Another Anti-Science Bill

Another Anti-Science Bill

There are 454 comments on the Okie Funk story from Feb 19, 2014, titled Another Anti-Science Bill. In it, Okie Funk reports that:

The Oklahoma House could consider a bill today that if signed into law would undermine science education in the state's classrooms, especially the teaching of evolution theory.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Okie Funk.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#244 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a creationist website...it's my personal memory. When I was researching human evolution in 1989, it was commonly stated that australopithicus was scientifically determined to be 2 million years old. That was the dogma at the time. Now the dogma is 8 million years.
It was also commonly stated that whales evolved from land mammals over a period of 8 million years. Now the dogma is 50+ million years.
I don't know if this is on a creationist website. This is personal memory.
But your memory sucks. You're also a massive liar, so until you can back yourself up we can just assume you're making up BS as usual.(shrug)

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#245 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The technology of radiometric dating hasn't gotten "better" during the past 25 years.
All that has changed are the dogmas of evolution... And now radiometric dates of 400-500% greater lengths are assigned to the same fossils.
Then assuming your um, "memory" isn't failing you (the way the rest of your brain does), then this isn't a problem for evolution. At all. It would be a dating problem.

As it doesn't address the evidence for common ancestry in any way shape or form whatsoever. Of course if you had the SLIGHTEST clue as to what you're talking about you would KNOW this.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#246 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want me to go to the trouble to look it up?
Will that convince you of the fallacy of radiometric dating?
Perhaps.

But not of evolution.

Since common ancestry is not dependent upon radiometric dating.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#247 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
Your arguments always converge on the fossil record, because you cannot logically explain the challenges I've presented. You cannot explain how middle ear ossicals evolved from a reptilian jaw, so you expect me to accept conceptual impossibilities by the contention that you have evidence that it happened.
You would have a valid argument if the fossil record and radiometric dating were valid studies. The fact is, radiometric dating is a "flabby" methodology. It's very foundation rests on the ASSUMPTION that vast geologic time periods existed. If the earth was created from p[re-existing matter, there is nothing in the radiometric dating of rocks that would refute a thousands-of -year-old earth. You cannot assume that the "creation" of the earth involved extreme heat.
Ya got that right.

Because extreme heat is what we would be left with if the Earth was 6,000 years old like you say it is. There would be nothing alive on Earth.
HTS wrote:
You paint a picture of radiometric dating that is not remotely reflective of reality.
How do you know? You said your "expertise" was in BIOLOGY, not chemistry or physics.
HTS wrote:
25 years ago when I begin studying evolution fairly seriously
BWA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
HTS wrote:
australopithicine fossils were stated to be scientifically proven to be 2 million years old. Now they are stated to be 8 million years old. 25 years ago whales were believed to have evolved from land mammals over a period of 8 million years. Now, the same fossils are stated to be scientifically dated at over 50 million years. Do you expect me to just accept whatever is currently in vogue as scientifically valid? Why is radiometric dating such a rapidly changing field? Because dates are published that conform to the dogmas of evolution.
No, we DON'T expect you to accept what is considered scientifically valid.

Ergo you are anti-science.
HTS wrote:
If radiometric dating was a reproducible methodology, there we be no need to use biostratigraphy as a dating method. In view of that fact that fossils are rare and there is no possible way of knowing when, for example, ammonite fossils became extinct, it is ridiculous to assume that finding index fossils within a stratum can offer a reference to a geologic time period. You simply begin with the ASSUMPTION that those time periods existed. If radiometric dating were a reliable system, then every fossil discovery would be accompanied by radiometric dating of its associated strata. That is never done. If it was, the entire geologic column paradigm would be in utter chaos.
You speak of a neat predictable system that fits perfectly with the ToE. It is neat and predictable only because of selective filtration of data, i.e., scientific fraud.
The discovery of Sweitzer's T.Rex soft tissue and other examples that contradict the millions-of-years-old fossil dates should prompt re-consideration of the validity of radiometric dating. Instead, evolutionists are illogically insisting that fossilization is a perfect "time capsule" and are refusing to even allow tissue to be submitted for radiometric carbon-14 dating. It is obvious that they are scared to death that radiometric dating as it applies to fossils will crash.
Bub, even if you were correct about dating problems, it STILL doesn't affect the evidence for common ancestry whatsoever. It would still be correct if the T-Rex was only 6000 years old.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#248 Mar 19, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Dunning Kruger?
When an individual thinks a half remembered falsehood will nullify physics, geology, and biology.
Yeah right. The Jimbo is getting stronger in this one.
Indeed. Jimbo is his future.

This linky also addresses Hooter's claims, posted here so at least we don't have to "half remember" it:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/03/how-c...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#249 Mar 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. Jimbo is his future.
This linky also addresses Hooter's claims, posted here so at least we don't have to "half remember" it:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/03/how-c...
Thank you for posting that worthless article. I was so impressed with it I created a username and logged in so that I could debunk it before all of those mindless atheist stooges that were praising it.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#250 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for posting that worthless article. I was so impressed with it I created a username and logged in so that I could debunk it before all of those mindless atheist stooges that were praising it.
Okay then. Gotta be a first time for everything, eh? You should have no problem in providing your refutation again here, either in written form or presenting the linky that you wrote.

One thing you still haven't debunked yet is orthology (among many many other things). Explain it, Hoots.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#251 Mar 20, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for posting that worthless article. I was so impressed with it I created a username and logged in so that I could debunk it before all of those mindless atheist stooges that were praising it.
Yes, htspringer, I had to go and take a look at your arguments over there. They were no better than the ones you offer here.

Its quite notable of creationists like you that your arguments are never updated to deal with the whippings you have already received on the same subject in other forums. Its as if you really don't care about what is true, you only care about whether you can "beat" the opponent sitting in front of you on that day.

Radiometric dating is solid and rests on solid foundations in geology and physics. Where errors have been found, they have been investigated and explained. Overwhelmingly, uncorrupted samples give consistent results based on sampling different isotope series.

Now, of course, if you go to a recent lava flow and collect a sample without pointing out that it included inclusions of older rock that were not recently melted, just carried along in the flow, and you hand this "blind sample" to a lab, you are going to get a reading reflecting the age of the rock, not the new lava flow. Its not clever and its not a refutation of the technique.

Its just a jackass attempt to discredit science based on desperation.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#252 Mar 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Bub, even if you were correct about dating problems, it STILL doesn't affect the evidence for common ancestry whatsoever. It would still be correct if the T-Rex was only 6000 years old.
They can never get their head around the fact that a 6000 year old T-rex would NOT violate the nested hierarchy, but a 300 MYA T-rex WOULD.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#253 Mar 20, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not disputing that radioactive elements decay at predictable rates. I am disputing I the contention that FOSSILS can be dated by associated ROCKS.
I am also disputing the overt fraud that is being perpetuated in attempts to validate
evolution. Radiometric dating is not a reproducible methodology AS IT APPLIES TO INTERPRETATION FO FOSSILS. If it is, then why are 2 million year old australopicithine fossils from 1989 now determined to be 8 million years old?
So again a simple question.

If a sedimentary layer containing fossils is found to be sandwiched ABOVE by a layer of igneous rock dated at 1.6MYA and BELOW by a layer of igneous rock dated at 1.9MYA, why on earth would you expect any conclusion other than:

"The fossils in the sedimentary layer are between 1.6 and 1.9MYA"

How the hell else would you explain how they got there?

Sometimes it really is just that simple.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#254 Mar 20, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your arguments always converge on the fossil record, because you cannot logically explain the challenges I've presented. You cannot explain how middle ear ossicals evolved from a reptilian jaw, so you expect me to accept conceptual impossibilities by the contention that you have evidence that it happened.
Sorry, but actual evidence wins over your conceptual difficulties. That is how science works: sometimes our intuitions are simply wrong and we are forced by reality to adopt ideas that seem 'conceptually impossible'. We then find out that they are not so impossible after all.
You would have a valid argument if the fossil record and radiometric dating were valid studies. The fact is, radiometric dating is a "flabby" methodology. It's very foundation rests on the ASSUMPTION that vast geologic time periods existed.
No, it does not rest on that assumption. It rests on the assumption that the physical laws are the same now as in the past. And that is a basic assumption for *any* historical study. Now, the effects of those laws can be different if there are different conditions, but the actual laws are the same.

In the case of radioactive decay, we understand the physics of such decay quite well. It is a matter of the stability of the nucleus of atoms. We know why different radioactive elements have differing decay times and can predict them with some accuracy. We know what physical conditions can change the decay rates (generally very high pressures or temperatures are required--much higher than exist anywhere on earth).

So we apply this knowledge to the rocks we find. THAT allows us to date the rocks. And that tells us they are of great age. The age is the *conclusion*, not the assumption.
If the earth was created from p[re-existing matter, there is nothing in the radiometric dating of rocks that would refute a thousands-of -year-old earth.
Also known as the Omphalos argument. Another incarnation is called 'Last Thursdayism'. The argument is that you cannot prove the universe wasn't created, along with all your memories, Last Thursday. I think you can see why resorting to this only means you have lost the argument.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#255 Mar 20, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it rests on the experimental CONCLUSION that various radio isotopes degrade at different AND predictable rates. This is a CONCLUSION, not an ASSUMPTION.
I have noticed that most creationists don't seem to understand the difference between an assumption and a conclusion. Perhaps it is because they always argue from a forced conclusion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#256 Mar 20, 2014
HTS wrote:
25 years ago when I begin studying evolution fairly seriously, australopithicine fossils were stated to be scientifically proven to be 2 million years old. Now they are stated to be 8 million years old.
Give specific peer-reviewed articles from the different times claiming these different ages. For that matter, document the claim of 8 million years. Everything I have seen places austalopithecenes during the period 2-4 million years ago.
25 years ago whales were believed to have evolved from land mammals over a period of 8 million years. Now, the same fossils are stated to be scientifically dated at over 50 million years.
So they are dated to 50 million years ago and evolved over a period of 8 million years. How is that a problem?
Do you expect me to just accept whatever is currently in vogue as scientifically valid? Why is radiometric dating such a rapidly changing field?
It isn't. The basics have been rock-solid for decades. Of course, we learn new techniques and get better instruments to measure things, but the basics are the same.

The problem seems to be in your understanding, not in the method.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#257 Mar 20, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
you only care about whether you can "beat" the opponent sitting in front of you on that day.
Not even sure it's that. He knows he's at odds with the entire scientific community, he knows he can't beat anybody since he explicitly avoids dealing with anything we say. I think, like Cowboy, it's more of a martyr complex thing. The Bible says that there will be unbelievers and our mere existence proves everything that he already "knows in his heart". So they come here for that validation, feeling that all the guff they get from us makes them just like Jesus. All their posts are rhetoric only, meant to convince the gullible like Defender and Jimbo. Creationists only ever play the PR game.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#258 Mar 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Give specific peer-reviewed articles from the different times claiming these different ages. For that matter, document the claim of 8 million years. Everything I have seen places austalopithecenes during the period 2-4 million years ago.
He has already stated that peer-reviewed science papers do not exist.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#259 Mar 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Give specific peer-reviewed articles from the different times claiming these different ages. For that matter, document the claim of 8 million years. Everything I have seen places austalopithecenes during the period 2-4 million years ago.
Indeed. I asked him the same question. Where is he getting his information? I expect he will continue to run away.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#260 Mar 20, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. I asked him the same question. Where is he getting his information? I expect he will continue to run away.
MEMORY!!!

>:-(

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#261 Mar 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have noticed that most creationists don't seem to understand the difference between an assumption and a conclusion. Perhaps it is because they always argue from a forced conclusion.
Nor seem to grasp the most basic principles of logic. If we say

strawman
sharpshooter
begging the question
appeal to consequences
reductio ad absurdum
slippery slope
appeal to authority

do they know what is really meant?

All we can be sure of is they understand ad hominem!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#262 Mar 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even sure it's that. He knows he's at odds with the entire scientific community, he knows he can't beat anybody since he explicitly avoids dealing with anything we say. I think, like Cowboy, it's more of a martyr complex thing. The Bible says that there will be unbelievers and our mere existence proves everything that he already "knows in his heart". So they come here for that validation, feeling that all the guff they get from us makes them just like Jesus. All their posts are rhetoric only, meant to convince the gullible like Defender and Jimbo. Creationists only ever play the PR game.
Its an off-the-wall notion that there IS ANY controversy in scientific circles about the reality of evolution, the approximate age of the universe and the Earth. Scientific controversy only concerns details of these, not the whole cloth...

But how does a person with little training in science or logic sort the wheat from the chaff?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#263 Mar 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have noticed that most creationists don't seem to understand the difference between an assumption and a conclusion. Perhaps it is because they always argue from a forced conclusion.
It's probably PROJECTION, isn't it?

Creationism is not a conclusion based on the evidence, but an a priori religious ASSUMPTION into which all the evidence needs to be shoehorned (and doesn't fit).

And we know that HTS, etc. are trolls looking to stir up reactions and waste people's time, and one of their chief methods is to accuse the science side of doing exactly what THEY do.

Pretty funny, actually.

And, unfortunately for them and their religious "cause," it just confirms what a lot of people think about this type of fundamentalist Christian.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Into The Night 45,524
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min Blitzking 209,705
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 14 min marksman11 152,192
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 20,246
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sun Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
More from around the web