Search results

Um.. did you even read that large post I made on the previous page. I went over a few theories that discussed reasons that would account for a young aged universe despite seeing light that has comes from distances that are supposedly millions of light years away. And no, the redshift...

Hmm.... A 1987 article in newsweek states "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." And you guys are giving me crap about Seve Austin. :D So...

He. (:mad: arg! how dare someone think that RDX could possibly be a female name...on second thought, to most people it's just 3 random letters.) Yes, I admit that Steve Austin comes across as little nutty and quite radical, and when he's sputtering out his propoganda it's hard not to...

While this is ture, I thought a moment ago you were arguing that things would move towards us due the expansion of the universe if we were not in the middle. I was trying to prove that our bearing in the universe had nothing to do with this. Your anwer also addresses the reason why I said I...

Whoa there stallion, getting a little touchy are we? I believe someone is quite mistaken. Ok, I'm at work now, so I'll have to make this short. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear there, the universe must have alsways been expanding SINCE it came into existance. I believe you...

Using the red-shift and hubble constants to date the universe requires a few assumptions that I do not agree with. First, dating the universe using these methods require the assumption that the universe started from a particular point in the big bang. That goes against my definition of...

I'm wasn't targeting you when I said that freako104; you are actually probably the most open minded person who has participated in this whole thread (I'm including myself in that to be clear).

I believe I have provided much information in this debate, and people have answered on behalf of evolution with that exact same sort of response: "The study must have been flawed; evolution is right." With little to no response they just ignore what I presented. If the world is proven to...

Evolution can never be demonstrated to be correct, only incorrect. In the same way creationism can only be demonstrated to be incorrect, never correct. As long as one clearly defines the parameters of the THEORY he proposed, it can be demonstrated to be incorrect, but never correct. Even...

Exactly... As I had previously said, But a person here did not have that viewpoint; so I'm merely trying to point out that this is not a clear-cut matter.

OK, if you don't like Steve Austin's work, ignore that article, here's another along the same line: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Varves Like I said, I have MANY more studies and papers that I can show you if you want more proof. I don't think you will be able to pick...

:) I will press on, with or without pants. Geez, I'm feeling a little like gonz here, fighting deep in right wing territory against overwhelming odds... As far as carbon dating goes: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_geology.asp That's kind of a dumbed down...

Exactly, carbon 14 dating is not supposed to work for dinosaurs, but many times it does. :confused: Well, yes the c-14 does wink out of existance. After 1million years there should be NO C-14 left in the sample. There will still be c-12 and c-13, but the c-14 should have completely...

Yes, that's quite lovely. :) I am familier with dating methods (geology minor), but I was wondering what type you were considering. If you ask to take a C-14 test on most fossils, you will just get laughed at as you said. It should be worthless after 50,000-70,000 years because none...

And just how do they determine that they are more that these fossils are millions of years old? C-14 decay measurements? potassium-argon decay measurements? Any what part do they not agree with?

While this is definetly true, animal remains will either NOT remain unfossilized for millions of years. The only exception would be if they were frozen, which is definetly not the case here. Examining remains from people buried by mudslides caused by volcano eruptions in such places as Thera...

Well, if we're not getting anywhere, then I suppose that we shouldn't waste our time rehashing these arguements. BTW, the article that I was referring to can be found in Earth June 1997 p.55 by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter. If that sort of thing gets you interested you can read a book...

Well I concur that natural selection occurs and variation does occur within a species, I do not believe that we all formed from the same genetic ancestor. I don't think that DNA evidence really proves anything about evolution. It certainly doesn't refute it, but as you said it doesn't refute...

I believe that the mathemeticians have a better understanding about the probability of the events happening. I'm trying to get across my point that many people accept evolution just as blindly as people accept religion. Well...yes, I'm trying to validate my point not disprove it. :)...

When I define living species, I mean that they exhibit characteristics that we would define as living: display order, capable of reproducing, aquire energy, sense/respond to enviroment display homeostasis properties... Even the simplist life form that we can attpempt to model that displays...