Why do people deny evolution?

Obviously youve reached that opinion without ever having bothered to read that of which you opine.

Fuckin- A, even I read the Bible severl times.

Oh, Fossils, yeah, the fossil record too. Looked at objectively, the fossil record is absolutely nonsensical. Only if you look at it from within Darwin's Delusion does it make sense. As if a large dog sized land mammal becoming a whale makes sense.
And I say that from a scientific perspective, not a theistic one.

The thing you don't seem to get is that Evolution and Intelligent Design are in the same category.
They are both attempts to explain "How".
One says it was by natural causes that we already understand.
The other says the natural causes we understand were not sufficient and it had to have required conscious design.

Religions/theologies are attempts to explain "Why".
A subject for a different thread.

But they are unrelated questions.

more like a Tabula rasa Id say.

If you dont know how the "fossil record " works, stop trying to sound like you know of what youre even talking about

PS, ID has NEVER tried to explain "HOW". Its completely decided on that issue going in. All you guys can do is repeat "What" , thats the only place we agree (As long as youre free-loading)

That's the same as saying that Darwinian Evolution makes everything we see in the fossil record make sense. Which it does.

A Delusion is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.

So saying that something is delusional while agreeing that it make sense of everything we see in the fossil record, is problematic.

Duh? You DO know the meaning of circular reasoning? Right?

You DO understand this to be a logical fallacy, eh?!

BS is gunga's sockpuppet. Appropriate initials don't cha think?

This was my last post I was hoping u could expand on:

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.

Do you see WHy dating techniques are absolutely unreliable now?
Why their assumptions dictate trot Old Earth conclusions (a desired result for darwinists)
They can manipulate the results by such assumptions, terrible science.





I just can’t believe ppl are not trained to think that The Present is NOT the key to the Past. What kind of ‘training’ is that right?
How steeped in uniformitarian thought evolutionists are.
Quite a religious doctrine which yields Old earth results.
A doctrine ppl are pounded with over and over and over with. Doesn’t seem like training, but seems more like indoctrination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
This seems to be your thought process too.
Thoughts?

tell me then. What range for decay constants and half lives do you think have occurred and why??

I hope you dont think that many scientists arent just sitting on theor asses making tuff up?
1.Decay constants based on e- capture decay chains ARE affectd by pessure, so several labs have attempted to change them and the changes they could affect had varied the decay constants by bout 0.02 % which (bsed on the equations) have relly no measurable effects on calculated lab dates.

2. We can view suprnovae (nd bsed upon several distance calc methods like standard candle , Red Shift, Orbital Parralax etc). Supernovae create radioactive elements and they decay via various chains at rates that, based upon their spectral concentrations, Can give us a good "check" on decay constants and half lives in the past. (Coupla good papaers exist in P Chem research and other journals .Supernovaes that I know of are like SN199IT which has a published list of fade rates and radionuclides and daughter concentrations (this is then Back Calculted to determine its age andtherefore the decay constants) SN... gives us a constancy of decay rates that go back to at least 69 million years. PErlmutter et al , in 1998 did a seminal work using quantum constants and Standard candles for a Supernova that was about 0.9 BILLION years old and the decay constants for the U ,and Th were well within to where we have calculated them to be today. (We keep jacking the decay constants back by a decimal point every5 years or so because our lab techniques get more accurate(as determined by test sample calculations).

3 We compare other constants to uranium and Th and several other longer lived isotopes for the shorter half life ones , and we also compare against other non nuke techniques including tree rings (cross plot and ring ratio indeces), or fission track , cosmogenic exposure rates, thermoluminescence, Es Resonance (it goes on). and we get repeatability. That is, radioisotopic dates give us a really good dating method.

4. Id look up the Okloh "natural reactor" site and see how a site was used to stand back and look at how a nuke reactor uses Lambda an half lif .(The neat thing is the comparison against standard geology)

5 BESIDES, you guys get all excited about some of the latest pellets from AIG as if those guys ere actually involved in science. If a decay rate was moved up so as to "speed up time decay), something like 1 to 5% increase for U/Th would result in a planet that would have long ago been unlivable due to a "lethal dose of subterranean global warming" (my term, if ya use it ya gotta gimme credit).

I suppose you can try to disassemble space/time , Im not a theoretical physicist so Im sure you can blaw AIG smoke up my ass nd I wouldnt know . I can only speak for areas within which Ive worked for several decades after grad school and mining so dont think youre gonna fool me . I hope I cleared that issue about decay constants (I didnt get into half lives but that too is based on relatively strait forward reasoning)

We dont date whole bulk ROCKS, we date crystals, which are a series of same molecules in a specific fixed axes . We usually do non destructive analyses to get a fix on the crystal. e sub sample stuff like Zircon, Monazite etc. The only rocks we do whole samples of are ashes and volcanic ejecta to sample old flows in bulk.


AS far as Uniformitarian "ISM" You guys get all excited by asserting that geologists worship at its altar. That is total BS. When Lyell posited it he was saying that the earth processes that are going on today didnt differ from those in the past by energy expended and by typ.

Uniformitarian thinking is still used as a stage in our sciences development over the last 200 years. Noone Studies it wxcept in a passing segment about the history of geology which is an entry level course or a survey course.
Relax, science is waaay more advanced than you seem to recognize. Youre a bit like gungasnale (He too pulls Creationist crap from AIG and then posts it as his adopted thinking (while denying science explanations without even reading a teeny bit of what science has to say)



Those conclusions have been arrived at through hard work nd application of discovery based and lab based science . What have you got that even comes close to being anything but a fairy tale? You guys have NO science behind you You wont admit it because youre afraid of pissin off your deity. If he existed and was a "loving God", I think hed more be proud of how weve risen out of our caves to go on and master so many technologies. You guys live in the Darkest of Ages, I really really pity you for what you miss in discovering the wonders of our planet and how everything is connected to verything else

[/quote]


Oh, NO I DONT SEE HOW THERES ANY REASON TO DENY RADIOISOTOPIC DATING . The people at AIG, even thse that are heavily degreed up, have abandoed their trades based on pre existing conditions of "religious beliefs" for which they seem to have waiting for opportunities to jump out and yell

"NYAH NYAH Im a Creationist and now Im gonna show how Ive been fooling you all along"

Another one. I can only deal with one at a time. I think we need a broom and some bug spray.

Expect BS to come out with the same bs Gunga spouted, bs that you've already disproved.

The far right and fake news/conspiracy horseshit go hand in hand. Look how the Nazis latched on to The Protocols of Zion. Another disinformation pile of crap we can thank the Russians for.

wow, were all on fire this morning. I musta had too much espresso and maple syrup on my fastnachts

I don't know what fastnachts are, but they do sound uncomfortably like a slang term for testicles. Each to their own, but it's not commonplace to pour espresso and maple syrup on one's clockweights.

true tru. Fastnachts are a kind of raised DONUT made from strong flour, caster sugar, lard , yeast and formed into kneaded "punchkies" (Donuts with no holes)that is served up to and including "Fat Tuesday "(Mardi Gras). They can only be eaten fresh as they go stale vey quickly and are then only good for catching weasels. Every Christian culture weve got in our country has a version of this,(the beignet being one of the best an the german Fastnacht a little heavier, weaponized version)

Pancake Day. (Shrove Tuesday.)

Pancake Day, Pancake Day,
If you don't give us pancakes we'll all run away.

Sorry, been a few busy days, I am trying to squeeze in when I can on my lunch break now.

This link explains in much more detail than space here permits.
http://evolutiondismantled.com/accelerated-decay

Keep in mind this simple parallel when examining the evidence regarding the speed of radioactive decay:

As I have given an example of how evolutionists assume that flesh eating Has always been the normal because that is what we observe today, in the present.
Yet, because there is much evidence like vegetarian lions, vegetarian spiders, piranha, vultures, etc. etc.
It is reasonable to assume that it is possible that creatures we do not observe like mosquitoes for example were vegetarian as well in the distant past (which we cannot measure, just like radioactive decay in the past)

We know for a fact that many decay rates are not constant, and can be sped up....we may not have observed other types, but it is reasonable to assume they too can be altered.
Just like some animals we observe being vegetarian like lions, suggest that other lions we do not observe being vegetarian Can be altered!



The accuracy of half-lives is based on a number of tests, but no half-life is absolutely precise. Scientists did not wait around for 5,730 years to make sure that the carbon-14 half-life really is 5,730 years! The problems may escalate with larger half-lives, such as that of uranium-238 which has (supposedly) a half-life of 4.4 billion years.

Accelerated Radioactive Decay
We know for a fact that the decay rates of elements such as beryllium and rhenium are not constant. Also, the RATE team (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) has provided startling evidence for a much higher decay rate of elements such as uranium.

For a visible uranium radiohalo to form, uranium must emit 500 million alpha particles[4]. At present rates, this would take about 100 million years. By deduction, every visible radiohalo must be at least 100 million years old. But here we run into a problem.

Polonium has a very short existence. Polonium-210 has a half-life of about 138 days; polonium-214 has one of 164 microseconds, and polonium-218 one of three minutes. Now the formation of parentless polonium radiohalos requires a large amount of polonium, otherwise the polonium present would all decay away too quickly and there would be no radiohalo. This large amount of polonium is equal to 100 million years worth of uranium decay.

So, uranium had to decay for 100 million years in order to create the required amount of polonium needed to make a parentless polonium radiohalo. And here’s the problem: after 100 million years, the polonium already produced would have decayed away before a radiohalo could be made! This means that uranium decay must have been much, much faster in order to produce the required amount of polonium all ‘at once’ before it quickly decays away.

Polonium radiohalos show that uranium decay must have been up to a billion times faster than today! And because many other dating methods are calibrated with the uranium method, they too would be inaccurate.



As for your plane example, that can be a good one to use when explaining the speed which we observe it moving. The point is we cannot measure how fast it was going an hour before that because we were not there. The idea is to find out the starting point of the plane five hours prior to that time we observed it, but we would have to assume that it has been moving at a constant rate.....What you were implying is that the pilot put it on cruise control

Sorry if this post seems a bit choppy, got to get back to work

yep, and get paid a lot of money by agencies like the c.ia.

they do this indeed!