toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[Silent Hunter]

The assumption you really disagree with here is that isotopes decay at a known constant rate and can only assert that the decay rate was significantly different in the past.

That is only ONE of the assumptions.

Since the other "assumptions" are simply extrapolations based on the first there is really only one.

This is something you must show to be true.

No, I don't. The method is based on that assumption and that assumption CANNOT be VERIFIED.

They're called assumptions for a reason.

I don't need to prove that they might have changed at some times in the past. You (if you're trying to support radiometric dating) have to prove that is has been constant for the entire lifetime of the sample. And THAT you cannot do.

If you have evidence to show that there is reason to assume isotope decay rates (half-lives) have changed (this is YOUR assumption by-the-way) then this remains YOUR burden to prove.

We're still waiting on your evidence that "DESTROYS" radiometric dating. If this is the best you have then we are justified in continuing to NOT take you seriously.

 

[Right Divider]

So, after all of your claims you're just reduced to the same old stuff about it being mere "assumptions", even when the article goes into detail, and not just in regards to radiometric dating either?

You've debunked absolutely nothing.

"All my claims" are that the method of radiometric dating is BASED ON UNVERIFIABLE ASSUMPTIONS.

And I was SPECIFICALLY discussing RADIOMETRIC DATING. Until you can understand the SIMPLE FACT that radiometric dating is NOT a scientific method there is no use moving forward to anything else.

 

[Arthur Brain]

"All my claims" are that the method of radiometric dating is BASED ON UNVERIFIABLE ASSUMPTIONS.

And I was SPECIFICALLY discussing RADIOMETRIC DATING. Until you can understand the SIMPLE FACT that radiometric dating is NOT a scientific method there is no use moving forward to anything else.

You are in no position to criticize scientific methodology, talk about "FACT" and you obviously don't have anything that can rebut it apart from bluster, which doesn't count. So, not much point in continuing on this particular "merry go round".

 

[7djengo7]

I used the word "individual" to make myself clear,

Which means that you think that it would have been ambiguous for you to have simply said, "animals", rather than "individual animals". Why do you think saying "animals" would have been ambiguous, rather than clear?

and the term "animals" does not indicate an individual.

Being a plural noun, it indicates individual animals.

1 animal is not a population.

What makes you say something as ridiculously idiotic as that? What would you say is the goldfish population of a fishbowl, in which one, and only one, goldfish lives?

 

[Right Divider]

You are in no position to criticize scientific methodology, talk about "FACT" and you obviously don't have anything that can rebut it apart from bluster, which doesn't count. So, not much point in continuing on this particular "merry go round".

Never ONCE have you actually addressed the FACTS.

You constantly run and hide behind:

• How many "scientists" believe in it (fallacy, appeal to popularity).
• That some really smart people believe in it. (fallacy, appeal to authority).
• That there are tons of other evidence (mostly just like the radiometric dating, based on assumptions).
• The list goes on and on

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which means that you think that it would have been ambiguous for you to have simply said, "animals", rather than "individual animals". Why do you think saying "animals" would have been ambiguous, rather than clear?



Being a plural noun, it indicates individual animals.



What makes you say something as ridiculously idiotic as that? What would you say is the goldfish population of a fishbowl, in which one, and only one, goldfish lives?

Um, when people use the term "animals", it can often refer to multiple species. Where it comes to your latter, it's an individual goldfish in a bowl. It doesn't represent the entire population of goldfish.

lain:

Why not just quit with the self impressed word semantics? By now you should really just be cutting your losses on this thread as it is.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Never ONCE have you actually addressed the FACTS.

You constantly run and hide behind:

• How many "scientists" believe in it (fallacy, appeal to popularity).
• That some really smart people believe in it. (fallacy, appeal to authority).
• That there are tons of other evidence (mostly just like the radiometric dating, based on assumptions).
• The list goes on and on

You haven't brought any "facts".

You've attempted to criticize a method through (ironically) your own assumptions and declare it debunked as if your own personal opinion on it means something. It doesn't.

You've brought nothing of any actual substance to the table at all.

 

[Right Divider]

You haven't brought any "facts".

You've attempted to criticize a method through (ironically) your own assumptions and declare it debunked as if your own personal opinion on it means something. It doesn't.

You've brought nothing of any actual substance to the table at all.

AGAIN, for the hard of hearing, I've not made a SINGLE ASSUMPTION.

I've simply pointed out the ASSUMPTIONS that are the BASIS of radiometric dating.

That you avoid or don't understand them and then vent on me is typical of your problem.

 

[Arthur Brain]

AGAIN, for the hard of hearing, I've not make a SINGLE ASSUMPTION.

I've simply pointed out the ASSUMPTIONS that are the BASIS of radiometric dating.

That you avoid or don't understand them and then vent on me is typical of your problem.

I haven't avoided anything. I've repeatedly provided links that go into detail about the process and all you've done as supposed "debunking" is to shout "ASSUMPTION" as if that in itself means anything.

Venting? I'm not the one getting bent out of shape on this. If you had nothing but your opinion as to how scientific methodology has been "destroyed" then you didn't have anything of substance to start with. That's on you.

 

[7djengo7]

Um, when people use the term "animals", it can often refer to multiple species. Where it comes to your latter, it's an individual goldfish in a bowl. It doesn't represent the entire population of goldfish.

lain:

Why not just quit with the self impressed word semantics? By now you should really just be cutting your losses on this thread as it is.

LOL

So far, you've stonewalled against this question:

Q. What would you say is the goldfish population of a fishbowl, in which one, and only one, goldfish lives? A. The goldfish population of a fishbowl in which one, and only one, goldfish lives, is _________.

Fill in the blank with whatever number you would say is the correct goldfish population number to answer my question.

 

[Right Divider]

I haven't avoided anything. I've repeatedly provided links that go into detail about the process and all you've done as supposed "debunking" is to shout "ASSUMPTION" as if that in itself means anything.

Venting? I'm not the one getting bent out of shape on this. If you had nothing but your opinion as to how scientific methodology has been "destroyed" then you didn't have anything of substance to start with. That's on you.

So you still don't understand the ASSUMPTIONS that are the BASIS of radiometric dating?

OK fine.

 

[7djengo7]

Clearly a population is made up of individuals.

So, of how many individuals is a population clearly made up? What's the minimum number?

However, single individual does not evolve.

By saying that an individual "does not evolve", what (if anything) exactly, are you trying to say that individual does not do? Are you saying that an individual does not change? Are you saying that an individual does not descend with modification? By your verb, "evolve", exactly what action (if any) are you saying an individual does not do?

Do two individuals evolve? Three? Since you say an individual does not evolve, then exactly how many individuals would you say evolve? What, say you, is the minimum number of individuals that evolve?

The population, over a period of generations, can evolve, depending on how well the individuals survive and reproduce.

Here, you say that individuals survive, and that individuals reproduce.
Would you also say that a species survives?
Would you also say that a species reproduces?

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL

So far, you've stonewalled against this question:

Q. What would you say is the goldfish population of a fishbowl, in which one, and only one, goldfish lives? A. The goldfish population of a fishbowl in which one, and only one, goldfish lives, is _________.

Fill in the blank with whatever number you would say is the correct goldfish population number to answer my question.

Seriously, you haven't learned to stop saying "LOL" yet?

I have one cat that lives in a street full of cats. He's an outdoor cat so when he's in the house the house is populated by one cat. When he's out of the house and in the neighbourhood he's in an area that is populated by multiple cats.

Did you think you actually had a point to make with this solo goldfish/bowl analogy?

 

[Arthur Brain]

So you still don't understand the ASSUMPTIONS that are the BASIS of radiometric dating?

OK fine.

I understand that you have a big hang up with it along with any other scientific method that doesn't fit in with your beliefs which is what topics like this generally revolve about to some extent.

 

[7djengo7]

Seriously, you haven't learned to stop saying "LOL" yet?

LOL

Only very recently I've learned to start saying "LOL".

I have one cat that lives in a street full of cats. He's an outdoor cat so when he's in the house the house is populated by one cat.

1 animal is not a population.

 

[Right Divider]

I understand that you have a big hang up with it along with any other scientific method that doesn't fit in with your beliefs which is what topics like this generally revolve about to some extent.

I'm going to have to go ahead and let you remain in your ignorance since you refuse to discuss the facts.

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL

Only very recently I've learned to start saying "LOL".

That really isn't good dude...it's a habit you really wanna get rid of real quick.

And Chair is right. A single cat living in a house is not representative of a population.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm going to have to go ahead and let you remain in your ignorance since you refuse to discuss the facts.

The facts of such scientific methodology are there for all to see via the links, all you brought to the table were invalid claims of being able to debunk such and emotive bias.

 

[7djengo7]

That really isn't good dude...it's a habit you really wanna get rid of real quick.

And Chair is right. A single cat living in a house is not representative of a population.

LOL

the house is populated by one cat.

Q. What is the cat population of a house populated by one cat? A. The cat population of a house populated by one cat is ________.

Fill in the blank with whatever number you would say is the correct cat population number to answer my question.

 

[Ktoyou]

So, of how many individuals is a population clearly made up? What's the minimum number?



By saying that an individual "does not evolve", what (if anything) exactly, are you trying to say that individual does not do? Are you saying that an individual does not change? Are you saying that an individual does not descend with modification? By your verb, "evolve", exactly what action (if any) are you saying an individual does not do?

Do two individuals evolve? Three? Since you say an individual does not evolve, then exactly how many individuals would you say evolve? What, say you, is the minimum number of individuals that evolve?



Here, you say that individuals survive, and that individuals reproduce.
Would you also say that a species survives?
Would you also say that a species reproduces?

I wonder what you are looking for? Individuals to not directly produce as cells do. They reproduce meaning it is a plural process and to evolve in any sense of the word it would take a population over time, the lager the population and longer the time, the greater the variation.