• In total there are 28 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 26 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

Nick Lane is an evolutionary biologist. I've been reading his book The Vital Question. I found this lecture by him that sums up some of his research into matter and energy at the origin of life. the vid is 35 minutes. Sorry but I was unable to get transcripts. I thinks the information Lane provides is current and relevant to the activity on this thread.


User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

Taylor wrote:Its an hour of video broken down in ten minute chunks. watch it or don't but I do think it answers many points presented on this thread.
I hate to pour cold water on a nice whale yarn but this is just false. http://www.creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

On top of this the oldest fully aquatic whale fossil found, takes Pakicetus out of the picture and is contemporaneous with Ambulocetus and Remingtonocetus so takes them out too as they were not fully aquatic.

Good old National (Archaeoraptor) Geographic were unfazed by this and told us breathlessly that "whales evolved more rapidly than previously thought."

It didn't occur to them that this might be a problem though.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/di ... 52021.html

Phil (flippers and fluketails)Gingerich at least owned up to his creative misdemeanours, but there you go, it's out there on youtube with no information about the problems with the whole thing.

Oh well,back to their natural habitat for them,i.e.the drawing board. It was a good yarn though about all those misfit critters getting preyed on, disappearing and Phoenix like resurrecting (atmospheric music) in a new guise whatever millions of years later.

The thing is, that if you like fictional movies you would be better off watching the Jungle Book. Maybe you missed some of this material I'm providing here again the first time Taylor,but it's better to be aware of what really went on, I would think.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:It didn't occur to them that this might be a problem though. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/di ... 52021.html

The bone fossil fragments were identified as basilosaur by the team that actually made the find. Peer-review dates these fragments to the late Eocene or early Oligocene (34 Mya) , well within the National Geographic Documentary time line. From the find teams abstract their own dating matches part of the peer-review dating, (middle to late Eocene).The find teams strata dating suggests an earlier dating to 49 Mya. A point here (also made by the find team) is that these bone fragments may be the oldest whale fossils to date found in Antarctica but there was so little fossil material found that dating accuracy in this particular case is not a clear cut proposition something the linked article also suggests.
By the way Gingerichs work is cited as reference material by Marcelo Reguero in his Antarctic teams submitted research article which was the basis for the AP article.


Flann 5 wrote:I would think.


Back to the drawing board for you as well dude! :-D
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: I hate to pour cold water on a nice whale yarn but this is just false. http://www.creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud
If you scroll down to the comments on this page, you' find this astute observation:

"The evolution of the whale is known from multiple fossils. It has in no way been debunked as described here. However, if such evidence DID become available, scientists would publish it. Challenging each other is what we do. We try to shoot down paradigms all day long. That's how Nobel Prizes are won. I caution my fellow Christians that all of the statements here can be debunked, and that nothing in evolution poses a danger to Christianity. To Biblical Literalism, sure, but not to mature faith."

Battling science is a losing proposition. You'll end up working yourself in a corner until there's nowhere left to go.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

geo wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
I hate to pour cold water on a nice whale yarn but this is just false. http://www.creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud


If you scroll down to the comments on this page, you' find this astute observation:

"The evolution of the whale is known from multiple fossils. It has in no way been debunked as described here. However, if such evidence DID become available, scientists would publish it. Challenging each other is what we do. We try to shoot down paradigms all day long. That's how Nobel Prizes are won. I caution my fellow Christians that all of the statements here can be debunked, and that nothing in evolution poses a danger to Christianity. To Biblical Literalism, sure, but not to mature faith."
Even a child could see that Gingerich and Thewissen were deliberately fabricating false information. Non existent blowholes,flippers and fluketails. Highly questionable earbones minus the bow cavityl and sigmoid finger process. So what are the bona fide fossils in the sequence if it's even possible to seriously provide such a sequence, which is speculation in any case?

All the statements most certainly can not be debunked and actually include the admissions of Thewissen and Gingerich themselves.
Lots of garbage has lasted way too long in the museums and textbooks such as Haeckel's embryos and the alleged horse sequence among others.
Who does he think he's fooling?

P.s. The Smithsonian have ditched Rhodocetus and rightly so,and they now go from Pakicetus to Ambulocetus to a very aquatic looking animal with the statement that "evolution occurred very rapidly in whales."

Pakicetus and Ambulocetus both still have that fictional blowhole though. Thar she blows! Talk about the missing link,you'll have to type in their searchbox,evolution whales animation, to see the video https://ocean.si.edu/ocean/videos/evolu ... -animation
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:00 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:Even a child could see that Gingerich and Thewissen were deliberately fabricating false information. Non existent blowholes,flippers and fluketails. Highly questionable earbones minus the bow cavityl and sigmoid finger process. So what are the bona fide fossils in the sequence if it's even possible to seriously provide such a sequence, which is speculation in any case?
How confident you are, Flann, in this Creationist poppycock that alleges a grand conspiracy of evolutionary scientists deliberately fabricating evidence to prop up a false evolutionary story about whale evolution. But how different this narrative is from bonafide mainstream science journals and college textbooks, which treat whale evolution as fact. If you had to advise a young college student who is about to become a paleontologist major in college where he should find his information, I suppose you would warn him to stay away from college libraries and science journals. Get your information from Creationist web sites!

To illustrate the depth of Creationist delusion, all you have to do is explore any of the Creationist web sites that Flann keeps linking to on this forum. I'm now exploring "Creationist Ministries", which has an article entitled "101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the cosmos." This is the kind of fairy tale nonsense people like Flann believe in, a fictional narrative built entirely on intentional misrepresentations and downright fabrications.

Regardless of what you believe about whale evolution, Flann, scientists are out there doing the work, filling in the gaps of our knowledge. The false narrative being spun about whale evolution has about as much relevance to real scientists working in the field as those still spinning the flat earth theory.

I'm certainly repeating myself here, but if you're a layperson who doesn't really understand, for example, the relevance of oxygen isotopes found in whale ancestor (Ambulocetus) bones, you're best hope is to read about whale evolution in textbooks or credible science sources, not in Creationist nonsense, whose credibility is nonexistent.

I'm reminded of Stahrwe's story about the days when he used to work at NASA. He had a few fellow Creationists worked there, not as scientists, but doing maintenance and cleaning work. Stahrwe boldly proclaimed his certainty in a 6,000 year old earth despite the fact that the kind of science that NASA does necessarily relies on calculations that presume the actual age of the universe (in the billions of years). I mean, that takes some audacity to presume to know more than the vast majority of all scientists and educators who have accepted as fact the evolution of whales from a terrestrial species since the 1800s. You must be a super hero, Flann, with special powers to be able to see past this universal delusion of all of modern science! My hats off to you.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

nyit.edu/box/features/echo_hunter_a_new ... scientists

Morgan Churchill and Jonathan Geisler have studied their newest find. In the article there is a link to the abstract of their study. By the way Gingerichs work once again is cited as reference material :)
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

geo wrote:How confident you are, Flann, in this Creationist poppycock that alleges a grand conspiracy of evolutionary scientists deliberately fabricating evidence to prop up a false evolutionary story about whale evolution. But how different this narrative is from bonafide mainstream science journals and college textbooks, which treat whale evolution as fact. If you had to advise a young college student who is about to become a paleontologist major in college where he should find his information, I suppose you would warn him to stay away from college libraries and science journals. Get your information from Creationist web sites!
It's incontrovertibly true that Gingerich and Thewissen were fabricating false evidence to promote their supposed whale ancestors.
There's quite a colourful history of fraud what with Piltdown man,Nebraska man and fraudulent drawings. Archaeoraptor is another example.
I don't have a problem with the observed and testable varieties of scientific evidence and knowledge. I expect neo-Darwinism to be overthrown though it will likely be for an "extended synthesis."

Museums take a lot of stuff on trust from paleontologists. It took a creationist to uncover the shenanigans of Gingerich and Thewissen. They still have those 'blowholes' on Pakicetus and Ambulocetus in the Smithsonian even though they were never found on the fossils, and Thewissen admitted when cornered, that what he considered to be contemporary related animals had their nostrils at the front of their snouts.

You overlook the historically ideological uses of neo-Darwinism and think it's all pure science.
Of course you won't like it that it's theists who point this out. The militant evolutionists like Coyne,Dawkins and P.Z.Myers make this theory central to their promotion of atheism. That's just a fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8meWGZ_e_Y
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

Over the past several days I have been checking out some of those science journals Geo is talking about. Geo is correct when he writes that the researchers treat evolution as fact and I see no reason for it to be treated differently but I'm not a creationist or ID'er and I'm not coming into the reading with the bias with which creationist/ID'ers are required to by their narrowed worldview.
What I'm seeing presented in these Journal articles is rigorous double checking of strata, fossil identification, physiological descriptions, relation to other relevant finds, the qualifications of the team, just to name a few places for a starting point for per-review and falsification by other qualified researchers. I have found that there are specialist for every aspect of study including in part; biologist, geologist, paleontologist, zoologist, dental experts the list goes on. Magazine articles do no justice to the true nature of the rigor involved in a rare fossil find which in itself is a colossal event.
What I also am finding is that as the www is currently configured it simply is not easy to find the actual Journal articles, some are free and down loadable for others there is a fee involved. I think that if more studies were made easily more accessible, confusion of fact my be diminished.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: It's Inerrancy, Stupid

Unread post

Taylor wrote:nyit.edu/box/features/echo_hunter_a_new ... scientists

Morgan Churchill and Jonathan Geisler have studied their newest find. In the article there is a link to the abstract of their study. By the way Gingerichs work once again is cited as reference material :)
That's an interesting find Taylor. The funny thing here if I've got my facts right, is that this "whale" is dated back 60 million years whereas Pakicetus is dated back to 50 million years! So this is older than the supposed ancestors of whales that Gingerich and Thewissen proposed.

So really you have to bypass Pakicetus and the others because you've got this older aquatic animal which is whalelike in many ways.
Now they have to find "Echo Hunter's" ancestors on land!

They say it was a semi-aquatic animal but looking at the drawing it's hard to see how it could have spent time on land unless those flippers were very strong. Maybe it could like a seal, but I wonder how they know it was semi-aquatic. Dolphins who they say they are closely related to are fully aquatic not semi aquatic.

If they are right it's hearing system was a pretty sophisticated one involving emitting high frequency sounds which involves the co-ordination of vocalisation mechanisms for this and a hearing system capable of deciphering the echoes so as to be able to locate prey with extreme accuracy without vision.

They would have to be able to clearly distinguish between rocks, plants and fish for instance.

Interesting though,Taylor. You should have been a paleontologist.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”