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.
That big lmao smiley only serves to underline just how ignorant you are about this subject. You talk about carbon dating, which is only good for a little over 50,000 years, then proceed to list a number of things that would date back millions. C14 has been calibrated and proven to be quite accurate. It does have limitations, such as nothing less than 150 years due to excessive carbon in the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution and nuclear testing in the 50's and nothing over 50,000 due to the characteristics of the carbon isotope.
Radiometric dating is used for older rock strata. Not live objects or objects that contain organic matter.
So you have managed another useless list of data that does nothing but underline your ignorance. But the smiley was a nice touch. Keep up the good work champ.
I wanted to add to this since I have my computer and not doing this on my phone.
1/2. The living snails and mollusk shells that were dated at 27,000 years were in a limestone sinkhole and did not have access to atmospheric C14, but were getting it from the limestone itself, hence the older dates.
3. Again, not taking into account where the seal got the C14; the prey fish feed on zooplankton brought up by ocean currents from the sea floor.
4. The mammoth tale is all Kent Hovind. The original paper has no such dates, and the measurements it does have are from different mammoths by different people. The entire line is a falsehood.
5. Here is the entire quote, minus the editing:
"Even after the analyses are calculated as dates, they have no geologic significance until placed in the context of previous work on maps. Otherwise each anlysis represents only its particular sample. 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.
The technique having passed its pragmatic test, some enthusiasts are already talking about its replacing stratigraphy entirely. They even say that radiometric dates calibrate stratigraphy (Vita-Finzi, 1973 p. xi, p. 1-3).
The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists in the common distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' age. How can age be anything but relative, when it requires comparison of at least two points, whereas absolute means existing without relation or qualification? 'Absolute age' is a self-contradiction. For this reason, and for giving an exaggerated impression of certainty, the term was deplored by the very man who did the most to make radiometric dating practical (Holmes, 1963, p. xx-xxi)."
But Christians never deceive anyone, do they?
6. Obviously, we don't use C14 to date dinosaur layers. Too old for the method.
That little fact alone tears up the evolution fairy tale.
