Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[KalMart]

You people act like scientists are so holy & they don't do no wrong. You evolutionists are in NO position to accuse somebody of ignoring facts & data when evolutionists have been ignoring facts & data for decades. And here's one example of what I'm talking about:

Carbon dating was proven to be inaccurate a long time ago but yet evolutionists were still using it to prove that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, or to prove that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago.

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

1. Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.

2. Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old.

3. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.

4. “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.”

5. “Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”

6. Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.

Show which ones, please....and how it's been corroborated and confirmed like actual findings are.

As for religion....there are some faiths out there that say the Earth is held up by elephants....or that Jesus wan't the actual son of God....

 

[rodhulk]

You people act like scientists are so holy & they don't do no wrong. You evolutionists are in NO position to accuse somebody of ignoring facts & data when evolutionists have been ignoring facts & data for decades. And here's one example of what I'm talking about:

Carbon dating was proven to be inaccurate a long time ago but yet evolutionists were still using it to prove that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, or to prove that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago.

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

1. Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.

2. Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old.

3. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.

4. “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.”

5. “Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”

6. Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.

I agree with what you said. The 3 videos on the dinosaurs I posted was ignored.. why, because there is eveidence there to creation, that man and dinosaur co-existed, so perhaps life isn't as old as evolutionists say it is. the videoes also talked about some of that dating (carbon dating, I think) and it was all false.

Your 6 points above are good but the evolutionists say we don't understand science yet they completely don't understand the Bible and God. When prophecy is fulfilled, for example, that is observed. Does that prove God and the Bible automatically. No, but it can lead to evidence in the truth of the Bible and God in much the same way these evolutionists say random evolution "facts" lead to evidence of the whole theory of evolution as getting closer to be a fact.

The Bible doesn't claim to be a science book but it gives us a brief intro to how life and how it works and evolution as we know it currently backs up the Bible such as the "after it's kind" I like using.

www.trueorigin.org is a wonderful site to visit.

 

[Schlosser85]

Humans and dinosaurs living at the same just makes no sense. There are no accounts of them in any historical writings, apart from findings of their remains.

 

[Kelly]

I actually have no clue on this, who's right, wrong, etc...etc...etc....just not a debate I ever needed to have, but in reference to your post Schlosser I thought this was kind of interesting....

http://www.dinosaursandman.com/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=15&catid=1

 

[KalMart]

Humans and dinosaurs living at the same just makes no sense. There are no accounts of them in any historical writings, apart from findings of their remains.

It didn't happen, it's a pretty transparent act of desperation on creationism's part. They're actually better off calling fossils a conspiracy, or a trick planted by the devil. "When reason, evidence, and logic aren't available...give fear a try."

 

[rodhulk]

Well, the Bible does mention it in the book of Job, but the lack of evidence in historical writings is more than made up for in the findings the three video set goes on to show. How can people just a thousand or two years ago have been able to draw on rock and other material, dinosaurs that we've only come to know in more modern times?

Evolutionists always try to discredit creationists by saying we use tricky tactics like the bones were planted by the devil or God to trick people or what have you as mentioned by a poster just above. But go to the site I linked in an above post, it doesn't do that.

 

[Schlosser85]

That was an interesting link, Kelly, thank you...

However, I do notice there's not much variety in the species depicted, and I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that some dinosaurs lingered on beyond....perhaps far beyond...their overall extinction.

Just because dinosaurs ostensibly went extinct 65 million years ago, does not mean when the giant universe clock hit "65 million BC", every dinosaur on Earth instantly vaporized. In fact, it would not only be entirely possible, but plausible and highly likely, that some species died out while others lingered longer, even millions of years beyond the overall dinosaur extinction.

Every species depicted in the cave drawings is also a herbivore, which may have stood better chances of surviving longer than large carnivores.

I also can't help but notice that about 2/3 of those pictures are alleged rubbings or "artist's sketches" of the cave drawings, as opposed to photographs of the cave drawings themselves.

 

[KalMart]

Well, the Bible does mention it in the book of Job,

Does it really? Please provide an accurate quote that specifically refers to them as dinosaurs as we know them to be, and shows that they were able to distinguish them as so...as opposed to a parable/myth/vision/manifestation of a dragon or the like, and/or different from crocodiles or whales, etc.

but the lack of evidence in historical writings is more than made up for in the findings the three video set goes on to show. How can people just a thousand or two years ago have been able to draw on rock and other material, dinosaurs that we've only come to know in more modern times?

I bet you we can find actual drawings and sculptures that go farther back than two thousand years. If there actually were dinosaurs, then there would be o basis to those people to find them any more difficult to draw or record than a fish or a deer...since it was just one of the animals of the day.

Evolutionists always try to discredit creationists by saying we use tricky tactics like the bones were planted by the devil or God to trick people or what have you as mentioned by a poster just above. But go to the site I linked in an above post, it doesn't do that.

No...creationists and fundamentalists are the ones who came up with those ridiculous ideas, evolutionists didn't 'plant' them. It's important to recognize and distinguish that.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Show which ones, please....and how it's been corroborated and confirmed like actual findings are.

As for religion....there are some faiths out there that say the Earth is held up by elephants....or that Jesus wan't the actual son of God....

Radiocarbon dating is notoriously flimsy, and basically amounts to educated guess work. Results are based on the presumed amount of Carbon 14 in the animal when it died. To add even further instability in the results, countless things can contaminate the Carbon 14 reading - everything from the composition of the soil or water a fossil is encased in, to the chemical contents of the air.

With Alpha's point about the supposedly 27,000 year old "living" snail - that isn't a "small" margin of error. It's quite huge in fact. Can you imagine the ramifications if we discovered that the Pyramids were 27,000 years older than we thought - or if the Potbelly Hill in Turkey (the oldest evidence of human civilization that we have) turned out to actually be just 1000 years old?

There's just too much interference in carbon-dating to consider it the end all-be all of scientific dating. Yes, scientists understand the rate of decay for Carbon 14 quite well, but that isn't the problem. Its the countless ways the results can be contaminated as well as many people not taking this into account, or incorrectly/falsely trying to correct it. The problem with the snail Alpha mentioned wasn't the method's error, but the fact that the shell was created by minerals far older than the snail itself. It's these types of anomolies and contamination (known and unknown), plus with the mere estimation of an objects amount of C14 that make carbon-dating imperfect. Scientists ARE getting better at accomodating for these issues, but even most scientists would argue that there will never be a time when carbon-dating is 100% reliable across the board.

 

[Alpha Born]

Quote:
Actually, it is quite simple to observe evolution occurring,when populations change their genetic composition from generation to generation. In the laboratory, this has been seen in fruit flies, mice and bacteria and in the field, cichlid fish. Testing evolution with controlled experiments has become its own field.

Ok then give me information from these testings. I want to know what happened in these laboratories with these fruit flies, mice, and bacteria.

By that standard, a great many accepted theories would not be theories, but that is not necessarily how science works. In this case, scientists can infer past macroevolution from transitional fossils, which provide plausible links between several different groups of organisms, for example between birds and dinosaurs, or fish and limbed amphibians.

Actually, there are no transitional fossils. Those so-called transitional fossils were proven to not be transitional fossils after all.

Quote:
Actually scientists have seen evolution of species taking place within a life time, as with the examples above. We didn't evolve from primates, we ARE primates. And there is much evidence of human evolution, including: The correspondence of chromosome 2 in humans to two ape chromosomes, the fact that the closest human relative -- the chimpanzee -- has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2 but are found in two separate chromosomes, and the fact that this is also true of the gorilla and the orangutan. In addition, chromosome 2 contains a vestigial centromere, unusual for any chromosome, as well as vestigial telomeres in the middle of its sequence. This indicates lost ancestral functions not belonging to the current species.

This is very strong evidence in favor of the common descent of humans and other apes, indicating that the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

I'm glad you brought up that ape/human DNA similarity bull-ish.

Apes could NEVER evolve into humans and this is why:

Steve Jones
Scientist, Evolutionist

An exceptional quote to begin with, revealing that specific, pinpointed similarities between two separate species can mean very little. Baboons, according to research, share 90% of their DNA with human beings. Does this, therefore, make them 90% human? The answer, in light of this quote, is absolutely not. Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, also noted concerning man/monkey genetic differences:

"Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."

Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution?

Source - http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm

That little fact alone tears up the evolution fairy tale.

 

[KalMart]

Radiocarbon dating is notoriously flimsy, and basically amounts to educated guess work. Results are based on the presumed amount of Carbon 14 in the animal when it died. To add even further instability in the results, countless things can contaminate the Carbon 14 reading - everything from the composition of the soil or water a fossil is encased in, to the chemical contents of the air.

Which is why the science relies on more than just it and doesn't just profess the first thing that pops up without extended analysis, comparisons, and corroborations with findings that we know to be both true and diligent in other fields of science. Any method is subject to instabilities. But the key is that it doesn't make it non-working, or unreliable when used in conjunction with other scientific methods. Whereas the alternatives to it are....what...a better form of dating matter...or scripture?

The error is in somehow portraying evolution as a rogue practice that throws caution to the wind and eschews self-checking and discipline like every major science so diligently adheres to. That is false. But creationism somehow looks upon it that way simply because unlike other sciences, it happens to imply a contradiction to a core symbolism expressed in scripture. But it's not the only one...cosmology does as well, as does geology, astronomy...and you can find a plethora of other aspects in all sciences that contradict the idea of creationism just as well, causing it to keep moving its goalposts. Finding small holes to poke as you've alluded does nothing to combat the mountains of support and development found in evolutionary science, or the methodology behind it. It only attempts to defame, but offers nothing in the way of scientific or even rational counter-theories or alternatives.

So again, if one wants to point out margins of error in carbon dating, you've got a lot more to tackle in ALL sciences for it to count as an actual argument. It's one of the tool used, each one with their own unique limitations (as it is with all sciences), but part of an entire approach that does actually add up. And it is it is the best explanation we have, unless one can come up with another that actually does scientifically explain and specify, and doesn't just propose that we stop asking.

 

[Schlosser85]

Apes could NEVER evolve into humans and this is why:

Steve Jones
Scientist, Evolutionist

An exceptional quote to begin with, revealing that specific, pinpointed similarities between two separate species can mean very little. Baboons, according to research, share 90% of their DNA with human beings. Does this, therefore, make them 90% human? The answer, in light of this quote, is absolutely not. Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, also noted concerning man/monkey genetic differences:

"Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."

I don't pretend to be a DNA expert, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about a change of 3 nucleotides in an individual animal in one instance, not over hundreds or thousands of generations.

 

[rodhulk]

Does it really? Please provide an accurate quote that specifically refers to them as dinosaurs as we know them to be, and shows that they were able to distinguish them as so...as opposed to a parable/myth/vision/manifestation of a dragon or the like, and/or different from crocodiles or whales, etc.


I bet you we can find actual drawings and sculptures that go farther back than two thousand years. If there actually were dinosaurs, then there would be o basis to those people to find them any more difficult to draw or record than a fish or a deer...since it was just one of the animals of the day.



No...creationists and fundamentalists are the ones who came up with those ridiculous ideas, evolutionists didn't 'plant' them. It's important to recognize and distinguish that.

I'm not at home ATM but it most assuredly seems to describe something different than any animal we know of.

Oh, and nice attempt to deviate away from what is at hand but just the fact that these drawings were done a thousand or two years ago is more than enough proof to me that the possibility of man and dinosaur co-existing is real high.

Sure a couple of creationists and fundamentalists have said the planted bones part, I NEVER said they didn't. You just seemed like you are trying touse that in a general way with every creationist. That's how I read your post and that's not true at all, hence the true origins site I linked too. What's really funny, though, is I never mentioned evolutionists planted then either, yet you seem to think I did say that.

 

[KalMart]

I'm not at home ATM but it most assuredly seems to describe something different than any animal we know of.

There are other parts that describe a talking serpent....as well of a man splitting open a sea, creating a man out of sand, etc....

Scripture is not a reliable place to look for counter-evidence, when religion itself has yet to define and confirm which parts are literal and which are metaphorical, and what the specific/unique references are.

Oh, and nice attempt to deviate away from what is at hand but just the fact that these drawings were done a thousand or two years ago is more than enough proof to me that the possibility of man and dinosaur co-existing is real high.

And again, what is it that you suspect made dinosaurs so much harder to draw than other animals that were drawn...especially seeing how much bigger they were.

Who's 'attempting' what here?

Sure a couple of creationists and fundamentalists have said the planted bones part, I NEVER said they didn't. You just seemed like you are trying touse that in a general way with every creationist. That's how I read your post and that's not true at all, hence the true origins site I linked too. What's really funny, though, is I never mentioned evolutionists planted then either, yet you seem to think I did say that.

Again, the idea and expression of it came from creationists, as an attempt to defame evolution. I didn't say you specifically did. You implied that evolution planted the idea. Thankfully, now you know they didn't.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Humans and dinosaurs living at the same just makes no sense. There are no accounts of them in any historical writings, apart from findings of their remains.

Allow me to preface this by stating the following:

I do NOT believe that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. Like ghosts, ancient aliens and big foot, I lump the topic into a subject (cryptozology) that I find extremely fun and compelling, despite any actual belief in. What could be the explanation? Any number of things, even what could be considered the most ridiculous answer, but without any hard facts, it’s all just fun and innocent hypothetical talk.

Now, there actually ARE accounts of creatures that we now could consider to be “dinosaurs”, but since the term wasn’t coined until the 1800s, they were called monsters, levitations and dragons, and even deities. We’re not just talking about myths and legends, we’re talking about stories that the people in question documented and actually lived in fear of…for example:

The Native Americans lived in fear of a giant flying “reptile” that was said to have snatched up their children and animals on a regular basis. Pictographs in the US south west, Mexico, and South America depict what we would consider to be a pterodactyl.

The historian Herodotus talks about traveling to Arabia and described the nuisance caused by “featherless serpents with bat-like wings” (sounds a lot like a pterodactyl) local farmers and how the farmers dealt with them. Even Aristotle talks about them.

This is a fun one: there’s a temple in Cambodia whose carvings depict living “dinosaurs” right along with animals you’d expect. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia-GSA-scale.jpg

There are countless more. Again, I don’t believe that ancient Egyptians ran in terror from Spinosaurus, but you gotta admit that the stories and engravings ARE interesting. Yes, the most logical explanations for things such as the Cambodian carvings is that they uncovered fossils, but even when you acknowledge that they had enough understanding of anatomy to CORRECTLY reconstruct a stegosaur skeleton is awesome.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Which is why the science relies on more than just it and doesn't just profess the first thing that pops up without extended analysis, comparisons, and corroborations with findings that we know to be both true and diligent in other fields of science. Any method is subject to instabilities. But the key is that it doesn't make it non-working, or unreliable when used in conjunction with other scientific methods. Whereas the alternatives to it are....what...a better form of dating matter...or scripture?

The error is in somehow portraying evolution as a rogue practice that throws caution to the wind and eschews self-checking and discipline like every major science so diligently adheres to. That is false. But creationism somehow looks upon it that way simply because unlike other sciences, it happens to imply a contradiction to a core symbolism expressed in scripture. But it's not the only one...cosmology does as well, as does geology, astronomy...and you can find a plethora of other aspects in all sciences that contradict the idea of creationism just as well, causing it to keep moving its goalposts. Finding small holes to poke as you've alluded does nothing to combat the mountains of support and development found in evolutionary science, or the methodology behind it. It only attempts to defame, but offers nothing in the way of scientific or even rational counter-theories or alternatives.

So again, if one wants to point out margins of error in carbon dating, you've got a lot more to tackle in ALL sciences for it to count as an actual argument. It's one of the tool used, each one with their own unique limitations (as it is with all sciences), but part of an entire approach that does actually add up. And it is it is the best explanation we have, unless one can come up with another that actually does scientifically explain and specify, and doesn't just propose that we stop asking.

Did you not read the last paragraph in my post? Or the majority of it? Not once did I damn carbon-dating or say it was useless. I didn't point out anything a self respecting scientist wouldnt freely admit to. I only pointed out that it IS an imperfect gauge due to the countless amounts of ways aging can be flubbed, but I even acknowledged that scientists were getting better at understanding those anomolies, and therefore being able to make more accurate readings.

 

[Schlosser85]

Like I said, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that some remnants of dinosaurs lived on far beyond their general extinction, and I don't think it's impossible that some might have existed into fairly recent history.

For the record....I am a believer in Nessie, and I believe Nessie is a Plesiosaur, or something descended from one.

 

[KalMart]

Allow me to preface this by stating the following:

I do NOT believe that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. Like ghosts, ancient aliens and big foot, I lump the topic into a subject (cryptozology) that I find extremely fun and compelling, despite any actual belief in. What could be the explanation? Any number of things, even what could be considered the most ridiculous answer, but without any hard facts, it’s all just fun and innocent hypothetical talk.

Now, there actually ARE accounts of creatures that we now could consider to be “dinosaurs”, but since the term wasn’t coined until the 1800s, they were called monsters, levitations and dragons, and even deities. We’re not just talking about myths and legends, we’re talking about stories that the people in question documented and actually lived in fear of…for example:

The Native Americans lived in fear of a giant flying “reptile” that was said to have snatched up their children and animals on a regular basis. Pictographs in the US south west, Mexico, and South America depict what we would consider to be a pterodactyl.

The historian Herodotus talks about traveling to Arabia and described the nuisance caused “featherless serpents with bat-like wings” (sounds a lot like a pterodactyl) local farmers and how the farmers dealt with them. Even Aristotle talks about them.

This is a fun one: there’s a temple in Cambodia whose carvings depict living “dinosaurs” right along with animals you’d expect. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia-GSA-scale.jpg

There are countless more. Again, I don’t believe that ancient Egyptians ran in terror from Spinosaurus, but you gotta admit that the stories and engravings ARE interesting. Yes, the most logical explanations for things such as the Cambodian carvings is that they uncovered fossils, but even when you acknowledge that they had enough understanding of anatomy to CORRECTLY reconstruct a stegosaur skeleton is awesome.

Countless cultures employ the concept of dragons in their mythology and folklore, but never has any fossil or biological evidence been found to support it being literal. If anywhere, one should look to studies in anthropology and mythology on primordial imagery common to primitive and ancient cultures. one also can[t ignore an instinctual aversion to animals that pose a danger to mammals, such as snakes and poisonous lizards, going way back to our earliest days as a species and even before.

And with Egyptians in particular,...animal worship was a strong part of their culture as well, as professed in their art and texts. Fascinating as it is on a a cultural/folklore and even artistic level, we shouldn't assume the scientific plausibility of an actual winged giant reptile or the like any moreso than a human body with a dog's or falcon's head.

 

[KalMart]

Did you not read the last paragraph in my post? Or the majority of it? Not once did I damn carbon-dating or say it was useless. I didn't point out anything a self respecting scientist wouldnt freely admit to. I only pointed out that it IS an imperfect gauge due to the countless amounts of ways aging can be flubbed, but I even acknowledged that scientists were getting better at understanding those anomolies, and therefore being able to make more accurate readings.

I didn't say you damned it, but I again pointed out that the margins of error and 'imperfection' that carbon dating poise are not new to the actual science, nor are they really damaging to it. I.e...it's not really much of a case against evolution in and of itself.

You can read this all again, if it'll help this time.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I didn't say you damned it, but I again pointed out that the margins of error and 'imperfection' that carbon dating poise are not new to the actual science, nor are they actually 'damning' to it. I.e...it's not really much of a case against evolution in and of itself.

No, I agree - it's not a case against evolution (I even countered Alpha's snail shell point). Only thing I disagreed with you on was the idea that the margin of error is unimportant (below of the millions of years scale, of course). Yes there are other methods scientists employ to help date things, but carbon-dating is still considered by many to be THE method, despite often times being the weaker link (no pun intended). To be truthful, I'm actually more interested in carbon dating when it comes to archaeology then the study of evolution.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm not at home ATM but it most assuredly seems to describe something different than any animal we know of.

Oh, and nice attempt to deviate away from what is at hand but just the fact that these drawings were done a thousand or two years ago is more than enough proof to me that the possibility of man and dinosaur co-existing is real high.

Sure a couple of creationists and fundamentalists have said the planted bones part, I NEVER said they didn't. You just seemed like you are trying touse that in a general way with every creationist. That's how I read your post and that's not true at all, hence the true origins site I linked too. What's really funny, though, is I never mentioned evolutionists planted then either, yet you seem to think I did say that.

The bible mentions "behemoth" anf "leviathan" they are described as large beasts. Dragons and sea serpents were mentioned in old writings and legends too but we dont take them literally. Most likely all these beast references were either heresay or exagerations. Even if they werent there is no context of size or description given to these beasts in the bible and they are only mentioned once. Thats not enough evidence to prove dinosaurs roamed the earth with mankind. Plus im pretty sure scientists have determined that given the size of dinosaurs the amount of oxygen in todays atmosphere and even the atmosphere of 6,000 years ago wouldnt sustain them.

 

[Schlosser85]

I believe most dinosaurs died out, and a few evolved into birds.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Countless cultures employ the concept of dragons in their mythology and folklore, but never has any fossil or biological evidence been found to support it being literal. If anywhere, one should look to studies in anthropology and mythology on primordial imagery common to primitive and ancient cultures. one also can[t ignore an instinctual aversion to animals that pose a danger to mammals, such as snakes and poisonous lizards, going way back to our earliest days as a species and even before.

Agreed - very interesting topic.

we shouldn't assume the scientific plausibility of an actual winged giant reptile or the like any moreso than a human body with a dog's or falcon's head.

I would disagree with that - we have scientific evidence of "winged giant reptiles" existing in terms of countless fossils, we have zero scientific evidence of man-dogs. It's the time frame of their existance, not whether they existed at all, that comes into question when we look at ancient accounts (if you so chose to look at them in more than an entertainment fashion).

I will have to side with Schlosser though - it's within the realm of possibility that some type of dinosaur(s) outlived it's brethern 65 million years ago for some amount of time (excluding our current-day organisms evolutionary ancestors). Plenty of other organisms survived the meteorite and even flurish to this day. But a real life Flinstones? Nah.

 

[KalMart]

No, I agree - it's not a case against evolution (I even countered Alpha's snail shell point). Only thing I disagreed with you on was the idea that the margin of error is unimportant. Yes there are other methods scientists employ to help date things, but carbon-dating is still considered by many to be THE method, despite often times being the weaker link (no pun intended). To be truthful, I'm actually more interested in carbon dating when it comes to archaeology then the study of evolution.

I didn't say it was unimportant..it is...which is why it's not the only thing that evolution...or geology, or archaeology....or any other science that deals with times way past employs. That's what scrutiny against carbon dating seems to ignore...whereas the scientists that actual employ carbon dating know much more about the margins of error and inaccuracies than its critics do.

There's a lot more that foes into it than that. and there's a lot more that's affected by its limitations...much of which opponents to evolution don't take issue with because it allegedly doesn't as specifically imply what evolution does.

As I mentioned before...and from what it seems you're sensible enough to agree...evolution being true doesn't not devalue or diminish religion and its value to those who partake in it. It really shouldn't...and the responsibility in that lies with both sides of the divide. It doesn't disprove the existence of God or the importance of the concept of one....even if it does mean that the interpretation of scripture needs to be reassessed. But that's not new either as it's always been updated or reassessed over time as we've grown to understand more too. I guess this part is perhaps seen as the straw that breaks the came;s back by some, or what have you. I don't think it should, but to be fair, the idea of rethinking is always an easier prospect for those who aren't actually theists and do't feel the emotional pressure of it. Not tat I see that as an excuse or the like, but there needs to be at least some sincere respect for that.

 

[Marvolo]

Something else to think about. Newtons view of the universe and Newtonian physics in general were the standard for hundreds of years. Not many quedtioned it. Then comes Einstein and he thinks that newtonian physics are wrong or not entirely accurate so he sets out to discover how the universe really works. He was rejected, he was scoffed at, and he had very little help at first. After many many years he got his proof and now for the most part Newtonian physics have been replaced.

Point is, if you feel that the current scientific theories arent correct then learn science and prove your theories. Dont be like the men who scoffed and doubted and rejected outright. If you want to change something make a change. If you want to fix the problems with the evolutionary theory or feel there must be a better theory go to school learn science, do your experiments, and find out for yourself.