Was Darwin Right?

[Luuper]

Okay,

I have been reading these forums and all i have seen is blind guessing

Does is it really make sence that an invisible immortal phantom created everything in 6 days? Then he slept in for day? Are we to believe, over overwelming proof that we should trust an outdated book that puts the creation of everything at 6000 years ago, when carbon dating has put dinosaurs at 65 mil years old?

Really?

Stop lying to yourself.....

 

[b&wpac4]

Okay,

I have been reading these forums and all i have seen is blind guessing

Does is it really make sence that something created everything in 6 days? Then he slept in for day? Are we to believe, over overwelming proof that we should trust an outdated book that puts the creation of everything at 6000 years ago, when carbon dating has put dinosaurs at 65 mil years old?

Really?

The subforum you you want is that way ------>
Creation & Evolution - Christian Forums

 

[Col3_11n12]

A) Darwin never said anything either way whether the world was created or not. The body of your post has nothing to do with your subject line.

B) Your profile you claim you are Presbyterian. What's going on there?

 

[brightmorningstar]

I agree. The body of your post has nothing to do with your subject line

 

[mpok1519]

yes darwin was right to a degree. He didn't understand evolution on a genetic level, but, with his research it paved the path for modern evolutionary discoveries.

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed for staff review

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Nathan45]

when carbon dating has put dinosaurs at 65 mil years old?

Really?

Stop lying to yourself.....

carbon dating hasn't put dinosaurs at 65 million years old... Don't confuse carbon dating with other forms of dating...

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

carbon dating hasn't put dinosaurs at 65 million years old... Don't confuse carbon dating with other forms of dating...

Quote for truth. It bugs me when people use "carbon dating" as a blanket term for all forms of radiometric dating.

 

[Hespera]

Quote for truth. It bugs me when people use "carbon dating" as a blanket term for all forms of radiometric dating.

When a creo uses "carbon dating" that way, it just represents that they have no idea what they are talking about and their knowledge" goes no deeper than how to cut and paste.

In the fair is fair dept, i dont think our op person knows enough to be be posting in a debate forum either.

 

[AirPo]

I call Poe.

No, in this case it would be Anti-Poe.

No, that's not right either.

ArcPoe? APoe. A Poe of a different color?

 

[Cabal]

I call Poe.

No, in this case it would be Anti-Poe.

No, that's not right either.

ArcPoe? APoe. A Poe of a different color?

Eop? eoP?

Noe?

 

[Morcova]

Atheist in christian clothing?

 

[Markus6]

Okay,

I have been reading these forums and all i have seen is blind guessing

Does is it really make sence that an invisible immortal phantom created everything in 6 days? Then he slept in for day? Are we to believe, over overwelming proof that we should trust an outdated book that puts the creation of everything at 6000 years ago, when carbon dating has put dinosaurs at 65 mil years old?

Really?

Stop lying to yourself.....

Thanks for your input. You've have singularily ended the entire debate! What were we thinking??

 

[Gracchus]

Don't be hard on the OP. It is hard to get utter nonsense right.

 

[ahiggs]

Quote for truth. It bugs me when people use "carbon dating" as a blanket term for all forms of radiometric dating.

don't they date fossils by the layer of sediment they are found in?

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

don't they date fossils by the layer of sediment they are found in?

Yeah, but they don't rely on one thing to determine their date. They also use non-carbon based dating methods such as, for example, uranium-lead (measuring the decay of U-238 into Pb-206), potassium-argon (measuring the decay of potassium-40 into argon-40), samarium-neodymium, and uranium-thorium, among others.

 

[mpok1519]

yes, there are many ways to measure the date of an object accurately, usually within a few thousand years. And in the eye of universal time, a few thousands years within is pretty accurate.

 

[Hespera]

yes, there are many ways to measure the date of an object accurately, usually within a few thousand years. And in the eye of universal time, a few thousands years within is pretty accurate.[/quote


Obviously the more recent something is the more accurately we can date it.

How accurate do you need to be about something five hundred million years ago, tho? Get it down to wednesday afternoon, or is within plus or minus a few million years close enough for any actual use fot the date?

 

[mpok1519]

if something is five million years old, they can usually get it down to within 25-50K years.

but its hard to radiometrically date something that is less than 20K years old.

 

[Hespera]

if something is five million years old, they can usually get it down to within 25-50K years.

but its hard to radiometrically date something that is less than 20K years old.

uh... you should review your factoids a bit more.