Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

Certainly no central figure but there is a specific worldview that excludes all other scientific evidence not in line without review. That is prejudice not science.

 

In what cases? Surely you don't mean in all other cases?


Darwin doubted his own work and gave specific conditions if discovered later would void his hypothesis. Those discoveries were made and Neo-Darwinism shifted to fit the hypothesis. I thought science was about exploring all avenues of discovery not fitting all discovery into a little politically correct box.

 

Nope...that's actually the way the scientific principle functions. Data that does not meet the criteria required for study and experimentation are dismissed.

 

That isn't science, it's politics.

 

You also....are dismissed.

 

Please supply evidence of this.

- - - Updated - - -

Science is about exploring all avenues of discover, not fitting all discovery into an ancient religious text.

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist

http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281

Science is, but the scientists who are evolutionist refuse to explore ALL avenues, only ones that fir into their religious model. See links above.

 

I am sure Occam's Razor has been brought up before in this thread, but I'm going to bring it up again. What is the simpler explanation, that volumes of geological evidence is wrong and we just noticed it because some soft tissue was found that wasn't fossilized or that maybe we just don't understand fossilization as well as we thought. In either case, it doesn't even begin to disprove evolution so I don't see the whole conspiracy thing. What is weird is that why would geologists support biologists anyway? They are two very distinct and different branches of science.

I like this quote from the article though:

Hard to judge exactly why Mark Armitage was fired from his job from just an article so I'll save judgement until after the court case. As for the controversy over the cells in the triceratops horn, I refer to my comments above.

Again even if the fossilization of soft tissue proved that dinosaurs lived only a few hundred centuries ago instead of a few hundred million years ago, it still doesn't disprove evolution and even if evolution was disproven, it doesn't mean that creationism would be accepted.

 

Name any famous scientist and I'll show you someone who upended a specific worldview. But they did it by the evidence of their theory, not by claiming prejudice. If you think creationism is a better theory than evolution, show how it explains biological diversity better.

 

Regardless if the evolutionists believe it or not, a 65 million year old fossil with soft tissue? Cut me a break!!!! Besides the quote from the piece diod not claim her evidence was false, nor did they offer an explanation for 65,000,000 year old soft tissue.

 

From the Article:

http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281

just nonsense..............

 

So a scientist discovers that some soft tissue can be preserved for millions of years because of the presence of iron, and that evidence is accepted by other scientists. Where exactly is the prejudice?

http://news.discovery.com/animals/d...act-t-rex-tissue-finally-explained-131127.htm

Since his paper didn't make any arguments about creation or the age of the earth, I doubt that was the reason he was fired. However, him telling biology or paleontology students that life began only a few thousand years ago clearly undermines the institution’s goals, and would be legal grounds for dismissal.

 

Yeah, I suppose if you can believe the universe was formed from nothing and people evolved from apes, you would believe soft tissue can be preserved for 65,000,000 years.

 

As opposed to believing we were created from dust and a rib bone?

 

Do you read your own posts?

 

Someone has to, because I haven't seen any indication that you do.

 

Don't answer the voices in your head.

 

The improbable remark came from the mouth of Dawkins.

The alternative is simple and occams razor. Intelligent information is involved in the rise of life and in evolutionary mechanisms. Kinda similar in how information is needed at the quantum level. Energy, information, relationship. I am not saying what that intelligence and information is, but just that it is the most probable. I sure don't turn it into an anthropomorphic being. Much more than that. In fact, any image of it is an insult to that great intelligence.

 

Then...Occams razor cannot apply, as you are making things far more complicated by leaving out the fundamental aspect of your hypothesis.

 

It is far more complicated to leave it to chance and improbability. That should be easily obvious. I don't understand how one can accept the information needed and in operation at the quantum level, but totally reject it and depend upon no information with this intelligentless theory of evolution. The motive behind this is a need for atheists to try to validate their beliefs, to the point of utter absurdity. Absurdity loves company apparently.

 

Well I'm no expert on fossilization so I can't offer up an answer. After a quick search it looks like most scientists' answer is "we don't know... yet". A 65 million year old fossil with soft tissue is hardly a smoking gun.

 

But you worship at the alter of evolution with significantly less than that.

Now it's your turn, show us the "smoking gun" in support of evolution. I'll wait.

 

Okay....lets just use your "Occams Razor" idea for evaluation of these competing hypothesis:

The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Evolution~ Large amounts of verified data from both the past and today, that clearly show life forms change over time as adaptation to environment and competition effect population and reproduction.

Creation~ No Data to support an undefined entity decided to make everything out of nothing.

 

[h=2]Lack of DNA in fossils[/h]Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C, it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels.[SUP][23][/SUP]
If fossils of the dinosaurs were less than 6,000 years old, detectable fragments of DNA should be present in a sizable percent of dinosaur fossils, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic regions where the decay of DNA can be slowed down 10-25 fold. A claim that soft tissues in a Tyrannosaurus fossil had been recovered in 2005[SUP][24][/SUP] have since been shown to be mistaken,[SUP][25][/SUP] supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old.[SUP][26]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Lack_of_DNA_in_fossils
[/SUP]
[TABLE="class: mp_left_inside mp_box_inside, width: 529"]
[TR]
[TH="class: mp_about_header mp_section_header"]About RationalWiki[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

I have already supplied you the "Smoking Gun" and you ignored it. Perhaps I should try again:

View attachment 31874 View attachment 31875

Why would you imagine a Whale should have leg bones?