62 million year old bird fossil with bony teeth found.

[Jose Fly]

..not interested in bickering about my education, understanding, motives, or sexual preference.

I agree, except when it comes to your understanding. I don't think it's unreasonable to inquire about a person's understanding of an issue while discussing that issue.

If there was a genuine interest in examining scientific dating methods, I'd be glad to participate.

I see a few posts in this thread that responded to you from a genuine interest in the topic. You seem to have either ignored them or waved them away. Why?

I'll be glad to bow out, so the echo chamber of homogeneous belief can continue uninterrupted..

Yes, your beliefs about ancient dating methods are established fact, and everyone knows them to be indisputable. Don't be disturbed by those who question the decrees of the elite, but rest assured that your beliefs are superior and have the official approval of the State, and all other institutions of man.

..that is what modern science is all about, anyway..

Do you appreciate how the above is directly counter to what you claim to want (a reasonable discussion)? You just called folks here names and disparaged science (something several of us have chosen as a profession).

How is that conducive to a productive discussion of science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your patronizing, demeaning, belittling comments make intelligent debate with you impossible.

..believe whatever you want.. but insulting, ad hominem laced discussion with hostiles is of no interest to me.

..i should just put you back on ignore.. or, just abandon the forum to you and your cronies.. my perspective is obviously not wanted, so why should i offer it?

I am sorry if the truth hurts. I am not saying that you cannot learn. If you refuse to learn then you deserve all "patronizing" comments aimed at you. And you still have no clue as to what an ad hominem is. That only makes your apparent ignorance worse.

Rather than continuing to be ignorant of all of the sciences why do you not try to learn? People here, others if you do not like me, will gladly help you to learn. The fact is that it is obvious to anyone with even a high school level of scientific literacy that you do not understand the sciences that you deny. All you can do is to make wild claims that you cannot support and then complain when people call you out for that bad action.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How? You merely assert and believe this, from constant indoctrination..

Actually? No. You kinda have that exactly backwards... no belief is needed with science-- we have facts.

The FACT is, there is no verifiable way to calculate theses dates, .

False. 100% in fact-- all dating methods are double and triple checked with multiple methods.

If you had clicked the link given earlier? You would know this...

and no reliable measurement that is not fraught with assumptions and speculation.

nope.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, it is clear to me. I have studied dating methods extensively, and see the flaws, assumptions, and speculations. .

This statement is most amusing. By "studied" you clearly mean "listened to creationists non-arguments and outright lies with respect to dating methods".

If you had actual arguments? You'd have presented these ... ahem... "flaws" and "assumptions" and "speculations".

This is how we know you are wrong, here.

 

[wandering peacefully]

The pseudoteeth of the Great Northern Gannett are not the true bony teeth of the pelagornithid bird, and evolved from the beak.

Though many birds, such as chickens, have the gene for teeth, but it is turned off

Ah, I see said the blind man. Very fascinating stuff. They still hurt when they bite!

 

[wandering peacefully]

This statement is most amusing. By "studied" you clearly mean "listened to creationists non-arguments and outright lies with respect to dating methods".

If you had actual arguments? You'd have presented these ... ahem... "flaws" and "assumptions" and "speculations".

This is how we know you are wrong, here.

Too funny. I was running down the page reading all of these responses wondering who in the world everyone was responding to who refuses to acknowledge science as a valid way of understanding the processes of nature. Then I remembered the only poster I actually had to put on ignore for gomming up threads with nonsense that most likely they cannot possibly believe themselves. It's really a waste of time and effort to teach the willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest after they have been given plenty of chances to correct their thinking imo.

 

[usfan]

Too funny. I was running down the page reading all of these responses wondering who in the world everyone was responding to who refuses to acknowledge science as a valid way of understanding the processes of nature.

You have it backwards. I am alone in defending science from ideological propagandists who use it to promote their religious beliefs.

None of the pseudoscience pretenders will engage me in actual scientific debate, or discussion, but they will only ridicule, accuse, smear, and distort my posts, to promote their religious opinion about common ancestry.

They whine to the mods, to close any thread i start on scientific examination of this theory. They heckle and flood the threads with ridicule and personal attacks, ignoring reason and scientific facts.

..so you can try to make this about me, or jump on the bandwagon of Belittling, but the obvious reality is that the True Believers are afraid to examine their beliefs, but drown out any alternate views.. or inconvenient facts.. in a deluge of antifa like heckling.

Open inquiry is not promoted in this subforum, but mandated conformity of belief. This is observable reality, and you are a party to this censorship.

 

[Polymath257]

You have it backwards. I am alone in defending science from ideological propagandists who use it to promote their religious beliefs.

Let's look at that claim.

Are you printing your objections in a professional journal? No.

Are you basing your claims on material published in a professional journal? No.

Are those who disagree with you using material published in a professional journal? Yes.

Are the ideas you present generally accepted by the scientific community? No.

Are the ideas you are disagreeing with generally accepted by the scientific community? Yes.

None of the pseudoscience pretenders will engage me in actual scientific debate, or discussion, but they will only ridicule, accuse, smear, and distort my posts, to promote their religious opinion about common ancestry.

If you wish to actually engage in scientific debate, write up a paper/letter to the editor criticizing methods and send it into a professional journal.

 

[usfan]

Let's look at that claim.
Are you printing your objections in a professional journal? No.
Are you basing your claims on material published in a professional journal? No.
Are those who disagree with you using material published in a professional journal? Yes.
Are the ideas you present generally accepted by the scientific community? No.
Are the ideas you are disagreeing with generally accepted by the scientific community? Yes.
If you wish to actually engage in scientific debate, write up a paper/letter to the editor criticizing methods and send it into a professional journal.

Good dodge. So you confirm that 'Science!', is owned by establishment elites, and is not open to anyone. It has become a religion, with a heirarchy of priests, and exclusive control of information. It is no longer a method of discovery, but is a means of indoctrination.

Your arguments illustrate that perception.

I cannot use 'Science!', according to you, because i lack the credentials. My reasoning is invalid, and the facts are dismissed, because i do not meet the standards of the self appointed elites in some inaginary, mandated world of exclusive knowledge.

You prove my point, that pseudoscience, not real scientific methodology, is the goal of modern instruction. Indoctrination, not understanding, is the agenda of the pseudoscience pretenders.

You want to debate dating methods? Big bang? Mitochondrial DNA? Magnetic half life? Helium isotopes in the atmosphere? I can do that, and have facts and references to support my arguments. But am i permitted to do so, in a progressive echo chamber? No. Hordes of hecklers attack me, personally, and ignore the science completely, which they obviously do not comprehend.

The absurd clinging to 'Science!'.. is an illusion. Science has little or nothing to do with the beliefs of these religious ideologues. They are indoctrinees.. deluded tools for ambitious manipulators, nothing more.

 

[Polymath257]

Good dodge. So you confirm that 'Science!', is owned by establishment elites, and is not open to anyone. It has become a religion, with a heirarchy of priests, and exclusive control of information. It is no longer a method of discovery, but is a means of indoctrination.

Nope. What I am saying is that your claim that you are the only one doing science is shown to be wrong by looking at the scientific organizations and their conclusions.

Your arguments illustrate that perception.

I cannot use 'Science!', according to you, because i lack the credentials. My reasoning is invalid, and the facts are dismissed, because i do not meet the standards of the self appointed elites in some inaginary, mandated world of exclusive knowledge.

Nope. That is NOT the reason your views are dismissed. They are dismissed because they are not well thought out, and discussed in the appropriate scientific forums. You can easily write a letter to the editor of Nature. If that letter has valid objections, it will get published. If not, it won't.

You prove my point, that pseudoscience, not real scientific methodology, is the goal of modern instruction. Indoctrination, not understanding, is the agenda of the pseudoscience pretenders.

Nope. You can just as easily enter into the 'scientific establishment' as anyone else. Go and actually learn the evidence and the subjects involved. The doors are unlocked, but you have to do a bit of work to get through.

You want to debate dating methods? Big bang? Mitochondrial DNA? Magnetic half life? Helium isotopes in the atmosphere? I can do that, and have facts and references to support my arguments. But am i permitted to do so, in a progressive echo chamber? No. Hordes of hecklers attack me, personally, and ignore the science completely, which they obviously do not comprehend.

Yes, of course you are able to present your viewpoint. Let's start with the Big Bang (which is in my area of specialty). What makes you think it has the basic overview wrong? BTW, you might start a different thread for this since it is off topic for this thread.

The absurd clinging to 'Science!'.. is an illusion. Science has little or nothing to do with the beliefs of these religious ideologues. They are indoctrinees.. deluded tools for ambitious manipulators, nothing more.

Hey, you are the one claiming that you are doing science. And that the whole scientific community is not.

In the mean time, do you have any specific objections to the dates for the fossils reported in the OP?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have it backwards. I am alone in defending science from ideological propagandists who use it to promote their religious beliefs.

Now you are sounding exceptionally delusional. Religion is your flaw. Worse yet you deride your own religious beliefs by using the word "religious" as a pejorative.

None of the pseudoscience pretenders will engage me in actual scientific debate, or discussion, but they will only ridicule, accuse, smear, and distort my posts, to promote their religious opinion about common ancestry.

Now, now, making false claims about others is not a winning tactic. The fault is your own. You constantly display a complete ignorance of even the basics of science and refuse to enter into a discussion where you could learn some of the basics of science such as the scientific method or the concept of scientific evidence. You are no more ready to debate than a toddler is ready to enter a prize fight.

But I will have a serious debate with you once you demonstrate that you have an understanding of those two basics.

They whine to the mods, to close any thread i start on scientific examination of this theory. They heckle and flood the threads with ridicule and personal attacks, ignoring reason and scientific facts.

And no false claims such as this one. If a thread was closed it was almost surely due to your own bad behavior. Making false claims about others is not allowed. If you make a claim you must be ready to back it up. Also, in a debate you lose it you misrepresent the other side. For example I would lose a debate on Christianity if I claimed:

Christianity is the belief that nailing someone to a free until he died and then digging him up after a day and a half makes you live forever.

Does that accurately reflect your beliefs? Or course not. If I wanted to debate Christianity I would have to argue against the beliefs of at least one sect, not one I made up in my head.

..so you can try to make this about me, or jump on the bandwagon of Belittling, but the obvious reality is that the True Believers are afraid to examine their beliefs, but drown out any alternate views.. or inconvenient facts.. in a deluge of antifa like heckling.

Open inquiry is not promoted in this subforum, but mandated conformity of belief. This is observable reality, and you are a party to this censorship.

Don't play the fake martyr either if you want to be taken seriously. If everyone is making fun of you you probably earned it. If you want to have a serious debate you need to agree to those terms. If not don't complain when you receive the "heckling" that you to out of your way to earn.

 

[tas8831]

A picture is worth a thousand words..

Good example of progressive indoctrinees..

Derisive insults. Good example of Christian values.

 

[tas8831]

You have it backwards. I am alone in defending science from ideological propagandists who use it to promote their religious beliefs..

Say - aren't you the fellow that refused to read scientific articles because there were too many science words?

And aren't you the guy that claimed - with tremendous certainty - that there was special marker in ONLY human female mtDNA called the "Eve gene" - only to link to a site that actually defined "Eve gene" as a way simple folk referred to the whole mitochondrial genome?

And aren't you the fellow that hawked a paper on Canid phylogeny using mtDNA as evidence of good science that showed dogs were not related to non-dogs, yet called me names when I demonstrated that your interpretation was bogus, that other papers using more data and more taxa showed that dogs are descendants of other carnivores, and when I presented a paper using the SAME data and methods by on primates you totally dismissed it all because no Eve gene?

yes, that was you.

And you want to spew dopey conspiracy theories as to why nobody thinks you understand any of the crap you write about?

Grow up.

 

[tas8831]

Again, others do it with little to no problems. What's different about you?

Amazingly, he had the same issues when he tried these same dopey arguments on a right-wing politics forum (though he did have 2 or 3 similarly uninformed and abrasive righties that agreed with him), so his 'progressive persecution' is just the righty snowflake game of the day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have it backwards. I am alone in defending science from ideological propagandists who use it to promote their religious beliefs.

None of the pseudoscience pretenders will engage me in actual scientific debate, or discussion, but they will only ridicule, accuse, smear, and distort my posts, to promote their religious opinion about common ancestry.

They whine to the mods, to close any thread i start on scientific examination of this theory. They heckle and flood the threads with ridicule and personal attacks, ignoring reason and scientific facts.

..so you can try to make this about me, or jump on the bandwagon of Belittling, but the obvious reality is that the True Believers are afraid to examine their beliefs, but drown out any alternate views.. or inconvenient facts.. in a deluge of antifa like heckling.

Open inquiry is not promoted in this subforum, but mandated conformity of belief. This is observable reality, and you are a party to this censorship.

Yes, everyone but you has it backwards. That's it.

 

[ecco]

Yes, this is your belief, indoctrinated from early childhood.

I believe in science. I believe in evolution. Please document how I have been "indoctrinated".

5. This is a religious belief, masquerading as 'Science!', that all organisms share common ancestry.

I am not wanting to upset or disparage the beliefs of others, just defending real science from those who use it to promote their religious agenda.

If you believe something religious is masquerading as science, I suppose that you believe there is something to science that is not religious. What parts of science do you accept?

I am alone in defending science from ideological propagandists who use it to promote their religious beliefs.

No, you are not alone. I can think of several other Bible Fundamentalist Creationists who regularly post in these forums. However, if you need to feel like a martyr I'll be glad to assist.

 

[ecco]

No, it is clear to me. I have studied dating methods extensively, and see the flaws, assumptions, and speculations.

If you have found serious flaws with radiometric dating methodology why don't you write a paper explaining the problems?

 

[ecco]

Rather than continuing to be ignorant of all of the sciences why do you not try to learn?

I think we all know the reason. He cannot accept any science that conflicts with his fundamentalist religious beliefs. To do so would be to destroy his very essence.

 

[tas8831]

I dispute the dates as being circular, without scientific evidence. There is no valid way to assert these dates, and they are assumed and believed, only.

You dispute, then provide no support, except for an ignorant assertion.

So who cares what Dr.Eve gene says about radiometric dating?

 

[tas8831]

I have studied dating methods extensively, and see the flaws, assumptions, and speculations.

Funny - you wrote something similar about genetics and phylogeny.

And remember how that worked out for you?

"Eve gene"....

Then there was your gaffe about Scadding...

Then there was how you dismissed the use of the "Eve gene" to assess Primate phylogeny for no reason except that you don't know anything about genetics or evolution or science, despite bombastic claims to the contrary.

Then there was your whole "genome architecture" nonsense...

Amazing stuff...

And by amazing, I mean hilarious.