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

[Flash]

[Q

you left out how they determined the house was there in 1950???

the answer is someone knew it was there so NO that is not circular reasoning,,,and that in no way proves they died in 1950 ,,,its all assumption

but with rocks they assume they were there millions of yrs ago without any proof

You hit on the flaw.

My example assumed that nobody had any record of when the house was built but just guessed. Not much different that the Geological Time Charts that lays out the epochs.

The Geological Time Charts were invented in the 18th century by scientists that actually had very limited data. Since then everything has been conveniently fitted into the charts including dating fossils by sedimentary rock and sedimentary rock by fossils. Not much different than somebody just guessing on the age of the house in my example.

For the record. I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.I believe that there has been life for a billion years and more advanced life for a half billion years.

However, that doesn't mean there are not serious flaws in our understanding of the history of the earth.

The fossil and sedimentary record is a great example of circular logic and the flaws we have in science.

 

[progressive hunter]

[Q

you left out how they determined the house was there in 1950???

the answer is someone knew it was there so NO that is not circular reasoning,,,and that in no way proves they died in 1950 ,,,its all assumption

but with rocks they assume they were there millions of yrs ago without any proof

You hit on the flaw.

My example assumed that nobody had any record of when the house was built but just guessed. Not much different that the Geological Time Charts that lays out the epochs.

The Geological Time Charts were invented in the 18th century by scientists that actually had very limited data. Since then everything has been conveniently fitted into the charts including dating fossils by sedimentary rock and sedimentary rock by fossils. Not much different than somebody just guessing on the age of the house in my example.

For the record. I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.I believe that there has been life for a billion years and more advanced life for a half billion years.

However, that doesn't mean there is not serious flaws in our understanding of the history of the earth.

The fossil and sedimentary record is a great example of circular logic and the flaws we have in science.

you do realize you just described a religion???

belief without proof in the face of clear flaws in logic,,,

as for what I believe,,,well I dont because evo has clear flaws and flat out lies and I havent achieved the faith it takes to believe in creation

with that said there are clear traits of intelligent design and thats where I lean at this point,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[Q

you left out how they determined the house was there in 1950???

the answer is someone knew it was there so NO that is not circular reasoning,,,and that in no way proves they died in 1950 ,,,its all assumption

but with rocks they assume they were there millions of yrs ago without any proof

You hit on the flaw.

My example assumed that nobody had any record of when the house was built but just guessed. Not much different that the Geological Time Charts that lays out the epochs.

The Geological Time Charts were invented in the 18th century by scientists that actually had very limited data. Since then everything has been conveniently fitted into the charts including dating fossils by sedimentary rock and sedimentary rock by fossils. Not much different than somebody just guessing on the age of the house in my example.

For the record. I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.I believe that there has been life for a billion years and more advanced life for a half billion years.

However, that doesn't mean there are not serious flaws in our understanding of the history of the earth.

The fossil and sedimentary record is a great example of circular logic and the flaws we have in science.

You are providing a good example of someone who is embarrassed of his own faith. Instead of just marching under your true flag of faith, you perform this little song and dance by which you pretend there is evidence that causes you to doubt our scientific knowledge. And even when shown you are saying false things, you persist. You would rather be wrong and embarrass yourself by saying false things about science than just admit you don't know anything about it and don't care to know anything about it, because your faith dictates your beliefs.

Think about that. You are so embarrassed of your faith that you find it less embarrassing to say things that would get you laughed out of a science class than just to admit that the evidence means nothing to you, and that, instead, your faith dictates your beliefs.

 

[progressive hunter]

[Q

you left out how they determined the house was there in 1950???

the answer is someone knew it was there so NO that is not circular reasoning,,,and that in no way proves they died in 1950 ,,,its all assumption

but with rocks they assume they were there millions of yrs ago without any proof

You hit on the flaw.

My example assumed that nobody had any record of when the house was built but just guessed. Not much different that the Geological Time Charts that lays out the epochs.

The Geological Time Charts were invented in the 18th century by scientists that actually had very limited data. Since then everything has been conveniently fitted into the charts including dating fossils by sedimentary rock and sedimentary rock by fossils. Not much different than somebody just guessing on the age of the house in my example.

For the record. I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.I believe that there has been life for a billion years and more advanced life for a half billion years.

However, that doesn't mean there are not serious flaws in our understanding of the history of the earth.

The fossil and sedimentary record is a great example of circular logic and the flaws we have in science.

You are providing a good example of someone who is embarrassed of his own faith. Instead of just marching under your true flag of faith, you perform this little song and dance by which you pretend there is evidence that causes you to doubt our scientific knowledge. And even when shown you are saying false things, you persist. You would rather be wrong and embarrass yourself by saying false things about science than just admit you dont know anything about it and don't care to know anything about it, because your faith dictates your beliefs.

Think about that. You are so embarrassed of your faith that you find it less embarrassing to say things that would get you laughed out of a science class.

everything you just said can and does apply to the religion of evolution,,,

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

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.

They don't use isotope dating for fossils or sedimentary rock. Neither is organic. If you cannot accpet that fact then their is no point in dealing with you.

I said clearly that it is only for organic matter.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

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.

from what I've read the max is 50K yrs,,

and that doesnt even get into if you test the same sample 3 times you get 3 different readings that vary by thousands of yrs,,,

Carbon 14 is limited to about 50,000 years, true. The second part of your statement is debunked nonsense. Radio-carbon dating is astoundingly accurate. That nonsense of getting different results is from nonsense that certain religious morons (Hal Lindsey) spewed in the 1970's. From what I can tell, it was flat out made up at the time.

 

[progressive hunter]

[

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.

from what I've read the max is 50K yrs,,

and that doesnt even get into if you test the same sample 3 times you get 3 different readings that vary by thousands of yrs,,,

Carbon 14 is limited to about 50,000 years, true. The second part of your statement is debunked nonsense. Radio-carbon dating is astoundingly accurate. That nonsense of getting different results is from nonsense that certain religious morons (Hal Lindsey) spewed in the 1970's. From what I can tell, it was flat out made up at the time.

from "what you can tell" is the point,,,

its been proven time and time again since then,,,

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

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.

from what I've read the max is 50K yrs,,

and that doesnt even get into if you test the same sample 3 times you get 3 different readings that vary by thousands of yrs,,,

Carbon 14 is limited to about 50,000 years, true. The second part of your statement is debunked nonsense. Radio-carbon dating is astoundingly accurate. That nonsense of getting different results is from nonsense that certain religious morons (Hal Lindsey) spewed in the 1970's. From what I can tell, it was flat out made up at the time.

from "what you can tell" is the point,,,

its been proven time and time again since then,,,

I'd love to see this "proof" from a reputable source.

Sounds like the level of "proof" that democrats in congress offer...

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

from what I've read the max is 50K yrs,,

and that doesnt even get into if you test the same sample 3 times you get 3 different readings that vary by thousands of yrs,,,

Carbon 14 is limited to about 50,000 years, true. The second part of your statement is debunked nonsense. Radio-carbon dating is astoundingly accurate. That nonsense of getting different results is from nonsense that certain religious morons (Hal Lindsey) spewed in the 1970's. From what I can tell, it was flat out made up at the time.

from "what you can tell" is the point,,,

its been proven time and time again since then,,,

I'd love to see this "proof" from a reputable source.

Sounds like the level of "proof" that democrats in congress offer...

I feel the same about your claim,,,

and dont single out the democrats,,,the repubes do the same things

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

from what I've read the max is 50K yrs,,

and that doesnt even get into if you test the same sample 3 times you get 3 different readings that vary by thousands of yrs,,,

Carbon 14 is limited to about 50,000 years, true. The second part of your statement is debunked nonsense. Radio-carbon dating is astoundingly accurate. That nonsense of getting different results is from nonsense that certain religious morons (Hal Lindsey) spewed in the 1970's. From what I can tell, it was flat out made up at the time.

from "what you can tell" is the point,,,

its been proven time and time again since then,,,

I'd love to see this "proof" from a reputable source.

Sounds like the level of "proof" that democrats in congress offer...

Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

from what I've read the max is 50K yrs,,

and that doesnt even get into if you test the same sample 3 times you get 3 different readings that vary by thousands of yrs,,,

Carbon 14 is limited to about 50,000 years, true. The second part of your statement is debunked nonsense. Radio-carbon dating is astoundingly accurate. That nonsense of getting different results is from nonsense that certain religious morons (Hal Lindsey) spewed in the 1970's. From what I can tell, it was flat out made up at the time.

from "what you can tell" is the point,,,

its been proven time and time again since then,,,

I'd love to see this "proof" from a reputable source.

Sounds like the level of "proof" that democrats in congress offer...

Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery

 

[Flash]

[

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.

They don't use isotope dating for fossils or sedimentary rock. Neither is organic. If you cannot accpet that fact then their is no point in dealing with you.

I said clearly that it is only for organic matter.

Very well but you were challenging what I was saying about fossils and rocks.

 

[Flash]

[Q

you left out how they determined the house was there in 1950???

the answer is someone knew it was there so NO that is not circular reasoning,,,and that in no way proves they died in 1950 ,,,its all assumption

but with rocks they assume they were there millions of yrs ago without any proof

You hit on the flaw.

My example assumed that nobody had any record of when the house was built but just guessed. Not much different that the Geological Time Charts that lays out the epochs.

The Geological Time Charts were invented in the 18th century by scientists that actually had very limited data. Since then everything has been conveniently fitted into the charts including dating fossils by sedimentary rock and sedimentary rock by fossils. Not much different than somebody just guessing on the age of the house in my example.

For the record. I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.I believe that there has been life for a billion years and more advanced life for a half billion years.

However, that doesn't mean there is not serious flaws in our understanding of the history of the earth.

The fossil and sedimentary record is a great example of circular logic and the flaws we have in science.

you do realize you just described a religion???

belief without proof in the face of clear flaws in logic,,,

as for what I believe,,,well I dont because evo has clear flaws and flat out lies and I havent achieved the faith it takes to believe in creation

with that said there are clear traits of intelligent design and thats where I lean at this point,,,

I also believe very much in Intelligent Design. I don't believe that the concept of God is in conflict with Science.

Having said that there are serious flaws in Science as understood by Man. Dating the Epochs with circular logic is one of them.

 

[alang1216]

Something to ponder.

Neither rock or fossil dating are determined by radiocarbon analysis.

The age of the earth is mostly determined by sedimentary dating. At least going back for the last half billion years.

The age of fossils is mostly determined by the sedimentary layer in which they are found.

The age of sedimentary layers is mostly determined by the fossils within the layers.

Circular logic that can't be scientifically validated.

Written by someone who has no geological clue. Well done.

 

[toobfreak]

Science is a thing.
It doesn't believe anything .
Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.

Science is better thought of as a PROCESS. Of taking observation, developing theories to explain those observations, then testing them to find out their veracity or not. And there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support evolution as the natural process for the origin of species.

 

[alang1216]

Something to ponder.

Neither rock or fossil dating are determined by radiocarbon analysis.

The age of the earth is mostly determined by sedimentary dating. At least going back for the last half billion years.

The age of fossils is mostly determined by the sedimentary layer in which they are found.

The age of sedimentary layers is mostly determined by the fossils within the layers.

Circular logic that can't be scientifically validated.

thhats assuming that what they claim is that the layers were created over millions of yrs, which is just crazy since we can create it in a few minutes on a smaller scale,,


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

Another who knows nothing about geology. You two were meant for each other.

 

[Flash]

Something to ponder.

Neither rock or fossil dating are determined by radiocarbon analysis.

The age of the earth is mostly determined by sedimentary dating. At least going back for the last half billion years.

The age of fossils is mostly determined by the sedimentary layer in which they are found.

The age of sedimentary layers is mostly determined by the fossils within the layers.

Circular logic that can't be scientifically validated.

Written by someone who has no geological clue. Well done.

Stated by someone who has no geological clue.

 

[alang1216]

Something to ponder.

Neither rock or fossil dating are determined by radiocarbon analysis.

The age of the earth is mostly determined by sedimentary dating. At least going back for the last half billion years.

The age of fossils is mostly determined by the sedimentary layer in which they are found.

The age of sedimentary layers is mostly determined by the fossils within the layers.

Circular logic that can't be scientifically validated.

Written by someone who has no geological clue. Well done.

Stated by someone who has no geological clue.

Actually I have degrees in geology so I know you are clueless. I know how geologists work and, this may be a shock to you, they know more about their field than someone who can make these ridiculous statements.

 

[progressive hunter]

couldnt agree more,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Science is a thing.
It doesn't believe anything .
Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.

Science is better thought of as a PROCESS. Of taking observation, developing theories to explain those observations, then testing them to find out their veracity or not. And there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support evolution as the natural process for the origin of species.

the flaw in your reasoning is that no one has ever once observed evolution,,
no one has ever seen life form from non living matter or any species giving birth to anything other than their kind or observed layers in strata forming over millions of yrs


so in light of these facts evolution is pure make believe mixed with bold faced lies,,,