BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread

Subject: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 06:15 PM

Well, the "Creationism" thread is closed due to a series of bickering one-liner name-calling posts, but I'd still like to see the lyrics of Pete's "Mungo Man" song posted here so I can comment on it properly.

How about it, Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 06:17 PM

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 09:33 AM

Try the Darwin's Wittnesses thread. Pete published the song lyrics there.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 01:18 PM

Here is the Darwin thread http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=153464&messages=205&page=4

CBA to make a blicky.

The song lyrics are not on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 01:22 PM

Publication? No!
Posted? Yes

Mudcat's posts are not peer-reviewed.   Hmmm, calling all peers....




(I must have MS spell-check operational. Mudcat gets the red underline. Mud cat is accepted.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:31 PM

Look, I've just been back to the thread, and pasted it ALL out to a "word" document, and searched for "mungo" "word" and "lyric". No sign of pete's song words. Maybe it's whatever the opposite of "creationism" is. "Decomposition" perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:35 PM

There was a cremationist thread that was closed down because of name calling and bickering ?

Since I am an advocate of  cremation, versus burial of the dead - I find the news of this Mudcat muzzling of after life viewpoints most disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:49 PM

Q, you can add it to your spell check dictionary.

Pete mentioned the song in the cretinist thread, but apparently never posted the lyrics there. (Read: I can't find 'em)

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:16 PM

Pete mentioned the song in the cretinist thread....

Now, we're getting to the heart f the matter. Those who espouse creatioais bullshit are, indeed, cretins.

Thanks, Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:26 PM

Is 'creatioais' French?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:33 PM

""Studies in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise found that muscle fibers grow when a person takes creatine.""

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:35 PM

It's Mungo, Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:09 PM

What, no Griddle, bone?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 05:09 PM

s 'creatioais' French?

Oui. And its also 14 karat bullshit.

Get a grip, Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 07:11 PM

Guest: Try the Darwin's Wittnesses thread. Pete published the song lyrics there.

No he didn't.

Still waiting, Pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 07:24 PM

French conjugation

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 09:11 PM

My apologies, Rob.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 09:59 PM

No worries Guest. I hope Pete will "put his words where his convictions are" but not holding my breath for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:44 AM

Actually, I did post some of same yesterday, but for some reason the post is not received,lost,deleted......dunno!            When you play the dating game...it is,nt what it seems....understanding technique....you could be reading reams......think they got it cut an dried.....then they hit a snag.....thought it done an dusted.....but it is not in the bag......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.....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..............will try do more later assuming it takes this time and a civil discussion..........................................................................................observations, you were angry but were apparently unable to recall anything specific in the song that excited your anger!?............most of the song relates to essentially the facts, which I x checked on wiki etc.   any complaint against that ,I think would be superficial. The conclusions in the intro,outro,chorus follow from the facts. There is some word play in same.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 07:29 AM

Part two.       Testing done on nearby charcoal....gave an age, being older yet....mungo woman lay just below this....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............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.........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....claiming complex lab results....must agree with former field work.....this agreement difficult..............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.                            Civil discussion welcomed, any other may be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:51 AM

French conjugation

Huh? And here's me thinking there were only 69 positions...

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 09:15 AM

What on earth are you trying to say, pete? Science progresses by formulating a hypothesis and testing it. If the tests show the hypothesis to be incorrect then it must be reformulated. Your problem with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 10:36 AM

Reads like rap.

Seems to be a c missing somewhere. Can you help me find it?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 10:59 AM

Not in agreement with the sentiments, but in the interest of making the lyrics readable:

I leave it to pete to provide correct stanza separation and punctuation.




Mungo Man

When you play the dating game
it is,nt what it seems
understanding technique
you could be reading reams
think they got it cut an dried
then they hit a snag
thought it done an dusted
but it is not in the bag
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
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.

Testing done on nearby charcoal
gave an age, being older yet
mungo woman lay just below this.
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.
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.
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
claiming complex lab results
must agree with former field work
this agreement difficult.
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 12:40 PM

Blimey.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 12:42 PM

We should enter him in The Eurovision Song Contest!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 03:20 PM

OK, I can't do anything about the scansion, but…



Mungo Man

When you play the dating game it isn't what it seems
understanding technique you could be reading reams
think they got it cut and dried then they hit a snag
thought it done and dusted but it is not in the bag
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 years on bone and to this related
soft tissue test was older yet twenty five thou seven hundred stated
oldest human burial claim but it gets more complicated

chorus,
do mungo man fit mungo woman in their ages and 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.

Testing done on nearby charcoal gave an age, being older yet
mungo woman lay just below this thus the dating must be reset
she was found in 69 but forward now year 74
mungo man find same sand bed assume same dating,that's for sure.
a man called bowler, another called Thorne unearth together, mungo find
but as the course of years fly by togetherness is less inclined
bowler used in 98 thermoluminesence test.
42 thousand year was read older yet he thought it best.
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 year 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 claiming complex lab results
must agree with former field work this agreement difficult.
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:56 PM

Thanks for posting the lyrics Pete....and even more thanks to Beardedbruce for taking the trouble to make them readable!

Just starting my working day here in Sakhalin, and it'll be a long one, so it'll be a while before I can get around to discussing the lyrics, but I'll do it asap!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:58 PM

Yup - a good job of putting absolute bullshit to music. Cudos.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 05:01 AM

Buggered if I can make any sense of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 10:01 AM

Does pete from away with the fairies think that the "Mungo Man" finds somehow invalidate scientific methods? Or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 10:11 AM

I've just spent twenty minutes trying and failing to fit the words to the tune of Humpty Dumpty. Didn't work: the tune was far too profound.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 10:11 AM

Lyrics were requested by OP.

What Pete thinks is his own business- but this IS a music forum, and discussion OF THE SONG is appropriate.


I sing and enjoy a number of songs that I do not believe the words are true to reality - the SONGS are still good.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 10:15 AM

Seems to fit Rigs of the Time with a lot of cramming, though it could do with a refrain after every fourth line : honesty's all out of fashion! Or, better still, how about refraining altogether?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 10:31 AM

Jack B,

I think that 4 line stanzas, followed by the chorus, would be a little long for today's performers.

That would be 8 stanzas, and 8 times through the chorus! ( and require work on the last stanza, which would'n be a bad idea)

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 10:58 AM

The whole thing is a bad idea. If I heard someone sing that at a session I'd probably shoot them - or myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 11:07 AM

discussion OF THE SONG is appropriate.

Per discussiion so far, seems the general opinion is the "song"[sic] is crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 05:53 PM

I rather suspect that a similar song affirming your beliefs or questioning mine would be applauded by you. Apart from Richard thinking I am attacking the scientific method, little substance so far!I

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:01 PM

Not so, Pete.

The problem is your affirming absolute unverifiable bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:03 PM

Well, it does rhyme, but it's kinda wordy. This may present a challenge for lyric recall, especially after an ale or two?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:20 AM

We'll Greg, the point of the song is that dating methods are not verifiable, though I would not go so far as to call them b...........!    Of course they might be accurate if they corresponded with recorded history!                      Yes, ed , it is wordy, but hopefully the general point is made, that whereas people may have the idea that there is a high degree of agreement between methods, and scientists all accept the same dates, that in fact there are widely different opinions.   I could have said as much with a shorter song.......but it would have less info to be verified!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:57 AM

Pete, I gave it a quick try at dewording a section, just for fun.
As you see, some fine detail is lost, but the gain in making it interesting lyrics may be greater?
Anyway, it surely remains a work in progress.

the dating game's, not what it seems
figuring it out, could take us reams
It's cut and dried, then hits a snag
done and dusted, not in the bag
where was a lake, now none's in sight
now new South Wales' a desert blight
named lake mungo, more come to light
are burnt remains, a burial rite?
tagged a female and cabon dated
nineteen thousand years, to this related
tissue tests added more, twenty five thou seven hundred stated
oldest burial claim, it gets more complicated

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 12:32 PM

So, pete, in the example you chose to form the basis of your song, there was (according to you) some uncertainty and disagreement over the possible dates that could be attributed to the relevant materials. So what conclusions do you draw from this - particularly with respect to the evolution vs creation 'debate' that you're so obsessed with?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 12:59 PM

Pete don't "draw conclusions" - he blindly believes.

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

Pretty good, ed. but what I wrote fits fairly well with the tune I composed......the first bit is a slow intro before the main verses. Admittedly there were some lines where I had to work on phrasing to hopefully still flow but still try to be accurate as possible .thanks for the interest..                I am sure , shimrod that you can work that one out for yourself!. And I am obsessed with it? Well, I suppose you could put it like that. I,m concerned for you and others when you stand before god........what is your reason for your obsession in opposing me?....and don't give me that irrelevant tea party stuff, please.      Biblical creation goes back to the church fathers. It is not the recent innovation that joe thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 02:31 AM

"I am sure , shimrod that you can work that one out for yourself!"

I'm not sure that I can, pete. You see, I suspect that everything you write displays a very basic misunderstanding of the nature of science. What I can't work out is whether this lack of understanding is because you really don't understand it or because you have wilfully chosen to misunderstand it.

The uncertainty over the dates of the 'Mungo man' material does not, as you seem to think, automatically discredit the scientific methods used to investigate it - it's a conundrum which needs to be resolved - and it may or may not be resolved. That's science for you - it's open-ended and open-minded - unlike religion! And I come back to the point that I have made to you, over and over again, if the science is 'wrong' that does not, automatically, make the Bible 'right' - that is false logic.

Thank you for your concern, but I'll take my chances with God. Convincingly demonstrate to me that God exists and I might decide to take your concern more seriously.

Finally, I submit that the "tea party stuff" is not irrelevant. There is a tide of irrationality sweeping through the most powerful nation on earth and it has a very worrying political dimension that could affect us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:54 AM

That's a very good post, Shimrod. The only change I'd make would be a small "g" for "god".

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 07:50 AM

"I,m concerned for you and others when you stand before god"

Don't be. I've a whole slew of questions for god and look forward to having an in-depth discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:05 AM

Thanks Richard.

Note that I'm trying very hard (and sometimes failing) to be respectful to pete and his religion - hence the capital 'G'. All I've been trying to do is, mainly, to question his extreme religious views. I note that he's not often able to answer my questions - which leads me to believe that his faith is uncritical and unquestioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:41 AM

"I note that he's not often able to answer my questions - which leads me to believe that his faith is uncritical and unquestioning."

You'd better believe it Shim. The only answers he can ever give you, are based on the crap he swallows whole from creationist websites.

He studiously avoids reading anything which might force him to think.

For Pete it's a case of "Don't confuse me with facts! I already know what I believe."

My one regret is that there will be no opportunity for any of us to say "We told you so!"

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:11 PM

Granted, shimrod, that my scientific understanding is pretty limited, but what I do understand, and you appear to deny, is that origins science and operational science, which is the science that seeks cures, designs machines or sends craft into space etc are not exactly the same thing. The latter, I believe is able to establish facts pretty securely because it operates by the scientific method ie observable,testable,repeatable experiments.   The fact that historical science has disagreements and often large variations of age interpretations only goes to demonstrate the difference.                         Now,I make no apology for trusting the bible record, anymore than you do for believing deep time and godless origin of everything. As I often say, that is also a faith position. However, though I am a biblical creationist, this song only goes as far as demonstrating that no matter how precise dating machinery is ,the evolutionary interpretations of the data are far from as clear cut as Darwinists would like joe public to believe.                      You might also like to consider....or maybe not.....that if science as espoused by deep time proponents can rest easy with unexplained conundrums ,that principle, ought to apply equally to scientists of creation persuasion also!                                              How much more to me!    But thank you for restraining your scorn, and thus facilitate useful discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Stu in the electron cloud
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:50 PM

Pete, you know full well that palaeontology, geology and biology science is falsifiable and testable. Your central premise is flawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:59 PM

"You might also like to consider....or maybe not.....that if science as espoused by deep time proponents can rest easy with unexplained conundrums ,that principle, ought to apply equally to scientists of creation persuasion also!"

But, pete, I very much doubt that scientists "rest easy" with unexplained conundrums - but work hard to resolve them (and sometimes, of course, fail). Nevertheless, the existence of such conundrums 'proves' nothing - it's a complex world out there and it can be very difficult to unravel. And for the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as a "creation scientist". You cannot be a scientist from a starting position of absolute certainty - a real scientist must have an open mind!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:59 PM

science as espoused by deep time proponents can rest easy with unexplained conundrums ,that principle, ought to apply equally to scientists of creation persuasion also!"

1. There are no scientists of "creation persuasion", pete. Contradiction in terms.

2. The remainder of your statement is simply gibberish, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 10:32 AM

stu, you know full well that repeatable experiments can not be performed on what is in the past, so my distinction still stands. and I have indicated the difference in the song, and elucidated in my last post.
shimrod, I very much doubt that open minds are the domain of evolutionists, certainly not in most posting here. of course they have to adapt constantly [and then claim it as a merit] but the foundations of their religious position is non negotiable, albeit lip service protestations to the contrary.
if you re read last post you will see I said "scientists of creation persuasion" and if by your shorthand "creation scientists" = no such thing assertion mean these , then you are clearly blinkered to reality. you can not remove earned doctorates because you disagree with them. or to put it another way, a scientists position on origins does neither endorse , or detract his expertise

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:02 PM

"I very much doubt that open minds are the domain of evolutionists, certainly not in most posting here. of course they have to adapt constantly [and then claim it as a merit] but the foundations of their religious position is non negotiable, ..."

I'm not sure that I understand all of this, pete. And I certainly don't understand the bit about "evolutionists" (which I assume means evolutionary biologists) having a "religious position" (with "foundations"). Real science, you see, does not have any sort of religious foundation or agenda (leaving aside the religious convictions of individual scientists).

And being willing to revise conclusions in the light of new evidence is most definitely not a weakness - it often happens in many scientific fields. But, then, as you admitted in a previous post:

"[M]y scientific understanding is pretty limited, ..."

How can you criticise something that you don't really understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:09 PM

"stu, you know full well that repeatable experiments can not be performed on what is in the past, so my distinction still stands."

This is a strawman, and NOT what I posted and wrong Peter, as you know from our previous discussions; but what the heck. Observations can be repeated, as can any number of tests on rocks, fossils, anatomy, DNA and whatever else counts as evidence when using the scientific method for rational inquiry when studying, amongst other things, past life and deep time.

The idea that anything from the past cannot be experimented on or observed is utterly ridiculous; how the hell do we know where the bluestones in Stonehenge come from? How do we know Boudicca razed St Albans to the ground? How can we be sure Aston Villa won the league in 1896? How do we know dinosaurs had feathers?

I'm open to all possibilities Pete, but there has to be evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:17 PM

"repeatable experiments can not be performed on what is in the past"

Which is why it is impossible to determine cause of death from an autopsy I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 05:57 PM

'Guest' at 01:02PM was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 06:14 PM

"[M]y scientific understanding is pretty limited, ..."

Well, pete, now THERE'S your problem.......

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 12:30 AM

I've not forgotten that I need to get back to this. Just had an enormous avalanche of work in and been doing 18 hour days since last week.

Will get back to it as soon as I've got on top of this lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:30 PM

well, actual, I would presume that autopsy comes under operational science. I would presume that a clear cause of death and even how long ago the death was, is usually agreed on. but if you get one doctor saying it occurred last week, and another 10 yr ago, and a third that it happened 100 yr ago.....well, I suppose you could compare it to origins science, as evidenced by the mungo man disagreements
and I don't need to understand much science to see that evolutionists are not reading the same evidence the same way.

stu,- most of what is historical is attested by written records , though doubtless archaeology helps a lot too.
dinos with feathers?....do we KNOW that yet? and if some did, it would hardly prove birds arose from them.

hope work evens out to be more manageable, rob.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:11 AM

"repeatable experiments can not be performed on what is in the past"

So creation science can never beoperational science

Whatever the hell that is...

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 07:26 AM

"dinos with feathers?....do we KNOW that yet? and if some did, it would hardly prove birds arose from them."

The argument that birds are dinosaurs has been cut and dried for years. It's now a case of discovering where the divide lies, although it's going to be really, really subtle and will be based on (I'm guessing here) a combination of molecular and anatomical features. Although creationists bleat on about the lack of transitional fossils the truth is that in the case of early birds we have lots of transitional fossils, some with significant sample sizes. It's even possible that feathers are not restricted to dinosaurs but might have originated earlier in the archosauria; pterosaurs have structures very similar to the simplest known feathers. Flight didn't originate in birds either as other dinosaurs could fly.

Were you about in the Cretaceous you'd be hard pressed to tell whether you were looking at a bird or non-avian dinosaur, as they would be indistinguishable; bear in mind modern birds are only one branch of the whole clade, the others being extinct.

This is a very exciting area of research, but consider this: the dinosaurs never died out and they live alongside us to this day. The sparrow outside you back door is one of 10,000 species of living, breathing dinosaurs that continue to thrive to this very day.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:35 PM

Just had a look through the stuff related to 'Mungo Man' on Wikipedia etc. And, yes, the range of dates that have been attributed to the specimens are very wide and don't always agree with each other. But this doesn't 'prove' anything, pete - it just means that, in this particular example, there are some anomalies which need to be resolved (I'm sure that there are examples where there are good agreements on dates). And remember, if the science is all wrong, wrong, wrong (which I very much doubt) it still doesn't make your preferred biblical chronology right!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:03 PM

it still doesn't make your preferred biblical chronology right!

Of course it does! You can't doubt the Word Of God, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:10 PM

and of course, you cant doubt Darwin [other than the constantly changing details] can you ?
I remind you again, shimrod, that the song only relates the story of the disagreements and makes obviously true comment on that. it does not even venture into biblical territory, though I think that record more trustworthy
last I read , stu, dino to bird evolution was not cut and dried, even among evolutionists. and though you give an ardent affirmation ,even you admit to guessing, given the definite differences.
guest!..creation is historical presupposition as is evolutionism. however, the latter violates established operational science considerably more than creationism.
ps, be nice to have an inkling who we are talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:51 PM

"other than the constantly changing details"

Jaysus, you just refuse to listen don't you.
That is exactly how science works. If the details are not constantly changing, *that* makes it faith. This is precisely what makes science different from religion.

Do you see the lunacy of your logic? You say that science is changing the details [behaving exactly the way science is intended], but creationism does not, therefore "Darwinism" (science) is no different from religion. Are you blinkers?

In science we are always willing, in fact *trying* to change the details.

You argue using words and ideas that are completely foreign to science.

It is a bit like me challenging you to answer this:

brsdfgouyn glkout vrrgbmnnwa yyrqsalhmytn?

Well? How do you reply?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:55 PM

How would you expect a three-year-old to reply? And why are you attempting to have a rational discussion with a toddler?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:09 PM

What Greg said.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:24 AM

"and of course, you cant doubt Darwin ... can you ?"

Of course you can doubt Darwin! And especially if you've got evidence which casts doubt on the Darwinian model of evolution. But, on the other hand, if you doubt Darwin on the basis of unsubstantiated opinion or religious grounds, no reputable scientist would give a toss about your doubts!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 08:16 AM

"last I read , stu, dino to bird evolution was not cut and dried, even among evolutionists. and though you give an ardent affirmation ,even you admit to guessing, given the definite differences."

1) ANOTHER misrepresentation of my argument. The differences between deciding the dividing line will be subtle, as both morphotypes of bird/dinsosaur grade into one another. I am guessing as I don't work directly on these particular dinosaurs, but do know people who do and try to keep up with progress. In fact, the differences are so small that to all intents and purposes they don't really exist, and scientists pursue the studies for taxonomic reasons (which is fair enough).

2) Those not agreeing with an dinosaurian origin of birds are very much in the minority and tend to be ornithologists. I saw one of these chaps speak last year and his argument was as full of holes as yours are, and there was no real point in arguing. He turned up and talked though, so good on him. I suggest if you want to debate these points, read up more.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:15 AM

The notion that birds are dinosaurs (which I've completely accepted for many years) is so romantic. When I chuck some grub out for them I always greet them with "Mornin', dinosaurs!"

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 08:09 AM

Are you still snowed under with work, rob?      It is certainly good to give a considered, thought out response, though initially you had wanted to declare there and then what was so desperately wrong with the song.    If you want to let it drop........that's fine by me!.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 08:34 AM

To start with it makes no sense and fails to set out any structured argument. In the absence of a structured argument logical discussion is impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 07:53 PM

Not letting it drop, Pete....but still snowed under with work. It hit at just the wrong time and hasn't let up yet. Will respond within 48 hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Apr 14 - 05:55 PM

Ok rob. Hope you soon get the appropriate volume of work .

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Apr 14 - 07:06 PM

Stu....just noticed that you said there were lots of transitional fossils for early birds, if I read correctly, and I assume you mean from dinosaurs. Perhaps you might name some of these examples please? Of course, if you are rather talking about variation in birds, it would seem rather that it is just that,...ie variation within a kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 05:43 AM

Hi Pete, like Rob I'm a tad snowed under to answer straight away as a deadline for abstract submission is looming, and I've left it until the last minute - as usual!

So once I've sorted all that out I'll get back to you. Apologies!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 09:49 AM

In the meantime, pete, you could do some research yourself. Perhaps you could even bring yourself to refer to something other than creationist websites (?)

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,actual...
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 10:03 AM

pete,

Here is your homework if you have any interest at all in science.
See if you can find 20 distinct (as in separate or independent) skeletal characteristics shared by modern birds and coelurosaurians.

Supplying you with transitional fossils plays into the YEC trap - for you folks, every transitional fossil simply creates two more gaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 11:31 AM

thanks stu, hope your project goes well. I presume you might have named some of many coelusaurians mentioned in a wiki article I have just read [wiki is far from creationist, shimrod!] . said article certainly assumes that modern birds belong to the same grouping from some details that may partly correspond to these, including what might suggest feathers on dinos.
actual...it is not just a case of whether one or two gaps are claimed, but whether any particular claimed transitional can be demonstrated to be so when subjected to scrutiny.
and although sometimes it may be evolutionists that uncover weaknesses in the argument supporting these, creationists will obviously be more inclined to expose flaws. and of course, if all scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads they welcome such scrutiny. but should an example be provided that creationists have not been able to expose any faulty reasoning.....then you have scored a [minor] victory !.
that their might be some common design features is , imo, evidence of a common designer rather that a common ancestry.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,actual...
Date: 19 Apr 14 - 11:33 PM

Pete
I respect your faith.
But when you talk science (not my faith), you are ignorant, and insulting.
I know you do not intend to be so disrespectful, but you are.
Jesus would not approve. Promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:03 AM

"that their might be some common design features is , imo, evidence of a common designer rather that a common ancestry."

Only because you want "their" to be a common designer, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:12 AM

Wouldn't it be more fruitful to find the weird websites pete cuts and pastes from and rant at that instead?

At least you'd be shouting at the organ grinder. (Noting that the monkey seems stubborn when it comes to evolving.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:41 AM

You may have a point "their", Musket!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 08:59 AM

Ok, briefly:

The closest non-avian relatives of the birds are the Deinonychosaurs, which together comprise a clade called Paraves. This group includes many small meat-eating dinosaurs including the famous Velicraptor and the four-winged Microraptor. Also included are all birds, from both extant and extinct lineages including basal birds such as Archaeopteryx and Anchiornis. All of these were feathered, and in fact all coelurosaurs were probably feathered as large, feathered tyrannosaurs are also known.

The features that birds have were not acquired in a single evolutionary jump, but accrued incrementally over hundreds of millions of years of evolution; the way birds breathe, long considered unique, is very similar to the crocodile respiratory system for example, so both of these archosaurs shared a common ancestor. We also know feathers aren't restricted to birds, and neither did flight arise in birds either as many other dinosaurs could fly, Microraptor for example (although this wasn't powered flight, more refined gliding). Early birds had teeth (chicks are occasionally born with teeth today) and clawed wings - as many modern birds do; they retain claws on their first digit - look closely at your chicken wings before eating and sure enough there's a tiny claw visible.

This means the exact point where the most basal bird appears isn't clear; the transition is subtle and even Archaeopteryx has been punted out of birds and then back in based on the possibility that advanced deinonychosaurs and the carnivorous early birds might actually belong with together and not with basal birds, who might have been herbivorous. In some respects, this wonderfully complex puzzle becomes more baffling as we find more fossils. There is no clear line between avian and non-avian dinosaurs because all these fossils are transitional and are of very closely related taxa.

Be assured, this story is a long way from being over. The origin of birds has long been a question that fascinates palaeontologists and this research and debate will continue. There are issues with the completeness of the record, and the fact that Lagerstätten can create a sampling bias, and of course we are finding new fossils all the time. We understand that birds are derived maniraptorian dinosaurs, but we're still not sure when or where this occurred.

Not bad work considering we're only been at it for 150-odd years. Huxley would have loved to have been involved with this research, and would rightly be pleased that he has been vindicated by the work of countless palaeontologists and other scientists.

Soapy Sam might not be so pleased. Creationists are still trying to skew the science to accommodate a simplistic and rather dull narrative, despite essentially not changing their arguments for over a century whilst science moves on. Picking a dinosaur and yelling "bird!" is not science.

The spirit of Darwin's bulldog lives on.*


*boom-ta!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 03:21 PM

Picking a dinosaur and yelling "bird!" is not science.


Ah, but then, Stui, pete has repeatedly admitted that he knows nothing of or about science.

You're never gonna teach this particular ignorant pig to sing.....

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 05:53 PM

thankyou, stu, for a more reasoned response than the other posters since my question. I note that you admit that the story is still baffling, so I assume that also means that it is far from cut and dried. interesting that teeth may appear in new born chicks, especially as I recently read that horner and larrson have for a few years been trying to engineer a chickosaurus.
best I can make out, you are saying that because only very tiny changes over millennia occurred, a definite transitional alludes us, and the story is put together by placing whatever beasts and birds seem closest together to form some kind of development. sorry if that seems too simplistic, but that's how it appears, and gould himself had admitted the missing branches of the evolutionary tree. I suppose there may be more info and data since he conceded that.
I should note that picking a bird and yelling dinosaur is not science either.....as I believe was done with archaeopterex for some time.

musket....Creation.com often publishes responses and answers to critics....as long as they are not full of foul language.
I recommend you do tackle them with your objections.

shimrod...and only because YOU want there to be a common ancestor!.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 06:14 PM

"The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections."

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Apr 14 - 06:16 PM

Creation.com often publishes responses and answers to critics

Creation.com publishes no answers, pete. They publish scripture and polemics.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:10 AM

"...and only because YOU want there to be a common ancestor!"

No, pete, the the evidence points towards a common ancestor. Show me the evidence for a common designer.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 03:15 AM

My dear pete. Creation.com is by definition foul language if it perpetuates myth, attempts to hold back how we discover the universe around us and promotes brain washing children into seeing delusional fantasy on a plane inhabited by reality.

Although it is nice to see you acknowledge that you have an organ grinder to hand the coins to.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 09:40 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual...
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 10:35 AM

this beauty from pete illustrates perfectly the utter non-science nonsense that he spouts:

"because only very tiny changes over millennia occurred, a definite transitional alludes us"


If there are not tiny changes, pete calls this a gap.

If there are tiny changes, a "definite transitional" is missing.


An intelligent discussion simply cannot be had with you on this subject pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Musket
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 10:44 AM

You get the contributions, then hand them to the organ grinder.

Simples.

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!

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: 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: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 14 - 11:24 PM

ONE HUNDRED

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 05:58 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 06:12 PM

No, pete- the victory is rationality's.

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: 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: 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: 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,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
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,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,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,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: 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: 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: 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 - 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:24 PM

We'll plan to look one day for a New York Times bestseller, it being a compilation of your essay attempts to communicate with Pete. :)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Stu in the fizzy electron cloud
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 03:46 PM

SRS -like it, but it would never get past peer review ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 04:29 PM

I have no idea why that posted twice. 'plogies.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 04:32 PM

glad to be of service, but if shooting schoolgirls for wanting to learn is In your opinion, advocated, or ever will be ,by Christian teaching it betrays imo a somewhat off beam power of reasoning.
you might want to connect that to a different religion for that sort of thing. and however misogynistic you consider the origins of the Christian faith, I reckon the women of the first century at least, would have thought it a massive improvement.

rob. I watched a BBC docudrama this week about Piltdown on the net.
that may have omissions or inaccuracies, granted, but I got the impression that it was not rumbled as soon as you say, and that the tests confirming the fraud were done shortly before the papers made it public 40 yr on. sir Arthur keith is portrayed as being upset that he could have been taken in by it.
if, as you say, all the scientists knew it was a forgery, why was it not made public sooner.
I could hazard a guess, but it is only a guess.
,

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 04:53 PM

Is the plot to convince pete he is wrong or to get satisfaction from feeling intellectually superior?

pete is a looney. Stop giving him the illusion he is debating his fixation and giving it respectability.






That's torn it. pete occasionally acknowledges my presence but that isn't usually after questioning his sanity.

Religious delusion. The more you argue against it, the more smug it gets.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Stu saying the word 'arse'
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 05:24 PM

Bloody effin' science. Me tablet posted a message saying nowt. Ghosts in the machine. Operator error. Let it steep.

Anyhow, being a fat talentless git I will never feel intellectually superior to anyone, here or anywhere else. However, an opinion I have and am entitled to, and if a man asks a question, or posits a theory or viewpoint challenge it I am allowed to.

Organising thoughts. Seeking truth. Eating whelks. Finding those triangular bits of plastic in rummage drawers. Yes, it is indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual Scientist
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 10:30 PM

Rob Naylor!!!!

Solid Earth or Exploration Geophysics?
Or both?
Or something else? (paleomag?)

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 01 May 14 - 04:33 AM

Actual Scientist: mainly Exploration Geophysics, with other bits of stuff thrownin now and then.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 01 May 14 - 05:21 AM

Pete: rob. I watched a BBC docudrama this week about Piltdown on the net.
that may have omissions or inaccuracies, granted, but I got the impression that it was not rumbled as soon as you say, and that the tests confirming the fraud were done shortly before the papers made it public 40 yr on. sir Arthur keith is portrayed as being upset that he could have been taken in by it.
if, as you say, all the scientists knew it was a forgery, why was it not made public sooner. I could hazard a guess, but it is only a guess.

It was a docuDRAMA Pete. There's a clue in the name!

The presentation to the Geological Society was made in 1912.

In 1913, David Waterston at King's College London published in "Nature" his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.

Marcellin Boule, a paleontologist, concluded the same thing in 1915 after analysing the finds extensively.

Gerrit Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape in 1917.

In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.

Arthur Keith had initial doubts but these were allayed by other (also hoax) finds made at Sheffield Park, although his doubts resurfaces again in the 1920s before he finally accepted Piltdown Man as true.

The early work throwing doubts on PM was based on analysis of the fragments and comparison with ape and human jaws and teeth.

Absolute proof of the hoax had to wait until the flourine testing methodology was discovered, which proved that the fragments were recent, hence the actual proven "exposure" of the hoax being as late as 1953. Well before then, as more and more fossils had been discovered elsewhere, more and more paleontologists had come to recognise that there was somthing fishy about PM.

It was, however, as I said above, the self-correcting mechanism of science that proved the hoax, and I find your innudendo about the motives of scientists frankly insulting. The motives of most scientists are searches for truth. The motives of most creationists are in creating "smoke and mirrors" to desperately hang onto the illusion that their ludicrous fantasy on the age of the universe actually has some substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 May 14 - 09:54 AM

" ... if shooting schoolgirls for wanting to learn is In your opinion, advocated, or ever will be ,by Christian teaching it betrays imo a somewhat off beam power of reasoning."

One hopes that Christians will not decide, at some future date, that they need to go around shooting shooting schoolgirls in the head! But I think that Stu is making a wider point - and that is that people who profess to religious faith (i.e. who choose to believe fervently and unquestioningly in something invisible for which there's no evidence)have a tendency to consider themselves 'special' and different from 'unbelievers'. This line of thinking can harden into fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalist are often evangelistic, intolerant and authoritarian and can be angry at the world for not embracing their fantasies. It is all too easy for such anger to lead to violent excesses. We all know that Muslim fundamentalist have committed cruel and violent acts in the recent past but Christian fundamentalists too have been cruel and violent in the more distant past (witch burnings anyone?). I don't think that it's unreasonable to suggest that religious fundamentalism poses a potential danger to us all and we need to be wary of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:23 PM

thankyou for filling in the historical blanks, rob.

shimrod,...being as I think that your everything from nothing via no one is a fundamental faith position, I could just as easily lay the same charges against evolutionists/atheists. a few Darwin devotees in more recent history killed more people than in the whole history of Christendom, if not all theistic religion.
of course such tyrants did think they were special and were intolerant and authoritarian, and their fantasies certainly led to violent excesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:55 PM

a few Darwin devotees in more recent history killed more people than in the whole history of Christendom

Ah, it wasn't going to be long before you resurrected this ignorant slur. You are low-life scum.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 May 14 - 03:10 PM

What the hell is pete going on about? Its more than an ignorant slur - its lunacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 01 May 14 - 03:38 PM

Thanks Shim, spot on.


"a few Darwin devotees in more recent history killed more people than in the whole history of Christendom, if not all theistic religion."

Er, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 14 - 04:18 PM

Stu, Greg at al., let's resist the urge to "explain" to this scumbag why he's so deluded on this issue. It's been tried before so many times. He doesn't give a shit. His kind never do. He's every bit as nasty as those so-called "Darwin devotees" he's referring to. Vicious, ignorant, dishonest, and, I might add, bloody unchristian to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 May 14 - 04:53 PM

" ...I think that your everything from nothing via no one is a fundamental faith position, ..."

No it's not - just show me the evidence for your preferred alternative.

And just who were these "Darwin devotees" who committed mass murder? I suspect I know who you're referring to - but let's see you spell it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 14 - 07:28 PM

Honestly, Shimrod, he's not worth it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 14 - 07:34 PM

Anyone else waiting to see how the mods wade in to give us all a bollocking, delete posts and defend nasty little pete? If none of that happens, I apologise right now.

Yours sincerely,

Severely Pissed Off of Bude.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Musket
Date: 02 May 14 - 12:55 PM

I once got pissed up in Bude if that helps?



Quite severely I recall.


I have just reread The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. If nothing else, he has a way of portraying the scientific process and the folly of sticking God in the gaps.

But there again, there is much else... Interesting to have a scan of this thread after reading it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 May 14 - 01:26 PM

"a few Darwin devotees in more recent history killed more people than in the whole history of Christendom, if not all theistic religion."

I think how we left it, pete, you were going to tell us who these muderous "Darwin devotees" were. What's the matter - cat got your tongue? Perhaps even you can't bring yourself to cast such an outrageous slur on the reputations of today's hard working scientists by suggesting that they've inherited a legacy of genocide!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 May 14 - 02:51 PM

Give him a chance, Shimrod - he and Keith have got together & are working on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 02 May 14 - 05:26 PM

Pete:
shimrod,...being as I think that your everything from nothing via no one is a fundamental faith position, I could just as easily lay the same charges against evolutionists/atheists. a few Darwin devotees in more recent history killed more people than in the whole history of Christendom, if not all theistic religion.
of course such tyrants did think they were special and were intolerant and authoritarian, and their fantasies certainly led to violent excesses.

Are you perhaps referring to Stalin, who was educated at a Seminary in preparation for taking up a post in the Orthodox priesthood? He was never a Darwinist, but was a strong supporter of the theories of Lysenko...about as far from Darwinism as you can get in genetics.

Or perhaps you mean Hitler?....who reached an accommodation with the Catholic church and whose troops all had "Gott Mit Uns" embossed on their uniform belts? His ideas on eugenics and the "master race" had nothing whatsoever to do with truue Darwinism, but were a perversion of it.

Peter, please educate yourself a little, as the sort of remarks you come out with just make you look increasingly daft.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual Scientist
Date: 02 May 14 - 06:14 PM

No no no.

pete is going to go for this syllogism:

darwinists are scientists
scientists created the atomic bomb
darwinists have killed hundreds of thousands in recent history

wait for it...

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 May 14 - 02:35 AM

So, what's it going to be, gentlemen? Will pete link Darwinism with the Nazis and/or Stalinists or will he accuse Darwinists of developing the atomic bomb?

Place your bets now!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Musket
Date: 03 May 14 - 04:17 AM

If you ever come across a Darwinist, can you get their autograph for me?

I might make a few bob on eBay

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual Scientist
Date: 31 May 14 - 09:53 AM

Well, well, well...
Evolution observed.
Under pressure from introduced parasitic flies, crickets in Hawaii changed their wing shapes, losing the ability to sing... Which is how the flies were finding them.
Or did god just tell them to shutup?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40084/title/For-Some-Male-Crickets--Silence-Means-Survival/

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 May 14 - 05:18 PM

So the crickets have lost their clicky wing song ! and that represents a gain of information ? .....evolutionary progression?
well I have not looked it up, admittedly. but if you like to explain how this is evolution rather than devolution , I might think it worth the effort.
evolution observed? should that not be natural selection observed ?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 14 - 06:14 PM

if you like to explain how this is evolution rather than devolution

The man is completely hopeless. Give it up, scientist, you're just "annoying the pig".

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Jeri
Date: 31 May 14 - 06:15 PM

Natural selection is how evolution happens.

Oh, why bother...

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 02:22 PM

well, I believe that was what Darwin conjectured, but are not mutations added to the mix now = neo-Darwin ?
read an interesting article about ants recently. lots of fascinating info , but apparently they have a very short shelf life , but of course multiply copiously. there was a picture of an ant caught in amber....supposedly millions of yrs ago.
and what did the antcestor of the ant look like before thousands/ millions of reproductions up to the present day?
well, I think it looked just about the same.
of course evolutionist have a double speak word for this .....evolutionary stasis!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 05:23 PM

We don't give a shit what you "believe", pete. Science, as you've been told many times, isn't a belief system.

ALSO, since you admit you've never READ Darwin or anything about evolution whatsoever, other than creationist horseshit, you're in no position to comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 01:21 AM

How would you improve the ant?

It even exhibits altruism, community spirit and many other "moral" aspects that Jesus freaks reckon you can only have if you pray etc.

What do you know about the ant community your amber encased specimen came from pete?

To be fair, I reckon, given that you recognise it to be older than young earth creationists reckon the earth is, that the ants would have developed Sky+ before humans did.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:11 AM

Yes, pete, your determination to confuse belief and evidence is all a bit odd. Is this wilful ignorance on your part or do you genuinely not know the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual Scientist
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:58 AM

"and that represents a gain of information ?"

Sure as shit does (but that is an irrelevant question in any case).

Haven't read Darwin, haven't read the link... no basis whatsoever for the nonsense you spew.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:59 AM

Why can't it be both?

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual Scientist
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:44 AM

"well, I believe that was what Darwin conjectured, but are not mutations added to the mix now = neo-Darwin ?"

The science of genetics did not exist in Darwin's day you fool. You consistently point to advancements in science as evidence that the original science is false. In science, changing explanations are a good thing! And if they build upon previous explanations, it supports the previous (albeit incomplete) explanation. As William Whewell said...
"The {theories} we accept ought to explain phenomena which we have observed {and} foretell phenomena which have not yet been observed."

Darwin did not know how the the small changes that were acted upon by natural selection occurred, but he knew they occurred. One hundred years later, they were identified as mutations. Perfect example of Whewell's axiom.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 12:46 PM

NB: 02 Jun 14 - 08:59 AM in response to Shimrod 02 Jun 14 - 06:11 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: sciencegeek
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:35 AM

here we see the opposite of Newton's premise that if he has seen further, it is due to standing on the shoulders of giants....

to avoid seeing anything they don't want, creationists dig a deeper hole to stand in.

sad...

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 08:49 AM

creationists dig a deeper hole to stand in.

Now if only someone would toss a few cubic yards of earth into that hole on top of them......

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Stu
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 10:06 AM

Streuth.

Give up chaps. He's taking the pish.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 10:29 AM

Stu....he's not. I know him "in real life" and this kind of drivel is *really* what he believes! I've sometimes thought he was taking the piss, but I've realised that in common with many single-issue fanatics, he really does believe that his outpourings (or those he swallows wholesale from his gurus) are reasonable, and manages to self-censor his head from properly processing information that contradicts his pre-ordained position.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 11:55 AM

interesting......you start these threads [ or refresh them- actual] and then complain when someone differs.
you don't seem to be able to help yourselves !
you have to keep trying to provoke this "fool".
keep tossing insults.......any reasonable onlookers can judge who is being reasonable...whatever their own belief system.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 12:43 PM

Calling you a fool is probably counter-productive (whether you are a fool or not is a different matter!). Nevertheless, Creationists are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "reasonable" people!

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 01:19 PM

Nor are they people who can reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 02:55 PM

Reading some of the comments/questions about evolution, I came to realize there's a real big lack of understanding there. It's not worth arguing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:16 PM

It's not worth arguing.... Arguing - no. What is needed is educating because political decisions made in ignorance can have profound and lasting effects.

I do not have any desire to live in world run by creationists, any more than I want one run by jihadists or any other fundamentalist group that seeks to replace science with dogma and intellectual freedom with repressive ideology. The only freedom they want is to shove thir belief systems down the throats of the rest of the world.

We already had one Dark Ages, we hardly need another one.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:29 PM

When it comes to politics and religion, I'm fine with argument. The separation of church and state is a GOOD thing.

Being Mudcat, I don't think we have a whole lot of effect on politics. Especially pretty much everyone who's arguing one side is doing so with ONE GUY on the other side. I'm also pretty sure Pete isn't trying to take over the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:42 PM

You're absolutely right, of course, Jeri. We'd probably have more effect by going down to Essex - or wherever it is he lives - and giving him a jolly good duffing over. Luckily for him, though, I don't believe (that word again!)in violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: GUEST,Actual Scientist
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:18 PM

Pete isn't trying to take over the world, but his ilk are sure trying to take over the USA.

Therefore, I intend to counter this nonsense in real life and on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Mungo Man Holdover From Closed Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:47 PM



Here Ya Go, Scientist