What convinced you of Evolution?

quote:

---

Let me illustrate with a short story.

---

Your example is a comparison to non-isochron dating. The vast majority of dating done today is isochron dating. You need a new analogy.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Thanks, Jon Your nitpicks are always welcome.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Anyway, back on topic. I became convinced of evolution from a dream, after a long night of practicing witchcraft (which I began after seing Harry Potter and playing Dungeons and Dragons). In it, an old man with a tongue forked like a told me that there was no God, and that humans evolved from slime. After waking up and realizing it was just a dream, I suddenly found that by not believing in God, that I had so much more power. I immediately felt the need to go and convert people to this new belief, which is why I am here today!.... is that what you wanted to hear? ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Care to demonstrate a possible method that would cause modern radioisotope dating methods not only to be off, but to all be off by the expected amount, regardless of what isotopes are considered, what minerals are being looked at, what particular method is used, etc?The scientific method requires that we accept the most realistic, "best fit" hypothesis. If you cannot postulate such a hypothesis, then your view stands on very shoddy ground.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Tom has a lot more to go on than just that. For example, he will *never* find a fossil in a layer that does not share the same "period fossils" as the current layer that he found it in (i.e., you don't find trilobytes in the same layer as modern invertibrates). Bob not only ignores the dating data, but he does something worse: while he may claim that there is something wrong with each of the dating methods used, he cannot explain why they all come up with the same result. Tom can often point out that the sediment that it was found in could never have been deposited by a flood, and in fact would have easily been destroyed in a flood. Tom also has back in the museum a complete line of fossils in both directions from the one that he just found, which just happen to match up to their dates. Tom can look at the degree of fossilization, and show how slowly regular bones fossilize in comparison.He may well have other methods he can use for this particular fossil: is pollen in the ground consistant with the appropriate layer of an ice core sample? Is what Bob considers an ape completely bipedal, have tools with it, or has other features that Bob would find unreasonable to an ape to have?Back to the elephant analogy, If Bob cannot explain all of the evidence, but Tom can, Bob is only feeling the tail, but Tom has felt the whole elephant. Bob will have to keep wondering why an elephant hovers in the air... oh, he'll have his theories, but they'll probably contradict the theories and observations of Bob's friends who felt the leg and the trunk.... ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Wow...You know, it's rare to see someone being so harsh to NosyNed. I mean, if it were me, I probably did something to deserve it... but Ned?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I just felt like grabbing one little tidbit that the others on this site didn't gobble up first

quote:

---

and ya know what the earth is NOT flat as they told the good folks way back then... AHHHH, You`re gonna fall off Columbus...PU-LEASE!!!!!

---

Actually, King Ferdinand appointed a panel of experts to examine Columbus's proposal. They turned him down because they used Erosthenes's (relatively correct) number on the radius of the Earth, and determined that there was no way Columbus could sail that far. Columbus was using erroneous numbers on the radius of the Earth, due to using incorrect measures of distance.Noone in the scientific community was arguing that the Earth was flat. The Greeks had figured that one out long ago. In fact, one had even proposed a heliocentric universe (Aristarchus), but he was mostly overruled because he was unable to explain why at different points in Earth's orbit you don't see stellar parallax (the real answer is because the stars are so incredibly far away)------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

jantool,Please don't take it the wrong way, but the reason that people are doubting what you're saying is that your posts don't reflect someone who either is a minister, has a degree, or is over 50 years old. In fact, your post is the exact style that we get from a number of people in their early teens who post here. Please don't take it as an insult; this is just to explain why people are doubting you.As some tips for later on: the older people get, the less readily they turn a debate into a shouting match (notice the abundant usage of capital letters and punctuation in your posts, but not in anyone else's). They also tend to boast less, and are less prone to run off in the case of a disagreement.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."