Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 29. (Read 108173 times)

Everything that is called evolution fits something else better, like adaptation, like-begets-like, or simple change. Certainly you can call these things evolution, but that isn't the kind of evolution we are talking about. We are talking about evolution theory evolution (ETE).

There is no ETE. The DNA has never been examined for creatures over thousands of years where it might be proven that evolution. Since there is no DNA examination, how do we know that there were ETE changes? There simply might have been an extremely wide variety of creatures, without evolution. No proof.

In fact, the whole idea of DNA suggests programming through cause and effect. There is no true random, like there would have to be for natural selection to exist in some way. The only random that we have is the random of the ignorance of people to understand and know the cause and effect actions. Since people don't know, why do they say that they do? The whole ETE thing is a hoax, a religion, even a cult.

Evolution is a hoax.

You simply don't want to understand that there isn't any proof for evolution of the theory kind. How do we know that there isn't? Nobody has shown any. Show some, and show why it is proof.

Evolution is a hoax, and you know it.

Various people believe various things about where humans come from. Personally, I understand that God made us. But the point is, deep thinking evolutionist scientists know that there is no proof for evolution. Yet, some of them state that evolution is fact. When they do this, they are making evolution into a hoax.

If they said, we don't know, but we think that evolution is real, then it would not be a hoax.

I guess you don't understand the nuances of English very well. Saying "if" and "believed" doesn't mean that anyone is suggesting that somebody believes something. However, I commend you on your good use of the English second language for you.

The point is that believing something doesn't necessarily make it true. Since scientists at most only believe in evolution, they are hoaxing when they say that it is real. And you agreed with this when you thought to suggest that I was agreeing that most scientists believe in evolution... like a religion... or a cult.

So, you agree that evolution is a hoax.

This is true, a compilation is always better than a single experiment. I guess sometimes when carbon dating has been shown to be wrong, that's when I wonder. That is all.

And you're completely right.

But the problem here is that you're missing the numbers.
One Carbon dating isn't reliable. But when we date a specie, a fossile or something, we don't have only one carbon dating. We say "this specie existed 30 millions of years ago" because we dated 500 different fossile each of them 20 to 30 times and the average result seems to be 30 millions years.

That's not a one time problem, we don't have only one subject of experiment. We have thousands of fossiles all in differents shapes and states, each of them giving informations depending on where they are found, what does the environment look like...

The result is a compilation, it can't be false unless all those experiments are all false in the same average direction. That would be completely crazy.

I am googling for this ceramics carbon dating proof. What I got was this info from labmate-online.com

"Unfortunately, the believed amount of carbon present at the time of expiration is exactly that: a belief, an assumption, an estimate. It is very difficult for scientists to know how much carbon would have originally been present; one of the ways in which they have tried to overcome this difficulty was through using carbon equilibrium.

Equilibrium is the name given to the point when the rate of carbon production and carbon decay are equal. By measuring the rate of production and of decay (both eminently quantifiable), scientists were able to estimate that carbon in the atmosphere would go from zero to equilibrium in 30,000 – 50,000 years. Since the universe is estimated to be millions of years old, it was assumed that this equilibrium had already been reached.

However, in the 1960s, the growth rate was found to be significantly higher than the decay rate; almost a third in fact. This indicated that equilibrium had not in fact been reached, throwing off scientists’ assumptions about carbon dating. They attempted to account for this by setting 1950 as a standard year for the ratio of C-12 to C-14, and measuring subsequent findings against that.

Has it Worked?
In short, the answer is… sometimes. Sometimes carbon dating will agree with other evolutionary methods of age estimation, which is great. Other times, the findings will differ slightly, at which point scientists apply so-called ‘correction tables’ to amend the results and eliminate discrepancies.

Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates. At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew:

“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.”

What does this mean for Contemporary Carbon Dating?
Essentially, this means that carbon dating, though a useful tool, is not 100% reliable. For example, recently science teams at the British Antarctic Survey and Reading University unearthed the discovery that samples of moss could be brought back to life after being frozen in ice. The kicker? That carbon dating deemed the moss to have been frozen for over 1,500 years. Now, if this carbon dating agrees with other evolutionary methods of determining age, the team could have a real discovery on their hands. Taken alone, however, the carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate."

For me, this makes the carbon dating method highly unreliable.

Well indeed.

But we have some elements that are old enough to be dated with carbon14 and that are of a date we know. Ceramics for example, from mesopotian era. We know how old they are and carbon14 dating is giving the same thing so...

You can also do it by combining different dating methodologies. If all dating methodologies give the same result, what are the chances that they're ALL wrong at the same time but still give the same "wrong" date?

I am perfectly fine with the logic, it is the verification that I wonder.

Let me give an illustration. let's suppose I grow apples. I picked an apple and keep it with me for three days. Then I go to a scientist and asks him to date my apple, the scientist uses some scientific method and says my apple is about three days old. I can verify it to be true because I grew and picked the apple myself. This is an example of a dating method that is verifiable.

Now I give a rock to the scientist and asks him to date the rock, he says it is 10 million years old, how can I know whether his method is really accurate? It cannot be verified by anyone whether it is true or not.

Well it's easy:

-If half life measurement is right then it means datation is right?
-If half life measurement is false it means we misunderstood how radioactivity works right?

Then how comes radioactivity works perfectly in all the millions of way we're using it daily (especially on medical field) for scanners, IRM, radiology, radiation therapy and all?

We know it's accurate because if it was not it would mean we understood badly radiation and we couldn't use it as precisely as we are doing right now.

I'm not sure I understand your concern.

Yes thanks, I mean both methods actually. I understand the concept of half life and counting backwards but is there evidence that it has been used to date something accurately? How do we know this rock is 10 millions years old, for example. How do we prove that the radioactive method dated it accurately? Radioactive method says it should be 10 million years old, but how do we know this reading to be definitely true?

you mean apart from the basic way radiology works? Oo

Carbon dating is accurate as hell and I can't really see how you can say otherwise.

By the way it's not Carbon dating that is used for prehistoric dating, Carbon dating allows you to go back in time to less than a million years if I remember correctly.

But radioactive dating is extremely precise simply because of the way it works...

There is an amount X of each radioactive elements in everything. Once it's dead and underground this radioactive element stop being produced. So when you want to date it, you count the amount of radioactive element and thus you know how much is missing. Since you know what times it take to get rid of the radioactive element you can date it...

That's extremely simple, what is the problem for you with it?

The evidence also shows the opposite. We humans are highly complex beings and we create books, music, art, technology etc. these could be "evidence" that simple can also arise out of complexity. We are infinitely more complex than a simple book, why can't this be used as support for intelligent design?

I saw the paper m0gliE, I'm not sure how it serves as evidence that chickens came from snakes. When you mentioned 40 million years ago, it reminds me that science has not even come up with an accurate dating technology. There are so many flaws in the carbon dating method it seems incredible to believe in its credibility anymore. I want science to be able to objectively and accurately date rocks and fossils as much as anyone, but it is greatly lacking.

Why do you find carbon dating method accurate? Is there any evidence to validate this method?

Well, that's because us humans are not intelligent enough or our brains aren't good enough to comprehend certain things. We know however that complexity can arise from very very simple rules. To you it might seem that life needs a creator or intelligent designer but the reality might be different, evidence certainly suggests so.

You mean how new species appear?

Well that's quite easy and has been largely proved...

Best example would be the chicken, easy and you know what it is today.

Chicken comes directly from reptiles just like all the other birds we know. How do we know that? Here is how we proceed:

-First we inventorize all the different species we can find
-Then we date them to be able to make a chronological timeline of the species
-Afterthat we try to regroup the species having common physical caracteristics
-Ultimately when we suspect there is a lineage between two or more species we check their DNA to see if one has indeed the genetic legacy of the other

Here is a more complete analysis of the reptile timeline for example and how we see that one is the descendant of the other: http://www.snakegenomics.org/CastoeLab/Publications_files/Shaney_etal.BookChapter.pdf

If that's not evolution... Then how did the chicken appear? It didn't exist 40 millions year ago so how did it appear all of a sudden if that's not evolution?

This personal creator is eternal, always in existence, no point of origin.

Good questions.

Evolution is still a theory for how different species arise, there is no evidence for that, and I find this is really important. We still need to be able to observe speciation in action in a laboratory or research facility to provide evidence for that. Personally I would like to see it too as I view this as being the ultimate proof for macro-evolution. Yes I know the process is slow and takes millions of years but this is why the mechanism is not testable nor falsifiable.

I don't want to minimize your discussions or arguments but it's extremely pointless.

Facts are:
-Evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact of how species evolve
-Evolution occures mainly by small changes of DNA that are, or not, selected in the specie

Now that those small changes are random or the will of a superior being... Is not a rational debate. Because you can't prove neither of the two possibilities.

It can be God. It can be random. No one will ever prove one or the other. How could it be possible?

Though I have a question: if evolution is God's will, why is that that some changes are useless and are given up? Not all genes are passed up to the next generation. If Evolution was conducted by the hand of God, why would he put imperfect genes that are doomed to be given up during evolution process?

Yes but I think the key issue is in the claim that the mechanisms of evolution are via random, unintelligent forces rather than the mastermind of an intelligent designer. Astargath and I discussed about the central issue of abiogenesis earlier, and I repeat the following.