The Creation Science Hall of Fame needs help. They’re trying to fabricate a parody of peer review by recruiting fellow kooks to settle some “controversies” in the creationist community.
Dear Creationists,
The Creation Science Hall of Fame is sponsoring a Peer Review Panel and is now asking for volunteers.
For a number of years there has been much dispute over the 3 main Flood Theories:
Hydro Plate, Canopy and Plate Tectonics….etc.The Creation Science Hall of Fame is now forming a Peer Review Panel to evaluate all three theories and decide which one is the most feasible….or perhaps a mixture of all three being the most accurate…don’t know yet, so please volunteer.
We need about 7 to 9 professional people who are well credentialed to participate in a non-bias Peer Review Panel.
Dr. Hurlbut will be the Secretary of this project as well as representing the Creation Science Hall of Fame. His email address is: <email removed>
I asking Pam Elder, our Hebrew Scholar for the CSHF, to be on this panel.Please get back to Dr. Hurlbut and copy Nick Lally at creationfacts@aol.com and please forward this email to potential volunteers.
In Christ serving the Creationist Community,
Nick Lally Chairman, Board of Directors, Creation Science Hall of FameCc: Directors, Creation Science Hall of Fame
So, they’re going to get a bunch of bozos to sit around and argue ungrammatically over email which bit of nonsense is the “most accurate” — I would love to get my hands on those exchanges. Watching fools batter each other with Bible quotes has got to be hilarious.
I find myself wondering if they’re setting up a peer-review process to try to “prove” that they’re being scientific.
This is like one of the many “free energy” conferences where bozos discuss whose perpetual motion machine is the best.
Verbal masturbation.
Dear Mr Ham,
Perhaps you could also include a 4th flud theory, the null hypotheis:
It didn’t happen.
That might fit the evidence better.
Maybe they’ll figure out which planet all these UFOs come from as well. And which alien race is creating those crop circles.
The possibilities are endless for the CPRT (Clown Peer Review Team).
This is excellent news with my morning coffee. With peer review their ‘science’ will be ‘self correcting’. They will be gradually discarded one by one. Right? Right?
Maybe when this is done, they can set up a conference with dock workers, UPS loaders and such to debate how the ark must’ve been loaded.
“You gotta have your small critters on da bottom cuz it was the little things what suffered da most”
“Y’all are crazy! The meek shall inherit the earth so the bunny rabbits gotta be near the doors so theys kin git out first”
Cause, y’know….science!
Augh! “Bias” is a noun, you bozos! Also, “were you there?”
Can’t help but recall reading about cargo cults.
PR campaign. Future CS publications will be advertised as “peer reviewed”.
I fink I sortof vaguely recall the “canopy” flud pulled-from-arse-guess (for feck’s sake, even using “hypothesis” instead of “theory” here is not even wrong), but the other two — in whatever sense is meant — has me baffled…
(As I recall, the “canopy” flud pfag says there was a great dome of water covering the Earth which sprung a leak. I’ve no idea what happened to water, why all life wasn’t boiled to death, or how the sun shined through the dome.)
It’s gotta be like watching my youngest son and his friends argue over the subtleties of Minecraft.
At least Minecraft though is a real thing.
“Hurlbut”??!?!?11?!
That’s gotta hurt
Gee, gotta love how their doing science in name of something that doesn’t exist.
Toss in a few from the Quran for extra hilarity. Or, probably, from the earliest available scrolls (i.e., not in English…).
Well, at the very least, we can find out how many pinheads can dance the head of a failed hypotheosis, right?
The ArkRanger of Doom! should clearly be on the panel…
I can guess where this will go. It will eventually go to the same place that the different ‘theories’ on the One True Cause of All Disease goes to in so-called alternative medicine: “no right, no wrong, just different.” All sickness is the result of toxins/liver flukes/chi blockage/bad thoughts. Take your pick. Whichever theory you choose is fine as long as you’re standing on the right side: the “experts” are wrong because they don’t pay proper homage to our spiritual truths and ways of knowing those truths.
Conferences like this is what happens when cranks manage to fool themselves into thinking they’re doing real science and not some cargo-cult representation. They’ll discover soon enough that it’s not going to work. Reality isn’t like metaphysics, where you can just assert something sincerely and establish credibility because nobody — even you — would be able to tell if you were wrong. Your arguments have to persuade people who don’t already agree with you — not just those who do. That’s a much higher standard than they’re used to.
Watch. This duel between contending views will turn into a standoff … and the focus will be switched from “which one of us is right?” to “look, at least we’re sure it’s not evolution.” Consensus reached: God has no peers. Successful peer review panel.
Only if you will eat, in one sitting, 1 can of peas, 1 kilogramme of British Industrial Cheddar, and 1 pound of American-style processed cheese food product. Deal?
It wouldn’t surprise me to one day see them make pseudo measure instruments to mimic real lab work.
They’re sure that if they keep at it the cargo will surely come.
They should do a peer-reviewed study on which of The Three Stooges was the smartest.
Shemp.
@blf #10. You can get a pretty good handle on the canopy hypothesis from this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK6tkcxAHIw. It explains, among other things, how the dinosaurs died out because of nostril self-combustion.
@blf, #10
I was raised on this stuff. (Insert smiley face or sobby face here, your choice.)
The canopy trapped the heat and kept the earth warm.
All critters could live anywhere on the warm earth.
There were no polar bears. All of them evolved from the two teddy bears that were on the arc.
It had never rained before the flood.
The water is currently in the Pacific ocean. Some is in the Atlantic ocean.
People have gone so far as to work out how thick the canopy would need to be to fill the Pacific ocean, how thick the canopy would need to be to trap heat on the warm earth, and how thick the canopy would need to be to deflect the hot sunlight. Problem is they can’t get to the thickness that fits all three requirements.
The obvious problem is that they are starting from a solution and attempting to figure out the least unlikely set of events that would lead to the solution. Consider the possibility that the Bible is not inerrant and the whole thing tumbles down. As all it takes is to read a parallel gospel to convince yourself the Bible not inerrant, you can see that a non-biased creationist peer review panel is an oxymoron. The fact that they are including a Hebrew scholar on the panel is telling. If she says the “firmament” was a water canopy, they go with that.
This clearly requires a peer-review panel to decide which of those is the least qualified to be termed “edible”.
blf:
Hey, you want to put me in a position of intellectual masochism, I’d put you in a position of gustatory masochism.
ArkRanger: You’d have fun making there heads explode.
My stomach strangling me to prevent further contamination isn’t nearly as much fun.
Future CS publications will be advertised as “peer reviewed”.
“Peer” reviewed? Those guys should aim a little higher than their peers, I think.
So do you have to believe in Jebus to be a peer? Or can real scientists join?
FIFY
Since the Jewish flood myth is derived from the Mesopotamian flood myth you only need to work out how the Mesopotamian gods flooded the plain, a rather easy task sinc the whole place is on loam.
The non-crazy fundies who think Abraham came from Ur might accept a flood limited to Mesopotamia, but their peers would probably reject them as apostates.
Heading right over to RationalWiki to see what they’ve got to say. Hurlbut (aka launchbooty, tossbottom, chuckarse etc. over there) is one of their very favorites. He’s a frequent poster to Conservapedia, mostly just spammng for his own blog. He LOVES him some hydroplate “theory”.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Terry_Hurlbut
PffffBWAhahaha! Non-biased! Hahaha!
If they’re not peer-reviewed and confirmed then they’re “hypotheses”, you creationist morons, not “theories”. Stop conflating the two.
*rageflail*
Hey! I have no degree to speak of! I should apply. Do you think they’d notice? How hard can it be to blow it out your ass for a living?
Well Plate Tectonics is a real theory, although certainly not a ‘flood theory’. I was familiar with the other two which show a startling lack of understanding of energy states.
But then I looked up plate tectonics and flood geology and round the “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics” hypothe-pullitfrommyass-is. Like ‘hydro-plate’ this has energy transformations that would have steamed the population of earth long before they could have drowned
“a linear curtain of supersonic steam jets along the entire 43,500 miles (70,000 km) of the seafloor rift zones stretching around the globe” – and they find evolution difficult to imagine!
I wonder why Genesis didn’t bother to mention that Noah was boiled, pressure cooked and then had to share an ocean where North America cruised by at 35 knots.
But hey, I’ll peer review it for them.
I suppose it sounds a little better than asking whether Jesus or Baal would win in a cage fight, or if Jesus’ miracles stack up to Superman’s powers.
Just a bit.
Glen Davidson
“Hilarious?” Perhaps the idea of it is amusing, but the actual implementation might be better described as “boring as fuck.”
@quidam
But subduction and seafloor spreading are happening now, and there are no jets of steam. Have they seriously not considered that inconvenient little fact? Also, subducted plates don’t displace mantle rock “causing it to well up elsewhere”, it’s convection cells which cause the plate to move in the first place. Bloody creationists.
Also, serious question; is it even possible for steam to move at supersonic speeds?
No.
They’re not.
They’re using the term peer review, but they have not the foggiest clue what it means. You can already see that from their word creation “peer review panel” – I’ve reviewed manuscripts, I’m on an editorial board, but I’ve never been on anything called a “panel”.
What they’re proposing is an expert panel that writes a manuscript instead of reviewing it.
It reminds me a lot of a good old medieval theological dispute as very briefly featured in The Name of the Rose (the movie – I haven’t read the book).
Best typo of the week.
Well, it might go the newage way as you describe.
It might also go the good old-fashioned Christian way: the panel comes to an agreement, one of the “hypotheoses” (thanks again! :-) ) will solemnly be declared true and the others false, all the Disciples of Ham will immediately believe with all their strength and all their might in the true one, and if anyone disagrees, they’ll be declared heretic (Ham has, after all, recently used that word.)
The difference to the 13th century is that there won’t be crusades against the heretics anymore. There’ll probably be a schism.
You have to believe in the whole Statement of Faith of Answers in Genesis. They’re assuming the Flood is true; they only want to decide which version of it is true.
That flood stuff is easy when you understand that the Earth was flat.
It got spherical afterwards.
@kemist. #19: It wouldn’t surprise me to one day see them make pseudo measure instruments to mimic real lab work.
You mean, like the E-meter?
Well, yeah. How could it be impossible?
Happens in underwater explosions, certainly. Think nukes, for instance.
Glen Davidson
Calm down, then. The way I’m used to these terms, the difference between them is one of size: a theory explains lots and lots of seemingly unconnected observations and laws, a hypothesis is simply smaller.
Exactly.
(Incidentally, Superman actually is omnibenevolent as far as I know.)
They’re trying to compress 160 million years of seafloor spreading into 40 and 150 days at the same time. Of course they’re getting nonsensical solutions to their… LOL, they don’t even know the equations in the first place.
Of course. The speed of sound isn’t a limit on how fast gases can move, it’s a limit on how fast vibrations in them can propagate.
“Today, models of the E-meter include the Mark V, the Mark VI and the Mark VII. As of January 2005, the cost of the Mark V was $900 and the Mark VII Super Quantum E-meter was US $4,650.00 (up from US $3,850 in 1995).[citation needed] Scientologists of the Free Zone have developed their own E-meter models which are available at much lower prices. They also offer circuit diagrams and instructions for building a meter.[citation needed]”
If I were more egotistical, I’d wonder if they read a post of mine. My money says the whole thing is inconclusive, spun as a good outcome with wishy-washy epistemological relativism. They’ll agree to continue switching stories whenever it’s rhetorically convenient, and conveniently forget when one of their stories has been previously debunked when they move their trolling to new blogs/posts/forums/threads/feeds. Not that I expect anyone to bet against that prediction.
I think they left out comets as another floodwater source. Apparently there are Creationists who actually argue a comet or comets fell to Earth and melted into the massive flood rainstorm, instead of, you know, evaporating and roasting the whole planet with the converted kinetic and gravitational potential energy of that enormous mass of water.
@Glen Davidson
Thank you, I genuinely did not know that; but I meant specifically in the situation they posit; can steam which is rising due to nothing more than density differences reach supersonic speeds? Surely not?
@David Marjanovic
That’s not the definitions I was taught :-/
And fair point. I hadn’t considered the reduced time frame, though they are still idiots.
And I mean an actual cloud of steam, rising skywards due to just density differentials, couldn’t be travelling faster than the speed of sound, could it?
Why are they asking men, why not just ask god?
Second thought: It’d be grimly funny if they went against my expectations and settled on a One True Creationist “Theory” and denounce competing Creationist ideas as heretical (or, heh, “evolutionist”). Even then, I think the likely response among the fundie community would be a collective shrug as they continue doing what they’ve been doing. If anything, there’d probably be a newagey subjectivist backlash from Creationists who complain that having to stick to one “truth” at all times is like having their hands tied behind their back.
There’s a bit of a scary part in wondering what’d happen if they push their extremism to new(old) extremes.
I wish this blog software let us ‘like’ specific comments. Oh, heck. I “like” them all!
Thumper, #47: I’ll play. (1) the speed of sound in superheated steam can be rather high. (2) Picture a ramjet kind of effect: pressure provided by a few miles of cold brine, a bit of water evaporated and superheated by magma, the resulting steam accelerated by the pressure differential: hell yes, supersonic. Plain ordinary rocket engines run at way less pressure and stuff comes out their nozzles at Mach mumble mumble 13 best case.
Now, how to build the nozzle . . . ah, there the mind boggles. Besides, to the best of my understanding, the flood myths began when sea level rose enough for the Med to overflow into the lowlands now known as the floor of the Black Sea.
I vaguely remember a video of someone putting that part to physics and something about how quickly the stone pipe “fountains” would break apart under Hydroplate conditions. It’s certainly not the clean physics word problem of perfectly rigid, uniform objects the Creationist seemed to think it was.
Why do they keep nattering on about the Flood? It really isn’t important to Christianity, except that they have made it so.
But I’m just aggravated that they don’t like my own “theory”. See, the human population of the world was still all in the Middle East (not having yet spread much from the Garden of Eden), and rather sensibly living in the flat lands. All God had to do was bring in a super-hurricane, which would have bought in a super tide surge, which would have submerged the low areas, and everybody drowns, so the Christians are happy.
Indeed.
But there is no need to bother to build their own instruments. So-called “ghost hunters” have perfected the art of misusing existing ones (IR cameras, magnetometers and various radiation detectors) to come to bogus conclusions. Ditto for homeopathy researchers, who specialize in interpreting contaminant noise generated by raman spectrometers and calorimeters. It’s the modern equivalent of tea-leaf and bird entrail reading.
The E-meter has the advantage of being a childishly simple instrument electronically, and cheap as hell to manufacture, considering that it costs a few thousand dollars to the poor schlob who buys it. It’s essentially what is called a Wheatstone bridge.
Seems very unlikely, anyhow. The sun has convection currents moving at supersonic speeds, but it also has much higher pressures not that far below the “surface.” At earth atmosphere pressures, well, I don’t know if it would be utterly impossible, but surely improbable at any realistic scale.
Not that they care much about the realistic.
Glen Davidson
I hadn’t thought about it that way. Kinda makes it funnier.
Though I think a lot of them might consider it significant for the whole “Curse of Ham” thing so they can justify being racist. Without the flood, it’s arguably harder to assert that entire races are Ham’s descendents.
Why they’re at it, the panel can discuss whether the ‘Tardis’ theory, the ‘suspended animation’ theory or the ‘Hermione’s magic purse’ theory best explains how there was enough food for all the animals on the ark. Or has that already been resolved?
Is it even definitionally possible for any gaseous component of a planetary atmosphere to move at supersonic speeds (for that atmosphere)? The sun’s convection currents move a supersonic speeds relative to earth’s speed of sound, but they don’t (I think) move faster than the speed of sound in the sun. (Since the speed of sound varies with the composition of the atmosphere/substance it is traveling through).
They don’t have a lot that can even pretend to explain the arrangement of fossils–the increase in complexity of organisms over time doesn’t fit with their creation story, and their timeline requires everything to be laid down pretty much at once. They need to flood to “sort” the fossils.
Of course no flood would leave the fossils arranged as we find them, but the only alternative “explanation” is that God put them there to test our faith, or the devil put them there to mislead us. Interesting that 20 years ago those were the go-to explanations–remember the claims that dinosaurs never existed? Now it seems Jesus rode the beasts. I wonder if a peer-review panel came up with that one.
Silly Menyambal, all good Mor(m)ons know that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. The flood was no doubt caused by a fracture of the New Madrid Fault.
Learn something:
solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2009-2&page=articlesu14.html
Glen Davidson
etc.??? Why the hell didn’t you just name it? Using “etc.” in place of the third of three`things is just fecking lazy. But then, intellectual sloth is to be expected from the idiots that think Noah was as real as the 7 dwarfs: Doc, Grumpy, Dopey, etc.
Fascinating, Glen Davidson.
Actually, regarding my original question, never mind.
I just realized that jet engine exhaust pretty much has to exceed the sound barrier for any airplane traveling at supersonic speed, what with Newton’s Third Law and all (and the exhaust weighing less than the plane). So obviously it IS possible to make a mass of gas move faster than the speed of sound within the local atmosphere.
I immediately pictured a group of clowns sitting around a table made of bamboo and palm fronds, entering their ‘findings’ into a ‘computer’ made by The Professor of, well, bamboo and palm fronds – oh, and coconuts.
I can kind of understand the thinking that building a airport will prompt the magical cargo planes to arrive bearing their wonders, but I have trouble seeing the ‘magical’ step in the scientific method that they seem to believe will lead to the ‘one true flood mechanics theory’. Pretty sure ‘no magic’ the entire point of the scientific method.
and…Gilligan! Drop those coconuts!
*Bonk!*
Ouch!
I used to think that. Now I have experience moderating a science forum where creationists turn up with monotonous regularity I’m starting to get the picture.
I always thought why worry about the Big Bang? Goddidit seems like a perfectly good response from a believer. Evolution? Goddidit also seems perfectly OK as an answer. But no.
The flood story seems to be central as the keystone to the young earth stuff. If you can somehow stuff all geology into that particular flood story, you can justify dismissing the billions of years necessary to explain the age of the universe and evolutionary timescales all with one hit. It’s the universal solver of my-religion versus all-of-science problems. It’s also quote-mine-able for arguments about the impossibility of people being responsible for any effect on climate and counteracts any argument devised from Genesis about “stewardship” of creation. The perfect “biblical” answer to any weak-kneed so-called christian (sneer, snort!) who tries to advance ecological principles as having any theological justification.
The fact that you are sooo hostile and hate-filled makes you look deeply troubled and deeply threatened by Intelligent Design and/or Creationism. I mean, there are some problems in evolutionary theory, for example the fully intact 100 million yr old dinosaur with skin, probably stomach contents, soft tissue found in Canada, which contradicts Decomposition Theory, and of course Mary Schweitzer’s discoveries. And Creationist researchers have gotten measurable levels of C14 from other dinosaur specimens. Why not put all of this to rest by testing for C14 in this new specimen? After all, there shouldn’t be one atom of C14 if it is really so old. If not, and adjustments are constantly made to keep the theory intact from any contradictory evidence, what a farce that is. What peer reviewed and fully conclusive empirical evidence has been discovered that overturns Decomposition Theory which states in every text book, by observation and experimentation, that all soft tissue beyond one million years could not exist?
Kristen Mayeaux
You may want to provide a few links to sources for your remarkable claims.
Well bless your heart, which Bible-lovin’ Diploma Mill gave you your fancy new e-psychiatry degree?
You really can’t possibly, seriously think that this is sufficient, can you? You can’t possibly believe that those are sufficient to undermine evolutionary theory. And then there is that ever present problem of assuming that simply disproving evolution is sufficient to make your case. For fuck’s sake, even if we said “yep, evolution is completely bunk” that doesn’t mean that Intelligent Design/Creationism wins by default and automatically becomes true. How about a little less pedantic quibbling away about the specifics of evolutionary theory and pretending that you are doing something, and how about trying to prove your own fucking hypotheses ? Just sayin’.
*Facepalm*
Pfft, help:
Also, what the fuck is this “Decomposition Theory”? Is that just a term you’ve made up?
“Decomposition Theory”??? What is this of which you speak?
Sounds similar to the “Water Is Wet Theory” that I just made up and published in the Journal of My Own Head.
I suspect that this C14 argument is related or linked in some way to one of the problems highlighted in this video from potholer54. Starting at 4.20 – talking about fossils.
Snark aside, Kristen, the Canadian ankylosaur is just a case of a very rare set of circumstances coming together to preserve a dinosaur better than usual.
It is still fossilised, there is no ‘meat’ – it has all been replaced with minerals as is expected. However because it was encased in sediment very quickly and then not subjected to the usual pressure, the soft tissue fossils were protected and still recognisable. The paleontologist working on the specimen said it is like ‘pressed talc’ once the surrounding hard rock is removed.
Oh, ‘Decomposition Theory’ is actually a mathematical thingy according to teh webz. Well, no point asking me about that, then!
The fact that you are sooo hostile and hate-filled makes you look deeply troubled and deeply threatened by Intelligent Design and/or Creationism.
Projection.
I mean, there are some problems in evolutionary theory, for example the fully intact 100 million yr old dinosaur with skin, probably stomach contents, soft tissue found in Canada,
A highly unusually-well-preserved specimen, but nothing whatsoever to contradict Evolution. Also, there’s no organic soft tissue, it’s all fossilized.
which contradicts Decomposition Theory,
WHAT is this “Decomposition Theory” ?
Or to put it another way: Citation Needed.
and of course Mary Schweitzer’s discoveries.
Citation Needed.
And Creationist researchers have gotten measurable levels of C14 from other dinosaur specimens.
Citation Needed.
Assuming this has occurred, it would have to be contamination, unless they have exceptional evidence to the contrary. This one really, really, really needs a citation!
Why not put all of this to rest by testing for C14 in this new specimen?
(1) The fossil is tens of millions of years old. C14 degrades in c.100,000 years, and using it for dating generally isn’t reliable for specimen older than c.50,000 years.
(2) A fossil is mineralized. It’s a rock! C14 is organic. It’s either not original (see contamination, above), or something unusual is going on.
(3) Because creationistas have no concept of either evidence or theory. If they did, there would be no creation hypothesis, as it totally lacks evidence (there is simply none), and for it to be even plausible, essentially all of science would have to be wrong. Not just biology, but also cosmology and physics, chemistry, mechanics, and other disciplines. Or in short, creationism totally lacks any plausible theoretical underpinning.
After all, there shouldn’t be one atom of C14 if it is really so old.
Excepting possible contamination, that is also my understanding.
If not, and adjustments are constantly made to keep the theory intact from any contradictory evidence, what a farce that is.
Citation Needed.
C14 dates do need adjusting, and the calibrations are updated (regularly, as far as I know), but so what? It’s like tuning your car’s engine.
And in any case, there still a HUGE gap between the maximum of c.100,000 years for organic C14 dating, the the tens of millions of years of the mineralized fossil.
What peer reviewed and fully conclusive empirical evidence has been discovered that overturns Decomposition Theory which states in every text book, by observation and experimentation, that all soft tissue beyond one million years could not exist?
Citation Needed. Starting with, as per above, what is this “Decomposition Theory” ?
Incidently, I am a mathematician by education. (So any errors in the above biology, chemistry, physics, et al, can probably be attributed to that.) I am aware there is something called “Decomposition Theory” in relation to graphs (networks), albeit I admit I no longer recall much detail. I very strongly doubt that bit of pure mathematics has anything to do with whatever this “Decomposition Theory” is about.
Gee, the old carbon14 bullshit. Never mind there are multiple ways to make carbon 14. Funny how creobots always forget about neutron activation of carbon 13, forming carbon 14, which is the the one process that makes all old samples containing carbon date to 50,000-100,000 years ago. Both extremes which still refute the standard creationist 6,000 year old story line.
If you watch the video it turns out that the C14 showing up in fossils was probably from the varnishes and resins used on the surface to preserve the specimens.
My confusion: That is very probably referring to the claims to finding organic soft tissues and blood cells in a T. rex specimen by a team lead by Dr Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University. I didn’t recognize the name and then borked a quick search… ☹
Again, like the Canadian specium (which is all fossilized as far as currently known), so what? Dr Schweitzer’s team’s discoveries — if confirmed — don’t challenge Evolution (but could clarify some points in dinosaur genetics (and similar)), but do show that under circumstances not-yet-understood, certain organic samples can survive for vastly longer than thought. (C14 dating would still be useless due to the HUGE gap between the c.100,000 year C14 dating maximum and the tens of millions of years of the fossil and enclosed organic samples.)
It is a rather amazing discovery if it holds up !
How many times does it have to be pointed out that Mary Schweitzer is not a YEC, and is not a creationist at all?
Her own discoveries do not convince her that the current understanding of stratigraphy and radiometric dating thereof is somehow magically wrong.
There is no such thing as “Decomposition Theory which states in every text book, by observation and experimentation, that all soft tissue beyond one million years could not exist”, and finding well-preserved Mesozoic dinosaurs therefore cannot possibly contradict it.
Um. Actually, this is not necessarily the case, for the entire fossil, or for every fossil. Mineralization can certainly occur, but that’s not what happens in every environment.
It’s exactly that common misconception about fossils that creationists trade on.
Because I miss Josh the geologist, I went back to the archive of the page where he discussed this a bit, and decided to copy-and-paste one of his great comments on the topic:
I am shocked! Shocked PZ!
You have not applied to be an unbiased peer!
You could have so much fun just being rejected!
You mean because we laugh at it like we laugh at other pseudoscience? Oh yeah, we’re deeply threatened by you bozos. You’re so important, aren’t you?
Hm, how do these explain the morphologic, genetic, and fossil evidence for evolution? I’m rather lost on that crucial matter.
Let’s see, you’ve explained uranium-lead dating, how? Oh yes, again, C14 does what to explain the highly derivative nature of life, you know, what you’d expect from known evolutionary processes? I don’t see any actual consideration of evolution in your hateful little diatribe.
Do you have any contradictory evidence? At worst, you’ve brought up some dating issues (more like spit out some idiotic tripe), nothing that seriously touches upon evolution per se. And even if these were real problems, we have massive correlating evidence showing the earth to be old, which you can’t explain–or even understand properly.
You know, the whole soft tissue matter is bizarre, because if it can last 4000 years, why not 4 million, why not 4 billion? I mean if the rock remains undisturbed, of course. Sure, it becomes less likely as more time passes, but it’s extraordinary for 40 years, 400 year, or 4000 years. As for your “one million” year figure, that’s yanked straight from some YEC ass, just because it fits YEC lies and would be a problem for evolution–if it wasn’t a total lie.
Time for you to learn some science, rather than just hating on it.
Glen Davidson
SOMEONE doesn’t understand the physics of half-lives….
Funny thing, that.
Mary Schweizter, who ought to know the best about her own discoveries, is fully in agreement with the 70 million odd year old dating of her specimens.
Hey, while we’re at it, could we also empanel peer review boards for The Theory of UFO Interactions, and the Theory of Post-Life Visitations ? I’m sure there are some impartial . . . Sorry, I am unable to keep a straight face.
/jokerlaugh
LOL. We’re just tired of having to refute the same talking points again and again and again and again and again…
1) What? What has that got to do with evolution?
2) 100? Not 70 or so?
3) “Fully intact”? Come on. You know full well this isn’t remotely true.
Impressions? Phosphatized bacteria? What is it? What does it look like?
By this I mean the fact that the term “theory” is applied to overarching explanations which explain lots of seemingly unconnected facts and laws.
Mmm…
I remember seeing it in the Journal of Straight Outta My Ass, from Steaming Pile Editions.
“Hostile” and “hate-filled” isn’t the way I would describe the reaction of most people here.
Unless that’s what you call that weird hilarious/appalled/pity sensation you have when can’t stop staring at a car full of clowns crashing into a river made up of strawberry jello.