I didn't say we don't know how radioactive isotopes decay - so what's your point?

Read my post - I said there is no way to determine the amount of radioativity in the parent element. Whether it was created 6,000 or so years ago - or 4.5 billion - it is a pure educated quess as to what the decay ratin is without knowing how much radioactivity existed in the first place. And since the hslf life of these elements is measured in the billions of years - how can there even be any information on what was lost - since there would be no measurable change within the lifetime of any of the scientists who are calculating this data.

And all of the examples you have cited for radioactivity is done in closed - controlled environments, and is not analogous to the information used in radiometric dating. Really bad analogy. If you're trying to prove a point - at least start wih as point to prove.

Dawkin's logic and proofs against God come from his logical fallacies of appealling to emotion - which has nothing to do with reality (from a stand point of proof) and everything to do with subjectivity. Perception may denote reality at times - but it is not a viable representation of the "truth". So while I will admit, Dawkins is quite elloquent, an excellant writer and story-teller, he is not a logician.

I got my information from researching Isometric dating, from studying chemistry and biology in my youth, and from a degree in logic. While I cannot rattle the names of the scientists who's analysis of dating methods I "plowed" through - if you were to google Isometric dating and read the definitions, and descriptions of the methods, you will see for yourself how it is determined which dating method is used for what, and how the information is determined. A little knowledge of chemistry will be enough to determine that there are just too many "presumed" assumptions, and a priori's that cannot be substanciated (like the original quantity of radioactive substance in the parent element) in order to assert that these "dates" bantied around - like the earth being 4.5 billion years old - have no support of fact, merely presumption, mathematical formulars based on unsupported premises, and a world view that, rather than support the presumptions - contradict them.

So these are your authorities - a media whore and a movie director?

That's like saying "I believe Scientology is the truth because L. Ron Hubbard said so."

Hawkins is a devote egotist, and thinks he's correct about everything, and does not need his "statements of fact" verified. I don't consider him an authority on evolution. I've seen him in action in debates. He makes a fool of himself.

Ridley Scott is entertaining as a film director - but I would not rely on his opinion to support my world view. Unless this is a different Ridley Scott you're talking about.

But - hey, if that's what you want to use to support your arguement - I'll do some research on movie directors and see what they have to say about the subject.

I ask for an example of these "facts" - and you point out I'm wrong. For asking. Yup - whatever you say, I'm convinced.

And that's what you are - a guesser. All your "facts" - guesses.

Not a single example supporting all these evolutionary claims of "fact" - and you want to know where I got my information from?

As soon as I get my question's answered - I'll answer yours.

Yeah - we could "what if" this thread to oblivion. Hard to admit that it was Columbus though, and his intent was to spread Christianity. I hope you're not losing sleep over this.

Abra;
As with most - if not all of the threads here - the arguments fall short due to the wide interpretation of semantics. The poster says "religion", and you interpret that as Christianity. I see "Evolution" in that general term, and in doing so - I can agree with all you say. Most of the greatest inventions/discoveries pre-20th century were certainly effected by religion, as were just about all things. Without Christainity - who discovers America? Who can say. We just don't know - but what we do know - is that America was discovered by Columbus - who's purpose was to spread Christianity throughout the world. Penicillian was discovered by a devout Christian believer - but does that represent religion? Hardly.

The original post is impossible to "argue" based on any relevant data, as the term "religion" has a different meaning for everyone who posts here.

So - I'll leave it at that. There's just no way to determine if there's a right or wrong here.

In my research I've discovered these facts - although t is pretty obvious they are not well known.

Dating methods are acurate only within their assumed premises. A priori's to dating methods are: Uniformitarianism (Much like Judeo/Christianity is the a priori to Creationism), somethnig which science itself disproves, and the assumption that the amount of radioactive material in the parent element can be known. Scientists ADMITTEDLY claim that it cannot.

Okey - so much for the claim of accuracy of the dating methods. And since scientists themselves refute their own method of carbon-14 dating for these "ancient" fossils - due to the dates always (note - always) contradict their assumptions.

There are zero studies. Here, let me repeat that ZERO studies verifying that information is gained in a DNA genome. What is well documented and accepted as fact, is that every exeperiment attempting to show that information can be gained in DNA has demonstrated it has not. Were evolution true - with the advances of modern sciene - there should be thousands, if not millions of examples of iformation being added to DNA - else how does an Evolutionist get from an amoeba to man?

Poking holes in my pet belif - I'm dodging the canyons in yours. We haven't spent any time discussing my beliefs. We're focused right now on what I DON'T believe, and that is your claim of truth and facts. I don't see much in the way of facts, and your truth's are subjective - don't claim them as proven or otherwise, they exist for you as a matter of faith.

Quite easy. First off - your "self-replicating molecules" from your example were "discovered" - (as opposed to made) from materials believed to be on Earth before life. Hmmm... that's a stretch right there. Looks like a premise built on sand to me. Also - before this is accepted as "fact" - I wait for that time-travelor to return with verification.

Any high school math student would get that right.

A closer look at History would reveal that without religion, we wouldn't have modern medicine, schools, nor most of the sciece e have today.

Those who say what you've said above demonstrate a true ignorance themselves.

But this is the section for Atheists and non-believers. Because those are misnomers to begin with. Just terms to redefine believing in oneself as a religion.

So - come in here and say whatever you like.

I gave you one. Refute it if your unsatisfied - else just admit you're not prepared to continue the discussion, and conceed your defeat to being able to show Evolution is a fact.

And where is the documentation for this? Or should I just take your word for it?

Do you know anything about dating methods? Precision isn't even considered part of the equasion. In order to have precision - one needs verification. Impossible to do when dating fossils. If you aren't aware of that, you need to do a little more research.

How can utting anything in a sealed container demonstrate the way life began in the environment it exists in.

You call this "proof" - do you think we're all idiots?

You can do better than this - really, can't you? Or are you just willing to believe anyone or anything that supports your world view, despite the total unacceptability of the premises presented.

But this does not deny my right to believe in God - because I don't extend the criteria of needing "facts" to justify His existance, nor his claim of being the Creator (done so throuh inspiration). I'm not claiming that the existance of God is "fact". I'm more interested in your having facts that He does not exist. Or is that merely a belief on your part? I don't deny you your beliefs - those come from life expereince, study and observation, and your personal grasp of logic. But the matter we're discussing here is "fact".

Do either of us have "facts" to support our beliefs which do not stem from subjective observations and interpretation of our world view? I don't claim to have any. Do you?



Abiogenesis is the idea that life began from the primortial "ooze". That lifeless material somehow became life. This is an "a priori" of evolutionary theory. (a postulate - if you will, as there is no evidence of it, and it has not, and likely will not be recreated in a laboratory) Think of it as the "genesis 1" of evolutionary theory. Though there are a number of evolutionists who do not adhere to this premise, but actually state no claim about the origin of life - just that it didn't involve a "Creator" - known to most as "God".

Uniformitarianism is the theory that the same geological process that occured in the past - occurs today. Thus, by interpreting occurances in the present - the observations can be extrapolated into the past as having occured this way - and this can be accepted as fact.

And of course - empirical evidence is simply catogorising something by observing it, rather than drawing conclusions by establishing a theory on it. Isometric dating would be an example of non-empirical evidence, as it relies solely on a theoretical occurance based upon the uniformitarianistic observations of radioactive decay in elements observed in the present.

so - the point being, that if you are refering to evolutionary theory as the mere observation of daughter organisms mutating into something that is different from the parent organism, then we have a different understanding of what evolutionary theory is, and are not in disagreement. I don't deny that organisms "evolve" - as it were. Although, I am waiting for the evidence that this "evolving" involves the adding of information to DNA - to me - a prerequisite to support the Darwinian concept of the "tree of species evolution".
Simply put - the justification of the claim that man and Apes share the same ancestor. To date - there is no evidence of any information being added to any DNA in any genome that has been, or is being studied. This is the "brass ring" on the carousel of evolutionary biologists throughout the world - for whoever can demonstrate that this can occur in a laboratory, will have a Nobel Prize with their name on it, and will grace the cover of every magazine in the world - not to mention Time magazines "person of the millenium".



So then give me a definition of "fact" that I can live with, and then demonstrate how it supports evolution. And from this point on, there's no need to introduce the concept of God or creation. I've already given in to the opint that Creationism is not supported by "fact" as I've stated it. Judeo/Christianity is a faith based concept. A philosophical theory - not a scientific one.

However - I contest that Evolution is nothing more than a faith based philosophy as well, as there is nothing about it which can be demonstrated scientifically - so it isn't science, and it has at is base core - Uniformitarianism - which can be demonstrated as false through simple scientific demonstration. As with Christainisty and Creationism - belief in evolutin is based solely on faith in the subjective interpretation of one's world view, and how it relates to what is being observed.

A classic example of this are fossils. They exist - we both can agree on this as fact. But how they originated, and how old they are... immpossible to prove by either theory. It all depends on what one's world view is; what they are willing to believe.

Generally speaking - a fact is something that is known to be true.
The truth or actual existance of something, as opposed to the supposition of something, or a belief about something. Ideally - there should be empirical evidence to support a claim, but this may not necessarily be the case for something to still be a fact.



This statement of mine is purely subjective. I don't claim it as fact, and, as a fact - I have never claimed it as fact. It's just an opinion. While this claim may be true, I have no evidence to support it - other than the experience I have of the claims of "third parties". And any "evidence" of this nature is unacceptable as a premise toward claiming "fact".



A "fact" is something that should hold true for all people at all times, (for the sake of this discussion), and should not rely on a consensus of popular opinion. If there is a fact within DNA research and evolution that fits this criteria - I would then consider the validity of Evolutionary theory. Now - it should be noted here that the issue is of Abiogenesis, Uniformitarianism, and premises without empirical evidence to support it - not whether or not organisms mutate.



Well - here's a start. If you would like to amend or qualify my "definition" of fact then do so, but I agree - lets agree on the semantics first - then let's examine evolution as it holds up to "fact" or "faith-based". I look forward to it.

I have no problem with the spelling - it's my typing that's atrocious. Speaking of "facts" - found any yet? I asked you for - well, just one. You're having a hard time coming up with it though.
Who's got the problem with facts and knowledge - eh Einstein?



Lad?... okey docky junior. Please - enlighten me with some "facts".
Since your presuming that I'm unaware, could you condescend to share some of your vast knowledge with us less informed "lads". Oh please oh please, Sir - can you share your wisdom of the ages with us.

You are presuming that Darwinian theory is supported by DNA. Nothing could be further from the truth. In actuality - it is Darwinian theory which is keeping DNA science from advancing. It's rediculous how much money is wasted pursuing Darwinian theory with zero success in the results. Billions of dollars. Yet, everyone screams because there isn't enough being done to radicate the diseases running amok. And those screaming the loudest are the ones who support the massive waste of resources used to the research and chasing of fairytales.