The best evidence against Evolution

[mzungu]

Mamma mia!

Would you cut through all this verbiage and just tell me if you agree with me or not?

(Not that I really care.)

Abba - Mamma Mia - YouTube

 

[Astridhere]

They are animals that lived <6000 years ago.

As I understand it -- and you can deny it all you want -- the fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in; and in some cases, the rocks are dated by the fossils found in them.

I could be wrong, but if I err on the side of science, I haven't lost anything.

You are correct AV. Rudolfensis is just one example of dating to 3mya to 1.9mya. There are plenty of them.

Uranium has been found to have greatly varying ratios, sm146's decay rate is not constant, the element neodymium in rock found in the Earth’s surface has a somewhat different isotopic make-up compared to meteorites and even isochron dating cannot ensure there was a closed system with no water or heat affecting the samples.

You are correct AV there are many issues with current dating methods.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are correct AV. Rudolfensis is just one example of dating to 3mya to 1.9mya. There are plenty of them.

Uranium has been found to have greatly varying ratios, sm146's decay rate is not constant, the element neodymium in rock found in the Earth’s surface has a somewhat different isotopic make-up compared to meteorites and even isochron dating cannot ensure there was a closed system with no water or heat affecting the samples.

You are correct AV there are many issues with current dating methods.

Thank you, sis!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Thank you, sis!

Glad to see that your authority on radiometric dating is an anonymous forum poster who has admitted that she has no scientific background whatsoever, as opposed to actual scientists doing actual work.

You must think scientists are idiots.

 

[AV1611VET]

You must think scientists are idiots.

I think scientists are God's gifts to mankind, and have two major tasks:

1. Protect Israel.
2. Make our lives less burdensome.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I think scientists are God's gifts to mankind, and have two major tasks:

1. Protect Israel.
2. Make our lives less burdensome.

Ah so unless scientists are building bigger bombs for Israel or designing new gadgets for Sharper Image and SkyMall, they're off the track that God put them on.

I always thought that scientists were all about:

1. Learning more about the universe

It's actually very telling that you only value science by its applications, not the process or results themselves. You actually are anti-science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You actually are anti-science.

I'm everything but what I claim to be, eh?

I'm glad I got to pick out my own profile; I'd hate to see what you guys come up with.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I'm everything but what I claim to be, eh?

I'm glad I got to pick out my own profile; I'd hate to see what you guys come up with.

What I mean by "anti-science" is that you're against science when it does what it's supposed to do, as opposed to what you think it's supposed to do. You are only "pro-science" for the things you think science should be doing -- like building a better recliner.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I mean by "anti-science" is that you're against science when it does what it's supposed to do, as opposed to what you think it's supposed to do. You are only "pro-science" for the things you think science should be doing -- like building a better recliner.

I really don't care what you think ... especially when it leads you to conclude I must think scientists are idiots.

For the record:

I think scientists are God's gifts to mankind, and have two major tasks:

1. Protect Israel.
2. Make our lives less burdensome.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I really don't care what you think ... especially when it leads you to conclude I must think scientists are idiots.

For the record:

Oh AV. Go back to your counting threads, you mind is cloudy today.

 

[mkatzwork]

OK - now we've crossed from sensible discussion to complete balderdash. Issues?? Seriously???

The errors you are trying to imply are possible would be pretty much mathematically the same error as measuring the distance between New York and Los Angeles and coming up with the answer of 15 feet . The errors would have to be in multiple fields of science, some even better established than geology, which as they go, is pretty established.

(I don't remember the exact figure, something like 15.2 depending on which building or point you measure from and to).

There are some small anomalies and unexplained bits of science on the very fringes of geology that are avenues for fruitful research, but you're picking a science with a particularly nerdy core who built up the current knowledge. They make quantum physicists look like social butterflies.

If you actually think that the errors are THAT large and yet of the many geologists in the world, nobody has put their hand up and pointed it out, I really cannot fathom how you put on clothes in the morning.

You're trying to cast a shadow of a doubt on something, but that something is the size of the Empire State Building, and you're a speck of dust in comparison. You may be engaging in a futile attempt.

You are correct AV. Rudolfensis is just one example of dating to 3mya to 1.9mya. There are plenty of them.

Uranium has been found to have greatly varying ratios, sm146's decay rate is not constant, the element neodymium in rock found in the Earth’s surface has a somewhat different isotopic make-up compared to meteorites and even isochron dating cannot ensure there was a closed system with no water or heat affecting the samples.

You are correct AV there are many issues with current dating methods.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think scientists are God's gifts to mankind, and have two major tasks:

1. Protect Israel.

Why is that scientists' job?

2. Make our lives less burdensome.

Not at the expense of the truth?

And how about 3. discover the natural workings of the physical world?

 

[Astridhere]

Glad to see that your authority on radiometric dating is an anonymous forum poster who has admitted that she has no scientific background whatsoever, as opposed to actual scientists doing actual work.

You must think scientists are idiots.

Not all scientists are idiots. Just the ones that use equations with 2 unknown values as evidence by assuming an insertion value that suits them.

I have said this many times. Your evolutionary researchers and common knowledge have been proven wrong many times. The garbage bin of evolutionary delusions is full to the brim and overflowing with 'irrefuteable evidence' found to be no more than a delusion eg 150 years of human knucklewalking ancestry you lot shoved in creationist faces for decades, the junk dna line, Medelian inheritance being the only form of inheritance, Neanderthal the hairy bent over intermediate with zillions of fosils and you could not even get that right until dna analysis, etc etc etc

You are in a delusionary state is you believe what they tell you is the final word on anything. All the scientific credentials in the world still does not mean they are right.

Would you also like to inform AV that you have no clue about the fossil record as you admitted to me in private message? Hence your opinion actually has less substance than mine.

 

[Astridhere]

OK - now we've crossed from sensible discussion to complete balderdash. Issues?? Seriously???

The errors you are trying to imply are possible would be pretty much mathematically the same error as measuring the distance between New York and Los Angeles and coming up with the answer of 15 feet . The errors would have to be in multiple fields of science, some even better established than geology, which as they go, is pretty established.

(I don't remember the exact figure, something like 15.2 depending on which building or point you measure from and to).

There are some small anomalies and unexplained bits of science on the very fringes of geology that are avenues for fruitful research, but you're picking a science with a particularly nerdy core who built up the current knowledge. They make quantum physicists look like social butterflies.

If you actually think that the errors are THAT large and yet of the many geologists in the world, nobody has put their hand up and pointed it out, I really cannot fathom how you put on clothes in the morning.

You're trying to cast a shadow of a doubt on something, but that something is the size of the Empire State Building, and you're a speck of dust in comparison. You may be engaging in a futile attempt.

What a long post that basically says nothing. You must be one of those evos that simply cannot deal with the state of your woopsies. Leaning on the 'we're never wrong' line only demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the entirety of evolutionary theory.

 

[Split Rock]

I think scientists are God's gifts to mankind, and have two major tasks:

1. Protect Israel.
2. Make our lives less burdensome.

DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL

 

[AV1611VET]

DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL DO NOT ATTACK ISRAEL

Are you the one putting that tag on these threads?

 

[Split Rock]

Are you the one putting that tag on these threads?

LOL.. No, there is a creationist here though who has that on his sig. I assume he is doing it.

 

[mkatzwork]

What a long post that basically says nothing. You must be one of those evos that simply cannot deal with the state of your woopsies. Leaning on the 'we're never wrong' line only demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the entirety of evolutionary theory.

What a short post that tries childish pretense and arrogance instead of erudition or any kind of thoughtful discourse.

My point was clear - the margins of error being suggested are so ridiculous as to be like pointing out the USA is 15 feet broad, or the sun is a few minutes away via the Space Shuttle. They are simply demonstrably false.

Only the foolish could brush that under the rug as if I was really pointing out "we're never wrong" which is never something that science has ever said or ever will. We celebrate evidence that doesn't fit the hypothesis. That's how the human race has advanced, time and time again.

The only people who truly claim inerrancy are those with religious doctrine to follow, because they have to, irrespective of the facts in front of them. Scientists would love to be shown their dating systems (multiple, and unconnected) are in error, but we have to actually be SHOWN it. With evidence, and not bible-thumping and 'feelings' and 'the Holy Spirit". You're welcome to all of these things, but please, don't pretend they are anything other than what they are, the products of blind faith. If they weren't the products of blind faith you're doing a disservice to your own religion.

Incidentally, when did evolution come into my post? We were talking about geology. Typical tactic - like it's something original or something we haven't seen before.

Back to the topic at hand. Are YEC's really claiming this colossal margin of error to be fact and do they have a shred of evidence suggesting it?

 

[NailsII]

Why do I spend more time correcting you guys' theology, than you guys spend correcting my science?

You can call yourself a geologist, or astronomer, or dentist, or whatever, and I'll take your word for it.

I call myself an Embedded Ager, and you guys disagree; but you can't tell me the specifics as to why I'm wrong, so I'm called a YEC.

If you want to discuss levels of understanding, I'll posit I know more science than you know theology -- just to see what you have to say.

Some of us do show respect to your knowledge of the bible, and I think it is more respect than you show of our scientific knowledge.

But to be fair, when your scientific knowledge is questioned, your default position is 'science can take a hike' or 'the bible says it - case closed'.

We don't doubt your intelligence, or your integrity - or even your motives.
No-one can be an expert on eveything.

And to be fair, I did three hard years at university learning biochemistry, and I have over ten years experience as a food scientist (I did originally choose a carrer in retail management, but that sucked) - so I think on balance I know more about biology than you do about theology.

That doesn't mean I know everything - far from it - and evolution isn't my chosen field, just one that interests me a great deal.

There are some very knowledgable posters on here, particularly geologists, and I have learned from them. Unfortunately you rarely appear to take on board what is said.

 

[NailsII]

What a long post that basically says nothing. You must be one of those evos that simply cannot deal with the state of your woopsies. Leaning on the 'we're never wrong' line only demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the entirety of evolutionary theory.

You cannot claim that someone has posted that science id never wrong, when you have pointed out - gleefully - that scientific knowledge has increased over time as new evidence is found, and our theories changed or replaced accordingly.
Again I mention Newton, and new evidence showed his theory of gravity was not entirely correct. So Einstein's theory superceeded it.

In the same way that Darwin's original view of evolution was not entirely correct, and has been improved by new data and more evidence, particularly genetic evidence.

This is not a weakness - it is a strength.

Static views that are set in stone for hundreds or thousands of years are seldom accurate.