SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

When dealing with range extensions, the pertinent information is how much time has the range been extended by.

Of course the numerical value of the extension is important. My point is that it is also important to look at an extension in context. Pushing back a vertebrate timeline by 40 million years is a big deal. However, in the context of 470 million years or so, the extension of 40 million years isn't nearly as dramatic as it would be for a hypothetical event 10, 5, or 1 million years ago. I'm still perplexed why looking at a percentage is somehow less than honest.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

“No trap was intended. As I've mentioned before, I am certainly not an expert in paleontology. Because of the thoroughness of your studies and investigation, I figured you would know if examples of "out of place" bones existed. It turns out you didn't know of any. You were kind enough to provide papers on extending the estimated age of vertebrates, and I responded in a fair critique. If you are feeling trapped, it is not because I set one. I'm puzzled why simple questions are assumed to be a part of an elaborate scheme.”

Of course it was a trap. I provided overwhelming examples supporting my point. You didn't like the implication of those examples, so dismissed them on some arbitrary, unjustified basis – and requested a more specific criteria of evidence. As you pushed for examples, I pushed for clarification of criteria. But I was silly enough to provide an example before narrowing the criteria. So now the trap is sprung – you can, in the absence of specific criteria, dismiss any evidence I provide as not being “significant”. And now even claim I don't “know of any” examples, having only considered two papers for the same example.

Why are you feeling so paranoid about this? I asked some specific questions, yes. I didn't find your first example very compelling. Why does that mean that I must have set some elaborate trap? I am trying to have a serious dialogue, so what would I possibly gain from sabotaging a conversation? I gave/give you my word that there was no trap. Of course, you can choose to believe it or not.

 

 

[MorningGlory]

12 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Of course the numerical value of the extension is important. My point is that it is also important to look at an extension in context. Pushing back a vertebrate timeline by 40 million years is a big deal. However, in the context of 470 million years or so, the extension of 40 million years isn't nearly as dramatic as it would be for a hypothetical event 10, 5, or 1 million years ago. I'm still perplexed why looking at a percentage is somehow less than honest.

Why are you feeling so paranoid about this? I asked some specific questions, yes. I didn't find your first example very compelling. Why does that mean that I must have set some elaborate trap? I am trying to have a serious dialogue, so what would I possibly gain from sabotaging a conversation? I gave/give you my word that there was no trap. Of course, you can choose to believe it or not.

 

 

Such odd behavior tells one a lot, don't you think?  Methinks I have met this poster before.

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Of course the numerical value of the extension is important. My point is that it is also important to look at an extension in context. Pushing back a vertebrate timeline by 40 million years is a big deal. However, in the context of 470 million years or so, the extension of 40 million years isn't nearly as dramatic as it would be for a hypothetical event 10, 5, or 1 million years ago. I'm still perplexed why looking at a percentage is somehow less than honest.

Why are you feeling so paranoid about this? I asked some specific questions, yes. I didn't find your first example very compelling. Why does that mean that I must have set some elaborate trap? I am trying to have a serious dialogue, so what would I possibly gain from sabotaging a conversation? I gave/give you my word that there was no trap. Of course, you can choose to believe it or not.

“Of course the numerical value of the extension is important.”

It's the only value relevant to the actual size of the extension.

 

“My point is that it is also important to look at an extension in context. Pushing back a vertebrate timeline by 40 million years is a big deal. However, in the context of 470 million years or so, the extension of 40 million years isn't nearly as dramatic as it would be for a hypothetical event 10, 5, or 1 million years ago. I'm still perplexed why looking at a percentage is somehow less than honest.”

I used the phrase “deceptive use of math”. You were the first to use the term “honest”.

The only reason to introduce ancillary statistics is in an attempt to diminish the real number as not “nearly as dramatic”. I could have used a 400-500% figure for the pollen spores – but it would have been meaningless.

 

“Why are you feeling so paranoid about this? I asked some specific questions, yes. I didn't find your first example very compelling. Why does that mean that I must have set some elaborate trap? I am trying to have a serious dialogue, so what would I possibly gain from sabotaging a conversation? I gave/give you my word that there was no trap. Of course, you can choose to believe it or not”

It was far from “elaborate”. My spidey-senses were tingling the first time you asked for a bone example. I tried to narrow the parameters of what you would accept, but your vague persistence wore me down, so I caved and gave you the benefit of the doubt – then snap!!!. Lesson learned.

And now trying to put me on the defensive by labelling me "paranoid". Oh my, Please don't think I'm paranoid - how will I sleep tonight? But glad you are "trying to have a serious dialogue".

It's all good. All it means is - next time I feel a tremor in the force, I'll insist on knowing what I'm getting into before making the leap. Too easy.

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:

Such odd behavior tells one a lot, don't you think?  Methinks I have met this poster before.

What does the ToS say about Innuendo? Does it mention that this fallacy is not only meaningless, but as a fallacy, its use is technically irrational?

[MorningGlory]

2 minutes ago, Tristen said:

What does the ToS say about Innuendo? Does it mention that it's not only meaningless, but technically irrational?

As far as I know the TOS doesn't mention innuendo.  But there is no innuendo in my post anyway nor it it offensive in any way.  I do believe I have encountered you before.  Whether here or on another site, I'm not sure and, truth be told, I could be wrong.  So there it is in black and white.  I don't believe in beating around the proverbial bush.

[one.opinion]

38 minutes ago, Tristen said:

And now trying to put me on the defensive

I didn't try to do anything, you went full-throttle on the defensive all on your own. I'll get back to you soon with some actual science discussion, assuming you are willing.

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:

As far as I know the TOS doesn't mention innuendo.  But there is no innuendo in my post anyway nor it it offensive in any way.  I do believe I have encountered you before.  Whether here or on another site, I'm not sure and, truth be told, I could be wrong.  So there it is in black and white.  I don't believe in beating around the proverbial bush.

I'm not aware of encountering you on another site - unless you went by a different name.

[MorningGlory]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not aware of encountering you on another site - unless you went by a different name.

I've had several but not in the last ten years. 

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I didn't try to do anything, you went full-throttle on the defensive all on your own. I'll get back to you soon with some actual science discussion, assuming you are willing.

“I didn't try to do anything, you went full-throttle on the defensive all on your own”

Whether it's “paranoid” or “defensive”, it's all the same kind of sensitivity that has you interpreting self-superiority into disagreement. In reality, all I've done here is put our conversation into context. I provided, I think, impressive examples of fossils out-of-place (both over 1 billion years). You requested a different criteria of evidence. I was reluctant to provide examples until I could narrow down exactly what you would accept – because I was suspicious that you might be trying to get less impressive examples so you could dismiss them as insignificant. And that is exactly what occurred.

 

“I'll get back to you soon with some actual science discussion, assuming you are willing.”

The only implication for our conversation (from my perspective) is that you no longer have that strategy at your disposal. If ever you are not prepared to deal with my best evidence, but request something more specific, I'll be sure to lock-down the criteria of what you'll accept before wasting any time tracking down the information.

 

[simplejeff]

6 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I provided, I think, impressive examples of fossils out-of-place (both over 1 billion years).

Apparently "I think" is not a reliable source.  

If "I think" that no fossil is over 10,000 years old, as proven by true honest scientists,

most all the world will not believe it still.