Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

[gcomeau]

If ANYTHING is BASED UPON THE LAWS OF PHYSICS....such is a PHYSICAL LAW. No theory is a physical law simply because it is not based upon the demonstrable laws of physics.....but rather on SUBJECTIVE human thought void of OBJECTIVE, OBSERVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE experimentation that demonstrates the consistency needed to conclude such as A FACT of Physical Law. Evolution is as far removed from the OBSERVED LAWS of physics as is day from night. Can you spell? If you can the spell..........

D E F L E C T I O N

When your ad hominem ignorance is proven wrong.......I suppose that is all you have left, deflection through feigned ignorance. If you are incapable of reading and comprehending the previous retort there if no further need in addressing your Circular Argumentation. Believe me....the "re-run" is no better than the premiere.

1. Dude, seriously. The occasional very key word capitalized for emphasis is one thing. Doing it three times a sentence makes you damn near unintelligible.

2. You very much need to take a class in basic science. One of the things you need to learn while doing so is what "theory" and "law" refer to in a scientific context. What you just posted was meaningless gibberish. Theories are absolutely not based on "subjective human thought". They are in fact the product of absurd amounts of rigorous objective testing and verification. They are the peak outcome of the scientific process. They are well above laws on the heirarchy of scientific knowledge. Coming up with a new scientific law is a decent acheivement. Having a hypothesis be taken into the ranks of accepted Scientific Theories will likely get you a Nobel prize. They're not guesses. They're not hunches. They're not subjective beliefs. They bear absolutely no relation to layman's uses of the word "theory" like "my uncle Bill has a theory about who shot Kennedy. It was the Illuminati!!!"

They're incredibly well supported explanatory frameworks that detail the mechanisms behind physical processes. The "Law of Gravity" for example simply describes a basic observation. The rate at which two bodies with mass will accelerate towards each other due to gravitational attraction.

The THEORY of gravity on the other hand is way, way harder to come up with. Because you see, the theory of gravity has to explain WHY that happens. Which is slightly more difficult and requires WAY higher levels of testing and experimentation.

3. Take a logic class when you're done with your science class. You need to learn how to properly aply terms like "Ad hominem" and "circular reasoning". You're not doing it right now.

 

[gcomeau]

No, it doesn't. Those rocks are taken from areas (a fraction of the evidence). Small amounts of data (comparitively speaking) might not be an accurate representation of the larger cross segment of geological material. It is a "scientific" guess. You can test samples over large areas, but you are assuming that material was always there without any other influence.

Are you familiar with the principles behind statistical sampling?

Do you have any idea how much rock has been radiometrically dated since the methods were develloped, from all over the world?

And no, we are NOT assuming they have always been there without other influence. That is bloody well tested for too.

I repeat, there is no way to know if these tests are taken of material formed here on this earth or somewhere else. Has the reactor been used on meteorites and found the same things?

If you mean "has radiometric dating been used"... yes.

Can cosmic influences change decay rates?

somewhat, under certain extreme conditions.

Those "certain conditions" being either massive neutron bombardment... or an alteration in the fine structure constant of the universe.

The former would have destroyed all life on earth. With prejudice.

The latter would have also. And we know from cosmological observations that it never happened anyway. Not in the last 14 billion years at least. Such an alteration would have drastically changed the spectral output of stars for one thing. We don't see that. So it didn't occur.

And do you have any idea what levels of radioactivity we would be dealing with to make objects that are thousands of years old experience so much decay in those few thousand years that they appeared BILLIONS of years old? What you're rambling on about here is the equivalent of someone trying to explain why their keys weren't where they left them and saying "Well, maybe the sun exploded and the wavefront moved them somewhere when it hit the earth!".

See, we're pretty sure that didn't happen, considering we'd all be dead if it had and we're breathing and walking around and stuff. Plus, that bright shiny thing in the sky is still there.

Same goes for your hypothetical alteration of decay rates to thousands of times higher than current observed levels. Beyond all the batteries of tests we have that establish they haven't changed AT ALL in billions of years, there's the little tiny detail that if they had increased by factors of thousands at any time in the last many many thousand years WE'D ALL BE DEAD NOW. We're not. *It didn't happen*. Deal with it.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Anyone who believes that evolution/creationism is a salvation issue has a very poor grip on a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Hopefully you will someday find a relationship with Jesus Christ and then you will see the truth. Until that day you will continue to wander in spiritual darkness.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The fundamentalist mindset is difficult to reason with, it's closed to anything other than its own beliefs. It brooks no opposition, it wields a sword of wilful ignorance, although the sword is blunt it can still bruise. Science doesn't seek to attack religion but fundamental religionists, ever fearful of the mythologies that are their core beliefs, will seek to attack, distort and demean science. It's transparently obvious and a bit sad.

http://mollyscannons.com/forums/images/smilies/laff.gif

 

[Ralph]

If ANYTHING is BASED UPON THE LAWS OF PHYSICS....such is a PHYSICAL LAW. No theory is a physical law simply because it is not based upon the demonstrable laws of physics.....but rather on SUBJECTIVE human thought void of OBJECTIVE, OBSERVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE experimentation that demonstrates the consistency needed to conclude such as A FACT of Physical Law. Evolution is as far removed from the OBSERVED LAWS of physics as is day from night. Can you spell? If you can the spell..........

D E F L E C T I O N

When your ad hominem ignorance is proven wrong.......I suppose that is all you have left, deflection through feigned ignorance. If you are incapable of reading and comprehending the previous retort there if no further need in addressing your Circular Argumentation. Believe me....the "re-run" is no better than the premiere.

1. Dude, seriously. The occasional very key word capitalized for emphasis is one thing. Doing it three times a sentence makes you damn near unintelligible.

2. You very much need to take a class in basic science. One of the things you need to learn while doing so is what "theory" and "law" refer to in a scientific context. What you just posted was meaningless gibberish. Theories are absolutely not based on "subjective human thought". They are in fact the product of absurd amounts of rigorous objective testing and verification. They are the peak outcome of the scientific process. They are well above laws on the heirarchy of scientific knowledge. Coming up with a new scientific law is a decent acheivement. Having a hypothesis be taken into the ranks of accepted Scientific Theories will likely get you a Nobel prize. They're not guesses. They're not hunches. They're not subjective beliefs. They bear absolutely no relation to layman's uses of the word "theory" like "my uncle Bill has a theory about who shot Kennedy. It was the Illuminati!!!"

They're incredibly well supported explanatory frameworks that detail the mechanisms behind physical processes. The "Law of Gravity" for example simply describes a basic observation. The rate at which two bodies with mass will accelerate towards each other due to gravitational attraction.

The THEORY of gravity on the other hand is way, way harder to come up with. Because you see, the theory of gravity has to explain WHY that happens. Which is slightly more difficult and requires WAY higher levels of testing and experimentation.

3. Take a logic class when you're done with your science class. You need to learn how to properly aply terms like "Ad hominem" and "circular reasoning". You're not doing it right now.

So....the mere capitalization of a word makes THE PROJECTED THOUGHTS OF ANOTHER INCOMPREHENSIBLE? What I believe to be incomprehensible is your constant attempt to DEFLECT away from your ignorance and inability to offer any retort in any format other than that of ALINSKY 101. You can not articulate your position as superior to another so in liberal fashion you attempt to attack the style instead of offering any retort to the substance. You, friend are either a liar......or an an illiterate idiot or perhaps Both. Because its clear that you are talking out your ass as demonstrated.......I suppose you just can't read the following as all the civilized people in the world are capable of doing....no?


I cdnuyolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty usednatrnd waht I was rdaging. The phaonmneal prwoer of the hmuan mnid...........it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr (or what case) the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteers be in the rghit pclae.

As you can see as well as everyone else........THE MERE CAPITALIZATION OF A WORD IS MOOT TO COMPREHENSION. Thus, what you are demonstrating is your lack of ability to hold your head up in a debate that you have no evidence to support.

My use of CAPITALS are for the mere duty of gaining the attention of POLITICALLY CORRECT LIARS that attempt to make themselves look good at the expense of trying to make others looks bad. And as OBSERVED.......IT WORKS EVERY TIME ON THE WEAK MINDED. The caps are used merely to draw your attention to words of importance.......which you try to dismiss due to the style without consideration of the SUBSTANCE. Just like all other liberally INDOCTRINATED COMRADES THAT LIVE IN A WORLD LOCATED BETWEEN THEIR EARS....VOID OF ANY COGNITION TO LOGIC WHATSOEVER. You readily accept the THEORIES that would have little green men existing throughout an un-navigable UNIVERSE....where they can transfer through other DIMENSIONS...but totally reject the plausibility of a Spiritual Realm as demonstrated through the POTENTIAL of the Human Spirit which is immeasurable by all the intelligence that man has to offer. No one can reproduce the force that quickens or animates the body human and gives it life....a life so great that it transfers dead carbon matter into animation so great that it can comprehend its own mortality...........YET YOU ARE INCAPABLE of READING CAPS.....REALLY...."DUDE"? YOU MIGHT AWAKEN ALL THE OTHER LIBERAL IDIOTS AND HAVE THEM NOTICE THE........CAPS.


By the way....why not EXPLAIN GRAVITY to us, DEFINE IT...what CAUSES IT, WHERE DOES IT COME FROM. I do not want to know its characteristics I want to know its ORIGIN, demonstrate such with empirical evidences, what makes the ATTRACTION. While you are at it TELL US WHAT LOVE IS.......again I do not want to know its characteristics....DEFINE IT by empirical evidences...and might as well enlighten us on what FORCE created the UNIVERSE as described via the LAW OF CAUSALITY....and LIFE......IF all the the above are a simple product of NATURE and CREATED THEMSELVES......all should be DEMONSTRABLE through OBSERVATION, REPRODUCTION, derived through experimentation that concludes with the consistency of a SCIENTIFIC FACT of PHYSICS...if not.....ALL THE ABOVE are CONTINGENT upon a superior and externally EXISTING FORCE......more powerful than nature, one could say, such is SUPERNATURAL...no?

You need to go to some WING NUT site...like DEFENDING THE TRUTH....THE POLITICAL ASYLUM.....CONFLICTING VIEWS..ect, ......WHERE YOU CAN BE THE STAR OF THE SHOW...and not allow some BIBLE THUMPER to steal your self seeking accolades or THUNDER..no? There you can number yourself among ALL THE SMART PEOPLE...again.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I fail to see the humor. I'm just going to take that as a "you start" since you apear unwilling to do anything actually involving the evidence in your response.

How about we begin with basic principles of radiometric dating? Fortunately I've had to explain this to people before so I have most of this stuff written already.

Carbon (C14) Dating:

C14 dating is used to date the remains of organic, air breathing organisms up to approximately 50,000 years old. While living these organisms breathe the atmosphere, which contains trace amounts of the radioactive isotope Carbon 14 that is constantly being produced in the upper atmosphere through neutron bombardment. So long as they are alive the C14 content of their bodies will remain in equilibrium with the C14 content of the atmosphere. When they die respiration ceases, along with the intake of any new quantities of C14. Over time the C14 decays with a half-life of 5568 years into N14. By measuring how much C14 remains un-decayed the time elapsed since the death of the organism can be determined.

A common mi-sperception of C14 dating is that it relies on the assumption that atmospheric C14 levels remained constant in the past so that we can know how much C14 an organism started off with. While this was an assumption made when the technique was first developed about half a century ago it has not been the case for several decades. Historical atmospheric C14 concentrations have been charted and calibrated using both dendochronology and lake varves which incorporate organic sediment in their annual deposition layers. One particularly good example of this is Lake Suigetsu in Japan where cores have been drilled to a depth of 45,000 annual layers. Because of the layering process we have an independent count of exactly how old every layer is… and because the layers incorporate organic material (the remains of a surface algae which dies off every year and sinks to the bottom of the lake) each layer can be C14 dated as well, and using these two data points the atmospheric C14 content can be charted all the way back for the entire time span encompassed by the varve core. This data (cross-checked against multiple other sites and methods) then allows us to apply C14 dating to other sites already knowing how fluctuations in atmospheric C14 concentrations in the past will effect the results… and allowing us to calibrate out error that would otherwise be introduced due to those past fluctuations.

Just one more note on C14 dating... once this calibration scale was applied it was discovered that previous C14 dates had been underestimating ages. By a few percent. There are also the occasional examples of C14 dates which have supposedly been wildly inaccurate. Many of these examples are the result of grossly improper applications of the method. For example, one I have encountered quite often is the "C14 dating of a living snail shell" that came back as thousands of years old... I believe this is one of Hovind's pet illustrations. The mollusks in question were extremely inappropriate subjects for C14 dating, which anyone familiar with the method would know. They form shells which are in equilibrium with the carbon content of the water sources in which they live... NOT the atmosphere. No C14 lab worth it's salt would ever date such an organism without warning the person requesting the test of the reservoir effect that would most likely render the test results invalid.

Longer Ranged Radiometric Dating:

There are a great many longer ranged radiometric dating methods using radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives than C14. I’ll quickly review a couple of them.

1. Argon-Argon (Ar40-Ar39) dating. Argon-Argon is a method closely related to Potassium-Argon, where the age of a sample is determined by measurement of how much of the potassium-40 in the rock has decayed into Argon-40. However, with the Argon-Argon method it is also possible to tell if there is any Argon-40 present which is NOT a product of the decay of the potassium in the sample. This is done by placing the sample to be dated in close proximity to a nuclear reactor for several hours. The resulting neutron bombardment from the reactor causes potassium-39 in the sample to be transformed into Argon-39. Argon-39 has a half-life of only 269 years, and is not found in nature… so any subsequently detected argon-39 is known to be a product of the decay of the potassium-39 in the sample. After this is done the sample is then put through an incremental heating process and the released argon-40/argon-39 ratios are measured at every stage. A sample that contains only argon-40 that is a product of the decay of the potassium-40 in that sample will release argon-39 and argon-40 in the same proportion at EVERY heating step. If there is parentless argon-40 in the sample that is not a product of the decay of that sample’s potassium-40 however the ratios will change at different heating stages. This eliminates the popular claim that excess parentless argon in a sample can cause that sample to date as older than it really is.

2. Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr) dating. Very useful for dating igneous rocks in particular. There are many different isotopes of Strontium (Sr-87, Sr-86, etc…). Rubidium-87 decays into Strontium-87. When magma first cools into an igneous rock formation all parts of the rock will have the same ratio of strontium-87/strontium-86 because the isotopes are freely dispersing through the molten rock prior to that time. However, once the rock hardens different parts of the rock will have different rubidium/strontium ratios than others since the atomic make-up of rubidium is larger than that of all the strontium isotopes and it will be incorporated into the structure of some minerals more or less easily than that of others. From that point on the rubidium will continue decaying into strontium-87… and the areas of the rock with higher initial ratios of rubidium/strontium will have their concentrations of strontium-87 increase at a higher rate than those with a lower ratio of rubidium-strontium. By taking multiple measurements from different sections of a sample and plotting their final ratios of strontium-87 to other strontium isotopes which, not being byproducts of the radioactive decay of other elements, have remained stable since the formation of the rock… the initial ratios of those isotopes throughout the sample can be determined and the elapsed time since the samples formation is established. Again, this method is highly resistant to any objections that we have to assume the concentrations of the isotopes in the samples being dated in order to date them. That is simply not the case. The initial concentrations are experimentally determined.

For further info on the various radiometric dating methods, and since (I believe) all the other participants in this discussion are Christians, I would highly recommend this page:

Radiometric Dating

Dr. Wiens goes into considerably greater detail than I have, there’s the added advantage of several visual aids, and he’s not a godless atheist like me for those that tend to distrust us as a matter of principle… just in case there are any of those reading along.

Constancy of Decay Rates

For my last point in this post I’ll address one more often-encountered claim. That we just assume that decay rates have remained constant over time. This is not true. The constancy of decay rates over time has been independently established by multiple tests. Among them the isotopic analysis of the byproducts of the Oklo Natural Fission Reactor at Gabon which establish that decay rates have undergone absolutely no detectable change for a minimum of the past 1.8 billion years. There is also an entire battery of interstellar observations that can be made that would detect a past alteration of decay rates since that would require a change of the fine structure constant of the universe… with quite readily observable effects. Effects which are never observed no matter how far away (and thus how old) the object is we are looking at.

And that is a summary of the “evolutionary” position on dating methods. The dates arrived at are accepted and used in establishing ancient evolutionary timelines, ages of fossils, etc... because there is extremely solid evidentiary support for the reliability of those methods.

Now, want to tell me what part of that is wrong? Or do you accept the above as accurate?

Carbon dating tells you absolutely nothing. Besides the fact that given dinosaur bones (without being told what they were) evolutionists dated fossils that were supposed to be "billions of years old" as only a few thousand years old. Hmmmm.... then when told what the bones actually were they threw those results out and said they weren't accurate... Hmmmm....

But let’s leave evolutionists behind and actually talk science for a minute.

Scientifically there is no way of testing to see if your method of carbon dating is accurate to any more years than the technology has been around for. Beyond that the experimental error resulting from just a few thousand years of interpolation could be staggering not to mention billions of years. Add to that the fact that carbon levels in the atmosphere are not constant and could have been much higher a few thousand years ago and you get that carbon dating is not a means of proving evolution in any way shape or form.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Carbon dating tells you absolutely nothing. Besides the fact that given dinosaur bones (without being told what they were) evolutionists dated fossils that were supposed to be "billions of years old" as only a few thousand years old. Hmmmm.... then when told what the bones actually were they threw those results out and said they weren't accurate... Hmmmm....

Did you actually read ANYTHING he just typed? Or did you just blindly skip ahead and point out the ignorant hick thing your uneducated preacher told you as to how you should respond to dating techniques? Of course carbon dating isn't good for things that old. That's why he overviewed the OTHER dating methods used that are VERY accurate for those age groups.

As for this claim of "they're really thousands of years old" - you just made that up! Provide a source, if you can find anything at all to support it.

Scientifically there is no way of testing to see if your method of carbon dating is accurate to any more years than the technology has been around for. Beyond that the experimental error resulting from just a few thousand years of interpolation could be staggering not to mention billions of years. Add to that the fact that carbon levels in the atmosphere are not constant and could have been much higher a few thousand years ago and you get that carbon dating is not a means of proving evolution in any way shape or form.

That's actually completely false, and another prime example of you literally making things up to suit your own needs instead of actually understanding how things work. We don't need to compare carbon from years before the technology has been around. All matter decays in the exact same way, through half life degradation. That is to say, after a certain amount of time, exactly half of the original sample is still around. One more of those time units later, and half of that half is gone, etc. Given a substance's half life, we can determine how old anything that contains that substance is, based on how much degradation has occurred. If 1/8 of the original substance remains, we know that 3 half lives have passed (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2).

FURTHERMORE, dating does not prove evolution correct at all. It just dates things. By doing so, it certainly proves the bible wrong, and shows that dinosaurs are really old, but it doesn't prove evolution by itself (and it's silly of you to be so ignorant to believe so).

 

[gcomeau]

Carbon dating tells you absolutely nothing.

Actually, it tells us how old organic remains are.

Besides the fact that given dinosaur bones (without being told what they were) evolutionists dated fossils that were supposed to be "billions of years old" as only a few thousand years old. Hmmmm.... then when told what the bones actually were they threw those results out and said they weren't accurate... Hmmmm....

Complete and total bullshit. No radiometric technician would even TRY and carbon date a fossilized bone since they would know before even beginning it would give completely invalid results. The fossilization process REPLACES THE ORGANIC MATERIAL WITH SURROUNDING MINERALS genius. There's nothing there TO carbon date.

And there's no chance in hell anyone used something like Rubidium-Strontium or Argon-Argon to give a date of "thousands of years" old. How about you tell me what method they did use to give this result you speak of, and provide a citation?

Or, try at least making up a credible lie next time.

But let’s leave evolutionists behind and actually talk science for a minute.

Scientifically there is no way of testing to see if your method of carbon dating is accurate to any more years than the technology has been around for.

You mean except the verification methods I just finished explaining in the post you didn't read?

Beyond that the experimental error resulting from just a few thousand years of interpolation could be staggering not to mention billions of years. Add to that the fact that carbon levels in the atmosphere are not constant and could have been much higher a few thousand years ago and you get that carbon dating is not a means of proving evolution in any way shape or form.

Those verification methods I just mentioned? Specifically the lake varve cores? They calibrate past atmospheric carbon levels. That was ALSO in the post you didn't read.

Want to try this again after you DO read it and actually learn the first thing about the basics of what's involved here so you don't make a total idiot of yourself?

 

[logical4u]

No, it doesn't. Those rocks are taken from areas (a fraction of the evidence). Small amounts of data (comparitively speaking) might not be an accurate representation of the larger cross segment of geological material. It is a "scientific" guess. You can test samples over large areas, but you are assuming that material was always there without any other influence.

Are you familiar with the principles behind statistical sampling?

Do you have any idea how much rock has been radiometrically dated since the methods were develloped, from all over the world?

And no, we are NOT assuming they have always been there without other influence. That is bloody well tested for too.

I repeat, there is no way to know if these tests are taken of material formed here on this earth or somewhere else. Has the reactor been used on meteorites and found the same things?

If you mean "has radiometric dating been used"... yes.

Can cosmic influences change decay rates?

somewhat, under certain extreme conditions.

Those "certain conditions" being either massive neutron bombardment... or an alteration in the fine structure constant of the universe.

The former would have destroyed all life on earth. With prejudice.

The latter would have also. And we know from cosmological observations that it never happened anyway. Not in the last 14 billion years at least. Such an alteration would have drastically changed the spectral output of stars for one thing. We don't see that. So it didn't occur.

And do you have any idea what levels of radioactivity we would be dealing with to make objects that are thousands of years old experience so much decay in those few thousand years that they appeared BILLIONS of years old? What you're rambling on about here is the equivalent of someone trying to explain why their keys weren't where they left them and saying "Well, maybe the sun exploded and the wavefront moved them somewhere when it hit the earth!".

See, we're pretty sure that didn't happen, considering we'd all be dead if it had and we're breathing and walking around and stuff. Plus, that bright shiny thing in the sky is still there.

Same goes for your hypothetical alteration of decay rates to thousands of times higher than current observed levels. Beyond all the batteries of tests we have that establish they haven't changed AT ALL in billions of years, there's the little tiny detail that if they had increased by factors of thousands at any time in the last many many thousand years WE'D ALL BE DEAD NOW. We're not. *It didn't happen*. Deal with it.

Again, you have no proof of things that happened 14 billion years ago. Some scientists can make educated guesses, but they cannot prove.

As for the dating of ages, I have simply pointed out there could be other explanations (no matter how far-fetched), and that there is no way to confirm the dates (other than if the Lord chose to answer those questions, and then who would believe a person that said, yes, the Lord spoke to me and has said this form of dating is the most accurate). If you consider the amount of planets and that we only know of intelligent (?) life on this planet, you must consider extrodinary circumstances happened in the forming of this planet.

You want to rant about relatively unproven methods that you "know" are accurate, while belittling those that take written word as truth. You want to cling to methods that cannot be proven without an outside source (similar to my beliefs). That sounds like faith to me.

 

[gcomeau]

Again, you have no proof of things that happened 14 billion years ago. Some scientists can make educated guesses, but they cannot prove.

Because science doesn't "prove". It finds the most evidentially supported answer. The evidence in favor of the accuracy of those dates is overwhelming. You'd have to effectively completely overturn all of physics to have them be wrong by any significant amount.

But it does, however, DISprove occasionally. Like how it has disproved your ridiculous ideas about radiocative decay rates changing so much that it threw off radiometric dating by factors of millions.

As for the dating of ages, I have simply pointed out there could be other explanations (no matter how far-fetched),

You have pointed out "other explanations" that are so ridiculous the only appropriate response is to fall over laughing at them.

Let's go back to the missing keys analogy.

Now one explanation might by you left them somewhere you don't remember.

One "other explanation" might be that someone took them and moved tham.

Both entirely plausible options that require no particular extraordinary things to have occured to believe they happened.

YOU however are doing the equivalent of saying "Maybe someone detonated a thermonuclear warhead in the living room and that's why they're not here".

And then when people point out to you the subtle little hints that suggest that that's not exactly the leading hypothesis. Like, the house still being there... instead of abandoning the idiocy you double down on it.

"Well, maybe the magic nuclear weapon fairies came afterwards and put everything back together again so we couldn't TELL a nuclear weapon had exploded. And they just kept the keys as payment instead of putting those back too because they were shiny and they liked them. And a nucelar weapon definitely would have removed the keys in the first place! So there! Are you saying a nuclear weapon CAN'T move a set of keys? You're so arrogant and close minded in your "beliefs"!".

And then when you get called on THAT you just shrug and say "I was just pointing out there were other possibilities. You can't PROVE the magical nuclear weapon fairies didn't do it!!!!".

Except no, you aren't pointing out other possibilities. Not seriously. You're ranting like a lunatic.

 

[rdean]

Some interesting news.

Discovery in Ethiopia casts light on human origins | Science | Reuters

 

[logical4u]

Again, you have no proof of things that happened 14 billion years ago. Some scientists can make educated guesses, but they cannot prove.

Because science doesn't "prove". It finds the most evidentially supported answer. The evidence in favor of the accuracy of those dates is overwhelming. You'd have to effectively completely overturn all of physics to have them be wrong by any significant amount.

But it does, however, DISprove occasionally. Like how it has disproved your ridiculous ideas about radiocative decay rates changing so much that it threw off radiometric dating by factors of millions.

As for the dating of ages, I have simply pointed out there could be other explanations (no matter how far-fetched),

You have pointed out "other explanations" that are so ridiculous the only appropriate response is to fall over laughing at them.

Let's go back to the missing keys analogy.

Now one explanation might by you left them somewhere you don't remember.

One "other explanation" might be that someone took them and moved tham.

Both entirely plausible options that require no particular extraordinary things to have occured to believe they happened.

YOU however are doing the equivalent of saying "Maybe someone detonated a thermonuclear warhead in the living room and that's why they're not here".

And then when people point out to you the subtle little hints that suggest that that's not exactly the leading hypothesis. Like, the house still being there... instead of abandoning the idiocy you double down on it.

"Well, maybe the magic nuclear weapon fairies came afterwards and put everything back together again so we couldn't TELL a nuclear weapon had exploded. And they just kept the keys as payment instead of putting those back too because they were shiny and they liked them. And a nucelar weapon definitely would have removed the keys in the first place! So there! Are you saying a nuclear weapon CAN'T move a set of keys? You're so arrogant and close minded in your "beliefs"!".

And then when you get called on THAT you just shrug and say "I was just pointing out there were other possibilities. You can't PROVE the magical nuclear weapon fairies didn't do it!!!!".

Except no, you aren't pointing out other possibilities. Not seriously. You're ranting like a lunatic.

And still you have no proof that the planet or evolution "happened" with anything that can be verified. All you have is a bunch of scientists that have samples of a small fraction of the earth's surface that were tested using tests that cannot be verified to validate explanations that sound similar to "magical nuclear faries" with a little bit of logic thrown in here and there.

 

[gcomeau]

And still you have no proof that the planet or evolution "happened" with anything that can be verified. All you have is a bunch of scientists that have samples of a small fraction of the earth's surface that were tested using tests that cannot be verified

I have now twice pointed out methods of dating verification to you. But by all means, continue clamping your hands over your ears, squeezing your eyes tightly shut, and singing "LA LA LA I Can't Hear You" to drown out any information that undermines your preferred worldview.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Carbon dating tells you absolutely nothing. Besides the fact that given dinosaur bones (without being told what they were) evolutionists dated fossils that were supposed to be "billions of years old" as only a few thousand years old. Hmmmm.... then when told what the bones actually were they threw those results out and said they weren't accurate... Hmmmm....

Did you actually read ANYTHING he just typed? Or did you just blindly skip ahead and point out the ignorant hick thing your uneducated preacher told you as to how you should respond to dating techniques? Of course carbon dating isn't good for things that old. That's why he overviewed the OTHER dating methods used that are VERY accurate for those age groups.

If it isn't good for anything very old then what good is it?

Scientifically there is no way of testing to see if your method of carbon dating is accurate to any more years than the technology has been around for. Beyond that the experimental error resulting from just a few thousand years of interpolation could be staggering not to mention billions of years. Add to that the fact that carbon levels in the atmosphere are not constant and could have been much higher a few thousand years ago and you get that carbon dating is not a means of proving evolution in any way shape or form.

That's actually completely false, and another prime example of you literally making things up to suit your own needs instead of actually understanding how things work. We don't need to compare carbon from years before the technology has been around. All matter decays in the exact same way, through half life degradation. That is to say, after a certain amount of time, exactly half of the original sample is still around. One more of those time units later, and half of that half is gone, etc. Given a substance's half life, we can determine how old anything that contains that substance is, based on how much degradation has occurred. If 1/8 of the original substance remains, we know that 3 half lives have passed (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2).

Did you read what I said or are you listening to your hick preachers?

FURTHERMORE, dating does not prove evolution correct at all. It just dates things. By doing so, it certainly proves the bible wrong, and shows that dinosaurs are really old, but it doesn't prove evolution by itself (and it's silly of you to be so ignorant to believe so).

Is that why some results obtained from samples can be billions of years apart? Scientifically that type of error sucks!

 

[gcomeau]

Carbon dating tells you absolutely nothing. Besides the fact that given dinosaur bones (without being told what they were) evolutionists dated fossils that were supposed to be "billions of years old" as only a few thousand years old. Hmmmm.... then when told what the bones actually were they threw those results out and said they weren't accurate... Hmmmm....

Did you actually read ANYTHING he just typed? Or did you just blindly skip ahead and point out the ignorant hick thing your uneducated preacher told you as to how you should respond to dating techniques? Of course carbon dating isn't good for things that old. That's why he overviewed the OTHER dating methods used that are VERY accurate for those age groups.

If it isn't good for anything very old then what good is it?

For dating things that aren't that old. The fact that that required explanation at all... again... should be all the indication you need that you are way out of your depth discussing this topic.

Please, please go actually learn something about the subject.

 

[logical4u]

And still you have no proof that the planet or evolution "happened" with anything that can be verified. All you have is a bunch of scientists that have samples of a small fraction of the earth's surface that were tested using tests that cannot be verified

I have now twice pointed out methods of dating verification to you. But by all means, continue clamping your hands over your ears, squeezing your eyes tightly shut, and singing "LA LA LA I Can't Hear You" to drown out any information that undermines your preferred worldview.

You have pointed out method that "scientists" have said are as accurate as they can get them. You have pointed out the "scientists" have extrapolated information from those tests. You have pointed out, "scientists" have a pretty good explanation for that information.

You have not pointed out, how most of that information can be proven or verified.
And you, too, continue to do the LA LA LA thing.

I have demonstrated that your "science" is a belief in what "scientists" say. They have no way to verify their explanations are correct. I don't care how close they say their tests are (and I would believe in a general way when they say this thing is older than that thing), they cannot prove their tests without having someone go back to that time and demonstrate the material being tested is how they said it was. This is faith-based. You believe the scientists are correct with their explanation and accept it as fact. That does not make it so.

 

[gcomeau]

You have pointed out method that "scientists" have said are as accurate as they can get them.

Which is more than accurate enough.

You have pointed out, "scientists" have a pretty good explanation for that information.

You have not pointed out, how most of that information can be proven or verified.

For the love of all that is holy, ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN POST. Did you see the section on lake varve cores? That's independent C-14 calibration and verification. Did you see the section on the incremental heating analysis of the argon dated samples? That's a verification process. Did you see the section on the distribution analysis of radioactive isotopes in the Rubidium-Strontium method? That's a verification process. Did you see the mention of the tests performed on the Oklo natural reactor at Gabon? That's a verification process.

I have demonstrated that your "science" is a belief in what "scientists" say.

And you demonstrated this where and how, exactly?

 

[logical4u]

You have pointed out method that "scientists" have said are as accurate as they can get them.

Which is more than accurate enough.

You have pointed out, "scientists" have a pretty good explanation for that information.

You have not pointed out, how most of that information can be proven or verified.

For the love of all that is holy, ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN POST. Did you see the section on lake varve cores? That's independent C-14 calibration and verification. Did you see the section on the incremental heating analysis of the argon dated samples? That's a verification process. Did you see the section on the distribution analysis of radioactive isotopes in the Rubidium-Strontium method? That's a verification process. Did you see the mention of the tests performed on the Oklo natural reactor at Gabon? That's a verification process.

I have demonstrated that your "science" is a belief in what "scientists" say.

And you demonstrated this where and how, exactly?

So science designed tests verify science designed tests? The "tests" can be calibrated to verify the ''scientists" beliefs.

Where are the witnesses?

 

[Colonel Valerio]

Instead of asking the scientist to prove their point why can the religionists prove their god. If you can then there could be a logical argument (from a scientific perspective) against evolution. But to just rant that well this little detail is wrong and that little detail is wrong is idiotic.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You have pointed out method that "scientists" have said are as accurate as they can get them.

Which is more than accurate enough.



For the love of all that is holy, ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN POST. Did you see the section on lake varve cores? That's independent C-14 calibration and verification. Did you see the section on the incremental heating analysis of the argon dated samples? That's a verification process. Did you see the section on the distribution analysis of radioactive isotopes in the Rubidium-Strontium method? That's a verification process. Did you see the mention of the tests performed on the Oklo natural reactor at Gabon? That's a verification process.

I have demonstrated that your "science" is a belief in what "scientists" say.

And you demonstrated this where and how, exactly?

So science designed tests verify science designed tests? The "tests" can be calibrated to verify the ''scientists" beliefs.

Where are the witnesses?

WE are the witnesses. Each and every student that studies in these fields are the witnesses. In order for the results of the studies, research, and experiments to make sense they have to work with all of the other related fields of study. If one doesn't work, its scrapped.

There isn't some conspiratorial league of scientists who secretly feign results and improperly calibrate instruments or fake experiments in order to lead humanity astray in its quest for knowledge. There are a very few whose hoaxes have all been exposed and they did it for fame or greed.