Post by bewildered on Nov 9, 2013 9:26:54 GMT -6
I'm quoting this part of your earlier post again for emphasis. I'll add bold type to the relevant passages. You make sweeping generalizations, and when I call you on it, you don't own up to it.
First and foremost, not "all" dinosaurs met extinction 65 million years ago. At least two members of that order are living today, and they're members of the archosaur clade: birds, and crocodilians. Yep, both are dinosaurs. You're attributing behavior to scientists that can't be supported by evidence.
Secondly, you misrepresent scientific consensus and opinion through building what's called a "straw man." No, scientists don't reject evidence because they simply don't want to believe it. What's at issue here is the evidence itself, and what constitutes "evidence" in scientific pursuit. Goodyear's rocks aren't the only weakness in his hypothesis. He also didn't properly conduct radiocarbon dating at his site. His methodology produces results that can't be verified through consistent reproduction. This is why his work isn't accepted by the majority of scientists. Evidence, dude, not a belief that humans weren't here "x" number of years ago.
If you really understood how science worked then you'd understand that the bread and butter of science is evidence, not assumptions, or guesses, nor the conviction that you'll be proven "right." Science is hard work, it's tough, and it's not something that people do for fame or glory. It's a calling. It's not going to make me a pile of money, but that's not why I'm a scientist. I do it because I love it.
Anyway, I'm done here. I don't think I'll permanently check out like I did before, but I need a long break from this place.
That is why many scientists won't accept it though. They see that 100,000 year date and they immediately reject the stones as not being artifacts simply because they all believe there were no humans in the Americas back then. Scientists do stuff like that all the time. Paleontologists do the same thing with dinosaur fossils. Everybody "knows" that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago so they assume that any dinosaur fossil that dates to younger than 65 million years must be a mistake. There have been numerous dinosaur skeletons found that date way younger than 65 million years but the dates are just assumed to be wrong.
Read more: theedgeofreality.proboards.com/thread/4057/early-americans#ixzz2kA1uCGmo
Read more: theedgeofreality.proboards.com/thread/4057/early-americans#ixzz2kA1uCGmo
First and foremost, not "all" dinosaurs met extinction 65 million years ago. At least two members of that order are living today, and they're members of the archosaur clade: birds, and crocodilians. Yep, both are dinosaurs. You're attributing behavior to scientists that can't be supported by evidence.
Secondly, you misrepresent scientific consensus and opinion through building what's called a "straw man." No, scientists don't reject evidence because they simply don't want to believe it. What's at issue here is the evidence itself, and what constitutes "evidence" in scientific pursuit. Goodyear's rocks aren't the only weakness in his hypothesis. He also didn't properly conduct radiocarbon dating at his site. His methodology produces results that can't be verified through consistent reproduction. This is why his work isn't accepted by the majority of scientists. Evidence, dude, not a belief that humans weren't here "x" number of years ago.
If you really understood how science worked then you'd understand that the bread and butter of science is evidence, not assumptions, or guesses, nor the conviction that you'll be proven "right." Science is hard work, it's tough, and it's not something that people do for fame or glory. It's a calling. It's not going to make me a pile of money, but that's not why I'm a scientist. I do it because I love it.
Anyway, I'm done here. I don't think I'll permanently check out like I did before, but I need a long break from this place.