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

[progressive hunter]

Without looking back, I'm not sure that he claimed it was proof; I think he claimed evidence of it. Humans very well might have coexisted with dinosaurs; we simply do not know. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened.

What? Don't Carbon Dating, strata levels, ice testing, all agree that there was a 65 million year gap give or take between humans and dinosaurs?

Yeah I didn't live at the same time as Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln. But to say "the evidence doesn't matter, since you didn't live then, you can't go back to see that they actually didn't live in the same time period" is pure BS. Even if some conspiracy nutjob wants to go out and show his scam that historians are wrong about those two's lives, that theory is BS.

Especially when the best they can use to attempt to debunk proven science ends up again and again being found to be intentional lies. Baugh for example bought a skeleton, and it was proven at time of purchase he knew it to be 200-300 years old. Then he intentionally misrepresented that same skeleton as from the Cretacious period 145 million or so years ago.

those test are based on assumptions that cant be proven,,,

all carbon dating is not reliable and also there is noway to know the history of the item being tested

and strata layers are based on millions of yrs that cant be proven while a rapid layering is easily proven

and ice layer are as wrong as they come because you can get several layers per yr where they are only counted as one per yr

Carbon dating and other methods are reliable. Obviously you know nothing of the methodology.

They make assumptions which we simply do not know whether they are actually correct or not.

Lie.

instead of calling him a liar why not prove it and show us you arent an attention seeking troll

 

[Hollie]

The one jerkoff said he proved, in this thread, that humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

Without looking back, I'm not sure that he claimed it was proof; I think he claimed evidence of it. Humans very well might have coexisted with dinosaurs; we simply do not know. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened.

What? Don't Carbon Dating, strata levels, ice testing, all agree that there was a 65 million year gap give or take between humans and dinosaurs?

Yeah I didn't live at the same time as Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln. But to say "the evidence doesn't matter, since you didn't live then, you can't go back to see that they actually didn't live in the same time period" is pure BS. Even if some conspiracy nutjob wants to go out and show his scam that historians are wrong about those two's lives, that theory is BS.

Especially when the best they can use to attempt to debunk proven science ends up again and again being found to be intentional lies. Baugh for example bought a skeleton, and it was proven at time of purchase he knew it to be 200-300 years old. Then he intentionally misrepresented that same skeleton as from the Cretacious period 145 million or so years ago.

those test are based on assumptions that cant be proven,,,

all carbon dating is not reliable and also there is noway to know the history of the item being tested

and strata layers are based on millions of yrs that cant be proven while a rapid layering is easily proven

and ice layer are as wrong as they come because you can get several layers per yr where they are only counted as one per yr

Carbon dating and other methods are reliable. Obviously you know nothing of the methodology.

They make assumptions which we simply do not know whether they are actually correct or not.

I’m not sure who the “we” is you writing on behalf of but the decay rate for certain isotopes used for dating are not assumed. They are known quantities.

“We” have that data.

 

[harmonica]

 

[james bond]

Aliens lol.

 

[gfm7175]

What? Don't Carbon Dating, strata levels, ice testing, all agree that there was a 65 million year gap give or take between humans and dinosaurs?

Yeah I didn't live at the same time as Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln. But to say "the evidence doesn't matter, since you didn't live then, you can't go back to see that they actually didn't live in the same time period" is pure BS. Even if some conspiracy nutjob wants to go out and show his scam that historians are wrong about those two's lives, that theory is BS.

Especially when the best they can use to attempt to debunk proven science ends up again and again being found to be intentional lies. Baugh for example bought a skeleton, and it was proven at time of purchase he knew it to be 200-300 years old. Then he intentionally misrepresented that same skeleton as from the Cretacious period 145 million or so years ago.

those test are based on assumptions that cant be proven,,,

all carbon dating is not reliable and also there is noway to know the history of the item being tested

and strata layers are based on millions of yrs that cant be proven while a rapid layering is easily proven

and ice layer are as wrong as they come because you can get several layers per yr where they are only counted as one per yr

Carbon dating and other methods are reliable. Obviously you know nothing of the methodology.

They make assumptions which we simply do not know whether they are actually correct or not.

Lie.

instead of calling him a liar why not prove it and show us you arent an attention seeking troll

Precisely. But the "you lie!" mantra is much easier to chant than actually taking the time to form an argument...

 

[gfm7175]

Without looking back, I'm not sure that he claimed it was proof; I think he claimed evidence of it. Humans very well might have coexisted with dinosaurs; we simply do not know. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened.

What? Don't Carbon Dating, strata levels, ice testing, all agree that there was a 65 million year gap give or take between humans and dinosaurs?

Yeah I didn't live at the same time as Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln. But to say "the evidence doesn't matter, since you didn't live then, you can't go back to see that they actually didn't live in the same time period" is pure BS. Even if some conspiracy nutjob wants to go out and show his scam that historians are wrong about those two's lives, that theory is BS.

Especially when the best they can use to attempt to debunk proven science ends up again and again being found to be intentional lies. Baugh for example bought a skeleton, and it was proven at time of purchase he knew it to be 200-300 years old. Then he intentionally misrepresented that same skeleton as from the Cretacious period 145 million or so years ago.

those test are based on assumptions that cant be proven,,,

all carbon dating is not reliable and also there is noway to know the history of the item being tested

and strata layers are based on millions of yrs that cant be proven while a rapid layering is easily proven

and ice layer are as wrong as they come because you can get several layers per yr where they are only counted as one per yr

Carbon dating and other methods are reliable. Obviously you know nothing of the methodology.

They make assumptions which we simply do not know whether they are actually correct or not.

I’m not sure who the “we” is you writing on behalf of but the decay rate for certain isotopes used for dating are not assumed. They are known quantities.

“We” have that data.

Yes, we have that data as of "right now", but we don't have that data "since the beginning". Thus, it always being a constant is an assumption.

 

[Hollie]

What? Don't Carbon Dating, strata levels, ice testing, all agree that there was a 65 million year gap give or take between humans and dinosaurs?

Yeah I didn't live at the same time as Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln. But to say "the evidence doesn't matter, since you didn't live then, you can't go back to see that they actually didn't live in the same time period" is pure BS. Even if some conspiracy nutjob wants to go out and show his scam that historians are wrong about those two's lives, that theory is BS.

Especially when the best they can use to attempt to debunk proven science ends up again and again being found to be intentional lies. Baugh for example bought a skeleton, and it was proven at time of purchase he knew it to be 200-300 years old. Then he intentionally misrepresented that same skeleton as from the Cretacious period 145 million or so years ago.

those test are based on assumptions that cant be proven,,,

all carbon dating is not reliable and also there is noway to know the history of the item being tested

and strata layers are based on millions of yrs that cant be proven while a rapid layering is easily proven

and ice layer are as wrong as they come because you can get several layers per yr where they are only counted as one per yr

Carbon dating and other methods are reliable. Obviously you know nothing of the methodology.

They make assumptions which we simply do not know whether they are actually correct or not.

I’m not sure who the “we” is you writing on behalf of but the decay rate for certain isotopes used for dating are not assumed. They are known quantities.

“We” have that data.

Yes, we have that data as of "right now", but we don't have that data "since the beginning". Thus, it always being a constant is an assumption.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying go convey. The decay rate for isotopes is a known value. That rate can be applied to samples and the available isotope can be used to estimate an age. I don't understand your "since the beginning", comment.

You can find a detailed discussion here:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

 

[SandSquid]

What? Don't Carbon Dating, strata levels, ice testing, all agree that there was a 65 million year gap give or take between humans and dinosaurs?

Yeah I didn't live at the same time as Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln. But to say "the evidence doesn't matter, since you didn't live then, you can't go back to see that they actually didn't live in the same time period" is pure BS. Even if some conspiracy nutjob wants to go out and show his scam that historians are wrong about those two's lives, that theory is BS.

Especially when the best they can use to attempt to debunk proven science ends up again and again being found to be intentional lies. Baugh for example bought a skeleton, and it was proven at time of purchase he knew it to be 200-300 years old. Then he intentionally misrepresented that same skeleton as from the Cretacious period 145 million or so years ago.

those test are based on assumptions that cant be proven,,,

all carbon dating is not reliable and also there is noway to know the history of the item being tested

and strata layers are based on millions of yrs that cant be proven while a rapid layering is easily proven

and ice layer are as wrong as they come because you can get several layers per yr where they are only counted as one per yr

Carbon dating and other methods are reliable. Obviously you know nothing of the methodology.

They make assumptions which we simply do not know whether they are actually correct or not.

I’m not sure who the “we” is you writing on behalf of but the decay rate for certain isotopes used for dating are not assumed. They are known quantities.

“We” have that data.

Yes, we have that data as of "right now", but we don't have that data "since the beginning". Thus, it always being a constant is an assumption.

The thing is we have moments across history, paleo-events which occurred all over the world. So we can compare across. Uranium dating, carbon dating, ice core dating, tree rings, ocean sediment dating and thermoluminescence, and they all come amazingly close. We can say "hey the ash from this volcano in this test, matches the methane release we found in this test, which matches the volcanic sulfate in this test and all show the same time period based on how the sample was studied". Then when compared against relative dating (stratigraphy and flourine dating and such), things match up where they should be for another layer of confidence.

That's the issue. Yes, we can say "well I've only been alive for 40 years, so I can't prove that Lincoln and Julius Caesar lived at different times". But in reality, you can look back through different historical evidence and make a sound determination that their lives did not in fact cross paths.


Which is why you have to have those like Morris who created the young earth movement needing to lie in their writings to create a base of their beliefs. Using incorrect dating systems. Intentionally misquoting, changing quotes and eliminating context of actual scientists.

For example:

Folds that originated at the time represented by plate 53B but that have been accentuated and locally broken by the later pressures, are visible in ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls both in the mountains south of Glacier National Park and in the part of the Great Plains within some 20 miles of the mountain edge at the eastern border of the park. All the sedimentary rocks that were present were squeezed and folded, but the Belt series, being strong and buried under a blanket of other rocks, was deformed the least. Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt of strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million years ago. Actually they are folded, and in certain zones they are intensely so. From points on and near the trails in the park it is possible to observe places where the beds of the Belt series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the soft younger strata in the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the park to the east.

Was the quote. To prove that while they look unchanged, there was a scientific reason behind that change over millions of years.

Young Earth conspiracists like Moore, took that quote down to:

"Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt of strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million (removed this word) years ago.

To try and pretend that science was unable to explain the reasoning (which it did in the full paper). Why INTENTIONALLY erase the quote and parts of the quote to attempt to convey something to the exact opposite of what the writer was stating?




Sure you can quote a scientist saying "in a test, 9 out of 10 mice fed whole grains died early". But are you leaving out the part where the "laced with cyanide" bit was excluded from the quote? Are you reading an article a geologist who doesn't work in any sort of life science field wrote? Did his data to come to that conclusion pass peer review, or did he keep his test group in worse conditions than his control group for those results?

That's what the Young Earth conspiracy theorists do. They try and debunk science, not through fact, but intentionally misrepresenting facts.

Here's another from John Reader, another prominent young earth conspiracist. His quote said ""Not many (if any) [fossil hominids] have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast."

Making it seem that human fossil remains of early hominids are routinely discredited.

The real quote:

"Australopithecus afarensis is the latest fossil hominid to be thrust before the public as the oldest evidence of mankind's existence. Not many (if any) have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast."

In reality it is that new ancient fossils are appearing so quickly the record for "oldest fossil" isn't being held for long, and has NOTHING to do with any discrediting of them.

Or another YE conspiratist Walter Brown saying ""Eugene Dubois conceded forty years after he discovered Java "man" that it was just a large gibbon."

In reality the quote was "Pithecanthropus was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, however superior to the gibbons on account of its exceedingly large brain volume and distinguished at the same time by its faculty of assuming an erect attitude and gait."

Or Doug LaPointe quoting Howell saying "In fact, its brain is said to extend "... into the middle range of Homo sapiens."

When Howell wrote "The first man of our own genus, Homo erectus is modern of limb but more primitive of hand and brain, with a cranial capacity extending only into the lower range of Homo sapiens."

Why would someone need to INTENTIONALLY misquote and lie? If the facts are there, shouldn't they be able to stand on their own?


Why attempt to do that? Well people wanting to believe something are just looking for confirmation. They aren't going to check the original authors quote for accuracy, the context, the authors actual belief based on the evidence, the evidence used for the quote. They just want to see "earth scientist says X" which they believe in.

They also don't bother checking whether a YE conspiracy test was up to date, if the evidence and trial was studied and passed a peer review, how the test was completed, etc. There are dozens of these "studies" which the authors will not allow peer review by field experts on their methodology or what they used. Yeah, I can prove whole grains killed 9 of 10 test subjects, if I don't peer review my article to show that the "whole grains" were a mix of wheat and cyanide.

Then there's those smart enough to realize the conspiracy isn't fact based but like protecting it. So they use logical fallacies, they intentionally misquote and mislead. They intentionally ignore relevant facts.

I guess for me that is too much. Even if I REALLY want to believe something, if it isn't that my team is winning the Superbowl this year, I'm not willing to be intentionally ignorant to believe it.

 

[james bond]

Ants stopped by a small rock. Where's the evolution?

 

[Hollie]

View attachment 262778
Ants stopped by a small rock. Where's the evolution?

Perhaps they suffer from the same limitations as fundie cranks.

 

[james bond]

View attachment 262778
Ants stopped by a small rock. Where's the evolution?

Perhaps they suffer from the same limitations as fundie cranks.

Evolution didn't happen! It never does.

God wanted me to ask you two questions, 1) Of all the things that I said about Christianity, what do you consider true? 2) Of all the things that I said about creation science, what do you consider true? (I'm just doing my job.)

 

[Hollie]

View attachment 262778
Ants stopped by a small rock. Where's the evolution?

Perhaps they suffer from the same limitations as fundie cranks.

Evolution didn't happen! It never does.

God wanted me to ask you two questions, 1) Of all the things that I said about Christianity, what do you consider true? 2) Of all the things that I said about creation science, what do you consider true? (I'm just doing my job.)

The gods wanted me to suggest that you consider taking an introductory course in the biological sciences. I'm passing that on to you as I'm just doing my job.

 

[deanrd]

This is the problem with Republicans, they believe there’s no such evidence for science but there’s plenty of evidence for magic spirit beings who wear white wizard robes.
And they get so angry when people laugh at them. Well if they don’t want to be laughed at, stop being funny.

 

[james bond]

The gods wanted me to suggest that you consider taking an introductory course in the biological sciences. I'm passing that on to you as I'm just doing my job.

I already did under evolution.berkeley.edu and compared the two. Used to believe in evolution, but around 2007 - 2011 stopped believing it. In 2012, I became Christian and started to compare with what they had to say.

Anyway, since you rarely answer my questions, I'll take both as a nothing under Christianity nor creation science is true.

Personally, all I can say to you is you can't disprove any of it.

 

[james bond]

they believe there’s no such evidence for science

Haha. Like what deanrd? What do you have evidence for?

 

[Hollie]

The gods wanted me to suggest that you consider taking an introductory course in the biological sciences. I'm passing that on to you as I'm just doing my job.

I already did under evolution.berkeley.edu and compared the two. Used to believe in evolution, but around 2007 - 2011 stopped believing it. In 2012, I became Christian and started to compare with what they had to say.

Anyway, since you rarely answer my questions, I'll take both as a nothing under Christianity nor creation science is true.

Personally, all I can say to you is you can't disprove any of it.

Actually, I can disprove ID’iot creationism. Prove I can’t.

See how that works?

I'm addressing your false and unsubstantiated claims here again.

See how that works? I task you with composing a coherent, defendable argument and when you fail at that task, you resort to childish tantrums.

You cannot require “disproof of that which is not” as a standard because you are establishing a fallacious standard by definition. If you can demand “prove there are no gods” but not demand that the asserter of gods prove there is, then anyone can counter your demand using your own standard:

Thus, I do have proof disproving the existence of your gods, prove that I do not. See? You have established that “prove it isn’t” is a viable standard, therefore I'm holding you to your own standard.

Therefore, it must be the asserter of all positive (i.e., such and such exists) premises to prove their assertion. With equal validity, I cannot “prove there isn’t” a Santa Claus, Leprechauns, gnomes, werewolves, gawds, etc., etc., but we do not go around insisting there be an establishment of proof of non-existence for those things. Why does the assertion of gods get past this same standard?

Further, I have no "belief" in biological evolution, There is no requirement for belief when facts are at hand. While the Flat Earth / ID'Iot creationists will rail against the the facts of science, they cant refute the facts. Use of evidence and reason to discriminate between discoverable science and regurgitated tales of supernatural entities leads us very quickly to discern which model of existence deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and have existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that one or more gawds" exists, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

When I listen to how people (theists, et al) describe their gods, I am always taken by two things: How really weak they make their gods while trying to make them omnipotent, and how indistinguishable those gods are from both humans and the demons that humans live in trembling fear of.

The gods would have had to purposely create a very old looking, very spread out universe to see what we clearly see today. One wonders how is doing that -at the same time offering the creation story as inerrant (as you believe it is) much different from the gods perpetrating and perpetuating a lie?

 

[james bond]

Actually, I can disprove

You don't even know what you are suppose to disprove. Your brain is mush. I already disproved evolution. No way for life to start through abiogenesis. No way for the universe to start with no physics nor space and time.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, I can disprove

You don't even know what you are suppose to disprove. Your brain is mush. I already disproved evolution. No way for life to start through abiogenesis. No way for the universe to start with no physics nor space and time.

On the contrary, I have nothing to disprove.

I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your gawds, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.

I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.

 

[james bond]

The decay rate for isotopes is a known value.

Yes, but the radiometric believers of long time make wrong assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes and their ratios leading to erroneous results.

 

[Hollie]

The decay rate for isotopes is a known value.

Yes, but the radiometric believers of long time make wrong assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes and their ratios leading to erroneous results.

Your " because I say so" claims are not convincing. I'm sure you can find some silly conspiracy theory on Creation.com to cut and paste, but those quacks are not a part of the relevant science community.