The Definition of Real Science

[Gus Bovona]

Seeing how you confuse speculations, assumptions, and suppositions as facts, not really. I have to see how they presented it as relayed from you.

Then, you might, right?

I had a little bit of mixed orange juice in a container left and did not have enough for breakfast and so added the new batch of condensed orange juice to it. Boy, it spoiled. Should have removed the little bit of juice, drank that, clean the container before mixing the new juice.

Since contaminants can be radioactive for how it can throw off radiometric dating, and science has been carbon dating living marine life with vast errant results as if they were dead; should prove enough to you that they can't do it with the fossils or any rock for that matter.

But if not, I am going to say that proves it enough for me.

I agree that contaminants CAN spoil the whole batch. Do you agree that contaminants MIGHT NOT spoil the whole batch, every time, in every case?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Here is a science site;

The freshwater reservoir effect in radiocarbon dating

"The marine reservoir effect is well-acknowledged among archaeologists, although the knee-jerk subtraction of 400 years from radiocarbon dates of marine samples might be too simplistic in some cases."

I would say whenever scientists are favoring the evolution theory and fitting their discovery to that time table, they will tend to be simplistic regardless.

I would see that as both. Don't you?

I haven't found anything that says that it applies to radiometric dating of materials other than carbon. Do you have a link or a source?

The Wiki page for radiocarbon dating acknowledges the reservoir effect, so I'm not sure what the challenge is to radiocarbon dating from the reservoir effect.

 

[TB2]

It doesn't matter whether it's contaminated or not, because today we have tests and controls to tell us whether it's contaminated or not, and if it is, then the spurious dates are thrown out

 

[Gus Bovona]

What I said is correct. Radiocarbon dating is *not* used in paleontology. I should know. I'm a paleontologist. The nat geo article you quoted/linked to is about archaeology. Archaeology and paleontology are not the same thing (unfortunately, because then I could don a fedora and bullwhip, lol). The half life of C-14 in 5,700 years. C-14 dating can only be used on organic material up to 50,000 years old.

It's very cool to have an actual specialist, working in the field, contribute to the thread, instead of the usual crop of lay people (like me) who have to wade through terminology, lack of background, etc.

I might as well shut up here and let you take over. Or, I'll continue to reply but just re-post what you've said better and with authority.

 

[TB2]

It's very cool to have an actual specialist, working in the field, contribute to the thread, instead of the usual crop of lay people (like me) who have to wade through terminology, lack of background, etc.

I might as well shut up here and let you take over. Or, I'll continue to reply but just re-post what you've said better and with authority.

You're very kind, but the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know, and know a miniscule grain of all there is to know. You don’t have to be an expert to speak truth, and I make mistakes and have been humbly corrected by non-experts. We all learn from each other. So please keep posting.

 

[ChristB4us]

What I said is correct. Radiocarbon dating is *not* used in paleontology. I should know. I'm a paleontologist. The nat geo article you quoted/linked to is about archaeology. Archaeology and paleontology are not the same thing (unfortunately, because then I could don a fedora and bullwhip, lol). The half life of C-14 in 5,700 years. C-14 dating can only be used on organic material up to 50,000 years old.

Explain this then;

Using Radiocarbon Dating and Paleontological Extraction Techniques in the Analysis of a Human Skull in an Unusual Context

Sure looks like they can work hand in hand at the F.B.I. .

 

[ChristB4us]

I haven't found anything that says that it applies to radiometric dating of materials other than carbon. Do you have a link or a source?

The Wiki page for radiocarbon dating acknowledges the reservoir effect, so I'm not sure what the challenge is to radiocarbon dating from the reservoir effect.

And

It doesn't matter whether it's contaminated or not, because today we have tests and controls to tell us whether it's contaminated or not, and if it is, then the spurious dates are thrown out

If the contaminants are radioactive, then how can you separate the radioactive that was introduced from asteroid impacts of that which is normal of earth when there is no way to say what was normal of earth for rate of decay?

Meteorites Reveal Radioactive Heating in Asteroids

"The authors identified three possible heat sources: solar radiation, impacts by other asteroids, and the decay of radioactive materials. Given the rapid formation of the calcite crystals, the authors concluded that radioactive decay is the most likely heat source for this asteroid; impact heating and solar heating occur intermittently or slowly over billions of years, while radioactive materials churn out heat for just a few million years." end of quote

Course, they are only speculating about how long the heat would churn out by this isolated find of a meteorite, but with the view of asteroids hitting the earth that would cause the fountains of the deep to rise up at the time of the Biblical global flood, those are your external contaminants that can affect determining that supposedly established rate of decay.

 

[TB2]

Explain this then;

Using Radiocarbon Dating and Paleontological Extraction Techniques in the Analysis of a Human Skull in an Unusual Context

Sure looks like they can work hand in hand at the F.B.I. .

Did you read the abstract? This human skull was not a fossil and it was only 100-500 years old. This is not paleontology, but forensics. The article says they used/borrowed "several traditional fossil preparation methods...to extract the skull from the plastic." Different scientific fields share techniques all the time.

"Abstract
Results indicate that the skull was not of recent origin and contained pre-1950 levels of radiocarbon. The individual’s death was established as occurring prior to 1950, with four main periods estimated as the time of death, ranging from AD 1530 to AD 1950. In less precise probability testing, the range of death shortened to between AD 1650 and AD 1800. Moreover, the analysis of the C13/C12 ratio suggested the diet consisted mainly of marine foods and/or C4 plants, such as corn. The preliminary analysis indicated that the bone of the skull was well persevered with no soft tissue or hair present. The skull was found on August 1, 1999 in a poorly preserved metal bucket recovered from a river in Lancaster, PA. The skull, which was partially embedded in a gray plastic material, was discovered inside a smaller, white plastic bucket within the metal bucket. Several traditional fossil-preparation methods were used to extract the skull from the plastic, including several sessions of intensive, meticulous work with an air scribe, which is used to separate fossils from their geological matrices. Initial anthropological analysis indicated the skull was male and of African origin who most likely died after the age of 50 years. Application of the Lamendin technique further estimated that the age at death was likely 60.2 years, plus or minus approximately 8 years. The case shows how techniques used by paleontologists can be useful in the extraction of human remains from challenging contexts and also illustrates how radiocarbon dating can clarify the time since death. References"

 

[TB2]

And


If the contaminants are radioactive, then how can you separate the radioactive that was introduced from asteroid impacts of that which is normal of earth when there is no way to say what was normal of earth for rate of decay?

Meteorites Reveal Radioactive Heating in Asteroids

"The authors identified three possible heat sources: solar radiation, impacts by other asteroids, and the decay of radioactive materials. Given the rapid formation of the calcite crystals, the authors concluded that radioactive decay is the most likely heat source for this asteroid; impact heating and solar heating occur intermittently or slowly over billions of years, while radioactive materials churn out heat for just a few million years." end of quote

Course, they are only speculating about how long the heat would churn out by this isolated find of a meteorite, but with the view of asteroids hitting the earth that would cause the fountains of the deep to rise up at the time of the Biblical global flood, those are your external contaminants that can affect determining that supposedly established rate of decay.

As I said, technology and radiometric dating methods today are highly refined, and sophisticated, and control for things like contamination. There are tests that can be done to determine whether or not a radioactive sample has been compromised by contamination. These common YEC criticisms are the same ones that have been circulating now for over 50 years. They are no longer valid criticisms. See, Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective (please read through this article, which explains some of the tests that are used to control for contamination).

 

[ChristB4us]

Did you read the abstract? This human skull was not a fossil and it was only 100-500 years old. This is not paleontology, but forensics. The article says they used/borrowed "several traditional fossil preparation methods...to extract the skull from the plastic." Different scientific fields share techniques all the time.

"Abstract
Results indicate that the skull was not of recent origin and contained pre-1950 levels of radiocarbon. The individual’s death was established as occurring prior to 1950, with four main periods estimated as the time of death, ranging from AD 1530 to AD 1950. In less precise probability testing, the range of death shortened to between AD 1650 and AD 1800. Moreover, the analysis of the C13/C12 ratio suggested the diet consisted mainly of marine foods and/or C4 plants, such as corn. The preliminary analysis indicated that the bone of the skull was well persevered with no soft tissue or hair present. The skull was found on August 1, 1999 in a poorly preserved metal bucket recovered from a river in Lancaster, PA. The skull, which was partially embedded in a gray plastic material, was discovered inside a smaller, white plastic bucket within the metal bucket. Several traditional fossil-preparation methods were used to extract the skull from the plastic, including several sessions of intensive, meticulous work with an air scribe, which is used to separate fossils from their geological matrices. Initial anthropological analysis indicated the skull was male and of African origin who most likely died after the age of 50 years. Application of the Lamendin technique further estimated that the age at death was likely 60.2 years, plus or minus approximately 8 years. The case shows how techniques used by paleontologists can be useful in the extraction of human remains from challenging contexts and also illustrates how radiocarbon dating can clarify the time since death. References"

But wasn't radiocarbon dating used for this work in paleontology or not? Looks that way to me.

You may not had to use it for whatever you are doing, but is that not what the article reported at the f.B.I.?

 

[ChristB4us]

As I said, technology and radiometric dating methods today are highly refined, and sophisticated, and control for things like contamination. There are tests that can be done to determine whether or not a radioactive sample has been compromised by contamination. These common YEC criticisms are the same ones that have been circulating now for over 50 years. They are no longer valid criticisms. See, Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective (please read through this article, which explains some of the tests that are used to control for contamination).

from your link in your quote:

"Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers."
All based under the assumption that there was no biblical global flood as that will throw off the rate of decay, the unpredictable chaotic weather patterns that will create more rings in trees and rings in ice core drillings than normal that did not take years as one would assume by the current seasonal weather changes yearly that we see happening today.

That Ice Shelf was formed after the waters from the global flood receded. FYI

By believing Jesus's words over science words is how you can know the truth about everything.

Ask Him for wisdom since wisdom comes from the Lord.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Don't forget to ask Him about tongues for private use as it can never be of Him at all when it existed as gibberish nonsense in Roman idolatry and the occult long before the real God's gift of tongues came for God to speak unto the people.

 

[TB2]

All based under the assumption that there was no biblical global flood as that will throw off the rate of decay

Actually, that is incorrect. Radiometric dating factors in changes in temperature, pressure, catastrophes, floods, and the like. And empirical studies have shown that changes in temperature, pressure, weathering, erosion, flooding don't affect or "throw off" decay rates at all. So, you'll have to support your claim with empirical research to back it up

 

[TB2]

Don't forget to ask Him about tongues for private use as it can never be of Him at all when it existed as gibberish nonsense in Roman idolatry and the occult long before the real God's gift of tongues came for God to speak unto the people

Wow! You packed in a lot there. I will gladly submit to God. Please show me where in the Bible God expressly says, "Thou shalt not pray in the Spirit to Me in private! How dare you! And while we're at it, don't pray 'normally' in private or worship Me in private either because that only edifies yourself not the Body! How dare you want to be close to Me!"

 

[TB2]

But wasn't radiocarbon dating used for this work in paleontology or not? Looks that way to me.

You may not had to use it for whatever you are doing, but is that not what the article reported at the f.B.I.?

This was not paleontology. This was forensics. The human skull was not a fossil. You *can't* radiocarbon date fossils (you can put fossil dino bone samples through the machine sure enough to get C-14 dates but they are completely meaningless, because it is not original carbon. The fossilization process itself chemically alters, recrystallizes and replaces the original bone with new minerals).

 

[ChristB4us]

Actually, that is incorrect. Radiometric dating factors in changes in temperature, pressure, catastrophes, floods, and the like.

You are only assuming that they did. Human error always a factor. Just because one report speak in general how they are supposed to do research, does not mean in the actual research itself, they cited that it was done. Most research do not cite that this was done. So apply that report that this is how they do things, does not cut it. Nope. Just smoke and mirrors.

And empirical studies have shown that changes in temperature, pressure, weathering, erosion, flooding don't affect or "throw off" decay rates at all. So, you'll have to support your claim with empirical research to back it up

In present day crime scenes, a corpse kept in a freezer before dumping it can throw off the rate of decay and thus the time of death.

In a global calamity that brought about the ice age in its aftermath, all radiometric dating is going to be thrown off for determining the age of fossils and such frozen corpses like the wooly mammoth.

You are also forgetting the effect of radioactive contaminants from asteroid impacts which I believe caused the global flood and started pushing the moon away from the earth by the asteroid impacts on the moon for why the mist covering the earth was pulled up by its gravitational pull for the mist to condense into clouds and rain for the first time on the earth. Truth.

If you want to disregard Jesus's words validating the global flood and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah in Luke 17:26-37, in warning believers to be ready or else be left behind when that calamity of fire comes on the earth per verse 49 of Luke 12:40-49 & Revelation 8:7, then you will fall for any false teaching being brought into by the evil Department of Education that are now failing to teach kids practical education as they fail math & science but the evil Department of Education will teach woke and sexual immorality instead.

It looks like the evolution theory in promoting no God and that we all came into being by random chance did not get enough students to go beyond bullying to killing enough that they have to resort to transgenderism to cause the little ones to go astray and destroy them with sexual reassignment as another means to cut back on the population growth rate.

Paranoia? The Georgia Guidestones is evidence.

Georgia Guidestones

Can't you smell what the New Word Order is cooking? Excuses to cut back on the world's population so they will start with the Christians.

By the way, you really should hold science to that definition of real science and not be led by excuses to ignore it by scientific lies.

Real science has to be observed and proven and so macroevolution is never going to happen whereas microevolution is just a coin phrased from the Law of biogenesis to make macroevolution look believable whereas the actual Law of Biogenesis would disprove otherwise.

 

[ChristB4us]

Wow! You packed in a lot there. I will gladly submit to God. Please show me where in the Bible God expressly says, "Thou shalt not pray in the Spirit to Me in private! How dare you! And while we're at it, don't pray 'normally' in private or worship Me in private either because that only edifies yourself not the Body! How dare you want to be close to Me!"

Let me ask you this; scripture does not go against scripture for why you need His help to discern the truth in His words.

All Bibles in John 16:13 testify that the Holy Spirit CANNOT utter His own intercessions from Himself.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. KJV

John 16:13 But when He, (A)the Spirit of truth, comes, He will (B)guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. NASB
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. ASV
John 16:13 But when the Spirit of truth [C the Helper; see 16:7] comes, he will ·lead [guide] you into all truth. He will not speak ·his own words [from his own authority; L from himself], but he will speak only what he hears [C from the Father], and he will ·tell [announce/declare to] you what is to come. Expanded Bible

John 16:13 When the Holy Spirit, who is truth, comes, he shall guide you into all truth, for he will not be presenting his own ideas, but will be passing on to you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. Living Bible
That is why God's gift of tongues is used by the Holy Spirit to speak unto the people as He cannot use God's gift of tongues to turn it around and speak gibberish nonsense back to God for His own purposes like praying out loud in any shape or form in uttering His intercessions from Himself.
Then there is this;

Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

If you are not to pray like that and yet the Father knows before you even ask, why does the Holy Spirit has to pray like that when the Son knows the mind of the Spirit as the Son is the One searches our hearts per Hebrews 4:12-16, then the Holy Spirit does not need to say anything out loud because Jesus is the Only mediator between God and men to give all intercessions to the Father through Himself because when the Father agrees with any of those intercessions presented by the Son, be it ours, the Holy Spirit's, or His own, the Son answers the prayers so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answers to prayers.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.... 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Since you have been deceived by the spirits of the antichrist, it is no wonder why you cannot see the lies in that false science, the evolution theory. You still have the spirit of truth in you, but apparently, God permit that strong delusion to occur because you believed the lie that the baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues is how one knows they have the Holy Spirit.

The fact that you believe in the Lord Jesu Christ & that God has raised Him from the dead is how you can know you are saved.

Tongues for private use does not profit you at all because you cannot tell if you are being self edified or the Holy Spirit is praying for you per your belief and that is only 2 examples of the so called benefits for tongues for private use; and that, brother, is the epitome of confusion.

Better to know what you had prayed for normally to know when you get an answer to prayers to give genuine thanks to the Father in Jesus's name for answers to prayers. Now who would like to get in the way of that? That's right. The devil.

1 Thessalonians 5:7 Pray without ceasing. 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness....

24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

 

[ChristB4us]

This was not paleontology. This was forensics. The human skull was not a fossil. You *can't* radiocarbon date fossils (you can put fossil dino bone samples through the machine sure enough to get C-14 dates but they are completely meaningless, because it is not original carbon. The fossilization process itself chemically alters, recrystallizes and replaces the original bone with new minerals).

Regardless, radiometric dating is used in paleontology.

There are a lot of links to that testimony and no just the one below.

Biology as Poetry: Paleontology

"Absolute clocks based upon the loss of unstable elements in combination with the accumulation, within samples, of products of nuclear fission.

Also known simply as radiodating, radiometric dating is a type of absolute dating. Commonly used approaches in paleontology include carbon dating (for more recent samples) and potassium-argon dating (for older samples). Contrast relative dating.

Key to the process is a means by which the these clocks, which are based on radioactive decay, are started. This involves either the accumulation of a set ratio of isotopes that are then fixed at the point of organism death (carbon dating) or instead a purging of a sample of accumulated fission products (potassium-argon dating).

In radiometric dating either a sample of remains, or instead surrounding strata, is analyzed to determine ratios of isotopes or elements that are present. If it is the remains that are sampled (for carbon dating), then it can be assigned an absolute date. If it is surrounding layers, such as volcanic ash (for potassium-argon dating), then the sample can be assigned a date that is relative to that of strata (such as older than an overlying ash layer or younger than a lower layer)." ~~~ end of quote

See that bold portion in that quote? This is what happens when the test results do not correspond to the strata, but they will assign its age according to the strata it was found in even though the test results says otherwise.

The irony is that the geographic chart as per the evolutionary time table, cannot be found anywhere in the world as that chart depicts the supposed age of the earth. The so called geographic layers are different no matter where you go.

Feel free to provide a link to an actual place that aligns with that geographic chart because you are not going to find it.

But I am sure with liars and misinformation on the internet, you might finally find one in these latter days with woke people the internet.

 

[TB2]

You are only assuming that they did. Human error always a factor. Just because one report speak in general how they are supposed to do research, does not mean in the actual research itself, they cited that it was done. Most research do not cite that this was done. So apply that report that this is how they do things, does not cut it. Nope. Just smoke and mirrors.

In present day crime scenes, a corpse kept in a freezer before dumping it can throw off the rate of decay and thus the time of death.

In a global calamity that brought about the ice age in its aftermath, all radiometric dating is going to be thrown off for determining the age of fossils and such frozen corpses like the wooly mammoth.

You are also forgetting the effect of radioactive contaminants from asteroid impacts which I believe caused the global flood and started pushing the moon away from the earth by the asteroid impacts on the moon for why the mist covering the earth was pulled up by its gravitational pull for the mist to condense into clouds and rain for the first time on the earth. Truth.

If you want to disregard Jesus's words validating the global flood and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah in Luke 17:26-37, in warning believers to be ready or else be left behind when that calamity of fire comes on the earth per verse 49 of Luke 12:40-49 & Revelation 8:7, then you will fall for any false teaching being brought into by the evil Department of Education that are now failing to teach kids practical education as they fail math & science but the evil Department of Education will teach woke and sexual immorality instead.

It looks like the evolution theory in promoting no God and that we all came into being by random chance did not get enough students to go beyond bullying to killing enough that they have to resort to transgenderism to cause the little ones to go astray and destroy them with sexual reassignment as another means to cut back on the population growth rate.

Paranoia? The Georgia Guidestones is evidence.

Georgia Guidestones

Can't you smell what the New Word Order is cooking? Excuses to cut back on the world's population so they will start with the Christians.

By the way, you really should hold science to that definition of real science and not be led by excuses to ignore it by scientific lies.

Real science has to be observed and proven and so macroevolution is never going to happen whereas microevolution is just a coin phrased from the Law of biogenesis to make macroevolution look believable whereas the actual Law of Biogenesis would disprove otherwise.

Fortunately for me I'm not disregarding Jesus's words because Jesus never anything about radiocarbon dating.

Yes, RADIOMETRIC dating IS used in paleontology but RADIOCARBON dating is NOT. Those are two different things that you are confusing.

You don't seem to understand "real science," which is based on the totality of amassed evidence and that evidence tells us that radioactive decay rates for elements like uranium are not affected by changes in heat, pressure, or floods.

The evidence for biological evolution and common ancestry is substantial. Macroevolution has been observed in real time (you probably have an incorrect understanding of what macroevolution is).

You are absolutely right about abiognesis though: the sum total empirical evidence we have seems to indicate that life cannot spontaneously emerge from nonlife via natural processes

 

[TB2]

See that bold portion in that quote? This is what happens when the test results do not correspond to the strata, but they will assign its age according to the strata it was found in even though the test results says otherwise.

Absolutely false. This is the just the same tired old false YEC propaganda that keeps getting recirculated. I can show you secular research papers where the radiometric dates 'agreed' with the 'evolutionary view' but that were still rejected by secular scientists, because the methodology was flawed. Scientists most certainly do not just assign dates, "nor do scientists date the fossils from the rocks and the rocks from the fossils." These are all myths, my friend (that I believed myself) until I actually learned firsthand how geochronology is done.

 

[ChristB4us]

Fortunately for me I'm not disregarding Jesus's words because Jesus never anything about radiocarbon dating.

"Science" is disregarding the Biblical global flood.

Yes, RADIOMETRIC dating IS used in paleontology but RADIOCARBON dating is NOT. Those are two different things that you are confusing.

Radiocarbon dating is a form of radiometric dating.

paleontology

"paleontology, also spelled palaeontology, scientific study of life of the geologic past that involves the analysis of plant and animal fossils, including those of microscopic size, preserved in rocks. " ~~~~end of quote

And;

How Do Scientists Date Fossils?

"Scientists called geochronologists are experts in dating rocks and fossils, and can often date fossils younger than around 50,000 years old using radiocarbon dating. "

Radiocarbon as a Dating Tool and Tracer in Paleoceanography

"Here, we review the main principles and challenges involved in the use of radiocarbon in paleoceanography".

So explain to me what I am missing here?

You don't seem to understand "real science," which is based on the totality of amassed evidence and that evidence tells us that radioactive decay rates for elements like uranium are not affected by changes in heat, pressure, or floods.

I understand the definition of real science is that it has to be observed and proven.

I also understand that these so called "evidence" is slanted to be only viewed towards the evolution theory.

The evidence for biological evolution and common ancestry is substantial.

You should always double check what they consider as fact.

Peking man

"Peking man, extinct hominin of the species Homo erectus, known from fossils found at Zhoukoudian near Beijing. Peking man was identified as a member of the human lineage by Davidson Black in 1927 on the basis of a single tooth. Later excavations yielded several skullcaps and mandibles, facial and limb bones, and the teeth of about 40 individuals. Evidence suggests that the Zhoukoudian fossils date from about 770,000 to 230,000 years ago. Before being assigned to H. erectus, they were variously classified as Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus."

Then there is this:

THE HOAX OF THE MISSING LINKS!

Peking Man became one of the “missing links” in the 1920’s. A man by the name of Davidson Black found a single tooth near Peking, China. After being given a grant of $80,000.00 from the Rockefeller Foundation, it was discovered that the tooth was found in a town garbage dump. The site contained thousands of animal bones and a few human bone fragments. From these fragments Peking Man was declared to be the “missing link” in the evolution of ape to man.

Now, all evidence of the Peking Man has strangely disappeared even though it is still featured as one of the great “missing links” in many text books.

Another one about the Nebraska Man being an extinct pig. It is also at that site above but a different site for confirmation is below.

Nebraska Man or a Pig’s Tooth?

Are you starting to see how fallible & dishonest men are trying to make a name for themselves?

Macroevolution has been observed in real time (you probably have an incorrect understanding of what macroevolution is).

More than likely taking an example of the Law of Biogenesis ( microevolution ) and switching it as an example of macroevolution is being taken place here.

You are absolutely right about abiognesis though: the sum total empirical evidence we have seems to indicate that life cannot spontaneously emerge from nonlife via natural processes

For a while there, it seems evolutionists contenders were arguing for it, treating it as factual or true.