Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[Youwerecreated]

The evidence for macro-evolution can be found in the fossil record, like the extremely detailed one of the evolution of the horse.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not hard to figure out how God created everything with DNA. He made the rules and they inexorably lead to an evolution of some sort of biological blueprint molecule.

Now that I've answered your questions, how about explaining why Creationists keep harping on "kind", when evolutionists have never claimed that species change "kind"? Evolutionary theory postulates a slow transition of species, which completely contradicts the "change of kind" charge. Anscestors and descendents would be of the same kind while "other kindedness" would only come into play after species had been seperated for millions of years with continued branching of the evolutionary tree, until they're no longer considered to be of the same "kind".

I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.

Fine, what are those limits? The fossil record implies there ARE NO limits. All species seem to have come from single cells to the nearly LIMITLESS variety we see today. Why would change be limited? Simply saying it because it supports your theory, isn't good enough.

Limits were set by the creator according to kinds that he determined. Variations within a kind was determined by sexual reproduction. If there is no crossing of breeds you do not get a new breed. I'm not sure why this simple formula is ignored by evolutionist and can be proven by the evidence. You can show variations in a group through sexual reproduction and it never leads to what you call macroevolution,why ?

And that is where evolutionist go off the deep end by saying it happened without any evidence of it ever taking place.You can line up all the fossils you like but they still do not support the theory.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The word "kind" is used by biologist when it is necessary to explain their point. The word "family" as well. If you know the "family" or "kind" that an organism originates from and the name of the breed why must you go any further ?

Well no, that too is completely false. The word "kind" is not a scientific word whatsoever. A religious biologist may use the word to explain a complex concept to a lay person for easy understanding, but it has absolutely zero biological basis, which is why you have been completely incapable of defining it.

Family, on the other hand, is a scientific word with a specific meaning that has nothing to do with genetics. It too is just a man-made word that helped scientists classify organisms based on their appearance, but has no actual genetic grounding. Today, we can group organisms based on a biological basis from their actual genetics. Still, there is no basis for you to tell me why there are different families of toothed whales, because the divisions were arbitrarily constructed by people.

Nonetheless, liking "Family," which is a scientific word with no genetic basis, to "kind," which is a religious non-scientific word with no genetic basis is yet another underhanded attempt to put forth crap. There is still no actual differentiation of "kinds" let alone what specific species fall into each category.

If you would like to discuss terms like macroevolution or kind, please do. I am avoiding nothing. As a matter of fact i have asked YOU the differences between macroevolution and microevolution and you have yet to asnwer the question.

Actually I've answered the question several times: there is no difference. It is YOU who put forth the claim that there is a difference, and now you expect me to support the garbage you made up? No, this is still your claim. If you want to continue to claim there is a magical difference between micro and macroevolution, it is your responsibility to define what the two are and thus show how they are different. But once again you are completely incapable and incompetent.

Vague ? what comes to mind when i say horse ? what comes to mind when i say minature horse ? what comes to mind when i say donkey or zebra ? Vague you say.

Let's do it again. What comes to mind when i say cat ? What comes to mind when i say big cat ? what comes to mind when i say house cat ? what comes to mind when i say tiger ? what comes to mind when i say lion ? what comes to mind when i say siamese cat ?

And this once again goes back to the 2nd grade reasoning I mentioned before. There are numerous species of horses, whales, cats, and chickens, not to mention breeds, but your simplistic mind can only picture the common stereotyped images found in childrens' books. Be reducing countless species of animals into base names, you completely strip the biology from the concept, which again goes to show how you have little understanding of the topic.

The only time confusion comes in is when you try explain the biological differences between two different looking organisms from the same "kind" or "family" and your vocabulary does it in a way to try and show support for your theory that is built out of imagination.

Biology can very clearly define the differences between two organisms at a genetic level that has nothing to do with evolution. There ARE differences. If you're reluctant to acknowledge them because you continue to propagate this ignorance, why do you think you are in a good position to make such biological comparisons?

Evolution is the change over time from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. In other words,Microevolution.

Now define macroevolution in such genetic terms.

I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.

And yet you are still incapable of stating what those limitations are. How many mutations are allowed to occur before the organism explodes? Such an idea is foolish. You can accept a few beneficial mutations over time, but if a few more beneficial mutations are produced over MORE time it's somehow impossible? The idea is foolish.

So you continue to claim there's an invisible imaginary limit, yet can't actually say what it is. Give me a number.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The word "kind" is used by biologist when it is necessary to explain their point. The word "family" as well. If you know the "family" or "kind" that an organism originates from and the name of the breed why must you go any further ?

Well no, that too is completely false. The word "kind" is not a scientific word whatsoever. A religious biologist may use the word to explain a complex concept to a lay person for easy understanding, but it has absolutely zero biological basis, which is why you have been completely incapable of defining it.

Family, on the other hand, is a scientific word with a specific meaning that has nothing to do with genetics. It too is just a man-made word that helped scientists classify organisms based on their appearance, but has no actual genetic grounding. Today, we can group organisms based on a biological basis from their actual genetics. Still, there is no basis for you to tell me why there are different families of toothed whales, because the divisions were arbitrarily constructed by people.

Nonetheless, liking "Family," which is a scientific word with no genetic basis, to "kind," which is a religious non-scientific word with no genetic basis is yet another underhanded attempt to put forth crap. There is still no actual differentiation of "kinds" let alone what specific species fall into each category.

If you would like to discuss terms like macroevolution or kind, please do. I am avoiding nothing. As a matter of fact i have asked YOU the differences between macroevolution and microevolution and you have yet to asnwer the question.

Actually I've answered the question several times: there is no difference. It is YOU who put forth the claim that there is a difference, and now you expect me to support the garbage you made up? No, this is still your claim. If you want to continue to claim there is a magical difference between micro and macroevolution, it is your responsibility to define what the two are and thus show how they are different. But once again you are completely incapable and incompetent.


And this once again goes back to the 2nd grade reasoning I mentioned before. There are numerous species of horses, whales, cats, and chickens, not to mention breeds, but your simplistic mind can only picture the common stereotyped images found in childrens' books. Be reducing countless species of animals into base names, you completely strip the biology from the concept, which again goes to show how you have little understanding of the topic.


Biology can very clearly define the differences between two organisms at a genetic level that has nothing to do with evolution. There ARE differences. If you're reluctant to acknowledge them because you continue to propagate this ignorance, why do you think you are in a good position to make such biological comparisons?

Evolution is the change over time from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. In other words,Microevolution.

Now define macroevolution in such genetic terms.

I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.

And yet you are still incapable of stating what those limitations are. How many mutations are allowed to occur before the organism explodes? Such an idea is foolish. You can accept a few beneficial mutations over time, but if a few more beneficial mutations are produced over MORE time it's somehow impossible? The idea is foolish.

So you continue to claim there's an invisible imaginary limit, yet can't actually say what it is. Give me a number.

If you knew anything about beneficial mutations you would know they are extremely rare. You would need a boatload of beneficial mutations FOR ALL LIFE TO BE AS IT IS CURRENTLY!

So since there would be plenty of beneficial mutations would you care to name some ?and not the obvious fallback answers to this question that evolutionist fall back on once forced to answer the question. You can identify these beneficial mutations ,come on, lets hear it ?

2nd grade reasoning seems to be on more solid ground just admit it.

Macroevolution- Large-scale evolution occurring over time that results in a destinct new kind of organism. Remember the graphs showing monkeys turning into apes,apes turning into chimps,chimps into neanderthals and neanderthals into man= Macroevolution.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If you knew anything about beneficial mutations you would know they are extremely rare. You would need a boatload of beneficial mutations FOR ALL LIFE TO BE AS IT IS CURRENTLY!

How rare? Give me a number. I've already run this scenario with you. You continue to ignore the facts. It is rare for any one person to win the lotto, but the lotto is always won. Every time.

Genetics, much like the pick 6, may provide a very large number of possibilities, but they are still finite.

But again: if you don't agree, and insist that beneficial mutations are so rare they are essentially impossible despite millions of years in which to be acquired, please provide the actual numbers and statistics. Let's just fast forward this conversation: you won't provide ANYTHING, once again, because you are, ONCE AGAIN, making up complete unsupported garbage.

So since there would be plenty of beneficial mutations would you care to name some ?and not the obvious fallback answers to this question that evolutionist fall back on once forced to answer the question. You can identify these beneficial mutations ,come on, lets hear it ?

If you understood the theory of evolution, which you have demonstrated on multiple occasions already to not be the case, you would know that ALL genes are the result of beneficial mutations. That is the very core of evolution.

That's not to say that it is impossible for local deleterious mutations to arise, but the fact a gene exists in the first place shows it was useful at some point. Even the genes that cause sickle cell anemia protect against malaria, as GTH pointed out. This is yet another concept in this thread you have pretended doesn't exist.

2nd grade reasoning seems to be on more solid ground just admit it.

The fact that you can only subscribe to second grade reasoning should exhibit your childish short-sighted ignorance. Perhaps we should apply the rest of science and medicine to second grade reasoning as well?

Remember the graphs showing monkeys turning into apes,apes turning into chimps,chimps into neanderthals and neanderthals into man= Macroevolution.

Yes. Those graphs are not evolution. Apes have never turned into chimps. Chimps have never turned into neanderthals. Fish do not turn into birds. You continue to exhibit a lack of understanding on this topic despite claiming you know it's wrong.

Macroevolution- Large-scale evolution occurring over time that results in a destinct new kind of organism.

That doesn't answer the question whatsoever! You just defined "macroevolution" in terms of "kind," which we've already established is a non-scientific word that has nothing to do with genetics and has no real meaning. We are talking about a GENETIC topic, and despite claiming knowledge in the topic, you are completely incapable of defining your term in genetics. In short: you have yet to illustrate what separates one "kind of organism" from another genetically. Do you believe there is such a genetic separation or do you concede this point as being fabricated yet?

 

[konradv]

I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.

Fine, what are those limits? The fossil record implies there ARE NO limits. All species seem to have come from single cells to the nearly LIMITLESS variety we see today. Why would change be limited? Simply saying it because it supports your theory, isn't good enough.

Limits were set by the creator according to kinds that he determined. Variations within a kind was determined by sexual reproduction. If there is no crossing of breeds you do not get a new breed. I'm not sure why this simple formula is ignored by evolutionist and can be proven by the evidence. You can show variations in a group through sexual reproduction and it never leads to what you call macroevolution,why ?

And that is where evolutionist go off the deep end by saying it happened without any evidence of it ever taking place.You can line up all the fossils you like but they still do not support the theory.

Who says it never leads to macroevolution? The fossil record PROVES that to be false. You can't just keep repeating the same thing without presenting proof of your own. For example, you have no explanation for why new species, tellingly different in "kind" have emerged at DIFFERENT times over billions of years. Work on an explanation for that.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. I was raised in a very fundementalist family. There were also a number of farmers and ranchers in the family. One of them made a statement of how long it took for an inch of soil to weather from rock. Then I made the observation that there were many inchs of soil in many layers between basalt flows that one can see in Washington and Oregon. That was not well recieved, and I did not bring up the subject again.

However, it was definately my first lesson concerning how willfully ignorant people can be about anything that contradicts their core beliefs.

 

[FA_Q2]

Didn't you guys know? The number of beneficial mutations is locked to 665. After that, you get to 666 and the creature becomes demon spawn and kills off all the other creatures that have built up any beneficial mutations so that we can all start over. The proof is in fern tree because it has the largest set of chromosomes at 630 pairs so it is obvious that you cannot have more mutations than that. See, there IS an upper limit but I guess you will simply dismiss all this concrete data and hard numbers with your 'peer reviewed' information as if it was actually reliable. I mean really, it is all a conspiracy because you are in the religious cult of evolution and all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lol!

 

[antagon]

Fine, what are those limits? The fossil record implies there ARE NO limits. All species seem to have come from single cells to the nearly LIMITLESS variety we see today. Why would change be limited? Simply saying it because it supports your theory, isn't good enough.

Limits were set by the creator according to kinds that he determined. Variations within a kind was determined by sexual reproduction. If there is no crossing of breeds you do not get a new breed. I'm not sure why this simple formula is ignored by evolutionist and can be proven by the evidence. You can show variations in a group through sexual reproduction and it never leads to what you call macroevolution,why ?

And that is where evolutionist go off the deep end by saying it happened without any evidence of it ever taking place.You can line up all the fossils you like but they still do not support the theory.

Who says it never leads to macroevolution? The fossil record PROVES that to be false. You can't just keep repeating the same thing without presenting proof of your own. For example, you have no explanation for why new species, tellingly different in "kind" have emerged at DIFFERENT times over billions of years. Work on an explanation for that.

the macro/micro mental block is a telltale of ignorance. i wish folks would work on an explanation for what separates the two in the natural world. what natural barrier actually exists to microdivergence broadening to what folks would call 'macro'. like you said the fossil record shows no indication of such a barrier.

i can't believe this discussion is still rollin'

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Limits were set by the creator according to kinds that he determined. Variations within a kind was determined by sexual reproduction. If there is no crossing of breeds you do not get a new breed. I'm not sure why this simple formula is ignored by evolutionist and can be proven by the evidence. You can show variations in a group through sexual reproduction and it never leads to what you call macroevolution,why ?

And that is where evolutionist go off the deep end by saying it happened without any evidence of it ever taking place.You can line up all the fossils you like but they still do not support the theory.

Who says it never leads to macroevolution? The fossil record PROVES that to be false. You can't just keep repeating the same thing without presenting proof of your own. For example, you have no explanation for why new species, tellingly different in "kind" have emerged at DIFFERENT times over billions of years. Work on an explanation for that.

the macro/micro mental block is a telltale of ignorance. i wish folks would work on an explanation for what separates the two in the natural world. what natural barrier actually exists to microdivergence broadening to what folks would call 'macro'. like you said the fossil record shows no indication of such a barrier.

i can't believe this discussion is still rollin'

Why do you suggest as others here have done that the fossil shows support for macro when eldridge and Gould that are well respected paleontologist came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium because the lack of transitional fossils that would support macro ? Really ,the diversity we see in a group or kind is the result of cross breeding. This diversity is limited by sexual reproduction.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.

You have yet to actually DEFINE the question. You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level. Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever. It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things." Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.

This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.

So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level? You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction. If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours. Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.

You have yet to actually DEFINE the question. You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level. Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever. It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things." Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.

This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.

So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level? You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction. If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours. Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"

Ok,let's keep it simple.

What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?

What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.

Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations or are they a product of cross breeding.

I'm betting they are a product of two different breeds of the same kind cross breeding. This can be observed unlike your theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.

You have yet to actually DEFINE the question. You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level. Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever. It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things." Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.

This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.

So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level? You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction. If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours. Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"

The only change at the genetic level is aging from a loss of genetic information not a gain of information. From the time a child begins growing in the womb, the childs genes already have determined what that child will look like and how tall it will grow and pretty much how long that child will live and if that child will suffer from disease and or some deformity.

There is no change of the genes,the body has the ability to adapt to hazzards within the body that is not evidence that the body is evolving into an destinct new organism,That is just a silly assumption.

If you can prove otherwise please provide your proof.

Organs in our body's work together and are needed for our body's to function properly and that is evidence of intelligent design. If you were not so narrow minded in your reasoning you would have to admit that even if we were the result of a natural process you would have to say that the natural process is constantly thinking and that is illogical to assume .The only EXPLANATION that makes any sense is that God the creator designed and built us to be what he meant us to be, and gave us the ability to adapt to our suirroundings. But having that ability to adapt caused many smart men and women to explain that ability. The problem is they leave the designer out of the of their reasoning and explanations because he has never revealed himself to them.

 

[konradv]

Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.

You have yet to actually DEFINE the question. You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level. Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever. It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things." Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.

This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.

So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level? You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction. If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours. Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"

Ok,let's keep it simple.

What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?

What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.

Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations or are they a product of cross breeding.

I'm betting they are a product of two different breeds of the same kind cross breeding. This can be observed unlike your theory.

Sorry, but that doesn't explain how you get different species millions of years apart. I'm afraid you're the one that has to provide prooof. All of mine is in the fossil record and it definitely shows macro-eviolution. I would think it's up to you to show why that isn't conclusive evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have yet to actually DEFINE the question. You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level. Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever. It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things." Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.

This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.

So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level? You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction. If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours. Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"

Ok,let's keep it simple.

What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?

What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.

Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations or are they a product of cross breeding.

I'm betting they are a product of two different breeds of the same kind cross breeding. This can be observed unlike your theory.

Sorry, but that doesn't explain how you get different species millions of years apart. I'm afraid you're the one that has to provide prooof. All of mine is in the fossil record and it definitely shows macro-eviolution. I would think it's up to you to show why that isn't conclusive evidence.

If you are gonna make the claim that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.

If they were reliable they could put definate dates on things of the past and you know that is not possible. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

The fossil record only reflects extinct species and things that died from the past. It does not show this slow gradual evolution of organisms. They have found organisms that was preserved and put rediculous dates on them and the organisms showed no change at all from current day organisms.

 

[konradv]

Ok,let's keep it simple.

What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?

What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.

Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations or are they a product of cross breeding.

I'm betting they are a product of two different breeds of the same kind cross breeding. This can be observed unlike your theory.

Sorry, but that doesn't explain how you get different species millions of years apart. I'm afraid you're the one that has to provide prooof. All of mine is in the fossil record and it definitely shows macro-eviolution. I would think it's up to you to show why that isn't conclusive evidence.

If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.

If they were reliable they could put definate dates on things of the past and you know that is not possible. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

The fossil record only reflects extinct species and things that died from the past. It does not show this slow gradual evolution of organisms. They have found organisms that was preserved and put rediculous dates on them and the organisms showed no change at all from current day organisms.

The proof of the timeline is in atomic dating methods. It's amazing how we have these intricate brains. Able to figure out many things about how the world works, but creationists want to insist that we are being misled. Misled by whom? Are you saying God lies to us. If everything was created, so was the fossil record. Are you saying God did it, just for funzies?!?!

 

[FA_Q2]

If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.

They are not reliable? What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods? Where is the science that refutes dating methods?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry, but that doesn't explain how you get different species millions of years apart. I'm afraid you're the one that has to provide prooof. All of mine is in the fossil record and it definitely shows macro-eviolution. I would think it's up to you to show why that isn't conclusive evidence.

If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.

If they were reliable they could put definate dates on things of the past and you know that is not possible. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

The fossil record only reflects extinct species and things that died from the past. It does not show this slow gradual evolution of organisms. They have found organisms that was preserved and put rediculous dates on them and the organisms showed no change at all from current day organisms.

The proof of the timeline is in atomic dating methods. It's amazing how we have these intricate brains. Able to figure out many things about how the world works, but creationists want to insist that we are being misled. Misled by whom? Are you saying God lies to us. If everything was created, so was the fossil record. Are you saying God did it, just for funzies?!?!

No i don't think you are being lied to,i think they are wrong with their explanations of what they see. And there is a mountain of information built on information that was wrong from the beginning.

How can you test the enviornment of the past and creatures that are extinct ? so really it is based on imagination and i'm sorry that is not science when you can't test the hypothsis.

No God is not messing with man, i believe it is the other way around.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.

They are not reliable? What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods? Where is the science that refutes dating methods?

How many times must i post the evidence ?

Look i showed where they took objects such as trees that they positively knew the age of and got conflicting ages from several different parts of the same tree. None were even close to the actual age of the tree.

There was the rock that they tested ten different pieces of the same rock once again conflicting ages of the same rock.

Is it a coincedence that many years evolutionist were makling the argument for many millions of years without the modern day dating methods ? THEN THEY COME UP WITH THESE SO CALLED ERRORLESS METHODS OF DATING THINGS SAYING SEE IT WORKS AND ARE VERY ACCURATE. They were guessing when they first said millions of years and they are still doing so.

The reason evolutionist are so against creationist is because their opinions of the evidence differs a great deal and they point out the flaws on the other side. Many well known evolutionist have spoken out against the many theories of the theory that have been created by other evolutionist and when they do they're quickly reminded they are only hurting their future employment opportunities.