Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Evidence for evolution "spotty"?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

David Mc
Skeptic Friend

USA
63 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2005 :  18:48:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send David Mc a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy

Sandstone is actually quite a soft, sedimentary stone, but that's not important. They present exactly zero comfirming evidence, and after looking at a few of the other claims on the page, I think we can safely discount it as merely more apologetic blather.

Does that mean that all evidence found in "soft" stone are unreliable for dating a find? (I hope that's not a hive I just kicked)

quote:

Creationists seem to believe that there is some sort of scientific conspiricy concerning evolution. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Scientists are even more cut-throat than preachers, and if one found evidence to debunk the ToE, he'd shout it from the rooftops. And his fortune would be made. He'd not only get a Noble, but make a killing on the lecture circute, and sell out every book he writes even before they're written.


The feeling of "conspiracy", just from my standpoint, comes with presentations like "Walking With Dinosaurs" where the characters and habits of the animals are presented as facts instead of the suppositions that they are. The other is the implication that one creature developed a long beak because it "needed" one when the truth would be that it survived because it had one. I kick and recoil from that leap of theory to fact.

I do NOT discount the study. As Beskeptigal pointed out, there's a "little" evidence to support the thought.

Go to Top of Page

David Mc
Skeptic Friend

USA
63 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2005 :  18:56:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send David Mc a Private Message
Dude,

You were half right. I did know about retro viruses but not their effect on Evolution. I know I know, I should have made the connection without your help... but it didn't happen. So, thanks for the help.

One thing about the Fundie comment. I'm not one. So much not one ...

The White Flag Has Been Waved.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2005 :  00:15:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
One thing about the Fundie comment. I'm not one. So much not one ...



Ok.

quote:
You were half right. I did know about retro viruses but not their effect on Evolution. I know I know, I should have made the connection without your help... but it didn't happen. So, thanks for the help.



The ERV insertions common to H. sapiens and other primates are powerfull evidence for common descent.

quote:
The White Flag Has Been Waved.


Now all we need is for jimmrobb to retract his "spotty" claim.

I doubt the other guy "you are all morons" will ever be convinced of anything except his <god-did-it> worldview, so I expect nothing from that quarter.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2005 :  02:22:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
The feeling of "conspiracy", just from my standpoint, comes with presentations like "Walking With Dinosaurs" where the characters and habits of the animals are presented as facts instead of the suppositions that they are.
I agree whole-heartedly with this, and it's one of the reasons I didn't follow those series. If I happened upon a program while channel-surfing, I'd watch it to the end, but not much more.

I perceive those programs as entertainment more than anything else. If I recall correctly, in Sweden the program had a disclaimer in the beginning stating that most of the contents was speculation.
(Not like the Fundie anti-evolution stickers, but a scientific disclaimer that the information in the episodes shouldn't be treated as gospel.)
quote:
The other is the implication that one creature developed a long beak because it "needed" one when the truth would be that it survived because it had one. I kick and recoil from that leap of theory to fact.
You show a remarkable grasp of concepts of natural selection for a person whom I initially thought of as a Fundie-candidate. It proves that my initial impression was dead wrong. My apologies.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2005 :  04:03:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc

quote:
Originally posted by filthy

Sandstone is actually quite a soft, sedimentary stone, but that's not important. They present exactly zero comfirming evidence, and after looking at a few of the other claims on the page, I think we can safely discount it as merely more apologetic blather.

Does that mean that all evidence found in "soft" stone are unreliable for dating a find? (I hope that's not a hive I just kicked)

quote:

Creationists seem to believe that there is some sort of scientific conspiricy concerning evolution. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Scientists are even more cut-throat than preachers, and if one found evidence to debunk the ToE, he'd shout it from the rooftops. And his fortune would be made. He'd not only get a Noble, but make a killing on the lecture circute, and sell out every book he writes even before they're written.


The feeling of "conspiracy", just from my standpoint, comes with presentations like "Walking With Dinosaurs" where the characters and habits of the animals are presented as facts instead of the suppositions that they are. The other is the implication that one creature developed a long beak because it "needed" one when the truth would be that it survived because it had one. I kick and recoil from that leap of theory to fact.

I do NOT discount the study. As Beskeptigal pointed out, there's a "little" evidence to support the thought.



You didn't kick a hive so much as you opened a big, fat can of worms. But, I'm feeling generous this morning.

Soft, or sedimentary rocks are where you find the evidence. Igneous formations, so necessary for radiometric dating, will have no fossils for an excellent and obvious reason -- they came out of a freakin' volcano!

Sandstone, limestone, and shale such as the aforementioned Burgess Shales are where the fossil action's at for a good reason. For an animal to leave a fossil, it must be covered with sediments of some sort very soon after death. Therefore, fossils tend to be found in places that were once rivers, lakes or seas, and the vast bulk of fossils are of aquatic or semi-aquatic creatures -- again, I reference the Burgess Shales. Also the White Cliffs of Dover, which are formed entirely of tiny fossils.

So, it is not the rock, but the validity of the claim that I contest. What we have here, you see, is an out-of-place, let us say for lack of a better word; fossil.

Unsupported claims such as this are all too common. For instance, there is the London Hammer:
quote:
Abstract
An iron and wooden hammer found by local hikers in a creek bed near London, Texas in 1936, has been promoted by Carl Baugh and other strict creationists as an out-of place artifact. They maintain that the hammer, which was partially embedded in a small rock concretion, originated in a Cretaceous rock formation (or an Ordovician or Silurian one, depending on the account), thus contradicting the standard geologic timetable. However, the hammer was not documented in situ, and has not been reliably associated with any specific host formation. It is more likely an antique than an ancient artifact, probably dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved limy sediment hardened into a nodule around it. Although a brief rebuttal to Baugh's hammer claims was made by Cole (1985), Baugh and a few other creationists continue to promote it. This review provides further analysis of the hammer and creationist claims about it.

Fig. 1. Hammer with head exposed
after concretion was broken

Background
Mr. and Mrs. Max Hahn were hiking along the Red Creek near the small town of London Texas, in June 1936, when they happened upon a small rock nodule with a piece of wood protruding from it. According to Helfinstine and Roth (1994), Max Hahn's son George broke open the rock nodule in 1946 or 1947, revealing the rest of the hammer, including a metal hammer head. It is important to note that even some creationist accounts (Baugh 1997, Mackay, 1985) acknowledge that the hammer bearing nodule was not attached to the surrounding rocks of the creek. Mackay (1985) explicitly states "The rock was sitting loose on a ledge and was not part of the surrounding ledge." Evidently no photos or other reliable documentation exists to confirm the exact circumstances of the original discovery. However, the lack of sharp marks on the nodule seems to confirm the reports that it was found loose and not chiseled from a larger rock.


A little farther down the page, we read this:

quote:
Whatever the reasons for these inconsistencies in creationist reports, evidently the rock strata at the site are indeed Hensel Sand Member of the Travis Formation (Lower Cretaceous, upper Aptian stage), considered approximately 110-115 million years old by conventional geologists. Stratigraphicly the Hensel formation immediately underlies the Lower Cretaceous Glen Rose Formation, in which the Paluxy River tracks occur about 150 miles to the north. Although Mackay (1984) suggested (while calling the hammer Ordovician) that the artifact is somehow associated with those who made the supposed human footprints in Glen Rose, close examination of the Paluxy evidence does not support the presence of genuine human tracks, and no rigorous evidence has been presented by any creationists linking the hammer to the nearby strata in Red Creek, let alone those in Glen Rose.

It should be noted that although Baugh has strongly promoted the hammer as a dramatic "pre-Flood" artifact, as have a few individuals writing for the Bible-Science Association and the Creation Science Foundation, other creationists organizations, including ICR and CRSQ, have said little or nothing about it in their literature, perhaps realizing its dubious nature.

Although the hammer has been kept under close guard by Baugh and thus not readily available for detailed analysis by conventional scientists, in 1985 NCSE researcher John Cole briefly reviewed Baugh's hammer claims. Although Cole did not challenge Baugh's presumption at the time that the nearby rocks were Ordovician, Cole pointed out that minerals dissolved from ancient strata could harden around a recent object, stating:

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985).

I find myself reminded of the 1920s vintage sparkplug fo

"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Edited by - filthy on 02/22/2005 04:13:23
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.47 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000