Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Jan Volkes]

And who relieved college students of their money when their tuition was tripled by Parliament?

And the American government leave tens of thousands of Americans to die just because they can not afford health insurance, what has that got to do with ID?

 

[The Cadet]

Sorry, I meant if far into the future it was found.

I'm not sure; I am not a paleontologist. If I had to hazard a guess, though, there are certain signs you can look for, as cjrmurray pointed out, but it can be difficult to determine such a thing from simply "yet another odd-shaped rock".

 

[lifepsyop]

But you have not substantiated that claim I'm any way. You have provided no evidence that certain data "will be discarded whether or not contamination is identified". This is especially problematic for you because someone who has actually done work in the field has told you otherwise.

Okay, lets make it simple.

This image right her sums up what Old-Earth dating research actually is. Its primary purpose is to create models where the "dates" are calibrated with the Evolutionary creation story. If dates do not fit, then they cannot be "merged" into a cohesive model. The mission of geochronologists is to find support for the preformed conclusion of Evolutionary deep-time. That is the bottom line.

You can talk all day about the specific details of 'dating' methodology but at its core, the field is governed by the evolutionary faith and in the end all hypotheses and models must bow down to Evolution, regardless of the data.

 

[RickG]

Okay, lets make it simple.

This image right her sums up what Old-Earth dating research actually is. Its primary purpose is to create models where the "dates" are calibrated with the Evolutionary creation story. If dates do not fit, then they cannot be "merged" into a cohesive model. The mission of geochronologists is to find support for the preformed conclusion of Evolutionary deep-time. That is the bottom line.

You can talk all day about the specific details of 'dating' methodology but at its core, the field is governed by the evolutionary faith and in the end all hypotheses and models must bow down to Evolution, regardless of the data.

Dating methods have absolutely nothing to do with "EVOLUTION". NOTHING ! It is a completely different science that does not rely on evolution what so ever. The fact that evolution can use it as a tool does not change that fact. In fact, there is not a single branch of the physical sciences that has not contributed to ToE, not in support of it, but because those sciences provide tools that are useful to all sciences.

You have been asked by not only myself, but many others here to show how dating methods are unreliable. You have not submitted anything credible, only misrepresentations of actual dating methods. I have even previously challenged you to a formal debate on dating methods, which you have declined upon every invitation. The invitation is still open. Will you accept, I doubt it. Why? Because it would be moderated and you would actually be required to present credible evidence backed up with actual credible references that can be verified. Or maybe its because you would be debating someone who actually has had academic training and experience in the area.

Here's the bottom line. Presenting a view that dating methods are unreliable in a debate is one thing. But having been repeatedly shown where all of your arguments are non-factual and erroneous, not to mention actual misrepresentations of the science over and over again countless times; there comes a time when such repeated claims leave the debate and become nothing more than taunting. This has got to stop.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your arguments are pathetic and you know it, ID is just another way to relieve the gullible of their money.

Ah, Consol. I should have known, it has taken me longer this time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...And here we get to the root of the problem, don't we? It doesn't. The only firm evidence we could find is direct indications of the designer's work. Watching the house being built, going to city hall to pick up the blueprints. Beyond that, you can go a step down in terms and see if analogous structures were "designed", and if this structure has any known way of forming naturally. For example, a very old building - no known naturalistic mechanism is known for the construction of buildings, and every building we've seen so far has been constructed by humans.

That is the deal here. No one and I do mean no one has provided any evidence of evolution for the molecular machines found in even the most simple life forms such as bacteria. No one has provided evidence that evolution produced them.

Beyond that, though? The logic doesn't hold up at all. We have no evidence of anything that could have designed this, so you're already putting the cart before the horse; there is a fairly decent understanding of naturalistic mechanisms that can produce such structures; the "appearance" of design is largely subjective and not universal. You're trying to establish design backwards, and it doesn't really work.

You have no evidence of God, there are billions of others who do.

Now you have said that there is a "decent" understanding of naturalistic mechanisms that can produce such structures; please provide evidence that these structures have been produced by naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And who relieved college students of their money when their tuition was tripled by Parliament?

Recognize anyone?????

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, Consol. I should have known, it has taken me longer this time.

I thought of that, but his punctuation is a lot better than consol's.

Very seldom would consol punctuate a sentence correctly.

 

[bhsmte]

I thought of that, but his punctuation is a lot better than consol's.

Very seldom would consol punctuate a sentence correctly.

It's not consol. His posts have a distinctly different finger print then consol.

 

[AV1611VET]

Recognize anyone?????

The students didn't.

In their zeal to complain, they tried to overturn Prince William's (?) car.

And he had nothing to do with it.

The look on his face was priceless.

I like to challenge those who think we all need to get further educated if they think we should all go down to our local college and sign up for courses.

They'll get a reality check in how the Law of Supply & Demand works.

Let's see their science bail them out of this one.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not consol. His posts have a distinctly different finger print then consol.

I agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Signs of carving. Carving leaves recognizable traces.

I doubt there are any of those left from the weathering that they have undergone and most certainly could be the case far far into the future just like how we view the pyramids.

 

[dad]

Dating methods have absolutely nothing to do with "EVOLUTION". NOTHING !

Actually, the dates are part of the belief system. They need to accredit great time with creating life! They couldn't very well claim we came from apes or monkeys in the recent past!

 

[Oncedeceived]

The students didn't.

In their zeal to complain, they tried to overturn Prince William's (?) car.

And he had nothing to do with it.

The look on his face was priceless.

I like to challenge those who think we all need to get further educated if they think we should all go down to our local college and sign up for courses.

They'll get a reality check in how the Law of Supply & Demand works.

Let's see their science bail them out of this one.

pssst...I meant the poster.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree.

I really think so but we will wait and see.

 

[AV1611VET]

pssst...I meant the poster.

-- Oh, sorry! LOL

 

[Oncedeceived]

Really now?
Then why do you state that the natural was created by the supernatural?
When and how did scientific inquiry demonstrate that?

Not sure what you mean?

 

[Oncedeceived]

-- Oh, sorry! LOL

lol

 

[Oncedeceived]

How can we see this and how can we determine supernatural causes vs natural causes?

Be specific. Preferably with an example.

Design is recognizable. We know how we design and design can be detected by those similarities.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are again being dishonest about what biologists actually say about it.
They don't invoke design. Not even by a long shot.

You are generalizing, there are many biologists that claim the appearance of design is actuta design. I have not been dishonest at all and have said what they have said that the appearance is due to an illusion, which is EXACTLY what they say.

Rather, they state (well, some of them do) that there is an appearance of design and that it is the result of the natural process of evolution.

Right some of them do and other do not.

If you don't understand the difference between "actual X" and mere "appearance of X", then this point will obviously fly straight over your head.

I've always said they claim the appearance is an illusion....always When using biologists that claim that.

I can only inform you that your misrepresenting the actual position of these biologists.
And it doesn't seem to bother you at all, since you continue to repeat it time and again after SO MANY people have already informed you that you misrepresent these statements.

I have not misrepresented them at all, either provide the quotes where you claim I have misrepresented them or apologize.

I don't wish to engage in personal attacks, but after so many times, it becomes really hard not to think you are being dishonest on purpose...

Prove where I have been dishonest or apologize.

What do you think to accomplish by misrepresenting both evolution as the experts working in that field? Do you really think you can score points here by doing that?

See above.