Re: Evolution Deniers


al wrote:
> "Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1134668133.736937.9840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > al wrote:
> > > "Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:slrndq0gve.10gv.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > On 2005-12-14, al <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:BFC4F8DA.3002%tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >> On 12/13/05 4:12 PM, in article dnndav$qu3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> "al"
> > > > >> <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > <jrsp8s@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > >> > news:FVFnf.37141$tV6.23247@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> <sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > >> >> news:1134504052.326012.88750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> CreateThis wrote:
> > > > >> >>>> sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> My advice, if you care to hear it, is to start learning about the
> > > natural
> > > > >> world. If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, learn about
> the
> > > TOE
> > > > >> -- what it says and why it says it -- from their own sources. The
> > > sources
> > > > >> you will get on this subject from Pathlights, Answers in Genesis,
> and
> > > any
> > > > >> other Creationist source will be perverted and distorted.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Scientists are very well able to discuss what they believe and why
> they
> > > > >> believe it. We do not need our enemies to speak for us.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Raymond E. Griffith
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi again Raymond
> > > >
> > > > > You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap.
> > > >
> > > > It's kind of like watching a three legged dog limp across the street.
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to remind you that I have every right to think this and
> > > some
> > > > > very good reasons for arriving at this conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > You have every right to have ignorant, irrational opinions, true.
> > > >
> > > > > One of the complaints proffered by the evolution scrotes and
> (whatever
> > > > > female scrotes are) is that they claim that some reasons for
> rejecting
> > > > > evolution are unscientific. As I have said to Dana, this is totally
> a
> > > > > illogical and unscientific statement.
> > > >
> > > > Uh. No. It isn't.
> > > >
> > > > > Scientists are very good at collecting data. What they are not good
> at
> > > is
> > > > > interpreting said data.
> > > >
> > > > No, actually scientists are good at that too. It's because the
> scientific
> > > > method is inherently adversarial, and irrelevencies and bias are
> > > eventually
> > > > burned away through discussion, experimentation, and the collection of
> > > > evidence.
> > > >
> > > > > One of the posts in the thread about viral gene transfer laid out
> some
> > > > > perfectly good evidence and the accompanying data and then, at the
> end
> > > said
> > > > > something like "The sudden appearance is due to missing data and all
> > > that
> > > > > went before will be found".
> > > >
> > > > Provide a citation. I'll bet you a jelly donut it doesn't say that.
> > > >
> > > > > This is pure speculation but, however, is destined become consensus
> > > opinion.
> > > > > Most of the science of evolution is based on this consensus opinion.
> > > It's
> > > > > pure crap.
> > > >
> > > > It might be convincing if you showed that the concensus opinion was,
> well,
> > > > _wrong_ in some way.
> > > >
> > > > > Let me, if I may, give another example.
> > > > > An article some time ago in Sci Am. and also in New Sci. was about
> > > "Dinosaur
> > > > > Cove" where there is a large cache of dino' bones. One specimen was
> said
> > > to
> > > > > be good evidence of evolution in action as it lived in Antarctica
> and
> > > had
> > > > > evolved large eyes to enable it to forage for food during the long
> dark
> > > > > arctic winter.
> > > > > What they omit to mention is that many *nocturnal* animals have
> large
> > > eyes
> > > > > and that bone caches are usually the result of a catastrophe. The
> animal
> > > > > could quite easily have been from Australia and been swept to its
> > > present
> > > > > position by a large tsunami.
> > > >
> > > > Uh, did you really think about what you said? Scientists said that
> > > > large eyes were an adaptation to the long polar winters. You
> seemingly
> > > > are saying "no, they could just have been nocturnal". The thing is,
> > > > that _is precisely what scientists are saying_: that the dinosaurs
> were
> > > > adapted for the nocturnal environment that dominates the polar regions
> > > > for half the year.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, I'd like to see some other instance of a localized
> > > collection
> > > > of bodies being swept hundreds of miles across open seas by a tsunami.
> > > Given
> > > > that tsunamis are all but undetectable in the open ocean, it seems
> that
> > > there
> > > > ability to transport anything is, well, fantasy.
> > > >
> > > > > This is one of the worst examples of cherry picking that I have
> seen.
> > > And
> > > > > I'm sure it's been written up as another first for evolution.
> > > >
> > > > Well, given that your crititicism of it consisted of one agreement and
> one
> > > > complete absurdity, perhaps you should withhold your own skepticism.
> > > >
> > > > > So you see, much of science is unscientific and evidence does not
> have
> > > to
> > > > > have the stamp of science on it to be valid.
> > > >
> > > > You have yet to show any evidence or reasoning to show that is true.
> > > >
> > > > > The fact that someone has made a statement and omitted to use the
> > > correct
> > > > > terms does not invalidate it.
> > > >
> > > > No. But, as you showed with your tsunami example, merely being able
> to
> > > > string words together does not actually invalidate scientific
> reasoning
> > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > > Science fails to give credence witness testimony for reasons that
> > > support
> > > > > science to the exclusion of all the uninitiated.
> > > > > And so on............
> > > >
> > > > Feel left out?
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > >
> > > Hi Mark
> > > Being already nocturnal is not the same as eyes adapting to polar
> > > conditions. Or is that too subtle for you?
> >
> > Evidently too subtle for you.
> > South of the antarctic circle, it is permanently dark for several
> > months each year.
> > That's why eyes adapted to the rather temparate polar conditions of the
> > time are adapted for nocturnal vision.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Who said that the bodies were swept across hundreds of miles of seas?
> Not
> > > me.
> > > You see, the Antarctic continent was joined to Australia at the time and
> > > being swept north south by water is not impossible.
> > > I suggest you do a search with "Asteroid Tsunami" and all will be
> revealed.
> > > al
> >
> > And I suggest you do some research on the nature of tsunami deposits.
> >
> > RF
> Are you saying that a large influx of water (100 ft tsunami) into say a
> valley cannot cause a bone cache?
> al

Have you investigated the nature of tsunami deposits?

Evidently not.

A huge wave hitting a coast drags up all sorts of material from the sea
floor and mixes it with all sorts of material from the land. Because
the wave reaches the land at high speed, it drags up objects of all
sizes, from fine particles to boulders as big as a house. When it hits
the land, the speed dissipates rapidly: the tsunami is after all a
wave, and without any water in which to propogate, it is simply the
volume of water from the wave collapsing which washes over the land.
This is why tsunami damage is very localised, and rarely affects
anything more than a few hundred meters inland.

A bone cache is a concentration of bone, usually fragments of
disarticulated skeletons (and this is certainly the case in the
Dinosaur Cove deposits). There is no mechanism in the tsunami which can
concentrate bone. The speed of the moving water creates highly turbated
sediments which scatter and mix any material carried by the wave. Any
animals caught in the wave would be scattered and mixed into this higly
turbated sediment, not concentrated as a cache. So even if there were a
herd of dinosaurs conventiently feeding on the seashore at the base of
a valley, their remains would be so mixed up with sand, boulders and
other debris that it would hard to find a single fragment. What's more,
the conditions under which such sediments are deposited does not lead
easily to fossilisation. Bone is generally fossilised in conditions of
anoxia or burial in fine sediments under water.

So not only does a tsunami not create conditions under which there is a
concentration of bone, it also produces sediments in which bone does
not fossilise.

More to the point, do you honestly think that the geologists studying
the deposits are so fucking stupid they can't recognise a tsunami
deposit when they see it?

RF

.