Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 07-16-2002, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

... As far as we can tell, there has been nothing published in Nature or Science on the subject since then. Why not?
We suspect it has something to do with the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial and the 1993 release of Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park made the general public aware that DNA supposedly from Jurassic times had been preserved in amber. Experts testified at the O.J. trial that DNA decomposes so rapidly that DNA from the blood found at the murder scene could not be positively identified. This gave credibility to the creationists� claim that dinosaurs must have lived recently because DNA can�t last millions of years.

I seem to remember something like this being claimed by cretinists before. Turned out to be a distortion of the facts (surprise!) but I don't remember the details.

Hallucigenia · 07-16-2002, 06:59 PM

I know I'm late to this party but, I need to address something here:

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
intelligently presented creationist site: <a href="http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/" target="_blank">http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/</a>

From that site:

Quote:

It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

1. scales had to have mutated into hair
2. breasts had to have evolved from nothing
3. hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
4. etc.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: mammals did not evolve from reptiles.

I cannot take seriously any site which trots out that long-ago refuted notion.

"Intelligently presented creationist site"? Not that one....

[corrected typo]

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Hallucigenia ]

Caverdude · 07-16-2002, 08:01 PM

Hey GeoTho,
I check out the site you posted and, sorry to say, it is just more of the same old junk. These so called Scientific Creationist type sites are always full of the same type of science bashing essays - NOT true science. Remember your high school science class where they taught the basic methodology of science: Form hypothesis, check existing literature, do research, publish, continue process. Show me a site that has true research with published results instead of propaganda. The problem is, creationists cannot prove theological arguements by scientific means so they must always resort to propaganda and criticism of existing theories.

HRG · 07-17-2002, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Uh, what is your definition of "dust" aren't we talking about the same thing here? A miraculous event by a creator or a miracle created by chance against mind boggling odds?

Would you please present your calculation of those odds ? "Tornado in a junkyard"-calculation won't count.

I recommend "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Abiogenesis calculations" by Ian Musgrave, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org." target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org.</a>

Of course, abiogenesis scenarios only use well-established mechanisms of physics and chemistry - in contrast to the "poofing into existence" of creationism.

Quote:

Why is there any reason to believe that life is a quality of inorganic matter?

Why is there any reason to believe that life is - like color, conductivity, self-catalysis etc. - not a property of specific configurations of matter ?

The distinction between "organic" and "inorganic" matter has been defunct since Woehler's synthesis of urea - which happened in 1827. Vitalism quietly succumbed during the rest of the 19th century; any attempt to raise it again require a Master Necromancer ...

Regards,
HRG.

tgamble · 07-17-2002, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hallucigenia:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: mammals did not evolve from reptiles.
I cannot take seriously any site which trots out that long-ago refuted notion.

Huh? If not reptiles, from what did mammals evolve from? Why do scientists take about the transitional series from reptiles to mammals?

<a href="http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html" target="_blank">http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm</a>

<a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm" target="_blank">http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm</a>

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

07-16-2002, 08:01 PM	#33
Caverdude Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Bristol, TN Posts: 83	Hey GeoTho, I check out the site you posted and, sorry to say, it is just more of the same old junk. These so called Scientific Creationist type sites are always full of the same type of science bashing essays - NOT true science. Remember your high school science class where they taught the basic methodology of science: Form hypothesis, check existing literature, do research, publish, continue process. Show me a site that has true research with published results instead of propaganda. The problem is, creationists cannot prove theological arguements by scientific means so they must always resort to propaganda and criticism of existing theories.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.