Evolutionists were all aglow yesterday as the discovery of a primate fossil was announced. While they do manage to stop short of calling the find a full-fledged “missing link” between humans and apes, they act pretty certain that it is some sort of missing link between one evolutionary form of primate and another.
This is what the Wall Street Journal had to say (and it is one of the more factual and less-speculative news reports out there):
In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.
Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today’s lemurs in Madagascar.
Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs.
Could this simply be a different variety of an organism we already know about, for instance like a Beagle and a German Shepherd? No, not in the eyes of evolutionists; it MUST be a missing link.
Now you’re probably so used to this kind of talk from evolutionists that you may not have even noticed something remarkable about the language used here. But stop and think for a moment about what was said and how it was said.
Do we know this fossil is 47 million years old? Did anyone see it deposited 47 million years ago, and did they keep an accurate, verifiable record of that event?
Do we know that “some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth”? Who saw that, and who left the verifiable record that this is accurate?
In other words, notice how something which can not possibly be verified is being discussed in definitive, authoritative terms. Notice how conjecture passes itself off as “science.” There is no hint of uncertainty or reservation whatsoever in these statements.
But wait, you might say (based on having been educated on and fed a diet of such language for decades): scientists know the age of the fossils they dig up.
Really? Do you know how they know that? (They’re hoping you don’t).
They “know” it because the fossil’s location and depth within the geological column “tells” them how hold it is.
How do they know how long ago a certain depth or location within the geological column was deposited? Well, they just do. Isn’t that enough?
Well, you might say, they have scientific dating techniques to tell them how old things are.
True, there are radiometric dating methods which are used to ostensibly determine the age of both rocks and fossils. These techniques frequently claim ages of 5 million years for this rock and 100 million years for that rock, and so on.
But how do they know these dating methods are accurate? After all, if they pull a rabbit out of the hat and say it’s 50 million years old, there are no written records from 50 million years ago to call that statement into question…and neither is there one to confirm it, either.
The truth that evolutionists desperately don’t want people to find out is that these supposedly scientific dating techniques are themselves based on many assumptions–all of which must be true in order for the dating technique to be accurate.
What is an assumption? Well, an assumption is to assume something, and to assume is “to take as granted or true.” In other words, assumptions take things on faith, without knowing for sure by virtue of empirical facts, scientifically verified testing, or observational science.
Radiometric dating techniques measure the decay of certain elements in an object, and based on the state of decay, an age of the object is “determined.”
What assumptions are radiometric dating techniques based on? Here are the primary assumptions:
- That the particular radioactive element decays at a constant rate
- That the specimen being examined has not been contaminated with an excess amount of the measured radioactive end-product
- That the specimen being examined contained none of this end-product at the time it was formed
- Leeching of the parent element has not occurred
In other words, if you’re measuring the decay of uranium to lead, you must assume that the decay rate has been constant…for thousands or millions of years. How do you know the decay rate has been constant? Well, you assume it has, because no one was around 1 million or 10 million or 100 million years ago to record and ensure that conditions on the earth have not accelerated or decelerated or temporarily affected the decay rate during this time.
How do you know the specimen wasn’t contaminated with lead at the time the specimen was formed? Well, you assume it wasn’t.
How do you know the specimen hasn’t been contaminated with lead from an outside source during the intervening alleged 50 million years? Well, you assume it hasn’t.
How do know some outside force has not caused an unexpected removal of the parent uranium during the intervening alleged 50 million years? Well, you assume nothing did.
And if after all these assumptions the date still comes in not matching the geological column or some other factor you believe to be contradictory? Well, you then assume the specimen was contaminated and throw out the results.
It would be virtually impossible to reliably make the assumptions above for the past 100 years, much less the last 1,000 years…or 1 million years…or longer. With all the changes that could have and likely have occurred over history in solar radiation, cosmic radiation, atmospheric density, meteor strikes, moisture levels, volcanic eruptions, various cataclysmic events, and a myriad of other possibilities, to seriously make such an assumption runs far past arrogance and deep into the territory of the insane.
You probably had no idea that “science” was so scientific, did you? You probably didn’t realize that “science” was so full of assumptions and uncertainties, did you?
After all, the “scientific” community and the “mainstream” media tell you these things with such a tone of absolute certainty in their voices, there’s simply no reason for you to question the veracity of their statements, is there?
Maybe they don’t know about the host of obviously erroneous readings which have been obtained using radiometric dating techniques compared to observational science. In other words, both organic and inorganic samples of recent origin that we know the age of through observation have been dated by radiometric techniques at wildly erroneous ages. Things we know by observation are only decades or a hundred years old have been dated at thousands or even millions of years old.
But we are supposed to believe these techniques are accurate when dating things alleged to be millions of years old–things no one saw created or deposited, and thus cannot be confirmed or denied to be those ages?
You know what they say about what happens when you assume, right? It makes an ass out of u and me.
But the reasonable person understands that in an imperfect world where historical records are imperfect at best, and going back more than a few hundred years are very scattered and scarce, assumptions have to be made at some point in the process of scientific investigation.
The thing, though, which is laughably hypocritical on the part of evolutionists is that (1) they like to pretend their assertions are “settled” and “factual” and “beyond question,” and (2) they come arrogantly unglued when a creationist or ID proponent makes assumptions.
So why don’t we see more “we think” and “it might” and “our theory is” language from evolutionists? It would certainly be more intellectually honest.
That’s because–though they would never in a million years admit it–most evolutionists have a theological faith concerning their beliefs about the universe and our origins. It is not so much about science as it is about their theology–the theology that says man is the highest and most intelligent being in the universe, and that humans are not morally accountable to a supreme being who sets the standard for right and wrong.
If they want to believe that–despite all the insurmountable problems with the theory of evolution that make it impossible within its own framework, and despite the mountain of evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe–that’s their prerogative.
But it is extremely disingenuous for evolutionists to pass off their multitude of assumptions as established factual science. It is also the height of arrogance and hypocrisy for them to pretend their own mountain of assumptions don’t exist while snobbishly condemning creationists and ID proponents for their assumptions.
Do I expect most evolutionists to get with the program and start acting like honest people any time soon? No. But the more people who realize theirs is a house of cards built on assumptions and arrogance, the closer our society will get to an environment where genuine scientific inquiry and learning can take place.
Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!