Two and a half hour explaination of everthing Creationism.

If you want to have a serious debate, perhaps you should stick with science and not conjecture based on a religious book. Obviously creationists, certainly young earth creationists, have a large bias and I would take every one of those links with a truckload of salt because they show ignorance of science and a creationist agenda.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

 

The failed peer review process? The peer review process is not flawed and it keeps idiots that don't know what they're talking about from spreading ignorance. Obviously some things in science are subject to change, and indeed there is going to be some fraud at some point. Does that mean that we should throw out everything? Absolutely not.

 

I proved carbon dating is not accurate and you say this. LOL You show you have nothing.
I notice you do not say anything about the peer review article on the shroud of turin that showed the process is not accurate

 

You didn't prove anything at all. Do you honestly consider sending me to three creationist sites proof of C-14 dating being inaccurate?

As for the shroud, you apparently completely misread it. There is literally an explanation on the side of the page that is incredibly simple to understand. Take a look:

Read the bolded parts of this explanation. Perhaps you should actually read the page before you conclude that it is proof of C-14 inaccuracy.

 

It's known it's not always accurate and it's known in what areas it isn't accurate.

Next bull(*)(*)(*)(*) please.

 

Let's ignore your asinine claim here for a second since anything with a brain has intelligence, why would evolution aim for anything? It's an unintelligent and unguided process.

 

Nice spin but it was peer reviewed and seen as not accurate. I used your standards and showed it is not dependable

 

So we should believe what is not accurate and what scientists can manipulate to give the result they want? Thats funny and shows why evolution is nor credibile

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

You keep showing your scientific illiteracy. Here you are claiming that all of science is evolution.

Carbon dating is not the science of evolution.

Neither is the Big Bang.

Neither are Supernovae.

Neither is planetary formation.

 

The SAMPLE was not representative of the whole shroud, it had nothing to do with the method. Did you not read ANY of that page? And how is that a spin? I am posting things from YOUR LINK. I didn't spin anything. If you have a problem with your link, don't post it.

 

Didn't you know, rocks are dated by the fossils that are in them and the fossils are dated by the rocks they are in?!! It's a circular argument, Kent Hovind told him so.

 

The process failed showing it is not dependable and that the process can be manipulated

 

The process didn't fail, the sample was wrong. Geesh, are you that thick headed?

 

horses, zebra, donkeys all from a single ancestor

crocodile, caimen, alligator, all from a single ancestor

all venomous snakes all from a single ancestor

 

Since you miss the point, you make no point.

 

Since the errors have been exposed, the process succeeded. Weeding out errors is one of the functions of the process.

 

Show proof!!!!

 

I did not miss the point. How many other times has this happened and used as fact. It is not reliable

 

The errors have not been looked when used for evolution so we do not know if it is reliable

 

get an education!

lols its fascinating that you post almost exclusively on science related subjects!

 

Thats the point no proof but you claim it as fact

 

Maybe you should learn what terms mean in science before spouting off?

In science a fact is a verified observation. If I jump off a building it's a fact that I will fall towards the centre of the Earth.

Proof in science is not possible.

Please stop being wilfully ignorant of science since you seem to post about it so much.

 

if you were well informed on this subject you would be aware of the evidence supporting the claim the previous poster made.

there is ample evidence for evolution. ask any medical researcher or biologist.

I'll be nice and give you a link that can help you to educate yourself.

http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents.html

there are numerous other sources that go into great detail on particular species, including current research which is indicating that some species are changing quite rapidly in the present (this is identified in some cases due to climate chnage, in others due to the introduction of new species, and sometimes due to other human activities which have altered environments ... necessity may be the mother of invention, but it is also a major factor influencing evolution.

the rest is up to you.

 

If proof is not possible then it is not credible or believable.

 

Does claiming that hurt while you type it on a computer that runs on nonproven scientific principles?