Why do people deny evolution?

First off, yes, of course you are right about that. If not, it wouldn't be science.

But the reason I wanted to comment was that I stumbled on a guy that speaks of Evolution with the same level of deririson as you do OG. But this guy backs it up so well I was in awe.

How I never heard of David Berlinski before I don't know, but he's got more qualifications to talk about the absurdity of Evolution than anyone I ever heard of. He isn't a theist but intellectually he thinks Evolution is literally rediclous and can back it up beautifully. He talks to the people at DI so I'm sure that alone is enough to make the Darwinists scoff at his qualifications. But they are the same ones the evo guys use to support their cred.

Ya can't win I tell ya.

You were in awe because he is telling you what you want to hear. He's just one man against established consensus of a **** ton of scientists, and he's flawed. He's the son of refugees who fled the Nazis and he links Nazism to Darwinism.

In short he has way too much baggage to be objective.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

And he draws a salary from the Discovery Institute. He's being paid to say this ****.

As for the film.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Note how Wikipedia refer to it as propaganda, not documentary. The bloke is fatally flawed.

See what you are doing is you are trying to corral my thinking to fit your mold.
My thinking is totally my own, i did not get it out of a book or read it on the internet.

I will admit, saying God set up evolution because he wants to conceal himself is 'cheat logic' but that being the case, does not make it untrue.

This line "if science is right then the bible is garbage". Ok first of all, science is truth, it is not what a bunch of scientists or religious people say it is, it is truth, so whatever is true, is scientific. If God is discovered to be true, then that becomes a scientific truth.... however i dont know how far God wants to take the conceal himself issue (cheat logic).

To build onto my previous post or two on the last page of this thread Regarding assumptions which dictate old earth conclusions.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

THE RELIABILITY OF RADIOMETRIC DATING IS SUBJECT TO THREE UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS THAT EVERY GEOLOGIST MUST MAKE WHEN USING THE RADIOACTIVE “CLOCK”

Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes.

Assumption 2: No Contamination
The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks.7 Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes.

Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 4), yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!

Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate
For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite (Figure 5) yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.

This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate! For more details see Don DeYoung’s Thousands . . . Not Billions (Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005), pages 65–78.

IF THESE CLOCKS ARE BASED ON FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS AND YIELD UNRELIABLE RESULTS, THEN SCIENTISTS SHOULD NOT TRUST OR PROMOTE THE CLAIMED RADIOACTIVE “AGES.”

Science is dangerous when the quality of the research is judged not on its own merits but by the person involved.

Id like to discuss this with you . lets begin with each "assumption" one at a time



First error i that we dont "test original rocks".We test original minerals which are molecule crystals that we can test just like a "time rate and distance problem". We know the decay constants of the mother and daughter isotops (THATS REALLY ALL E ARE INTERESTED IN. We measure the half lives of each molecule and crystal. (we test these continuously whil doing the analyses. We also look at the decay paths,
(Single or branched).
There are many instances where we dont observe the initiating conditions of an event and via fairly rotine physics we can calculate the same type of result as the isotope time . In English its presented as thus:

(b)Crystal Age (in annums)(/b) = (1/ bulk decay constant of mother +daughter)

X ln {(decay constant isotope A/Decay constant isotope B ) X ( half life A/half life B)+1} I hve no iea how AIG came up with that "we cant test daughter/parent isotope ratios . Thats BS.

"We Cant determine contamination". We re almost always using single mineral crystals and these are easily kpt clean. We have std degredation "curves" for almost all radioisotopes(with exception of C14 which has to be Cleaned up more vigorously and is usually a target for Creationist contamination efforts). "Cleanups and EDAX analyses can tell us the purity of the molecule and the concentration of the radioisotopes.


3. It seems that the CReationist are much more obtuse than they wish to appear. If we knew a volcano was 50 years old, why not just get a newspaper of that year. If AIG were smart enough they would know that due to those concordia curves Ive mentioned above,
and
A. for Rubidium/Strontium (did they correct for the non-radiogenic Rb 87 present in the crystal). and its detection range STARTS at about 50 MILLION YEARS

B. Sm/Nd, non radiogenic Nd 143 can cause error, AND this detection technique STARTS AT 100 MILLION YEARS
C. EVEN OEC's dont use Uranium (lead, or lead lead) methods (there are 9 different methods using U isotopes and different daughters). Because U has a 5-10 million year beginning time range. We use it on pre Cambrian crytsals and chondritic meteorites.

For volcanic ash or lava, Id suggest a combo of Potassium Argon, Potassium Calcium,Argon Argon, , Unless qere just trying to screw around and want to show how lab security must be practiced to keep from getting hacked .


Im not a worker doing e microprobe dating. Ive seen it and understand the sensitivitoes and controls. The rewulting He methods actually are looking at INTERMEDIATE daughters . The methods is the U-Th-He by microprobe and its a family of methods . So why AIG makes a biggy about the He sounds more like Steve Austens BS about Polonium "halos" in granite micas.


Im sorry that your information source about radioisotope dating techniques is from a site whose only goal in life is to discredit radiochemistry (not understand it), therefore you, I assume youre just an amateur in all this and dont really understand what goes into it (Trust me theres waaaay lot more on sampl QA, verification and preparations. (As well as the basic phys chem of the whole thing.
The methods have known error bars when the samples are clean and uncontaminated. We have many ways to validate that. We areas certain as we can at this level re: the +/- values of the sample.

Quote ‘We know the decay constants of the mother and daughter isotops’
Yes, we know the present/current rate...but not if they HAVe been constant through time is the point. In other words, they can be accelerated. The present is Not the key to the past.
http://evolutiondismantled.com/accelerated-decay
(Like observing flesh eating/disease/death in the present now, and assuming it has always been so....big assumption which can drastically change the conclusion)

Quote’I hve no iea how AIG came up with that "we cant test daughter/parent isotope ratios’
We can’t test the Original ‘at time zero’ (no one was there obviously) was their point. An assumption must be made.

Quote: ‘’We Cant determine contamination". We re almost always using single mineral crystals and these are easily kpt clean.’

Kept cleaning our lifetime, when being handled by humans is what ur saying.....but kept clean by Mother Nature was the point they made. U and others Assume they have been kept clean by Mother Nature.

Listen brother, I’m sry to ‘crush your religion’....your beliefs. To dismantle evolution. But it must be done so ‘You can be lifted up’ as I have been.
I wrestled with God for yearrrrs. And I lost that match. I have been humbled. U too can wrestle, but will not prevail. I know from experience.
I was a prideful man... still not perfect, but desire to be. I apologize if I have ever been too hard on u guys.
I thought the Bible was a joke, I thought Christians were ‘loons.’
But the freedom I found in Christ is Amazing, Unspeakable! The peace, oh the peace of knowing the Truth.
This is what I really would like to share, not just ‘creation truths’ ok?
Good night sir. U r a worthy opponent. God bless.

That's sweet! lol...

For me, i always believed in God because the alternative is to believe we grew from lifeless mud, which, i personally found too unbelievable, but that is what you have to swallow in order to believe in Evolution. That's the argument in its simplest terms.

But also, it can be a purely logical choice to believe in God and her is how it works;

Choice A God
Choice B Evolution

Possible results;

You chose A but B was correct - You get Nothing when you die
You chose A and A was correct - You get to live in Heaven! Nice prize!
You chose B and B was correct - you get nothing when you die
You chose B when A was correct - you are lucky if you get nothing!

Choice B will never give you anything, so whats the point in choosing it, even if it did turn out to be correct?

Ok, but I don't put too much effort into that evil-lotion nonsense here, because it's of no use. Evil-lotionists don't get it that they really are defending a belief system, nothing more nothing less. That'why I always have to laugh when they laugh at or mock people only because these other people have a different belief-system, called 'religion'. Personally I think they are both wrong, The religions where once created as a manipulation tool for the masses, and when it became less effective they created another belief system, called 'science'.
Lots of people fell for the 'science' crap, and still can't see it is a belief system filled to the brim with dogma's.
It's a sad state of affairs, but it is what it is.

Wikipedia???????????? Really??????????
Know for it's HUGE BIAS, and control by three letter agencies???!!!

Come on, you are making a clown of yourself!

...and what 'system' does the parasite have ? It doesn't need one as it is totally dependent on others to try to wreck ! Its the mentality of a teenage vandal.
The fact that it uses the internet, one of the products of the 'science' it denigrates to feed its idiocy, underscores its intellectual incompetence.

wow! anyway you are making the mistake that the internet is because of 'science'. it is not.

Get help . Science might also have a cure for trollitis.

The full title of Darwin's pathetic work is:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races In the Struggle for Life"

Darwin had already unknowingly linked himself to the Nazi 'ideal'.
Or the Nazis 'Master Race' just took Darwin's work to its logical conclusion.
Either way, your choice.

Brilliantly put I'd say. What's your point?

For sure. That is just it. Choice!
We all have our different paths huh?
Looking forward to eternity with you, cheers!

Darwin had nothing to do with Nazism or Social Darwinism. That was something that came along much later.

The ironic thing is that the religious types who make such comparisons have a lot more in common with the Nazis than scientists. Many were complicit it Nazi crimes, like the pope. Pious II is known as Hitler's pope.

You yourself were a participant in the Vietnamese genocide, and Darwin never did anything like that.

You have no place to talk.

A better understanding regarding implied racisim in Darwin original "little book" (A volume that underwent 6 editions nd 13 "additional revisions") had to do with how his work was first introduced as a mere chapter of a work that was co-presented to the Linnaean Society on July 1, 1858, along with a paper by Alfred Wallace. For the Linnaean Society presentation (Darwin wasnt even there) darwin's own Title was " On the Variations of Organic Beings in a State of Nature:On the Natural Means of Selection;On the Comparisons of Domestic Races and the True Species". The first cover of the first edition of Darwin' Book was merely the "On the Origin of Species". It wasnt till the third edition before much of the other secondary and Tertiary(title page lines) were added to the cover title, (but all were ascribed with the original date of 1859).[cf Peckham's variorum text ](Mostly cause Darwin took lotsa silly avice from his friends and (especially) enemies.

Be that as it is, during that Victorian period ,the term "races" to science, was synonymous with "breeds" of pets and was not given any concern until Darwins Cousin ,Dr Glanton, became associated (incorrectly I would add) with darwin's biological work.
Unfortuntely most folks just get their science from Wikipedia and its often un edited problematica.

I see weve awarded ourselves some credentials as an "eminent geneticist AND A Darwin Scholar"

Congratulations, most people usually work to attain such lofty pedigrees. All you need ed was a "library card" .
Gungasnale preceded your "ipsedixit critiques" by several years .
Despite Darwins many faults and the coupla recognized errors in his works , His "Theory of Natural Selection"
Is still the unifying theory of biology and has been recognized as "THE SINGLE GREATEST IDEA OF THE LAST MILLENIUM"(lets try to keep that in mind)

I dont think that its Darwin's writing that is pathetic.

I won't argue that Darwin wasn't easily influenced, there is the whole 'world changing' book about Evolution inspired by - Finch beaks, fer crise sakes. The wonder is how it has caught on, as you yourself have pointed out.
Crazy I tell ya.