You cannot argue radiocarbon dating with religious zealots. Pointless to try.
POLL: Evolution vs. Creation by God
- Thread starter studentofthemarkets
- Start date
- Status
You cannot argue radiocarbon dating with religious zealots. Pointless to try.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/
Evolutionists don't have the radiocarbon dating figured out, apparently.
You have just proven my point with this article you linked.
Your 10-year-old article states...
"The recalibrated clock won’t force archaeologists to abandon old measurements wholesale, says Bronk Ramsey, but it could help to narrow the window of key events in human history. “If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years but that may be significant in putting them before or after changes in climate,” he says."
The article is NOT saying that we'll have to consider that a 65-million-YO fossil from a dinosaur could be only 10,000 YO.
Pointless.
Obviously, it's because scientists ignore the evidence that points to creation by God....
I'll get back to you with a more scientific answer. I also owe @ph1l a response to a post from months ago.
So, maybe it's time to get this thread back on topic to the subjection of evolution vs creation!
If you look at a painting, I'm going to assume that you have enough knowledge and experience to understand the process by which it got painted.
You would also, I assume, agree that there was a painter who engaged in the process by which the painting came to life. (Pardon the pun.)
Now, are you able to separate the creator from the process?
Of course not.
And the fact that your homeboy James Tour obnoxiously continues to make the point that we haven't yet been able to specifically identify the process...means absolutely nothing. Other than the fact that he is indeed, and truly, obnoxious.
I'm sorry, but I really don't follow your train of thought.
Here is a picture of a hardback canvas that does not have a painting on it:
Below is small clip of a painting. The painter had to create the painting. The painting shows design....well, if you look hard enough, you can see design, at least in the full painting, it is there.
So wouldn't the need for a painter to paint the painting make it obvious that ANYTHING that shows the work of design must have had a designer?
The work of design is everywhere in our bodies, this earth and the universe.
Below is a excerpt from "Adam and E Adam and Eve, Designed Diversity, and and Allele Frequencies."
Authors John C. Sanford, Robert W. Carter, Wes Brewer, John Baumgardner, Bruce Potter, and Jon Potter
In this paper we have used logic and numerical simulation to show that there are several Designed Diversity mechanisms that can reconcile a literal Adam and Eve with the allele frequency distribution now seen in the human population. These genetic mechanisms include: 1) designed diversity within Adam and Eve’s four sets of chromosomes followed by accelerated genetic drift associated with multiple population constrictions; 2) as above, combined with more powerful demographic forces such as selective sweeps, lineage extinctions, and differential subpopulation expansions; and 3) designed diversity within Adam and Eve’s originally created gametogonia. Together, these various genetic mechanisms seem to falsify the claim that there is “no way” that two people could give rise to the human allele distribution that we see today. The designed gametes model appears to be especially robust, and in our opinion is even elegant. It seems to be the best explanation for how Adam and Eve might have simultaneously given rise to our current human allele patterns and our current linkage patterns. Future research will examine the concept of “demographic stirring” and how it may accelerate genetic drift. Given the premise of a miraculously created Adam and Eve, the most coherent, powerful, and compelling explanation for most of the genetic diversity found within the human race is “designed diversity”. This is especially true when we consider the various forms of human beauty and the various forms of human gifts and talents. Human traits of this type cannot rationally be attributed to Darwinian mutation/selection. In addition, designed diversity appears to have enabled rapid human adaptation after the flood.
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=icc_proceedings
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=icc_proceedings
Last edited:
I was just making the point that sometimes what scientists think they know, they don't.
I added boldness and large lettering for emphasis:
If we start with the premise of a miraculously created Adam and Eve, the idea of “designed diversity” is a logical deduction. It provides the most coherent explanation for the beneficial variations that we see within the human race today. Since all parties acknowledge that nearly all non-neutral mutations are deleterious, only designed variants can credibly account for all the “good diversity” we see (i.e., variations that are desirable, and have no pathological effects). This should be especially obvious when we consider the various forms of human beauty, and the various types of human gifts and talents such as mathematical or artistic genius. Desirable human variations of this type cannot rationally be attributed to Darwinian mutation/selection.
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=icc_proceedings
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=icc_proceedings
No, that is a fallacy. Not everything that shows that it might be the result of a creator means that it MUST be the work of a creator.
Like what?
The narwhal...
and the duck-billed platypus...
for example. They show elements of design, but they were not designed by an intelligent creator.
- Status