In my research I've discovered these facts - although t is pretty obvious they are not well known.

Dating methods are acurate only within their assumed premises. A priori's to dating methods are: Uniformitarianism (Much like Judeo/Christianity is the a priori to Creationism), somethnig which science itself disproves, and the assumption that the amount of radioactive material in the parent element can be known. Scientists ADMITTEDLY claim that it cannot.

Okey - so much for the claim of accuracy of the dating methods. And since scientists themselves refute their own method of carbon-14 dating for these "ancient" fossils - due to the dates always (note - always) contradict their assumptions.

There are zero studies. Here, let me repeat that ZERO studies verifying that information is gained in a DNA genome. What is well documented and accepted as fact, is that every exeperiment attempting to show that information can be gained in DNA has demonstrated it has not. Were evolution true - with the advances of modern sciene - there should be thousands, if not millions of examples of iformation being added to DNA - else how does an Evolutionist get from an amoeba to man?

Poking holes in my pet belif - I'm dodging the canyons in yours. We haven't spent any time discussing my beliefs. We're focused right now on what I DON'T believe, and that is your claim of truth and facts. I don't see much in the way of facts, and your truth's are subjective - don't claim them as proven or otherwise, they exist for you as a matter of faith.

Alright Eljay, just where does your research come from?

umm...if I had to guess, I'd say out his....umm...NEVERMIND

so..hey...I've been meaning to ask...what color is the sky in your world?
Here on Earth, it's blue, in case you're interested.

And no, Eljay. Since every single time I point out where you're wrong, you go off on the same old rant.
You wanna believe in your dogma. Fine. You wanna adjust(read that as change) or ignore the facts to fit your dogma. Fine. You wanna assmume that because you have faith everyone must also have it, fine.
Whatever floats your boat.
But, as I said, we're done here. You're no longer arguing science. You're arguing philosophy.
(wait wait....I can almost hear it....I know you are, but what am I?)
In any case, I don't wanna do that. Here.


Y'know Eljay, you CAN believe in your god thing and believe in evolution all at the same time. Lots of people do it.

Not a single example supporting all these evolutionary claims of "fact" - and you want to know where I got my information from?

As soon as I get my question's answered - I'll answer yours.

And that's what you are - a guesser. All your "facts" - guesses.

I ask for an example of these "facts" - and you point out I'm wrong. For asking. Yup - whatever you say, I'm convinced.

Evolution takes place, eljay doesn't believe it. Thats ok.

whoot whoot

Okay. I have gotten my information from several books. The Selfish Gene, The Blinde Watchmaker (both by Dawkins) and The Red Queen, Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Ridly Scott. That ought to get you started. These books should all be easy to find in your local book store.

So these are your authorities - a media whore and a movie director?

That's like saying "I believe Scientology is the truth because L. Ron Hubbard said so."

Hawkins is a devote egotist, and thinks he's correct about everything, and does not need his "statements of fact" verified. I don't consider him an authority on evolution. I've seen him in action in debates. He makes a fool of himself.

Ridley Scott is entertaining as a film director - but I would not rely on his opinion to support my world view. Unless this is a different Ridley Scott you're talking about.

But - hey, if that's what you want to use to support your arguement - I'll do some research on movie directors and see what they have to say about the subject.

Sorry, my mistake. I ment Matt Ridly as the writer of The Red Queen.

Dawkins books were written back if the 70s. Long before he gained fame from his latest book The God Delusion. Even if he is a media whore that doesn't change the the facts in his books. How about if you actually go to the trouble if understanding what he wrote before you attempt to debunk it.

So, where does your information come from?

Dawkin's logic and proofs against God come from his logical fallacies of appealling to emotion - which has nothing to do with reality (from a stand point of proof) and everything to do with subjectivity. Perception may denote reality at times - but it is not a viable representation of the "truth". So while I will admit, Dawkins is quite elloquent, an excellant writer and story-teller, he is not a logician.

I got my information from researching Isometric dating, from studying chemistry and biology in my youth, and from a degree in logic. While I cannot rattle the names of the scientists who's analysis of dating methods I "plowed" through - if you were to google Isometric dating and read the definitions, and descriptions of the methods, you will see for yourself how it is determined which dating method is used for what, and how the information is determined. A little knowledge of chemistry will be enough to determine that there are just too many "presumed" assumptions, and a priori's that cannot be substanciated (like the original quantity of radioactive substance in the parent element) in order to assert that these "dates" bantied around - like the earth being 4.5 billion years old - have no support of fact, merely presumption, mathematical formulars based on unsupported premises, and a world view that, rather than support the presumptions - contradict them.

Wow. So we, as humans, don't know how radioactive isotopes decay. I'm thinking there's a whole lotta people in trouble. People who work in nuke power plants, people who rely on atomic clocks, many on much of our navel fleet, anyone getting cancer treatments via radiation, ect. ect.
Eljay, I don't really care where you got your info. With just a wee bit of thought, one can see that it's just wrong.

indeed.

I didn't say we don't know how radioactive isotopes decay - so what's your point?

Read my post - I said there is no way to determine the amount of radioativity in the parent element. Whether it was created 6,000 or so years ago - or 4.5 billion - it is a pure educated quess as to what the decay ratin is without knowing how much radioactivity existed in the first place. And since the hslf life of these elements is measured in the billions of years - how can there even be any information on what was lost - since there would be no measurable change within the lifetime of any of the scientists who are calculating this data.

And all of the examples you have cited for radioactivity is done in closed - controlled environments, and is not analogous to the information used in radiometric dating. Really bad analogy. If you're trying to prove a point - at least start wih as point to prove.

comparing Gods creation to evolution is just not the same by any means.For centuries man has tried to explain in its own mind as to where we came from .As centuries progressed we have found fossils to help determine events of our past.Links to the beginning by some scholars have always been acknowleged and later dismissed because of contradicting evidence.To say that we have evolved from spittle is ludicrous,from an ape preposterous.One has to fully grasp an important fact God created us from dust and by his word brought forth life.As far as all the intricate details of animal, plant, and birds and sea creatures each one has been instilled into adapting to its environment to surrvive.The complexity of how each one relies on the other is mind boggling even scientists are still learning more and more of the diversity of each one dependent on the other one to survive.What is so unique is that we are still discovering new species that have either not been seen before or ones that are evolving from climate changes.Because of advanced scientific tools we can see creatures that move so fast that the naked eye cannot even begin to realize thier existence.The immensity of what we know is dwarfed by what we will never fully understand.Man has created substitutions for life cloning, grafting, embrionic duplication, artifical insemination,the list goes on and on.Unfortunately we have also tapped into the instable elements as well.By combining diff materials we have created substances that are lethal and unfortunately have terrible consequences that cannot be reversed.An old joke came about from a colledge proffesor after the 1st succesfull cloning attempt.The scientist challenged God to a duel to create man.God was impressed at mans arrogance and agreed to the challenge.The scientist then eager to prove he was the superior intellect said he could create man in less than 1 day.God said show me,the scientist then went to work God said stop 1st you have to use dust .The scientist said okay a minor set back but I can work with that.Then God laughed and said now make your own dust you cant use mine .The truth is in the word In the beginning was the word and the word was with God

Richard Dawkins has written a number of books. Only one discusses God. His other books are about evolution and biology. He does discuss a couple of ideas about how life may have began, but for the most part it's just the cold, hard facts. So, again I say read them and understand tham before you attempt to knock them.



I see. So, I'm supposed to take you word for it. You just declear yourself to be correct be fiat. Well, that's not good enough. How about you give a creditable sorce or two to back up your points?

I didn't say I had a problem with Dawkin's books - I just don't agree with his world view, and how he interprets "facts" by it. When held to the fire - Dawkins does not claim to know how life formed on the planet - after all, he isn't an idiot - he says what he believes. Again - it is a faith based topic - no matter how one looks at it.

As to the topic of dating - it's not my words - look up Isotropic dating - heck, even Wiki has it. Read it for yourself - then we'll discuss the "proof" and "fact" behind dating methods. It isn't a question of my being "correct" - but I'm questioning how it is that those who state that they can date something to be 4.5 billion years old can support their argument. I'm more than willing to accept this as fact - as soon as it can be demonstrated as such. Know anyone who can do that? Because there has yet to be a post on any of these Evolution threads where it's been demonstrated. People just say "It's a fact" - but they couldn't even begin to explain WHY!
That's all I'm asking. If you claim that evolution is a "fact" - shouldn't you be able to explain WHY.

I do not claim Creation to be a "fact" - how could anyone? There's no way anyone could even begin to fathom how or why it is true. It's just accepted by FAITH by those who believe it to be true. Observation and experience either supports it - or disproves it, but the truth of the matter remains subjective to the faith one has in their world view. Are you presuming that this not be the case for an evolutionist? If so - explain yourself - if not, I would assume that you agree with me - that evolution is nothing more than a "faith based religion" if you will - because I fail to see there being nything "Scientific" about it. Science would go along just fine if it were evidenced that evolution is a crock.