“Why is it that scientists have no problems with these dating methods, knowing all of the assumptions and qualifications that are a part of each particular method?”
They believe it because it was peer reviewed, simple as that.
The whole point to my posts is simply to show that human evolution is nothing more than faith, the exact same thing scientist accuse creationists of believing.
Sorry, that is not the case. As part of my graduate schooling I studied fossil man, evolution, human races, osteology and a lot of related subjects -- for six years.
These fields rely on data and theory, not faith. We studied real subjects and real data, as well as the history of these fields. We saw how data increased and theory improved over the decades. Nowhere were we asked to believe in some static "trvth" that was obtained by revelation. That is where faith would have come in. That was not a part of our studies.
To claim that science relies on faith is both incorrect and shows an ignorance of science and how it works. And it shows a disdain for science that is becoming increasingly common in some circles. Attempting to destroy science is not exactly productive, as science is our main weapon against ignorance and starvation and a host of other ills.
“They believe it because it was peer reviewed, simple as that.
The whole point to my posts is simply to show that human evolution is nothing more than faith, the exact same thing scientist accuse creationists of believing.”
No, peer review does not equal faith. Peer review simply ensures a scientific process is followed to support the conclusions made. Sometimes it’s objective (does the math add up) sometimes it’s conjecture supported with some other objective information, and sometimes it’s unsupported hypothesis (guesses) that open the door for further research to bring some objectivity to the process. Nobody that truly understands the scientific process believes it represents “truth”, rather it represents the closest thing to scientific proof that we can get. Occasionally, fundamental elements are found to differ - and that results in a whole new round of the scientific process.
It’s not good, it’s not bad, it’s just the way it’s done and it should be dispassionate. It can be subject to group-think, but generally, science has enough hard-headed folks that group-think is short-lived as it affects the body of scientific knowledge.
Only faith is faith. Those that use faith to disprove science (or science to disprove faith) do not understand either and should probably refrain from opening their pie-hole.
HS Your knowledge of science is zilch.