Jump to content


Photo

Backtracking Again?


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#21 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:59 AM



 


[size=4][font=tahoma, geneva, sans-serif]Look, I too often have "fossils" brought in for identification. More often than not, they are of little importance. We get pseudo fossils rather frequently. But then we get the pleasant surprises when the finder, does have an important find.

People bring fossils to you for identification ? You must be an expert then and therefore must have great experience out in the field combing through the rocks. Have you ever found anything 'out of place' ?

 

 

My degrees are in geology and paleontology. But, to be more accurate, people bring fossils to the institution where I work for identification. I am one of a few who looks at these specimens and identifies them. For example, earlier this year we had a gentleman who brought in a chunk of sandstone. He was convinced that it contained a very valuable dinosaur track. I recognized it as nothing more than a pseudo fossil. My colleague agreed and he gave this determination to the fellow as diplomatically as possible. 

 

But we also had another gentleman this summer, who brought in some fossils that he wanted identified as he thought they might be a dinosaur. I recognized one piece right away as a large carnivore claw. I called it to the attention of our most senior paleontologist who recognized it as an Allosaurus claw, an important find.

 

Have I ever found an "out of place" fossil? I can tell you honestly that I have never really looked, so no. I would say that such finds would be extremely rare and only found when one is not really looking. When I do go fossil hunting or on digs, I go to known localities. Then you stand a pretty good chance of finding something. Having said that, if someone does find something "out of place", it is only fair to give it proper scientific scrutiny before discounting it all together. 

 

(Side note: remember, collecting vertebrate fossils on public lands without a permit is illegal)


  • mike the wiz likes this

#22 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 744 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 01 September 2017 - 08:27 AM

Whether or not it is actually a hominid skull, I too am skeptical.

Can you point out any of this skepticism anywhere? Mike said something similar, but so far both of you have pretty much exclusively argued in favor of this being potentially legitimate.
 

But the bigger point that I was trying to make is what happens when these kinds of fossils are found. They are often not reported, or under reported. They are quickly discounted, either rightly or wrongly, if they don't fit the evolutionary narrative. The discoverer is subject to great ridicule. Etc. Etc.

Ed Conrad seems to be subject to ridicule mostly because he's spent so much time arguing about the legitimacy of his rocks and the conspiracy against him on the internet. Lin Liangtai has been subject to ridicule by me in this thread because his conclusions are absurd and his methodology is deeply questionable.
 

Look, I too often have "fossils" brought in for identification. More often than not, they are of little importance. We get pseudo fossils rather frequently. But then we get the pleasant surprises when the finder, does have an important find.

When they turn out to be rocks, do the people who brought them in accept that determination, or do they insist they're right and accuse you of being in on a conspiracy against them?

When something is brought in, does it always get the full set of available tests, or is a more cursory examination considered sufficient for some cases? If someone with a rock insisted that more tests be done, what would the response be?
 

Popoi, just a quick note on your links. Which ones are by someone who has actually looked at this fossil? As I read this: Over the next decade or more Mr. Conrad contacted a variety of geologists, biologists, and anthropologists to examine his rocks, including [url=http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/blast_from_the_past_a_visit_from_ed_conrad_circa_1996/]PZ Myers. In every case, the answer was the same: it’s just a rock,"

Are you sure you read it? Because the answer seems to be in the paragraph immediately preceding that one:

Mr. Conrad’s tale began much like the rockhounds mentioned at the start of this post. He found some interesting rocks in a coal seam, and brought them to the Smithsonian for examination. He was told he had an interesting rock. Disappointed, he brought in another, and was told the same. Disappointed again, he insisted that the Smithsonian prepare a sample of his rock for microscopic examination. They politely refused, on the grounds that, frankly, they can’t prepare microscope sections for everyone who comes in with a rock, unless there is good reason to pursue that line of investigation (ie, it is a real fossil, and one of interest). This seems to be where Mr. Conrad begins his delusional idea that Scientists are conspiring against him.

 

As for the other article, it states, "The microscoped cross section doesn't look like any I've ever seen. Looks very mineralogical, like it's composed of flat, thin crystals. "
 
​The process of fossilization converts bone material to minerals, so some re-crystallization would be expected. Did this person actually examine the specimen itself or just look at a photo? Are other structures visible? Others have claimed Haversian cell structures are present. This line of inquiry (microscopic study) is valid but is not conclusive in and of itself. Have any other tests been done on it?

My guess is that the response is from looking at the photos presented as evidence in the original article. At least in part because that's the best we're likely to find, since Mr. Liangtai has gone the internet route of trying to prove the legitimacy of the rock, rather than going through a more legitimate channel.
 

Rightly or wrongly, you can be sure that this specimen, as well as others, will be discounted, suppressed, or ridiculed because it doesn't fit the expected evolutionary narrative.

Not sure about that at all, actually. It seems like this rock and others are discounted because they're rocks. And it's pretty likely that people will continue bringing rocks to scientists as long as there are rocks and scientists.

#23 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 September 2017 - 01:17 PM

...
My degrees are in geology and paleontology. But, to be more accurate, people bring fossils to the institution where I work for identification. I am one of a few who looks at these specimens and identifies them. ...

.

[size=4][font=tahoma, geneva, sans-serif]Look, I too often have "fossils" brought in for identification. More often than not, they are of little importance. We get pseudo fossils rather frequently. But then we get the pleasant surprises when the finder, does have an important find.

People bring fossils to you for identification ? You must be an expert then and therefore must have great experience out in the field combing through the rocks. ...

.
1. Who knows anything about what has yet to be discovered?

2. Who knows anything about the billions or trillions of organisms that perished prior to today and never had a member of it's species represented as a "fossil"? This is an allusion to my Group #3 in the other thread, Missing Transitional Intermediates?

What's becoming obvious is that I know more about the dangling questions and troublesome unknowns of our pet subject than the Geologist/Paleontologist.

#24 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 September 2017 - 04:53 PM

Whether or not it is actually a hominid skull, I too am skeptical.

Can you point out any of this skepticism anywhere? Mike said something similar, but so far both of you have pretty much exclusively argued in favor of this being potentially legitimate. 

But the bigger point that I was trying to make is what happens when these kinds of fossils are found. They are often not reported, or under reported. They are quickly discounted, either rightly or wrongly, if they don't fit the evolutionary narrative. The discoverer is subject to great ridicule. Etc. Etc.

Ed Conrad seems to be subject to ridicule mostly because he's spent so much time arguing about the legitimacy of his rocks and the conspiracy against him on the internet. Lin Liangtai has been subject to ridicule by me in this thread because his conclusions are absurd and his methodology is deeply questionable. 

Look, I too often have "fossils" brought in for identification. More often than not, they are of little importance. We get pseudo fossils rather frequently. But then we get the pleasant surprises when the finder, does have an important find.

When they turn out to be rocks, do the people who brought them in accept that determination, or do they insist they're right and accuse you of being in on a conspiracy against them?When something is brought in, does it always get the full set of available tests, or is a more cursory examination considered sufficient for some cases? If someone with a rock insisted that more tests be done, what would the response be? 

Popoi, just a quick note on your links. Which ones are by someone who has actually looked at this fossil? As I read this: Over the next decade or more Mr. Conrad contacted a variety of geologists, biologists, and anthropologists to examine his rocks, including [url=http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/blast_from_the_past_a_visit_from_ed_conrad_circa_1996/]PZ Myers. In every case, the answer was the same: it’s just a rock,"

Are you sure you read it? Because the answer seems to be in the paragraph immediately preceding that one:

Mr. Conrad’s tale began much like the rockhounds mentioned at the start of this post. He found some interesting rocks in a coal seam, and brought them to the Smithsonian for examination. He was told he had an interesting rock. Disappointed, he brought in another, and was told the same. Disappointed again, he insisted that the Smithsonian prepare a sample of his rock for microscopic examination. They politely refused, on the grounds that, frankly, they can’t prepare microscope sections for everyone who comes in with a rock, unless there is good reason to pursue that line of investigation (ie, it is a real fossil, and one of interest). This seems to be where Mr. Conrad begins his delusional idea that Scientists are conspiring against him.

 

As for the other article, it states, "The microscoped cross section doesn't look like any I've ever seen. Looks very mineralogical, like it's composed of flat, thin crystals. " ​The process of fossilization converts bone material to minerals, so some re-crystallization would be expected. Did this person actually examine the specimen itself or just look at a photo? Are other structures visible? Others have claimed Haversian cell structures are present. This line of inquiry (microscopic study) is valid but is not conclusive in and of itself. Have any other tests been done on it?

My guess is that the response is from looking at the photos presented as evidence in the original article. At least in part because that's the best we're likely to find, since Mr. Liangtai has gone the internet route of trying to prove the legitimacy of the rock, rather than going through a more legitimate channel. 

Rightly or wrongly, you can be sure that this specimen, as well as others, will be discounted, suppressed, or ridiculed because it doesn't fit the expected evolutionary narrative.

Not sure about that at all, actually. It seems like this rock and others are discounted because they're rocks. And it's pretty likely that people will continue bringing rocks to scientists as long as there are rocks and scientists.


"since Mr. Liangtai has gone the internet route of trying to prove the legitimacy of the rock, rather than going through a more legitimate channel."


In other words.. He wants to be treated more fairly and not dismissed out of hand simply because his find doesnt agree with the Mindless Microbes to Microbiologists myth...

There.. I fixed it for you


"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."

(Dr. Norman Macbeth,

#25 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 September 2017 - 04:57 PM

...My degrees are in geology and paleontology. But, to be more accurate, people bring fossils to the institution where I work for identification. I am one of a few who looks at these specimens and identifies them. ...

.

[size=4][font=tahoma, geneva, sans-serif]Look, I too often have "fossils" brought in for identification. More often than not, they are of little importance. We get pseudo fossils rather frequently. But then we get the pleasant surprises when the finder, does have an important find.

People bring fossils to you for identification ? You must be an expert then and therefore must have great experience out in the field combing through the rocks. ...
.1. Who knows anything about what has yet to be discovered?2. Who knows anything about the billions or trillions of organisms that perished prior to today and never had a member of it's species represented as a "fossil"? This is an allusion to my Group #3 in the other thread, Missing Transitional Intermediates?What's becoming obvious is that I know more about the dangling questions and troublesome unknowns of our pet subject than the Geologist/Paleontologist.


What's becoming obvious is that I know more about the dangling questions and troublesome unknowns of our pet subject than the Geologist/Paleontologist.

The problem with your baseless assertion is it comes from the same mouth of someone who believes that a Microbe with ZERO Vital Organs Slowly "Evolved" into a Microbiologist with TEN and runs and hides when confronted with my question that MUST be answered in some way in order for Darwins fairtale to be taken seriously by anyone..

#26 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 744 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 01 September 2017 - 06:42 PM

In other words.. He wants to be treated more fairly and not dismissed out of hand simply because his find doesnt agree with the Mindless Microbes to Microbiologists myth...

There.. I fixed it for you

It doesn't seem like your version holds water. We have two links in this thread to him making his appeals to the authors of skeptic blogs. If you look through the google results for his name there are some other instances of him posting to talk.origins and other science focused groups. If your issue is that you don't think people are giving you a fair shake because they're biased in favor of evolution, those don't seem like places where you'll get a much warmer reception.

#27 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 September 2017 - 06:59 PM

...
The problem with your baseless assertion is it comes from the same mouth of someone who believes that a Microbe with ZERO Vital Organs Slowly "Evolved" into a Microbiologist with TEN and runs and hides when confronted with my question that MUST be answered in some way in order for Darwins fairtale to be taken seriously by anyone..

.
I never said anything.
My mouth never moved.
There was no sound.

I'm convinced there is something seriously wrong at the other end of the "Blitzking" line. I don't think I ever read one single thing that hints at an understanding of my position about anything, any subject.

I am very sure that he belongs on my list.

#28 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:26 PM

...The problem with your baseless assertion is it comes from the same mouth of someone who believes that a Microbe with ZERO Vital Organs Slowly "Evolved" into a Microbiologist with TEN and runs and hides when confronted with my question that MUST be answered in some way in order for Darwins fairtale to be taken seriously by anyone..

.I never said anything.My mouth never moved.There was no sound.I'm convinced there is something seriously wrong at the other end of the "Blitzking" line. I don't think I ever read one single thing that hints at an understanding of my position about anything, any subject.I am very sure that he belongs on my list.


I definitely belong on your list.. Just like cops are on the list of every single escaped criminal. To be avoided at ALL costs.. You dont WANT to know the truth..

So you have 2 choices..

(A)

Engage me and be forced to be exposed to the truth about your Mindless MYO Microbes to Microbiologists Myth

OR

(B)

Avoid me like the plague so you can evade the truth about Darwins fairytale..

You choose (B), Not for scientific reasons whatsoever. But merely because..

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfiled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

#29 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:39 PM

Ed Conrad seems to be subject to ridicule mostly because he's spent so much time arguing about the legitimacy of his rocks and the conspiracy against him on the internet.

at one time, i would have considered such accusations laughable.
not anymore.
this debacle surrounding ayala proves beyond doubt that such a thing is a reality.

arrowsmith and his enablers are fraudulent, deceptive, people.

#30 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:50 PM

You dont WANT to know the truth..

it seems this particular poster wants to discuss things on thier terms.
this person has asked for material on supposedly missing transitionals that haven't been found yet.
i've presented material from koonin that this person absolutely refuses to address.

it's all good though, because without the fossils, we'll never demonstrate common ancestry.
there is no fossil evidence that says animal phyla came from one another.
this is DIRECTLY related to "not found" versus "not there".

#31 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 02 September 2017 - 09:34 AM

Gneiss girl, on 31 Aug 2017 - 9:27 PM, said:snapback.png

Whether or not it is actually a hominid skull, I too am skeptical.

Can you point out any of this skepticism anywhere? Mike said something similar, but so far both of you have pretty much exclusively argued in favor of this being potentially legitimate.

 

I think we are bogging down a bit too much on this particular specimen. I will make this brief. Here are a couple of photos.

 

https://www.google.c...WK2AGhUWTTOBkM:

http://www.dinosaurc...com/mancoal.htm

 

yy+coal+skull+2.jpg

 

Yes, this kind of has the shape of a human skull cap. I have no experience with hominid fossils save for a few casts in our collection. As expert would know if the size and shape are indicative of a hominid. If I could see the material, I could give a better determination if it is fossil or rock.

 

yy+coal+skull+1.jpg

"Later, Mr. Conrad dug into the skull, and found a sizeable cavity inside the "jaw". After that portion was broken off, he discovered that the interior contained a pair of hardened inclusions on what resembled a dental arch. Mr. Conrad took a photo and forwarded it to Wilton Krogman, author of "The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine" and one of the world's foremost human comparative anatomists. Krogman excitedly identified it as a premolar tooth, explaining that he could easily see that it possesses a pair of cusps."

 

This underside does not look much like a palate to me. But again, this isn't my area of expertise,

 

Here is the point that should be taken.... fairness and objectivity when evaluating "out of place" fossils is the right way to go. Ridicule, ad hominem arguments are not. Fossils should not be ruled out if they fall outside of the "expected" stratigraphic layers. Mr. Conrad and Mr. Lin were apparently much more outspoken than most. Most people would have just taken their specimen and thrown it away or put in a drawer to be forgotten. How many "out of place" fossils that are legitimate are out there that have never been properly evaluated and studied? We will never know.

 

BTW, did anyone see this article yesterday?

https://www.scienced...70831134221.htm

 

Schera Do regarding: 

wibble, on 01 Sept 2017 - 01:19 AM, said:snapback.png

 

Gneiss girl, on 31 Aug 2017 - 9:27 PM, said:snapback.png

[size=4][font=tahoma, geneva, sans-serif]Look, I too often have "fossils" brought in for identification. More often than not, they are of little importance. We get pseudo fossils rather frequently. But then we get the pleasant surprises when the finder, does have an important find.

People bring fossils to you for identification ? You must be an expert then and therefore must have great experience out in the field combing through the rocks. ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: "1. Who knows anything about what has yet to be discovered?

2. Who knows anything about the billions or trillions of organisms that perished prior to today and never had a member of it's species represented as a "fossil"? This is an allusion to my Group #3 in the other threadMissing Transitional Intermediates?

What's becoming obvious is that I know more about the dangling questions and troublesome unknowns of our pet subject than the Geologist/Paleontologist."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There is no doubt that there are MANY species that have no representation in the fossil record. As what if correctly points out, there are the fossils that exist that are yet to be discovered and the unrepresented species that can never be found because they do not exist as fossils.

 

So, IMHO, Group 3 consists of the fossils not yet found, the ones that can never be found because they were never fossilized,  AND the imagined ones, for those who would assume transitional species must have lived that would have bridged the "gaps." that we see in the fossil record. (This is the risk for Group 3)

 

What does this say about science and evolutionary history? It says that the ToE will be modified as new discoveries emerge. If a new discovery is too controversial, it runs the risk (rightly or wrongly) of being tossed out. It also says that we will never have a complete picture of evolutionary history. AND SO, if we want to better understand evolution and what it is capable of, we must look to what is observable in living specimens. Otherwise, we are quite prone to using our imaginations to "fill in the gaps" so to speak, and our bias will certainly skew this view from reality. That is not the proper way to do science.

 

So Schera Do, feel free to make your point regarding Group Three.



#32 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 September 2017 - 09:52 AM

Very interesting article Gneiss, it seems to me genuine scientists have shown human footprints nearly 6 million years old. Notice their conclusion, they imply that they now believe human feet had evolved earlier. Lol. This is the problem, even if they find humans at 40 million years they will say the same thing; "golly we didn't know they evolved that early"

 

So if humans were humans 6 million years ago, where is the missing 100 trillion skeletons?

 

:gotcha: ;)


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#33 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 02 September 2017 - 01:45 PM

...
Group 3 is hypothetical. It does not exist.

...
Do you declare that all of it is hypothetical?
.
Group 1 -- All the fossils found to date, and what is known (facts) about them and what is speculated about them.
Group 2 -- All the fossils that EXIST PRESENTLY, but have yet to be discovered.
Group 3 -- One fossilized representation of all the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began.

.

...
There is no doubt that there are MANY species that have no representation in the fossil record. As what if correctly points out, there are the fossils that exist that are yet to be discovered and the unrepresented species that can never be found because they do not exist as fossils.

So, IMHO, Group 3 consists of the fossils not yet found, the ones that can never be found because they were never fossilized, AND the imagined ones, for those who would assume transitional species must have lived that would have bridged the "gaps." that we see in the fossil record. (This is the risk for Group 3)
...

.
That's fine that you first declared Group 3 to be hypothetical, then, later, to ... well, I don't know with certainty whether your most-recent description of Group 3 results in zero actual instances: to declare 3 to be "hypothetical", "it does not exist"--your words--it would require there be zero real world, actual instances (members of the group). Any fossil you have ever held in your hand has one entry in Group 3.

Do you now declare that Group 3 is hypothetical? I made it quite clear in a previous post that Group 3 has real-world fossils in it. It has one representation of any of the fossils you have observed in your life. One for the reason that it would be redundant and unnecessary to have anything other than one per species ever to have existed and currently exist. I will put it into words you can not deny: If there is a God, then we might conclude that this God has knowledge of each species to have existed on Earth, perhaps in a book where each entry represents....well, it would be Group 3.

#34 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 02 September 2017 - 03:50 PM

 

 

...
Group 3 is hypothetical. It does not exist.

...
Do you declare that all of it is hypothetical?
.
Group 1 -- All the fossils found to date, and what is known (facts) about them and what is speculated about them.
Group 2 -- All the fossils that EXIST PRESENTLY, but have yet to be discovered.
Group 3 -- One fossilized representation of all the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began.

 

.

...
There is no doubt that there are MANY species that have no representation in the fossil record. As what if correctly points out, there are the fossils that exist that are yet to be discovered and the unrepresented species that can never be found because they do not exist as fossils.

So, IMHO, Group 3 consists of the fossils not yet found, the ones that can never be found because they were never fossilized, AND the imagined ones, for those who would assume transitional species must have lived that would have bridged the "gaps." that we see in the fossil record. (This is the risk for Group 3)
...

.
That's fine that you first declared Group 3 to be hypothetical, then, later, to ... well, I don't know with certainty whether your most-recent description of Group 3 results in zero actual instances: to declare 3 to be "hypothetical", "it does not exist"--your words--it would require there be zero real world, actual instances (members of the group). Any fossil you have ever held in your hand has one entry in Group 3.

Do you now declare that Group 3 is hypothetical? I made it quite clear in a previous post that Group 3 has real-world fossils in it. It has one representation of any of the fossils you have observed in your life. One for the reason that it would be redundant and unnecessary to have anything other than one per species ever to have existed and currently exist. I will put it into words you can not deny: If there is a God, then we might conclude that this God has knowledge of each species to have existed on Earth, perhaps in a book where each entry represents....well, it would be Group 3.

 

As you state it:

"Group 3 -- One fossilized representation of all the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began."

 

 Group 3 is hypothetical, it does not exist because there is NOT one fossilized representation of ALL the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began. Once a fossil is discovered then it fits in your Group 1 classification, which would be a subset of Group 3 (a superset) 

 

Re: " I will put it into words you can not deny: If there is a God, then we might conclude that this God has knowledge of each species to have existed on Earth, perhaps in a book where each entry represents....well, it would be Group 3."

 

Do I think humans will ever be able to know all the species that ever existed on Earth? No, but we can certainly speculate, ponder, argue, scientifically discuss various thoughts and theories on the subject. 

 

Do I think God has knowledge of every species that ever existed? Is this a trick question? What point are you trying to make?



#35 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 02 September 2017 - 03:59 PM

Very interesting article Gneiss, it seems to me genuine scientists have shown human footprints nearly 6 million years old. Notice their conclusion, they imply that they now believe human feet had evolved earlier. Lol. This is the problem, even if they find humans at 40 million years they will say the same thing; "golly we didn't know they evolved that early"
 
So if humans were humans 6 million years ago, where is the missing 100 trillion skeletons?
 
:gotcha: ;)



"So if humans were humans 6 million years ago, where is the missing 100 trillion skeletons?"

They are ONLY found in the same EXACT place where we find the Geologic Column.. In the imaginations of Atheists / Oval-Earthers..


"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

#36 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 03 September 2017 - 03:33 AM

...
Group 3 is hypothetical. It does not exist.

...
Do you declare that all of it is hypothetical?
.
Group 1 -- All the fossils found to date, and what is known (facts) about them and what is speculated about them.
Group 2 -- All the fossils that EXIST PRESENTLY, but have yet to be discovered.
Group 3 -- One fossilized representation of all the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began.

.

...
There is no doubt that there are MANY species that have no representation in the fossil record. As what if correctly points out, there are the fossils that exist that are yet to be discovered and the unrepresented species that can never be found because they do not exist as fossils.

So, IMHO, Group 3 consists of the fossils not yet found, the ones that can never be found because they were never fossilized, AND the imagined ones, for those who would assume transitional species must have lived that would have bridged the "gaps." that we see in the fossil record. (This is the risk for Group 3)
...

.
That's fine that you first declared Group 3 to be hypothetical, then, later, to ... well, I don't know with certainty whether your most-recent description of Group 3 results in zero actual instances: to declare 3 to be "hypothetical", "it does not exist"--your words--it would require there be zero real world, actual instances (members of the group). Any fossil you have ever held in your hand has one entry in Group 3.

Do you now declare that Group 3 is hypothetical? I made it quite clear in a previous post that Group 3 has real-world fossils in it. It has one representation of any of the fossils you have observed in your life. One for the reason that it would be redundant and unnecessary to have anything other than one per species ever to have existed and currently exist. I will put it into words you can not deny: If there is a God, then we might conclude that this God has knowledge of each species to have existed on Earth, perhaps in a book where each entry represents....well, it would be Group 3.

As you state it:
"Group 3 -- One fossilized representation of all the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began."[/size][/background]

Group 3 is hypothetical, it does not exist because there is NOT one fossilized representation of ALL the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began. Once a fossil is discovered then it fits in your Group 1 classification, which would be a subset of Group 3 (a superset)

Re: " I will put it into words you can not deny: If there is a God, then we might conclude that this God has knowledge of each species to have existed on Earth, perhaps in a book where each entry represents....well, it would be Group 3."

Do I think humans will ever be able to know all the species that ever existed on Earth? No, but we can certainly speculate, ponder, argue, scientifically discuss various thoughts and theories on the subject.

Do I think God has knowledge of every species that ever existed? Is this a trick question? What point are you trying to make?

.
Goku
m-the-pee-stream
Blitzking
KenJackson
what if
Gneiss girl (end of the line)

You just earned yourself the end-of-the-line position on my ignore list! Congratulations! It is well-deserved and "long time coming" to borrow a phrase from an old hippy song. Now I will explain for the peanut gallery, a.k.a. prospective applicants.

I think the two sentences that "broke the camel's back" were: "Do I think God has knowledge of every species that ever existed? Is this a trick question?" I did not ask a question and most-certainly not that question; and the source and subject of her camel-backbreaking error is the accurate quote of me just prior which contains an If-Then statement. NOBODY who understood that statement could think that it's purpose and meaning was God and God's knowledge.

Prior to reading the camel-backbreaker's post, I had wondered what has and does shackle this particular person's intellect so that she is effectively blind. This I wondered under this presumption:
.

...
My degrees are in geology and paleontology. ...

.
The frightful conclusion would be that the real-world fossils that have been under her observation, in hand, have shackled her intellect.

Further:
.

...
Group 3 is hypothetical, it does not exist because there is NOT one fossilized representation of ALL the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began. Once a fossil is discovered then it fits in your Group 1 classification, which would be a subset of Group 3 (a superset)
...

.
My best stab at understanding the source of such confusion is whatever meaning she has employed in her use of "hypothetical." Perhaps, it's time to discuss Group 1 and its relation to Group 3. Group 1 is comprised of each fossil ever discovered: There may be multiple examples of fossils for any specie in Group 1. "G g" has declared it to "be a subset of Group 3." Impossible. Each specie represented in Group 1--many having multiple entries--each specie has only one representation in Group 3. When I posed the illustration of God's book listing every species to have existed it was not in reference to anything hypothetical. Did you get that? Group 3's definition refers to all the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began. I decided that for the purpose of the groups that it didn't matter which of the multiple actual fossils for a specie in Group 1 ended up in Group 3. Remember: my goal of the three groups was and is to tackle the subject of fossils known and unknown and never formed.

I thought it would be helpful for some to consider Group 3 as "God's Ledger." I was wrong!

When I made the hasty list of three Groups, it was for the reason that it appeared that nobody here--from my reading--had any appreciation of what will NEVER be found as a fossil. I was correct!

#37 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:22 AM

Schera do

 

I realize that you are under a lot of stress caring for your mother. It must be very frustrating. Why don't you just try to make your point of what you are trying to demonstrate regarding the fossil record and unrepresented organisms? Try to be succinct. 



#38 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:44 AM

I was thinking that too, Gneiss, I don't know if Schera is aware of just how hostile some of his posts are, riddled with personal attacks, these last few weeks and they all seem rather volatile and erratic, the best description that [m]almost comes to my mind[/m] to be honest is "hysterical".  

 

Schera, G-girls intellect isn't compromised, she is a clear thinker. Insulting nice ladies now are we? Shame on you, I'll have to put you off the baba-list if it continues! ;)


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#39 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:44 AM

[color=#282828]If a new discovery is too controversial, it runs the risk (rightly or wrongly) of being tossed out.

this not only applies to fossil remains, but also to valid lab results.
dr. waddington had valid lab results that demonstrated, DEMONSTRATED, that gradualism wasn't the only option in regards to evolution, and that was over 70 years ago.

koonin flat out states animal phyla arrived here radially instead of bifurcating from one another.
also, koonin discounts the mainstream explanation as unreliable.
shera refuses to address this for some reason, opting instead to put me on ignore.

the funny part is, plugging your ears isn't going to make this evidence go away.
  • Gneiss girl likes this

#40 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 September 2017 - 09:11 AM

I realize that you are under a lot of stress caring for your mother. It must be very frustrating.

heh, yeah, i know exactly what that's like.
it's really hard to watch my mom go from "always on the go" to "barely being able to make it to the bathroom".

shera:
it's a fact of life, and it's something we all must deal with at one time or another.
yes, it sucks like a hoover, but that changes nothing.
not to detract from your situation, but there are a lot of people out there in far worse predictaments.
the homeless for example.
sure, 80% or more is due to thier own actions, but there are some that just "lost it all" over a coincidence.

or the really sad condition that some will never know true love because they are just too darned ugly.
that's real justice isn't it.
  • Gneiss girl likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users