down to post #14 now:
So c-14 tests are invalid on snails? What are c-14 tests not valid on? Mammoths too, I assume? Since two parts of the SAME mammoth have been dated thousands of years apart? Again, I'll ask: If c-14 tests are invalid on mollusks and snails which live near water because the water is KNOWN to skew the results, why is c-14 testing used on oceanic fossils? And the results trusted, although they're known to be skewed?
I think other posters have addressed this quite well already.
Why does c-14 testing never work on things where we KNOW when it died, yet c-14 seems to ALWAYS work when we have no idea when it died except the results of the c-14 testing?
It doesn't
always work- it just happens that we know what it works on and what it doesn't, and
honest scientists only use it to date what it works on. The reason it "never works on things where we KNOW when it died" (which is an utterly false claim) is because professional creationists intentionally misapply (as in the case of the snails) or misrepresent (as in the case of the mammoths) carbon dating and its results.
not for thousands of years.
Yes, even for thousands of years. There are several examples of this in the form of Black Sea shipwrecks.
How do we know these 30'+ of layers formed within a year or two, yet these few feet of layers were a million years apart?
Here's a clue- the thickness of the individual layers. Mudslides form thick layers. Varves are paper thin.
Then why is evolution religiously defended by faith alone?
A basic understanding of science is now considered faith?
No one has evidence of how the first cell formed, let alone animated, let alone started to reproduce.
Which is not a matter of evolution. The first cell could have been created by God or magicked here by space faeries and it wouldn't invalidate evolution in the slightest.
Again, I'm not saying teach christianity.
The problem is that you seem enthusiastic about teaching lies about science.
There's no way to scientifically prove WHAT created the universe, but the idea that something ALIVE brought life to the earth is a perfectly logical statement.
A plausible claim, perhaps, but it is hardly axiomatic.
I'm NOT saying "teach evolution and christianity." I'm saying "if you're going to teach that 'science says we came from soup that got hit by lightning'
Who teaches that?
teach that 'it is also possible something could have created life.' Either way, the origin of why we're here is religious, and should be discussed with whatever religious leaders you choose."
The question of "Why" may be religious, but the "How" needn't be. Science is about
how.
Is your best arguement the fact that I called the universal singularity "dirt?" I sincerely apologize if I offended your ancestors (the dirt, from which you evolved).
My best argument is the fact you have no scientific argument. You consistently display total ignorance of what evolution is, what abiogenesis claims, and what big bang cosmology claims, yet you somehow expect to be taken seriously when you pontificate on what ought to be taught in a science classroom.
You can't have a theory of how the first life forms evolved if you have no bloody clue how what evolved got here!
Sure you can. Do you realize we're still not quite clear on what exactly
causes mass? Yet you'll see that little 'm' factor everywhere in physics! The theories that use it are quite valid at explaining the phenomena they purport to explain, just like evolution.
"I see multiple kinds of finches... so they all evolved from bacteria, and I have no idea how that bacteria got here." Honestly? That's what science accepts?
Out of necessity, since no one theory (at least no theory a human mind could hold) can be used to explain every phenomenon in the universe.
Evolution doesn't explain everything. Creationism, on the other hand, explains nothing.
A complete theory, for you, is "These bacteria with very little DNA material passed on what the information they didn't have, until what wasn't passed on is all you see?"
Nice straw man. You know that's a logical fallacy, right?
BTW, do you know how "information" is measured?
