paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs

[SandSquid]

James in a nutshell:

An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true. This is also called a negative proof fallacy. This also includes the (false) assumption there are only two options (true or false). There may be as many as four choices:

1. true
2. false
3. unknown
4. unknowable.[1]

Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving. Rules of logic place the burden (responsibility) of proving something on the person making the claim.[2][3]

A logical fallacy is simply a bad argument.[4] Using bad logic does not necessarily mean the argument is false (or true). It is basically a hasty conclusion, one that is arrived at incorrectly.[5] But it still may be convincing to some audiences.[5] This is why it is used in politics and advertising.

Examples

• "This drug is safe because no-one has found any toxic effects."[6] This only implies that complete testing has been done. It does not say it has been tested completely.
• "Candidate Smith has never spoken out concerning her views on abortion. We can safely conclude that she must be pro-choice".[7] The argument from ignorance fallacy can be used to dismiss a subject or to argue that it means the opposite.[7]
• "Of course disease is caused by witchcraft. How else could it happen?" (The argument from ignorance often takes the form of "how else could X happen" which implies that because there is no other explanation yet known, the one being offered is correct.)

Not even that. 5,000 years ago if a group of people who didn't have any understanding of things like weather, electricity, and the concept of extinction, they had their ignorant belief that a set of dinosaur bones was enough proof that there exists living mystical beings that cause droughts and throw lightning and we don't see them since they are up in the clouds holding up the sky.

It's how they explained why they couldn't find the animals who's fossils they dug up. They lived on top of the tallest mountain. They lived in the sun. They lived in the depths of the sea at the edge of the world. They lived under the ground. They were invisible.

To believe that today isn't just ignorance. It's intentional ignorance... Aka going full retard.

 

[james bond]

Well, you can't say stuff like "silly" in a peer review unless it's really off.

Pretending to know something about scientific peer review now, lol. And I have no idea why you keep banging on about feathered dinosaurs? That theory has barely begun being established and I've taken no stand other than perhaps providing links to some convincing evidence. Don't recall nor care at this point. But I definitely provided all that's needed to expose the ptp photos as fakes (they're both copyrighted by 20th Fox ... let that sink in a while, you belligerent dunce). There's no book. No pterodactyls flying around in Cuba. Nor in Kansas. There's just gullible, gullible you.

Here, dingbat. Read and weep.

You got fooled again. That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.

Anyway, the PTP has not been debunked as authentic. What it requires is provenance if the claim is that it was published in a book around the 60s (before photoshop). Do you get it now? Of course, you don't haha.

As for birds from dinosaurs, are you agreeing with creation scientists that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs? The evos (and atheists) have latched onto this as a second example of macroevolution because birds are the only creature with feathers. They thought birds evolved from dinosaurs because of the black fuzz around the dino fossils. It's just threads of dried skin and not feathers. It really is dumb and incredulous that a small bird would evolve from a dinosaur.

Anyway, I can see that you cannot process this as you are too busy attacking me with ad hominem fallacies. Yet, another fail on your part. Maybe one day, you'll get it but I would not bet on it..

 

[james bond]

Ahh yes. The guy who hates the scientific explanation for lightning because it ends the "Tlaloc is mad, and creates lightning as a threat he will stop holding up the sun unless more humans are sacrificed" belief.

Boy, what a liar you are. Are you fat, too? Then you'd be a big, fat liar.

Anyway, we are done.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's intentional ignorance.

Hmm, I'm not sure that is correct. It might be. Bond could eventually know all the evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. He just would not care. He starts at the position of absolute, literal truth of the bible. That's not necessarily "willful ignorance". It's willful delusion. You can't have a rational debate with someone who believes in magic and is willing to delude himself. Evidence means nothing to a person like this. Evidence means nothing at all in his paradigm, as determinism ceases to exist there.

Which, really, makes his dog and pony show even more odd. Who is he trying to fool? Himself? Is his faith shaky? Is he so embarrassed of his faith, that he can't march under his "true flag" of faith, instead pretending to have evidence? What is with these people?

Ever heard of Ken Ham? Same thing.

 

[james bond]

What we cannot argue are the facts if we each have them. Most of the time, creation scientists and secular/atheist scientists have the same facts. However, we have different worldviews and thus interpret the facts differently. Thus, it is a matter of who is presenting the better argument. More better arguments usually means they have the best theory. What isn't fair today is creation scientists have been excluded by secular scientists in order to promote the lies of evolution. That said, intelligent people realize evolution is bullsh*t and made up so the facts fit their theories. It's circular reasoning at its worst. That's why I say atheists and secular scientists are usually wrong. They cannot process the facts correctly if they believe everything happened by evolution. We know the evidence shows that it was not possible and it is not possible. Or else we would be seeing it happen.

The only thing that we agree on is natural selection to explain the different species.

As for the Earth being 4.5 billions years old, that is what I learned from evolution.berkeley.edu. However, it kept getting longer and the age of Earth and the universe will get older. You can count on that happening as the James Webb telescope comes online. Secular scientists are already planning on it. However, the long age does not fit the evidence of a young Earth. Otherwise, Fort Fun Indiana would be able to explain why not and show evidence, but he can't and he doesn't

 

[Hollie]

What we cannot argue are the facts if we each have them. Most of the time, creation scientists and secular/atheist scientists have the same facts. However, we have different worldviews and thus interpret the facts differently. Thus, it is a matter of who is presenting the better argument. More better arguments usually means they have the best theory. What isn't fair today is creation scientists have been excluded by secular scientists in order to promote the lies of evolution. That said, intelligent people realize evolution is bullsh*t and made up so the facts fit their theories. It's circular reasoning at its worst. That's why I say atheists and secular scientists are usually wrong. They cannot process the facts correctly if they believe everything happened by evolution. We know the evidence shows that it was not possible and it is not possible. Or else we would be seeing it happen.

The only thing that we agree on is natural selection to explain the different species.

As for the Earth being 4.5 billions years old, that is what I learned from evolution.berkeley.edu. However, it kept getting longer and the age of Earth and the universe will get older. You can count on that happening as the James Webb telescope comes online. Secular scientists are already planning on it. However, the long age does not fit the evidence of a young Earth. Otherwise, Fort Fun Indiana would be able to explain why not and show evidence, but he can't and he doesn't

You make the mistake of attempting to portray ID’iot creation scientists as something they are not; relevant scientists. There are dramatic differences between a statement of faith and a scientific theory. The crank fundamentalist ministries have a statement of faith but they have not produced any scientific theories .

It's convenient for you to say that ID’iot creationists and relevant scientists have the same facts but that is just another dishonest claim. There are irreconcilable contradictions between the Bible thumpers account of supernaturalism vs. the natural world, There is no physical evidence whatever that there was a Global Flood, and overwhelming evidence that there was not. There is also irrefutable evidence that plants and animals did not appear on earth in the order that Genesis claims they did, and that the earth itself is far older than the bible indicates. The bible says that the planet was submerged in a flood. It's up to you to take it literally or figuratively-- but that's what it says. And it is wrong. Genesis says that plants existed before the sun. This is totally at odds with what science has to say. For your edification, Moses did not write Genesis, nor any book of the bible.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You got fooled again. That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.

(..and so on..)

Seems you can no longer read because you don't want to know. That must really suck. My condolences.

 

[james bond]

You got fooled again. That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.

(..and so on..)

Seems you can no longer read because you don't want to know. That must really suck. My condolences.

Not I. Do you want me to tell you that you are fool again? I am telling you that you are a bigger fool now because you were fooled 3x now.

Let's review your record in this thread so far, 1) Has provided no evidence of birds from dinosaurs even though he has been told what the issues were, 2) has tried to disprove the civil war soldiers with a pterosaur, but has not been able to, 3) has not explanation for the other historical evidence found throughout the world of humans and dinosaurs co-existing together, 4) this follows what God has said in the Bible about dragons, behemoths, leviathans, and the like, 5) has been provided other evidence of reports of dinosaur sightings today, but refuses to discuss, and 6) doesn't have anything more to complain about so is about throw another fit.

Do you want more information about the photo since that is the only thing you have left to complain about?

 

[Hollie]

You got fooled again. That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.

(..and so on..)

Seems you can no longer read because you don't want to know. That must really suck. My condolences.

Not I. Do you want me to tell you that you are fool again? I am telling you that you are a bigger fool now because you were fooled 3x now.

Let's review your record in this thread so far, 1) Has provided no evidence of birds from dinosaurs even though he has been told what the issues were, 2) has tried to disprove the civil war soldiers with a pterosaur, but has not been able to, 3) has not explanation for the other historical evidence found throughout the world of humans and dinosaurs co-existing together, 4) this follows what God has said in the Bible about dragons, behemoths, leviathans, and the like, 5) has been provided other evidence of reports of dinosaur sightings today, but refuses to discuss, and 6) doesn't have anything more to complain about so is about throw another fit.

Do you want more information about the photo since that is the only thing you have left to complain about?

To educate you about your bibles, the gods didn’t “say”, anything. A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect your supernatural gods with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

One of the inevitable consequences of breaking from the literal descriptions within any of the various bibles is that you fall into the circular loop of interpretation and what, if any, is the real interpretation. Which means, you are forever driving in that Cul-de-sac with no way out of the issue of interpretation and translation. Then we’d get in the problems with shoddy translation and why the gods would allow that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Where's James? Forever driving an Aston Martin around a Cul-de-sac..

 

[SandSquid]

Ahh yes. The guy who hates the scientific explanation for lightning because it ends the "Tlaloc is mad, and creates lightning as a threat he will stop holding up the sun unless more humans are sacrificed" belief.

Boy, what a liar you are. Are you fat, too? Then you'd be a big, fat liar.

Anyway, we are done.

Lol. That's the comeback? Not facts. Not anything to defend your stance that Aztec religion proves extinction doesn't exist? Just a 1st grade name calling?

Lol yeah we are done. Like I said. Don't go full retard. It's indefensible

 

[Grumblenuts]

Q instructed James not to hit that button. But did James listen? Does he ever?

 

[SandSquid]

You got fooled again. That claim was refuted in the original review as it was a different photo lol.

(..and so on..)

Seems you can no longer read because you don't want to know. That must really suck. My condolences.

Not I. Do you want me to tell you that you are fool again? I am telling you that you are a bigger fool now because you were fooled 3x now.

Let's review your record in this thread so far, 1) Has provided no evidence of birds from dinosaurs even though he has been told what the issues were, 2) has tried to disprove the civil war soldiers with a pterosaur, but has not been able to, 3) has not explanation for the other historical evidence found throughout the world of humans and dinosaurs co-existing together, 4) this follows what God has said in the Bible about dragons, behemoths, leviathans, and the like, 5) has been provided other evidence of reports of dinosaur sightings today, but refuses to discuss, and 6) doesn't have anything more to complain about so is about throw another fit.

Do you want more information about the photo since that is the only thing you have left to complain about?

So wait. People here have given evidence on all the things you claim they haven't.

But instead of educating yourself on the topic on which you speak, you choose to be intentionally ignorant.

It's like when the sun comes out and people are trying to explain to you how it's bright and you stick your head in a hole and say you don't believe the sun is bright.

Nothing can solve that James. No one here can fix the issue that either you don't have the mental capacity for understanding basic proven fact. No one here can help you if you are so gullible you choose that over scientifically proven facts. That's you. And that's fine. There are a lot of people with major learning disabilities.

Anyways James since you are adding NOTHING of substance to the conversation here, just using 4 year old name calling when confronted with fact, I have no real desire to listen to you any further. I'm putting you on ignore.

Please seek the help you so desperately need.

 

[bripat9643]

Hello Dalia, what is your position on recreating dino's from DNA. Me, I think we can do without them roaming about. I have read that they would be horrible household pets.

It's impossible. DNA has a maximum life span, which is way under 100,000 years.

 

[james bond]

Q instructed James not to hit that button. But did James listen? Does he ever?

That button ejects you out of the car.

The following evidence knocks you out of the ballpark. How is this an argument from ignorance? We have the Earth and universe here because of creation ex nihilo. It is impossible to have infinite temperature and infinite density as in the big bang singularity claim and cosmic expansion breaks the laws of physics. We have dinosaur fossils because of Noah's flood. It killed the dinosaurs and helped bury them before they were eaten by scavengers, deteriorated by water, and decomposed by microbes that can destroy whole carcasses after a few years. Their remains were buried in sediment that was chemically transformed into rock. Else how do you explain something organic that dies and is preserved into fossil (see what normally happens to your body after death in my bottom link); fossilization is rare?



Chemistry happens and organic tissues decay, so we should not have soft tissue remaining dinosaur fossils, but we still have the fossils with soft tissue in it.



Carbon dating has been done on decontaminated dinosaur fossils and they are thousands of years old, not hundreds of millions years. C-14 would be gone around 100,000 years.

25 Things That Happen to Your Body After You Die

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are so behind the times, James. Response from 37 years ago:

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

1982 Aston Martin V8 - Vantage Volante

 

[Hollie]

Q instructed James not to hit that button. But did James listen? Does he ever?

That button ejects you out of the car.

The following evidence knocks you out of the ballpark. How is this an argument from ignorance? We have the Earth and universe here because of creation ex nihilo. It is impossible to have infinite temperature and infinite density as in the big bang singularity claim and cosmic expansion breaks the laws of physics. We have dinosaur fossils because of Noah's flood. It killed the dinosaurs and helped bury them before they were eaten by scavengers, deteriorated by water, and decomposed by microbes that can destroy whole carcasses after a few years. Their remains were buried in sediment that was chemically transformed into rock. Else how do you explain something organic that dies and is preserved into fossil (see what normally happens to your body after death in my bottom link); fossilization is rare?



Chemistry happens and organic tissues decay, so we should not have soft tissue remaining dinosaur fossils, but we still have the fossils with soft tissue in it.



Carbon dating has been done on decontaminated dinosaur fossils and they are thousands of years old, not hundreds of millions years. C-14 would be gone around 100,000 years.

25 Things That Happen to Your Body After You Die

What do you think is served by cutting and pasting silly YouTube videos by ID’iot creationist thumpers?

 

[james bond]

You are so behind the times, James. Response from 37 years ago:

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

1982 Aston Martin V8 - Vantage Volante

The person who wrote your article isn't right because if coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old, then it should have "so little C-14 left..." However, the creation scientists are right because they showed that these materials had C-14 left. One can't have it both ways, assume that these objects are millions of years old and little C-14 left, and then be able to do radiocarbon dating on them to show there was C-14 left. It means that the materials were young and not old.

 

[Grumblenuts]

First, all the test result emanate from one university in Georgia. Just as with the woman claiming to have isolated dinosaur tissue from dinosaur fossils. Zero repeatability or confirmation from anyone or anywhere else. No genuine peer review possible nor scientific consensus. No scientific finding as of yet.

Second, all the results reported ages in from 30,000 to 50,000 years ago. "Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because {...}" They ain't worth shit because carbon dating itself ain't worth shit for much beyond 20,000 yrs. This is very old news you only pretend not to grok.

 

[james bond]

First, all the test result emanate from one university in Georgia. Just as with the woman claiming to have isolated dinosaur tissue from dinosaur fossils. Zero repeatability or confirmation from anyone or anywhere else. No genuine peer review possible nor scientific consensus. No scientific finding as of yet.

Second, all the results reported ages in from 30,000 to 50,000 years ago. "Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because {...}" They ain't worth shit because carbon dating itself ain't worth shit for much beyond 20,000 yrs. This is very old news you only pretend not to grok.

One thing you can't get through your THICK skull is creation scientists are on the outside. They have been systematically eliminated from peer review, so atheist scientists can run amok with their weird hypotheses. They become theories in no time as their circular reasoning rules the day. How else can major museums end up with fake science? It wasn't this way before the 1850s.



Creation scientists can lose their jobs if they come out and promote creation or real science; it ends up as forbidden science. This is not the way I learned science nor the way science should operate. Science has always been about arguments.

Furthermore, it is CAIS, one of the largest and oldest institutions for radiocarbon dating.