Evolution and Anti-Science

[zz1000zz]

ClaranceSH

You gave no information containing the ways in which they adjust for incalcuable variables that we would not know without being there.

Indeed. I gave no information regarding the details of calibration methods used in radiometric dating. How could I? There are dozens of different subjects to discuss in this category, with each one meriting pages of text. If anybody wishes to discuss specific topics, I will. However, I am not going to spend several hours explaining dozens of different calibration techniques just because someone said they were wrong, without even understanding what they entailed.

ClaranceSH

Though if your tactic is to make broad strokes about how it is taken care of and then insult me then so be it.

I do not see how I could respond with anything other than "broad strokes," given the vague nature of the criticisms involved. However, I am certain nothing I said in any of my posts could be fairly described as me insulting you.

ClaranceSH

I believe my point is more than made that the dating system is flawed to a level that it can't be considered remotly acurate due to too many variables. We will have to agree to disagree unless you have something substantial to add. Have a great weekend. Time to go home.

When I added "something substantial" you ignored it, and effectively lied about it.  

[Xandris]

As I don't know much about carbon dating and all the various methods associated therewith... discussion shift. mrgreen

Hobbits found on island.

The basics of the story is that scientists found a species of human who grew no taller than 3 feet or so, had smaller heads and brains than Homo sapien, lived around the same time as 'modern' humans, but were surprisingly advanced as a people. What they're trying to find out now is if the dwarfism of the adults is because of their isolation on the island (having migrated there from mainland Asia) or because they're a seperate species from human, like Neanderthals.  

[ClaranceSH]

I never lied in my posts here and I find it offensive that you say that. I would appreciate the same respect I have tried to show you and would welcome any rebuff about anything I said to angerly or annoyingly.

To the subject at hand. I just find that you saying they make adjustments for what they don't know enough history to adjust for and there for making their results weak at best and laughable at worst, not to be substantial.

I would say it is possible this is the best method available but it is weak science that is used to support a theory but has so many wholes as not to be a good support at least for time frame. That is once piece of evolution which I have neither supported nor defamed but instead I have only pointed out a weakness in a tool used to determine timeframes and not the viability of evolution.

Though the lack of fossil evidence leads along with other things that the theory of evolution should be regularly challenged and either sharpened, blunted, or if too broken discarded.  

[zz1000zz]

ClaranceSH

I never lied in my posts here and I find it offensive that you say that. I would appreciate the same respect I have tried to show you and would welcome any rebuff about anything I said to angerly or annoyingly.

You said:

ClaranceSH

Though these being new sciences we have nothing but the last 50 years of analysis to say that they are indeed constant. I was simply pointing out a concern that is neither proven false or true but a concern about an assumption.

Immediately prior to this I had posted:

zz1000zz

The simplest of thee to dismiss is the second. This is not an assumption, as all evidence indicates it. For example, radioactive decay rates have been constant the entire time scientists have measured them. In addition, radioactive decay rates can successfully predict isotope levels of supernovas, which happen over a hundred thousand years ago. Even more convincing, radioactive decay in different isotopes is different, meaning for this to be a flaw, some (unknown) variable would have to affect dozens of different things in different ways. And finally, radioactive decay rates can be calculated from first principles through quantum mechanics. Pardon me for being so wordy here, but I feel it is important to show just how untrue these criticisms can be.

You directly contradicted me. You did so without responding, or even acknowledging, the points I raised. You did this, despite having quoted the exact portion of my post raising these points. I see no way to describe this other than you effectively lying.

In addition to this, you claimed I had insulted you. I have done no such thing.

ClaranceSH

To the subject at hand. I just find that you saying they make adjustments for what they don't know enough history to adjust for and there for making their results weak at best and laughable at worst, not to be substantial.

You have given no basis to say "they don't know enough history to adjust for" the problems you mentioned. You bring up a variety of problems, all of which I acknowledge. I then expand upon this, saying the problems are accepted, understood and accounted for. You dismiss this without providing any reason.

ClaranceSH

Though the lack of fossil evidence leads along with other things that the theory of evolution should be regularly challenged and either sharpened, blunted, or if too broken discarded.

Science has no problem being challenged. However, I have no idea what you mean by "lack of fossil evidence" as there are extremely large amounts of fossil evidence supporting evolution. It is fine to challenge science. However, challenging science requires understanding science. You have given no indication of understanding the subjects you talk about. You have failed to give any details to your criticisms, making it impossible to actually discuss them.

The one time any detailed information was discussed, you ignored it. How do you propose to have a discussion when you refuse to discuss any of the problems you bring up?