All images on this site if not created by the author are used vie the Fair Use Act.
CUTTING TO THE CHASE, HERE IS THE LINE YOU SHOULD USE WHEN ANTI-CREATIONISTS POST A SCIENTIFIC "AUTHORITY" TO BACK UP THEIR ANTAGONISTIC ATTACKS:
Another "scientific authority"? Like the paleontologists who said dinosaurs were slow and cold-blooded for 80 years when the slow-moving descriptions they used to describe dinosaurs showed they understood metabolism, endothermy and ectothermy well enough to know that the dinosaurs must have been warm blooded? They either lied or were stupid, all of them, for over 80 years, and what you are posting shows the same pattern today. The scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It's been proven by the last 100 years of historical record
(Please check back to this article regularly as it is now an ongoing project as the author researches his own hard copy periodicals dating through the last 122 years.)
Often you will find yourself reading the bashing of Creationism. Usually, those doing the bashing are quoting highly-placed scientific 'experts' with doctorates from esteemed universities to substantiate their unilateral antagonism against Creationists. If you dare to question the "experts" conclusions with evidence and/or logic, their defenders will descend on you like Biblical Locusts, or perhaps SS Brownshirts. Despite the fact that such behavior on the part of the anti-Creationism advocates is immature and perhaps indicative of severe psychological problems (what kind of loser spends his or her evening at the computer antagonizing people they do not know? Maybe this is the answer), the fact is that the esteemed experts they are defending are often not much better.
Since this site has Dino in the title, let's talk about Dinosaurs and their scientific 'experts" as an illustration.
For generations paleontologists said that dinosaurs were cold-blooded even though they knew the obvious workings of metabolism were totally against it from the first dinosaur skeleton found and assembled. We must assume, then, that those men either lied to protect their stations in life - for generations - or they were so ignorant about their own field of study that they never should have been practicing in it.
An absolutely illustrative example of this mindset of resisting the obvious conclusion of warm-blooded (endothermic) dinosaurs can be found in a statement published back in a 1917 copy of The Mentor (in the author's hard copy collection). The article, "Prehistoric Animal Life", was authored by W. D. Matthew, Ph. D., the then-Curator of the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural history in New York. In it Dr Matthew skirts the obvious contradiction of figure structure to cold-blooded limitation by saying,
"The large dinosaurs, for aught we know to the contrary, have evolved a more perfected and active circulatory system of blood than modern reptiles, which would enable them to be as active and powerful as their bones would suggest."
Reptiles are universally cold-blooded. There you have it. The Curator of the appropriate department of the Museum of Natural History struggling to resist the obvious as far back as 1917, instead of saying, perhaps, "Maybe dinosaurs were warm-blooded, after all".
A photo of famed dinosaur reconstruction painter Charles R Knight, sculpting an ectothermic, cold-blooded Stegosaurus, circa 1899, the front illustration of Dr Matthew's Mentor article from 1917.
This refusal to accept an obvious reality and instead choosing to cling to hopelessly incorrect worldview notions of cold-blooded dinosaurs went on for decades, and of course, these "experts" mocked any opinions to the contrary (and that is the point, because modern scientists do exactly the same thing today without fail). "Hacks" is a pretty good descriptive word for the way they behaved.....
1893 Ectothermic (cold-blooded) Reconstruction of "Brontosaurus" (Image from the author's hard-copy original collection)....
1964 - the exact same type of ectothermic (cold-blooded) reconstruction of Brontosaurus, based on the "latest science" at the 1964 World's fair. 72 years later, the "latest science" proposes the exact same, intellectually dishonest ectothermic reconstruction as it did in 1893. (from the author's original, hard-copy collection)
Another fine example of paleontology stupidity/hypocrisy is when the the very popular movie One Million Years BC came out in 1966, about 100 years after the beginning of true paleontology and just before the so-called "Dinosaur Renaissance". If you check the scientific journals in the past in 1966, scientists mocked the dinosaur depictions in that film because the depictions appeared to show creatures supporting their own weight in the manner of warm-blooded animals and did not behave like scientifically-approved slow-moving cold-blooded animals. This is a particularly strong example of the scientific community intellectual blindness, because One Million years BC used stop motion figures for the dinosaurs, meaning articulated rubber models brilliantly done artistically, with physical restrictions that forced the legendary animator Ray Harryhausen to employ basic, credible poses learned from a lifetime of animal study, poses which much more resemble today's reconstructions than the hopelessly outdated ones then still being used by the scientific community in 1966.
Ray Harryhausen's accurate prediction of warm-blooded dinosaur movement, as demanded by the physiognomy, on the screen, decades before the outdated paleontologist community got its act together - and stopped stupidly laughing at it. Images used per The Fair Use Act.
Indeed, Harryhausen's animation should have been seen as a breakthrough in dinosaur reconstruction, because here the artist couldn't fudge the drawings, data or mock with grandiosity the way the scientific community does - he had a physical model to deal with in the T-Rex types, for example, and they had to make sense in motion and balance, something which proved impossible to put on the screen with the hopelessly outdated theories demanded by science up until the 1980's.
This part is critical: What Harryhausen really did was make an inadvertent practical extension of the Eadweard Muybridge animal movement studies, only in reverse. True: instead of photographing live animals and breaking down the motions into sequential pictures like Muybridge did, Harryhausen, drawing upon decades of animal motion study, photographed the dinosaur figures one frame at a time to create the illusion of movement. By moving the creatures in ways which the physical restrictions and obvious center of gravity of an actual physical figure demanded, he created what should have been a startling template for the paleontology community, because the figures were generally proportionately entirely accurate, and supported their own weight and moved as warm-blooded creatures, as their proportions and shapes demanded. It wasn't just Hollywood action on the screen, it should have been a startling revelation for paleontologists because the movements make sense in a way that undercut all previous illustrations (Now Harryhausen's work is regarded as prophetic by the occasion honest paleontologist).
When faced with Harryhausen's practical example of figure weight-bearing and movement in One Million years BC, in 1966, what did these esteemed doctors already either lying about or too stupid to understand metabolism (for 80 years when metabolism function was otherwise understood) do? They did what they do today when faced with anything that threatens to undermine their comfort zone and careers: they insulted the work, calling the highly advanced reconstruction of movement "unscientific", "inaccurate", 'wrong".
If you think that taking a cue scientifically from Harryhausen's work is improper, consider how Einstein arrived at the theory of relativity. Einstein did not imagine the experience of riding a beam of light after doing his calculations, but rather, imagining the experience of riding a beam of light inspired the direction and success of his calculations (thanks to an old and great friend with a masters in astronomical science for the tip). So, too, should the scientific community have taken a practical academic cue from Harryhausen's uniquely accurate work just as, decades before, as Harryhausen's work graphically suggested, someone within the learned halls of paleontology should have asked an insanely obvious question: "How can T-Rex possibly hunt for food if suffering from such a pathetic, cold-blooded condition as demanded by the mainstream scientific community?"
Please keep uppermost in your mind that it was the understanding of metabolism, as far back as the 1800's, which was the reason scientists in the field of paleontology initially called dinosaurs too weak to support their own weight and slow-moving in the first place, because they understood metabolism well enough to know that cold-blooded creatures of that size could not move quickly. That is simple historic fact. Period. But instead of admitting dinosaurs were warm-blooded by 1900, the scientific culture did what they still do today with evolution and Old-Earth sciences - they invented preposterously awkward scenarios for the "cold blooded dinosaurs" and mocked the idea of warm-blooded dinosaurs. It's the same pattern we see across the board in most scientific fields today. Doctorate-holding experts mocking the truth while knowing the truth or truly too dim to grasp it. That's terrible!
To make matters even worse, as incredible as it seems that it could be worse, the scientific community held a different standard according to whatever pleased them personally, as they do today. There is absolutely no question about this. For example, they mocked dinosaur movies with quick-footed, heavy-weight-bearing large meat-eaters, but had no trouble with this commission, below, by artist Charles Knight for the Museum of Natural History of extremely energetic dinosaurs circa 1900 which breaks their own haughtily delivered rules about cold-blooded dinosaurs (maybe they were in Dr Matthew's camp, and assumed they just had "better circulation" than modern reptiles).
Here, Charles Knight's bipedal carnivores, on display at the Museum of Natural History in 1900, flip the bird at the very experts who before that time and for generations thereafter said that dinosaurs could not be fleet-footed heavy-weight-bearers because they were cold-blooded; an example of the paleontology science culture hypocritical mindset that simply staggers the imagination. The lesson here to scientists: "Be honest and follow your own rules".
The scientific community culture is so awful and self-involved that when they had to rename Brontosaurus to Apatosaurus because they had the wrong skull on the sample reconstruction for over 70 years, they did not even to show the ethical integrity to say "oops, we haven't been paying attention". Instead, they heralded the correction as some supposed triumph for advancing scientific intellect. Pathetic 10-1.
You see, it boils down to this: Apparently "A Fact" had been written into the social and professional structure of the paleontology field and no one dared to tell the truth, and the rest who were not lying were apparently so inept that they plainly did not understand a basic aspect of their own profession. Be they liars or stupid, neither type could be called 'experts" by any normal definition, so the entire paleontology field apparently never had any experts who were heard from for over 100 years.
People have not changed since then, and neither have secular scientists. Some day they will make similar admissions about evolution and the fact of a young earth, as long as they can cover their asses by blaming their predecessors and cover their fields of interest, also, by saying that those past, poor generations of scientists did not have the proper evidence and it will be the same mind-numbing BS in the future as it is now and as it was with the paleontologists for over 100 unbroken years. It will happen all over, again and again, because it is not so much the science that is wrong, it is the obvious superior-minded yet apparently grossly unethical culture which has been the foundation of the scientific community for over 100 years. It will happen over and over. Guaranteed.
The fact is that almost everything read in the mainstream about evolution and old-earth science is conjecture, based on theory, with a smattering of observed reality shoved sideways into the mix and the whole mess dished up as immutable fact because there is no one above these experts to demand they prove anything in actual empirical terms. There is no one to correct their science papers and give them a failing grade anymore, because they are now the teachers. Just like they were when they said the dinosaurs were cold-blooded and laughed at the people who showed them the clear and unambiguous way to a truth, truth that only the truly stupid among them, in my opinion, could not have understood.
The simple lesson here is that the mainstream scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. There is no way the example of the 100-year-scam of cold-blooded dinosaurs can otherwise be understood. Thousands of scientists over 100 years all demanding the same totally basic but bogus "truth" be accepted and knowing - or should have known if they had any brains - the absolute basic fact that the dinosaurs must have been warm-blooded from the get-go, but arrogantly and unfairly mocked anyone who said it. There's your "trusted science expert" in a nutshell.
Whenever someone on social media cites a science journal quoting experts who refute creationism, be sure to link this page or copy and paste it as you please (just don't take credit for writing it, please). The secular science community needs to be called out on whatever they say and asked to prove their assertions with empirical evidence. If nothing else, that might close down some science journals for awhile until they regroup and stop telling fantasies that keep secure their careers and start telling truth.... for a change.
ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS THE LINE YOU CAN AND SHOULD USE:
Another "scientific authority"? Like the paleontologists who said dinosaurs were slow and cold-blooded for 80 years when the slow-moving descriptions they used to describe dinosaurs showed they understood metabolism, endothermy and ectothermy well enough to know that the dinosaurs must have been warm blooded? They either lied or were stupid, all of them, for over 80 years, and what you are posting shows the same pattern today. The scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It's been proven by the last 100 years of historical record
No comments:
Post a Comment