I am not sure where you are getting your example. You have a citation? It sounds like this is something you are misremembering from school.Obviously fossils cannot be dated by the carbon-14 method; never have been and never will; the point is that at one time it was claimed that evidence of dinosaur fossil age was proved by that method and I don't know whether it was bad science, bad scientists, bad science article writers or bad science textbook writers, but there it is, or was, and that's what the public believed.
You're a scientist and you don't understand how a single flaw in an empirical process faults the entire process result? That should be logical.
1) No answer for the conflict between the evolution hypotheses (universal, not just species) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics..... If you are going to critique science, you have to get down to the specifics.
1) No answer for the conflict between the evolution hypotheses (universal, not just species) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
2) No answer for the conflict between the Big Bang hypothesis and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
"Can't account for the conflict" is as specific as science can get? Well maybe how about "the observed conflict is real therefore there may be a flaw in the proposed hypothesis". As far as evolution goes science has descended into rigid ideology and is no longer in self-correcting mode. I'd call that bad science.
Your problem, @roscoe is that you're attempting to slide by the flaws in evolution in its broadest sense by trying to limit the critique you request to one very narrow branch of it. If the evolutionary fundamentals are flawed, then so is every little slice of it. I can't critique your little slice of evolution while ignoring its basic fundamental flaws. Doing such would be "bad science."1. There is no conflict between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolutionary biology in any form. ....
You still haven't offered a cogent critique of evolutionary biology....
I've demonstrated two specific flaws and your mind is closed to them, therefore no point in any further discussion.You have in no way demonstrated that the fundamentals of evolutionary science are flawed. You haven't even given a single solid statement about any specific aspect of it.
I've demonstrated two specific flaws and your mind is closed to them, therefore no point in any further discussion.
It feels like you avoid getting into facts; maybe, really, to obfuscate the facts by engaging in ideas.