The coming Ice Age

[CHOP SHOP]

And a cummins kicks a powerjokes ass too.

 

[CHOP SHOP]

Oh yeah, superchargers will always make turbos their ***** too.

 

[ZedMikey]

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:

Yeah... if by "several bits and pieces" you mean the entire skeleton.

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

 

[ZedMikey]

And a cummins kicks a powerjokes ass too.

Oh yeah, superchargers will always make turbos their ***** too.

Don't forget Jeep > Toyota. Pie > Cake. Pirates > Ninjas. .45 > 9mm. Dodge > Chevy. Uhhh... Coils > Leaves. Am I missing anything? :redneck:

 

[TreeClimber]

Don't forget:
Jeep > Toyota.
Pie > Cake.
Pirates > Ninjas.
.45 > 9mm.
Dodge > Chevy.
Coils > Leaves.

Am I missing anything? :redneck:

Yes.
Bacon > True Love
Pizza > Burgers
Beer > Wine
****ies > everything else

 

[ZedMikey]

Yes.
Bacon > True Love
Pizza > Burgers
Beer > Wine
****ies > everything else

I must respectfully disagree...

|pizza| = |burgers|

|beer| = |wine|

 

[Jaydog]

Second, partial fossils are matched first... then mixed. They don't say... "Oh, we have a skull here with no body... let's just slap it on this body we have with no head." They say... "Oh, this tail and pelvic girdle match this spine and pelvic girdle... now we have the spine, pelvic girdle, and tail for this guy."

Sure they don't :haha:

 

[TreeClimber]

I must respectfully disagree...

That's all you've done in the entire thread.

 

[Jaydog]

That's all you've done in the entire thread.

:haha::haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

Sure they don't :haha:

Oh yeah... I forgot. Making **** up is a great way to further our scientific knowledge. :rolleyes:

 

[ZedMikey]

That's all you've done in the entire thread.

Have not! :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[Jaydog]

Oh yeah... I forgot. Making **** up is a great way to further our scientific knowledge. :rolleyes:

No, but it's a great way to continue grant money coming in, you need to look at the whole picture, scientists aren't out there for hobby, or fun, they are out there to make a living, and if some facts get twisted here or there, what's it gonna hurt? I understand your passion for science, and it would be great if we lived in the world that you percieve, but we don't, where there is an underlying motive, there will always be speculation.

 

[ZedMikey]

No, but it's a great way to continue grant money coming in, you need to look at the whole picture, scientists aren't out there for hobby, or fun, they are out there to make a living, and if some facts get twisted here or there, what's it gonna hurt? I understand your passion for science, and it would be great if we lived in the world that you percieve, but we don't, where there is an underlying motive, there will always be speculation.

I get the feeling you don't know many people that are professional researchers. I do, and I don't know one that would fudge data in some deluded attempt to get grant money. Researchers are only human, though, and I know those sorts of people exist. But unless you think the majority of the population is dishonest, then you shouldn't think the majority of researchers are. I'd even go so far as to suggest that researchers might have a smaller degree of dishonesty than the whole population. Many researchers go into their field because of a passion they have for what they are doing. It sure as hell isn't for the money, because most could make far more in the commercial world.

 

[TreeClimber]

because most could make far more in the commercial world.

Most research is in the commercial world.
Yeah, some are uber-grad college folks, but most are funded by Chemical, Oil, Drug, Govm't, etc. And all of those are, for lack of a better descriptive, "commercial".

 

[Jaydog]

But unless you think the majority of the population is dishonest, then you shouldn't think the majority of researchers are.

I don't even think there is a question of that, the majority of the population is dishonest, and it's a large majority.

 

[ZedMikey]

Most research is in the commercial world.
Yeah, some are uber-grad college folks, but most are funded by Chemical, Oil, Drug, Govm't, etc. And all of those are, for lack of a better descriptive, "commercial".

You make a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of academic research... the kind that tends to be funded by grants. Commercial research is usually privately funded by the company... like the IR&D stuff I've done.

 

[TreeClimber]

You make a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of academic research... the kind that tends to be funded by grants. Commercial research is usually privately funded by the company... like the IR&D stuff I've done.

Grants ARE politically motivated.

The only truly non-political, non-commercial research I can hypothesize is post-grad work, done to support a Doctorate type degree.

 

[ZedMikey]

I don't even think there is a question of that, the majority of the population is dishonest, and it's a large majority.

Wow... I'm glad I don't live in your world. You think a large majority of the world is dishonest to the point of being professionally unethical? Telling a bum you don't have any change is a far cry from fudging experimental data, after all.

 

[ZedMikey]

Grants ARE politically motivated.

The only truly non-political, non-commercial research I can hypothesize is post-grad work, done to support a Doctorate type degree.

I never said grants were never political, but I will say they aren't always political. Hell, some academic research is even funded by the private sector. Been there, done that, too.

That doesn't mean the researchers involved have no sense of ethics.

 

[ZedMikey]

And that also doesn't mean there isn't funding for the other side of the "politics." See Trashy's link that was funded by the DoE.

 

[TreeClimber]

http://idausa.org/ridiculousresearch/

 

[ZedMikey]

http://idausa.org/ridiculousresearch/

So, some people do some weird research. Did they fudge the data about rats caring more about ejaculation than intromission? Did they lie about their findings?

Despite what In Defense of Animals may think, there is useful data to be had in at least some of these experiments. Not to mention that research could lead to further research with more important applications.

Did you have a point with this link?

 

[TreeClimber]

So did you have a point with this link?

It made me wonder who funds it? And who wants to be the researcher who masturbates rodents? Plus, it goes a long way towards hijacking this thread, so, why not post that link.

 

[ZedMikey]

It made me wonder who funds it? And who wants to be the researcher who masturbates rodents? Plus, it goes a long way towards hijacking this thread, so, why not post that link.

Haha! It was probably some poor grad student that got stuck with rat masturbation duty. IDA claims that was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

 

[Jaydog]

Wow... I'm glad I don't live in your world. You think a large majority of the world is dishonest to the point of being professionally unethical?

This world starts around the age of 40, or 20 yrs in any profession, it is something extremely sad, but it's everywhere.

 

[ZedMikey]

This world starts around the age of 40, or 20 yrs in any profession, it is something extremely sad, but it's everywhere.

Do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this purely anecdotal?

Here's my anecdotal reply.

I just don't see it. I've only got 11 years in the industry but have worked with a lot of guys with way more than 20 years under their belts (some still working in their 70s... crazy people, I tell ya!), and I just haven't seen this rampant lack of ethics you say is so prevalent. Whether it is the many engineers I know or the distinctly smaller group of researchers (some of whom are, technically, still engineers... most of which haven't been doing it for 20 years, yet), I find people, at least professionally, tend to be ethical and honest.

 

[Jaydog]

Do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this purely anecdotal?

Here's my anecdotal reply.

I just don't see it. I've only got 11 years in the industry but have worked with a lot of guys with way more than 20 years under their belts (some still working in their 70s... crazy people, I tell ya!), and I just haven't seen this rampant lack of ethics you say is so prevalent. Whether it is the many engineers I know or the distinctly smaller group of researchers (some of whom are, technically, still engineers... most of which haven't been doing it for 20 years, yet), I find people, at least professionally, tend to be ethical and honest.

I don't have a link, I have real world experience working with both business and project management professionals, and the conclusion I have come to, is that you can not trust anyone.....ever, but like the old saying goes, "Your perception is your reality"

Maybe you just happen to work with a great bunch of people with strong moral character. :awesomework:

 

[ZedMikey]

Maybe you just happen to work with a great bunch of people with strong moral character. :awesomework:

It probably is skewed by the high percentage of retired military in this industry. Though, that doesn't affect all the academics I know.

 

[ZedMikey]

Getting back to Mark Nash...

Spontaneous Generation
The idea that life sprang forth from some primordial ooze is at the foundation of the evolutionary concept—that is what evolutionists claim caused life on Earth to begin. However, the idea of spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago.

Actually, the idea that life sprang forth from some primordial ooze is at the foundation of the modern abiogenesis concept. It is what abiogenesists claim may have caused life on Earth to begin.


Spontaneous generation was, indeed, disproved centuries ago. Good thing modern abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was a very specific idea about how life came from non-life.

Aristotle wrote, “Larvae of the bee or wasp, ticks, fireflies and many other insects develop from the morning dew, or from decaying slime and manure, or from dry wood, hair, sweat and meat” (The Origin of Life, A.I. Oparin). He claimed that worms were generated by moist soil. “Man,” he speculated, “may have a similar origin.” Aristotle’s vain speculations were accepted as truth for many centuries.
In 1668, an Italian named Redi struck this old idea with a fatal blow. The Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course wrote: “By placing gauze over a jar of meat, he prevented flies from depositing their eggs on the meat. He thus prevented the hatching of maggots, which people had been led to assume would spring spontaneously as ‘new life’ from dead matter.
“After the microscope was invented in 1683, the masterly work of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur proved conclusively that the ‘law of biogenesis’ [that life can come only from life] held true for microscopic forms of life as well!

Indeed. Hence us both saying that spontaneous generation was disproved. Again, good thing modern abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation.

Here's a good link about the differences between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis, and the history of scientific ideas about the origins of life.

“Evolutionists, geneticists, biologists, scientists in any field whatsoever, have never been able to demonstrate, nor to offer the slightest evidence that the living can come into existence from the not-living!

The Miller-Urey experiment (and others since) did offer evidence that it could happen. Conclusive proof? No... but definitely evidence.

“George Wald, professor of biology at Harvard, admits, ‘One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation’ (The Physics of Life, p. 9). Notice that some scientists are so steeped in the theory of evolution, they cannot bring themselves to fully accept the absolutely irrefutable proof of scientific laboratory experiments!” (lesson 11).

The irrefutable proof of scientific laboratory experiments provides evidence that abiogenesis can happen.

Ask a paleontologist, geologist, archeologist or geneticist if he believes in spontaneous generation, and he will tell you that it was disproved several hundred years ago.

For the last time... modern abiogenesis =/= classical spontaneous generation. They are different ideas about the same topic.

Ask him how life started, and he will tell you it started from lifeless chemicals possibly heated by a spontaneous lightning strike. As Dr. Wald stated above, this is “impossible”!

No, Dr. Wald stated above that if you contemplate the magnitude of the task you will concede that it is impossible. He did not say that it actually was impossible. He obviously doesn't think it is impossible since he thinks it happened!


And again... here we are with using 55 year old quotes to make your case. Not to mention, the book was The Physics and Chemistry of Life. Can't even cite your quote-mines properly.

There is something wrong with a thought process ending with an “impossible” conclusion. At best, it is irrational; at worst, it is intentional deception. Either way, such reasoning is commonplace in the literary support for evolution.

Good thing nobody here (or in the literary support for evolution) is saying that impossible things are happening. That would, indeed, be irrational.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Good thing nobody here (or in the literary support for evolution) is saying that impossible things are happening. That would, indeed, be irrational.

And we don't need any more of that around here :lol: