Originally posted by ska57
Look here for stuff on Carbon dating: http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp"No Chance of Life by Chance" article: http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=NoChanceofLifebyChance.jsp
"Universe Is Not 'Billions of Years Old'" article: http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=UniverseIsNotBillionsofYearsOld.jsp
Have to go now! Talk to you guys/girls later.
😂🤣😂
OMG! That's good! Really funny man!. Wait, ur being serious 😐
😂
Edit: there are many, many loopholes in the last link. Can someone PLEASE prove the bible WITHOUT using the bible as a source.
Edit2: Look at some of the years on the "sources" Some are over 30 years old, none within the last 10 years.
Time to do some bashing:
From http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=UniverseIsNotBillionsofYearsOld.jsp
Universe Is Not "Billions of Years" Old
"The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:
1. The universe is billions of years old.
2. Life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals.
3. Mutations create or improve a kind.
4. Natural selection has creative power."
Total Bullshit
"But let’s remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:
1. Evolution becomes obviously impossible.
2. Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.
3. Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe."
More bullshit. Time is the key element here. You can remove it without a valid reason. That's plain stupid. And evolution is NOT a religion.
"The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old."
Read this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_isotopes.html
^in fact, go to this site:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/index.shtml
It disproves everything made religious boy
Yers> 😆
“or shop in our online store.”
(Falls backwards off chair and DIES laughing!)
Ska> (Yawns) Show me evidence of Creationism!!!!! Your site has none.
Carbon-14
1. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement which exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages not much older than 50,000 years. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess C-12 released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess C-14 produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950's, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon [Faure 1998, 294].
In their claims of errors, creationists don't consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood"😉 or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the Carbon-14 dating method!!!!!<-
2. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar back for more than 11,000 years. It has also been tested on items whose age is known through historical records, such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb [Watson 2001; MNSU n.d.]. Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques [e.g. Bard et al. 1990].
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Knock yourself out. But WARNING – there’s real science in there. Not just Bible-gahgah by pseudo-scientists. So you probably won’t understand it.
DR> I'm glad you enjoyed it, It was there for your amusement.
TO> No! not the reindeers!!! anythign but the reindeers!
hehe,
I'm gonna go check out teh retarted sites and get back to you, I could use a laught, the second day of school allways sucks, expecially whenyou accidently drain your battery in your car.
yeah, maybe? I'm wondering what kind of elf is named Amazon.com? All my gift had: From Amazon.com Is that another name for santa 🙄
Omega, check this out. It has alot of couunters to "cration proofs" http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index.shtml
http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=Flood&varPage=localflood.jsp
this is pure BS. "Let's see what God says" What kind of response is that? Novind is avoid the question Was Noah's Flood a local event?