Explain this--First, Carbon dating is innacurate. A rock from Mt. St. Helens was tested and was found to be millions of years old. The rock was just formed after an eruption.
Second, Mixed bones from a variety of time periods found in the same layer. AND trees straddling two layers. (note that the trees are whole.)
Third, Where are your missing links that you need to prove that evolution took place?
2006-08-06 03:54:51 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
you are wasting your time with those people
2006-08-06 03:59:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your "evidence" is very flimsy. You are of course entitled to your own opinions and belief system, but I would suggest that you have a bit more solid backup for your convictions.
Not all carbon dating is inaccurate; most of it is very accurate. Like anything, it can have errors. But in your specific position, carbon dating is wrong...you're right. This is because carbon dating is supposed to be used for organic things, not for rocks. Because there was very little carbon found as the rock is inorganic, the meter gave a false positive. The computer must have thought that all the carbon-14 had decayed, when in reality, there wasn't any to begin with. There WAS an error that caused an innaccuracy, but that's because of the person using the meter wrong.
There is a very simple explanation for this: earthquakes and other movement of the earth's tectonic plates. As the plates move about, the earth (as you know) moves too. This means that the bones, trees, and fossils in the earth move around too.
We don't need to have any missing links to prove evolution. Evolution is extremely evident to anyone who even casually glances at a few high school lab figures. As you may recall, evolution simply means survival of the fittest. That is, the strongest, fastest, or otherwise best suited to their environment will live long enough to procreate, thus favouring the genes that have a part in speed and strength over those that don't.
I do not intend to insult your intelligence, but I highly recommend that you either take some high school or college earth science and biology classes or read a ton of books about it at your local library.
2006-08-06 11:12:23 · answer #2 · answered by Rat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you only listen to quacks who are not scientists and are just pretending to be scientists you will continue to ask silly questions.
There are always questions from a scientific point of view. That is the refreshing thing about science, it doesn't pretend to know everything.
Instead of just parroting the silly questions you are asking, get some college level education in evolutionary biology and geology and you will get your questions answered.
And stay away from the ignorant people who are filling your mind with trash and hate for good practical sense.
You are being tempted to disregard science because of your ignorance. Religion cannot replace science because nothing of significance in religious belief can be verified.
2006-08-06 11:16:40 · answer #3 · answered by Alan Turing 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow do you need to get your facts straight. The rock did not form due to the eruption - it existed long before that and was part of the material that was strewn into the air. I won't even bother with the rest until you study geology and ask a question based on facts.
2006-08-06 10:59:57 · answer #4 · answered by ginabgood1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're wasting your time. Evolution exists whether you care to acknowledge it or not. God made it this way to entertain us.
The rock was in the volcano long before it blew, nutbrain.
Mixed bones could have been put there by early archaeologists to fool us. God gave us the freedom to choose to do things like this.
The missing links are out there, we just haven't found them yet. God's waiting for us to do so in order to further the paradox.
Now consider this, why did we have the capacity to feel electrical shock and instinctively jerk back from it long before electricity was discovered and widely used. Maybe God knew we'd need it someday?
God created evolution, silly.
'nuff said?
2006-08-06 11:04:45 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Peachy® 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
for the most part carbon dating is accurate, but come on- a volcano? sure there is going to be inaccuracies when dealing with such material. "missing links" are found all the time and it is only a matter of time before we have a full accurate picture of evolutionary history.
2006-08-06 11:05:22 · answer #6 · answered by brokolay 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not up to anyone to say FOR SURE how and when the world was created or what the meaning of the Bible is. When one sees the current & 2 previous US presidents, as well as ICTY "judges & prosecuters", he is likely to start beleiving in evolution if he didn't before.
2006-08-06 11:04:10 · answer #7 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Three ignorant claims, obviously culled from creationist websites. There's your explanation: you read propaganda, and unthinkingly repeated it.
You're simply exposing that all-too-common combination of ignorance and arrogance that characterizes the creationist movement. Better luck next time.
2006-08-06 10:58:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution has, does and will take place whether your faked, doctored, FALSE evidence says otherwise or not.
You really should properly cite your sources. AIG does not like it when they are not cited correctly for their lies.
2006-08-06 11:46:56 · answer #9 · answered by KLU 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dont know.
Still it doesnt prove one inerpretation of the bible version of creation
merry christmass
2006-08-06 10:59:11 · answer #10 · answered by CJunk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋