How to upset Creationist and Darwinians.

[Ipecac]

Yardy yardy yardy. It'd be good to get going here but all I see is a load (not all) of self-important bores who prefer throwing insults and not saying much else. Then you have to come back and waste time. Yes, I know all about evolution. I don't have a problem with it particuarly. YAWN. Just thought I'd get some banter going. But hell, some of you take things seriously, almost as a personal attack. I go hammer and tongs with people on other forums, yet as much as we disagree, laugh at one another and so on, it's kept civil. Should be ashamed of yourselves, did ya parents teach you no manners? Okay, I chucked some controversial and not particuarly well researched stuff in there... but to generate good conversation. Thought that was why we're here, to have a laugh, chat, etc. I entered pleasantly enough. What's the problem? Take my thread title. In the UK it's humour. Not meant to really upset or offend anyone. It's said with a smile. Obviously doesn't translate too well over the Atlantic.. Take it with the pinch of salt it is intended, think about it, learn from it. Some hope. Tiresome.

The problem is, I don't think anyone here understands what you're trying to do.

Are you trying to mock creationist beliefs by summarizing many of their ill-reasoned arguments? Or are you proposing a new theory that mixes creationism and evolution? It's not remotely clear what the heck you are getting at.

Obviously, most people are assuming that you're making arguments. If you're not, then perhaps you should be more clear what your point is.

 

[BillHoyt]

Thought that was why we're here, to have a laugh, chat, etc. I entered pleasantly enough. What's the problem?

Well, this is an educational forum sponsored by a skeptical organization. Having laughs and good chats is part of the picture, but so are cleaving to the facts and citing good evidence. This dismissive attitude of yours so far simply signals you as trolling. If that is not the case, then, shall we stop the whining and start addressing the evidence?

Anytime you're ready.

 

[rebecca]

Say what you will about the source material and worth of the research (or lack of) of this particular book, it merely attempts to give a third alternative to how we ended up here, one in tune with evolution but not necessarily agreeing with established viewsof the journey from A to B.

I think the reason why the forum is treating you to such harsh (though in my opinion, deserved) criticism is wrapped in the above quote. You appear to be playing devil's advocate without really understanding or appreciating your own viewpoint. This tactic was fun when I was a kid trying to goad people, but I now find that discussions are much more interesting when a person defends his OWN opinion, and not someone else's.

 

[Hyperbol 9]

I'm not knocking anyone. I can and do, but am not here. I think I should have not been lazy and pasted my opening post as it was verbatim from it's original source. It translates like I am a fruitcake I agree. It is also a tad lengthy. My mistake, I can only apologise. I will not defend particularly as I think it's all cloud cuckoo land myself. I thought it amusing with a hint of, what if?, and thought, like elsewhere, the posters would lay into it in a general manner.

I had a brief look at the boards before I registered but obviously got the measure of this one wrong. It is a no-nonsense thing obviously and you take it all very seriously.

Perhaps I was off to a bad start as I said to Dragon. I think I'll learn from my mistake and nip in other threads and see if I can build back some credibility there. You may be surprised!?

Rebecca, my own opinion it is then. I am sitting here scratching my head wondering why I am defending Baigent and be seen as the woo woo brigade rep. I think it is because I have spent much time on forums arguing with the woo woos that I have got the context wrong. I do not wish to undermine intelligent debate, but have perhaps spent too long among the believers in things that go bump in the night and have become lazy.

Right outtahere.

 

[Z]

Just remember, you are now participating in a forum where the standard responses to "I watched the sun rise this morning" would be divided among those who would want you to show proof that you watched it; those disputing that what you saw was, in fact, the turning of the earth and the revelation of the sun, from your point of view; and those who would want to tell you that, in fact, those thinking the earth was turning were wrong.

So... have fun, but be prepared to defend yourself!

 

[Matabiri]

Here's a question I've always had:

Let's say, hypothetically, that humankind in whatever form once had a modern technological civilization similar in advancement and technology to our own. How long would it take for every artifact trace to be destroyed through natural forces? How long before every building frame, plastic milk-bottle, and fiberglass automobile shell would be dissolved into nothingness? How long before even 'preserved' items would deteriorate and vanish? With these questions in mind, is it even vaguely possible that, millions of years ago, Mankind had steel and glass cities, aircraft, and so forth?

Now apply this thinking to civilization as we know DID exist, and let's see how long it would take for even preserved items to deteriorate beyond recognition - couldn't tech-oriented life on Earth be, therefore, near-infinitely older than we give it credit for?

I don't think so. If that were the case you wouldn't expect to find an evolution of tools (stone -> bronze -> iron, for example) and building materials archaeolgically. The Romans had glass windows, some of which have been found, but they were crudely made and not very flat. This implies that the technology has been developing over the observed timescale, which is inconsistant with your idea.

 

[Matabiri]

I'm not knocking anyone. I can and do, but am not here. I think I should have not been lazy and pasted my opening post as it was verbatim from it's original source. It translates like I am a fruitcake I agree. It is also a tad lengthy. My mistake, I can only apologise. I will not defend particularly as I think it's all cloud cuckoo land myself. I thought it amusing with a hint of, what if?, and thought, like elsewhere, the posters would lay into it in a general manner.

They did lay into it in a general manner. That manner was "this is all fluff we've seen before - what's your point?" Make a specific, defendable claim, and you'll get a better response.

 

[Hyperbol 9]

Just remember, you are now participating in a forum where the standard responses to "I watched the sun rise this morning" would be divided among those who would want you to show proof that you watched it; those disputing that what you saw was, in fact, the turning of the earth and the revelation of the sun, from your point of view; and those who would want to tell you that, in fact, those thinking the earth was turning were wrong.

So... have fun, but be prepared to defend yourself!

Cheers. And no probs. I think I got the measure wrong as I printed off and took home the weekly bulletins, which are a riot, I read and cried laughing for hours. As such I thought the boards would be a similar vein, as they are, say, on Fortean Times. Apparently not. Still, as my old pappy used to say, The older you get the more ways you find to be stupid. Ah well.

 

[Dancing David]

Why not make a start rather than glory in the rhetoric? Why not read some of my secondary posts? I did in fact quote the source. As for Creationist... well you must be the first person to call me one of those in a fairly long life. Well done. A good judge of character DD. Jeez, no wonder this isn't so much a debate forum as a load of bods agreeing with one another and generally indulging in backslapping. Anyone with a degree of differing opinion has obviously been soon browbeaten away. I get called narrowminded by believers in this that and everything else on other forums by those who themselves are in fact narrowminded to the other extreme. So argue a point.

Okay, I've chucked in a load of pish. Enjoy it, knock it down, applaud it, do whatever you want. But c'mon, lighten up. I said right at the beginning it was lighthearted and tongue in cheek. But it is nevertheless a challenge to established theory and should be tackled as other posters above have more eloquently done.

And I don't see how it is creationist? Say what you will about the source material and worth of the research (or lack of) of this particular book, it merely attempts to give a third alternative to how we ended up here, one in tune with evolution but not necessarily agreeing with established viewsof the journey from A to B.

It was a rather long introductory post and very rhetorical and it is full of crap. Nowhere do you say that it is lighthearted and ment in jest. It sure contains a lot a of crap, the only one you left out was the dinosuar footprints next to human footprints.

So would you care to sum up your arguements for while you feel that darwins theory of natural selection leading to evolution is full of holes. You made the statement so perhaps you can explain what you mean by it?

You yourself may not be a creationist but you have either misquoted a good text or quoted a miserable text. It is so full of crap that it would be hard to know where to begin, so I ask again, where are the caping holes in the theory of natural selection?

it merely attempts to give a third alternative to how we ended up here, one in tune with evolution but not necessarily agreeing with established viewsof the journey from A to B.

This statement right here seems to indicate that you know little of the current state of evolutionary theory and the changes that it has gone through and is still under going, it is not a homogenous edifice that shuts out eveidence.


Then there is this statement from the OP

Since that time the supporters of Darwin have run the show and staked reputations, careers and pride on making the theory of evolution puzzle fit precisely to their every whim. Any who dare dig up (literally) an alternative to the established view are shot down in flames, careers ruined.

Any proof of this outrageous statement or do you just expect a bunch of sceptics to pat you on the back and say "Oh that is right thge scientific method is subverted all the time and there is a vast conspiracy that suppresses the evidence". So it is either carp or hyperbole.

590 – 505,000,000: Sandal imprint found inside split shale, Antelope Springs, Utah.

320 – 260,000,000: Eight-carat gold chain found inside lump of coal, Illinois, USA.
Carat is an alloy and eight carat not a mix made in recent times.

250,000,000: Human footprints found in rock, Kentucky, USA.

248 – 213,000,000 (Triassic): Shoe imprint found in rock, Nevada, USA.

150,000,000: Human footprint found in rock alongside dinosaur tracks, Turkmenistan.

55- 33,000,000: Stone pestle and mortar found at Table Mountain, California.

25 – 5,000,000: Tool markings on rhinoceros thighbone, France.

5 – 2,000,000: Tool markings on whale fossil.

Now those I can beleive are humor, they are so patently false and lacking in provenance that they have been dealt with in the archaelogical jpurnals already, there is no repression, the evidence has been found wanting. What a hoot!

 

[Dancing David]

Good, we're up and running.

Your points above are valid. However, holes have been dug for a long time now. Surely someone would have got lucky. Again it comes down to probability. Yeah, the in-between species are probably there, but please explain to this poor ignorant sod how the jackpot doesn't seem to be hit? Must be a few in the dry soil.

I can't believe I'm challenging something from a 'Believers' viewpoint. What went wrong?

Maybe it's what happens when you quote a beleiver!

So you are upset that the geologic record does not show a progression of intermediate species or that a particular species does not show a clear cut record of intermediaries.

The argument that the creationists dont like is selctive breeding of domestic animals. It shows very clesarly that the mutability of the genome is a real phenomena, you have dogs with narrow features bred into dogs with broad features, all through artificial slection, when you see the braod face of a pug you might think, well gosh that dog type has always existed , well it hasn't there were many intermediaries along the way. That is not deifinitive proof but it is supporting evidence of a theory called natural selection.

As to the Baboon Bottleneck, there are a lot of human theorists who believe that the homo spaiens ancestors arose in Africa, went to Asia and that the true progenitor of gracile homo sapiens evolved in Asia and radiated back into Agfrica, which could explain how human primates don't have the viral marker.

 

[Dancing David]

Here's a question I've always had:

Let's say, hypothetically, that humankind in whatever form once had a modern technological civilization similar in advancement and technology to our own. How long would it take for every artifact trace to be destroyed through natural forces? How long before every building frame, plastic milk-bottle, and fiberglass automobile shell would be dissolved into nothingness? How long before even 'preserved' items would deteriorate and vanish? With these questions in mind, is it even vaguely possible that, millions of years ago, Mankind had steel and glass cities, aircraft, and so forth?

Now apply this thinking to civilization as we know DID exist, and let's see how long it would take for even preserved items to deteriorate beyond recognition - couldn't tech-oriented life on Earth be, therefore, near-infinitely older than we give it credit for?

Interesting idea , however the evidence of mining would last a really long time, there would be coal pits and metal mines and other traces of thier existance. If they were ercent enough we could find layers of sediment in the ocean and lakes that would indicate polution made by technology.

 

[Dancing David]

Cheers. And no probs. I think I got the measure wrong as I printed off and took home the weekly bulletins, which are a riot, I read and cried laughing for hours. As such I thought the boards would be a similar vein, as they are, say, on Fortean Times. Apparently not. Still, as my old pappy used to say, The older you get the more ways you find to be stupid. Ah well.

Gee don't run away so soon, we were attacking the ideas not the person!

I have had my ideas laid into as well here, it is a scpetics board after all. And there are good reasons to question the way evolution is often presented.

Perhaps if you had said that you read the book and presented ias sport then you would not feel put upon. And gosh, you ought to read the debates in the R&P forum!

 

[DaveW]

Here's a question I've always had:

Let's say, hypothetically, that humankind in whatever form once had a modern technological civilization similar in advancement and technology to our own. How long would it take for every artifact trace to be destroyed through natural forces? How long before every building frame, plastic milk-bottle, and fiberglass automobile shell would be dissolved into nothingness? How long before even 'preserved' items would deteriorate and vanish? With these questions in mind, is it even vaguely possible that, millions of years ago, Mankind had steel and glass cities, aircraft, and so forth?

Now apply this thinking to civilization as we know DID exist, and let's see how long it would take for even preserved items to deteriorate beyond recognition - couldn't tech-oriented life on Earth be, therefore, near-infinitely older than we give it credit for?

It seems to me that people are neglecting to read through the second paragraph. It seems zaayrdragon's point is not that it is possible we would find record of people millions of years ago driving around automobiles while talking on their cell phones, but that it is possible that primitive technology existed before it is generally accepted it might, due to degradation of the more primitive materials used. I'm not sure I agree with him, but it is an interesting question. Then again, maybe I also failed to fully grasp his train of thought.

 

[Dragon]

Hyperbol,

Plenty of laughs to be had here - try the "Forum Community" or "Humor" forums (or almost any post by Lucianarchy, olaf or Riddick).
Meanwhile - what about the "baboon marker virus"?
I'm genuinely intrigued, got any decent references?

It seems it could be a challenge to the theory that man came out of Africa fairly recently ( ie < 1m years) - but not to human evolution per se.
What say you?

 

[Dancing David]

It seems to me that people are neglecting to read through the second paragraph. It seems zaayrdragon's point is not that it is possible we would find record of people millions of years ago driving around automobiles while talking on their cell phones, but that it is possible that primitive technology existed before it is generally accepted it might, due to degradation of the more primitive materials used. I'm not sure I agree with him, but it is an interesting question. Then again, maybe I also failed to fully grasp his train of thought.

Your point is the one that I was presenting, perhaps poorly. The preservation of bone, wood and hides is going to last about 14,000 years in most cases, except for really rare cases of mummification. And hence we have artifacts from France and Germany in caves and in Swiss and other bogs. And we also have the old convention that culture arose in these place about 12,000 BP. But there are stones that indicate at least older dates than that for North Africa.

 

[Z]

Well, yeah, that's my train of thought - if we 'assume' that mankind is X thousand years old based on fossil evidence and artifacts, have we even considered the probability that artifacts and fossils will, eventually, deteriorate as well? That even the sturdiest steel will eventually oxidize, disintigrate, disappear?

So I think... in a way... it's folly for us to state with any level of certainty how 'old' man may be - or technology use, in general, for that matter. Of course, what my theory would need to REALLY support it would be some well-preserved artifact or fossil much, MUCH older than expected - like, some human artifact somehow preserved through incredible circumstance in amber or encased in crystal, then somehow being undisturbed for 25 thousand years or more...

I'd say the probability of ANY artifact of Man surviving umpteen-thousands of years is incredibly low - but then again, simple natural fossils seem to last for an even LONGER period of time, and this suggests that humans may not have been around so long after all. Then again... ASSUMING long periods where humans never preserved their bodies, ASSUMING that humans didn't fall prey to tar pits or sudden freezes or lava flows, ASSUMING that their tool use stayed at some low, rudimentary level for several millenia... would it be even slightly probable that humans could survive for thousands of years without leaving a trace, under these arguably outlandish assumptions?

Really - it's just a thought I've been mulling over. Frankly, I'd be pretty darned depressed to learn that it took any longer than, say, 20,000 years to get where we are today. Heck, even that figure is pretty darned depressing.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

Metals decompose, but processed materials stay 'unnatural' for a long time.

Rather than cell phones and steel buildings, what about plastic being laid down in sea beds?

How long would it take for the quantity of heavy metals in landfills to disperse enough not to be significant?

How long before diamonds showed no signs of having been worked?

How long for nuclear waste to become indistinguishable from naturally occuring deposits?

How long until all the space junk falls into unstable orbits?

I would actually like to know the answers, but I have a feeling that a civilisation like ours would have had to have occurred a very long time ago for us to not be able to detect it.

 

[plindboe]

Hyperbol 9,

Most people here have seen those kinds arguments hundreds of times before. Just about any of the creationist arguments are based on either strawmen, outright lies, and most often severe misunderstandings of science, and it's frustrating to keep explaining the same thing again and again. Creationists spread their poor arguments like propaganda and don't care about quality only about quantity, and this way they convince alot of people who haven't got the education to know any better. You might not be a creationist, but what you have offered is unrecognizable from the typical ignorant creationist propaganda, so that's why people react a little hostile(though in this thread I think most people have been fairly nice).

That said, welcome aboard and enjoy your stay.

 

[Z]

Oh, I agree, Ramblin'... I doubt sincerely that a Tech-age civilization has really existed to any great degree, but what I'm really wondering is how much older might Man be than what we've seen?

I personally think there might still be some validity to the 'space seed' theory, though I gotta wonder what would possess some advanced race to put human life on THIS planet!

 

[BillHoyt]

I personally think there might still be some validity to the 'space seed' theory, though I gotta wonder what would possess some advanced race to put human life on THIS planet!

But if you scratch that theory a bit, you'll find it simply bleeds the begging the question fallacy. The essential questions are: how did life arise and how did we get this incredible diversity. The "space seed" theory does little to address it; it simply moves the action and the questions off this planet. Unless there is clear evidence for it, we must apply Occam's razor and declare it a non-starter.