Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Would you then say the dating methods are always accurate and correct?

Like I said, even you recognized the validity of such methods.They are generally accurate plus or minus a variable. The only real inaccuracies are those that use the dating methods themselves...for example the YEC that intentionally took a bad sample from Mt St Helens.

Come on Prax, I'm suprised you would claim such.

Who is assuming here. Evolutionist say the earth is BILLIONS (we're not talking thousands or even hundred thousands, even millions, but BILLIONS of years old) and exactly what proof do they have for that? NONE.

You know they've changed how old they believe the earth is over time right? That number is based on many issues including dating techniques but also such issues as the age of the universe based on the speed of light

but my point is, just as you asserted their dating methods are based on a presumption of age you can just as easily be accused of bias the other way around

Evolutionists have NO EVIDENCE, NO FACTS, nothing but theories and beliefs.

I hate repeating myself but this is coming from the expert? NO wait. This is coming from the self confirmed novice. Don't tell me there is NO evidence and NO facts when you don't generally have a clue about the topic to begin with. That's rather dishonest to say, you are in no position to say there is no evidence and o facts. Otherwise you'd take up Pels offer of a debate.

Why don't you disprove his facts and evidence?

Not necessarily. They could just as easily be mistaken as someone else, especially if they hold to theistic evolution. If Pel or yourself was a "biblical archeaologist" because of your confidence in C-14 datingyou would probably follow their methods and use their same calculations. Thus you could find an artifact and claim it to be 20,000 years old. That claim doesn't make it true, it is still just an assumption, a guess at best.

Biblical archeologists and forensic scientists, pathologists etc etc etc have been using dating methods accurately for many years. They even use them in forensic medicine...ever watch Quincy Jones? It's already an established scientific method using scientific facts. It's not an evolution issue.

They do it all the time, dig up a site and confirm it's date through carbon 14 or radio dating methods to the time period that matches the culture and patterns they find in buildings,art,pottery etc etc. They use it on murder cases and other things to date stuff...if they ever find DB coppers body they can date his bones and get a pretty accurate idea of when he died. This is just silly even arguing.

You can't just find an artifact and claim it's age. They use chemical methods to date things

I need to look into this a bit more, but if Im not mistaken, isn't the half life of carbon like 5700 years? And supposedly thereafter the dating method begins to have room for error? Furthermore, how can we know for sure that the half life of C-14 is 57000 years. No one has tested this, observed it, or proven it. It is an assumption, a guess.

You wouldn't know unless you studied the field. Open up the amazing world of science. Did you know when radioactive particles were first discovered? They were not seen...their effects were seen. It was an observation. That lead to years later more advanced studies into radioactivity. Just because you don't understand how scientists know things doesn't mean they don't know. I don't need to know how a car works to know it works or drive it

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env.../carbon-14.htm

One of my kids books had something in it about the Cactus in the Arizona dessert, and it said something along the lines of "the _____ cactus is believed to live 300 years, however the exact life span cannot be determined because no one lives long enough to verify it" that was just in some book about the dessert, not religious at all. True its just a kids book, but the point remains. How can we be dating things thousands, even MILLIONS of years when no one has lived long enough to verify this in any way. It is all based on assumption. Research has been done, and no doubt its not just a bilnd assumption, I'm not asserting that, only that in the end it is impossible to be certain about such outrageous dates, so why not just accept the plain testimony of scripture, Genesis 5 gives us some sense of time for creation to the flood. If the Bible is reliable, then why not take it for what it says.

Carbon dating doesn't work on living things

Theres a BIG difference between 50 years or even 10,000 years when compared to 100,000 or 1,000,000 years. Prax, you are much smarter than that. Comparing 50 years to a million is not at all the same.

You missed the point. The point is even if there is a margin of error in a dating like 200000 years ago it's not going to be a margin of +- 200000

NO matter how you slice it the earth is still much more older than 8000, that nobody knows EXACTLY how old does not make radio dating unreliable

And there still remains NO ABSOLUTE PROOF of an earth older than 10,000 years (or even 8,000).

Again, says the man that doesn't have a clue about this stuff by his own admission