Upsilon said:
Wow, what a
great response (sarcastic). See, this is what I am talking about with people (namely evolutionists) purposefully misinterpreting my quotes. To put it in simple language that cannot be purposefully taken any other way - dear God, I can't believe I have to do this!
- what did I write that lead you to the conclusion that you came to?
Since you have decided to leave, I dont know if you will read this, but Ill reply anyway.
Now I could be facetious and simply copy what you wrote. Ordinarily I would do that. But obviously that still doesnt answer your question. So I will copy it with annotations:
You said:
Need I bring up all of the frauds that has been committed in the name of evolution to prove it?
Shows ignorance of the relevance of frauds.
Shows ignorance of the nature of Haeckels fraud. Haeckel did not produce fraudulent evidence. He tampered with some drawings of embryos. The embryos were real evidence. We understand embryology differently than Haeckel did; so even his thesis has been updated---but his thesis was not entirely wrong. Even his drawings were not entirely wrong, --its not as if he was imagining embryological resemblances--but they were more wrong than acceptable in an honest presentation of his facts. We might have gotten further in good embryological research sooner if he had not poisoned that well with his slight exaggerations. What Haeckel did was very harmful to ongoing research, but it did not require any significant change to the theory of evolution.
various so-called ape men,
Since you did not name them, I can only guess which specific finds you are referring to, but I assume they include Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Java Man.
Of these only Piltdown Man was a genuine fraud.
Nebraska Man was not a fraud. It was a mistaken identification that was blown up into a cause celebre by a journalist looking for a dramatic story. The very first scientific examination of the Nebraska Man tooth identified it as coming from a peccary. It was never scientifically identified as anything other than a peccary.
(Journalists looking for a scoop are responsible for more frauds than scientists have been. Even a normally responsible magazine like National Geographic can succumb to the temptation to publish before the scientific review of a find is complete, as happened in the case of
Archeoraptor, much to the embarrassment of NG.
The journalistic history of Moab Man is even more disgusting, as it appears the journalist who broke the story suppressed the testimony of the scientist who conducted the examination in favour of a more exciting story.)
Java Man was neither a fraud, nor a figment of journalistic imagination. It was and is a legitimate
Homo erectus find.
You dealt extensively with the measures taken to capture and photograph the moths. What you did not allude to was whether this falsified their results. The thesis they were testing was whether bird predation was a significant factor in the increase of melanism in the moth population. Did any of the techniques used change the pattern of bird predation? If so, how? If not, what is the relevance of the capture & photography techniques to their results?
Not according to tocis' post up a little bit further (if my understanding is correct of it)...
Could you give the post # you are referring to?
Although I don't agree with you, I won't be around much longer as it is pointless trying to have reasonable discussion with extremeists, the above quote I answered for example.
Again a post # would be helpful in tracking the reference.
Then why did evolutionists waste so much time and money trying to create life in the test tube if it were not of some use to evolutionary theory? Obviously, since we have different opinions and views on evolution, then we'll never agree - so let's just move on.
I take it you mean biologists. Abiogenesis is part of biology, just as evolution is. Its just not the same part.
There is a difference between purposefully changing the calculations (i.e. evidence) to make it conform to the big bang and estimating. The estimations were the original calculations; Clark and Caswell, upon noting that this didn't fit in with big bang assumptions arbitarily changed the calculations such that they fit with the big bang assumptions. That is dishonesty.
Measurements are evidence. Calculations are not. Estimated parameters are definitely not evidence. Estimates and calculations relevant to a model are tested for their accuracy against measurements in nature. It is standard scientific procedure in developing a model to estimate unknown parameters, calculate the result based on those parameters, and check the calculated results against actual measurements. Now what do you think scientists ought to do if the calculated measurements disagree with actual measurements? Which measurements should they keep to work with---the ones based on their own estimates or the ones derived from nature?
It seems obvious to me, that to continue working with calculated results that did not match natural observations, is an exercise in futility.
But one still needs a model to explain why the observed measurements are what they are. Science, after all, is in the business of explaining facts, not just observing them. So the scientists have to come up with a new model. That is why they redo the model with a new set of estimated parameters, that will yield results closer to the observed results.
That is not in any way, shape or form dishonest. It is an honest recognition that the original estimates were off the mark and substituting new estimates that are, hopefully, closer to the mark. It is letting the observed evidence steer the research toward a more accurate model of nature.
As a guess, computers and not estimations. If they were to "estimate" then they are playing with fire and one day they'll get their fingers burned.
Now you are being facetious. What information do they look for using the computers?
About purposefully changing the data such that it conforms to big bang - yes I do. Not only does it show their alliegence to the theory over the evidence, it is also dishonest. Your comparison with a scientist's investigation and this one is silly as the scientist can readily test and observe and repeat things - with 3rd stage SNRs and so forth you can't.
There is a big difference between changing estimates and fudging data. Are you sure the figures you are referring to are actual data?
By work you mean "agree with the evidence". Just how exactly does one do that?
This is where you need to learn actual science. I cant give you full details. You need to go to the scientific sources where the techniques for confirming that scientific conclusions are supported by the evidence are explained.
Rocks don't come with a tag attached as to how old they are!
To some extent they do. Remember the antiquity of the earth had been established long before radiometry was developed. Geologists used relative dating and known rates of rock formation. E.g. direct observation can tell you how limestone forms and how long the process takes. So when a geologist comes upon a formation of limestone, an estimate can be made of how long it took to form.
One has to make guesses as to whether or not the decay rate has been constant,
No one doesnt. That was established in prior testing. We know the decay rate is not affected by any terrestrial conditions, because scientists spent many years trying to find out whether and how the decay rate could be changed. Nothing they tried changed the decay rate. So we know that it is constant under any relevant conditions.
how much daughter element there was originally, whether or not any element has been subtracted or added since solidification, and so on
And scientists have developed ways to test for all of these. They are not unknown quantities and any source that has told you otherwise is (knowingly or unknowingly) lying to you.
All of these are unprovable guesses that cannot be proven.
Again, this is a lie. (Not accusing you of being the liarno doubt you believed what you read/were told. Nevertheless, anyone saying this is passing on a lie, even if they do not know it is a lie.)
In many other cases, rocks ages are based on how old the fossil of a particular animal or plant is believed to be. That is circular reasoning as well.
Did you know that faunal succession was established by a Christian engineer in 1831? Please show me in what way William Smiths reasoning is circular?
Also, all the different dating methods give different dates when applied to the same rock with different error measurements - how does the scientist decide which one is right and why, and which ones are wrong and why?
Actually, they dont, normally. That is one reason scientists have confidence in them.
Once again, for you to say "unreliable dates" implies that you initially believe the age of the rock to be "X".
No, I dont need to have any prior assumption about the age of the rock. Any measuring tool which gives inconsistent results about rock samples is, by definition, unreliable. If the results of dating tests still leave a scientist in the dark about the age of the sample, it is useless.
This does not mean that every test will be accurate. That is why scientists do not put much confidence in a date which relies on only one test. But if a preponderance of results from several tests yields dates in the same range, the confidence in the accuracy of the date increases. After all, there are many ways to get an incorrect date, but very few that will give a correct one.
When these is done, we see that they give some of the most stupid ages with 99.99% error in some cases! If they have been shown not to work on rocks of known ages, why should we trust them on rocks of unknown ages? That's illogical!
I expect that you are referring to some well-publicized examples in which incorrect dates were derived by deliberating using an incorrect dating method for the sample e.g. using a K-Ar test on recently formed rocks. Or deliberately using a contaminated sample. When you use a dating system unsuited to the sample, or a contaminated sample, you must expect to get an inaccurate result.
For starters, please quote me where I have said any of the things you accuse me of?
You are questioning the reliability of scientific dating methods right? You are questioning the constancy of decay rates. You are questioning whether one can do any more that guess how much parent material was in a rock to begin with.
Why do you question these? It sounds like you are assuming that scientists jumped into playing with a new toy without ever asking the same questions themselves. Even minimal research into the history and practice of radiometry would show that assumption to be baseless. So all this shows is that you have not done your homework. Yet without educating yourself on radiometry at all, you are willing to assume that scientists are using it irresponsibly.
My question remains: how do you know what "accurate" is? If you refer to the straight line received from graphing the results that supposedly mean there is no contemination, then you should have no problem in believing that the
Grand Canyon formed up-side-down as it were - as rocks at the bottom of the Canyon were found to be younger than rocks at the top of it! This alone proves that there is obviously something fundamentally wrong with the assumptions that the radiometric dating methods work off.
What you have to remember is that groups like ICR have a vested interest in casting doubt on radiometry and any other measurement that affirms the antiquity of the earth. This means they have a vested interest in hiding or distorting the data. Look for what they are not telling you before you conclude they are right. btw lava flows are generally younger than the rock around them. That is expected. The description of Strontium-Rubidium dating is --to put it as kindly as possible--very misleading.
Also note that the age of the rocks in the Grand Canyon is indisputably much more than a young earth framework could allow even without radiometry.
As to the last sentence, no offence, but what a hypocrite! You and many other evolutionists are more than happy to pay out Creation scientists out of ignorance! I have asked for examples, yet I have received none!
Examples of what?
And FYI, it wasn't a "slur against scientists on the basis of my ignorance". If you could show me how, then I would be appreciative and withdraw my statements.
I believe what I said above answers this.
I didn't think that, according to members here, that life from lifeless chemicals was apart of "evolution". In other words, you evolutionists yourselves struggle with defining "evolution".
