Evolution: What Real Scientists Have to Say

at the risk of reading too much into the proferred 'evidence', there seems to be a lack of understanding of exactly what 'real' means (be it scientist, or fact) at work here!

Ultimately credentials are irrelevant in science. the bottom line is; if it works and has predictive value then the research is of value. That is where medved fails. He is dependent on credentials to make his case, credentials, which in this instance he has hijacked, Further his model has no predictive value, it does not lead to a more complete understanding of the world. What has always fascinated me about the proponents of 'creation science" is that they miss this fundamental fact about science. Their model can't do anything and they claim primacy for it on the basis of "credentials" not functionality.

The creationists arent beyond faking their own data when it suits them,

one "Scientist" was responsible for carving a human like footprint into the paluxy river shales of Cretaceous age. This person was so stupid to think that half decent equipment could not expose the fake. I believe a student did the exposee using a cheap lab binoc scope

Another one is when someone named Holden who claimed to have found fossils of megafauna and human bone in Carboniferous(Post Pottsville) aged rock right here in Pa. Thhis one , some geologist did some thin section analyses and found that the "human bone" was a section of a concretion.

ARe you familiar with these medved?

I googled some of his quotes and found out that medved and the Ted Holden dude are the same. Ted is "infamous" in Pa as somebody who planted a fake fossil bone in the Pa Coal measures . Claimed it was a human fossil and it only took a grad student doing a thin section analysis to show that the fossil was just a siderite and sand concretion. Ted doesnt understand the strength of the forensic techniques available to science these days. .

So misrepresentation is not beneath this boy. I do have to give him the credit for compiling a nice list of Creationist , as well as real scientist quotes.

Im going to drop out because theres nothing that Ted represents that I wish to waste time refuting.

You, sir, are a liar.

OK enlighten me, was this 'fossil" in-situ.Was it not claimed to be a bone? wasnt it later debunked by a geology student in Calgary?
How did you get a specimen with chlorite grade metamorphism into a sedimentary unit of no chlorite? It was in the Llewelyn no? You have to really make your details a little more robust or you leave yourself open.

Do you disavow any connection with this "fossil" bone ?

Nothing Ive said cant be verified by checking the websites of others.I havent posted anything with intent to deceive. What was your motive?

Good catch farmerman.

Why are you attacking farmerman? We like and respect farmerman here and personal attacks like this are rude.

Are you saying that you are not Ted Holden, or that you did not find the suspect fossil in PA?

Thanks ebrown, I like a tiger watching my ass.
.Aaw hell, I think his other Creationist links post got yanked. Hey Tedved, can you supply the last link on the petroglyphs? I didnt visit that one yet.
I had nothing to do with your yanking . I suppose you got too close to something that violated TOSs. Besides being frightfully naive, I loved some of those links, they were precious.

Acquiunk would have loved the:

"Scientific errors that abound aS A FUNCTION of the Peer review process"- You dip, peer review never says it catches all errors, it just attempts to make sure that the submitted paper fills minimal standards of quality. Its not a real unattainable standard, but, we must define a floor somewhere. In many of my journals, they wont publish articles about sasquatches on the Ark, or fossil basilisks. SO I guess, if you cant get into peer reviewed journals, theres gotta be a Marxist reason to silence your position. May I suggest THE ONION?

You welcome farmerman, but you shouldn't say that to a tiger.

We are carnivores ya know.

The guy's accusing me of planting a fake fossil, which is a bullshit lie. I mean, I expect shabby treatment from evolutionists, but I don't expect to see people just making stuff up.

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to get into any sort of debates with the two resident clowns here; my basic approach to dealing with liars and people with psychiatric issues is to ignore them. Life is too short.

did I mention my field artillery? Bully boys all.

I've pretty much given up wasting my time arguing with people about evolution who have clearly never read anything by Darwin (and refuse to.)

Farmerman, someday I'll give you my rant on Peer Review, or maybe it's editors...whatever, they are both classes ripe for high dudgeon and abuse.

We have people like medved/Ted Holden in New England archaeology. They are the precolumbian viking/Ibero-Celts crowed. They are constantly manufacturing (literally) evidence that Europeans were settling in the northeast some 2000 years before Columbus. The sad thing is they muddy the waters to the point that real precolumbian evidence gets obscured. There really were Vikings in eastern Canada in the 11th century, in very small numbers. But these people have made the whole issue so toxic that no one wants to touch the subject.

medved's of a similar batch. Im sure he has a link to books written in ogum.

hes got thhe cojonmes to call others liars when his style has been one of out-of-context and misquoting others. Heres a post that medved has clipped from Walter Remine and how Macrae has found the complete textual context . Now whos the liar?

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html

The updated list of origins links I posted this morning


Somehow that thread has disappeared.

I think you're all making this harder than it has to be. The way I see it there are three theories:

1. CREATION THEORY: God created it all and is still creating it, or

2. BIG BANG THEORY: There was an enormous explosion in which all matter in the universe exploded forming the stars, planets, asteroids, etc. that are still moving away from the center, or

3. THE VACUUM CLEANER THEORY: If all the parts of a vacuum cleaner were placed in a sack and that sack was shaken for an indefinite time, sooner or later those loose parts would come together as a working vacuum cleaner. Our present universe is just the way all the parts came together at this moment in time.

Of course the secular scientists are stuck with one of two theories while the creationists can go with all three: God can do whatever he wants - or - something had to light the fuse - or - something had to shake the sack.

Then again, maybe Plato was right that everything that exists only exists because we think it does.

Play-doh is known for its plasticity. Tastes good, too.

As will, sooner or later, every thread in which you attempt to link your self-promotional burroshito, because it violates the terms of service.

Oh Foxfyre,

You are missing the point of this little argument.

Medved came in here looking for a fight with what you are calling "secular scientists".

First of all, although many of us have spent a great deal of time studying and working on science, he claimed that there are no real scientists here.

There are certainly real scientists here. Many of us have scientific degrees and most of us understand a great deal about what scientists have discovered and the evidence behind these discoveries.

Secondly he attacked farmerman personally calling him a liar.

Thirdly he lables people who disagrees with him as "resident clowns" in spite of the fact that the targets of his scorn are among the most respected and scientifically literate among us.

------
As an aside, science is not the sum of all knowledge, but it is valuable. Scientists use a very vigorous process of logic and review. Each scientist spends of a lot of time to understand the previous work in a field before starting her own work.

This scientific process has shown itself to be valuable by making very good predictions, by providing detailed explainations the properly explain all of the experiments, and by creating technology or uses for science.

Scientists have spent a great amount of time to study their fields and consequently they know a great deal. They not only know the scientific "facts", but the know the evidence that support these facts.

If you want to know something about science, you can ask here. There are many of us who have knowledge relating to this and other questions.

But don't come looking for a fight.

And don't personally insult a A2K member who happens to have a good deal of scientific knowldge, especially when it is clear that you don't.

---------
"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue. "

Proverbs 17:28