False again!!!! there are many upon many scientists who use to be evironmentalists, evolutionists, and archeaologists and all the many more who are very credible and highly learned in their subjects and have contributed greatly to science, unlike evolutionists who hold to creation by God the only God the Father of Jesus Christ.
let me give you another SCIENTIFIC source, Radiometric dating deception, www.cs.unc.edu
Recovery of Neandertal mt.DNA answers in genesis
just a little tid bit! Another ridiculous mathmatical joke for evolutionists! An average sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids, can be arranged in 10300 different ways (this is an astronomicaly huge number, consisiting of 1 followed by 300 zeros) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule, the rest of them are amino acid chains that are either totaly useless, or else are potentialy harmful to living things.
In other words the probability of formation of only ONE protein molecule is 1 in 10^300. Now thats funny!!!! That alone should bring laughter at the thought of this thing called evolutionism. 1 in 10^300 for one protein! and you still wouldnt have life!!! it doent even give enough for the proper function of the protein, theres more to it. and to add a protein with only 288 amino acids is a modest one compared to some that need a 1000 amino acids!
Lets continue shall we!
If you want to learn more go to the
unjustmedia.com I know you will come back with a no science answer like "you spelled the word "the" wrong " or "thats a laugh, its riddled with errors" but I will say it again you point out a specific error if you think there is one, and then we will debate it specificaly, you have to back up what you say, not just propagandise with more no evidnece and put downs! Peace!
let me give you another SCIENTIFIC source, Radiometric dating deception, www.cs.unc.edu
This leads you to "Department of Computer Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" - and that is a relevant scientific source. So we don't see anything about "Radiometric Dating Deception" on it. But if you dig deeper, you'll find David Plaisted, Ph.D., a professor of the department. Has he published an article about the "Radiometric Dating Deception"? Not according to his list of his publications... But, alas, on the private part of his site, unlinked, is the article sleeper quoted: "Radiometric Dating Deception". A small sample:
The geological column has too little erosion to allow for such long time periods. Also, there is too little sediment on the sea floor for the oceans to have existed for hundreds of millions of years, and the continents would have worn away many times in this time period at current rates of erosion. Just the fact that there are so many fossils shows that the great sedimentary deposits on earth had to have formed rapidly, because well-preserved fossils do not form under conditions of gradual sedimentation.
He even dishes out "Quotations about Small Evolution", including this:
Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."Where to start, oh, where to start....