charlatans and frauds.

Did you read the articles? No. Read them and then we can discuss them intelligently.

 

[Hollie]

Did you read the articles? No. Read them and then we can discuss them intelligently.

You don’t understand that the articles have no scientific value and have a predetermined conclusion.

Identify the peer reviewed journals that published any of the ICR articles.

Why don’t you provide a coherent description of the articles, the testing methods contained in any of them and some references to their testing methods?

 

[Cougarbear]

You don’t understand that the articles have no scientific value and have a predetermined conclusion.

Identify the peer reviewed journals that published any of the ICR articles.

Why don’t you provide a coherent description of the articles, the testing methods contained in any of them and some references to their testing methods?

That's what a hypothesis is as well. Again, you haven't read the article so you aren't being honest why you reject science based on predetermined conclusions. It gets back to imagination and having a thought or a hypothesis (type of a conclusion).

 

[Hollie]

That's what a hypothesis is as well. Again, you haven't read the article so you aren't being honest why you reject science based on predetermined conclusions. It gets back to imagination and having a thought or a hypothesis (type of a conclusion).

A hypothesis is not a predetermined conclusion. You make the mistake, as do creationers, typically, of attempting to force information to meet a conclusion you have already determined.

I’m sure you never bothered to read the ICR articles you cut and pasted because they lack any verifiable data. It was especially laughable to see the references in the silly flood geology article used Jeffrey P. Tomkins repeatedly as a source. I’m guessing you see the absurdity in using religious fundamentalists reviewing religious fundamentalists as a reliable source.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

​

#1215: Jeffrey P. Tomkins​

The unfortunate demise of John Todd leads us to another stock creationist, Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “research associate” at the Institute for Creation Research. Tomkins has a PhD in genetics (Clemson University) and a master’s degree in “plant science”, and his “research” for the ICR accordingly focuses on genetics, particularly (as per 2011) on the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. He has already discovered that the similarity between humans and chimps was “merely” 86– 89% by failing to understand some rather central distinctions (he never told us what the differences were, but did claim that evolutionist attempts to sequence the genome were biased). His 2012 article on the sequencing of the Gorilla genome, “Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution,” promptly failed to understand the science (detailed explanation here).

Needless to say, Tomkins avoids serious, scientific journals for his rants, but instead likes to publish his “results” in venues such asAnswers, the house journal of Answers in Genesis. For volume 4 of that journal he published, in addition to his human-chimp difference paper, “Response to Comments on ‘How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees’,”, a response to (creationist) criticisms of said paper. He continued the confusion in volume 6.

His latest project is apparently concerned with the “concept of genetic diversity in biological adaptation.” We are still waiting for any insights.

Diagnosis: Clueless moron, whose understanding of central concepts in biology seems to be – willfully – more or less non-existent.

 

[Cougarbear]

A hypothesis is not a predetermined conclusion. You make the mistake, as do creationers, typically, of attempting to force information to meet a conclusion you have already determined.

I’m sure you never bothered to read the ICR articles you cut and pasted because they lack any verifiable data. It was especially laughable to see the references in the silly flood geology article used Jeffrey P. Tomkins repeatedly as a source. I’m guessing you see the absurdity in using religious fundamentalists reviewing religious fundamentalists as a reliable source.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

​

#1215: Jeffrey P. Tomkins​

The unfortunate demise of John Todd leads us to another stock creationist, Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “research associate” at the Institute for Creation Research. Tomkins has a PhD in genetics (Clemson University) and a master’s degree in “plant science”, and his “research” for the ICR accordingly focuses on genetics, particularly (as per 2011) on the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. He has already discovered that the similarity between humans and chimps was “merely” 86– 89% by failing to understand some rather central distinctions (he never told us what the differences were, but did claim that evolutionist attempts to sequence the genome were biased). His 2012 article on the sequencing of the Gorilla genome, “Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution,” promptly failed to understand the science (detailed explanation here).

Needless to say, Tomkins avoids serious, scientific journals for his rants, but instead likes to publish his “results” in venues such asAnswers, the house journal of Answers in Genesis. For volume 4 of that journal he published, in addition to his human-chimp difference paper, “Response to Comments on ‘How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees’,”, a response to (creationist) criticisms of said paper. He continued the confusion in volume 6.

His latest project is apparently concerned with the “concept of genetic diversity in biological adaptation.” We are still waiting for any insights.

Diagnosis: Clueless moron, whose understanding of central concepts in biology seems to be – willfully – more or less non-existent.

We will have to see what his response is. But, this is why it's good not to shut people down. If they are right, it can benefit all. If they are wrong, it can also benefit all. Why shut down speech at all? So, did you read the articles?

 

[Hollie]

We will have to see what his response is. But, this is why it's good not to shut people down. If they are right, it can benefit all. If they are wrong, it can also benefit all. Why shut down speech at all? So, did you read the articles?

You already know the opinion of anyone connected with the ICR. They must agree to fundamentalist Christian doctrine as delineated in their “statement of faith”

This is why it’s good to call out charlatans who want to press an extremist religious agenda. They announce their dishonesty.

Did you bother to read any of the articles you cut and pasted?