toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[7djengo7]

You have me mistaken for Right Divider. He's the "parrot" who keeps screeching, "Assumption!!! Assumption!!!".

Since you clearly have no understanding of the subject matter you might benefit from staying out of the conversation and only be thought a fool, keep posting and you will remove all doubt (as if you haven't demonstrated that already).

Hehehe. Settle down, fella. It's not my fault that you still don't know what assumption is, and it's certainly not my fault that you persist in using the word, "assumption", wrongly, because of your ignorance.

 

[7djengo7]

Alate One, a professor of biology

has explained evolution in consummate detail as it is to you, answering your questions with detailed responses of which you just waive off without any consideration at all.

LOL

Neither of you professors of bilge--Arthur Brain and Alate_One--has been able to answer any of the questions I've asked you. The only thing either of you has explained very, very clearly, is that what you call "the theory of evolution" is pure nonsense.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hehehe. Settle down, fella. It's not my fault that you still don't know what assumption is, and it's certainly not my fault that you persist in using the word, "assumption", wrongly, because of your ignorance.

You (still) have me mistaken for Right Divider. He's the "parrot" who keeps screeching, "Assumption!!! Assumption!!!".

Since you clearly have no understanding of the subject matter you might benefit from staying out of the conversation and only be thought a fool, keep posting and you will remove all doubt (as if you haven't demonstrated that already).

 

[Right Divider]

You (still) have me mistaken for Right Divider. He's the "parrot" who keeps screeching, "Assumption!!! Assumption!!!".

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=assumptions+of+radiometric+dating&p=1

 

[Arthur Brain]

And ONCE AGAIN, you show yourself to be DEAF to anyone's comments but your own.

The atheist materialist view (which is quite common in the "evolutionist community") REQUIRES that life evolves from non-life.

[That you have to complain about this commonly used idiomatic expression shows that you have no real content to discuss]

Atheism/materialism has as much to do with the theory as the origin of life itself. Science works independently of belief, no matter what that belief happens to be. That's the scientific method. All science "cares" about is the evidence.

You both think that mistakes (mutations) are a creative force that can design complex interdependent systems. That's silly, not science.

You're in no position to talk about what science entails when you make silly statements like this. Alate has explained in detail as to the theory, answered your questions with admirable patience and her efforts have usually been met with throwaway smileys, one sentence dismissals and nothing that actually refutes anything she's actually gone to the lengths to explain. She's a professor of biology, what are you exactly?

Cry me a river.

You've YET, in all this time, to discuss radiometric dating and the multiple assumptions that are its basis. You are a "true believer" regardless of scientific FACTS.

No thanks. Once again, you are in no position to lecture anyone regarding scientific "fact" when all you've done is shout "ASSUMPTION" all over the place and assert that ageing methods used to calculate the age of the earth/universe are all bunk.

That's silly and it certainly isn't science.

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL

I agree with Arthur Brain, here, that the nonsense he calls "the theory of evolution" does not explain anything, at all.

LOL

As Arthur Brain has consistently demonstrated through all his posts in this thread, the nonsense he calls "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with anything, whatsoever.

LOL

Neither of you professors of bilge--Arthur Brain and Alate_One--has been able to answer any of the questions I've asked you. The only thing either of you has explained very, very clearly, is that what you call "the theory of evolution" is pure nonsense.

The whole teenage "LOL" shtick aside...

Who are you trying to convince exactly?

 

[Right Divider]

Atheism/materialism has as much to do with the theory as the origin of life itself. Science works independently of belief, no matter what what belief happens to be. That's the scientific method. All science "cares" about is the evidence.

Evidence does NOT interpret itself. Every "scientist" has beliefs that affect the way that they approach the evidence.

You're in no position to talk about what science entails when you make silly statements like this.

The statement is not the slightest bit silly, but the belief (that's right) that mutations are a creative force that lead to highly complex interdependent designs is NOT science.

Alate has explained in detail as to the theory, answered your questions with admirable patience and her efforts have usually been met with throwaway smileys, one sentence dismissals and nothing that actually refutes anything she's actually gone to the lengths to explain. She's a professor of biology, what are you exactly?

So we are back to appeals to authority again? Not surprising from an evolutionist, since discussing FACTS would lead them to have to reject their belief system.

No thanks. Once again, you are in no position to lecture anyone regarding scientific "fact" when all you've done is shout "ASSUMPTION" all over the place and assert that ageing methods used to calculate the age of the earth/universe are all bunk.

Constant dodging and denial instead of discussing the FACTS of radiometric dating. Some expert you've turned out to be.

That's silly and it certainly isn't science.

:jump:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Evidence does NOT interpret itself. Every "scientist" has beliefs that affect the way that they approach the evidence.

Which only underscores how little you know about how the scientific method works. Theories come into being because the evidence that supports such has been prone to continual testing and scrutiny. If the evidence doesn't hold up to the above then it's discarded or modified depending. Personal beliefs don't enter the equation at all. The reason why we have global acceptance of such is because the evidence holds up.

The statement is not the slightest bit silly, but the belief (that's right) that mutations are a creative force that lead to highly complex interdependent designs is NOT science.

Sure it was but I didn't expect you to admit it. When you're as ignorant as to how science works (as with your silly contention that personal beliefs affects how evidence is interpreted) then you're not in any position to talk about what is actual science.

So we are back to appeals to authority again? Not surprising from an evolutionist, since discussing FACTS would lead them to have to reject their belief system.

Well, so far you've shown you don't even have a layman's understanding of the scientific method whereas Alate's credentials are precisely the opposite. She's addressed you on every challenge and what have you had in turn exactly? There's no reason why people can't accept actual science and still have faith. Fundamentalism is a "belief system" that precludes you from even considering the earth or universe to be old though, isn't it? So of course you're going to vent against any evidence, no matter how overwhelming and globally accepted, it just has to be young for you no matter what the evidence. That isn't science and that's a fact.

Constant dodging and denial instead of discussing the FACTS of radiometric dating. Some expert you've turned out to be.

You haven't provided any "facts". You've ranted a lot and asserted a whole load of stuff but you've brought nothing of any substance to the table, not unless ignorance of how the scientific method works counts? There's no reason to take you seriously on the subject at all.

:jump:

"LOL".

lain:

 

[JudgeRightly]

What natural process is that? Citations to the literature please.

https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html (includes citations to source material)

 

[7djengo7]

You (still) have me mistaken for Right Divider. He's the "parrot" who keeps screeching, "Assumption!!! Assumption!!!".

Since you clearly have no understanding of the subject matter you might benefit from staying out of the conversation and only be thought a fool, keep posting and you will remove all doubt (as if you haven't demonstrated that already).

Translation:

Silent Hunter wanna cracker. Squawk. Silent Hunter wanna cracker. Squawk.

Silent Hunter doesn't have clue one as to what assumption is.

 

[7djengo7]

The whole teenage "LOL" shtick aside...

Who are you trying to convince exactly?

LOL

Sorry to have taken you away from your Pokemon collecting just so that you could troll my thread some more. At least you agree with me that the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with anything, and explains absolutely nothing, whatsoever.

I'll let you get back to your Pokemon passion now.

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL

Sorry to have taken you away from your Pokemon collecting just so that you could troll my thread some more. At least you agree with me that the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with anything, and explains absolutely nothing, whatsoever.

I'll let you get back to your Pokemon passion now.

I never collected Pokemon cards even when it was all the rage. Zero interest then or now. Obviously I don't agree with you as that would just be silly all ends up and show a complete misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is even about. Bizarre that you would accuse me of "trolling" your thread after you've just "replied" to me three times on the bounce as well. I'm using the term "reply" loosely as you probably gathered, but who knows...

:liberals:

 

[User Name]

How Life Started on Earth

 

[Right Divider]

Which only underscores how little you know about how the scientific method works.

You are an incredible hypocrite. You think that a "dating method" that is completely based on unverifiable assumptions produces "scientific information".

Theories come into being because the evidence that supports such has been prone to continual testing and scrutiny.

Who said otherwise?

If the evidence doesn't hold up to the above then it's discarded or modified depending.

Shows just how little you understand "science". Evidence is just that... evidence neither "holds up" nor is it "discarded". It is the THEORY that tries to explain the evidence that needs questioned. Radiometric dating is a theory based completely on ASSUMPTIONS about the evidence and about rates of change that CANNOT be verified.

Personal beliefs don't enter the equation at all. The reason why we have global acceptance of such is because the evidence holds up.

The "theory of evolution" lives on despite mountains of evidence that oppose it.
I won't bother is say that is has been falsified because it is unfalsifiable, making it NOT a scientific theory.

Sure it was but I didn't expect you to admit it. When you're as ignorant as to how science works (as with your silly contention that personal beliefs affects how evidence is interpreted) then you're not in any position to talk about what is actual science.

The irony and hypocrisy amuses us all.

Well, so far you've shown you don't even have a layman's understanding of the scientific method whereas Alate's credentials are precisely the opposite.

ONCE AGAIN... an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY and not to the FACTS!

Nothing but FALLACIOUS "arguments" from you.

She's addressed you on every challenge and what have you had in turn exactly? There's no reason why people can't accept actual science and still have faith. Fundamentalism is a "belief system" that precludes you from even considering the earth or universe to be old though, isn't it? So of course you're going to vent against any evidence, no matter how overwhelming and globally accepted, it just has to be young for you no matter what the evidence. That isn't science and that's a fact.

Nary a sniff of the FACTS.... just more buffed up blather.

You haven't provided any "facts". You've ranted a lot and asserted a whole load of stuff but you've brought nothing of any substance to the table, not unless ignorance of how the scientific method works counts? There's no reason to take you seriously on the subject at all.

Lying is NOT a valid response. Try actually discussing the facts instead.

For a start... provide proof that decay rates have been constant for the last billion years. Thanks.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are an incredible hypocrite. You think that a "dating method" that is completely based on unverifiable assumptions produces "scientific information".

No, but your ignorance of scientific dating methods sure seems to get you hot under the collar.

Who said otherwise?

Well, you did for starters. You seem to think that personal beliefs play a part in how such come about. If you're willing to retract that ignorance then hey, fine.

Shows just how little you understand "science". Evidence is just that... evidence neither "holds up" nor is it "discarded". It is the THEORY that tries to explain the evidence that needs questioned. Radiometric dating is a theory based completely on ASSUMPTIONS about the evidence and about rates of change that CANNOT be verified.

You've been shown your error where it comes to your use of the word "assumption" multiple times as it is. Also, a theory in science is totally different to common usage of the term. You are aware of this, right?

The "theory of evolution" lives on despite mountains of evidence that oppose it.
I won't bother is say that is has been falsified because it is unfalsifiable, making it NOT a scientific theory.

What "mountains of evidence"? Do you seriously think that if such a theory was erroneous it wouldn't have already been done away with? You say you're familiar with how science works, right? Well, these theories aren't there just to annoy people who have fundamental beliefs that the universe can only be a few thousand years old RD. It is a scientific theory no matter how you may want to rant against it.

The irony and hypocrisy amuses us all.

Oh, I don't think you or the other personalties are particularly amused at all. The "Royal We" is a giveaway each time.

ONCE AGAIN... an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY and not to the FACTS!

Nothing but FALLACIOUS "arguments" from you.

The facts as they stand is that you don't show an understanding of how the scientific method actually works. That's not my fault. If theories come about that don't fit into your belief system then that's not the fault of scientists. You can shout all you want, it won't change anything. You haven't provided any facts as much as you like to capitalize the word.

Nary a sniff of the FACTS.... just more buffed up blather.

Now that's just dishonest. Alate has provided you with more than enough to rebut anything you've had to bring to the table. Now what you brought wasn't much to be fair but you were answered on point at each time and you had nothing to counter on each occasion.

Lying is NOT a valid response. Try actually discussing the facts instead.

For a start... provide proof that decay rates have been constant for the last billion years. Thanks.

Of course it isn't. A silly accusation to make in the first place really considering the onus is on you to "destroy" such dating methods that you previously stated that you were able to do.

The floor is yours.

 

[Right Divider]

No, but your ignorance of scientific dating methods sure seem to get you hot under the collar.

Instead of trying to bait me.... how about you discuss the FACTS about the ASSUMPTIONS that are the basis of radiometric dating?

Well, you did for starters. You seem to think that personal beliefs play a part in how such come about. If you're willing to retract that ignorance then hey, fine.

Firstly, no I did not. Quit lying... it's a shame that you continue to use that tactic.

You've been shown your error where it comes to your use of the word "assumption" multiple times as it is.

Lie #10,002

A theory in science is totally different to common usage of the term. You are aware of this, right?

So you will NOW provide some evidence that decay rates have remained constant for billions of years?

What "mountains of evidence"? Do you seriously think that if such a theory was erroneous it wouldn't have already been done away with? You say you're familiar with how science works, right? Well, these theories aren't there just to annoy people who have fundamental beliefs that the universe can only be a few thousand years old RD. It is a scientific theory no matter how you may want to rant against it.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable. The "theory" is immune to evidence against it. It just constantly morphes.

Oh, I don't think you or the other personalties are particularly amused at all. The "Royal We" is a giveaway each time.

We are amused.... except by your constant lying.

The facts as they stand is that you don't show an understanding of how the scientific method actually works.

Continuing to push that lie is not fooling anyone.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You (still) have me mistaken for Right Divider. He's the "parrot" who keeps screeching, "Assumption!!! Assumption!!!".

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=assumptions+of+radiometric+dating&p=1

:rotfl:

AIG
RAE
BSI
... any other anti-X site RD can find...

:rotfl:

Far from being rickety constructs full of sources of error and unproven assumptions, radiometric dating techniques are actually on a very sound theoretical and procedural basis. To destroy that basis, creationists would have to destroy much of chemistry and a lot of atomic physics too. The periodic table is the bedrock on which modern chemistry is built. The constancy of the velocity of light is a basic axiom of Einstein’s theories of relativity, theories which have passed every test physicists could devise. The constancy of radioactive decay rates follows from quantum mechanics, which has also passed every test physicists can create. In short, everything we know in chemistry and in physics points to radiometric dating as being a viable and valuable method of calculating the ages of igneous and metamorphosed igneous rocks.

To charge thousands of chemists all over the world with mass incompetence also seems to be beyond the bounds of reason. Radiometric dating has been used ever more widely for the past forty years. The dates produced have gotten steadily more precise as lab techniques and instrumentation has been improved. There is simply no logical reason to throw this entire field of science out the window. There is no reason to believe the theory is faulty, or to believe that thousands of different chemists could be so consistently wrong in the face of every conceivable test.

Further, radiometric dates can be checked by other dating techniques. When they are, the dates almost always agree within the range of expected error. In cases where the dates don’t agree, it’s always been found that some natural factor was present which selectively affected one or the other dating method being used.

Creationists are forced to challenge radiometric dating because it stands as the most powerful and most damning evidence against their idea of a young Earth. But in the end, they are reduced to saying that "radiometric dating must be wrong, because we know it happened this way." And that is not a scientific position. If theory says it happened this way and evidence says it happened that way, theory must be revised to fit the evidence. Creationists won’t do that. That reveals creation ‘science’ to be a sham, and not any kind of science at all. - http://answersinscience.org/RadiometricDating-Woolf.htm

... large changes to a half-life require elaborate, expensive, high-energy equipment (e.g. particle accelerators, nuclear reactors, ion traps). Therefore, outside of specialized labs, we can say that as a good approximation radioactive decay half-lives don't change. For instance, carbon dating and geological radiometric dating are so accurate because decay half-lives in nature are so close to constant. - https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/0...lf-life-of-a-radioactive-material-be-changed/

 

[Silent Hunter]

What natural process is that? Citations to the literature please.

https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html (includes citations to source material)

Posts a link but NOT the relevant portion. Typical.

 

[Silent Hunter]

So you will NOW provide some evidence that decay rates have remained constant for billions of years?

Nope. It is up to you to show isotope decay rates have changed, you know, falsify the hypothesis. See also Post #577.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Posts a link but NOT the relevant portion. Typical.

The entire page is relevant. Would you like me to copy the entire page for you to read? Or would it be simpler and easier to just read the page yourself on the site?