"The War In Medicine"
CONTINUED FROM EARLIER POST"Scientific" Research
But it goes much, much deeper than that. For example, the
research done by paleontologists involves the dating of bones.
In dating these bones there are a wide range of assumptions
that must be made. Rather than give the public a huge range
of dates for a bone (due to unknown issues such as moisture,
radiation, etc.), they pick one specific date for the age of the
bone, and that date is very generous to the evolutionists.
In other words, they assume evolution is true when they pick
a single date for the age of a bone, when in fact they should
pick a very, very wide range of dates due to unknown information.
For example, many bones are found on the edge of rivers long
dried up. Even if those bones were next to the river (when it
was still flowing) for just a few hundred years, the moisture
from the river could have had a huge affect on the estimated
date of when that animal died.
Thus, by using generous assumptions, and not making it known
that in fact there are assumptions made, they make it look
like evolution "has been proven to be true." Evolution has
not been proven to be true. Much of the evidence comes from
generous assumptions with the data.
I can assure the reader that in some cases (my background is
in mathematics and physics), the assumptions they make with
the data amounts to 99% of the "evidence" used to reach
their final conclusion. This is true in virtually every
field of "science."
Full Body Detox Reviews