Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

Yeah, scientists are not always as good about terminology as they could be. Witness the different scientific meanings of the word "homology," for example. A second, particularly vexing, problem can occur when scientists borrow words from the popular vernacular because it's a catchy way to describe something; e.g., "junk," as in "junk DNA." A third, related, problem occurs with a term used to mean different things by scientists and lay people (e.g., "theory"), and scientists themselves sometimes use the word in the non-scientific way.

The moral of the story: try to use the right term when you can, but be on the alert for apparent conflicts in ideas that are only based on different meanings of key terms.

Maybe the scientists could learn to be more specific in the future.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

No actually Flipper, on this thread, you have proven to be the most reliable. I am very grateful you took the toll charges on yourself to answer the question for us all. I am still waiting for San Deigo, CSI, and Storrs Olson to reply. At this point, I don't hold out much hope they will, it's been two days, but who knows?

I just got an email reply from Tom Demere (for some reason, Nineveh latched on to my post #219 but has consistently ignored the very next post #220; I decided not to make a phone call, but I too am grateful to Flipper for doing so).

Anyways, in his email to me, Dr. Demere reiterates the info given to Flipper, and I quote, "There is no mention of Archaeoraptor in the exhibit nor any mention of the so-called 'hoax.' " Hmm, "so-called 'hoax'? Earlier in his email, Dr. Demere says, "Strictly speaking Archaeoraptor was not a deliberate hoax. The specimen is a composite of two real fossil organisms joined together at the 'hips' by a Chinese artisan." I don't know if this means that Czerkas wasn't trying to pull off a hoax, which has already been well established, or that the Chinese artisan didn't realize he was putting together two different specimens, which would be most interesting. I asked Dr. Demere to clarify, and will keep you posted.

Incidentally, I also sent an email to Coral Ridge Ministries inquiring how they dated their mammoth fossil and how they determined that the pieces were 1% fossilized. I received a curious automated reply, stating in part,"Every credible communication will receive a reply." I hope my query is judged credible!

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Maybe the scientists could learn to be more specific in the future.

An admirable goal, but why wait for the future? If we weren't currently working on it, I probably wouldn't even be aware that these problems exist. And why limit it to scientists? The whole reason for scientific terminology is that the layman's use of language is too vague (even though, as we've seen, it may not always solve the problem!).

In any case, it's hardly a crippling problem. You and Stratnerd should be on the same page now, even if you weren't initially. So you could probably get back to the actual issue.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey
Dr. Demere reiterates the info given to Flipper, and I quote, "There is no mention of Archaeoraptor in the exhibit nor any mention of the so-called 'hoax.' " Hmm, "so-called 'hoax'? Earlier in his email, Dr. Demere says, "Strictly speaking Archaeoraptor was not a deliberate hoax. The specimen is a composite of two real fossil organisms joined together at the 'hips' by a Chinese artisan." I don't know if this means that Czerkas wasn't trying to pull off a hoax, which has already been well established, or that the Chinese artisan didn't realize he was putting together two different specimens, which would be most interesting. I asked Dr. Demere to clarify, and will keep you posted.

Yes. Interesting he would use the wording "so called". About the so-called "atisan":

"Scientists believe that the fake is a mosaic built from at least two, and possibly five, separate specimens. ...

The results suggest that the fossil was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, the first of its kind ever seen, cemented on to a slab.

What appear to be random bone fragments of unrelated fossils were stuck on to "complete" the skeleton, making a mosaic that fooled the scientific world." cite

Perhaps, if we don't take our time, San Diego may be exhibiting how man makes better forgeries rather than how dinos took flight. : shrugs: justa theory ...

 

[Flipper]

Well, I believe that the new exhibits have been scrutinized using computed tomographical techniques, which is what outed Archaeoraptor.

You've got to remember that mainstream science never really embraced archaeraptor. Pop science magazines looking for an exclusive did.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper

Well, I believe that the new exhibits have been scrutinized using computed tomographical techniques, which is what outed Archaeoraptor.

I believe there is evidence to suggest waiting a while before believing evo has had it's first break through.

You've got to remember that mainstream science never really embraced archaeraptor. Pop science magazines looking for an exclusive did.

I tend to believe evo science has embraced a few missing links.

 

[Flipper]

Nineveh:

I believe there is evidence to suggest waiting a while before believing evo has had it's first break through.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/01/22/coolsc.correct.fourwinged/

Richard Ketchum, a University of Texas research scientist who helped coordinate the Computerized Tomography (CT) scans that determined Archaeoraptor lianingensis was a fake, liked what he saw in the report about the new dino-bird.

"It's a great specimen. From looking at the photo of the slab and the [CT scan] image, it looks like things go together," he said. "With the other one, you could see that it was fake. Some pieces did not fit together."

The x-ray doesn't lie.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/01/22/coolsc.correct.fourwinged/



The x-ray doesn't lie.

Flipper, no one is saying you can't go right ahead and jump on board. Personally, I believe there is enough evidence to warrant waiting for the "peer review" on this

 

[Flipper]

Already reviewed and published.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP.../nature01342_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1085757501

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Perhaps, if we don't take our time, San Diego may be exhibiting how man makes better forgeries rather than how dinos took flight. : shrugs: justa theory ...

Well, scientifically speaking, it's not a theory, it's speculation. There's a massive difference between the two.

But your typo gives me an idea. Scientists have been constantly trying to get the point across that "theory" means two completely different, almost diametrically opposed, things to scientists and to lay people. We haven't been too successful, given the number of people who to this day refer to evolution as "just a theory." So maybe we need a new word, a new adjective that unambiguously settles the issue. I think Nineveh provides the perfect word: "justa," which can mean "purely speculative, lacking in evidential support." So "justa theories" and "scientific theories" are mutually exclusive categories, easily identified. So if someone says, "Oh, evolution's justa theory," erveryone will know that the appropriate response is "No, evolution's a scientific theory, not justa theory!"

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper

Already reviewed and published.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP.../nature01342_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1085757501

Although the dinosaurian hypothesis of bird origins is widely accepted, debate remains about how the ancestor of birds first learned to fly. Here we provide new evidence suggesting that basal dromaeosaurid dinosaurs were four-winged animals and probably could glide, representing an intermediate stage towards the active, flapping-flight stage. The new discovery conforms to the predictions of early hypotheses that proavians passed through a tetrapteryx stage.

Ok so we have an "hypothesis of bird origins" that is "widely accepted", however "debate remains about how the ancestor of birds first learned to fly". New suggestions and probably coulds aren't enough proof for me about the "origin of flight" on the theory of "dinos to birds".

The missing links are still missing. But thank you for pointing out the peer review is still making a lot of guess work on the newest search to link dinos to birds. (Have they given up on the apes to man theory?)

 

[Jukia]

Nineveh: Have you ever taken a course in biology, beyond high school, and in a (shudder) secular setting?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: Have you ever taken a course in biology, beyond high school, and in a (shudder) secular setting?

Will that help with the guesswork factor from the peer review?

 

[Jukia]

No idea if that will help, just curious.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

No idea if that will help, just curious.

You don't know if me taking a biology class will help the scientists with their peer review guesswork?

 

[Jukia]

Ah, no. I just asked a simple question. You seem to be unwilling or unable to give me a straight answer.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Ah, no.

Ok, you had me worried there for a sec

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

Well, scientifically speaking, it's not a theory, it's speculation. There's a massive difference between the two.

But your typo gives me an idea. Scientists have been constantly trying to get the point across that "theory" means two completely different, almost diametrically opposed, things to scientists and to lay people. We haven't been too successful, given the number of people who to this day refer to evolution as "just a theory." So maybe we need a new word, a new adjective that unambiguously settles the issue. I think Nineveh provides the perfect word: "justa," which can mean "purely speculative, lacking in evidential support." So "justa theories" and "scientific theories" are mutually exclusive categories, easily identified. So if someone says, "Oh, evolution's justa theory," erveryone will know that the appropriate response is "No, evolution's a scientific theory, not justa theory!"

aharvey, how stupid are you trying to make "laypeople" feel? Are just making a joke about Nineveh's spelling?
I would be very interested in knowing which museum you work at. The only difference between a "scientific" theory and a theory is who's mouth is spouting it. For a group of people such as scientists who want to be understood, it's people like you mixing the guess work on terminology definitions that confuse people. Why can't you just keep it in a simple language? I have never known the definition of the word "theory" to change in the last 20 or so years, whether a person with a degree or not says it.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

aharvey, how stupid are you trying to make "laypeople" feel? Are just making a joke about Nineveh's spelling?
I would be very interested in knowing which museum you work at. The only difference between a "scientific" theory and a theory is who's mouth is spouting it. For a group of people such as scientists who want to be understood, it's people like you mixing the guess work on terminology definitions that confuse people. Why can't you just keep it in a simple language? I have never known the definition of the word "theory" to change in the last 20 or so years, whether a person with a degree or not says it.

Agent Smith,

I am not making fun of anyone, I am not trying to make lay people feel stupid, I did not create this particular problem, and I am hardly the first scientist to complain about the constant confounding of the term when lay people refer disparagingly to evolutionary theory. I can only guess that you are brand new to the whole creationist-evolution controversy, so let me bring you up to speed. Go to Google, do a search for the following, using the quotes as provided:

"scientific theory" "just a theory"

I just did this and got 1,740 hits. Look over as many as you need to convince you that, far from poking fun at Nineveh in particular or lay people in general, I was genuinely offering a solution to a well-established, long-standing, all-too-common problem that has to this day been impossible to fix. And let me ask you this? Why is it "the scientists'" fault that lay people use the word "theory" to mean "speculation"? What's wrong with putting an adjective in front of the lay definition of the term, especially when the adjective at least sounds exactly like the phrase you put in front of the word "theory" when you disparage evolutionary theory anyways? It seems like the perfect solution, absolutely removing the ambiguity that none of us likes.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

Well, scientifically speaking, it's not a theory, it's speculation. There's a massive difference between the two.

But your typo gives me an idea. Scientists have been constantly trying to get the point across that "theory" means two completely different, almost diametrically opposed, things to scientists and to lay people. We haven't been too successful, given the number of people who to this day refer to evolution as "just a theory." So maybe we need a new word, a new adjective that unambiguously settles the issue. I think Nineveh provides the perfect word: "justa," which can mean "purely speculative, lacking in evidential support." So "justa theories" and "scientific theories" are mutually exclusive categories, easily identified. So if someone says, "Oh, evolution's justa theory," erveryone will know that the appropriate response is "No, evolution's a scientific theory, not justa theory!"

Stratnerd, do you agree with aharvey about the defining or redefining of theory? Do you agree that science should be able to have it's own segregated version of the word theory that differs from the one already in use?