TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Slartibartfast wrote:Proof here -----> Background radiation is proof of the big bang and observable red shift of neighboring stars is proof that the universe is expanding and therefore had an origin. It is also proof of how old the universe it <----- Proof here
Slartibartfast wrote:What was the hypothesis of this test and what was the conclusion. If you read the article on the dinosaur soft tissue, you will see that it wasn't blood that was found and they believe it was preserved partly because it was buried quickly (possible what killed it) in sedimentary whose pore spaces wicked away some of the microbes that contribute to decay. Hardly similar conditions I would think.
Habit7 wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Proof here -----> Background radiation is proof of the big bang and observable red shift of neighboring stars is proof that the universe is expanding and therefore had an origin. It is also proof of how old the universe it <----- Proof here
That is proof that the universe had an instantaneous beginning and is expanding. You interpret that proof to the Big Bang. This still inferring preexisting matter, energy and time. This still doesn't prove something coming from nothing.
The only sidesteps I see is to punt to Dawkins, Krauss, quantum physics and other appeals to authority.
Habit7 wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Proof here -----> Background radiation is proof of the big bang and observable red shift of neighboring stars is proof that the universe is expanding and therefore had an origin. It is also proof of how old the universe it <----- Proof here
That is proof that the universe had an instantaneous beginning and is expanding. You interpret that proof to the Big Bang. This still inferring preexisting matter, energy and time. This still doesn't prove something coming from nothing.
The only sidesteps I see is to punt to Dawkins, Krauss, quantum physics and other appeals to authority.
Yup. Still a good response though. The just needed to match a few more variables.meccalli wrote:Well, i guess those scientists missed the bus on that experiment. ..
In fact, a lot of the article talks about why this doesn't disprove evolution. Did you even read the article? What are your thoughts on it?First, even if ancient humans saw dinosaurs, pterosaurs, or other "prehistoric" creatures and depicted them on artwork, it would not disprove evolution or conventional geology. There is no reason why a plant or animal group could not have survived longer than previously thought, and paleontologists have always celebrated such finds.
fair enough
but it is scientific fact; no one needs to believe it.meccalli wrote:Well i think you know where I stand, faith, the same thing I see in evolution. If evolutionist scientists of this calibre can't devise a simple and accurate test to match the circumstances given, there must be a LOT of faith needed to believe all their claims over the years including their known falters.
What do you guys make of stuff like this.
http://paleo.cc/ce/dino-art.htm
Habit7 wrote:There was evidence to support spontaneous generation, continental drift, Einstein's static universe, phrenology and other theories however unlike evolution they were not as staunchly defended from scrutiny but eventually proven false.
There is overwhelming evidence to support micro evolution, the kind we can measure, observe and repeat today. We infer that with time, macro evolution is possible but with large inconsistencies like the Cambrian Explosion, incomplete fossil record and the inability of cell DNA to gain addition information, Evolution (in the macro sense) remains a theory.
Whether you believe it is true or not.
Habit7 wrote:And bringing in my or anyone else's personal belief is a logical fallacy (tu quoque). I challenged your and other's idealised view of evolution with academia's true view of evolution. Whether I am left-handed, an Arsenal fan and my favourite colour is grey is irrelevant to your original claim.
that is the great thing about science, when new evidence is found then all the theories can change to include the new findings - that is how the scientific process works. Plate tectonics explains how Pangea formed into the continent structure we have today.Habit7 wrote:There was evidence to support spontaneous generation, continental drift, Einstein's static universe, phrenology and other theories however unlike evolution they were not as staunchly defended from scrutiny but eventually proven false.
There is overwhelming evidence to support micro evolution, the kind we can measure, observe and repeat today. We infer that with time, macro evolution is possible but with large inconsistencies like the Cambrian Explosion, incomplete fossil record and the inability of cell DNA to gain addition information, Evolution (in the macro sense) remains a theory.
Whether you believe it is true or not.
Slartibartfast wrote:Anyway you can ignore that transgression and just give me your alternative explanation/timeline below. Personally, I think another sidestep is coming. But that's just me.
) Habit7 wrote:But if my alternative is poor or if I don't even have one...that doesn't make yours more correct.
Habit7 wrote:Let's just say I were that scripture you have been clamouring about...could you direct me to the page or chapter where he really gets into how nothing can become an organized everything?
Scientist claims California university fired him over creationist beliefs
Published July 30, 2014
A California university says it is investigating religious discrimination allegations made by a prominent scientist and former employee who claims he was fired for his creationist beliefs.
Mark Armitage, a scientist and evangelical Christian, claims he was fired from his job as a lab technician at California State University at Northridge because he published an academic paper which appeared to support his creationist views, according to a lawsuit filed last week.
Armitage, who does not believe in evolution, was lauded by his colleagues and the science community after he discovered in 2012 the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Mont.
Upon further examination of the fossils under a high-powered microscope, Armitage made a stunning find -- soft tissue inside the triceratops horn with bone cells, or osteocytes, that looked alive.
Scientists who study dinosaurs have long believed that triceratops existed some 68 million years ago and became extinct about 65 million years ago.
Armitage's finding, however, challenged that assertion. He argued the triceratops must be much younger or else those cells would have "decayed into nothingness," according to the July 22 lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Armitage, a long-time microscope scientist who has some 30 published papers to his name, believes the bones are no more than 4,000 years old -- a hypothesis that supports his view that such dinosaurs roamed the Earth relatively recently and that the planet is young.
On Feb. 12, 2013, a science journal published Armitage's triceratops soft tissue findings. Days later, Armitage was fired from his position.
According to Armitage's attorneys, the university claimed his 38-month employment had been "temporary" and that there was a lack of funding for his position. Armitage, however, claims he was called "permanent part-time" and allowed the full benefits package offered by the university.
The lawsuit alleges that in the weeks leading up to his termination, Armitage's boss, Ernest Kwok, "stormed into" his lab and shouted, "'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!"
The complaint also claims that Armitage's creationist view was known to members of the university's biology department prior to his employment.
When Armitage applied and interviewed for the position, he "informed the panel of CSUN personnel who interviewed him" that he "had published materials supportive of creationism," according to the complaint.
"Because of plaintiff's exceptional qualifications, these publications did not disqualify him from the position," the lawsuit says.
Lawyers with the Pacific Justice Institute, who represent Armitage, claim Kwok was not among those who hired his client and came on as his new supervisor when Armitage's old boss retired in June 2012.
Neither Armitage nor Kwok were able to speak about the matter due to pending litigation.
Jeff Noblitt, a university spokesman, told FoxNews.com that the school is in the process of investigating all allegations within the complaint.
Though Noblitt would not comment on the specifics of the case, he said the university, "strictly forbids discrimination on the basis of religion and we do not base employment-related decisions on an employee's religious beliefs."
"We have a long history of welcoming a diversity of perspectives and championing free thought and discovery within our academic environment," he said.
Noblitt noted that Armitage served as an instructional support technician and was considered a "temporary employee." He declined to provide a reason for Armitage's termination.
The discovery of soft tissue cells within dinosaur remains is controversial. When soft tissue was found in 2005 on the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex -- believed to be 68 million years old -- researchers last November provided a physical explanation for it: iron within the dinosaur's body had preserved the tissue from decay.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/30/sc ... t-beliefs/
Well that is a problem for you to resolve. If you believe that one is the evolutionary precursor of the other then their simultaneous existence is what you need to explain, not me.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: GoochMonay and 29 guests
