Replies

For those of us who subscribe to a "young Earth," creationist view, this comes as no surprise. These fossils, like virtually all others, were "dated" in accordance with their presumed place on the evolutionary tree. (Check out the criticisms of circular fossil dating even among mainstream biologists).

If you removed evolutionary theory bias from the dating equation, there would have been no basis for the 11 million year age of the fossils in the first place.

I'm only surprised that biologists didn't choose to disbelieve their "lying eyes" in favor of evolutionary dogma!

For those of us who subscribe to a "young Earth," creationist view, this comes as no surprise.

Of course not, because anything can be rationalized when you don't care about actually matching the totality of the evidence.

These fossils, like virtually all others, were "dated" in accordance with their presumed place on the evolutionary tree.

This is a gross falsehood. Where did you "learn" about science, from creationist pamphlets?

(Check out the criticisms of circular fossil dating even among mainstream biologists).

Ah, right you mean "check out the out-of-context 'quotes' that creationists like to present in ways that dishonestly try to make it appear that 'mainstream biologists' have 'admitted' to circular dating methods"... You *have* been reading the creationist pamphlets, I see.

If you removed evolutionary theory bias from the dating equation, there would have been no basis for the 11 million year age of the fossils in the first place.

Utter horse manure. Here, try to learn something on this topic for once before you spout any more blatant falsehoods: Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools? , and Radiometric Dating Resource List.

I'm only surprised that biologists didn't choose to disbelieve their "lying eyes" in favor of evolutionary dogma!

I'm only surprised you posted as few of your "lying claims" as you have -- people ignorant of science usually post giant screeds of anti-evolutionary dogma. At least you were restrained in the amount of ignorance you chose to add to the discussion.

I'm only surprised that biologists didn't choose to disbelieve their "lying eyes" in favor of evolutionary dogma!

This has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution says nothing about how long a species must exist before it becomes extinct.

Your problem WRT the rat-squirrel is soley with geology and physics (which together have built up a mountain of evidence for an old Earth), not evolution.

For those of us who subscribe to a "young Earth," creationist view, this comes as no surprise. These fossils, like virtually all others, were "dated" in accordance with their presumed place on the evolutionary tree. (Check out the criticisms of circular fossil dating even among mainstream biologists). If you removed evolutionary theory bias from the dating equation, there would have been no basis for the 11 million year age of the fossils in the first place. I'm only surprised that biologists didn't choose to disbelieve their "lying eyes" in favor of evolutionary dogma!

The only doubt biologists have about the fossil record is that it may be far older then we believe. Creationists tend to claim that carbondating often gives wrong estimates. That is true, however when a wrong date is given it almost always turns out to be far older than the carbon dating suggested, so i suggest creationists should stop using the carbon dating insecurity as 'evidence'?

If you removed evolutionary theory bias from the dating equation, there would have been no basis for the 11 million year age of the fossils in the first place.

Yeah - they all lived in Bedrock along with Fred & Dino.

Something I don't understand about the 6000 age limit to the universe - how do you explain starlight reaching us from stars that are millions of light-years away. The light from these stars takes millions of years to reach the earth. But if nothing is older than 6000 years - how did it get here that quick?