ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Franktalk]

On a lighter note, I think Franktalk should temporarily change his name to Frankentalk for Halloween. That would be awesome!

Not much of a writer. And his verbal skills are somewhat lacking as well. It seems to me that he would have trouble getting a date. Although on Halloween he would save money on a costume. Unless of course he dresses as Obama. Then his skill set would enhance the character presentation.

[_SteelHead]

No meat eating before the flood...... Wait, what?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/21/paleo-csi-early-hunters-left-mastodon-murder-weapon-behind/

[_keithb]

That is true. But on two main issues where I supplied data I got this kind of response. So if we want to discuss valid or invalid ideas we should concentrate on the data and analysis. My post on erosion was met with rejection because it could not be true because we say so. On the issue of gathering defects and evolution being impossible I received the ignore treatment so the question would just go away. This is very typical of men in general. I myself get tired of answering the same old questions but I do try and look into new ones.

"Theory suggests that the risk of extinction by mutation accumulation can be comparable to that by environmental stochasticity for an isolated population smaller than a few thousand individuals. Here we show that metapopulation structure, habitat loss or fragmentation, and environmental stochasticity can be expected to greatly accelerate the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large metapopulations may be at risk of extinction. Because of mutation accumulation, viable metapopulations may need to be far larger and better connected than would be required under just stochastic demography."

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/5/2928.full

It is not like I posted a link to some wacky site full of opinion based on space gas. But it does seem as time goes by science is getting to the point where Sanford's Genetic Entropy seems a better fit for the data.

As for the erosion post I have yet to have one person find an error in what I posted. My conclusions are attacked because they don't agree with established time scales. That means nothing to me. I just see that as arm waving. So for all of the expertise on this site I would have hoped for a better critique of the data or analysis. If I am indeed wrong then it should be a no brainer to point out the error instead of giving me opinion pieces. So the sample argument I posted applies to this site as well as others I have been to as well. But I will admit that I am guilty of doing the same at times.

Again, Franktalk, if you're going to propose new science that completely overturns the established paradigm, you need to somehow address the old science that has come before. That means that you can't ignore the literally thousands of journal articles -- representing the cumulative efforts of thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands or millions of research hours -- that support and establish the current scientific model.

I am sorry that you don't like this. I am sorry that you keep wanting to argue from ignorance about things on an internet message board instead of ponying up and submitting an article to a scientific journal for consideration (and probably almost immediate rejection). But, that's how science works.

[_Franktalk]

Again, Franktalk, if you're going to propose new science that completely overturns the established paradigm, you need to somehow address the old science that has come before. That means that you can't ignore the literally thousands of journal articles -- representing the cumulative efforts of thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands or millions of research hours -- that support and establish the current scientific model.

I am sorry that you don't like this. I am sorry that you keep wanting to argue from ignorance about things on an internet message board instead of ponying up and submitting an article to a scientific journal for consideration (and probably almost immediate rejection). But, that's how science works.

No I do not. That is nuts. Have you learned nothing from CERN. Remember when they thought that Einsteins relativity was broken. All it takes is one anomaly and the theory must be reexamined in light of the new data. In that case it turned out the data was wrong. No one has yet to show that my data or analysis is wrong.

You sound like this guy:

Old theory guy - The data can not support the conclusion because if it did then everyone would have figured that out long ago and since no one has accepted that it must be false.

and

Old theory guy - I don't need to, I know it is false because it does not agree with what I know to be true.

I have stated it before and I repeat it again. There are many anomalies out there that science ignores. They pick and choose which ones to ignore based on dogma. The big elephant in the room is deleterious defects gathering and erosion. In time the elephant will crush the dogma, it always does.

Arp has proved the distance redshift relationship to be false. Yet science turns and looks the other way. But hey, what is one more elephant in the room.

[_Buffalo]

Again, Franktalk, if you're going to propose new science that completely overturns the established paradigm, you need to somehow address the old science that has come before. That means that you can't ignore the literally thousands of journal articles -- representing the cumulative efforts of thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands or millions of research hours -- that support and establish the current scientific model.

I am sorry that you don't like this. I am sorry that you keep wanting to argue from ignorance about things on an internet message board instead of ponying up and submitting an article to a scientific journal for consideration (and probably almost immediate rejection). But, that's how science works.

No I do not. That is nuts. Have you learned nothing from CERN. Remember when they thought that Einsteins relativity was broken. All it takes is one anomaly and the theory must be reexamined in light of the new data. In that case it turned out the data was wrong. No one has yet to show that my data or analysis is wrong.

You sound like this guy:

Old theory guy - The data can not support the conclusion because if it did then everyone would have figured that out long ago and since no one has accepted that it must be false.

and

Old theory guy - I don't need to, I know it is false because it does not agree with what I know to be true.

I have stated it before and I repeat it again. There are many anomalies out there that science ignores. They pick and choose which ones to ignore based on dogma. The big elephant in the room is deleterious defects gathering and erosion. In time the elephant will crush the dogma, it always does.

Arp has proved the distance redshift relationship to be false. Yet science turns and looks the other way. But hey, what is one more elephant in the room.

I'm sorry, but where is your data?

[_Chap]

Arp has proved the distance redshift relationship to be false. Yet science turns and looks the other way. But hey, what is one more elephant in the room.

Three questions:

1. Are you qualified in astrophysics to the extent that you feel able to pronounce authoritatively on what Arp has or has not 'proved'?

2. Where exactly is this thing you call 'science' located? It seems to me that you think of it as some kind of monolithic and centralized institution with a central authority that can decide to anathematize heretics. That is not a model of science that I recognize at all. It sounds more like a church to me.

3. What refereed scientific journals, if any, have refused to publish Arp's papers, and on what grounds did their referees recommend rejection of his submitted work? Arp will have this information if he has submitted to Nature, Science, Proc. Roy. Soc., the Lithuanian Journal of Astrophysics, or any decent journal.

[_DrW]

No I do not. That is nuts. Have you learned nothing from CERN. Remember when they thought that Einsteins relativity was broken. All it takes is one anomaly and the theory must be reexamined in light of the new data. In that case it turned out the data was wrong. No one has yet to show that my data or analysis is wrong.

Franktalk,

There you go again. No serious scientist thought that "relativity was broken" because of the CERN data. The "relativity is broken" idea came from the media, who sometimes unfortunately don't really understand how science works. Did you not see the paper title and abstract posted earlier in this thread? Did you not see my post when these data were first reported describing the problems with their release?

It took many years and several large confirming experiments and observations before Einstein's relativity was generally accepted by the scientific community. It took that long for folks to really understand how elegant relativity was and how well it worked as a fundamental law of nature.

One thing you seem not to understand about relativity is that it did not 'overturn' Newtonian or classical mechanics. Newton's equations of motion still work fine as Newton defined and applied them. Relativity simply extended our understanding of the universe we live in to higher speeds and/or higher masses.

I seriously doubt that any credible scientists "re-examined" the theory of relativity because of the CERN data. What folks did was to look at possible problems with the experimental set-up (systematic errors) and other possible problems with the reported data, or for possible apparent FTL explanations (such as superluminal phase velocities) which do not really violate relativity.

Again, I seriously doubt if anybody really looked at fundamental relativity itself. Relativity has passed hundreds of tests and continues to be confirmed in labs around the world every day.

And the geological science you seek to "overturn" is as well established in its general principles as is relativity.

Again, you continue to demonstrate that you are simply are not at a level of competence or understanding to be taken seriously on these issues.

[_Milesius]

How do you know you are in contact with the Holy Ghost vs some internal source vs being delusional?

Christianity is the largest of the major religions currently but Islam is growing at a tremendous rate while Christianity is declining. Does this mean it is being replaced by something better? Basing the validity of a religion on the number of adherents is foolishness.

Christianity has declined in certain parts of Europe but it is not declining in Africa, Asia (including China), or Central and South America. Get a clue.

[_Milesius]

How is that knocking a pitch out of the park? The statement was you can not base faith on miracles, but you reference Jesus being the light of the world, the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, being born again by power, all requiring supernatural power. So faith based on a miracle.

The difficulty with supernatural explanations is that they are impossible. Impossible to either prove or disprove.

Steelhead,

While in general agreement with your position, I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the above statement. In fact, supernatural explanations are easily discounted by application of a few simple rules or principles for evaluation of evidence or determination of weight of evidence.

These simple rules or principles include the following:

Law of Parsimony or Occam's Razor: Among the available and equally plausible explanations or hypotheses (and here we will give the supernatural a big pass on plausibility) the best explanation or hypothesis is the one that requires the fewest contingencies or new assumptions.

Falsifiability: An explanation or hypothesis that is falsifiable is preferred to one that is not, or in more strict terms, any valid explanation or hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Science uses these two principles, with overwhelming success, to distinguish between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy, truth and falsehood. This distinction is made on the basis of relative probabilities, not on the basis of possibility. Mopologetic "credible deniability" or "wiggle room", while of possible importance to religionists, do not count for much when it comes to scientific evaluation of a given assertion or hypothesis.

Ockham's Razor is a heuristic; it does not prove anything.

Before claiming supernatural miracles, folks should understand that, in the natural world, the supernatural cannot, and does not, exist (pretty much by definition).

No.

[_Milesius]

Again to the why.

Let's say that I am Zoroastrian and believe in the deluge account of Gilgamesh or alternatively Atra-Hasis instead of the biblical account of Noah. Are all 3 stories correct? Were there three boats with guys and animals floating around at the behest a veritable pantheon of gods and dieties?

This becomes important because the final disposition of my eternal soul is at stake. So convince me that the YEC christian view is more viable than my current worship of Ahura Mazda.

A Zoroastrian would not "believe in the deluge account of Gilgamesh or alternatively Atra-Hasis." Are you trying to sound sophisticated by stringing disparate religions together, hoping no one will know the difference?