Another fossil find by scientists doing that science thing … you know, being in the field, digging up old stuff, analyzing it in depth.
While an earlier discovery found a slightly older animal that was more fish than tetrapod, Ventastega is more tetrapod than fish. The fierce-looking creature probably swam through shallow brackish waters, measured about three or four feet long and ate other fish. It likely had stubby limbs with an unknown number of digits, scientists said.
Well, it’s obvious innit? God put those fossils there to test us. :roll
Cool! 🙂
Brannon, Brannon, Brannon … sigh!
Just keep repeating “there ARE no transitional fossils, there ARE no transitional fossils …” until you finally believe it. (It may help to click your red heels together three times.) Then you will be saved. But … it’s all about the science!
Cool, we already have fabricated pictures. Isn’t technology great.
We can be sure that this isn’t just an extent species, because we know species just change themselves, into something else. That’s science.
How did they come up with the age?
Teach the controversy!
OOOOOOwwwwch!!! Teh stoopid burns!!! Make it stop please!!!
ABO,
You ought to be happy, the Ventastega is at the end of an evolutionary branch. yep, that evolutionary pathway ended.
ABO, why do you even come trolling here? There already IS a “Florida Godbots for Anti-Science Ignorance” website; it’s an active link on your name. 😉
Bah!
Ventastega is still just a fishy tetrapod!
Show me where one turned into an aeroplane…or an ipod!
Same old thing, no answers just bull.
ABO,
Lets see what data you have to counter this find.
FMC, you know all the “data” and “evidence” the godbots need is in the Holey Dribble. 😉
Simple question. How did they come up with the age of this new find?
My guess ABO, is they used the same testing methods that they always do.
What is it with godbots that makes them so lazy?
Don’t you know how to look for yourself ABO? Why do you expect everyone else to waste their time providing you with info you will ignore? Oh wait….that’s the troll tactic isn’t it!
You’re a sad sad case ABO.
It’s me, sad sad ABO. It would appear that firemancarl is right. The process of age dating is the same method they always use, imagination.
http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=455943&articleId=665655
&func=6&filterHidden
Wow! Authoritative reference link there ABO!
Is that the best you could do?
1/10! Fail!
Language commonly used in scientific reports such as “theorized”, “predicted”, “thought to be” provides for a diplomatic direction to other scientists in the field to offer up evidence or findings contradictory to the research presented.
That’s how the scientific process works.
So go to it ABO 🙂
Well, ABO has faith that radiological testing is flawed. After all, he believes that the earth is less than ten thousand years old… even though his bible does not explicitly state this anywhere.
zygosporangia
Was it radiological testing or imagination used to date our new evidence. Can’t find anything on it.
Well, ABO, you could go to this thread http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=3219 and ask an actual scientist, one of them who WROTE the paper, about it instead of libeling him. He has a real job, though, so might not feel it’s worth his time to play with willfully ignorant creationists. But he’s a nice guy so might spare you some of his valuable time. Or not. Why don’t you wade into shark-infested waters and take a chance?
That may be too much of a test of his faith.
Well, gosh, instead of standing for ABO’s libel of a scientist who is tops in his field, I asked Dr. Per Ahlberg (co-author of the article in question) the question. It’s just amazing what happens when you actually ASK a scientist for an answer instead of deciding he and his colleagues are pulling stuff out of their asses like creotards do. I realize it’s projection of the highest order and these bozos can’t help themselves. I also realize that Dr. Ahlberg’s response will not satisfy ABO and his ilk because it doesn’t fit their narrow, Bible-based version of reality. But, for those who don’t have FundieGoggles on and are interested in, you know, REAL SCIENCE, here is Dr. Ahlberg’s response:
“Hi Wolfhound,
Ventastega is about 365 million years old. There are two different time scales at play here, the relative (or stratigraphic) and the absolute.
In terms of the relative time scale, which is based on the stratigraphic succession of certain fossils such as land plant spores, conodonts, and fishes, Ventastega comes from the Ketleri Formation of Latvia which dates to the later part of the Famennian stage, which is itself the last part of the Devonian Period. The stratigraphic dating scheme was substantially worked out before the end of the 19th century (!) and hasn’t really changed since except to add finer and finer resolution. There has been no controversy at all about the stratigraphic age of the Ketleri Formation over the last 50 years or so.
It is of course another matter to work out exactly how long ago the Late Devonian actually was, in years. This is where absolute dating comes in, which is done on volcanic rocks (using measurements of different kinds of radioactive breakdown, such as potassium to argon or whatever) to produce absolute dates in years. Here and there in the world, volcanic rocks (for example ash falls) are conveniently interbedded with sedimentary rocks and can be used to pin absolute dates to the stratigraphy. This correlation process is still under way, and the exact dates still tend to shift a little this way or that – but only by a few percent.”
Wolfhound
Thanks for the answer. There’s nothing new here, not to say there is a better method to establish the belief. But the age here has simply been assigned to Ventastega, just where it fits in it’s predetermined position on the evolutionary tree, that being the Devonian Period.
Relative dating may work in some insistences, but if I’d buried a cat in the back yard two weeks ago it wouldn’t make the dirt two weeks old. Doesn’t absolute dating begin with the assumption (for instance) that the amount of radioactive isotopes are known prior to their decay, and that the rate of decay is assumed to have remained fairly constant of millions of years? The word ‘absolute’ doesn’t fit the process, too many assumptions.
The part which the good scientist provided for us was that the stratigraphic dating scheme was worked out before the end of the 19th century, that’s believable. There were and are a lot of schemes being worked out to support the theory. However the word scam would fit much better than scheme is his reply.
Imagination is a far more accurate explanation for the age assigned to this new dead thing. And you are correct I’m having a hard time buying this form of reasoning. What can I say, ya got faith.
ABO Says (June 30th, 2008 at 9:46 pm):
In the case of carbon 14, it’s continuously created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays. All the carbon 14 in living creatures is newly-created. It’s absorbed into creatures because they eat plants (or they eat animals which themselves eat plants), and the plants “breath” the stuff in. When a creature dies, it no longer takes in new carbon 14, so the time required for the observed decay can be determined. Yes, the rate of decay is observed to be constant.
Wikipedia has an article on Radiocarbon dating. It’s available to creationists as well as other people. That article mentions that the man who developed carbon 14 dating “demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately measuring the age of wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge whose age was known from historical documents.”
Date estimates are also calibrated due to known variations of the amount of carbon 14 at various historical periods. The article also explains how carbon 14 dates can be checked independently by other methods.
If a creationist prefers to imagine that it’s all fairy tales, that’s his choice.
PatrickHenery
Yes, C14 dating can be validated with recent historical evidence. It can also be shown that C14 testing is vulnerable to climatic conditions and other circumstances which show it’s possible inaccuracy based on the same recent historical evidence. However the creature in question has a age assigned of 365 million years. Theoretically no C14 should be detectable after 50,000 years, so it would not be used to establish an age for our new fabrication.
If a evolutionist prefers to imagine that it’s all fairy tales, that’s his choice.
PH, don’t bother. He’s a troll of the highest order. You cannot educate the willfully ignorant and it’s just a waste of time. Look at AIG’s mission statement which, in a nutshell, says that if the data and scripture don’t agree, it’s the DATA that is flawed. Nothing more need be said.
I’ll see how Dr Ahlberg and his colleages feel about being accused of fraud.
Wolfhound Says (July 1st, 2008 at 6:45 am):
Quite right. As I wouldn’t argue with someone who was proud to be a UFO abductee-anal probe victim, moon-landing denier, reincarnation of Napoleon, and warrior in the ancient struggle against the Illuminati. so too shall I withdraw my essence from creationist trolls.
Oh noes….the geologists are in on the BIG conspiracy too!
I knew it! I’ll just bet the physicists and chemists are in on it too!
I doubt the molecular, or developmental biologists are involved though. Such a good looking and talented group of people :p
Can’t say I’m surprised that ABO doesn’t know much about dating techniques. Bound to be the case when one spends their time at reading Answers in Garbage.
Good thing they don’t use C14 dating for remains that old then, ABO! If you’d bother to read a book on science, instead of going to garbage sites like AIG, you’d know that carbon dating is not used for anything over 50k years old. There are other isotopes with longer half-lives. This isn’t so difficult, only the basic nuclear physics taught in high school.
For someone who wants to argue like an expert, you sure fall flat on your face when it comes to the facts, ABO.
From Dr. Ahlberg:
“Hi Wolfhound,
Oh dear, I really really can’t be bothered to tackle the same old canards and misinformation again. The thing that really disheartens me about people like ABO is their extraordinary ability to misunderstand and misquote a straightforward argument. It appears to be a Morton’s Demon effect rather than mere ordinary stupidity, because the “misunderstandings” are very precisely targeted to allow the person to avoid certain conclusions that would be unacceptable to them. I would guess that part of ABO’s brain understands my argument perfectly well, but deliberately lies to the self-aware, speaking, “command centre” part because it knows the latter will otherwise start screaming in terror.”
Don’t blame him one bit.
Now, if ABO and the other resident sufferers of fundementia really want some answers instead of sniping and puking up shite from AIG they have credulously swallowed because it feels good and supports their belief in fairy stories, they can join us on TalkRational. Lotsa’ real scientists there who work in the lab and field and really do try to explain how science works. I’m guessing they’ll take a pass, though. Learning some real science might shake their belief system, as evidenced by that survey about education level vs. religious belief.
Wolfhound
Trying to come to the conclusion you hoped for, I think you have misread my post. I didn’t say our new friend Dr. Ahlberg and his colleagues are committing fraud. I simply stated that the testing method would not be C14 for the new fabrication. To achieve the desired date which coincides with the proper placement of this new dead thing on the evolutionary tree. One might have used Potassium Argon. They say Potassium decays to Argon at a known rate, and is used to date stuff from 50,000 to 2 billion years.
Once again, I don’t think our real scientist is a quack, but rather using the prescribed methods to achieve the desired result. It’s no secret that different dating methods can give a wide variety of ages, testing the same substance. To settle in on a particular number, surely numerous processes and circumstances are taken into consideration. As far as the term ‘fabrication’, it is an excellent description of the process. Standardized information is used to construct or manufacture the desired age.
I’m sure there are lots of folks who would swear with their lives that this new deal is 365 million years old because it’s published by science. When it changes, they will swear by that also. But Dr Ahlberg even implicates that his numbers are approximate. So is it intelligent to claim that everyone who questions his calculations, are religious nuts? Of course not. But it could be religious to put your faith and trust in this questionable process.
Now it’s also true the word fabrication can be used to identify a falsehood. Is that what we have here? I don’t think so. What you have is a belief system. Not unlike any religion.
I don’t think you seem to understand that the precision of this instrument will be within 2% to 5%. Could the fossil shift a million years or so? Sure. In the grand scheme of things, will that matter? Not really.
The precision is certainly much higher than a young-earth creationist like yourself would want us to believe. You think that because there could be any discrepancy, even a minor one, that instantly the earth could be 6000 years old. That is an insane conclusion to jump to, a true leap of faith as it were.
A ruler is also imprecise. However, even though the standard ruler is several hundreths or thousandths off does not mean that a six inch Subway sandwich could really be a foot-long. Not even close, and no amount of faith will make it so.
Seriously, ABO, the “science is a religion ’cause you gotta’ have faith” fallacy is one of the most retarded canards to come out of your camp of desperation. That one was devised because (Bible-learnin’) religion was rightfully chucked out of the public school system. Like all petulant children, the religious nuts, not content with the brainwashing and indoctrination they are free to do at home and in their tax-exempt houses of delusion, feel it’s unfair to teach science. They view this science as a direct assault on their cherished myths and apparently feel that a few hours of instruction concerning the ToE will unravel the lifetime of “God did it” they’ve force-fed their children. Worse yet, those heathen children whose parents have NOT seen fit to fill their heads full of religious nonsense will go through school without hearing the gospel! OH NOES!!!111!!! So, the equation of ToE=religion was contrived in a feeble attempt to oust a robust scientific theory from public schools or, better yet, get religious indoctrination (but only of the Christian flavor!) injected back into the classrooms.
One of the more amusing things creonuts (YECs in particular) do is bitch about science’s self-correction. This is the very thing that makes it so robust. As new evidence is gathered and better methods are devised, the theory is corrected and refined, if needed. Far from being a flaw, this is what makes REAL science so superior to religion. Religion says it has all the answers and hasn’t changed in thousands of years because, well, it says it’s right. Science says it doesn’t have all of the answers but is looking for them. Science isn’t afraid to say, “I don’t know, but I’m working on it”. Religion says, “This is it, no need to look any further”.
Oh, and blow your “fabrication” B.S. out of your ass, ABO. You accused professional scientists of fraud by calling Ventastega a “fabrication”. Nice try at backpeddling to say you didn’t really mean what you said. You are qualified to judge the validity of a scientific discovery HOW? Such hubris! Some filthy monk who probably had one bath in his entire life and thought the mentally insane were possessed by demons (among other nonsense) went through a series of “begats” in your Bronze Age book to come up with the ludicrous age of 6k years for the earth, give or take, and you think this carries more weight than the whole of scientific knowledge? Wow. Just, wow.
Wolfhound –
Now you’re attacking ABO’s whole reason for being (or, at least, for trolling here!).
That has been ABO’s stance for as long as I’ve read his drivel. “Science requires faith, and is therefore a religion”. “Since science is a religion, ‘god dun it’ is just as valid.”
Even the most basic of logic tears this down, but ABO has faith that his argument works. He belongs to the camp in which all that is required is to believe in something hard enough and it becomes true. I wonder if he clapped for Tinkerbell?
Wolfhound
You can’t be this ignorant, I think you’re faking
Zygosporangia
It’s apparent your comprehension level is right down there with Mr Woffy. I’ve never said science was a religion.
He belongs to the camp in which all that is required is to believe in something hard enough and it becomes true.
I wonder if it’s like Imagination Land from South Park…. That means- ManBearPig is REAL!
If my comprehension level is low, then your ability to apply logic is in the sub-basement.
You claim that evolution, a theory supported by science is faith. I’ll let you work out the implications of your drivel.
So, ABO, did you clap for Tinkerbell? You lie for Jesus, so clapping for Tinkerbell would be right up your alley.
Wolfhound
Our real scientist seems to have difficulty identifying a straight forward argument. Wile his findings may be a forgone conclusion in his mind they remain unconvincing to a very large number of people.
As far as the effect of the mind filter (Dr. Ahlberg suggest) coming into play for my hesitation to suck up your reasoning as scientific reality, that’s not the case. I’m asking reasonable questions and not getting reasonable answers. The mind filter I see in play is yours. Anything which questions, any aspect of this sacred theory is emidently attack by insults and ridicule. The answers which are provide are usually more far fetched than the question was to start with. One can only surmise, you have no answers, only your belief.
ABO, quit bullshitting.
The only reason you consider the answers you’re receiving not to be “reasonable” is because those answers don’t genuflect before your assertion-laden, evidence-free, scientifically illiterate and utterly worthless doctrine. Hence your defamatory dismissal of world-class experts such as Per Ahlberg, who have probably forgotten more real science than you will ever be capable of learning. So far all you have demonstrated here is that you are a fully paid up member of the school of thought espoused by Henry Morris, namely “if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right”. Hence your reality inversion, projection and specious erection of entirely non-existent “symmetries” between evidence-based, reality-based science and assertion-laden doctrine.
Now, if you have no contribution other than defaming world-class scientists because they dare to do something other than genuflect before your idols, propagandising for a worthless doctrine and summary dismissal of whole swathes of reality because reality sticks the middle finger to your doctrinal fantasies, then I suggest you stop trolling this blog and leave it to those of us who paid attention in science classes, which you manifestly didn’t.
BTW, ABO, in case you were wondering, Cali is a real scientist. Quite a good one and he does not suffer idiots lightly.
And that’s MS. Wolfy to you, buddy!
Seriously, you calling me ignorant is the pot calling the newly fallen snow black. Get you ignorant, religion-soaked, reality-denying ass over to Talk Rational and put your questions to the real scientists. Double dog dare ya’! 🙂
Bok, bok, bok!
Wolfhound
I’m checking out you site. The spot look’s about the same as this one.
Here’s a question for you. If two scientist in the same field with the same extensive education, researching the same evidence, have a different interpretation on origin related material are they both real scientist?
Does one of these two scientists draw his interpretation from rhetoric instead of evidence, say from your bible?
zygosporangia
No, the interpretation comes from the evidence.
ABO –
Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole again? I have asked you repeatedly to provide evidence for creationism. Each and every time, you have failed to deliver anything.
So, in your ridiculous example, we have one person who derives an interpretation from empirical evidence, and tests this interpretation over and over again as new evidence appears, refining or invalidating it as necessary. We have another person who derives an interpretation based on a very liberal application of words and phrases in a mystic book with no empirical evidence to back this book up. Furthermore, this second person goes through mental gymnastics to find ways of dismissing or changing new evidence to match his interpretation, including and not limited to supporting legislation to give equal time teaching the first person’s interpretation and his own. Only one of these two people are a scientist, by the very definition of science. I’ll let you guess which one is a scientist. Most folks here already know the answer.
zygosporangia Says:
Rabbit hole isn’t quite right. Remember, we’re dealing with a creationist.
zygosporangia
The book and circumstances you’re indicating sounds like On The Origin of Species. We know Darwin had no empirical evidence to point to his mystical transitions, only questions about why he couldn’t find any. But that wasn’t my question. Let me try again.
If two scientist in the same field with the same extensive education, researching the same evidence, have a different interpretation on origin related material are they both real scientist?
Which is probably evident that the only book you have actually read is your bible.
If you want me to play along with your ridiculous question, you will need to be more specific. Not that I believe that you have the intelligence or capability to lead me into a Socratic trap, but I’m not a five-year-old either.
There’s no trap, just another unanswered question.
I can’t answer your question, because you are making it intentionally vague. I ask for specifics so I can answer the question, and you repeat it again.
Be more specific, and I’ll answer your question.