| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 03:32 PM |
But seriously, this is fake
atheist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWPwfQcPS5s |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 04:40 PM |
| Shoo, the religious flame war is over, no go jump on a car and drive to evolution land. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
FedleyAlt
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Apr 2013 |
| Total Posts: 484 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 04:42 PM |
| that would mean the bacteria in space today is capable to do similar things |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
| |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:00 PM |
that would mean the bacteria in space today is capable to do similar things
their environment prevents it |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cazamal
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1256 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:08 PM |
ha ur funy
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/
It's educational;mods don't ban me
This is not a siggy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cazamal
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1256 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:10 PM |
"Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay."
This is not a siggy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cazamal
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1256 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:14 PM |
It doesn't require intelligence to site sources and know that the Theory of Evolution's claim of evidence is false.
This is not a siggy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cazamal
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1256 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:17 PM |
"Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.
While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that.
Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth's magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.
The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic." - Essortment |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:17 PM |
carbon dating has nothing to do with evolution
please provide a reason why evolution is "flawed"
and we dont need carbon dating to prove that the earth is older than what is said in the bible |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cazamal
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1256 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:18 PM |
@berserk
Ok, then where's your proof?
This is not a siggy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
| |
|
Cazamal
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1256 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:20 PM |
Geology class lol
Let me break it to you:Those fossils in the books ARE ARTIST RENDERINGS.
This is not a siggy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:21 PM |
| if it were false it wouldn't be called a theory |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cazamal
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1256 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:22 PM |
@jesus
Do you know what a theory is?
Have you not been in elementary school?
A theory is an UNPROVEN hypothesis. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:23 PM |
| a theory is a hypothesis proven over and over again |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:23 PM |
@midmyst;
the time it takes for objects to erode
eg: the grand canyon ~ 17 million years
not even close to the actual age of the earth but a huge huge difference between the 50000/6000 year belief that christians have |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cazamal
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1256 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:25 PM |
@berserk
The so-called "proof" for this is carbon dating.
Which is, flawed to a great context. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cazamal
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 1256 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:26 PM |
...and im talking to some kid with an invalid argument
This is not a siggy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2014 06:27 PM |
what does carbon dating have to do with the earth being older than what religious beliefs yea, nothing |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|