Freethought & Rationalism Archive

butswana · 03-14-2002, 08:24 AM

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020313080230.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020313080230.htm</a>

Darwin's Finch · 03-14-2002, 08:37 AM

Thanks for the link, butswana. I look forward to reading the referenced article in Nature. It will be interesting to see what the YECs do with this.

Kevin Dorner · 03-14-2002, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darwin's Finch:
It will be interesting to see what he YECs do with this.

Same thing that they've always done (metaphorically at least): put their hands over their ears and say "I'm not listening! I can't hear you! There is no evidence! Lalalalala..."

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

Darwin's Finch · 03-14-2002, 08:59 AM

Keven Dorner: "Same thing that they've always done (metaphorically at least): put their hands over their ears and say, "I'm not listening! I can't hear you! There is no evidence! Lalalalala..."

Most of them, sure. But sooner or later some mental midget will come up with an "argument" spelling out how Raman spectroscopy is "wildly inaccurate." Look at the fascinating insights they've given us regarding dating techniques.

Godless Dave · 03-14-2002, 09:04 AM

Funny how all these different "inaccurate" dating systems keep coming up with the same dates. You'd think if they were all inaccurate, the dates wouldn't agree with each other.

Darwin's Finch · 03-14-2002, 09:10 AM

Didn't anyone tell you? It's a conspiracy!

Dr Rick · 03-14-2002, 09:10 AM

Quote:

It will be interesting to see what the YECs do with this.

When all else fails, they will claim that it is the work of the devil/demons trying to deceive us.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-14-2002, 09:29 AM

Insofar as I know anything about it (ie next to zilch

), I'm inclined to side with Schopf and co. However, it's not quite as clearcut as Schopf makes it sound: see <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000430" target="_blank">this thread</a> on this very item from a few days ago.

Cheers, Oolon

[Edited for tyop]

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Valentine Pontifex · 03-14-2002, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
Insofar as I know anything about it (ie next to zilch

), I'm inclined to side with Schopf and co. However, it's not quite as clearcut as Schopf makes it sound: see <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000430" target="_blank">this thread</a> on this very item from a few days ago.

Cheers, Oolon

If I had to put money on it, I would say Schopf. However I am willing to be patient on this one. The press always wants an answer NOW, but that is not the answer that really counts. Lets see what happens after scientists have had time to read all the relevant papers and evaluate the claims.

03-14-2002, 08:24 AM	#1
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	UCLA Scientists, Colleagues Substantiate Biological Origin Of Earliest Fossils <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020313080230.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020313080230.htm</a>

03-14-2002, 09:29 AM	#8
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Insofar as I know anything about it (ie next to zilch ), I'm inclined to side with Schopf and co. However, it's not quite as clearcut as Schopf makes it sound: see <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000430" target="_blank">this thread</a> on this very item from a few days ago. Cheers, Oolon [Edited for tyop] [ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2002, 08:37 AM	#2
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Thanks for the link, butswana. I look forward to reading the referenced article in Nature. It will be interesting to see what the YECs do with this.

03-14-2002, 08:59 AM	#4
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Keven Dorner: "Same thing that they've always done (metaphorically at least): put their hands over their ears and say, "I'm not listening! I can't hear you! There is no evidence! Lalalalala..." Most of them, sure. But sooner or later some mental midget will come up with an "argument" spelling out how Raman spectroscopy is "wildly inaccurate." Look at the fascinating insights they've given us regarding dating techniques.

03-14-2002, 09:04 AM	#5
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	Funny how all these different "inaccurate" dating systems keep coming up with the same dates. You'd think if they were all inaccurate, the dates wouldn't agree with each other.

03-14-2002, 09:10 AM	#6
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Didn't anyone tell you? It's a conspiracy!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.