The coming Ice Age

[Jaydog]

There are very few instances of the sort of thing you are talking about. Your assertion that "there is one for every fossil in the records" is just plain wrong.

And even in the cases where incomplete fossils are completed artificially, it is done to have a basis to work from while more complete fossils (or other incomplete fossils with new information) are looked for.

I think the tooth instance you are thinking of is Nebraska man. Which is a great example of how the scientific community really does work the way it is supposed to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

Another great example of how the scientific community really does work the way it is supposed to is the archaeoraptor fossil your link is talking about. It's discovery was published in a non-peer-reviewed journal (National Geographic) and through the miraculous powers of science, it was determined that the article's claims were incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

Gee... isn't science great? :D

Edit to add a link to National Geographic's article about the discovery that the archaeoraptor fossil was a chimera. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html

Hate to burst your bubble, but google "science fraud", "evolution fraud", "evolution fakes" just those three would literally take you months to read through all of them, besides, why should science have to "doctor" anything if it's such a clear cut case?????

Another reason why I'm so skeptical.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Hate to burst your bubble, but google ... "evolution fraud" ... just those three would literally take you months to read through all of them, besides, why should science have to "doctor" anything if it's such a clear cut case?????

I always get a laugh when I do something like this. This time was no different.

So, I ended up here:

http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=article&id=589

And I found a reference to the quote, "The early stages of human embryonic development are distinct from the early development of other species", supposedly made by an Erich Blechschmidt in 1977. So I Googled that quote. I got two pages of hits, and though "yay! Now I can see what the context of the quote was." Not so fast. That's two pages of hits to pages (like my first hit) claiming that Mr. Blechschmidt made the quote, all in support of the creation (non-scientific) hypothesis, and not one page with the actual text of whatever paper the quote is contained within. Typical.

Then I found a page referencing Nebraska Man. Zed covered that one nicely.

Of course, fraud doesn't even mean much. There has been plenty fraud in the religious community, as well. Does that make creationism a farce?

 

[ZedMikey]

Hate to burst your bubble, but google "science fraud", "evolution fraud", "evolution fakes" just those three would literally take you months to read through all of them, besides, why should science have to "doctor" anything if it's such a clear cut case?????

Another reason why I'm so skeptical.

Google those things and you will come up with a bunch of links to articles on creationist websites spouting the same old BS. Let's take a look at the first hit I got for "evolution fakes."

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

First on their list... Piltdown Man. This was a deliberate hoax perpetrated by an unknown person in the early 20th century. And you know who discovered it was a hoax? Scientists. Their skepticism of the claims (since they didn't mesh with prevailing theory) led them to eventually discover that it was a chimera.

Second one... Nebraska Man. Not a deliberate hoax... this was a mistaken classification. Who discovered this? Oh yeah... scientists.

Third one... Java Man. Nothing wrong with Java Man. These were early homo erectus fossils. This site claims that "The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link")." The bit about the Wadjak skulls is just wrong, first off. The Wadjak skulls were from a completely different dig site in a completely different location. And even if the femur was found 50 feet from the skull cap (for which I have found no evidence), that doesn't change the fact that since Java Man, other, more complete homo erectus skeletons have been found that agree with the finds regarding Java Man.

Fourth one... Orce Man. This site is making a big stink over a small skull fragment that has apparently been notorious difficult to identify. Sure, originally they thought it might be hominid... then they decided it was most likely equine... so what? This isn't fraud or fakery... this is a difficult to ID piece of bone.

Fifth one... Neanderthal. Umm... yeah. Again, no fraud or fakery. I assume they are alluding to the classification of Neanderthals as homo sapiens. The important part is that Neanderthals aren't modern humans. Modern humans are homo sapiens sapiens... Neanderthals are homo sapiens neanderthalensis (though some still say they should be homo neanderthalensis). Just because they can't agree whether they are a subspecies of homo sapiens or a separate species doesn't change the fact that they agree they aren't homo sapiens sapiens.

Sixth one... Haeckel's drawings. Yes, Haeckel's drawings were inaccurate and his theory flawed. I don't think it was ever determined whether it was deliberate or not, but they were inaccurate none the less. You know who discovered this? Scientists. Oh yeah, and ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is not taught except perhaps as a historical idea... despite what some people may think.

Seven... Archaeoraptor. I've already covered that one. And it doesn't appear to have been deliberate, just bad science.

Seven topics and not a point made in any of them. See what I mean? Just a bunch of bull****.

 

[ZedMikey]

Of course, fraud doesn't even mean much. There has been plenty fraud in the religious community, as well. Does that make creationism a farce?

No, the lack of evidence does. :D

 

[CrustyJeep]

No, the lack of evidence does. :D

You mean like the lack of evidence in the millions upon millions of fossils in the known fossil record? :rofl:

 

[ZedMikey]

You mean like the lack of evidence in the millions upon millions of fossils in the known fossil record? :rofl:

And in the mountains of data in the realms of physics, chemistry, biology, etc... yeah that lack of evidence. :awesomework:

 

[ZedMikey]

I always get a laugh when I do something like this. This time was no different.

So, I ended up here:

http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=article&id=589

Ugh... I'm reading through that link... where to begin. The entire thing is chock FULL of wrong information. Work's slow today... maybe I'll take the time to tear that article a new asshole.

 

[ZedMikey]

The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Global warming what? :redneck:

 

[ZedMikey]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Global warming what? :redneck:

Holy biased reporting, Batman. How many times does he say "alarmist," anyway?

And, Trashy... you obviously didn't read the paper. It certainly doesn't say there isn't global warming. It doesn't even say there isn't anthropogenic global warming.

Oh, and for those of you that think climate science is biased because of all the money the government is giving out to people who have the "right" data and not the real data. This study was at least partially funded by the DoE and uses NASA/NOAA data. :fawkdancesmiley:

Here's the study he's talking about. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

And the press release. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

In a nutshell, the paper is about the radiative forcings and feedbacks of the upper atmosphere. The conclusions of the paper are nothing more than that the unsteady time variation of the forcings (and by correlation, the feedbacks) is too complicated to accurately determine the proper coefficients to model it well. At least for now.

The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.

Again, this is a great example of how science can self-correct. These findings will be incorporated into the climate models to increase their accuracy. Fortunately for us, it seems that (at least in terms of the radiative forcings and feedbacks in the upper atmosphere... the only thing these guys were looking at) the existing models are too sensitive.

A slight correction. The CERES sensor measures energy levels in the upper atmosphere and estimates lower atmosphere and surface levels. So, the data includes more than just the upper atmosphere, but the direct measurements are only at the top.

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

For once I can say you are in fact correct. :redneck:

 

[ZedMikey]

For once I can say you are in fact correct. :redneck:

Whew! I had to be right eventually. :redneck:

 

[ZedMikey]

Falsifying the Truth
Examining the evidence is not as easy as it may seem. It would be assumed that the facts could be found in science books, magazines and articles. That assumption would be wrong. Certainly some facts may be discovered in the scientific literature, but the authors of such works seem bent on promulgating false and misleading information about evolution. With much enthusiasm, proponents of evolution often steer past the facts and go directly to the myths surrounding their beloved hypothesis that guides and even directs the writing of the textbooks and articles they publish.
Using common skills of discernment, anyone can discover the falsehoods included in most pro-evolution writings. Let

 

[CrustyJeep]

Zed, you have a lot of time on your hands :lol:

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

Zed, you have a lot of time on your hands :lol:

Really easy to troll too. :haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

Zed, you have a lot of time on your hands :lol:

Work's slow lately. :redneck:

Really easy to troll too. :haha:

Normally I'm not. I just hope I can save someone from believing the complete bull**** in the links some of you guys post. :kiss:

 

[ZedMikey]

Oh boy... here we go again...

The

 

[Jaydog]

Of course, fraud doesn't even mean much. There has been plenty fraud in the religious community, as well. Does that make creationism a farce?

No, it's a fact that all mean have the potential to lie and decieve to push forth their agenda, religion, science, politics, you have to wade through it all to find the bit of truth, I'm skeptical of everything, not just science, I could go on for days about religion, but that is my "major" throughout life. :D

 

[ZedMikey]

Oh, and I just read some more from Dr. Clark...

No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups of phyla.
This can only mean on thing. There can be only on interpretation of this entire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance between the backboned animals or vertebrates, the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods.
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first borne the same relation to each other that they bear today.
Is this creationism? Not at all. All living things are derived from other living things. Furthermore, all type of animal life must be explained in terms of a primitive single cell. The seemingly simultaneous appearance of all the phyla or major groups of animals simply means that life at its very first beginnings developed at once and simultaneously from the primitive single cell in every possible direction, giving rise to some original form or forms in every phylum.

Again, he was incorrect about the lack of transitions between phyla, but he was still touting the strength of the fossil record in showing evolution between the taxa below phylum, i.e just about everything. Between classes, for instance... like Reptilia and Mammilia, perhaps?

Quote mines are hilarious when you actually look deeper into them.

 

[Jaydog]

Google those things and you will come up with a bunch of links to articles on creationist websites spouting the same old BS. Let's take a look at the first hit I got for "evolution fakes."

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

First on their list... Piltdown Man. This was a deliberate hoax perpetrated by an unknown person in the early 20th century. And you know who discovered it was a hoax? Scientists. Their skepticism of the claims (since they didn't mesh with prevailing theory) led them to eventually discover that it was a chimera.

Second one... Nebraska Man. Not a deliberate hoax... this was a mistaken classification. Who discovered this? Oh yeah... scientists.

Third one... Java Man. Nothing wrong with Java Man. These were early homo erectus fossils. This site claims that "The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link")." The bit about the Wadjak skulls is just wrong, first off. The Wadjak skulls were from a completely different dig site in a completely different location. And even if the femur was found 50 feet from the skull cap (for which I have found no evidence), that doesn't change the fact that since Java Man, other, more complete homo erectus skeletons have been found that agree with the finds regarding Java Man.

Fourth one... Orce Man. This site is making a big stink over a small skull fragment that has apparently been notorious difficult to identify. Sure, originally they thought it might be hominid... then they decided it was most likely equine... so what? This isn't fraud or fakery... this is a difficult to ID piece of bone.

Fifth one... Neanderthal. Umm... yeah. Again, no fraud or fakery. I assume they are alluding to the classification of Neanderthals as homo sapiens. The important part is that Neanderthals aren't modern humans. Modern humans are homo sapiens sapiens... Neanderthals are homo sapiens neanderthalensis (though some still say they should be homo neanderthalensis). Just because they can't agree whether they are a subspecies of homo sapiens or a separate species doesn't change the fact that they agree they aren't homo sapiens sapiens.

Sixth one... Haeckel's drawings. Yes, Haeckel's drawings were inaccurate and his theory flawed. I don't think it was ever determined whether it was deliberate or not, but they were inaccurate none the less. You know who discovered this? Scientists. Oh yeah, and ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is not taught except perhaps as a historical idea... despite what some people may think.

Seven... Archaeoraptor. I've already covered that one. And it doesn't appear to have been deliberate, just bad science.

Seven topics and not a point made in any of them. See what I mean? Just a bunch of bull****.

Ok, so now I understand, if science fakes something, intentional or not, eventually the truth will come out, so it's really ok, because it's science?
And fossils have to be right, because every fossil that has been put back together looks exactly like the pictures we have....oh wait, some of them haven't been right? But that's ok, there are a ton of people who will defend it anyway.......cause it's labeled "Science":haha::haha::haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

Ok, so now I understand, if science fakes something, intentional or not, eventually the truth will come out, so it's really ok, because it's science?
And fossils have to be right, because every fossil that has been put back together looks exactly like the pictures we have....oh wait, some of them haven't been right? But that's ok, there are a ton of people who will defend it anyway.......cause it's labeled "Science":haha::haha::haha:

You have a wonderful way of putting (asinine) words into people's mouths, Jay.

Would it be better to be right all the time? Of course. Is that possible? Of course not. Science will be wrong sometimes, but science self-corrects.

 

[LiftedZuki]

This thread is full of fail. Hah.

 

[Jaydog]

You have a wonderful way of putting (asinine) words into people's mouths, Jay.

Would it be better to be right all the time? Of course. Is that possible? Of course not. Science will be wrong sometimes, but science self-corrects.

Exactly my point with Global Warming about 20 pages ago, the EPA is putting regulations on things that we won't know the effects of for possibly hundreds of years, good science does weed out the bad, but sometimes the wrong info pays more.

The fossil record is imagination at work and nothing more, no honest conclusions can be drawn from the majority of them, just look at the flathead indians, imagine finding their skulls without knowing the history of the people, one could conclude that they were some humanoid that is now extinct, it's all pure speculation that a lot of people believe just because some guy said so.

 

[Jaydog]

I just looked through the wiki page on transitional fossils, so far I've only looked at three of them, and then tried to search for thier fossils, turns out only a skull or fragment of a bone was found, or a couple bones found at several sites and then put together, but on the wiki page, they have full color pictures of them, and put it out there like it's fact. Some guy finds a tooth and it becomes a full life size figment of his imagination and evolutionists jump right on board, it's actually quite hysterical...can you say gullible :haha::haha::haha:

Oh, and If evolution is the study of the change in allele frequency over time, how do you get that from a fossil?

 

[CrustyJeep]

Oh, and If evolution is the study of the change in allele frequency over time, how do you get that from a fossil?

From A fossil? I think you're not grasping the sheer number of fossils in the record.

 

[ZedMikey]

I just looked through the wiki page on transitional fossils, so far I've only looked at three of them, and then tried to search for thier fossils, turns out only a skull or fragment of a bone was found, or a couple bones found at several sites and then put together, but on the wiki page, they have full color pictures of them, and put it out there like it's fact. Some guy finds a tooth and it becomes a full life size figment of his imagination and evolutionists jump right on board, it's actually quite hysterical...can you say gullible :haha::haha::haha:

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-ichthyostega.html

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-panderichthys.html

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-tiktaalik.html

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-tulerpeton.html

Just from one website that hasn't been updated in 6 years that only talks about the transition from fish to tetrapods. And I only linked the ones that have a decent portion of the skeleton.

Would you like me to spoon feed you more?

Oh, and If evolution is the study of the change in allele frequency over time, how do you get that from a fossil?

You get that via the morphological similarities and dissimilarities in the fossils. It is merely one aspect of evolutionary biology, and not even the most important one! It does, however, add one more dimension to the discoveries found by those studying the other branches of evolutionary biology... concordance is grand.

 

[ZedMikey]

From A fossil? I think you're not grasping the sheer number of fossils in the record.

It's a hard concept to grasp when you're acting like monkeys one and two... when will he start acting like monkey three? :redneck:

 

[LiftedZuki]

So what you're saying is, you trust other peoples "findings"?

 

[Poohbair]

Can't we all just pray????? :cheer::cheer:

 

[Jaydog]

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html

Originally just the skull roof was discovered, since then several very well preseved bits and pieces have been found......like a 5,000 piece puzzle missing 4,900 pieces :haha:

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-ichthyostega.html

"The re-interpretation of existing fossil specimens is a recurring theme in the study of early tetrapods. Typically, this involved re-assigning a specimen