About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[YoursTrue]

No, you are confused again. Your arguments are all over the place. Cave drawings have nothing to do with fossils.

I'm glad you mentioned that because I'm beginning to seriously wonder about your reasoning integrity. Thank you, you have caused me to seriously question the ability of those like you who are insistent that cave drawings could be 10,000 years old. Based on what? Do you know? Please don't circumvent or subvert the subject, thanks. We're talking about dating principles, including those contingent on cave drawings. We've already discussed the concept of dating fossils and the lava eruptions and bones found in soil, strata, etc. What part didn't you understand?
How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt] - Scientific American

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you are confused again. Your arguments are all over the place. Cave drawings have nothing to do with fossils.

They have to do with dating and drawing "scientific" conclusions about dates. How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt] - Scientific American
Sorry if you don't see how the article in Scientific American applies to the subject. Take care, have a nice day, still dark, although it's morning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm glad you mentioned that because I'm beginning to seriously wonder about your reasoning integrity. Thank you, you have caused me to seriously question the ability of those like you who are insistent that cave drawings could be 10,000 years old. Based on what? Do you know? Please don't circumvent or subvert the subject, thanks. We're talking about dating principles, including those contingent on cave drawings. We've already discussed the concept of dating fossils and the lava eruptions and bones found in soil, strata, etc. What part didn't you understand?
How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt] - Scientific American

Stop using stupid arguments please.

If you ask honest questions I will answer them. But harping on something that you do not understand will not help you. It is also highly dishonest. If you needed more details on why the carbon14 dating was probably the right one you should have admitted to not understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They have to do with dating and drawing "scientific" conclusions about dates. How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt] - Scientific American
Sorry if you don't see how the article in Scientific American applies to the subject. Take care, have a nice day, still dark, although it's morning.

No please. It does not. I am only asking for a little honesty on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@YoursTrue , do fake Messiahs refute the Jesus story?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, since evolution is not in crisis why even bring this up? And no, he cannot honestly discuss the topic. He is a biochemist. He is not a paleontologist. And that book was written almost forty years ago. It was wrong then and it is incredibly wrong now.

Worse yet for you he accepts the fact of evolution. He knows that you and I are apes. So how does his "God had to help evolution" help you?

I know that he "accepts" the theory of evolution. You might as well say you're an amoeba, and/or related to one in the distant relative past. You just say the book was wrong. Offer no substantiation.

 

[YoursTrue]

No please. It does not. I am only asking for a little honesty on your part.

I'll just say it again -- paleontologists have been fooled and misled by fraudsters . I didn't make it up.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone Honest -- you offer nothing other than opinion based on what some believe is "evidence" of "natural selection." The more I read, the more I see it just isn't true. Micro and macro evolution are not the same. But you probably say they are.
Now you have helped me to see the situation for what it is. (Untrue. You don't like the word conjecture...<g> do you...) But I thank you for the extended discussion, showing me that the theory is really unsubstantiated except by opinions. Leaving out the word conjecture as to dates, cave drawings, soil dating, etec. and etc. You've offered no rational explanation just continued opinion and putting me down, and others who don't go along with your theory down, and by explanation I mean explanatory answers with substance. I believed everything they taught me when I was in school about "evolution." Now I realize it's opinion about what scientists consider as "evidence." The sun is shining -- it's the same day even from the night darkness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know that he "accepts" the theory of evolution. You might as well say you're an amoeba, and/or related to one in the distant relative past. You just say the book was wrong. Offer no substantiation.

No, you brought up the book. You need to quote the parts of it that you apply. The fact is that it was written in 1985. The fact is that the theory was not in trouble then and it is not in trouble now.

Try to reason critically for just once in this thread. If it was in "crisis" in 1985 why were there no news reports about how the one theory in the sciences with more evidential support than any other was somehow facing a crisis? You should ask yourself how it obviously recovered from that crisis and no one ever seemed to notice since the theory of evolution is stronger today than it ever has been.

There are all sorts of people that let their religious beliefs go to their head and it has made them say things that are undoubtedly stupid.

I am waiting for specific claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll just say it again -- paleontologists have been fooled and misled by fraudsters . I didn't make it up.

No, that article did not say that. You did not even read it. You do not know your mistake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone Honest -- you offer nothing other than opinion based on what some believe is "evidence" of "natural selection." The more I read, the more I see it just isn't true. Micro and macro evolution are not the same. But you probably say they are.
Now you have helped me to see the situation for what it is. (Untrue. You don't like the word conjecture...<g> do you...) But I thank you for the extended discussion, showing me that the theory is really unsubstantiated except by opinions. Leaving out the word conjecture as to dates, cave drawings, soil dating, etec. and etc. You've offered no rational explanation just continued opinion and putting me down, and others who don't go along with your theory down, and by explanation I mean explanatory answers with substance. I believed everything they taught me when I was in school about "evolution." Now I realize it's opinion about what scientists consider as "evidence." The sun is shining -- it's the same day even from the night darkness.

Please, you need to watch the falsehoods. I have quoted sources on what evidence is and why. You never learned the lesson. I can quote sources again. But you would need to apologize for all of the false claims before I would honor such a request.

And you do not even know what Micro and Macro evolution are. I do. They are the same. The only difference is that micro evolution is at below the species level. Macro is at the species level and above. And since we have observed speciation then by definition we have observed macroevolution.

Now I just defined macroevolution for you. Can you refute that definition? I know that you cannot. But you do not know how I know that. Go ahead, show that definition to be incorrect.

And you do not seem to realize that when you charge someone else with "conjecture" you have just made an very strong accusation.

Your claim your burden of proof. Prove that the dates arrived by various means are "conjecture".

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, you need to watch the falsehoods. I have quoted sources on what evidence is and why. You never learned the lesson. I can quote sources again. But you would need to apologize for all of the false claims before I would honor such a request.

And you do not even know what Micro and Macro evolution are. I do. They are the same. The only difference is that micro evolution is at below the species level. Macro is at the species level and above. And since we have observed speciation then by definition we have observed macroevolution.

Now I just defined macroevolution for you. Can you refute that definition? I know that you cannot. But you do not know how I know that. Go ahead, show that definition to be incorrect.

And you do not seem to realize that when you charge someone else with "conjecture" you have just made an very strong accusation.

Your claim your burden of proof. Prove that the dates arrived by various means are "conjecture".

I don't have to, you have to back up your claims. Tell me more about Stephen Hawking's proposal, change of opinion, etc. about the origin of the universe.
I like the quote of Stephen Hawking who said that the universe virtually created itself from nothing. He changed his idea from thinking something was there -- but apparently then said something about the law of gravity, as if that must have kicked in and it must have been around before the universe, he said, "created itself." Yup.
Again -- you and these discussions particularly with you have proven (no not proven...), shown, demonstrated and convinced me that the ideas (not suppositions or conjecture, of course...lol) that it's all -- based not on reality. Whatever you want or don't want to call it. Sooo, again -- thank you for your continued insistence on embracing the theory as if it's true, I thank you so much for your continued conviction. Now please don't expect me to keep arguing about the irrationality of the idea of the universe coming from gravity and nothing by -- whatever, however. Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have to, you have to back up your claims. Tell me more about Stephen Hawking's proposal, change of opinion, etc. about the origin of the universe.
I like the quote of Stephen Hawking who said that the universe virtually created itself from nothing. He changed his idea from thinking something was there -- but apparently then said something about the law of gravity, as if that must have kicked in and it must have been around before the universe, he said, "created itself." Yup.
Again -- you and these discussions particularly with you have proven (no not proven...), shown, demonstrated and convinced me that the ideas (not suppositions or conjecture, of course...lol) that it's all -- based not on reality. Whatever you want or don't want to call it. Sooo, again -- thank you for your continued insistence on embracing the theory as if it's true, I thank you so much for your continued conviction. Now please don't expect me to keep arguing about the irrationality of the idea of the universe coming from gravity and nothing by -- whatever, however. Take care.

No, you need to keep focused. Stephen Hawking was discussing the beginning of the universe. That has nothing to do with evolution.

Try to focus, I know, your beliefs are crumbling so you have to flail around. Try to keep on topic. When you go off topic I have no need to support the facts that you cannot understand.

And yes, when you make accusations about others you need to support those accusations.

I think that I brought this up before, is it okay for me to accuse you of being a child molester without support? I would say no, but you seem to think that it is just fine if I do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, you need to watch the falsehoods. I have quoted sources on what evidence is and why. You never learned the lesson. I can quote sources again. But you would need to apologize for all of the false claims before I would honor such a request.

And you do not even know what Micro and Macro evolution are. I do. They are the same. The only difference is that micro evolution is at below the species level. Macro is at the species level and above. And since we have observed speciation then by definition we have observed macroevolution.

Now I just defined macroevolution for you. Can you refute that definition? I know that you cannot. But you do not know how I know that. Go ahead, show that definition to be incorrect.

And you do not seem to realize that when you charge someone else with "conjecture" you have just made an very strong accusation.

Your claim your burden of proof. Prove that the dates arrived by various means are "conjecture".

Proof? Are you saying there is proof of your viewpoints?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you need to keep focused. Stephen Hawking was discussing the beginning of the universe. That has nothing to do with evolution.

Try to focus, I know, your beliefs are crumbling so you have to flail around. Try to keep on topic. When you go off topic I have no need to support the facts that you cannot understand.

And yes, when you make accusations about others you need to support those accusations.

I think that I brought this up before, is it okay for me to accuse you of being a child molester without support? I would say no, but you seem to think that it is just fine if I do that.

You keep evading or purposely missing the point. The point is that scientists surmise, guess, promote thoughts as to what they think but -- can't PROVE it. I have outlined in conversation why fossils cannot be truly accurately dated, yet you either haven't read it, or dismiss it. You admitted slightly that dating of cave art can be off. Now it's up to you to prove/show/demonstrate the truthfulness of what you're saying. hmmm might look at the following:
How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt] - Scientific American
But there's more and I have gone into it with some honest hearted people on these boards, thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you need to keep focused. Stephen Hawking was discussing the beginning of the universe. That has nothing to do with evolution.

It has to do with the concept of accuracy of some scientific opinions. How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt] - Scientific America

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof? Are you saying there is proof of your viewpoints?

The word that you need to use is "evidence'. And yes, there is evidence for my viewpoints. You have a belief that does not appear to be supported by any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has to do with the concept of accuracy of some scientific opinions. How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt] - Scientific America

Sorry, but you lose when you try to use articles that you did not understand.

As a Christian you should not do that. Don't you claim to be a Christian? Why so much non-Christian behavior?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep evading or purposely missing the point. The point is that scientists surmise, guess, promote thoughts as to what they think but -- can't PROVE it. I have outlined in conversation why fossils cannot be truly accurately dated, yet you either haven't read it, or dismiss it. You admitted slightly that dating of cave art can be off. Now it's up to you to prove/show/demonstrate the truthfulness of what you're saying. hmmm might look at the following:
How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt] - Scientific American
But there's more and I have gone into it with some honest hearted people on these boards, thanks.

You have no point. Once again, it is not honest to try to use articles that you do not understand.

If you read it, which is highly dubious, it is clear that you did not understand it. That article does not help you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, you need to watch the falsehoods. I have quoted sources on what evidence is and why. You never learned the lesson. I can quote sources again. But you would need to apologize for all of the false claims before I would honor such a request.

And you do not even know what Micro and Macro evolution are. I do. They are the same. The only difference is that micro evolution is at below the species level. Macro is at the species level and above. And since we have observed speciation then by definition we have observed macroevolution.

Now I just defined macroevolution for you. Can you refute that definition? I know that you cannot. But you do not know how I know that. Go ahead, show that definition to be incorrect.

And you do not seem to realize that when you charge someone else with "conjecture" you have just made an very strong accusation.

Your claim your burden of proof. Prove that the dates arrived by various means are "conjecture".

Sorry, but there is no proof in science, you and others have said that, and that includes veracity of dating of fossils. Since you just used the word proof to me vs. conjecture, can you show, prove, or demonstrate your beliefs? My guess is -- no, you cannot. And of course, once put in that position, you will just retort more or less that I don't know what I'm talking about and you do. So once again, may you have a good night as time moves on. As the saying goes, and I believe it's true -- tomorrow is another day. Even though the day starts with darkness. Maybe you believe that or maybe you don't. Anyway, I wish you well. OK, you may not use the same words I do, but the implication is clear.