Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
Of course I did!
How else would I find such a wonderful diagram of how "Evolution" flows so smoothly down thru time!
Anyone could right-click the picture and get where it came from: http://www.gcssepm.org/images/fossil_a.gif
"Who you gonna believe? Me; or your lyin' eyes???"
Carbon 14 dating is calibrated by dating objects of known age, such as Egyptian artifacts and tree-rings.
In the White Mountains of California there are standing dead trees (bristlecone pines). They each rings. Those rings form sequences. The sequences can be overlapped, to give a continuous tree-ring sequence back some 11,600 years.
By dating individual tree-rings, a calibration curve can be established which corrects for the amounts of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere, which vary slightly.
Using other techniques, such as glacial varves this calibration curve can be extended past 20,000 years.
Now you may not choose to believe in it, but tens of thousands of scientists find it an accurate method of dating.
So please do not tell me that Young Earth Creations is not a science.
Creationism in all of its forms are not science, they are religious beliefs.
It did in Darwin's case!!
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
Of course I did!
How else would I find such a wonderful diagram of how "Evolution" flows so smoothly down thru time!
Anyone could right-click the picture and get where it came from: http://www.gcssepm.org/images/fossil_a.gif
Elsie, you are a classic.
It takes a rare individual to cut-and-paste a picture from an article that demolishes creation "science" and to then claim it is evidence for creation, or at least against evolution.
[By the way, what is this right-click stuff? My mouse has only one button.]
Well, from just a handful of folks 1492, we now got almost 300,000,000 in this country in ~500 years!
There were some Native Americans here also, back around 1492. Lets not forget them!
[Actually, they probably got here some 25,000 years ago. More evidence against a global flood and a young earth.]
All this in only ONE article!
Nobel time!!!!
What a hoot. A one button mouse. Probably a few missing cards from the deck too and a few spots missing from the dice.
No wonder you're an evilutionist, you can't count past 1.
My Logitech has 5, but at least 2 have no known function. Perhaps the function just hasn't evolved yet.
Not to mention Elsie implies we are all related to Columbus, too.
As you guys have been told before; you can have your own INTERPRETATION of the data, but NOT your OWN data!
[By the way, what is this right-click stuff? My mouse has only one button.]
Not even a vestigal one?
Wow! It devolved FAST! ;^)
My apologies for challenging you off the bat. However, your name is "creationist" and your tagline is more or less a weird defense of the 14th century concept of geology, so my preconceived notion of you is pretty fair.
You see, these threads can be harsh and while I certainly should have been more civil to you at the outset, you must understand this unique FR environment. We can be pretty honest and helpful here - like, for instance your homepage contains at least 7 grammatical/spelling errors in just a few scant sentences. As a FRiendly service to you, I'd suggest you clean them up lest some evil scientist who thinks the earth is maybe a tad more than 6006 years old sees that and thinks you to be a little less than "scholarly."
As for your tired contention that I and others here are somehow liberals, I'll let that slide. I have no idea why you'd say such nonsense, as eductation is certainly the trait of a good conservative.
Do have a good evening.
And would it for you too?
But seriously, when do you believe humankind first walked the Earth, and does such a date co-incide with the Genesis stories?
When do you believe humankind first walked the Earth? How many thousands of years ago?
Would you be willing to entertain the possibility that all of science is of divine design?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.