[Coyoteman]

the problem is evolutionists dont tell the whole story, they dont show all the evidence and there procedures of science are biased, for instance in carbon dating if a date comes back that doesnt fit an evolutionists preconceived idea of how old something should supposedly be i.e. not found in the supposed date of the no evidence geologic column then what do they do? theythrow it out as a bad date. Thats junk science!

Your ignorance is astounding!

First, radiocarbon dating is not used for the vast majority of evolutionary studies. You must be mistaking radiocarbon dating for radiometric dating (yes, there is a difference!).

Second, most studies using radiocarbon dating employ a lot of samples, not just one! DUH!

What would you do if you sent off 30 samples and 29 came back in a nice consistent pattern, but one was an outlier?

Knowing your anti-science approach, you would probably believe the outlier discredited all of the rest of the samples and proved creationism or something.

Given the lack of knowledge you exhibit in your posts, you have no business lecturing anybody on what science is or how it should work.

As I posted earlier,

Your record on these threads is so pathetic that I am wondering if you are an evolutionist deliberately trying to make creationists look bad, or if you are actually a group of college students sitting around drinking and trying to see how ridiculous a poster can get before somebody gets wise.

[andysandmikesmom]

Oh, Bravo,Coyoteman...well said...

[Wakeup Sleeper]

aconsistant pattern according to what cause I can show you a consistan pattern of errors, cause thats the only real pattern, what is your pattern contrived of, preconceived procedures of bias preconceived dating ideology. Cause thats not honest! that is pure bias!

[Wakeup Sleeper]

those cheesy comments arent going to cut it!