[CS-FSLUG] [OT] Fresh Dino Bones

[Christopher Rose]

Actually, carbon-14 is less reliable than that even. I read a report once in which a piece of shell was taken from a live snail with a known age of two years and yet a carbon-14 test on the shell fragment placed the age of the shell to somewhere around 1500BC. I would like to argue that carbon-14 (as well as all other radiometric dating techniques) is really just guessing with some sort of psuedoscience to back it. I think these so-called "researchers" should look at what they believe and see if the evidence really does support it. I am certain that those who are creationist will be seen as having a world view with supportive evidence, whilst the "evil"utionists won't have any such REAL evidence (a fairy tale worded in scientific jargon is still a fairy tale).


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Brault" <groundhog3000 at yahoo.com>
To: fmiller at lightlink.com, "A Christian virtual Free Software and Linux Users Group." <Christiansource at ofb.biz>
Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] [OT] Fresh Dino Bones
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:47:51 -0800 (PST)

> 
> Interesting,
> 
> > > Has carbon dating been proven with any old objects
> > where age is known?
> >
> > Not that I know of.
> 
> Carbon dating is only as accurate as the
> predicted/assumed amount of carbon-14 in the
> atmosphere
> at the time the animal died. This also relies upon the
> radioactive decay rate during the interim. So, before,
> say 2000 B.C. (i.e. human history) carbon dating is
> pretty much guessing.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > > Darwin's theory was limited to changes within a
> > > species (an idea which might have some merit), but
> 
> > > its a *big* jump from there to changing from
> > > one species into another one.
> >
> > 'Sure is!
> >
> > Fred
> 
> Darwin was heavily influenced by his grandfather, who
> literally wrote the book on classical evolution. He
> originally had it right, that one species, when
> reproductively isolated in an ecological niche, will
> be subject to natural selection (survival of the
> fittest) and so a new sub-species may arise. What he
> was not aware of was genetics, that all these subsets
> are not "the old species plus new genetic information"
> but are instead "the old species minus genetic
> information."
> 
> So, when Darwin's daughter died and he turned on the
> God (inspiring such notables and Marx, Engels, Lenin,
> Hitler and Pol Pot), Darwin began to embrase an old
> greek idea his grandfather had espouced, the origin of
> the species by natural means. At this point, his
> actions were meant to spite God, not be scientific,
> and so it went and so it is today.
> 
> Anyway, evolution is about to die. The big bang is
> already dead, it's just the noone is willing to admit
> that their religion is dead.
> 
> So be glad, when the world turns religious again, it
> will embrase the anti-Christ then it's time for Jesus
> to return and all is well.
> 
> Gabe Ginorio
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com



Linux Counter User: #350477
http://www.counter.li.org

-- 
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com