Replies

And what tree would that be from? A previous tree life form. At some point in time plants shifted and became more and more like what we see as trees today.

Now you are bringing humor into this discussion. Evolution "in the wild" has not been readily observed in the past because no one was looking for it.

I can almost hear it now, "Students pack your bags. We are going on a search for evolution in the wild. If it supports evolution, we'll bring it back." Seals and other aquatic life cannot be accurately carbon dated for known reasons. Researchers are aware of this limitation and thus carbon dating is not used for such specimens.

You mean, it's not used because it can't support evolutionary theory. If it doesn't agree with the result, toss in the wastebasket. Fossils are not dated with radiocarbon dating.

Not anymore since scientists have seen a decline in C-14. Can't use it for their theory so give it the heaveho.

Now you are bringing humor into this discussion.

How is my statement humorous?

I can almost hear it now, "Students pack your bags. We are going on a search for evolution in the wild. If it supports evolution, we'll bring it back.

Your appeal to ridicule does not invalidate my point.

You mean, it's not used because it can't support evolutionary theory. If it doesn't agree with the result, toss in the wastebasket.

You are ignoring established facts and making the same claims as the author of the article that you have cited. Also, like the author of the article, you present absolutely no evidence to support your claims.

Not anymore since scientists have seen a decline in C-14. Can't use it for their theory so give it the heaveho.

Again, the limitations of Carbon-14 dating have been known since Carbon-14 dating was first implemented. It has never been used to date fossils. Your continued appeals to ridicule and unsupported assertions do not give you any credibility.

[Seals and other aquatic life cannot be accurately carbon dated for known reasons. Researchers are aware of this limitation and thus carbon dating is not used for such specimens.]

You mean, it's not used because it can't support evolutionary theory.

Congratulations, you're a moron -- at least on this topic.

His statement is correct, and yours is idiotic, based on an obvious gross ignorance of the issue under discussion.

When he says that they can't be accurately dated "for known reasons", he's entirely correct, and those "known reasons" are so simple and straightforward that even a child can understand them and see how it validates the statement he made. So... what's your excuse?

Oh, right -- you're an anti-evolutionist, so you see no need whatsoever to *LEARN* what those reasons are before you just post outright lies and slanders, even though it would have been as easy as clicking on the links he provided to substantiate his statement. Typical -- and typically inexcusable. Your dishonesty and intellectual laziness disgust me.

Not anymore since scientists have seen a decline in C-14. Can't use it for their theory so give it the heaveho.

Oh look, yet *another* outright lie from an anti-evolutionist. Let's have a show of hands -- who's surprised?