Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
A checked the names you gave and could find only one "who use to be eager in disproving the bible and later changed their minds because of what". This one was the first you named (correctly!), i.e., Dr. C.L. Cagan.
The rest of the names: window-dressing
Given the duplicitous nature of most of them, it's more like cross-dressing.
Ha! (said ALF-style)
See the links I provided in post #516, above.
I see you are still afraid to address the questions I have asked you in numerous posts now.
For the lurkers, those links in post #516 will provide a significant amount of information on radiocarbon dating. However, apparently Wakeup doesn't believe in that data for religious reasons, and will accept the most flimsy and unscientific arguments against the radiocarbon method if they seem to support his beliefs.
| youth in asia: | 42,900,000 |
| "youth in asia": | 63,100 |
oh not, the you with yourself tell me the one point not websites where tell me or you in place points to the specific could be right!
Do you mean this site:The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods?
You didn't show this site, you gave a vague hint by giving a corrupted link...
~chuckling~
The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methodshas to be scientific - it uses footnotes and stuff!
Granted, it's just three footnotes, but they show the wisdom of this remarkable essay. So, here they are, in their whole splendor and somewhat odd - but original - enumeration1:
Carbon dating references:
1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind2
6) Antarctic Journal, Washington
10) "Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker
Gee; is that by any chance the same Kent Hovind who bought his degree from an unaccreditted diploma mill called "Patriot University" and who is currently cooling his heels in jail for Tax evasions convictions?
Just for reference, here's photo of the original campus of "Patriot U" -- Hovind's alma mater:
Yup; anybody who gets a doctorate from a school like that must be a leading expert on the science of Radiometric Dating techniques.....
< /sarcasm>
of thousands of scientists and historians and archeaologists who use to be eager in disproving the bible and later changed their minds because of what?and sleeper mentioned him in his post #367. So, now there are two names on the list: I suppose that even sleeper won't stretch the definition of "scientist" in a way to include "Dr." Kent Hovind.
@ sleeper: only 998 to go, keep them coming!
I have adressed all points you have brought up, you are just unwilling to accept it, bring up one point at a time, make a specific comment regarding science pointing to evolution, and you will be easily shown that it is not scientific fact. just one point at a time. you are unwilling to do this because it makes it very clear when it is done this way. And thats just what evolurtionist propagandists are about making things anything BUT clear and specififc.
your replys are unfounded and petty ay best! lets debate the specific science! not refer to the petty and unscientific.
That's what the main point of The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods
is about:
They know, that carbon dating won't give meaningful results for samples which are older than ~50,000 years. They do it non the less. And they do it again. And they claim that they have proved either that the world is less than 50,000 years old or that carbon dating doesn't work.
To get back to our little analogy: this is like claiming that their is either less than one litre of liquid or that it is impossible to measure the amount of one gallon...
Wow, he fully qualifies for wake-up sleeper's list ofof thousands of scientists and historians and archeaologists who use to be eager in disproving the bible and later changed their minds because of what?and sleeper mentioned him in his post #367. So, now there are two names on the list: I suppose that even sleeper won't stretch the definition of "scientist" in a way to include "Dr." Kent Hovind.@ sleeper: only 998 to go, keep them coming!
Careful. Don't get trampled in the stampede.
Petty? Maybe... But unfounded? I gave you the sources, your very words of wisdom, showing your "arrogance, lack of credibility and maturity", things you seek in others...
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? - Luke 6,41
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!
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.