Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD
What about ice dating that uses no radiation at all, is that flawed as well? Do you even know what that is Opivy, I'd be surprised if u did.
|
I dont know what ice dating is. I never evan brought it up. See what I mean about sidetracking? Why is everyone so ready to jump onto me with claims of stupidity.
I am speaking of the two dating techniques which I do know about. Carbon dating and Radiometric dating. They are inaccurate and later on I will read Zylarks post to humor you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD
And yes once again I'm using science as my defense. Obiovusly Opivy you don't have a good understanding of science. Since you are so damn sure the the dating techniques are flawed and that I'm wrong explain to me why then we still use these dating techniques are so inaccurate.
|
Once again pointing the subject more towards me instead of the subject we are discussing. Okay, I dont know why they are still used. Why dont you tell me Mr.Scientist? You seem to know alot more about it than me. You also seem to be so positive that these dating techniques are accurate. There are thousands of things that could speed up the rate of decay on a specimen so don't evan ask me to list them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD
Opivy explain these factors that speed up decay and mess it up. You see how quick you are to dismiss anything. I have provided a link to a credible nonbias website, a Christian website nevertheless. Go back to "Why Evolution is Wrong" thread and read zylark's response to cotton's claim that the dating techniques are wrong. There are different techniques that are used for different things.
|
Wow a non-biased Christian site? Thats a hard find, i'm going to have to check this out.
-Me, quick to dismiss? I think you are quick to swollow information. I still see the only hard evidence presented as "Read Zylarks post" -wow a good one. And lets not forget "Why would science let it exist if it wasn't true?" Think outside the box pal.