Why Does Evolutionary Science Only Believe In Things In Which There Is No Evidence?

[alang1216]

you just showed that its all speculation based on made up assumptions,,,
what if we found fossilized clams on a top layer???or on top of a mountain,,,

even if all that is true it in no way shows clams gave birth to anything but a clam

What you seem to be missing is that a particular species of clam suddenly appears in the fossil record. Where it come from?

the assumption is that the layers happened over millions of yrs when its far more likely they happened much faster as seen in a large scale hydro event,,,

one of the things I find hard to believe in the millions of yrs theory is that they are saying only one mineral was blowing around creating the layer and then the next set of millions of yrs a totally different one was doing it,,,and where did they come from???

but in a hydro event it makes perfect sense how it happened,,,also we can see it happen all the time on a smaller scale with local floods

Excellent points but points that have been studied and answered before you were born. Some layers are formed in a geological instant, some are not. A flood event is indeed an example of an instant event. However, limestone forms from the skeletons of dead plankton, and we can see and measure how quickly such sediments are being laid down today. Exact rates vary but it is far from instantaneous.

You question about "one mineral was blowing around creating the layer and then the next set of millions of yrs a totally different one was doing it" is also settled geology and is usually the result of changing sea levels.

 

[S.J.]

The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies. If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it. Where have I heard that before?

That is, of course, a lie....one of the many lies of the right....

apparently roger ailles knew that if you repeat a lie often enough stupid conservatives will believe it.....

Communism has never been a right wing ideology. The left, however, fully embraces it (as you know).

 

[S.J.]

The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies. If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it. Where have I heard that before?

You yourself blabbered that before.

Oh, now I remember...Joseph Goebbels
Thank you, you must have reminded me of a Nazi.

WMDs.

Yeah, Angelo, tell us about those weapons of mass destruction. Go ahead.

 

[the other mike]

Yeah, Angelo, tell us about those weapons of mass destruction. Go ahead.

Sure you want to go down this rabbit hole ?
Saddam was a CIA asset armed with anthrax made in the USA.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1359802/Iraqs-chemists-bought-anthrax-from-America.html

 

[S.J.]

Yeah, Angelo, tell us about those weapons of mass destruction. Go ahead.

Sure you want to go down this rabbit hole ?
Saddam was a CIA asset armed with anthrax made in the USA.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1359802/Iraqs-chemists-bought-anthrax-from-America.html

Sorry pal, but I'm not gonna engage in an adult discussion with somebody who posts videos of "Madeline, AKA Galactic Story Teller" as their source. Better luck next time, loser.

 

[the other mike]

Sorry pal, but I'm not gonna engage in an adult discussion with somebody who posts videos of "Madeline, AKA Galactic Story Teller" as their source. Better luck next time, loser.

Ignorance is bliss, as most Americans like you illustrate all the time, ...pal..

The Ugly Truth - Cody Snodgres

Choosing The Light - by Cody Snodgres











The Truth Behind The Oklahoma City Bombing -With Special Guest: Former Operative Cody Snodgres

 

[the other mike]

Hilarious. I post an interview of someone who wrote a book and you totally disregard the authors' legitimacy on the grounds that the interviewer happens to be a spiritualist.

btw ....to the OP, sorry to go off topic....I was just answering a question at first, and here's a thread I started about CS in January...
Oklahoma City, Mena, Clintons & 9/11 Exposed by Black Ops Contractor Cody Snodgres.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hilarious. I post an interview of someone who wrote a book and you totally disregard the authors' legitimacy on the grounds that the interviewer happens to be a spiritualist.

btw ....to the OP, sorry to go off topic....I was just answering a question at first, and here's a thread I started about CS in January...
Oklahoma City, Mena, Clintons & 9/11 Exposed by Black Ops Contractor Cody Snodgres.

Why should anyone watch the videos you googled that are merely reiterations of your opinion? If you have a valid, well supported to point to make,you can make it yourself.

 

[the other mike]

Hilarious. I post an interview of someone who wrote a book and you totally disregard the authors' legitimacy on the grounds that the interviewer happens to be a spiritualist.

btw ....to the OP, sorry to go off topic....I was just answering a question at first, and here's a thread I started about CS in January...
Oklahoma City, Mena, Clintons & 9/11 Exposed by Black Ops Contractor Cody Snodgres.

Why should anyone watch the videos you googled that are merely reiterations of your opinion? If you have a valid, well supported to point to make,you can make it yourself.

I don't see any further explanation necessary on my part here.

Oh and if you like the Clintons, haha, you definitely will not like Cody S.

 

[the other mike]

 

[deanrd]

I don’t understand this determination by Republicans that a lack of education is the best qualification. It’s like not knowing is a good thing. And look who they voted into office, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. Three of the most ignorant presidents we ever had it in the history in the US.
At least Reagan had an excuse. He had Alzheimer’s.

 

[the other mike]

I don’t understand this determination by Republicans that a lack of education is the best qualification. It’s like not knowing is a good thing. And look who they voted into office, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. Three of the most ignorant presidents we ever had it in the history in the US.
At least Reagan had an excuse. He had Alzheimer’s.

Thank you but you left out Obama (extension of Bush ) and you forgot Clinton and GHW Bush, two of the most damaging individuals before and during their presidencies in American history.

 

[Likkmee]

Curriculum.
$$$

 

[deanrd]

I don’t understand this determination by Republicans that a lack of education is the best qualification. It’s like not knowing is a good thing. And look who they voted into office, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. Three of the most ignorant presidents we ever had it in the history in the US.
At least Reagan had an excuse. He had Alzheimer’s.

Thank you but you left out Obama (extension of Bush ) and you forgot Clinton and GHW Bush, two of the most damaging individuals before and during their presidencies in American history.

Republicans hate Obama so much, that when they see this:

All they can see is the black and not the white or the red.
The same with this one. All they can see is the black, And they totally missed the blue in the brown.

If Trump gets re elected it’s because of the economy, the economy is Obamas biggest legacy. After what Republicans left him and what he left Republicans.

 

[the other mike]

I don’t understand this determination by Republicans that a lack of education is the best qualification. It’s like not knowing is a good thing. And look who they voted into office, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. Three of the most ignorant presidents we ever had it in the history in the US.
At least Reagan had an excuse. He had Alzheimer’s.

Thank you but you left out Obama (extension of Bush ) and you forgot Clinton and GHW Bush, two of the most damaging individuals before and during their presidencies in American history.

Republicans hate Obama so much, that when they see this:

All they can see is the black and not the white or the red.
The same with this one. All they can see is the black, And they totally missed the blue in the brown.

If Trump gets re elected it’s because of the economy, the economy is Obamas biggest legacy. After what Republicans left him and what he left Republicans.

Those charts may be accurate, but they are deceptive in not showing the wages to production ratios or the number of people who either retired early, are on disability or stopped looking for work and several other factors.. The beltway Democrats and Republicans are all lying about it.

 

[the other mike]

Ok back on topic.

 

[deanrd]

I don’t understand this determination by Republicans that a lack of education is the best qualification. It’s like not knowing is a good thing. And look who they voted into office, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. Three of the most ignorant presidents we ever had it in the history in the US.
At least Reagan had an excuse. He had Alzheimer’s.

Thank you but you left out Obama (extension of Bush ) and you forgot Clinton and GHW Bush, two of the most damaging individuals before and during their presidencies in American history.

Republicans hate Obama so much, that when they see this:

All they can see is the black and not the white or the red.
The same with this one. All they can see is the black, And they totally missed the blue in the brown.

If Trump gets re elected it’s because of the economy, the economy is Obamas biggest legacy. After what Republicans left him and what he left Republicans.

Those charts may be accurate, but they are deceptive in not showing the wages to production ratios or the number of people who either retired early, are on disability or stopped looking for work and several other factors.. The beltway Democrats and Republicans are all lying about it.

You can malign every indicator you want but we have all the numbers we know exactly what happened.

And we already knew where we were heading.

It takes a while to ruin a big economy. But Bush and the Republicans managed to do it even though it took them years. Trumps been able to do it much faster even though the effects just haven’t shown up yet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The left, however, fully embraces it (as you know).

Painfully stupid

 

[gfm7175]

[

in other words to date the fossil by the rock is circular since they date the rock by the fossil in it,,,

I am not a geologist but I think that is pretty much what they do. At least that is what I have read.

They determine the age of the rock by the fossils and they determine the age of the fossils by rock.

Circular indeed!

A dead skeletal body was recently discovered in an abandoned house.

Without any other collaborating evidence somebody said the person died in that house in 1950.

Without any other collaborating evidence other than the assumed time when the person died the house is determined to have existed in 1950.

Now all houses that look that one and all bodies found would be assumed to have existed in 1950.

They use the body to determine the age of the house and they use the house to determine the age of the body.

That is circular logic.

Correct. These types are, in the above-mentioned examples, attempting to prove a circular argument. They are committing the circular argument fallacy.

One can't logically prove the age of something that way...

 

[gfm7175]

[

in other words to date the fossil by the rock is circular since they date the rock by the fossil in it,,,

I am not a geologist but I think that is pretty much what they do. At least that is what I have read.

They determine the age of the rock by the fossils and they determine the age of the fossils by rock.

Circular indeed!

A dead skeletal body was recently discovered in an abandoned house.

Without any other collaborating evidence somebody said the person died in that house in 1950.

Without any other collaborating evidence other than the assumed time when the person died the house is determined to have existed in 1950.

Now all houses that look that one and all bodies found would be assumed to have existed in 1950.

They use the body to determine the age of the house and they use the house to determine the age of the body.

That is circular logic.

Nope.

Isotopes decay. If you cannot accept this fact then their is no point in dealing with you.

We discovered that carbon isotopes have a steady rate of decay. Most isotopes don't, rate of decay is more rapid or less rapid due to environmental events. But not carbon, carbon isotopes decay at a constant and steady rate over a period of just about 50,000 years. It is not affected by temperature or moisture.

What this means is that using the famous equation of A = A0* 2^(-t/k) we can accurately tell the date of organic materials.

Of course this is only good for the last 50,000 years or so.

Nobody is denying the isotopes decay.

They have a steady rate of decay RIGHT NOW. That doesn't mean that they ALWAYS had a steady rate of decay, nor that they ALWAYS had the SAME steady rate of decay as they do today. We don't have a time machine to go back in time to observe these things; they are accepted or rejected on a faith basis. They are religious theories, not scientific ones...

That equation is based on the assumptions I mentioned above.