15 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsCompared to HUNDREDS of thousands of Phd'd scientists who don't. Your small minority is just the latest batch of the duped, seeking to gain political converts based on bogus science. Every monkey wrench they try to throw into the science just gets refuted ten times over and there is no recovery from that scientifically, so your couple thousand buddies are just tilting at windmills, nothing more.
Scientific Age of the Young Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1GJjHXX0Ic
There are thousands of scientists with graduate degrees in the natural sciences, who have been convinced by the scientific evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.
15 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, it makes better sense than evoultion.
Compared to HUNDREDS of thousands of Phd'd scientists who don't. Your small minority is just the latest batch of the duped, seeking to gain political converts based on bogus science. Every monkey wrench they try to throw into the science just gets refuted ten times over and there is no recovery from that scientifically, so your couple thousand buddies are just tilting at windmills, nothing more.
16 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is fun.
Scientific Age of the Young Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1GJjHXX0Ic
There are thousands of scientists with graduate degrees in the natural sciences, who have been convinced by the scientific evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.
Let's keep posting videos forever
16 May 14
Originally posted by forkedknightEven your commentator admits carbon dating doesn't work under certain circumstances, like with mollusk shells because they live in water. How about a worldwide flood that covered the earth for about a year? Couldn't that water mess up the carbon dating too? Anything that is fossilized requires water, mud, etc.
This is fun.
Let's keep posting videos forever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
16 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat do you mean, EVEN the commentator,etc.? That was the whole POINT of the exercise to see what limits the use of carbon dating so they can rule out bad dates. Did you get the part of these YEC'ers trying to carbon date Jurassic park fossils? THEIR AINT NO CARBON THERE TO DATE. Or did you just skim past that part?
Even your commentator admits carbon dating doesn't work under certain circumstances, like with mollusk shells because they live in water. How about a worldwide flood that covered the earth for about a year? Couldn't that water mess up the carbon dating too? Anything that is fossilized requires water, mud, etc.
Also, about your "Kind'' bit. If an animal does your micro evolutionary adaptation thing you tout, but is on one side of a divide like a mountain range or something and a bunch micro's its way on the left side and another on the right side and they micro their way down to the other side of the divide, a funny thing happens, some of them cannot now reproduce with each other, the left side line coming to meet the right hand side.
This is a case of a dog not being able to reproduce with another dog.
It's now a different "Kind". What do you know. Evolution in action, just as we have said all along.
Look at this Wiki bit to see what I am talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
16 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, it's a known limitation of the technology. It's always better to know and acknowledge your limitations rather than blindly ignoring them.
Even your commentator admits carbon dating doesn't work under certain circumstances, like with mollusk shells because they live in water. How about a worldwide flood that covered the earth for about a year? Couldn't that water mess up the carbon dating too? Anything that is fossilized requires water, mud, etc.
That doesn't mean that C14 dating doesn't work really well on plants and land animals.
If you're so concerned about contradictory evidence, how come you aren't more concerned with the contradictory creation stories in Genesis?