So thats why its the accepted form of dating by the world scientific community. To think, science makes no sense.
And I take take it your a creationists? I would love nothing more than to stay up rip countless holes through your theories, but I must retire for the night. At least evolution can answer more questions than it creates. Also shows why there are multiple forms of specie. A lot more reasonable than God wanting to play house.
So I do you also believe in the BIG BANG theory as the beginnin of the earth?
Which is about as logical as having a giant pile of metal rubble parts, then blowing it up, and the parts falling into place as 100 747's.
So thats why its the accepted form of dating by the world scientific community. To think, science makes no sense.
And I take take it your a creationists? I would love nothing more than to stay up rip countless holes through your theories, but I must retire for the night. At least evolution can answer more questions than it creates. Also shows why there are multiple forms of specie. A lot more reasonable than God wanting to play house.
So I do you also believe in the BIG BANG theory as the beginnin of the earth?
Which is about as logical as having a giant pile of metal rubble parts, then blowing it up, and the parts falling into place as 100 747's.
You sound like you know nothing about the Big Bang theory. How about instead of assuming it's wrong, you do some research on the subject. It's a lot more complicated than everything "falling into place".
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."
Take that, religion!
I'm sure people over on this site would love to debate the Hydroplate Theory with you G-train:
So I do you also believe in the BIG BANG theory as the beginnin of the earth?
Which is about as logical as having a giant pile of metal rubble parts, then blowing it up, and the parts falling into place as 100 747's.
That's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Ya, a big piece of asteroid flew into the earth and everything broke apart and fell into place and formed a man and a woman. You're a joke man.
So I do you also believe in the BIG BANG theory as the beginnin of the earth?
Which is about as logical as having a giant pile of metal rubble parts, then blowing it up, and the parts falling into place as 100 747's.
There are roughly 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, it only took one, the Sun, to support life on an orbiting planet. That's a ratio of 1:1,000,000,000.
The Pinwheel galaxy has 1 Trillion stars, 100 billion of which are roughly the same mass, temperature, luminosity, etc. of the Sun, so there is a very strong possibility that they could also support life as well. I still fail to see any designed order in this, only chaos and vastness. Where is the intelligent design here?
It is by completely random chance that Earth has life and no other planet in our solar system does.
As already pointed out, you do not know what you are taking about and simply copy and paste someone else's argument. Come up with your own material.
Does this guy really expect us to take him seriously when it is clear he gets his scientific knowledge from "creationscience.com"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-train
One limitation is that the radiocarbon technique dates only material that was once part of an animal or plant, such as bones, flesh, or wood. It cannot date rocks directly.
You do realize that carbon dating is not the only source for radioactive dating? They don't use carbon for rocks, instead they usually use potassium and argon, where K decays into an isotope of argon (half life of this decay is slightly over a billion years) and then they use the ratio of K to Ar to calculate the age of the rock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-train
So I do you also believe in the BIG BANG theory as the beginnin of the earth?
Which is about as logical as having a giant pile of metal rubble parts, then blowing it up, and the parts falling into place as 100 747's.
Nice exaggeration but rocks falling into place to form 747's would clearly be a non-spontaneous process and it is a known fact the universe only favors spontaneous processes. And there is actual evidence for the big bang such as the expansion of the universe (shown by the movement of galaxies), correct predictions of the relative amounts of hydrogen/helium and because it correctly predicts a type of background radiation that would exist if the big bang occurred. I admit I don't know much about the theory, my physics book devoted only two pages to the whole thing but that sounds more logical than your big "poof" theory.
I find it hilarious people put more faith in garbage books (bible, quran etc.) written by people who had a limited view and knowledge of the world, than actual physical observations. I think the most rational view to adopt would be that there may be a supernatural creator who sort jumpstarted the universe but left it be after the creation (ie. the laws of physics then took over).
Re: Wrench thrown in evolution theory?
