21 Jul 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhich ridiculous responses are you referring to? And how do they back up your claim?
I don't need to back it up, you have backed it up for me by your ridiculous responses over the last few posts. You didn't say that you do actually understand it, but instead chose to deliberately misinterpret what I said.
If you really want to demonstrate that you understand it, then instead of holding your breath to try and manipulate the carbon dati ...[text shortened]... how you think it works and why you think it didn't work well in the examples you cited earlier.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou are the one dissing C14 fossil dating techniques so you are the one to provide the evidence against it. I already told you C14 limitations have been studied to death and scientists know exactly when and when they cannot use C14. It turns out they can use it in many more cases than they can't so they have high confidence in the dates and you notice they don't say fossil X is 23,405.84 years old. They say fossil X is 23 thousand years old plus or minus 2 thousand years or some such, a number and a window of error. So if they say it is 23 thou with a plus minus 2 thou it could be 25 thou, it could be 21 thou but not 4 thousand years old.
Which ridiculous responses are you referring to? And how do they back up your claim?
The dating times outside the self imposed limit of 6000 years is ENTIRELY on the creationist world not the REAL world. The REAL world KNOWS Earth is billions of years old not thousands. Well, a MILLION thousand years old and more....
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonhouseWhen exactly did I claim to be a young earth creationist? I simply pointed out the limitations of carbon dating.
You are the one dissing C14 fossil dating techniques so you are the one to provide the evidence against it. I already told you C14 limitations have been studied to death and scientists know exactly when and when they cannot use C14. It turns out they can use it in many more cases than they can't so they have high confidence in the dates and you notice they ...[text shortened]... WS Earth is billions of years old not thousands. Well, a MILLION thousand years old and more....
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou simply cannot present any evidence to back up YOUR claim that YOU made. I don't have to explain anything to you (which I can), since I haven't made any claims yet. Sorry bud but the burden of proof is on you this time. You on the other hand have made a claim which you can't back up. Quite evidently.
Correct. Are you denying it? If so, can you present any evidence whatsoever that you have even the remotest idea how carbon dating works?
21 Jul 16
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually you do since you made the claim. And you still evidently don't know what a fact is. Or is this one of your facts that isn't true? 😵
Neither of us has to explain anything. But the fact remains that you don't understand how carbon dating works.
22 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonhouseThey went into the ground and more then just 2 of each were alive? No fish were on the ark.
Surely putting down a deluge of rain that would have been something like a cm per minute would have killed all the mosquito's, bees, ants, roaches, termites and such yet we have a full compliment of them and a large genetic diversity also.
I see nothing in Genesis about anything but animals on board the arc.
So why do we have insects now? They could n ...[text shortened]... f there was a ww flood? Don't try to say they survived on vegetable mats, not a million species.
22 Jul 16
Originally posted by RBHILLWhat are you on now? Who mentioned fish. Not me. I am talking about insects who would have had a mass extinction event but we know that never happened so we can safely say the WW flood never happened either.
They went into the ground and more then just 2 of each were alive? No fish were on the ark.