Posted on 10/09/2012 2:04:50 PM PDT by DogByte6RER
To the contrary,
What you say below is NOT contrary to what I say above.
the existence of life 97 to 110 million years ago is entirely incompatible with Biblical, aka creationist, thinking.
The available ideas are not exhausted by Darwin's theory on the one hand and Biblically hyperliteralist young-earth creationism on the other hand - there are other alternatives.
It remains the case that the article has nothing to do with Darwin's theory, and your interjection of that topic was ill-informed.
However, with the knowledge we have of government grants, the amount of money that can be had, and the fame attached to finding “old” humanoid bones; why would you argue that falsification would not be done by scientists?
maybe the wasp had the spider.
I am not quite sure I understand your comment or what you were trying to say to me. I do not think I have ever cherry picked a Bible verse to support slavery. The people who “did” have died and are long gone, the people who “do” still own slaves and live in the Middle East.
Conversely, the practice of slavery as detailed in the Bible is diametrically opposed to the practice of slavery as done in the South. Those ministers wrested scripture for their own political purposes, and ultimately suffered the consequences of their actions.
Only that I find deliberate falsification equally despicable whether it is in the secular or divine sphere.
Each has its methods of adhering to the True Path, of correcting error.
Each, sadly, has examples of fraud.
It is a mistake to tar all faith or all science with misrepresentations of a few zealots.
Thank you for the link, I will be happy to read it after work.
I don’t doubt that some scientists falsify data. In fact we have the recent scandal with the Global warming scientists at the East Anglia Climate Unit falsifying data. I think it is an error to take the capacity of individuals to lie and commit fraud and then apply it to all scientists and experiments. Again do you have any evidence to support your claim that the dates in question are inaccurate? I am not so much defending these particular scientists as I am questioning your logic and your motive. You seem to think all scientists are venal publicity hounds who don’t care about the truth. I don’t know why you are bringing up Hominid fossils when the article is about a spider fossil in Amber. I would argue that falsification would not be done on a wide scale because scientists check on each others work and I am sure that there would be money and fame waiting for the scientist who could uncover such a huge scandal perpetrated over decades. I feel certain that if a credible scientist had proven this conspiracy It would have been major news and I would have heard about it. I am still anxious to read the link though.
Oh that is good! Thanks for the belly laugh.
That would work in a field which actually has evidence, but the fossil dating system has no real evidence. There are no fossils in existence which have actually been dated, calcium fossils cannot, by their nature, be dated. What is dated are lava flows above and below the fossil, and then the date of the fossil is extrapolated from these two dates. All rock dating methods give a wide range of dates, which the person who requested the date can pick from. That person will NEVER pick any dates which are discordant with what everyone knows should be the right date. The book I suggested shows how this affected fossils discovered by Leakey and how it made a difference in their funding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.