Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens

[NMSquirrel]

From your link.
Theorem is a mathematical term.

the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

supported by facts gathered over time..
it does not imply facts came first then theory..
it does not say a theory cant exist without facts..it says facts will support theory..

with sufficient facts theory becomes law..

 

[Dywyddyr]

supported by facts gathered over time..
it does not imply facts came first then theory..
it does not say a theory cant exist without facts..it says facts will support theory..

Since the facts are gathered by observation then there must be something there to observe that requires explanation. And since the theory is the explanation of a body of facts.... the facts must come first.

You could hypothesise before obtaining facts, but not form a theory, because without facts there's no framework to hang the explanation onto.

with sufficient facts theory becomes law..

Not quite.

Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation.

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

 

[NMSquirrel]

You could hypothesise before obtaining facts, but not form a theory, because without facts there's no framework to hang the explanation onto.

i will agree to that..and since i do, i will agree with this..

Since the facts are gathered by observation then there must be something there to observe that requires explanation. And since the theory is the explanation of a body of facts.... the facts must come first.

so keep in mind when someones uses the phrase 'this is my theory' they just may not know the word hypothesis....
no need to go off on them....

 

[Dywyddyr]

so keep in mind when someones uses the phrase 'this is my theory' they just may not know the word hypothesis....
no need to go off on them....

Aha! The point is that the difference has been explained many times on this form, and it is a science-based forum, hence we should be using the word correctly, not in the "Inspector, I have a theory how the jewels were stolen" sense.
The Visitor is, or should be by now, well aware of the meaning of "theory", I'm fairly sure it's been pointed to him before.
The comment "evolution is just a theory", for example, is one that has been shown to be untrue in the sense that the comment was meant at least a dozen times in various posts.

 

[TheVisitor]

The Visitor is, or should be by now, well aware of the meaning of "theory"....The comment has been shown to be untrue in the sense that the comment was meant...

It is just a theory. That's all I meant by it.
Stop waffling, reading minds, and making excuses for yourself....
This is a science board, not your ouija board.

The "documentary" was full of falsehoods, unsupported claims and distortions. Not facts.

Even the wiki article on "The Mysterious Origins of Man" had nothing negative to say other than NBC thought it was worth airing twice.
The program was widely criticized by the scientific community...and the religious community as well. It showed no favorites. It proved them both wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Origins_of_Man

On the defence for the "Ministry of Science"...

They offered someone named Dave Thomas of "Skeptical Briefs"...who wrote "quality science was nowhere to be found" in the program, as it had "people of questionable credentials" interviewed...
A United States Geological Survey scientist who found the remains of modern man in strata confirmed by two radiological tests to be 250,000 years old was removed from her position and black listed for publishing her findings.
I guess that makes her now a person of "questionable credentials"...
That means what? Makes her a hero in my book, and anyone else's who sees what I'm saying here.

On to the defence for the "Chief Defenders of the Faith"...

Creationist Ken Ham criticized the production in the February 1996 Answers in Genesis newsletter....for undermines Genesis. " Ham attacked fellow creationist Baugh's claims, saying, "According to leading creationist researchers, this evidence is open to much debate and needs much more intensive research...It shows their interpretations of the Genesis account to be false.

It's a planet of apes alright...

The Scientific community was furious NBC would air such a show...
The Religious community was furious NBC would air such a show...


The Wikipedia article was fair and unbiased in my opinion.
Thanks for bringing it up

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is just a theory. That is a fact.

Wrong. Evolution itself is a fact. The actual way it happens is the theory.

Even the wiki article on "The Mysterious Origins of Man" had nothing negative to say other than NBC thought it was worth airing twice.

Nothing negative?
Other than pointing out that it was widely criticised you mean?
Or the quoted comments:

NBC, a subsidiary of the science giant General Electric, does not exist to sharpen minds. Science, schmience. If there was money to be made from it, NBC would tell you the Earth is flat because of repeated indentations from space aliens on pogo sticks

quality science was nowhere to be found" in the program, as it had people of questionable credentials interviewed and failed to interview the leading researchers in their respective fields

One wonders how much of the information in the program can really be trusted

Did you read the article at all?

The program was widely criticized by the scientific community...and the religious community as well. It showed no favorites. It proved them both wrong

Like you it proved nothing. It simply made claims (which it failed utterly to substantiate).

A United States Geological Survey scientist who found the remains of modern man in strata confirmed by two radiological tests to be 250,000 years old was removed from her position and black listed for publishing her findings.

Link please. Otherwise you're simply repeating unsubstantiated drivel.
Like you did with the Oppenheimer comment.
Why would she be dismissed?
We keep finding older and older remains and publishing that data.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No problem. 6 minuites 23 seconds into part one... meet USGS scientist Virginia Steen-McIntyre.

Um, point missed.
Evidence she was dismissed for the "disclosure".
And the video itself as evidence won't cut it: that's already been shown to be, let's say, less than accurate.
I was querying the date, like I said we keep finding older remains all the time. A quick Google search gives 160,000 years, then a year or so later 200,000...

And the bit you didn't quote from your link:

The findings at Heuyatlaco have mostly been repudiated by the larger scientific community

 

[TheVisitor]

And the bit you didn't quote from your link:
“ The findings at Heuyatlaco have mostly been repudiated by the larger scientific community

Biostratigraphic researcher Sam VanLandingham has published two peer-reviewed analyses that confirm the earlier findings of ca. 250,000ybp for the tool-bearing strata at Heyatlaco. His 2004 analysis found that Hueyatlaco samples could be dated to the Sangamonian Interglacial period (ca. 80,000 to 220,000ybp) by the presence of multiple diatom species, one of which first appeared during this era and others that went extinct by the era's end.[3] VanLandingham's 2006 paper[4] refined and re-confirmed his 2004 findings.

 

[TheVisitor]

She was dismissed for the "disclosure".

Who gave you the right to "divine" why she was dismissed. Here were go with your Ouija board revelations again...

A United States Geological Survey scientist...was removed from her position and black listed for publishing her findings....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2f_-YyleOE

6 minutes 23 seconds into part one... meet USGS scientist Virginia Steen-McIntyre.

Cynthia Irwin-Williams led the team that first excavated the site in 1962[6] The dig is often associated with Virginia Steen-McIntyre because of her continuing efforts to publicize her findings and opinions. However, the site was actually discovered by Juan Armenta Camacho and Irwin-Williams. Steen-McIntyre joined the team in 1966 as a graduate student, at the request of project geologist Hal Malde. The excavation was associated with the U.S. Geological Survey.

That's when the trouble started...

In mid-1969, Szabo, Malde and Irwin-Williams[1] published their first paper about dating the excavation site. The stone tools were discovered in situ in a strata that also contained animal remains. Radiocarbon dating of the animal remains produced an age of over 35,000ybp. Uranium dating produced an age of 260,000 ybp, +/- 60,000 years.

The authors admitted that they had no definitive explanation for the anomalous results. However, Malde suggested the tool-bearing strata had possibly been eroded by an ancient stream bed, thus combining older and newer strata and complicating dating.

They attempted damage control....

In 1973, Steen-MacIntyre, Malde and Roald Fryxell returned to Hueyatalco to re-examine the geographic strata and more accurately determine an age for the tool-bearing strata. They were able to rule out Malde's stream bed hypothesis.[8] Moreover, the team undertook an exhaustive analysis of volcanic ash and pumice from the original excavation site and the surrounding region. Using the zircon fission-track dating method, geochemist C.W. Naeser dated samples of ash from Hueyatlaco's tool-bearing strata to 370,000 ybp +/- 240,000 years.[8]

The confirmation of an anomalously distant age for human habitation at the Hueyatlaco site led to tension between Irwin-Williams and the other team members. Malde and Fryxell announced the findings at a Geological Society of America meeting, admitting that they could not account for the anomalous results. Irwin-Williams responded by describing their announcement as "irresponsible".
Given the substantial margin of error for the fission-track findings, and the then-new method of uranium dating, Irwin-Williams asserted that Hueyatlaco had not been accurately dated to her satisfaction....

In a letter to Quaternary Research, Irwin-Williams objected to several points in the article by Steen-McIntyre et al.; Malde and Steen-McIntyre responded with a point-by-point rebuttal.

For the next several years, the excavation team were often at odds as they discussed how to move forward with the Hueyatlaco findings. Malde and Steen-McIntyre argued that the 200,000 ybp findings were valid, while Irwin-Williams argued in favor or a more recent -- though still somewhat controversial -- figure of 20,000 ybp. Webb and Clark[8] suggest that her promoting the 20,000ybp date is "particularly puzzling," as it was unsupported by any evidence the team uncovered.

The delays forced Steen-McIntyre to write her doctoral dissertation not on Hueyatlaco as planned, but rather on the dating of volcanic ash in geographic strata.
Despite leading the original excavations, Irwin-Williams never published a final report on the site....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hueyatlaco

In 1996, Steen-McIntyre appeared on the television special "The Mysterious Origins of Man." Narrated by Charlton Heston, in which she claims that some of original research team were harassed, viewed as incompetent, or saw their careers hampered due to their involvement in such a controversial and anomalous investigation....

Then in 2004, nearly 40 years later the scientific community finally admitted their error; after ruining the careers of those who dare challenged them....

What a shame.

 

[Dywyddyr]

For those of you who are confused The Visitor has deleted a post and reposted it more or less intact as the one above.
Post #229 is actually a reply to my post #226. I'm at a loss as to why it was simply reposted, since The Visitor must have seen my clarification on the request for a link.

And post #228 does nothing to counter the statement "repudiated by the larger scientific community". Unless this VanLandingham guy on his own somehow constitutes a significant proportion of the scientific community.

 

[TheVisitor]

Sounds like getting facts straight are real problem for you.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It seems like posting ACTUAL facts (as opposed to unsupported opinion) is your problem.
And you have yet to give the requested link.

 

[TheVisitor]

It seems like posting ACTUAL facts (as opposed to unsupported opinion) is your problem.
And you have yet to give the requested link.

The only missing link here seems to be in your mind. I'm done for now.
Maybe we'll play later. I've got other things to do.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Who gave you the right to "divine" why she was dismissed. Here were go with your Ouija board revelations again...

YOU made the claim she was dismissed for this "disclosure". No ouija board involved on my part.

A United States Geological Survey scientist...was removed from her position and black listed for publishing her findings....

Now, one more time, can you substantiate this?

And her own testimony isn't good enough. I knew a guy who was sacked for being a more or less permanently-drunk embezzler, but at interviews his stated reason for leaving his last employment was that he wanted a "change of scenery".

 

[Dywyddyr]

The only missing link here is the one in your mind. I'm done with you.

Ah so you can't substantiate this claim, any more than you can the majority of your others.
No wonder you're bowing out.
Quit while you're... behind.

 

[TheVisitor]

Now, one more time, can you substantiate this?

Stop repeating your denials.
If you continue I will report you to the moderators and have you banned.
This is a serious subject.

I presented facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hueyatlaco

 

[Dywyddyr]

Stop repeating your denials.

One more time: where is your evidence?

If you continue I will report you to the moderators and have you banned.
This is a serious subject.

I think you'll find it would be the other way round, since have still failed to provide the asked-for support.
Could you please quote the (supposed) part of that link that supports your assertion that she was "was removed from her position and black listed for publishing her findings...." because the closest I can find is that Steen-McIntyre herself only claims that

some of original research team were harassed, viewed as incompetent, or saw their careers hampered due to their involvement in such a controversial and anomalous investigation

.
Nothing about being dismissed OR black-listed.
And we also come back to this being her version of events. One that would be slightly biased, no?

 

[TheVisitor]

One more time: where is your evidence?
And we also come back to this being her version of events. One that would be slightly biased, no?

No. What it constituted was harassment. For a finding she reported that cost her career.

As we find out there are still plenty like yourself who resist change.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No. What it constituted was harassment.

That's her claim: yet to be substantiated.

For a finding she reported that cost her career.

One more time: where is it said that it cost her her career? The quote I gave, using your link, a quote BY her, didn't even claim it "cost her career".

As we find out there are still plenty like yourself who resist change.

And plenty like you who make claims and fail to back then up.
You have claimed she was "was removed from her position and black listed for publishing her findings...." but STILL have provide any evidence for this whatsoever.

 

[jpappl]

The Visitor,

The nuclear destruction I mentioned from the Hindu texts happened much later. The Raman Empire just before the great flood.

First of all, there is no evidence of a more advanced society than where we are today. Advanced is a relative term here.

Secondly there is no evidence to support the idea of them having nuclear weapon capability. None whatsoever.

Many ancient Indus Valley cities still register radiation. That was what Oppenheimer referred to about 3,000 B.C.

How could they still register after all of that flooding LOL.

You don't know that is what he was referring to. You are merely fitting it into your idea because you think it lends credibility to it. The problem is that you are asking us to give up so much evidence that contradicts your position in favor of one with zero evidence.