A series of questions for those against evolution

Ondoher

Veteran
Sep 17, 2004
1,812
52
✟2,246.00
Faith
Atheist
Novaknight1 said:
I believe the Earth's 10,000 years old. Radiometric dating's not accurate. However, why I believe Earth's so young is that it hasn't frozen over. Now, you could argue that the Sun warms it and thus it doesn't freeze. However, the margin is EXTREMELY slim. The possibility of error is 0+ 1 degree in 45,000,000 years to 0- 1 degree in 75,000,000 years.
Um, no it isn't.
 
Upvote 0

Ondoher

Veteran
Sep 17, 2004
1,812
52
✟2,246.00
Faith
Atheist
A4C said:
Well I cant accept evidence that presupposes evolution either
Evidence doesn't presuppose anything. It simply exists. A fossil just sits there, DNA just hangs out in our cells. The issue is the method used to interpret this data. AIG puts the cart before the horse in assuming the conclusion before the investigation, and stating outright that they cannot be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Novaknight1 said:
Okay, then. What do YOU think the accepted rate of heating/decrease is? Or are you asking about radioactivity being inaccurate? If you are asking the later, how come it dated a live mollusk at 2,300 years old?

Because:

1. Carbon14 dating does not work on living things. Living things are continuing to absorb carbon and cannot begin to be accurately dated until they die and stop replacing the carbon in their tissues.

2. Carbon14 dating does not work on marine life. The carbon14 necessary for correct dating must come from the atmosphere. Marine life doesn't get its carbon from the atmosphere.

3. Mollusks have shells made of calcium carbonate. The carbon in the calcium carbonate IS old. So a carbon14 test on such a shell will show correctly that the carbon in it is old.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 25, 2004
634
12
ohio
✟848.00
Faith
Christian
I think it is more you needing to prove it is billions of years old. all your science doesnt prove anything but creation. you all make it very simple when facts show it is extremly complex and interrelated. math shows it to be highly unlikely. the odds of many assumtions are stagering. the mutations mammals to reptiles or vice versa ape to man what came first plant life or animals. weather change had to come and go actually the same speeds as evolution. what of plants that need a specific animal to produce or reproduce. they would have to evolve the exact same time. If one spot in evolution is proven wrong the whole thing goes down hill. evolution needs constant weather. didnt happen. the mamoths the coal deposits in the artic circle. they happened suddenly, So a catastrophic event did happen. were is this in evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Tenacious-D

Active Member
Jul 26, 2004
226
14
✟424.00
Faith
Anglican
Novaknight1 said:
I believe the Earth's 10,000 years old. Radiometric dating's not accurate. However, why I believe Earth's so young is that it hasn't frozen over. Now, you could argue that the Sun warms it and thus it doesn't freeze. However, the margin is EXTREMELY slim. The possibility of error is 0+ 1 degree in 45,000,000 years to 0- 1 degree in 75,000,000 years.
Do you pluck this out of your backside or is their a website that provides nonsense like this?
 
Upvote 0