BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 06:33 AM

"This is a plan, a huge distraction to keep you from doing real work somewhere in the world that might actually make a difference."

Well, it's backfired. I find Pete is an excellent teacher, as he helps me construct arguments and understand what I'm talking about as I often go and check the primary source to be sure I'm not talking bollocks.

It doesn't hurt to check-in with the extremists every now and then, see what lies they're propagating and what petty evil they are peddling. These people want to teach this bilge as science in our schools, and that cannot be allowed to happen, as the next thing they'll be segregating the sexes and shooting schoolgirls who only want equality and an education (remember most of the religions to have come out of the middle east in the past few thousand years are deeply misogynistic).

It's frustrating talking with the likes of Pete, but in the end he unwittingly is helping me become a better scientist, and for that I'm grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 01:33 AM

Keep up with all of the shit you pump out? Sorry, I have a real job.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 07:30 PM

Does it occur to any of you who are offering evidence in the hope that might get through Pete's flat-earth skull that you're just wasting your time? He is a bot, generating enough speech-as-a-response to keep you engaged, always calling for more evidence from you. This is a plan, a huge distraction to keep you from doing real work somewhere in the world that might actually make a difference.

SRS

Oh yes, Ms Mod, it has occurred to some of us. Yet, when those "some of us" tell pete and his silly ilk where's it's really at, we don't half get it in the bloody neck from you mods. Cast out the plank, eh what? Alternatively, get yerself a proper job, as we say down yer, rather dreckly, in Kernow. Alternatively again, try to keep up with the threads you hate so bloody much. Some of us seem to manage it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 05:29 PM

strangely enough, I thought it was Nye who used the lots of challenges method. ham rather majored on explaining the difference between operational, observable science, and origins science.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 05:03 PM

"I am curious though, as to whether when you quote creationists ,if you have read their books either , or just garnered your quotes from Naig or suchlike atheist/evolutionism sites."

I'm well-versed in the religious side of the argument as I was raised a christian and was still attending church in my teens.


"I am aware that there have been fossils that have been offered as transitional but I don't know which are still current"

This was discussed earlier. No excuses there.


"so though I might be "quote mining" I am not lying/ bearing false witness."

You're misrepresenting people's arguments to fit your own narrative. Again.

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 01:03 PM

thankyou for providing a full quote , but as it appears to have come after [I am open to correction on this] his admission of lack of transitional fossils, the latter complaint looks like damage control imo.
I am aware of his evolution by jerks theory, and that this is the context he was speaking in. I fail to see however why that diminishes the force of the argument. it seems that he and eldridge developed their theory because of the failure of gradualism to vindicate [ I believe ] darwins expectations of future discovery of gradualistic fossils.
I am aware that there have been fossils that have been offered as transitional but I don't know which are still current ,as opposed to those in the evolution bin.
and I am a little confused as to whether you's are advocating that there is continuous evident gradual transition, or that there are large gaps , but with a few periods of closer transition.
lets be clear,...I am not claiming to have read these evolution books [though I have read some of the articles linked here] so though I might be "quote mining" I am not lying/ bearing false witness.
I am curious though, as to whether when you quote creationists ,if you have read their books either , or just garnered your quotes from Naig or suchlike atheist/evolutionism sites.
rob,...I agree that the granite melting is a problem for creationists, as appeal to the supernatural is all that can currently be offered. but bear in mind that the RATE report did admit problems as well as the evidences of diverse dates from different methods.
also, I had no problem finding a review of RATE by oard on cmi that included the problems.
and if evolutionists can have research problems, why cant creationists?
other than blind prejudice that is!.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 12:16 PM

SRS....in over 20 years of on-and-off debating with creationists, I've seen a number of them eventually change their minds. I think Pete is probably a lost cause however....in fact,I'd be happy if I could persuade him to move away from only performing his self-penned evangelical songs at the sessions we both occasionally (in my case these days,very occasionally) attend.

In fact, these posts are a bit of light relief from my "real" work that I hope is making a real difference in the world of geophysics and geomatics! I only post when I have spare time as you might note from the gaps above.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 12:06 PM

Pete: rob,...I am far from convinced that the examples you quote demonstrate any intentional deception.

What WOULD it take to convince you, Pete? How on EARTH could someone pick through a paragraph to take a single sentence right out of context and then elide it to a second sentence 3 paragraphs below it on order to come up with a quote which bears no relation to the author's original intention UNLESS it was done with a deliberate intention to deceive?

I have no doubt that similar examples could be collected from evolutionist writings, apart from some well known frauds like Piltdown and hacklyes embryonic drawings [ which persisted long after exposure].

Very little, compared with the masses of creationist deceptions I've seen (and I've been looking into this on and off since the very early 1990s). And the scientists are generally self-correcting! Was it creationists who pointed out that Piltdown Man was a hoax? No, it was scientists, doing actual science, who showed that the evidence that it was a hoax was beyond reasonable doubt.It was presented in 1912 and as early as 1913 was being challenged as being a compilation of ape and human fragments.By the time it was completely proven to be a forgery in 1953, almost all reputable experts in the field had concluded years before that it was fake.

so many top creation scientist liars.....I suppose it is possible.

It's not only possible, but it's been shown many times that almost all the top creationists have lied and distorted deliberately. Some of them have even lied about their "science" credentials.

maybe that's why they wont publicly debate top evolutionist scientists........oh, actually, it is the other way round.

Real scientists won't debate (usually) creationists in public debates for 2 main reasons:

1) because some consider that it gives an unwarranted aura of respectability to creationism that real scientists are willing to debate the issue....many just think it's so laughable that there's actually nothing TO debate

and

2) that the sort of "quick fire" rhetoric that is used in such debates is no place to properly show the flaws of creationism...the creationist makes dozens of quick points which are flawed, misquotes, or plain wrong and unless the opposition debater has had prior knowledge of what those points are,it's impossible to rebut them effectively live on-stage.

There's even a phrase for the technique. It's called the "Gish Gallop", as the "bamboozle them with hundreds of not-quite-facts" technique was developed by Duane Gish.

Take the recent Ham/Nye debate....Ham rushed through several sets of slides showing geologic columns or evolutionary trees and made completely inaccurate claims about what he was showing and what it meant....but he did it at such a rate that it was hard to actually perceive what he was doing "live"....you needed to go through slowly a replay of it and then analyse his slides in some detail to show where he was bullshitting. Something that Nye had no opportunity to do live on stage.

Stage debate is a ridiculous was to analyse the evidence for and against scientific hypotheses or theories. Detailed analysis ir required....which is what *creationists* are terrified of.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 11:37 AM

Does it occur to any of you who are offering evidence in the hope that might get through Pete's flat-earth skull that you're just wasting your time? He is a bot, generating enough speech-as-a-response to keep you engaged, always calling for more evidence from you. This is a plan, a huge distraction to keep you from doing real work somewhere in the world that might actually make a difference.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 11:30 AM

Pete: gould was an expert and he said that "the lack of transitional fossils remains the trade secret of paleontology"
fudduci is a bird expert and he don't give no credence to the dino connection.
neither of these are creationists. you may say they are wrong but unless they are liars, they are giving their scholarly opinions.

You're indulging in the same out-of-context quote-mining as your gurus here. Or perhaps you're once again just repeating what's on creationist sites without going back to the original quotes to see whether they're contextually accurate? Gould was not a liar, but he WAS famously upset and frustrated by creationist liars taking one or two sentences of his writings completely out of context in order deliberately to mis-represent his opinions. Which is what you (or the site you got it from) has done here.

As for "Fudduci": who is he? Google returns no results for that name linked to brids or ornithology.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 08:42 AM

...Gould. Have you [pete] ever actually read any of his books?

Is that a joke or a rhetorical question, Stu?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 07:51 AM

"congratulations, stu, for getting to the point where you feel that you can pronounce authoritatively on origins science having worked up from humble beginnings."

Nice. I'm not bragging, and I don't need congrats from creationists, all I'm trying to point out is anyone can do anything if they put the effort in, no matter what others think. I don't speak from authority at all (and would never presume to), but I know more than you do on this particular subject.

"gould was an expert and he said that "the lack of transitional fossils remains the trade secret of palaeontology"

As has already been mentioned, you are misrepresenting Gould. Have you ever actually read any of his books? You do realise this is tantamount to lying? You are bearing false witness?


"fudduci is a bird expert and he don't give no credence to the dino connection."

Alan Feduccia is an ornithologist and not a palaeontologist or evolutionary biologist and has become increasingly isolated due to his refusal to actually engage with the evidence. In reality he's become irrelevant, which in some ways is not great as he is an accomplished scientist but is sticking to an idea he can't, for whatever reason, abandon. Of course he might be right, but current evidence is so robust about the origin of birds it would take a lot of new fossils and new molecular evidence to alter the present hypothesis, and I can't see that happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 07:04 AM

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record - geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

There's also the suggestion that the relatively brief time periods in which evolution was proceeding more rapidly, in the way you suggest, might have coincided with cataclysmic changes in climate and geology (implying a bit of cause and effect too) that would have been less conducive to fossilisation processes taking place undisturbed. The fossil record in transitional periods may be even more incomplete than for more stable periods, creating the illusion of a relative lack of "transitional forms".

We don't know, pete, but, unlike you and your unsavoury horde, we're putting some honest thought into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 04:44 AM

"fudduci is a bird expert and he don't give no credence to the dino connection."

So? I don't know who "fudduci" is but if he's a reputable scientist, of course he's entitled to his opinion - and also entitled to defend it in the peer reviewed literature.

But as you well know, pete (or should know by now) the difference between reputable evolutionary biologists and creationists is that the latter are religious fundamentalists who believe that they are in possession of absolute truth. Unfortunately for them, the findings of modern science completely undermines their certainty - so they feel the need to go on the attack. In doing so they (and you, their slavish acolyte) use dishonest tactics such as false logic, quote mining, misdirection and outright deceit. I don't need to be an evolutionary biology specialist to know which side I'm on!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual Scientist
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 03:35 PM

In fact, let's add even more context from Gould (Hens' Teeth and Horses' Toes, 1983):

"[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common - and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [...deleted discussion of therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species that appear in an unbroken sequence of progressively more modern physiology...]

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record - geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual Scientist
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 03:23 PM

pete

Stephen Jay Gould will rise from the grave and haunt you if you continue to quotemine him and completely misrepresent his views. He was clearly talking about punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism - both are theories of *evolution*.

Here is a full quote from SJG:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 02:53 PM

anyone else similar to me , but that happens to be evolutionist[sic]...

Yet another oxymoron, pete

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 12:46 PM

congratulations, stu, for getting to the point where you feel that you can pronounce authoritatively on origins science having worked up from humble beginnings.
you can of course have no idea as to whether I am lazy or not, and I shall not lose any sleep over your opinion. what I suspect, is that anyone else similar to me , but that happens to be evolutionist would be counted as intelligent by you.
gould was an expert and he said that "the lack of transitional fossils remains the trade secret of paleontology"
fudduci is a bird expert and he don't give no credence to the dino connection.
neither of these are creationists. you may say they are wrong but unless they are liars, they are giving their scholarly opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 11:28 AM

its' a poor excuse for laziness.

And a wors eexcuse for self-inflicted abysmal ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 10:34 AM

"I would probably always be below yours and robs education in your respective disciplines."

I don't buy that; its' a poor excuse for laziness. You could easily be beyond my education, and you have zero idea of my background (which is as humble as it gets when it comes to education). What stops you is putting in the effort, plain and simple.

"that is why I must resort to the experts to substantiate even my non technical arguments"

You're filtering your choice of "experts" to fit your world view. Rob is an expert, and you don't believe him.

Non-technical arguments? You are choosing to argue that way because you can't be arsed to put any effort into learning.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 04:05 AM

"so many top creation scientist liars.....I suppose it is possible."

Possible!!?? Well, of course, in the real world, nothing is absolutely certain but I think, pete, in the case of 'creation scientists' I would suggest that we're tending towards the 'very probable' end of the spectrum. And, of course, if you knew anything about science, you would know that you CAN'T be a creationist AND a scientist!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:36 AM

stu, I am certainly not here to wind anyone up. if any winding up is being done, I venture that this what some others are doing, or trying to. to some extent you are right that I am arguing from ignorance, but even were I to start studying peer reviewed papers I would probably always be below yours and robs education in your respective disciplines. that is why I must resort to the experts to substantiate even my non technical arguments. I must admit that it is nice to be able to quote evolutionist scientists as well as creationists to that end.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:20 AM

so the pack of laughing hyenas gather to pick the bones off the rabbit after the eagle swoops.....
rob,...I am far from convinced that the examples you quote demonstrate any intentional deception. I have no doubt that similar examples could be collected from evolutionist writings, apart from some well known frauds like Piltdown and hacklyes embryonic drawings [ which persisted long after exposure].
so many top creation scientist liars.....I suppose it is possible.
maybe that's why they wont publicly debate top evolutionist scientists........oh, actually, it is the other way round.
well it is certainly very disappointing if such widespread deception is proven, but it has occurred to me since, that you have moved the goalposts much wider than the original position.
the criticisms of the song details are pretty pedantic, and attacking arguments not contained therein.
I have rechecked a number of non creation mungo sites and I am essentially correct.
I will make some minor changes, but that different scientists using different methods arrived at divergent dating is agreed on, and that there is still not universal agreement, though granting that the 40 thousand mark seems most agreed on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:41 PM

Sounds like you've been duped, bamboozled and brainwashed by experts, pete!

No experts needed - rank amateurs would be amply sufficient with pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM

"You say that you "doubt" those accusations but have so far shown no inclination to follow them up.

If I take the trouble to point you at proof of dishonesty of such people as Walker, Ham, Hovind, Woodmorappe etc, will you acutally take the trouble to look at the proofs?"

Of course he won't!

If God himself told Pete that evolution theory was correct, he would simply refuse to believe it and start quoting the very same dishonest clowns you mention to rebut what God was telling him.

No amount of evidence has the penetrating power to pierce through the adamantine wall of ignorance in which he has wrapped himself in protecting his lunatic religious nuttery.

If he can cherry pick a path through the contradictions in the bible and come out the other end believing it is literal truth, he is beyond persuasion by rational argument. Facts, reason and truth bounce off his delusional certainty.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 12:41 PM

"However, what Woody fails to say anywhere is that he is QUOTING HIMSELF. John Woodmorappe is a pen-name of Jan Peczkis!!!!"


Sounds like you've been duped, bamboozled and brainwashed by experts, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 11:25 AM

if there's a chance you'll actually check into any of them!

Pete? Absolutely no chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:12 AM

"stu...."...guess we've finished talking about....."
I believe you were talking about phylogeny in relation to avian/dino.
perhaps you want to talk about giraffes neck nerves instead?
maybe I will look that up too. it might be another evolutionary assumption!"

Pete, I think you're trying it on mate. I was addressing the points you made in your previous post, which I'm guessing you're fully aware of. Your arguments are disingenuous and dishonest and often insulting, but if you're only about avoiding the issue and winding me up then fine. You might fool some of the more gullible religious types on this site, but then their tacit acceptance of you as some sort of 'good bloke' despite a penchant for insulting honest working scientists doesn't reflect too well on them either. I've debated here as someone with a genuine interest and passion for what I do, not to denigrate others. You've been a good teacher in one sense Pete, but I'm getting very busy studying dinosaurs.

One more thing. If you want to debate science you need to put some genuine effort into finding out what you're talking about. Do you know if you creationist website is lying to you Rob's comments and excellent link (prediction: you will address none of the points raised in that link in any meaningful way) show, the subject demands some research if you wish to dentate it. You must read peer-reviewed papers to get a handle on any of these subjects, and without putting that effort in you're debating from a position of ignorance. You don't have to agree with their methodology or conclusions but you do have to say why they are wrong and why. This is the bread and butter of science, and all scientists are avid readers of peer-reviewed papers.

I'm guessing you won't, but then I'm also guessing you're here to wind people up. Best of luck.


Everyone else: This month's Fortean Times has an interesting article but a chap who apparently teaches ancient Hebrew and argues the translation of Genesis is deeply flawed and the myth of Noah has been utterly misunderstood. I don't know of the veracity of his argument or his authority to speak on such matters, but it's with a cursory glance if nothing else, as the actual story is a rather delightful myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 09:57 PM

Pete,

I will, once I'm back in UK, put together a set of DOCUMENTED instances where some of your gurus have been shown without doubt to have knowingly lied or to have continued using as if true (moon dust,bombardier beetle, population growth curves etc) "evidence" that they have known to have been thoroughly discredited for years after they've been proved incorrect.

You say that you "doubt" those accusations but have so far shown no inclination to follow them up.

If I take the trouble to point you at proof of dishonesty of such people as Walker, Ham, Hovind, Woodmorappe etc, will you acutally take the trouble to look at the proofs?

I'll give you one taster: Woodmorappe, for example, in his article on home schooling science at: Woodmorappe Home Schooling Article

Quotes Charles Darwin as saying in a letter to Charles Lyell:

"If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish . . . I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.

In fact, the full context of Darwin's letter for the *first* part of this quote is:

We must under present knowledge assume the creation of one or of a few forms,—in same manner as philosophers assume the existence of a power of attraction, without any explanation. But I entirely reject as in my judgment quite unnecessary any subsequent addition "of new powers, & attributes & forces"; or of any "principle of improvement", except in so far as every character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected.If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish. But I have firm faith in it, as I cannot believe that if false it would explain so many whole classes of facts, which if I am in my senses it seems to explain. As far as I understand your remarks & illustrations, you doubt the possibility of gradations of intellectual powers.

And then there's another 3 paragraphs before the second part of Woodmorappe's quote. So the first part of Woody's quote is not related at all to the second part, and when seen in context, is not actually arguing the point that Woody implies he is arguing at all.

This quote-mining by Woody *has* to be dishonest...he's had to selectively omit several sentences around the first part of his quote and then search down through 3 paragraphs to find a "closing" sentence and elide the two together to make it seem as if Darwin is saying something quite different from what he actually is. HOW is this NOT dishonest? You say you "doubt" the accusations but this one is a matter of record.

Also, in the same article, Woodmorappe quotes "Illinois High School teacher Jan Peczkis" as saying: The misconception that evolution works towards a pre-determined goal is held by many high school and college students. This is understandable because evolution is an abstractand generally non-observable phenomenon, and living things do seem well-designed for their environments.

Which is fine....possibly a lot of high school students *might* think this until they've had their misconception corrected by decent teaching.

However, what Woody fails to say anywhere is that he is QUOTING HIMSELF. John Woodmorappe is a pen-name of Jan Peczkis!!!! It's fine to have a pen-name but it's NOT fine to then quote yourself as if quoting someone else without coming clean.

It's also strange that when you look at Peczkis's writings, he appears to write from a viewpoint of an "Old Earth" geology, whereas when he writes as Woodmorappe, he's a Young Earth creationist. There's a link to Woody's biography in the article I linked above, and nowhere there does it mention that the YEC John Woodmorappe is in fact an alter-ego of OEC Jan Peczkis:
Peczkis Biog

This is "smoke and mirrors" all through, and just one example of literally dozens I can give you where your "top" creationist gurus distort, bend and plain lie.

As I said, more later if there's a chance you'll actually check into any of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:12 PM

No, pete- the victory is rationality's.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:01 PM

that's a lot of reading ,rob, and a lot of accusations of dishonesty, and though I am inclined to doubt those accusations, and i can check out whatever significant inaccuracies there may be in the song, I will undertake to drop it. for the time being, at least the victory is yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 09:47 AM

You are either an idiot or intentionally misunderstanding to misrepresent science...

Now, now, boys. Whay can't pete be BOTH?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:13 AM

I stand in awe of Rob Naylor's demolition of your song, pete!

"the "faithful certainly do think they are in possession of absolute truth" but in your case you can shift the details around when the last evolutionary proof falls foul of subsequent discovery."

I can only repeat 'Guest, Actual's' remark above (under normal circumstances such a remark could be regarded as 'intemperate' - but under the present circumstances it is, in my opinion, relatively restrained):

"That is fucking how fucking science works you fucking idiot!!!!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual...
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 11:34 PM

but in your case you can shift the details around when the last evolutionary proof falls foul of subsequent discovery.

Hayzeuss phoquing kreist pete!

Of course!!!! You are either an idiot or intentionally misunderstanding to misrepresent science (and therefore an idiot).

That is fucking how fucking science works you fucking idiot!!!!!!

Sorry.


NOT

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 08:06 PM

read this with an unbiased mind:

Pete? No chance of either reading it OR having an unbiased mind. Or for that matter, a functioning mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 07:55 PM

Well I've still not had time to do a proper job on this....I'm currently looking into some extremely complex geology in Siberia that could in no way have been produced over either 6000 years *or* via a global flood...well, not without "god" laying down some kilometres of false evidence purely to deceive people! Anyway, so far:


Mungo Man

When you play the dating game
it is'nt what it seems
understanding technique
you could be reading reams
(well you don't seem to either understand technique OR "read reams" to try and understand it)
think they got it cut an dried
(science rarely "thinks it's got it cut and dried....the method involves continuous refinement)
then they hit a snag
thought it done an dusted
but it is not in the bag
(only as far as people who refuse to learn either what the scientific method entails or what the techniques themselves involve)
the dry flat plain where once a lake
presenting now a different sight
new South Wales Australia
a semi arid desert blight
skeletal fragments,crushed and burnt
suggest, perhaps a burial rite
find was tagged lake mungo one
but more than this would come to light
interpreted as female
and c14 dated
nineteen thousand yr on bone
and to this related
soft tissue test was older yet
twenty five thou seven hundred stated
(LM 1 was initially dated 19,000 +/- 1200 and collagen test was 24,700 +/- 1500... NOT 25,700 dead as you state)
oldest human burial claim
but it gets more complicated

chorus, do mungo man fit mungo woman
in their ages an their places in the dating game
will they ever reach a resolution, when the dating they been given is not the same…..
they can push back the past, they can change their mind…
participating in the dating game.
(Yep, Pete, science can change its mind when more evidence, or better methodology, comes along....unlike religion!)

Testing done on nearby charcoal
gave an age, being older yet
mungo woman lay just below this.
(Well this is one ot Tas Walker's red herrings....the skeleton had been BURIED so it's absolutely no surprise that it came out younger than a hearth in a layer above it....where's the problem in that? If you had a barbecue on the grass in your garden in 2000 and in 2010 buried your dead dog 3 feet down then, strangely, the
corpse of the dog, although it died later, would be at a lower level in the strata of your garden than the charcoal remains of your barbie!)
thus the dating must be reset
she was found in 69
but forward now yr 74
mungo man find same sand bed
assume same dating,that's for sure.
( the initial dating of LM3 was done by stratigraphic comparison with LM1. This was an initial approximation pending being able to run tests on the actual remains so was never thought of as being "definitive")
a man called bowler, another called Thorne
unearth together, mungo find
but as the course of yrs fly by.
togetherness is less inclined
bowler used in 98
thermoluminesence test.
42 thousand yr was read
older yet he thought it best.
(Actually, the thermoluminescence test came up with a range of "older than 24,600 +/- 2,500 and younger than 43,300 +/- 3,800, or a possible spread from 22,200 to 47,100. an earlier spin resonance test done in 1987 came up with 31,000 +/- 7,000 or a spread from 24,000 to 38,000. All the tests mentioned so far overlap when their
error bars are properly allowed for)
former c 14 date
supposed correct and best obtained
set aside in favour of one with much more zeros gained
then it was in 99
Thorne and other scientists
comprehensive study making
62 thousand yr insist
sampling done on bone and sand
as other tastings were employed
mungo man gaining greater age
but bowler thought it null and void
bowler would not toe the party line
( Bowler was not "not toeing the party line"....it was Thorne's testing that employed some dubious techniques. Bowler and Magee highlighted these mistakes and pretty much destroyed Thorne's conclusions. The vast majority of reputable people working in the field agreed with Bowler and Magee, and Thorne was unable to properly answer their critique of his results...actually, this is how science is done: you put your research, results and methodology up for peer review and it either stands up or it doesn't. In this case Thorne's dating was shown beyond reasonable doubt to be wrong)
claiming complex lab results
must agree with former field work
this agreement difficult.
( No, as I said above, he and Magee showed the flaws in Thorne's methodology by proper analysis....not simply "claiming that lab result must agree with fieldwork". That's the kind of thing creationists do)
dating game is so uncertain.   
Not as sure as some suggest
they may argue on the detail
but as you may have guessed.
any other doubt is simply unexpressed.
What other doubt? That we have here some very old burials? I think the evidence for that is absolutely beyond reasonable doubt)

The latest dating has given results clustered around the 40,000 year mark. I've never looked at the papers for these tests and only know that 4 different methods were used, with techniques that were a considerable refinement from the earlier tests done.

With regard to using Tas Walker as a source, this is another one of your creationist gurus who's been caught out "quote mining" and bending results. In his Mungo Man article, Walker quotes Bowler and Magee as saying that Thorne's dating of LM3 was "commendable in intent". However, this is "quote-mining" and changes the sense of the quotation by omission....not the first time Walker has selectively mined bits of quotations to give an erroneous impression. The actual quotation from Bowler and Magee's paper reads: "Efforts by Thorne, whilst commendable in intent, are lacking in systematic treatment of the evidence". They then go on to demolish Thorne's 62,000 year date result by pointing out the errors in his methodology. A far cry from the initial tacit approval that Walker is suggesting they gave!

In much the same way, the RATE researchers we talked about before actually quote-mined their OWN paper to give the impression that their radioactive decay experiments validated a young earth whereas in their actual paper...which they assume that most creationists won't read, they admit that their results leave enormous problems and that the rate of radioactive decay required for a young earth would have meant the heat generated would have vapourised all the granite rock in the world. Their misleading quotes, rather than the actual results in their paper, are what are inevitably seen on creationist sites.

Your "gurus" have been caught out quote-mining, bending the truth and outright lying on hundreds of occasions. How, if you've ever looked at critiques of the points they make, where they've been proved to have knowingly lied time and again, you can still give credence to their pronouncements, is beyond me! Or maybe you *haven't* looked at evidence which proves they knowingly lie?

Walker has a very slim grasp of geology and archaeology . He's an electrical engineer by training and has strong form in deducing wrong-headed conclusions from ridiculous "evidence". ie his "analysis" of a 200 dpi deformed photo on a web page (which was used only for illustrative, rather than scientific, value) to "prove" his conclusions re paleosols.


You might want to read this with an unbiased mind:

Geology At 200dpi

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:58 PM

Could be what I meant, Greg. Need more Talisker.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:09 PM

deliberately-inflicted pig-ignorance

That's more properly SELF-inflicted pig-ignorance, Steve, which is considerably worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 12:31 PM

and it seems to me that when the latest evo evidence is heralded in the press, that there is little , if any, qualification about it being tentative

That's right, there won't be. Evidence is evidence. Conclusions from evidence may be tentative. Which is an entirely different matter. Not just that, I expect the evidence to be reported, not heralded.

Hey, pete, how does it feel to be basking proudly in the warm glow of deliberately-inflicted pig-ignorance, surrounded by decent, honest scientists who you so studiously ignore?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 12:20 PM

shimrod...I presume you did not read in context, as I was quoting stu, who claimed dino/bird connection was cut and dried but for the fine details.
the "faithful certainly do think they are in possession of absolute truth" but in your case you can shift the details around when the last evolutionary proof falls foul of subsequent discovery.
and it seems to me that when the latest evo evidence is heralded in the press, that there is little , if any, qualification about it being tentative, in view of the oft repeated assurance that does not do certainties.
we may not prove genesis, but there is plenty of evidence against the evolutionary story, when usual experimental science is applied.

stu...."...guess we've finished talking about....."
I believe you were talking about phylogeny in relation to avian/dino.
perhaps you want to talk about giraffes neck nerves instead?
maybe I will look that up too. it might be another evolutionary assumption!.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 07:24 AM

"..because the evidence for such relationships is almost always incomplete, most judgments of phylogenicity are based on indirect evidence and cautious speculation"


So I guess we've finished talking about non-avian and avian dinosaurs and we're now on sweeping generalisations culled from online dictionaries?


"what is so encouraging to me is that evolutionist believers themselves can be quoted admitting that it is far from cut and dried."

Well, unlike creationists scientists never claim to know everything; it's why we're scientists. Like I said earlier, we understand the phylogeny to a certain level, the data and hypothesis is very robust indeed but we are of course still working on it. In some ways it will never be "cut and dried" in the sense you mean because you are dealing in absolutes, which science never does.


"but seems to me that common design and variation within kinds explanation is just as valid"

Well, personal incredulity doesn't affect the empirical truth so in some ways what you or I believe is irrelevant. Common design is a new one on me. Is that nicked from common descent? The designer is a bit crap to be honest, as they've not really thought through the use of a single body plan for all vertebrates for instance, or not implemented it intelligently in any case. For instance, the designer's wiring is deeply flawed as the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve in a giraffe's neck demonstrates.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 04:11 PM

"what is so encouraging to me is that evolutionist believers themselves can be quoted admitting that it is far from cut and dried."

Of course it's not "cut and dried"! You're still confusing science and religious faith, pete! The faithful believe that they are in possession of the absolute truth. Scientists accept that they are rarely, if ever, in possession of the whole picture and that additional evidence can change the picture. Mind you, I very much doubt that evidence will come to light which 'proves' that Genesis was right all along!

"you believe in things fervently without evidence."

Nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 02:29 PM

interesting, shimrod, that you are"... getting cheesed off with all this religious nonsense"
1, no one makes you read or post on the subject.
2, it was not a creationist that started this or other recent posts on the subject
3 ".....religious faith is all to do with having a fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there is no evidence"   if that is true, then we have something in common since you believe in things fervently without evidence.

stu, this is from the concise encyclopedia   "..because the evidence for such relationships is almost always incomplete, most judgments of phylogenicity are based on indirect evidence and cautious speculation"
that don't quite read as cut and dried but for the fine detail imo.
so it seems to me that you may place organisms in a progression as though one leads to another, but that is only because other alternative explanation is a priori discounted.
you can , of course, resort to claiming that creation is uneducated nonsense, but seems to me that common design and variation within kinds explanation is just as valid, if not more so, than phylogenetic ideas. what is so encouraging to me is that evolutionist believers themselves can be quoted admitting that it is far from cut and dried.
oh...and I can quote Darwin as one of them, in his "searing honesty"!
but you are quite right about the wrong word....point to you!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 08:41 AM

Ah yes, the good old transitional fossil thingie. Chuck it in occasionally to give us a bit of variety in case we get bored with radio-isotope dating, "dino" soft tissue and irreducible complexity, eh? I reckon that if we had two identical creatures except that one had 72,361 hairs on its head whereas the other had 72,362, these morons would still be demanding transitional forms. A game definitely not worth the candle. Just tell 'em to read Origin, Stu (though they won't, of course). Darwin deals with the matter with his usual searing honesty, an attribute that pete and his sorry ilk are mortally afraid of.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 06:55 AM

That birds are dinosaurs is cut and dried, it's the fine details that aren't.


"a definite transitional alludes us"

That's another misrepresentation Pete. As I said, the transition is gradual, not confined to a single taxa and occurred over millions of years. We have lots and lots of 'transitional' fossils, the question is where to draw the dividing line between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. This is a taxonomic issue however and one we impose on the phylogeny to creature order, and to all intents and purposes there is no divide.

Also, it's "eludes".

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Apr 14 - 01:29 AM

Do creationists need bollocks?

If we started spontaneously, we do we need biological process and DNA shifts in the first place?

I suppose there is a difference between sprouting them and spouting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:24 PM

ONE HUNDRED

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 08:53 PM

thankyou, stu, for a more reasoned response than the other posters since my question

You wouldn't know what a "reasoned response" was if it jumped up and bit you on your creationist bollocks, dear boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 07:23 PM

well said shimrod

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 06:07 PM

"I will leave it to anyone looking in to determine if there was any constructive contribution from the above."

Well you see, pete, some of us are getting thoroughly cheesed off with all of this religion rubbish. Perhaps that's why our replies tend to be a little intemperate now and again. Why, even the other day, our very wonderful Prime Minister told us that the UK is a "Christian country" and we should be proud of that 'fact' ... or some such nonsense. After all, religious faith is all to do with having a fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence. We expect a few 'enthusiasts', such as yourself and your weird fundamentalist mates, to harbour such peculiar views ... but when the PM, who is supposed to be running the country, admits to such delusions it's seriously worrying. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised though, because the PM also harbours a fervent and unquestioning belief in something called the 'free market' - a pernicious load of codswallop which is currently destroying economies, societies and the environment - believing in God is small change compared to that!