Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 385 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
The universes expansion accelleration solved.
by Marchimedes
05/14/20 07:25 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Marchimedes 4
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#29706 - 03/07/09 03:49 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
...what if these stones are anchors?

Hiya Paul,

I love the anchor idea--it's so creative.
Do you think those T-shaped "anchors" would hold together; with the bottom of the T not pulling away from the top crossbar?
...and hey, maybe they just cut anchor at some point, but I don't know where the current location is in relation to the flood.
It's always fun to try and fit together some puzzle pieces that maybe nobody has tried before.

Later, I hope to have an economics question which I hope your wide-ranging inspiration will appreciate and help me develop further.

...but back on topic.
Ellis is right, as you know, about that Bospherous breach--allowing the Mediterranean to flood--into what was probably a very fertile, populated valley. But I don't know the timing on that one.
There were probably lots of glacial lakes that burst around the world during those times of dramatic recession (like now).

Also, as Ellis says, we don't have to be looking for the "actual GOE" ...where God prowled around.... wink
But we can see what may have inspired the myths, stories, oral histories, and written histories too--memories of a time when the climate favored a lush and productive land.

I am fascinated by the idea that our current domesticated crops and animals may have been the end result of some directed breeding way back 10-11,000 years ago.

~ smile
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
.
#29707 - 03/07/09 04:12 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Paul wrote:

"since you brought up the flood , heres something else to think about concerning the megaliths.

what if these stones are anchors?

wouldnt a ship that houses so many animals need anchors?

and what if that ship were Noah's ark?"


Paul-- you ARE kidding aren't you?

Top
#29708 - 03/07/09 05:29 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Paul-- you ARE kidding aren't you?

Well there's idle speculation that often inspires random, but meaningful connections that at the least are entertaining....
and then there's just plain kidding.
But whichever... (btw, thanks for my best laugh of the day Ellis!)....
===

I wrote this a little earlier:
===

Paul, I hadn't seen those last two posts of yours, when i posted my previous post....

But WTH are you on about.
Your not seriously suggesting that some incident back in the 1920's is evidence for the lameness of "science," are you? It's not as if the record of that happening was covered up. They were "hurridly removed" to quickly correct the literature and prevent false idea from being perpetuated. That's the way it's supposed to work. Do you see it as evidence for something else?
Look at any encyclopedia from that era. They are full of "facts" which were later dispelled. Back then they thought everything in science was mostly settled. Don't be misled into thinking science makes those same mistakes today, please.
===

...and this Cambrian explosion thing. What?
"The fossil record clearly indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden in a fully formed state."
Where did that load of falsity come from? Let me guess. It's not from Futuyma.
...and if not, then the juxtaposition of that quote with Futuyma's logical statement, is very misleading.

Didn't I spend a great deal of effort showing how their page on "thermodynamics" is completely misleading, wrong, and misused for their own purposes... asked rhetorically (perhaps that was elsewhere--but I could cite it if you're interested).
But c'mon... "darwinismrefuted?" Just the fact that they put an "ism" on the end of Darwins name show their lack of comprehension about science (and evolution).

Reading a site with an agenda such as theirs obviously is--is good exercise for a scientific mind--but it shouldn't be used to inform the spirit (of knowledge). Please!
It is a spectacular example of how the web can be misused, and it should be honored for that feat; but you must beware of these spiderwebs.
===

Let me know if you think that site is serious, and I'll show you how they use deceptive, marketing/propagandaistic techniques to persuade casual browsers.

Sincerely,
~SA

p.s. ...and this thread isn't about evolution, so let's stay on topic, right?


Edited by samwik (03/07/09 05:31 AM)
Edit Reason: add p.s.
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#29714 - 03/07/09 10:56 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man""

This is bullcrap. The majority of scientists were skeptical of the tooth - and all inferences from it - from the very beginning. Nebraska man *never* informed evolutionary theory. Of course, facts are irrelevant to non-scientific creationists.

Top
#29718 - 03/08/09 01:39 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Samwik

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock*DNAbyDesign.pdf


Quote:
In both articles, Meyer faults biology textbooks for presenting only "half
of the picture," leaving out information about the Cambrian explosion that,
he says, confirms a pattern of abrupt appearance rather than an evolutionary
process. These texts purportedly failed to define "evolution" adequately - it
can refer, he claims, to anything from "trivial" microevolutionary change
to "the creation of life by strictly mindless, material forces" - and they
failed to mention scientists who reject evolution in favor of "alternative theories,"
such as Intelligent Design. He cites ID theorist Michael Behe and his
idea that the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum provides evidence
against the "superstitions" of the self-assembly of life. He criticizes biologists
(mentioning Douglas Futuyma and Kenneth Miller)
who, he says, make no
attempt to hide the anti-theistic implications of Darwinism.


......He Criticizes....Douglas Futuyma .......

Quote:
Where did that load of falsity come from? Let me guess. It's not from Futuyma.


no ... but just read

Quote:
The picture presented by the Cambrian fossils clearly refutes the assumptions of the theory of evolution, and provides strong evidence for the involvement of a "supernatural" being in their creation. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionary biologist, admits this fact:
Quote:

Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.




futuyma clearly states in his own words that:

Quote:
If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.


and that is just what happened , they just appeared.

.......................................................

I didnt dream this stuff up , would you say that an eye would take at least some time to EVOLVE?

http://www.designanduniverse.com/articles/fossil_records3.php

Quote:
T he trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology.



Quote:
...and this Cambrian explosion thing. What?


Quote:
The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us". (11)


From: Prof. Paul K. Chien, Department of Biology, University of San Francisco
http://hum-molgen.org/meetings/meetings/0798.html

Quote:
The relatively sudden appearance of all major animal phyla in the fossil record, the "Cambrian explosion," focuses attention on how-and how rapidly-body plans evolved.


Darwin himself knew of the cambrian explosion and had the following to say concerning it...

http://www.bio.net/hypermail/molecular-evolution/1996-March/004228.html

Quote:
"The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be
truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."




inexplicable...incapable of being accounted for or explained.


excerpt from the below...

Quote:
> > The sudden appearance of almost all the distinct organisms
> > belonging to all the different phyla in a geological instant at the
> > base of the Cambrian period, termed the Cambrian Explosion,
> > has not been explainable by the theory of evolution. The new
> > mechanism in fact predicts this scenario.
>
> I'm confused - if "higher taxa" have been around since very early, why
> is there no early fossil record for them?


Precisely! Your question is perfectly valid. Fossil record
actually shows evidence of the presence of all the higher taxa
from the very beginning of the multicellular life on earth.

When signs of multicellular life appear in the fossil record,
the conventional evolution theory demands that there be only
one original primitive creature that is supposed to be the
original ancestor of all life on earth, or, at the most few
creatures that are similar and related. But, to the absolute
contradiction of this thesis, numerous creatures that are
structurally so unique and unrelated appear almost
simultaneously at the base of the Cambrian period.
That is why this phenomenon is termed the Cambrian Explosion.

As you can see, the fossil record is totally upside down to what
one would expect based on the conventional theory of evolution.
For your information, this actually bothered Darwin so much that
he said in his Origin of Species: :

"The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be
truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."


notice it is called an explosion and not a multi billion year process as should be required by evolution to produce the animals that were found in the fosils...

I didnt make this stuff up .

professors of evolution did.

biologist , geologist , and darwin did.

now am I wrong for drawing attention to what these have stated
concerning the cambrian explosion?

is it wrong to use the truth when speaking about evolution?

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29720 - 03/08/09 03:18 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
tff

Quote:
facts are irrelevant to non-scientific creationists.


I think you have that backwards , it should read that FACTS are only FACTS when the FACTS support evolution , otherwise the FACTS are not FACTS.

lets hear your scientific view on how the cambrian explosion occured !

or has that particular occurance ALSO been swept under the rug by evolutionist?

this is where you would end the thread by saying that , well evolution doesnt have the answers for everything , right !
and you dont participate any further knowing full well that
you just dont have a foundation to build on.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29721 - 03/08/09 06:42 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Well, statements are not facts just because creationists call them facts.

Before we move on to the cambrian, we need to make sure you understand that Nebraska Man was not an evil hoax perpetrated by scientists, but was a perfect case of science working the way it should.

Top
#29723 - 03/08/09 08:14 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
It would be a good idea to follow up this discussion in an evolution thread. We don't need to further hijack this thread which is about the megaliths.

Top
#29724 - 03/08/09 03:00 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
tff

Quote:

Well, statements are not facts just because creationists call them facts.


agreed and also, statements are not facts just because evolutionists call them facts.


Quote:

Before we move on to the cambrian, we need to make sure you understand that Nebraska Man was not an evil hoax perpetrated by scientists, but was a perfect case of science working the way it should.


evil or not , perpetrated or not , history shows the Nebraska Man as our first pig ancestor
and from 1922 to 1927 evoloution depicted him this way in pictures , in books , in literature.

and all from a single pigs tooth !!!


Quote:

but was a perfect case of science working the way it should.


I think not , science does not incorporate such erroneous conclusions , science is founded
on fact not presumtion as is common place in evoloution.

evoloution cannot be a science for this reason , because evoloution is founded on presumtion.

the cambrian is solid evidence of creation and is a solid foundation of actual scientific fosilized data.

which brings us back to the cambrian explosion and evoloutions hapless attempts to disreguard scientific findings reguarding the inexistant links to pre cambrian life ,
links that are not found.

ie..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/3/text_pop/l_033_28.html

Quote:
Paleontologists now know that the Precambrian actually did swarm with living creatures, and it was swarming more than 3.85 billion years ago. The earliest evidence of life comes from the southwestern coast of Greenland. There are no fossils to be found there



http://www.accessexcellence.org/BF/bf02/lipps/



Quote:
These fossils appear simultaneously on all continents, except Antarctica, and each assemblage contains roughly the same kinds. This appearance is still about 700-300 million years later than the molecular data suggest that animals originated, leaving an enormous period of time without a fossil record.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29725 - 03/08/09 04:37 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
The fact that non-scientists incorporated junk science into a book is not an indictment of science. Nebraska Man never informed scientific theory. Scientists can't control what non-scientists do. The non-scientific journalists and writers are always jumping the gun. The best science can do is try to clear things up - which it DID in the case of Nebraska Man.

"
I think not , science does not incorporate such erroneous conclusions , science is founded
on fact not presumtion as is common place in evoloution."

Once again you demonstrate a thorough misunderstanding about what science is and how it works. Science very commonly "incorporates erroneous conclusions." Scientists do not claim that science is truth. It's a search for truth that "incorporates" a principle for finding its way out of error.



Top
#29726 - 03/08/09 06:09 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
science does not incorporate such erroneous conclusions


erroneous ... containing or characterized by error
conclusions ... an intuitive assumption; "jump to a conclusion"

Quote:
Science very commonly "incorporates erroneous conclusions."


data gathering and scientific testing of data to arrive at conclusions concerning that data is not incorporating erroneous conclusions !!!

however knowing that you are an evoloutionist explains how you would sudgest that science would incorporate such extravagant leisures in their quest for the truth.

and although evoloution is only a science for the belivers or followers of evoloution it is in no way a science to science
and to science evoloution seems more of a cultist uprising than a interlocking mechanism of itself.

mainly because science is built upon a solid foundation , something that evoloution does not have.

and just like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link science will never fully accept evoloution as fact because evoloutions weakest link is creation.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29731 - 03/08/09 11:05 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...


"data gathering and scientific testing of data to arrive at conclusions concerning that data is not incorporating erroneous conclusions !!!"
You don't know anything about science. Erroneous conclusions are incorporated all the time. That's why all science is tentative. You "like" science and you want to believe that your cultic beliefs are supported by it, but you don't actually understand it.

"mainly because science is built upon a solid foundation"
Solid foundation does not mean "truth." The solid foundation of science are not the facts of science, but the operating principles. You have a comic book understanding of science. Really.

Top
#29732 - 03/08/09 11:48 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Paul- There was once a 'solid foundation' amongst scientific knowledge of the day, that the earth was flat, that miasma caused disease, that space travel was impossible---and many more. Science can only penetrate within the narrow confines of contemporary human knowledge because science is the interpretation of natural phenomena and the discovery of how it all fits together by scientists (ie humans ) alive at the time. Cures, theories and discoveries follow the curiosity of the human researcher- so errors do occur. No science is set in concrete, all discoveries etc. are subject to later research, all worthwhile discoveries evolve.

Whilst science tries to find 'truth', it never assumes, as do you, that once a suggestion seems to provide a solution it is the only possible answer, and thus the only possible 'truth'. Instead a scientist uses the emerging truth as a pointer for further research and knowledge. Maybe that is the 'operating principle' as suggested by FF-- I don't know, I am not a scientist, but it seems possible to me.


Edited by Ellis (03/09/09 02:40 AM)
Edit Reason: typo as usual

Top
#29733 - 03/08/09 11:49 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
And PS--- those stone things were not built to anchor Noah's Ark---- the QE2 perhaps?

Top
#29734 - 03/09/09 12:38 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
And PS--- those stone things were not built to anchor Noah's Ark---- the QE2 perhaps?


ahem...

Quote:
No science is set in concrete, all discoveries etc. are subject to later research, all worthwhile discoveries evolve.

Whilst science tries to find 'truth', it never assumes,




Quote:
those stone things were not built to anchor Noah's Ark


is the above a assumption or is there any feasible evidence to support your conclusion?



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29735 - 03/09/09 12:51 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Paul- There was once a 'solid foundation' amongst scientistific knowledge of the day, that the earth was flat, that miasma caused disease, that space travel was impossible
and that man evolved from apes


yes I agree and I have included some needed info.


Quote:
once a suggestion seems to provide a solution it is the only possible answer


where is the sudgestion you are refering to?

Quote:
Instead a scientist uses the emerging truth as a pointer for further research and knowledge


Im sorry I dont see it that way , what I find to be common place in the evolutionist community (those who claim be be evoloutionist) is deliberate refusal to accept any evidence that would conflict with the theory of evolution.

perhaps since tff seems reluctant to express his view on the cambrian explosion , you might let me know your view.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29736 - 03/09/09 01:13 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
tff

Quote:
Solid foundation does not mean "truth." The solid foundation of science are not the facts of science, but the operating principles. You have a comic book understanding of science. Really.


do you read the things you write?

NO !! You have a comic book understanding of science.

to listen to what you assume science to be tells me that
you believe that science is founded on lies , it is not !!

I will agree that some paid science does incorporate deciept.

but paid science for the purpose of deciept is not true science.

Quote:
operating principles


principles ... A personal and cultural value is a relative ethic value, an assumption upon which implementation can be extrapolated.

procedure ... operation: a process or series of acts especially of a practical or mechanical nature involved in a particular form of work; "the operations in building a house"; "certain machine tool operations"


I could understand that if what you are refering to is the
opperating procedures involved in data gathering , but principles
opens a wide range of possibilities that might or might not deliver a truth .

science does not deal in personal ethics , those who perform science have their own personal principles wether their personal principles control the manner in which they gather data should not play a role.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29737 - 03/09/09 02:45 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Paul wrote:
"science does not deal in personal ethics , those who perform science have their own personal principles wether their personal principles control the manner in which they gather data should not play a role."

This is true of the way we decide most things in life. Most of us muddle along making decisions that impact on other people positively, but sometimes we run amok. Scientists are no different--what is your point?

Top
#29739 - 03/09/09 03:02 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
lylwik Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 05/16/07
Posts: 17
Why do the creationists focus on the relatively obscure Nebraska Man when there are many other better known hoaxes from the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century, such as Piltdown Man or the Solid Muldoon? (Pleae help me think of other examples.) I'm not trying to impune motives. I'm just curious. I have always thought these hoaxes were a sign that science had finally become an equivalent of religion in the popular brain and had developed its own Relics.

I also think that a difference between evolution and Creationism (capitalization intentional) is that science must go where the unfolding evidence leads it. Those of us who right now think evolution is probably the correct interpretation of the evidence might possibly be disappointed to learn the evidence pointed elsewhere, but I hope not. I hope we would not want to pillory those whose ideas are in the ascendent. But I think that there might lie a difference of mindset and flexibility.

Also, kids, see how many mistakes you can find in the "Daily Mail" article that started all this. A hint: one of them involves pigs.

Happy hunting!

--lylwik


Edited by lylwik (03/09/09 03:05 AM)
Edit Reason: clarification

Top
#29741 - 03/09/09 10:14 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: paul
Redewenur

Im not sure why you wrote all you did either , all I said was...

Quote:
if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory , then the theory would remain intact would it not?


is there something wrong with the wording that I cannot find?

You either missed or evaded the point - a point much better expressed by tff, whose efforts have, nonetheless, proven equally futile.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.