Expressing bad attitudes to science without realising it

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Roy

@adamjedgar

Another evidence was the realisation that a number of fossils of early man were intentionally falsified and made to look ape like when in fact they did not look anything like what was claimed! One of these “cons” went on for a number of decades and is still on display despite the publicly recognised and proven gross error it contains!

Which fossil, and where is it on display?

Presenting isolated examples of fraud as if they were representative of the entire body of evidence as a whole.

[T_aquaticus]

@adamjedgar

One of these evidences was the finding of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Prior to proving the find, the naysayers were adament no such thing could ever be because the bones were roughly 65 million years old! Isnt it funny how quickly those naysayers dissapeared into the shadows!

The fossils are still considered to be 65 million years old, and finding remnants of soft tissue does nothing to cast doubt on that age.

Are you trying to make a scientific argument? Are you preaching science?

@adamjedgar

Another evidence was the realisation that a number of fossils of early man were intentionally falsified and made to look ape like when in fact they did not look anything like what was claimed! One of these “cons” went on for a number of decades and is still on display despite the publicly recognised and proven gross error it contains!

Which of these are intentionally falsified?

Are you trying to make a scientific argument? Are you preaching science?

@adamjedgar

Anyway, back to the point im making, that the flood and its aftermath were a miracle…

This is an admission that your interpretations are not scientific.

[knor (Kai)]

@adamjedgar

absoutely we do…because naturalisms argument cannot account for a miracle (ie the flood and its aftermath).

I believe God is doing things that we call miracles. I believe God could have done things literally as it is written in the Genesis story of Noah and the flood. But, even miracles leave signs in history. For example, if someone is healed miraculously, we cannot explain how the person got healed but we have a person that was ‘not healthy’ and then, after the miraculous healing, was ‘healthy’. There may be some documents showing the states (‘not healthy’ vs. ‘healthy’) or at least, there is the experience and witness of the people involved, those who know what the situation was before and after the event.

A miracle of the size of a huge flood would leave signs in all the area that was beneath the flood. If someone interprets the flood as being global (I do not), we should find signs of the flood around the globe. There are no evidence for a global flood. There are some claims of evidence but none of those claims stand closer inspection. Evidence of a global flood would be a major finding and top scientific journals would want to publish such a finding, even if the reviewers of the scientific report would not believe in God or miracles. But, as I wrote, there are no credible evidence of a global flood.

If you play the miracle card, you should have two miracle cards: the first one to cause the flood, the second one to wipe away all evidence of the miracle.

A global flood is an interpretation that has no supporting material evidence. In addition, the interpretation does not have strong support in the original text. There is a story of a great flood that drowned all the land the writer knew but nowhere is a claim that the flood was global, in the modern sense of the word ‘global’.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

Although hyped news reports from sources that should have known better as well as young-earth sources have claimed that the finding of the “soft” tissue was amazing, in reality such “soft” material has long been known from the fossil record, and there is no reason to doubt that they can last for billions of years, much less the millions needed for dinosaurs. This has been addressed more than once; the young-earth claims on this topic are not honestly presenting the evidence.

[St.Roymond]

This is just more of the YEC failure to understand either scripture or science, and as a result muddling the two badly.

@adamjedgar

naturalism uses science to say it has theorectical proofs that make the biblical world view impossible

No, it doesn’t – naturalism says no such thing; that’s just an irrational claim made by idiots.

@rsewell

You need some new material.

He needs some actual science and not YEC misrepresentation.

[knor (Kai)]

@paleomalacologist

Although hyped news reports from sources that should have known better as well as young-earth sources have claimed that the finding of the “soft” tissue was amazing, in reality such “soft” material has long been known from the fossil record

The popular impression of “soft” tissue is probably something close to a steak. Something like the best preserved mammoths in permafrost - I have read that some people have tasted parts of such a mammoth. Not good food but anyhow meat that could be consumed. It is difficult to believe that a steak could last millions of years.

The reality is far from the popular impression. There is no dinosaur meat to eat, unless we classify chicken and turkey as dinosaurs. The “soft” tissues are remains of the proteins that are structurally and chemically most likely to last long, or transformed remains of such tissue. That is very different matter than a steak. The difference between the popular impression and reality is like the difference between hair and fat - nails, feathers and hair are keratin that is one of the long-lasting proteins.