Proof that evolution is the only answer

a reply to: Barcs

I'm not a creationist and I love this bull#e about how I'm gone, when I don't come on the site for a few hours.

Yeah, I'm NOT a creationist, nor do I get anything I've stated from anywhere other than my own brain. I know that's difficult for you to understand, since you are only capable of being spoon fed, but it IS the case...lol

It's so funny, you guys are so enamored by the paradigms that exist under the auspices of science while rarely being actual REAL, TRUE science any more.

I care about what we can ACTUALLY KNOW from empirical study, not the contrived bull# that has been coming out of the establishment recently.

I like scientists like Nicola Tesla who strive to discover learn in spite of the paradigm, not stay in vehement adherence to it even in the face of logically valid counter arguments.

You're absolutely right, only premises can be shown to be incorrect. Not once did you challenge any of the premises in my argument, nor did you challenge the logical validity of the argument. No, instead, you resorted to ad hominem attacks and stated "no, I'm right and you're wrong because science".

The sad thing is that you don't even understand how ridiculous that makes you look.

Jaden

a reply to: Phantom423

You don't even understand that there is a basic problem with the premise that a conclusion can be drawn from the paper for long term time analysis.

I already stated my problem with it. On the face, it is very compelling, but it the conclusions drawn are making a huge assumption by assuming that estimated starting values are accurate, that decay rates have remained the same etc...

You just don't seem to get it. When talking about time frames that go beyond our ability to directly observe we cannot know that the variables that we are inserting based on currently empirically measured constructs have been constants.

Hell, the establishment in some areas of physics is starting to disbelieve that the speed of light is even a constant, yet, you are relying on something that is unknowable and immeasurable as a constant...lol

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

You don't even understand that there is a basic problem with the premise that a conclusion can be drawn from the paper for long term time analysis.

Jaden

You going to address the specific methodological flaws of the paper, or are you going to keep pretending you read it whilst avoiding questions like the plague?

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

You don't even understand that there is a basic problem with the premise that a conclusion can be drawn from the paper for long term time analysis.

I already stated my problem with it. On the face, it is very compelling, but it the conclusions drawn are making a huge assumption by assuming that estimated starting values are accurate, that decay rates have remained the same etc...

You just don't seem to get it. When talking about time frames that go beyond our ability to directly observe we cannot know that the variables that we are inserting based on currently empirically measured constructs have been constants.

Hell, the establishment in some areas of physics is starting to disbelieve that the speed of light is even a constant, yet, you are relying on something that is unknowable and immeasurable as a constant...lol

Jaden

I think I and others get it very well. Decay rates? What exactly do you know about decay rates and how they're determined. Can you provide an example of a decay rate that's inconsistent with the historical evidence derived from atomic nuclei? Do you know how decay rates are determined for the distant past? Do you know how a baseline is established? Do you know which isotopes are radiogenic and which ones are not? When and if you get a barium scan, do you tell the radiologist that the decay rate is wrong so the test is meaningless?

Here's the bottomline - you shoot off a lot of blabber with no backup. Now you're on the speed of light (OMG!).

Here's the deal - if you can't challenge the results of the paper in a coherent, organized way - which would include challenging the methodology and calculations - then you obviously know nothing about this subject.

Baloney is as baloney does.

a reply to: Phantom423

This back and forth banter where we're actually arguing about two different things does no one any good.

You're asking me to challenge a paper based the premises that they put forward. I'm not challenging their premises, I'm challenging the logic itself as invalid for coming to the conclusions that they are coming to, based on the unknowability of the variables in question.

Those cannot be known empirically because they cannot be measured during the time frames that they are inserting them into and instead can only be measured during our current time frame.

I have already put forward a valid logical argument that is evidence based that it is plausible that what we consider time in physics(not time as measured in earth rotation periods or revolution periods) is not constant and is increasing as our location in the universe changes.

If this is the case, then past measurements of decay rates and or erosion rates, and or any rate that relies on fixed interval time is INVALID and CANNOT be known.

Therefore any conclusion about something that happened in a time frame during which we could empirically measure said rate cannot be known and therefore requires assumption and belief and is no longer empirical science.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

This back and forth banter where we're actually arguing about two different things does no one any good.

You're asking me to challenge a paper based on the premises that they put forward. I'm not challenging their premises, I'm challenging the logic itself as invalid for coming to the conclusions that they are coming to, based on the unknowability of the variables in question.

Those cannot be known empirically because they cannot be measured during the time frames that they are inserting them into and instead can only be measured during our current time frame.

I have already put forward a valid logical argument that is evidence based that it is plausible that what we consider time in physics(not time as measured in earth rotation periods or revolution periods) is not constant and is increasing as our location in the universe changes.

If this is the case, then past measurements of decay rates and or erosion rates, and or any rate that relies on fixed interval time is INVALID and CANNOT be known.

Therefore any conclusion about something that happened in a time frame during which we couldn't empirically measure said rate cannot be known and therefore requires assumption and belief and is no longer empirical science.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

So what you're really saying is that it takes 6 paragraphs and a double post for you to say nothing and then demonstrate that you still don't understand what empirical evidence is in context of the scientific method. One does not have to millions or billions of years of first person witness in order to be empirical. When tests are done and those results are independantly repeated and corroborated, this too is empirical data. In the case of radiometric dating, this independant corroboration has been done on an international scale for 75+ years in some instances such as 14c dating which was first demonstrated in the late 40's. You may claim not to be a creationist but every single claim you make is parroted, sometimes verbatim, from sites like ICR and AIG. No matter how many times you repeat your woo regarding logic, there is none here. You harp on it to avoid the heavy lifting involved in attempting to demonstrate the errors in the papers presented to you. It's an intellectually dishonest tactic at best. Discuss the science involved, not your limitations in ability to address it. Can you? After 2 dozen pages I've yet to see anyone do so.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Masterjaden

Discuss the science involved, not your limitations in ability to address it. Can you? After 2 dozen pages I've yet to see anyone do so.

Ill give it a go!

Umm aaaah eeeeer umm.

Ok i got nothing, but then again i do agree with the science involved.

Coomba98

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Masterjaden

So what you're really saying is that it takes 6 paragraphs and a double post for you to say nothing and then demonstrate that you still don't understand what empirical evidence is in context of the scientific method. One does not have to millions or billions of years of first person witness in order to be empirical. When tests are done and those results are independantly repeated and corroborated, this too is empirical data. In the case of radiometric dating, this independant corroboration has been done on an international scale for 75+ years in some instances such as 14c dating which was first demonstrated in the late 40's.

With carbon-dating you can estimate to a certain degree the starting C-14 in the sample organism because we could make an assumption on past atmospheric C-14 levels based on what we observed today, although this still involves assumption. But with Uranium-lead dating I see no clear empirical evidence that could determine initial lead concentration of the sample.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Masterjaden

So what you're really saying is that it takes 6 paragraphs and a double post for you to say nothing and then demonstrate that you still don't understand what empirical evidence is in context of the scientific method. One does not have to millions or billions of years of first person witness in order to be empirical. When tests are done and those results are independantly repeated and corroborated, this too is empirical data. In the case of radiometric dating, this independant corroboration has been done on an international scale for 75+ years in some instances such as 14c dating which was first demonstrated in the late 40's.

With carbon-dating you can estimate to a certain degree the starting C-14 in the sample organism because we could make an assumption on past atmospheric C-14 levels based on what we observed today, although this still involves assumption. But with Uranium-lead dating I see no clear empirical evidence that could determine initial lead concentration of the sample.

Coop, I gave you the entire explanation - in detail - in a previous post. Didn't you read it???????????????????

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

This back and forth banter where we're actually arguing about two different things does no one any good.

You're asking me to challenge a paper based on the premises that they put forward. I'm not challenging their premises, I'm challenging the logic itself as invalid for coming to the conclusions that they are coming to, based on the unknowability of the variables in question.

Those cannot be known empirically because they cannot be measured during the time frames that they are inserting them into and instead can only be measured during our current time frame.

I have already put forward a valid logical argument that is evidence based that it is plausible that what we consider time in physics(not time as measured in earth rotation periods or revolution periods) is not constant and is increasing as our location in the universe changes.

If this is the case, then past measurements of decay rates and or erosion rates, and or any rate that relies on fixed interval time is INVALID and CANNOT be known.

Therefore any conclusion about something that happened in a time frame during which we couldn't empirically measure said rate cannot be known and therefore requires assumption and belief and is no longer empirical science.

Jaden

If this is the case, then past measurements of decay rates and or erosion rates, and or any rate that relies on fixed interval time is INVALID and CANNOT be known.

Prove that mathematically.

a reply to: peter vlar

No what I'm saying is that you have NO ability to actual rationalize and think for yourself and you prove it time and time again...

I'm sorry that what I'm describing is over your head. So, again, I'll ask and I expect nothing more than personal attacks as par for the course..., WHAT can YOU conclude from the atomic clock experiments????

If you can answer that question I can then tell you whether or not you will ever be able to understand what I'm saying here.

If you won't even TRY to answer that question, then it is easy for everyone to simply conclude that you are nothing more than a paradigmical shill and are incapable of thinking for yourself.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, this is getting tired. I'm not the one who doesn't understand empirical evidence. Actually, rather, it's not that you don't understand empirical evidence. It just is apparent that you don't understand what empirical evidence can actually show.

Hence, why I asked what you thought could be logically concluded from the atomic clock experiments. I'm trying to figure out where your lack of logical reasoning in this regard is coming from.

Jaden

What atomic clock experiments are you referring to? Post a few citations.

Your logic is flawed. I suggest you start with facts to correct this anomaly.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, this is getting tired. I'm not the one who doesn't understand empirical evidence. Actually, rather, it's not that you don't understand empirical evidence. It just is apparent that you don't understand what empirical evidence can actually show.

Hence, why I asked what you thought could be logically concluded from the atomic clock experiments. I'm trying to figure out where your lack of logical reasoning in this regard is coming from.

Jaden

What atomic clock experiments are you referring to? Post a few citations.

Your logic is flawed. I suggest you start with facts to correct this anomaly.

a reply to: Masterjaden

So you literally have no argument then? Funny, my counterpoints always get ignored, and every time you focus more on me than the argument. I already explained the flaws. You have yet to make a valid argument against evolution. Your arguments are not valid, sorry. At least you admit that your arguments just come straight from your head. I knew you did no research whatsoever, but now at least it makes sense why you deny everything. It's all in your head.

I'm sorry that what I'm describing is over your head. So, again, I'll ask and I expect nothing more than personal attacks as par for the course..., WHAT can YOU conclude from the atomic clock experiments????

LOL!!! Peter explained it very throroughly for you, and you can't come up with a single valid response. Everything you post is pure horse crap, freshly harvested from the pastures of ID propaganda, and you can't even explain your position, you just rant about the person rather than addressing the argument. Time to grow up.

a reply to: Barcs

Appreciate you trying, but since there is no scientific research about this particular species then I'm afraid your assertion is baseless. You can't just pick a trait and decide natural selection just because it appears to support fitness. You also have to consider other adaptive mechanisms. Without a phylogenetic, morphological, behavioral, or migratory history of this organism you are left with just guesses, which isn't a very scientifically sound approach most of the time. But hey, folks can get lucky.

a reply to: peter vlar

Very cool stuff about the highlanders' ability to reside at such lofty elevations around the world. Even more interesting is the way they evolved convergently to withstand such extreme conditions. I've been doing some research into the various mutations that gave way to these special traits. There is something intriguing about the timing of these mutations that will require a bit more research to flush out. Might be the topic of a forthcoming thread...

I wouldn't say evolution is the only answer, but it is arguably the most logical answer. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must include the solution. And I think most of us can agree on what is impossible. Like talking snakes, for instance.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Coop, I gave you the entire explanation - in detail - in a previous post. Didn't you read it???????????????????

None of it addressed my concern - how are initial Lead-Uranium concentrations determined? I am not concerned with instruments and contemporary decay rates.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Coop, I gave you the entire explanation - in detail - in a previous post. Didn't you read it???????????????????

None of it addressed my concern - how are initial Lead-Uranium concentrations determined? I am not concerned with instruments and contemporary decay rates.

Then explain your concerns. What's the problem with the instrumentation? What's the problem with the calculations? To say you're "concerned" doesn't say much. Please explain.