Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Fossilized Scene of a Spider Attacking a Wasp, Preserved for 110 Million Years
IO9 ^ | October 9, 2012 | George Dvorsky

Posted on 10/09/2012 2:04:50 PM PDT by DogByte6RER

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last
To: Doulos1

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?


51 posted on 10/09/2012 6:08:51 PM PDT by Salamander (Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy
Yes, there are quite a few studies showing that the dating of the rocks above and below a biological find are cherry picked to show a specific age already decided upon.

Yep.

Every bit as evil as cherry picking Bible quotes to justify, say, slavery (to name just one thing that's been done with).

52 posted on 10/09/2012 6:24:40 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1358 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Yes, it’s obvious that spiders and wasps have evolved mightily in the past 110 million years.


53 posted on 10/09/2012 6:33:06 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

Do you have evidence that that was done by these scientists? Let us hear your evidence. Otherwise why are you making arbitrary accusations.


54 posted on 10/09/2012 6:37:34 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: stevio
Amazing. 100 million years and a spider still looks like a spider and a wasp still looks like a wasp. I guess evolution missed these two.

We are not suppose to point out obvious observable evidence.

55 posted on 10/09/2012 7:50:57 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
"How did they date the fossil?"

Probably plied her with wine and falafal.


56 posted on 10/09/2012 8:11:03 PM PDT by Rebelbase (The most transparent administration ever is clear as mud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

Be careful how your salmon is cooked.


57 posted on 10/10/2012 4:56:10 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy; OldNavyVet
[OldNavyVet:] Might I ask what you think evolution is?

A theory that is given little if any support by the simple existence of life 97 to 110 million years ago.

And the proof that this occurred 97 to 110 million years ago?

I've stipulated it for purposes of my exchange with OldNavyVet.

58 posted on 10/10/2012 8:40:05 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Darwin's theory is now proven to a degree that few question it.

Erm - this article has squat to do with evolution. Maybe learn to recognize what evolution is and isn't before pontificating about degrees of provenness.

Might I ask what you think evolution is?

A theory that is given little if any support by the simple existence of life 97 to 110 million years ago.

From Ayn Rand, we have ...

In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have consisted of attempts to escape one or the other of the two fundamental questions which cannot be escaped. Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism)

Sorry, you can't hide the irrelevance of your interjecting Darwin behind Rand's skirts. It's not "skepticism" to note that the existence of life 97 to 110 million years ago is entirely compatible with the falsity of Darwin's theory.

59 posted on 10/10/2012 8:46:33 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
"... the existence of life 97 to 110 million years ago is entirely compatible with the falsity of Darwin's theory."

To the contrary, the existence of life 97 to 110 million years ago is entirely incompatible with Biblical, aka creationist, thinking.

60 posted on 10/10/2012 9:55:36 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
the existence of life 97 to 110 million years ago is entirely compatible with the falsity of Darwin's theory.

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.

61 posted on 10/10/2012 10:32:10 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: albionin; JustSayNoToNannies; null and void
The best refutation of many of the errors and outright falsification of dating methods is by Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention. He gives names, dates and outcomes. There are also some websites which details these practices, easily discoverable if you want to find them.

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?

62 posted on 10/10/2012 12:45:02 PM PDT by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DogByte6RER

maybe the wasp had the spider.


63 posted on 10/10/2012 12:48:42 PM PDT by RedwM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

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.


64 posted on 10/10/2012 12:50:30 PM PDT by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

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.


65 posted on 10/10/2012 2:32:05 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1359 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

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.


66 posted on 10/10/2012 2:49:06 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

Oh that is good! Thanks for the belly laugh.


67 posted on 10/10/2012 2:50:12 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: albionin

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.


68 posted on 10/10/2012 6:42:57 PM PDT by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson