Lucy (Australopithecus)

I said personal attack.That is an attack on radical athiests as a whole who are sugar coating it just like the creationists. Surely u don't condone the frauds and hoaxes fabricated by these fanatics over the years. They put much doubt into the agnostic mind. You don't accept lies do you?It is in no way singling out anyone personally.
An example of a personal attack usually begins with "you" or "your" doesn't it

quote:

---

The finer the detail the more uncertainty there may be, but this does not disprove, or even ding, the overall patterns shown by the theory of evolution

---

Did I say disprove... NO... I said the theory of man evolving from apes is a strong one.But interestingly scientists are debating overal patterns as they say fossils are too rare to accurately fill in the gaps. And also uncertainty over migrations so its does put a big ding in anyone trying to force one line of ancestry over another.

quote:

---

Virtually no scientist will claim anything is "scientifically proven."

---

Well thats what Im saying. Im singling out the fanatic athiests from level headed thinkers. So unless u consider yourself to be a radical athiest (which by your comments you aren't) those comments don't apply to you.A sceptical question is hardly an attack. Am I ment to just have "faith"? cmon now...For what its worth, even though I intended no such offence to you and didn't personally attack you I still offer my apology. I don't want others to feel this type of persecution like I have had to endure.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Can you provide documentation of "hardcore atheists claim everything is scientifically proven"? Or that "we know it all"?More specifically, what do "hardcore atheists" have to do with paleontology or the fossil, Lucy? Good. Science and scientists try very hard to keep belief from having any influence on their research. That's why they are so insistent about the definitions of the terminology they use. That's why they publish their results; so other scientists detect their errors and can detect any bias in the experiments, observations and discoveries, or conclusions. I hope you don't confuse someone with "firm beliefs", with someone with knowledge of the discoveries and observations from a scientific field, someone who publishes their work for objective scientific review.One thing I can tell you, the intense arguments that are occurring about various fossils and hypothesis are evidence of a vibrant branch of science. There are lots of expert eyes watching and checking everything that is published so everyone has to be careful that they report observations accurately.As far as I know, all the errors in scientific theories that have been discovered were discovered by scientists. As far as I know, not a single error in evolutionary theory was corrected be creationists.

They do not.I am a 'hardcore atheist'. No atheist I have ever met would make such a ludicrous claim. Not least because it's easily proven to be wrong. You've been told this several times.You need to learn to be careful with your statements and assertions.

quote:

---

They do not.
I am a 'hardcore atheist'. No atheist I have ever met would make such a ludicrous claim. Not least because it's easily proven to be wrong.

---

You guys think im making this up? Not something I want to pick on so much but if you guys insist. It didn't take me long to find some.These following quotes are from a top ToE scientist in his book
"The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (2009)"Page 8: " Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips... continue the list as long as desired."Page 164: " We don’t need fossils — the case for evolution is watertight without them; so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution"Coming from mainstream science ok. Unscientific Atheist with these kind of false convictions are a dime a dozen.Add to this the deliberate evolutionary frauds that have been presented to the mainstream as fact. Pitdown man. Nebraska man. Java man. U guys heard of these ye? A willingness and drive to fabricate evidence. That's extreme.
But like I said it's the few that spoil it for all and create so much doubt. I did say you weren't one of them so relax.

quote:

---

You've been told this several times.
You need to learn to be careful with your statements and assertions.

---

Perhaps you need to take care with your personal attacks. One might take those accusations of yours the wrong way. Get all emotional and shit.

Do better at what? Nonsense? what are you on about.
My statement clearly says "or something' along those lines.
Someone else said they couldn't find any of this. U say it took 10 secs. Well done.The point I was making is 15% of them believe in a god ok.
Im not in with the whole definition of creationist because to an agnostic it's irrelevant.Wiki defines it as "a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account."So u can either accept that my wiki definition of creationist wasn't your definition and that I was saying exactly what you said.
Or you can be a cop for the easy way out and call "nonsense"Why am I even talking about creation. Off topic... Oh yes.
Defense tendancies applied by the defensless and insecure.In case people missed it I think the case for humans evolved from primates is a strong one ok.
Oh yea big thanks to RAZD and JonF for being informative and open not only on this thread but previously.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Yes. You REALLY need to take care with your words. You're training to be a scientist, you will be picked up every time you make an inaccurate or plainly erronious statement. This is what you claimed:

quote:

---

The hardcore atheists (not you) claim everything is scientifically proven, that we know it all but there are variations in opinions between evolutionists as well.
  —PnC

---

Now where in your answer does the word 'atheist' appear? Nowhere right?You have conflated atheists with scientists. Very few, if any, atheists would claim that the absence of god is proven nor even that 'everything is scientifically proven'. It's a totally ludicrous position.As for the ToE being a scientific fact - it is. Just as much as any other scientific theory. There you go again - atheist does not equal scientist. And the ToE is not a false conviction. You're confusing confirmed scientific conclusions with total certainty. The ToE is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean it's utterly impossible that it's wrong, it means that we are as certain as it is possible to be that it is. But it can still be proven to be wrong. You're kidding? Who was it that debunked the 19th century frauds? Yes, scientists. Science corrects mistakes even when the mistakes are helpful to their ideas. What difference did it make to the theory? None at all. You need to differentiate between being corrected for loose assertions and personal attacks, if you don't you'll have a hard time with your studies.

As a life long Christian I agree totally and completely with those quotes.You confuse things. It is not Creationist vs atheist radicals it is Creationist vs reality, honesty and truth.

I don't care about your stupid conflict with creationist.(which i don't even know ur definition of)
You guys said no one claims it to be fact, show me where.
I showed you where. Dawkins.Then Jar confirms my statement as well. Point made.And even though I said human evolution is a strong theory Im being asked what by you guys? I don't understand your war. Im agnostic. I read or hear one side and then i read and hear the other side ok. Anything inconclusive Im rejecting. As I would in engineering. But guy are telling me don't listen to their arguments... Such narrow mindedness reallyEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Confirms what?Are you capable of reading?The issue has nothing to do with being an atheist or theist; it only involves reality, honesty and truth vs religious fantasy.

What are you even on about.
Dont care about your bullshit war.Not my problem if ur cage got rattled and your feathers got all ruffledEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Almost certainly I or others here have, and know why they are fraudulent. Nitpicking: it isn't the decay rate that's measured.Sounds like my personal favorite creationist fraud. Snelling wrote two articles on it, one for the sheeple and one "technical". In the latter, but not the former he gave away the gaff, and all you need to know is that "whole rock" means the entire rock, not any individual mineral from the rock, and "xenolith", literally foreign rock, means a piece of an older rock that didn't melt embedded in a younger rock. ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING":

quote:

---

A second representative set (50-100 g from each sample) was sent progressively to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating

​

...

​

The potassium and argon analyses were undertaken at Geochron Laboratories under the direction of Richard Reesman, the K-Ar laboratory manager. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as andesites that probably contained "low argon" and therefore could be young, so as to ensure the laboratory took extra care with the analytical work.

​

Because the sample pieces were submitted as whole rocks, the K-Ar laboratory undertook the crushing and pulverising preparatory work.

​

...

​

Steiner [90] stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava, but also noted that Battey [7] reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material.

​

...

​

Xenoliths are present in the Ngauruhoe andesite flows (Table 3), but they are minor and less significant as the location of the excess 40Ar* residing in these flows than the plagioclase and pyroxene phenocrysts, and the much larger glomerocrysts of plagioclase, pyroxene, or plagioclase and pyroxene that predominate. The latter are probably the early-formed phenocrysts that accumulated together in the magma within its chamber prior to eruption of the lava flows. Nevertheless, any excess 40Ar* they might contain had to have been supplied to the magma from its source. The xenoliths that are in the andesite flows have been described by Steiner [90] as gneissic, and are therefore of crustal origin, presumably from the basement rocks through which the magma passed on its way to eruption.

---

TL : DR version:Snelling dated a mixture of old and new material and expressed amazement that the date came out as older than the new material. Duh. He presented no data for his claim that the xenoliths were not important.{Also he could have used the much more robust Ar-Ar method, and/or extracted samples of the new material if possible and likely gotten a valid result) There's several frauds that could be described as that. Carbon dating works for samples that were in equilibrium with atmospheric 14C when they left this vale of tears. Marine animals are not in equilibrium with atmospheric 14C because at least some of their carbon comes from ancient deposits dissolved in the water, and essentially all of the 14C in such deposits has decayed. Again it's a mixture of old and new material. There are correction factors which one can apply. A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.
Living snails were carbon-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old, showing that the dating method is invalid.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Name some such frauds and hoaxes. There were a few relevant ones, but scientists are the ones who uncovered them.Please stop conflating scientists and atheists.

Seeing eveyone wants to continue on this bizzare creo vs ath path which i don't care for and ignor the fact that i agree with you guys.I'll add this... This idea is total garbage. Invented for one purpose only. Creationists.
Shame on this field of metaphysical science and its filthy lies.
The conclusions are totally speculatory and the makers of the theory are even more untrust worthy than religious cults. This is pseudoscience in the extreme

Evolution has happened. That is a fact.The Theory of Evolution explains how and why evolution happened. The theory is not the fact that it happened. The map is not the territory.It's true; the case for evolution happening is watertight even without fossils.Piltdown man was a fraud. It was suspect from the beginning. Scientists uncovered the fraud. CC001: Piltdown Man.Nebraska man was a case of over-extrapolation. CC002: Nebraska Man:

quote:

---

he tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were skeptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labeled as highly imaginative.

​

Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.

---

Java man was another case of over-extrapolation but was quickly debunked. By scientists. See Creationist Arguments: Java Man.You are obviously using solely creationist sources. They are not trustworthy. Not a one of them. Broaden your horizons.

He did not claim the theory of evolution is a fact. It is a fact that evolution happened. You need to be more precise. So far the arguments you have introduced are from creationists alone, and you obviously have made no effort to investigate other sources on those claims.