(December 5, 2011 at 10:19 pm)Epimethean Wrote:(December 5, 2011 at 9:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We don’t have labs though, we do more filed work than anything.
I knew it: You are a secretary!
Nope, that’s just a typographic error, I meant field work, but you are smart enough to already know that right?
(December 5, 2011 at 10:53 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Yes. And in the laboratory.
Well many things can be observed to happen in the laboratory that do not actually happen naturally so that won’t count; so when and where was it observed to happen in the wild?
Quote: If I had made a negative claim, you might, vaguely, have a point.
You didn’t, I did. You are making a positive claim, namely that fossilization not only happens naturally but has happened many times before in the past, so back it up.
Quote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...h9/summary
Well according to the article they collected the specimens after the fossilization process supposedly occurred, so that one won’t really work for you. Besides, did dinosaurs live in silica-depositing thermal springs? I doubt it.
Quote: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/259/5100/1439.short
These observations were conducted in the lab, not in the wild, so this does not demonstrate it can happen in the wild.
Quote: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v30...358a0.html
This article seems to deal with whether or not fossils contain a homogeneous or heterogeneous composition of minerals. It does not deal with the direct observation of the process in the wild.
Quote: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/29/2/123.short
Not sure why you posted this one, it actually affirms the fact that we have never even directly observed the process occurring.
“It is unclear how plant tissues become fossilized, whether fossilization is selective to specific biopolymers, or whether original organic constituents survive.”
Quote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...6/abstract
Again, studies the composition of already supposedly fossilized organisms, it makes no mention of any observation of the process taking place.
Quote: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1439312747x2krr/
Dinosaurs are made of wood now?
Quote: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&...&q&f=false
This link took me to a book review, not a peer reviewed article.
Quote: I can provide you with hundreds more, but I suspect that you know how to use google as well as I do. Now, what direct evidence of fossilization do you believe we don't have?
Why would you provide me with hundreds more sources that don’t provide what I asked for? I wanted direct observation of the process taking place in nature; none of these articles had it. Do you want to know why? Simply because fossilization has never actually been directly observed, it’s an inference to the best possible explanation.
Quote: I have a great idea. Take a class.
On what?
Quote: OR you can take me up on my long-standing offer to take you on a geology field trip. You decide.
Why would I want to participate in a field trip led by someone who does not even work as a geologist? We have geologists here that I could talk to if I wanted and save myself the plane ticket.
Quote: OMG!!! EPIC F*CKING FAIL!
Epic baseless assertion followed by an irrational appeal to ridicule, nicely done.
Quote: By all means. Show us the evidence.
Nope, you need to define the goalposts before I am going to bother kicking.
Quote: I believe that there are many hardcore skeptics on this forum who also believe that I exist.
Not ones that are consistent in their skepticism at least.
Quote: Sweeping floors in a U.S.D.A extension office doesn't make you a scientist, I'm afraid.I get paid way too much to sweep floors.
Quote: Actually, you have demonstrated time and time again that 5th graders have a better grasp of the scientific process than you do.
You mean the scientific process that is built upon direct observation and repeatability that you seem to ignore? You’re no scientist, you don’t work as one, and you have no regard for the very things that make science so powerful and important.
(December 6, 2011 at 12:16 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: No, but small changes over time tends to be recorded quite well in any creature's genetic code, which can be analyzed.
Truth be told you are overplaying the reality of that a bit. The genetic code actually teaches us that animals have huge limitations as to how much change the population can even endure.
Quote: I wasn't aware that direct observation was necessary to prove that something can happen.
Well not provep something can happen, demonstrate is a better word since science doesn’t deal with proof. That being said, direct observation and repeatability are the two requirements for empirical science.
Quote:
How do you perform a test in the laboratory without observation?
Let’s look up the definition of empirical so we can have a better understanding of what empirical science is shall we?
a. Relying on or derived from observation and experiment
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation and experiment (Webster’s)
It seems like you’re going to have a tough time conducting empirical science without that observation component.
Quote: There you are. Several papers, each with references of a scientific nature. Now, I've done my part to prove that fossilization is a thing, where's the equivelent for the bible and/or anything therein?
These all suffer from the same issues as the ones posted above, no direct observation of the process occurring in the wild.
Quote: What you've asked for is something no one could ever provide anyone else of anything and when we can't provide what you're asking, you think you win. It's akin to asking someone to prove that money exists by handing you all of it or proving that meteors exist in space without relying on telescopes or robotic probes.
You're simply being ridiculous.
So when atheists ask for sound logical syllogisms that God exists they are also being ridiculous? That’s the whole point of this discussion, to show how unreasonable you guys are with your skepticism towards God. When I apply this same hard toothed skepticism towards dinosaurs you all think it is ridiculous even though it is exactly what you all do to theists.
Quote: Radiometrically dated fossils and surrounding rocks, measured changes in DNA over time (it occurs at a regular interval, so two creatures that lived around the same time would have the same number of changes to their DNA since that time), reliable historical documentation, or other facators I may be forgetting can all provide acceptable evidence.
Well the observable evidence we have indeed does support the fact that Dinosaurs lived at the same time period as humans. Soft tissue and proteins decay at an observed constant rate that would leave no trace behind after 10,000 years as an absolute maximum. Yet, we find soft tissue and proteins in Dinosaur fossils; this is undeniable evidence that these Dinosaurs died no longer than 10,000 years ago. Of course since you believe Humans have been around for far longer than that, you would have to logically conclude that Dinosaurs and Humans lived at the same time period.
Quote: PLEASE! Don't make me laugh.
I assure you, I don’t compel anyone to engage in irrational behavior, you do that all on your own.
Quote: This quote reminds me of Newt Gingritch's declaration that he'll definatively be the nominee for the republican party shortly after springing ahead in the polls for a few days (if that).
Newt is actually way ahead in the polls now, so maybe you should have picked a better analogy.
Ginrich- 38 %
Romney- 18%
(Latest Quinnipiac Poll)
Quote: Indeed - science can be fallible. The bible is just fiction.Nope, it’s infallible and true.
(December 6, 2011 at 7:41 am)Happy UnBeliever Wrote: Thats odd the title of this thread says you did.
This thread was not about me, it was about some article written by someone else.
Quote: It already is in terms of your stupid creation theory. I mean any one that would create plants and trees before the sun! What? Was your god on drugs that day?
Why couldn’t God create plants whenever He wanted to? There was light before the sun too.
