No, it's your vast lack of understanding about how such things are done.
And your calling my knowledgeable statement a "lie" is cheap and inexcusable.
But I see that you've finally retreated to the last refuge of those with no ability to formulate a better rebuttal: "lies, all lies!"
Easier than thinking, I suppose.
No, it's your vast lack of understanding about how such things are done.
Well, since you cannot back up your statement except by rhetoric, then it seems to me that it is you who is lacking in understanding on how such things are done. I already showed you why the study about DNA calibration is a lie in post# 626:
Of course they are, your answers to the problems I mentioned prove it. If evolution is not true then the gradual building up of mutations over time would not be true, so yes, the study assumes that evolutionist assumptions are true (and considering that not a single mutation creating greater complexity has ever been shown to have happened but numerous mutations simplifying a complex system have), that is a tremendous assumption with no basis in fact. There is no data showing that egg layers came first because the bones do not show reproductive data and neither does it show the DNA from millions of years ago when this supposedly happened. As to the time basis for the mutation differentials, claiming I am ignorant shows my statement is correct. Your claim that they can be calibrated by fossil dating when fossils do not provide DNA is just a plain lie. As to my point that evolutionists claim that mutations are there just to prove evolution and have no purpose except when evolutionists want it to have a purpose is quite correct. If differences in organism have no purpose then yes, one could claim that any mutations were just happenstance and could be used as a time scale. However, when the changes do have meaning one cannot say that and your insult just proves my statement correct. This is another example of evolutionists contradicting themselves to take both sides of a question. The whole thing is rhetoric, not science.