Why Evolution is True

[PsychoSarah]

radio carbon dating is better than some of the others but it still has it's flukes. For example they dated the top of the pyramid older than the bottom of the pyramids in egypt. Unless you have a habit to build pyramids from the top down I would think they got it wrong. carbon 14 dating is innacurate in that it assumed the recay and formation rates both are uniformly the same. but if simply google it you will see they are not alwys uniform.

-_- dating how old rocks are doesn't indicate how old the structure itself is. In fact, it makes sense that the tops were older, they were probably rocks dug out deeper than the ones for the base of the pyramid, since the rocks that formed the base would have been dug out first, and the ones at the top last.

 

[createdtoworship]

-_- dating how old rocks are doesn't indicate how old the structure itself is. In fact, it makes sense that the tops were older, they were probably rocks dug out deeper than the ones for the base of the pyramid, since the rocks that formed the base would have been dug out first, and the ones at the top last.

so are you saying that the pyramids cannot be dated using carbon 14?

so then by the Archaeological Institute of America would thus be wrong...

Dating the Pyramids - Archaeology Magazine Archive

I think you should email them before proceeding with this conversation.

let me know how it goes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so are you saying that the pyramids cannot be dated using carbon 14?

so then by the Archaeological Institute of America would thus be wrong...

Dating the Pyramids - Archaeology Magazine Archive

I think you should email them before proceeding with this conversation.

let me know how it goes.

They aren't using the actual pyramid stones, they are using charcoal, which is pretty much carbon. And also isn't what the pyramids are made of. They are using stuff they find inside the pyramids to date them, not the building itself.

 

[createdtoworship]

When was the flood? 4,000 BC or 4,000 years ago? I hope you know that these two things are not the same. And yes, this is important in this context because you already admitted that there are 6,000 year old trees. You even linked to evidence showing it.

ok cabvet, you are the reason I am doing this.

But lets get back to evolution as this is the OP

(and remember it was because CABVET couldn't let it go)

 

[createdtoworship]

since when is young earth arguments have to do with the OP which is evolution?

Lets get back on topic.

 

[CabVet]

ok cabvet, you are the reason I am doing this.

But lets get back to evolution as this is the OP

(and remember it was because CABVET couldn't let it go)

Doing what? Go back to what? To trees being 4,000 years old now that you found out that the flood was only 4,000 years ago?

 

[createdtoworship]

the reason why evolution is (not) true is because it lacks evidence on a macrolevel, is unobserved in a labratory or anywhere else, and thus cannot be called hard empiricle science.

 

[CabVet]

since when is young earth arguments have to do with the OP which is evolution?

Lets get back on topic.

Now that's just precious. You completely derailed a thread about education with dino footprints, and now you want to claim that discussing a flood and tree chronology is not evolution?

 

[createdtoworship]

Doing what? Go back to what? To trees being 4,000 years old now that you found out that the flood was only 4,000 years ago?

were talking about the op now, you know. Staying on topic. We've strayed long enough now quit derailing the thread.

 

[CabVet]

the reason why evolution is (not) true is because it lacks evidence on a macrolevel, is unobserved in a labratory or anywhere else, and thus cannot be called hard empiricle science.

The reason why evolution is not true (to you) is because it conflicts with your belief system. Too bad. It doesn't conflict with the belief system of hundreds of millions of other Christians out there.

Evidence (or the lack thereof) has nothing to do with it since you already said there is no evidence that could change your mind.

 

[createdtoworship]

Now that's just precious. You completely derailed a thread about education with dino footprints, and now you want to claim that discussing a flood and tree chronology is not evolution?

I believe tree dating does not support old earth chronology as I have already proven, (because they die earlier) thats when you got snippy and tried to repost my error over and over ad naseum.

 

[PsychoSarah]

the reason why evolution is (not) true is because it lacks evidence on a macrolevel, is unobserved in a labratory or anywhere else, and thus cannot be called hard empiricle science.

We can't actually see many of the things around us in person. I could argue that at the core of mars is Jurassic park, hollow, anything, because according to you any theory about its core can't be true because we can't see it in a lab.

I guess souls can't be real either, because they too cannot be observed in labs.

 

[CabVet]

were talking about the op now, you know. Staying on topic. We've strayed long enough now quit derailing the thread.

Now to use your own words, thanks for admitting defeat.

 

[createdtoworship]

The reason why evolution is not true (to you) is because it conflicts with your belief system. Too bad. It doesn't conflict with the belief system of hundreds of millions of other Christians out there.
{/QUOTE]

in conflicts with rationality. Evidence please?

Evidence (or the lack thereof) has nothing to do with it

precious

since you already said there is no evidence that could change your mind.

I said only a lot of evidence would. So please start with just one piece. Unless you are too scared to be publically defeated rationally speaking. I dare you.

 

[CabVet]

We can't actually see many of the things around us in person. I could argue that at the core of mars is Jurassic park, hollow, anything, because according to you any theory about its core can't be true because we can't see it in a lab.

You can say that about the core of the earth.

 

[PsychoSarah]

in conflicts with rationality. Evidence please?

You have asked, we gave, you disregarded.

 

[CabVet]

in conflicts with rationality. Evidence please?

Evidence for what? Why do you keep asking for evidence if no amount of evidence will change your mind?

 

[CabVet]

I said only a lot of evidence would. So please start with just one piece.

Do you want me to quote your post?

What kind of evidence do you want? Bigeographic? Genetic? Biochemical? Developmental? Geological?

 

[createdtoworship]

Evidence for what? Why do you keep asking for evidence if no amount of evidence will change your mind?

macro evolution. A transition fossil showing the ancestry between to genra of creature. Monkey- man, whale- dog like creature, or dinasaur to bird, you pick. I dare you to provide one, unless your too scared to be publically put in your place.

 

[CabVet]

macro evolution. A transition fossil showing the ancestry between to genra of creature. Monkey- man, whale- dog like creature, or dinasaur to bird, you pick. I dare you to provide one, unless your too scared to be publically put in your place.

How about a dinosaur with feathers? Would that satisfy your "dare"? That would be a dino-bird.