Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We are told: Some species are evolving far more quickly than Darwin ever imagined.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

For example, Discover:

Mosquitoes that colonized the London Underground in 1863 are now so different they can no longer mate with their above-ground relatives. Chinook salmon from Alaska to California needed just a human generation to become smaller and shorter-lived after an increase in commercial fishing in the 1920s. Adaptation is happening right under our noses, in our lifetimes.

But all of this can be accounted for within the genome of the species without any new information.

Put another way, if it is true that 1863 Tube mosquitos can no longer bred with above-ground mosquitoes, does that not signal a loss rather than a gain in information? Or are we not supposed to ask any more?

Comments
Jerad, Your style of discourse is to lie, bluff and spew nonsense. That is all you do. Enjoy being a gullible fool. Please come back if you ever find something that allegedly contradicts my beliefs. No one has so far so you are going to have to get better and better at it. BTW I respond the way I do because of you, Jerad. If you weren't such a pathetic liar and a bluffing coward, well you wouldn't have anything to say.Joe
April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Joe #213 I realise your style of discourse is the norm here now so I can't expect you to be admonished for lack of manners and being a bad sport. And I'd rather not have a discussion with someone you just responds with name calling like some child on a playground. Enjoy ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You're going to have to get better and better at that I suspect.Jerad
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Jerad:
Funny that decades and decades of research and biologists disagree with Dr Denton then.
No, they don't. You cannot find one peer-reviewed paper tat refutes what he said.
Every time I give you an answer you say it’s not true.
All of your "answers" are bluffs and nonsense.
Again, repeatedly you have denied references that have been handed to you on a plate.
LIAR- You are a pathetic little imp of a liar, Jerad.
No, ID has to succeed on its own, independently of evolutionary theory.
Who are you to say such a thing? Your position can't succeed and science mandates that necessity and chance be eliminated first. Obviously you are ignorant of science.
Again, there is research that contradicts your position but you deny it which is not the same thing.
Liar
Remember when he was presented with a large pile of evidence of research into the evolution of the immune system and he said, in court: that’s not enough.
Moron- I just linked to Dr Behe proving he did NOT say that. You are one pathetic little imp, Jerad.Joe
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
And yet their “ideas” remain untestable so to science they don’t exist. No one has found any “human” genes and no one has shown that we are the sum of our genome. Everything Denton said is based on decades of research and Jerad just handwaves it away. Funny that decades and decades of research and biologists disagree with Dr Denton then. All evos have a reputation for avoiding questions you cannot answer. And they don’t seem to be able to answer anything. Every time I give you an answer you say it's not true. So I'm giving up. You don't acknowledge information that is spoon-fed to you. There isn’t one that you can reference. Looks like I win. Again, repeatedly you have denied references that have been handed to you on a plate. No one wants to play with someone who can't abide by the rules. That’s your strawman. However if your position had something we wouldn’t even be discussing ID. No, ID has to succeed on its own, independently of evolutionary theory. And you can keep bluffing, equivocating and spewing false accusations. If only there was any research that opposed my point of view… Again, there is research that contradicts your position but you deny it which is not the same thing. Dr. Behe remembers- As I said, Jerad will believe anything it he thinks it helps him. Remember when he was presented with a large pile of evidence of research into the evolution of the immune system and he said, in court: that's not enough. Hardly a scientific reaction.Jerad
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Jerad:
Isn’t that equivalent to asserting that all claims of The Privileged Planet are also theological?
No. Why would it?
You mean, obviously, that YOU don’t know what makes a human a human since other people have an idea.
And yet their "ideas" remain untestable so to science they don't exist. No one has found any "human" genes and no one has shown that we are the sum of our genome. Everything Denton said is based on decades of research and Jerad just handwaves it away.
They have failed to convince you. I’ll grant you that.
They can only convince their choir. I'll grant you that.
You do have a reputation for avoiding questions you cannot answer.
All evos have a reputation for avoiding questions you cannot answer. And they don't seem to be able to answer anything.
Again, there is no evolutionary theory that you accept.
There isn't one that you can reference. Looks like I win.
Meanwhile, there is no intelligent design hypothesis at all except: we think some things look designed because we can’t figure out how they could have happen via non-directed processes.
That's your strawman. However if your position had something we wouldn't even be discussing ID.
Or you did ignore scads and scads of research which are opposed to your point of view.
And you can keep bluffing, equivocating and spewing false accusations. If only there was any research that opposed my point of view...
Remember Dr Behe at the Dover trial.
Dr. Behe remembers- As I said, Jerad will believe anything it he thinks it helps him.Joe
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Joe #209 All criticisms of “THe Privileged Planet” are theological. Isn't that equivalent to asserting that all claims of The Privileged Planet are also theological? No, there isn’t as no one knows what makes a human a human. The claim is untestable, Jerad. You mean, obviously, that YOU don't know what makes a human a human since other people have an idea. Shut up, Jerad. Evos have had plenty of time to make their case and they have FAILED. They have failed to convince you. I'll grant you that. Nice projection. You do have a reputation for avoiding questions you cannot answer. There isn’t any evolutionary theory. You are deluded. And ID brings reality to the table. Again, there is no evolutionary theory that you accept. Meanwhile, there is no intelligent design hypothesis at all except: we think some things look designed because we can't figure out how they could have happen via non-directed processes. An argument from incredulity. Most likely you are just a bluffing jester. Or you did ignore scads and scads of research which are opposed to your point of view. Remember Dr Behe at the Dover trial. All you can do is make unfounded accusations. All you can do is lie and bluff. You are pathetic. Why the abuse when I'm merely disagreeing with you?Jerad
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
All criticisms of "THe Privileged Planet" are theological.
There is lots of evidence that humans have evolved from non-humans.
No, there isn't as no one knows what makes a human a human. The claim is untestable, Jerad.
Your quote from Dr Denton is interesting. You choose to believe what he says without granting time for those who disagree with him.
Shut up, Jerad. Evos have had plenty of time to make their case and they have FAILED.
I don’t mind as long as you acknowledge that you are picking and choosing what data to believe instead of considering all of it.
Nice projection.
Well, perhaps you’d like to fill in the gaps then. What can ID bring to the table (aside from: this stuff looks designed) that evolutionary theory cannot.
There isn't any evolutionary theory. You are deluded. And ID brings reality to the table.
Perhaps you’ve just missed the research which addresses these issues and concerns.
Most likely you are just a bluffing jester. All you can do is make unfounded accusations. All you can do is lie and bluff. You are pathetic.Joe
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Joe #207 Jerad, No one has any scientific criticisms of “The Privileged Planet”. You are sadly mistaken. There isn’t any evidence that humans evolved, or can evolve, from no-humans. I'm afraid I disagree. In fact, there are some severe criticisms of The Privileged Planet on many blogs. They are easy to find. There is lots of evidence that humans have evolved from non-humans. And, so far, ID has presented almost no counter argument except to say: it was designed. You've even stated that ID has no idea how long it took. And we know you have avoided discussing HOW design was implemented. There isn’t any research that says we are the sum of our genome. You are a desperate bluffer. Your quote from Dr Denton is interesting. You choose to believe what he says without granting time for those who disagree with him. I don't mind as long as you acknowledge that you are picking and choosing what data to believe instead of considering all of it. It’s not the genes. It ain’t the genome. It ain’t the same ole genes used differently. And that is the main reason why evolutionism is a failure. Well, perhaps you'd like to fill in the gaps then. What can ID bring to the table (aside from: this stuff looks designed) that evolutionary theory cannot. A mechanism? A timeline? A motive? A meaning? Why, we have already told you, and you choked. If your position had something ID would be a non-starter. Yes but when I ask you certain questions you stop answering. Reasonable questions. And isn't part of science asking questions? I already have- they assume the earth is due to cosmic collisions- UNTESTABLE- the assume the earth was so hot no crystals survived- UNTESTABLE- both of these were in the article I linked to. Perhaps you've just missed the research which addresses these issues and concerns. Or maybe you're just ignoring it. I don't know. But I think you'll find, if you really look, that all these things have been looked at and considered. You seem to think that there's some agenda that scientists find more compelling than trying to figure out what's going on. Some giant game of fear or conspiracy. You keep saying millions and millions of research parers are bogus and wrong. That the authors are buying into some kind of fallacious assumption. But you never seem to be able to point to a statement in a research paper that you can identify as incorrect. Why is that? Why is it so difficult for you to point to a specific statement or finding that is incorrect? If you could just manage to address specific points in specific papers then we could discuss things.Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Jerad, No one has any scientific criticisms of "The Privileged Planet". You are sadly mistaken. There isn't any evidence that humans evolved, or can evolve, from no-humans.
Really, do I have to recap the entire conversation? And years and years and years of research? If you think that the research that has gone into the consensus view is wrong then pick a paper, preferably more than one, and point to errors or mistakes in the reasoning or research. You say it’s wrong well . . . be specific and say where.
There isn't any research that says we are the sum of our genome. You are a desperate bluffer. Read on:
To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment. Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes. Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in "The Century of The Gene".- Dr Michael Denton
It's not the genes. It ain't the genome. It ain't the same ole genes used differently. And that is the main reason why evolutionism is a failure.
We’re trying to figure out what you have Joe.
Why, we have already told you, and you choked. If your position had something ID would be a non-starter.
Show me where the researchers did that. Point to something specific.
I already have- they assume the earth is due to cosmic collisions- UNTESTABLE- the assume the earth was so hot no crystals survived- UNTESTABLE- both of these were in the article I linked to.Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Joe #204, 205 To evolve what? Into human beings. Please pay attention. Enough for what? Genomes do nothing by themselves. Where are the “human” genes? Or how can we test the claim that “genomes are enough”? Really, do I have to recap the entire conversation? And years and years and years of research? If you think that the research that has gone into the consensus view is wrong then pick a paper, preferably more than one, and point to errors or mistakes in the reasoning or research. You say it's wrong well . . . be specific and say where. What do YOU have, Jerad? We're trying to figure out what you have Joe. It’s evolutionary biology’s fault because it forces us to look in one and only one direction for answers. It’s like trying to understand Stonehenge as a natural geologic formation. So, you're looking in a different direction. That's great. I'm just asking what you've got so far. Saying something is based on untestable assumptions is merely pointing out a FACT, Jerad. Show me where the researchers did that. Point to something specific. “The Privileged Planet” makes the scientific case that the earth is the result of intelligent design. If you think that can find a mistake with it we will gladly discuss it A lot of other people have already done that, do you want us to rehash all the arguments against The Privileged Planet. Again? I thought we could take it as given that that view has been widely disputed.Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
"The Privileged Planet" makes the scientific case that the earth is the result of intelligent design. If you think that can find a mistake with it we will gladly discuss itJoe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Jerad:
Intelligent design can’t say how long it took human beings to evolve.
To evolve what?
; ID thinks the genome is not enough (apparently) but can’t say what.
Enough for what? Genomes do nothing by themselves. Where are the "human" genes? Or how can we test the claim that "genomes are enough"? What do YOU have, Jerad? It's evolutionary biology's fault because it forces us to look in one and only one direction for answers. It's like trying to understand Stonehenge as a natural geologic formation. Saying something is based on untestable assumptions is merely pointing out a FACT, Jerad.Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Joe #202 Jerad, Thanks to evolutionary biology no one knows what makes a human a human. No one knows if a non-human can evolve into a human. No one has a clue and it is all thanks to evolutionary biology. Intelligent design can't say how long it took human beings to evolve. ID thinks the genome is not enough (apparently) but can't say what. This aside from ID's inability to say when or how design was implemented. And now one of it's supporters is saying it's evolutionary biology's fault. And that same ID supporter says the science behind age of the earth research is bogus and based on a false assumption. I'd love to hear what other ID supporters think of Joe's comments and contentions. Does he reflect a common thread or not?Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Jerad, Thanks to evolutionary biology no one knows what makes a human a human. No one knows if a non-human can evolve into a human. No one has a clue and it is all thanks to evolutionary biology. Good jobJoe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Joe #196 According to ID it didn’t take billions of years to get humans. Joe #200 ID doesn’t say and no one knows how long it would take. No one knows what makes a human a human. How long it would take? How about how long did it take. So, ID says it didn't take billions of years but it doesn't know how long it took. One billion years? One million years? Not even a clue? And ID doesn't know what makes a human being? What does ID think it takes outside of the genome?Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
ID doesn't say and no one knows how long it would take. No one knows what makes a human a human.Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Joe #196 According to ID it didn’t take billions of years to get humans. Joe #198 ID doesn’t say. Does ID or does it not have an estimate of how long it took humans to develop? Let's say from the initial appearance of life on earth and, additionally, from the KT boundary.Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Which assumption, they rely on many- They assume a molten earth in which no crystals survived, Jerad. that is one that you still can't deal with.
Do you want to change the topic?
I am on-topic.
How long does ID say it did take then?
ID doesn't say.Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Joe #196 Jerad, They rely on an untestable assumption. Which one? They are careful to cross-check their results with other methods and samples. Yours can’t explain living organisms. Yours doesn’t have a mechanism of getting beyond prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes. Do you want to change the topic? According to ID it didn’t take billions of years to get humans. How long does ID say it did take then?Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Jerad, They rely on an untestable assumption. All of those techniques require a molten earth in which no crystals survived. Yours can't explain living organisms. Yours doesn't have a mechanism of getting beyond prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes. According to ID it didn't take billions of years to get humans.Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Joe #194 BTW Jerad, to get the age of earth rocks one has to assume they were all molten- including all of its crystals. And guess what? They try to tell us the age of earth rocks in that article. You lose. Yes but they use more than just the age of any one set of 'rocks' and they use different dating techniques. These people aren't stupid Joe, they have thought and fought long and hard to get their work accepted. Your position cannot explain the fossil record as it cannot get beyond populations of prokaryotes. And again your strawman is showing. Why do you think it took billions of years to come up with human beings? It took billions of years because it's an unguided, step-by-step process with no goal in mind. Now it's your turn: according to intelligent design evolution why did it take billions of years for humans to come into being?Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
BTW Jerad, to get the age of earth rocks one has to assume they were all molten- including all of its crystals. And guess what? They try to tell us the age of earth rocks in that article. You lose. Your position cannot explain the fossil record as it cannot get beyond populations of prokaryotes. And again your strawman is showing. Why do you think it took billions of years to come up with human beings?Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Joe #192 Why do you think your theological questions mean something? I was talking about the evidence and data in the fossil, genomic, morphologic and bio-geographic records. Millions and millions of years of extinct species, viruses, natural disasters all to produce a species that may be bringing in another great die-off event via preventable climate disruption? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Now, if you can explain the point to all those extinct species I'd be very interested. Why do you claim your designer can fine tune the constants of the universe but takes a few billion years to come up with human beings?Jerad
April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
Jerad:
I think science is based on repeatable, researcher independent results. If it can be repeated and verified then we’ve got something. Something we can measure and analyse because we can make it happen again.
So much for your position's stance on the earth's formation.
Sorry but the things that are claimed the designer has done seem a bit . . . tweaky. And somewhat nonsensical.
That is your uneducated opinion.
You kept insisting that age of the earth researchers had to be operating under a given assumption when they themselves discuss the issue and explain how they avoid that trap.
I supported my claim and I never said that was the only faulty assumption.
And you think it was all guided I guess.
Given the evidence that would be the best explanation. Given that your position is both untenable and untestable...
Why all the billions of years of fussing about
Why do you think your theological questions mean something?
But it is odd that a designer that set up the rules for how things work would have to continually tweak and jiggle things so they worked out the way ‘he’ wanted.
That is your caricature, Jerad.Joe
April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Joe #190 Jerad, you are hopeless. The oversimplification is in your favor Oh well, lucky me then. You think its science and its “reasoning” is based on the flawed assumption of materialism. It can’t be tested so it isn’t science, Jerad. I think science is based on repeatable, researcher independent results. If it can be repeated and verified then we've got something. Something we can measure and analyse because we can make it happen again. Geez, Jerad, I have corrected you on this many times and you still repeat it. You are a pathetic little person. Sorry but the things that are claimed the designer has done seem a bit . . . tweaky. And somewhat nonsensical. That is your strawman. I know it is based on several assumptions- you lose, again. You kept insisting that age of the earth researchers had to be operating under a given assumption when they themselves discuss the issue and explain how they avoid that trap. More imbecilic rantings from the master. No, Jerad, we try to figure out how the earth was actually made. I say it is giving up saying we are just a collection of accidents. And you think it was all guided I guess. Why not just create the world, as per the ultimate design? Why all the billions of years of fussing about, creating millions of species that are left to die off, allowing/inducing asteroids and comets to smack into the earth, allowing disease after disease to propagate, volcanoes, floods, pestilence . . . a whole lot of dying and suffering. Seems like it would have been more humane to have just cut to the chase. I mean if you can fine tune the universe it seems to me you should be able to skip all the dying and just go for the goal. Unless your plan is to see which or your creations is gullible and fooled by false appearances. Not a nice thing to do but hey, I'm not the designer so what do I know? It all just sounds kind of slipshod and cruel to me. But it is odd that a designer that set up the rules for how things work would have to continually tweak and jiggle things so they worked out the way 'he' wanted. Maybe the tuning wasn't so fine in the first place?Jerad
April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Jerad, you are hopeless. The oversimplification is in your favor.
And yet we are talking about published scientific research and reasoning.
You think its science and its "reasoning" is based on the flawed assumption of materialism. It can't be tested so it isn't science, Jerad.
Your designer is a funny guy.
Most likely your view is just twisted.
He sets up the laws of the universe and gives us a perfect eclipse but then he has to continually break his own setup to induce mutations and guide evolution.
Geez, Jerad, I have corrected you on this many times and you still repeat it. You are a pathetic little person.
The strawman that age of the earth researchers solely depend on a single assumption which they have clearly addressed and worked around.
That is your strawman. I know it is based on several assumptions- you lose, again.
And I guess you’re alternative is to just give up and say: we can’t know because we weren’t there?
More imbecilic rantings from the master. No, Jerad, we try to figure out how the earth was actually made. I say it is giving up saying we are just a collection of accidents.Joe
April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Joe #188 Jerad, They think the earth formed about the same time as the meteorites. They have no idea. All they have is the earth formed via millions of cosmic collisions- sheer dumb luck. That isn’t science, Jerad. That is clearly an oversimplification of the reasoning as anyone who reads that actual research will discern. It is an untestable claim, Jerad. You may want to believe that this is all some freak accumulation of accidents but science does NOT support it. And yet we are talking about published scientific research and reasoning. Your designer is a funny guy. He sets up the laws of the universe and gives us a perfect eclipse but then he has to continually break his own setup to induce mutations and guide evolution. What strawman? You continually accuse me of things and yet never make your case. That is a sure sign of a loser. The strawman that age of the earth researchers solely depend on a single assumption which they have clearly addressed and worked around. And I guess you're alternative is to just give up and say: we can't know because we weren't there? Why don't you give us your estimate for the age of the earth then.Jerad
April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Jerad, They think the earth formed about the same time as the meteorites. They have no idea. All they have is the earth formed via millions of cosmic collisions- sheer dumb luck. That isn't science, Jerad. It is an untestable claim, Jerad. You may want to believe that this is all some freak accumulation of accidents but science does NOT support it.
You are continually knocking down the same strawman which no serious researcher upholds
What strawman? You continually accuse me of things and yet never make your case. That is a sure sign of a loser.Joe
April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Joe #186 Nope, I take that as a concession that you have reading comprehension issues. Look, you haven't pointed out a mistake in any peer-reviewed paper despite being given the leeway to pick one. You haven't come up with a criticism of the methods which do account for the issue you brought up. No, they haven’t. Do we get the age of Stonehenge from the stones themselves? Your “logic” sez we should. The age of earth researches have addressed those issue just like the archaeologists have done with Stonehenge. You are continually knocking down the same strawman which no serious researcher upholds. As they clearly state.Jerad
April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Jerad:
Only if you deny that radioactive decay is constant.
Nope, I take that as a concession that you have reading comprehension issues.
But clearly the researchers have found a way to work around that.
No, they haven't. Do we get the age of Stonehenge from the stones themselves? Your "logic" sez we should.Joe
April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply