Why do evolutionists often say "fossils and carbon dating" is the proof for it?

Question

when anyone finds a fossil or bone(my dog does this in my back yard,but we do not pay him with tax dollars),the only thing we know is SOMETHING died!The fossils and bones do NOT have dates on them.Carbon daing(and ALL other dating methods)are based on the ASSUMPTION that the geologic column is correct.The geologic column was made up in the 1830's by Charles Lyalle,it does NOT exsist in reality.Please give me REAL proof of this evolution fairytale that people are believing in!!!

Answer 1

this is not a real question, there is no use in arguing with a person who can stare facts in the face and say that they are made up or that they are a government conspiracy.

Answer 2

Fossils are not proof of evolution but rather evidence of ancient life. Because so many fossils show transitional characteristics we can infer an evolutionary process based on this circumstantial evidence. Radiometric dating techniques are based upon the radioactive decay of certain chemical isotopes. It is an extremely accurate method of dating (as long as the geological sample is not contaminated). Geological stratification is a fundamental aspect of the modern science of geology. Thousands of papers have been published on this. It is not in any serious doubt by scientists.

Biogeographical distribution of species, comparative anatomy and other fields of biology also offer strong circumstantial evidence for an evolutionary process. We can take the basics of heredity and reproduction and derive mathematical algorithms which predict that evolution must take place. But for absolute forensic proof of evolution, that is found only in studies of molecular genetics.

Answer 3

Almost every time anti-evolutionists mention carbon dating they demonstrate, again and again that they do not understand it. They also demonstrate that they do not understand terms like "calibrated", "orders of magnitude", "accuracy" or "sensitivity" in their scientific meanings.

Carbon dating is fairly good up to some tens of thousands of years ago, but before that it is not much use. Within that period it has been calibrated against known dates. It is also fairly consistent with other forms of dating such as thermoluminescence.


However these people have carefully not been told about other methods of radio dating including but not limited to uranium-lead and potassium-argon. Some of these methods are good for millions and even billions of years.

These methods are not based on the assumption that the geological column is correct, they are utterly independent of it and depend on carefully measured isotope decay rates. They are based on what is now first-year or even high school physics.

The fact that some tax dollars and private subscription money goes into supporting a few hundred scientists around the world working on fossils should not concern you too much. In contrast to your church, a tax-free organisation, they are interested in uncovering the truth.

Answer 4

Why do creationists ask "Why do evolutionists often say ..." followed by something that no evolutionist (a.k.a. scientist) actually says?

Scientists say that fossils are *evidence* not *proof*. You prove things in math, not science.

Second, scientists are not referring to individual fossils but to fossils *plural* ... an individual fossil is just evidence that something lived and then died. But hundreds of fossils all showing progressive development, and all in the right layers of rock, provides evidence of a developing line of organisms. And *thousands* of such fossils takes it from "evidence" to "strong evidence" that this progressive development is widespread. And *tens of thousands* of such fossils takes it from "strong evidence" to "compelling evidence" that such progressive development isn't just widespread but universal.

Third, scientists don't say that fossils are "*the* proof" (i.e. the only evidence). Even if not a single fossil had ever been found, the evidence from genetics and DNA alone is more than enough. In fact, it is even more compelling than the fossil evidence because it lets us trace lineages and relationships of *all species on the planet* ... not just the with hard skeletons that happened to have left fossils.

And carbon dating? C'mon! Any scientist knows that carbon dating is (a) only useful for once-living tissue ... which makes it useless for fossils (which are rock); and (b) only accurate to about 60,000 years, which again makes it useless for most fossils.

If you're going to criticize scientists, at least get the science right. It's *radiometric* dating that's used for fossils, and there are dozens of different methods, all cross-calibrating, and all accurate into *millions* of years. And they are not dependent on the geological column but on the basic physics of radioactive decay.

Answer 5

Similarly, the only thing we know about the Bible is that some men wrote it. Everything else is, of course, up for doubt.

What you say is correct, if your dog dug up a bone, it is most likely that the animal it came from is dead.

If, by real proof, you mean something that you are prepared to believe, then I don't think that it is possible, since you have already decided to reject any proofs given.

But there is more proof for evolution, there are similarities between animals on different continents, there are cats in Africa, Asia and America. Why? Because they had a common ancestor which migrated across the Behring Straits land bridge many years ago.

There is DNA analysis as proof. Why do we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees and about 90% with rats? We don't look like rats, although we share similar physiology, digestive system etc. We definitely look like Chimpanzees, though, including digestion, physiology, anatomy, blood groups etc. Do you think that it is a coincidence that we look more like chimpanzees than we do rats, and that we share more DNA with them? It is not.

Learn about evolution. Just because you, personally, do not understand carbon dating, it does not mean that evolution is incorrect.

Answer 6

Carbon dating can be used to show that one fossil is older than another, even without use of graphs or charts. The evolutionists are not matching numbers up with a chart, they are comparing the half-life of radioactive carbon in the bones.

Also new species do not *POP* out of open air, they are improved versions of failed and/or inefficient species.

Answer 7

The problem about carbon-dating etc, is that the uncertainty principle applies. The fact that substance reacts at a certain rate today or 100 years ago, does not prove that it reacts thus, thousands of years ago.

Answer 8

Dear Coby,
I suggested yesterday that you take your ignorant lectures elsewhere, but here you are again today lecturing us on the biology questions.

Come back when you have an actual question.

Answer 9

Did you "evolve" into ignorance, or were you created that way?