Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

a reply to: liejunkie01
Thank you,
Did you think I did not know the answer before I asked the question?
I wanted to see which of the flawed methods Barcs would state.
Because you had to find a "dumbed down" article that you could understand I will try to make my response equally so (Don't won't to lose you).

6) The tests showed that more than 5% of the crystals were leaky. This means that the sample was outside the 5% limit of error, and none of the results could be accepted as accurate. Accepting any of these results means that there is a strong probability that it happened by chance. The acceptance of this data then produces a type II error - saying something is so, when it isn't.
(7) Compston & Pidgeon ignored the large number of leaky crystals and concentrated on the 'best' results. Some of these were not perfect, so an imaginary correction factor called 'lead loss' was invented to explain the deviation. "The old zircons first formed at ~4,300 Myr, then lost lead during one or more early events ..... lead loss also occurred recently." [Nature, Vol. 321, p:766-769 1986]
(8) "Note that the only evidence for 'lead loss' is the results themselves - posterior reasoning again!" [CEN Tech. J. 6(1) 1992 p:3]
(9) Lead loss is a safer way to explain deviant results, rather than through uranium gain - uranium gain is an anathema in radiodating. Note, that radon gas leakage is also a possibility.
(10) "According to Faure, lead-loss explanations can be developed in as many stages as are needed to explain the results. This means that the research worker is able to 'massage' the data, using nothing more than posterior reasoning, until he finds a result that is consistent with his prior expectations." [CEN Tech. J. 6(1) 1992 p:3] - and who is going to argue? This type of reasoning only serves to entrench the status quo that the earth is 4.5 Byr old.
(11) "A similar weakness is inherent in the wide variety of isotope dating methods that a worker has to choose from. If one method gives unsatisfactory results he can just discard those results and use another method until he finds the result that satisfies his prior expectations. This is not objective science." [CEN Tech. J. 6(1) 1992 p:3-4]
(12) It would be good if the ages of rocks could be calculated by comparing readings with rocks of known age. But "in earth-age studies there are no standards of known age to calibrate against, only results from other equally fallible isotope methods." [CEN Tech. J.6(1) 1992 p:4]  

unmaskingevolution.com...
Perhaps in the future you could try to be a little less condescending.
You may not believe it, but it is possible to debate this topic in a civil manner.
All you really have to do is open your mind. Don't be scared, in your case I don't think you have to worry about anything falling out.
Quad

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
Broad questions Barcs?
Perhaps but sometimes they need to be asked.
If it is alright with you we can lead up to the "broad" questions.
We can start out with something easier.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. How was this number reached?

Science.

How such a response can get so many stars is beyond me. The 'science' response has become an empty reply that can be applied to anything, in order to avoid the rigorous sequential logical factual explanation.

Because the facts for that have been posted hundreds of times here in this section of ATS. Why should people that are familiar with the science or that know how to use google have to put an explanation for something like that over and over again, every time a new "concern" about evolution is brought up? If Quad has a point, he should make it. He's asking loads of questions that are easily answered via google. And this is coming from you of all people, one of the primary guys that ignores the scientific links when posted and then complains about how people always say there's evidence but won't post it. Plus your unwavering support of Stephen Meyer, still after all these years. You must be him. Meyer cites facts, but he mixes tons of assumptions in with it, and using them primarily to form his conclusion. Where is the actual evidence outside of the unknown? Why do you think quoting a single Stephen Meyer book review proves him logical and correct?

a reply to: Barcs

Links to prior answers would be more helpful. If I would answer 'Aliens' to everything you ask, you'd be pissed off and wouldn't want to discuss. It's the same thing when someone simply answers 'science' to certain questions.

a reply to: vasaga

Why not just read the answers yourself? Why should the science minded folks have to constantly source their old posts and old links they posted? It's a waste of time. It's not our fault that you guys refuse to pay attention to them when posted and then ask the same questions a few months later.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Do you have a direct link to CEN Technical Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1? Is this a peer reviewed journal? I tried searching for it but had no luck. I can't find any link to anything prior to 2005. The paper cited is from 1992.

Thanks.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vasaga

Why not just read the answers yourself? Why should the science minded folks have to constantly source their old posts and old links they posted? It's a waste of time. It's not our fault that you guys refuse to pay attention to them when posted and then ask the same questions a few months later.

You know better what you posted and approximately when you posted it. It gets tiring to go through thousands of posts reading "we've already posted this". But yeah. I'll know next time when you want me to provide evidence. I'll just tell you to go read the answer yourself.

a reply to: vasaga

www.talkorigins.org...

That should get you started.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vasaga

Why not just read the answers yourself? Why should the science minded folks have to constantly source their old posts and old links they posted? It's a waste of time. It's not our fault that you guys refuse to pay attention to them when posted and then ask the same questions a few months later.

You know better what you posted and approximately when you posted it. It gets tiring to go through thousands of posts reading "we've already posted this". But yeah. I'll know next time when you want me to provide evidence. I'll just tell you to go read the answer yourself.

You know as a side note, if you really wanted to learn about evolution, you could go study it yourself so you don't argue from ignorance anymore and don't continue to make false claims about what the theory of evolution says and doesn't say. This isn't to say that you have to believe it is true, but it helps when you argue that you fully understand both sides of the argument instead of listening to what the biased version that is against the topic has to say about it. It's called intellectual integrity and it would be nice if some of these evolution deniers would actually practice it sometime.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Would it be unfair for me to ask the same thing of people on here regarding for example intelligent design, rather than dismissing it as disguised creationism beforehand?

a reply to: vasaga

Sure, but how in depth can you get with a reading of Genesis? It isn't exactly a very long book and the account of the creation of Earth is even shorter. Of course this isn't much of a problem since Creationists tend to be more then willing to post scripture all day long in their posts. I think I've read Genesis more times than I'd like to thanks to various Creationist posters debating Evolution with me.

Though also, most of these conversations are about Evolution. Keep in mind that proving Evolution wrong does not imply that Creationism is correct or true. You still have the task of proving that it is true as well. All you would have done is show that Evolution isn't true. That is another trap that Creationists tend to fall into, assuming that the answer is an either or situation. Either Evolution or Creationism. When in reality the answer could be both of them being true, one of them being true, or neither of them being true. As you can see that accounts for every possibility of truth.

a reply to: vasaga

You mean Cdesign?

The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists"

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: vasaga

Can I ask how the reading is going on the links I sent you in this thread? Anything interesting that may have caught your eye?

a reply to: drivers1492

Probably too busy reading the wealth of material in that TalkOrigins.org link I posted.

Ah, who am I kidding.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're already assuming that genesis is the source for intelligent design... So you've already decided that ID is creationism in a coat... This is a problem.

Basically, it comes down to this.
To convince someone of a certain problem with the theory of evolution, I would have to show that I know more about evolution than the rest. I have to become the dark mirror version of Richard Dawkins in order to get a very small chance that the problems might possibly be acknowledged.
But vice versa, if people here want to show a problem of ID, they simply need to say it's creationism, and everyone celebrates since we've found the problem. They don't have to become the dark mirror version of Behe or Meyer for the problem to be acknowledged.

So anyone who comes in here that wants a fair discussion is not going to get it. Yes. Most of the conversations are about evolution. And yes, proving evolution wrong doesn't prove creationism right. They can still be both right or both wrong like you yourself said, but the actions don't profess these possibilities, but only the possibility that creationism is definitely wrong, and evolution theory might maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe be slightly wrong, but still not really wrong. This shows there is a bias. But point it out, and people will hate you.

Lastly, ID =/= creationism.
Creationism = Life was created by God
ID = Life requires intelligence to exist and evolve
Intelligence is not necessarily God

Sadly, ID proponents happen to be religious. But people like to forget that the whole idea of the Big Bang was based on the idea that God started the universe with a bang. It didn't make us dismiss the theory. Why should this be done for ID?

a reply to: drivers1492
I started. Nothing yet that nullifies my concerns or questions.

originally posted by: vasaga

To convince someone of a certain problem with the theory of evolution, I would have to show that I know more about evolution than the rest.

No, you'd simply have to present some incredibly compelling evidence that refutes evolution.

Do you have any?

a reply to: Quadrivium

All I can say is,

You say I shouldn't be so "condescending", but then you go and make a rude comment about my intelligence, or lack of.lol

I really like this paragraph in the article you linked.

(3) Despite the fact that other radiometric tests confirm the age of the earth at 4.5 Byr, we are left with doubts as to the authenticity of these findings. Without going over the fine details of each experiment, for which the details are not available to us (or anyone else), we can't verify their accuracy. Not that we would have the scientific or technical skills to do it any way. So, we are left with having to trust the word of the experimenters

So they have the technical skills to show that the lead readings were flawed, radio carbon dating skills that are known and can be confirmed, has been confirmed,

But "we wouldn't have the technical skills to do it anyways"?

Maybe these guys just don't like the results that keep getting published, and it does not fit their little agenda.

a reply to: Barcs
Barcs how could I have answered the question?
It was aked in order to get YOUR response.
I ask questions because it is my honest belief that some people do not have a clue about the actual science behind what many scientists claim.
By asking questions I hope that some will try to answer, look at what they are about to post and maybe say "hey, that doesn't sound exactly right" and in turn ask questions themselves.
You say that many are familiar with the science.
I disagree, they may be familiar with what is said about the science. This does not mean they are familiar with the science.
Look again at this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Notice the snippet from talkorigins? That kinda how I feel about those who say "cause science says so".

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: vasaga

To convince someone of a certain problem with the theory of evolution, I would have to show that I know more about evolution than the rest.

No, you'd simply have to present some incredibly compelling evidence that refutes evolution.

Do you have any?

I was talking about problems with it, not completely refuting the whole theory.

But, I would have to ask in advance what for you, constitutes as evidence, since this 'compelling evidence' generally seems to have an impossible list of criteria to meet. So.. Which one(s)?

Physical evidence (can be archaeological, microscope recording etc)
Mathematical evidence
Logical evidence (deduction)
Statistical evidence
Chemical evidence (reactions producing DNA or whatnot)
Other..?

a reply to: vasaga

What problems? State them.

a reply to: GetHyped

The biggest elephant in the room is the cambrian explosion.