Mechanical Bliss said:
If you are goingg to continue to promote the strawman version of evolution by claiming that we don't see anything about "whales becoming cows" then it's really no wonder why you don't accept evolution; you refuse to learn.
That's simply not true. You are projecting the inadequacies of the methodology of creationism onto real scientists.
We can demonstrate that creationists trash all evidence they don't like. That's the entire basis for creationism. The theory of evolution, however, is a conclusion drawn from the facts. Science doesn't work by stating a fixed conclusion and looking for evidence and throwing out falsifications dishonestly.
you know Mike..i've debated evolutionists for a long time now and often they resort to this strawman argument that because I don't accept this or that I refuse to learn..that my faith prevents me from seeing this? You know evolution requires a lot of assumptions..the basis for the old earth concept is validated by radiometric dating that has assumptions 1. constant decay rate 2. known initial parent presence 3. closed system of the sample 4. no environmental issues that can affect 1, 2 or 3...These assumptions are needed to get the numbers they get..
a study by Joly showed he may have adjusted the rate of uranium decay
A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107
*H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2).
yet we still get deviations from the so called dating methods
heres some:
"Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years [*G.B. Dalrymple, 40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55].
"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years. In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, "Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499].
"Even the [1980] lava dome of Mount St. Helens has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M Morris, Radiometric Dating," Back to Genesis, 1997]."James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146
yet we have also known rates that can be measured today:
salinity of the ocean, oil pressure dissipation, coral reef formation that suggest the earth is MUCH MUCH younger than believed
As Baumgardner says:
"So which physical process is more trustworthy -- the diffusion of a noble gas in a crystalline lattice or the radioactive decay of an unstable isotope? Both processes can be investigated today in great detail in the laboratory. Both the rate of helium diffusion in a given crystalline lattice and the rate decay of uranium to lead can be determined with high degrees of precision. But these two physical processes yield wildly disparate estimates for the age of the same granite rock. Where is the logical or procedural error? The most reasonable conclusion in my view is that it lies in the step of extrapolating as constant presently measured rates of nuclear decay into the remote past. If this is the error, then radiometric methods based on presently measured rates simply do not and cannot provide correct estimates for geologic age."
Wow, your logic is absolutely hilarious. I don't know how you manage to stay alive. I can't believe others continute wasting time mounting arguments against you, since you're essentially using ignorance as a weapon against logic. I'd rather be rectally pillaged by a flaming rototiller than read another one of your inane posts.
