Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Why do some people resist science?

Paul, you now show your dedication to the refusal to accept science. You talk about differences between "things trapped in amaber" as if they didn't show significant differences. We don't have for example people trapped in amber. But we do have bones found in rocks. they are called fossils. We have a fairly good selection of intermediate forms between the earliest proto-human fossils and those of modern humans. Wikipedia has a list of various human fossils. Notice the changes in the fossils as time gets closer to the present. They mostly show a family resemblance, which is what you would expect from an evolutionary succession. Notice also the difference in ages. There is no inter-mixture between the older and newer species until you get to the Neanderthals. They were clearly different from us, but still bear the family resemblance. And they are no longer with us.

So now you complain about the ages of the fossils.

Your last statement is almost completely wrong. The ages of fossils are found by a number of different techniques. Most of the ones that give actual dates, rather than relative dates, use various scientific techniques based on the radioactive decay of various elements. Since the decay of radioactive elements is extremely well understood it can be used to very accurately date the age of the fossils.

Here are some references for how fossils are dated.
http://www.factmonster.com/dk/science/dinosaurs/dating-fossils.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

Of course according to Paul these are completely wrong because they use science and science is a tissue of lies. This despite the fact that science is the basis of our modern life.

And now gentle readers I leave you on this topic. I have made my best effort to show that Paul is once again wrong and hope that you will take his writings with a whole shaker full of salt.

Bill Gill