Dinosaurs Weren't in the Bible...They Never Even Existed.

[Epimethean]

We don’t have labs though, we do more filed work than anything.

I knew it: You are a secretary!

[orogenicman]

Didn’t answer my question, has the process ever been observed to actually happen in Nature?

Yes. And in the laboratory.

---

It’s not my job to back up a negative claim;

If I had made a negative claim, you might, vaguely, have a point.

Give me a peer reviewed article that details the observed event of an animal dying, being buried, and then being fossilized in the wild. I don’t want theory and storytelling; I want actual repeatable direct observation of this process actually happening.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...h9/summary

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/259/5100/1439.short

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v30...358a0.html

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/29/2/123.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...6/abstract

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1439312747x2krr/

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&...&q&f=false

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?

I have a great idea. Take a class. OR you can take me up on my long-standing offer to take you on a geology field trip. You decide.

---

In fact creationists welcome these observations of speciation and small changes because they help explain the Ark.

OMG!!! EPIC FUCKING FAIL!

---

Depends on what you will accept as evidence.

By all means. Show us the evidence.

---

I believe you exist, but that’s because I am not a hardcore skeptic like you guys all claim to be, if I play the part of the skeptic then I begin to question whether you exist or not.

I believe that there are many hardcore skeptics on this forum who also believe that I exist. This is not rocket science, Statler.

---

1) Well unlike you, I actually work as one, which makes me one by definition.

Sweeping floors in a U.S.D.A extension office doesn't make you a scientist, I'm afraid.

3) Actually I have proven I hold to a stricter definition as to what is science and what is not, don’t hate me because I am more of a scientific purist than you are.

Actually, you have demonstrated time and time again that 5th graders have a better grasp of the scientific process than you do. Congratulations.

I understand your urge to silence someone you can’t refute, it’s a natural behavior for many people. I don’t believe I have met anyone on here besides myself who qualifies as above, so I think the conversations would be pretty silent on here.

Babble on, Statler. It suits you.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I usually hate to come in in the middle of a discussion like this but...
Oh! What the hey?!

It's that extra delusoinal belief system that really sets the flavor!

Nope, but I will never get tired of shoving my boot up yours. Observing small changes in organisms is not observing all life on earth descending from a single common ancestor. In fact creationists welcome these observations of speciation and small changes because they help explain the Ark. So you are going to have to do a whole lot better if you are going to try and prove a historical science such as evolution is actually an operational science such as Physics.

No, but small changes over time tends to be recorded quite well in any creature's genetic code, which can be analyzed.

Didn’t answer my question, has the process ever been observed to actually happen in Nature?

I wasn't aware that direct observation was necessary to prove that something can happen. In fact, I think the only people who have ever argued that this was necessary to science is creationists. It's an amusing prospect considering that none of them have observed any supernatural event and even if they did, the worst kind of evidence is eye witness testimony. It's unreliable. That's why science has better methods for testing evidence - like radiometric dating or performing tests in laboratory or other conditions.

Here are a few interesting links:
Chilren's Experiment to ID Fossils - even discriminating against fake fossils[/quote]
[url=http://www2.volstate.edu/svinson/virtual%20labs/virtuallab11.pdf]A brief paper on what fossils actually are - as opposed to confusing them with sculptures and other man-made objects

It’s not my job to back up a negative claim; it’s yours to provide evidence for the positive claim. Give me a peer reviewed article that details the observed event of an animal dying, being buried, and then being fossilized in the wild. I don’t want theory and storytelling; I want actual repeatable direct observation of this process actually happening.

Fossilization (palaeontology)
Fossilization of Soft Tissue in the Laboratory
Understanding fossilization: Experimental pyritization of plants
How Did Dinosaur Bones Turn Into Fossils?

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?

Bingo, that’s why I have been asking for a logical syllogism all along and have not gotten one yet.

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.

Depends on what you will accept as evidence.

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.

Actually I have proven I hold to a stricter definition as to what is science and what is not, don’t hate me because I am more of a scientific purist than you are.

I have no idea how to react to this statement. It's so patently ludicrous that it defies sesibility. You consider yourself more of a scientist than all of the scientists who contradict your biblical bias as well as those of answers in genesis and other creationists?
PLEASE! Don't make me laugh.

I understand your urge to silence someone you can’t refute, it’s a natural behavior for many people. I don’t believe I have met anyone on here besides myself who qualifies as above, so I think the conversations would be pretty silent on here.

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).

I am so glad it’s not, that would make it fallible.

Indeed - science can be fallible. The bible is just fiction.

[Happy UnBeliever]

"I stand corrected, Kent Hovind appears to be a complete fucking moron and this "museum" is a joke. I can't believe that anyone would represent christianity and creation science to the world in such an idiotic way. I was wrong for insinuating that people were smearing his name by making baseless accusations. The gentleman who made the reference to him believing that the Flintstones was a documentary was absolutely correct."

What a bunch of incoherent gibberish, I have seen no evidence that Kent believes the Flintstones was a documentary, you merely re-asserting this claim proves nothing.

Dinosaurs did not exist huh?

Not what I said.

Head firmly shoved up your own ass again, eh Waldork?

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/01/05...e-science/

Nope, but I will never get tired of shoving my boot up yours. Observing small changes in organisms is not observing all life on earth descending from a single common ancestor. In fact creationists welcome these observations of speciation and small changes because they help explain the Ark. So you are going to have to do a whole lot better if you are going to try and prove a historical science such as evolution is actually an operational science such as Physics.

Fossilization is a chemical process involving the crystalization/replacement of biological structures (be it bone, skin, or collagen. etc.). It is a well studied and understood process, having many decades of research behind its understanding.

Didn’t answer my question, has the process ever been observed to actually happen in Nature?

What direct observation do you believe we don't have with regard to fossilization? Please back up your respoinse with peer reviewed data.

It’s not my job to back up a negative claim; it’s yours to provide evidence for the positive claim. Give me a peer reviewed article that details the observed event of an animal dying, being buried, and then being fossilized in the wild. I don’t want theory and storytelling; I want actual repeatable direct observation of this process actually happening.

If you want proof, then you don't want a scientific explanation.

Bingo, that’s why I have been asking for a logical syllogism all along and have not gotten one yet.

It is no such thing. You are confused.

It was such a thing, you argued against the occurrence of an event (me being some posting robot) because it was not probable.

It is an action statement, indicating that human behavior is occurring. Now, dude, you don't have to take my word for it that I exist. All you have to do is take me up on my long standing offer of going on a geology field trip.

I believe you exist, but that’s because I am not a hardcore skeptic like you guys all claim to be, if I play the part of the skeptic then I begin to question whether you exist or not.

We have evidence that humans and gorillas live at the same time.

Did you really miss my point that badly?

There is NO evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Now, I think it is time for you to stop being so stupid and admit that:

Depends on what you will accept as evidence.

1) you are not a scientist;

Well unlike you, I actually work as one, which makes me one by definition.

3) have little knowledge of the scientific process;

Actually I have proven I hold to a stricter definition as to what is science and what is not, don’t hate me because I am more of a scientific purist than you are.

4) and since 1, 2, and 3 are true, you should step aside and stop interferring with the discussions of others who are scientists, do play one at work, and have broad knowledge of the process and the field.

I understand your urge to silence someone you can’t refute, it’s a natural behavior for many people. I don’t believe I have met anyone on here besides myself who qualifies as above, so I think the conversations would be pretty silent on here.

The Bible is NOT a BOOK of SCIENCE! It fails pathetically in that category!

I am so glad it’s not, that would make it fallible.

Waldork is more like the janitor who sweeps up the lab.

Nope, his name is John. We don’t have labs though, we do more filed work than anything.

Not what I said.

Thats odd the title of this thread says you did.

I am so glad it’s not, that would make it fallible.

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?

[Statler Waldorf]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1439312747x2krr/

Dinosaurs are made of wood now?

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&...&q&f=false

This link took me to a book review, not a peer reviewed article.

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.

I have a great idea. Take a class.

On what?

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.

OMG!!! EPIC F*CKING FAIL!

Epic baseless assertion followed by an irrational appeal to ridicule, nicely done.

By all means. Show us the evidence.

Nope, you need to define the goalposts before I am going to bother kicking.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

In fact, I think the only people who have ever argued that this was necessary to science is creationists. It's an amusing prospect considering that none of them have observed any supernatural event and even if they did, the worst kind of evidence is eye witness testimony. It's unreliable. That's why science has better methods for testing evidence - like radiometric dating or performing tests in laboratory or other conditions.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Indeed - science can be fallible. The bible is just fiction.

Nope, it’s infallible and true.

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.

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.

[orogenicman]

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?

First of all, you asked how it FOSSILIZATION HAPPENS NATURALLY, not spexcifically how dinosaurs fossilize (which, by the way, occurs by the same process). Secondly, fossilization has been studied for at least 100 years in the wild (particularly in caves), AND in the laboratory. Do we know everything there is to know about the process? No. But so what? We also don't know everything there is to know about the human heart, but that hasn't stopped us from conducting heart transplants.

The Processes of fossilization By S. K. Donovan is an authoritative book on the fossilization process. If you are truly interested in understanding the process, I suggest you buy the book.

Finally, just as we can dewtermine how cells work by studying the processes by which they work, we can study fossilization by studying the processes that fossilize an organism. Direct observation is NOT required, though it has been observed and measured many times in caves. Are you suggesting that fossils don't exist? What exactly, is your objection to the existence of fossils?

On what?

Well, dude. You can start by taking a class in rocks for jocks (geology 101). I recommend this one first because it qppears to be all you can handle at the moment. Then, before you advance to other, more advanced classes, I highly recommend that you take classes in physics, inorganic and organic chemistry, and most importantly, take a class in biology. There too,m you should probably start out with a biology for idjuts class, because, well, anything above that level will just confuse you.

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.

I worked for 22 years as a certified professional geologist conducting field work in 13 states. Just because I no longer work in the field doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. But hey, don't take my word for it. Go out in the field with me and I will show you what I know. It really is that simple. Come on, Grasshopper. What have you got to lose, but your delusions?

Nope, you need to define the goalposts before I am going to bother kicking.

You are the one who defined a goalpost and I challenged you to provide the evidence. And now you are claiing it to be my goalpost? Priceless. Perhaps you should review your posts.

I get paid way too much to sweep floors.

That that is true there can be no doubt.

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.

Science doesn't require direct observation, though it is important to provide it when it is discovered. You cannot directly see infrared light but do you doubt that it exists? If you do then you are a fool. You say I am not a scientist, and that is your right to believe. But I have offered a simple way for you to test that claim. Let's go on a geology field trip any place of your choice, of you like (but to be fair, I am most expert on midwest geology, and am poor because I am disabled, so I prefer to stay close to home).

So come on grasshopper. Put your money where your mouth is. What are you afraid of?

How do you perform a test in the laboratory without observation?

You said direct observation must occur for science to happen. But we have never made direct observations of ANY planet other than Earth and the Moon. Observations of the other planets have all been made with indirect observations. Do you doubt any of those observations (such as the fact that Venus is hot and dry as a bone)?

Similarly, indirect observations are made in the laboratory all the time. They are vital to all research endeavors.

Again, direct observation is not, and never has been a requirement for conducting any scientific research.

observable evidence we have indeed does support the fact that Dinosaurs lived at the same time period as humans.

You are a liar, Statler. I cannot and will not be kind about this.

[Epimethean]

Stat regarding the bible: Nope, it’s infallible and true.

Evidence: None

Stat regarding dinosaur and human interaction: observable evidence we have indeed does support the fact that Dinosaurs lived at the same time period as humans.

Evidence: None

This is clearly a pure sighentist at work. Well supported by the lab, with all the field accouterments we would expect a professional to have, replete with cutting edge text (Jesus Rex and the Try Carrot Tops).

Evidence: Everywhere

[Statler Waldorf]

First of all, you asked how it FOSSILIZATION HAPPENS NATURALLY, not spexcifically how dinosaurs fossilize (which, by the way, occurs by the same process).

Well surely you see the problem with what you did right? You gave me a very specific case of how fossilization is supposed to happen in silica thermal springs, which of course Dinosaurs did not live in Silica thermal springs. Not to mention the fact that the article never mention any observation of the process, but rather finding the fossils afterwards and comparing them to the environment they were found in.

Secondly, fossilization has been studied for at least 100 years in the wild (particularly in caves), AND in the laboratory. Do we know everything there is to know about the process? No. But so what?

Have there been any dinosaur fossils even found in caves?

Finally, just as we can dewtermine how cells work by studying the processes by which they work, we can study fossilization by studying the processes that fossilize an organism. Direct observation is NOT required, though it has been observed and measured many times in caves. Are you suggesting that fossils don't exist? What exactly, is your objection to the existence of fossils?

Nothing actually, I realize you came into this late and probably missed the whole point of our discussion. I was merely showing that if a person is as skeptical as many atheists on here are, they can deny the existence of things that are completely obvious such as dinosaurs. So I proceeded to use many of the arguments atheists use against me to argue against the existence of dinosaurs. I think it was helpful because it showed that if someone is being skeptical simply for the sake of being skeptical they become rather annoying and obtuse; which is what I run into with many people who are skeptical about God’s existence.

Well, dude. You can start by taking a class in rocks for jocks (geology 101). I recommend this one first because it qppears to be all you can handle at the moment.

I took some Geology in University; I find it extremely boring to be honest with you.

Then, before you advance to other, more advanced classes, I highly recommend that you take classes in physics, inorganic and organic chemistry, and most importantly, take a class in biology.

Haha, is this some kind of joke? I took loads of that already.

I worked for 22 years as a certified professional geologist conducting field work in 13 states. Just because I no longer work in the field doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Well I’d want cutting edge stuff, so I’d want someone who was still employed in the profession.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Go out in the field with me and I will show you what I know. It really is that simple. Come on, Grasshopper. What have you got to lose, but your delusions?

Uh, time and money?

You are the one who defined a goalpost and I challenged you to provide the evidence. And now you are claiing it to be my goalpost? Priceless. Perhaps you should review your posts.

Nope, I need to know what YOU accept as evidence. If you are not going to accept anything as evidence then I will write you off as hopelessly biased and won’t waste my time.

That that is true there can be no doubt.

Huh?

Science doesn't require direct observation, though it is important to provide it when it is discovered.

Operational and empirical sciences do.

You cannot directly see infrared light but do you doubt that it exists?

Direct observation doesn’t necessarily only mean one’s eyes.

Let's go on a geology field trip any place of your choice, of you like (but to be fair, I am most expert on midwest geology, and am poor because I am disabled, so I prefer to stay close to home).

Well that’s going to be a problem then because I live in the West and don’t much care to visit the Midwest right now. It’s a shame; we have some of the best fossil beds in the world about 100 miles from here.

So come on grasshopper. Put your money where your mouth is. What are you afraid of?

Wasting my money.

You said direct observation must occur for science to happen. But we have never made direct observations of ANY planet other than Earth and the Moon. Observations of the other planets have all been made with indirect observations. Do you doubt any of those observations (such as the fact that Venus is hot and dry as a bone)?

I don’t think direct observation in regards to empirical science means what you think it means.

Similarly, indirect observations are made in the laboratory all the time. They are vital to all research endeavors.

Such as?

Again, direct observation is not, and never has been a requirement for conducting any scientific research.

Karl Popper called, he says you are full of beans.

Youare a liar, Statler. I cannot and will not be kind about this.

So when someone schools you all you can do is call them a liar? Yeah that’s a rational defense! I clearly pointed out observable evidence concerning proteins and soft tissue that demonstrates dinosaurs lived within the last 10,000 years.

---

Evidence: None

Surely you know that you can’t have fallible evidence to support something is infallible.

Stat regarding dinosaur and human interaction: observable evidence we have indeed does support the fact that Dinosaurs lived at the same time period as humans.

Evidence: None

I already provided this evidence, did you miss it or ignore it. Soft tissue.

[orogenicman]

First of all, you asked how it FOSSILIZATION HAPPENS NATURALLY, not spexcifically how dinosaurs fossilize (which, by the way, occurs by the same process).

Well surely you see the problem with what you did right? You gave me a very specific case of how fossilization is supposed to happen in silica thermal springs, which of course Dinosaurs did not live in Silica thermal springs.

If you had read the paper you would have discovered that it wasn't a broad statement that all fossilization occurs in silica warm springs. Those kinds of springs actually accelerate fossilization because of the warm water. But many organisms are, in fact, fossilized via silica replacement of calcium. The only difference is that in warm springs, the process is accelerated, which allows for long-term field study of the process, and its products.

Not to mention the fact that the article never mention any observation of the process, but rather finding the fossils afterwards and comparing them to the environment they were found in.

Perhaps you should re-read the paper. You can read,right?

Have there been any dinosaur fossils even found in caves?

Irrelevant since the question was about the fossilization process, not dinosaurs specifically. But since you are so insistant, dinosaur fossils have been found in many environments, even burrows. The point is that the same replacement process we see in warm springs and caves are active in fossilization we see in sedimentary strata. Those processes also fossilizes the sediment, which we then call sedimentary rock. Diagenesis has fossilized ther bulk of fossils we find, in fact.

I took some Geology in University; I find it extremely boring to be honest with you.

So you won't mind if someone who had an overall gpa of 3.7 with a 4.0 gpa in his major (geology), studied the field for 9 years, and has 22 years of field experience asks what qualifies you to make any scientific statement on the subject of fossilization?

Then, before you advance to other, more advanced classes, I highly recommend that you take classes in physics, inorganic and organic chemistry, and most importantly, take a class in biology.

Haha, is this some kind of joke? I took loads of that already.

Sleeping in class doesn't make you an expert in pretty much anything. But since I don't believe you ever took any science classes above ther 5th grade level, that point is moot.

I worked for 22 years as a certified professional geologist conducting field work in 13 states. Just because I no longer work in the field doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Well I’d want cutting edge stuff, so I’d want someone who was still employed in the profession.

Actually, I have more time on my hands to keep current now than I ever did when I was working (which is the case with many scientists). But hey, if you actually were truly interested in cutting edge stuff, perhaps you should take a class, eh? Or else pay better attention to those of us in the field who actually paid attention in class.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Go out in the field with me and I will show you what I know. It really is that simple. Come on, Grasshopper. What have you got to lose, but your delusions?

Uh, time and money?

Oh dear, didn't you say a couple of posts back that you make substantially more money than a U.S.D.A. janiter? Make all the excuses you care to, but that only makes you out as the fool we already know you are.

Science doesn't require direct observation, though it is important to provide it when it is discovered.

Operational and empirical sciences do.

Not true. Physics, chemistry, biology, and especially geology (which is a scientific discipline that uses the other three science to conduct its research) do not require direct evidence. You didn't know this? Huh. Perhaps you should have paid attention in school.

You cannot directly see infrared light but do you doubt that it exists?

Direct observation doesn’t necessarily only mean one’s eyes

Any observation that uses extensions of the senses to detect phemomena that cannot be detected by the senses alone is not a direct observation.

Let's go on a geology field trip any place of your choice, of you like (but to be fair, I am most expert on midwest geology, and am poor because I am disabled, so I prefer to stay close to home).

Well that’s going to be a problem then because I live in the West and don’t much care to visit the Midwest right now. It’s a shame; we have some of the best fossil beds in the world about 100 miles from here.

Fossil beds of what?

So come on grasshopper. Put your money where your mouth is. What are you afraid of?

Wasting my money

.

No more so than wasting everyone else's time by posting on matters of which you have no actual knowledge, education, or experience.

You said direct observation must occur for science to happen. But we have never made direct observations of ANY planet other than Earth and the Moon. Observations of the other planets have all been made with indirect observations. Do you doubt any of those observations (such as the fact that Venus is hot and dry as a bone)?

I don’t think direct observation in regards to empirical science means what you think it means.

I don't think you have a clue as to what it means.

Similarly, indirect observations are made in the laboratory all the time. They are vital to all research endeavors.

Such as?

Any observation that is made by means other than direct means (i.e., watching an acidic reaction come to completion by directly watching until a solution stops reacting) is an indirect observation (measuring the pH, or the redox conditions inside a closed reaction vessel).

Again, direct observation is not, and never has been a requirement for conducting any scientific research.

Karl Popper called, he says you are full of beans.

Karl Popper is still dead. So whoever called, he lied.

So when someone schools you all you can do is call them a liar? Yeah that’s a rational defense! I clearly pointed out observable evidence concerning proteins and soft tissue that demonstrates dinosaurs lived within the last 10,000 years.

You have repeatredly cited refuted creationist nonsense and ignored the most recent advances in paleobiology.

[thesummerqueen]

Oro, I'm going to kiss you.