RE: Evolution
April 29, 2012 at 8:33 pm
(This post was last modified: April 29, 2012 at 9:04 pm by Abishalom.)
(April 29, 2012 at 5:34 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:I'm sure they spend plenty of their life dedicated to undermining creationist claim, but I actually never questioned how much research they did. I said it was poorly constructed (ie full of circular reasoning and selective information). Obviously Talks Origin has a purpose (to "refute" every claim a creationist makes) regardless if there arguments are sound or not.(April 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm)Abishalom Wrote: What information have you given me (rhetorical question because I read your post)? You would not accept an article from a creationist website yet you expect me to accept a poorly constructed "rebuttal" from an evolution website.
Who the FUCK are you to tell me what I would and would not accept?
Here's a free fucking clue for you: If a source has adequate citations which are peer reviewed, I don't give a flying fuck what the source is.
The first page I quoted was a summary of some of the evidence (with citations). The second was an article (with citations). Poorly researched, my ass.
Quote:What does man hours have to do with a poorly constructed argument?Quote:I only post information from independent sites and not someone else's argument (that's not evidence) form an extremist website (one who takes a side in this discussion), so I expect the same form any atheists.
Are you even aware of the man-years of research that went into the talk.origins FAQ?
Quote:Well for one thing I never said isochron dating relied on knowing the parent/daughter isotopes. I said that you have to assume that since a rock had different minerals these minerals were all formed from the same event (pretty lofty assumption).Quote:Let's examine the actual evidence...
Yes, lets. While you're at it, you might investigate isochron dating (which does not depend on known parent/daughter isotopes). You might also provide some insight on means by which solid rocks can be contaminated in such a way that is a) not known and accounted for by science, and b) applicable to the dating method being used. The second article I linked has adequate citations to investigate your assertions. Can you find a problem with the particular evidence that the conclusion came from, or are you just going to throw around generalized assertions?
To your contamination remark...a) scientist know but either overlook it or ignore it (you decide) b) we're talking about the age of the earth so it's applicable to all methods used for this process.
I have no problem with actual evidence, but evidence are they using to "refute" said claims. Here's an example of a "rebuttal" from talks origin...
"2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated
Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases."
If that's their idea of a rebuttal, then that's laughable at best.