447
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 340:
Line 340: + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:(sigh). You haven't answered my question above. You've simply repeated your own blinkered point of view. You're simply saying, "you can't be right because I'm right". That's not an argument; that's an assertion of a closed mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:(sigh). You haven't answered my question above. You've simply repeated your own blinkered point of view. You're simply saying, "you can't be right because I'm right". That's not an argument; that's an assertion of a closed mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I was just saying that carbon dating a dinosaur would give the +60.000 years old result, it would be right there on the screen of the cyclotron, whether you believe in evolution or not, you're not saying the cyclotron is biased, are you?
I was also wondering why carbon dating a dinosaur would be reliable according to you, while carbon dating human settlements wouldn't be?
Besides there is a technique called potassium argon dating which can be accurately used for rocks that are between 100.000 and billions of years old, it's been used to confirm that the chronology derived from stratigraphic research is roughly correct.
My point is that as soon as you would see a result from either of these techniques that's older than 6000 years, you would just respond by saying these techniques are flawed.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
==Feathers==
==Feathers==
I find it odd that one of the tenants on which CP was founded was the unreliability of wikipedia, yet a reference to an article there is used. Surely in the YECs attempt to prove evolution wrong you can do better (and by better I mean not AiG). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I find it odd that one of the tenants on which CP was founded was the unreliability of wikipedia, yet a reference to an article there is used. Surely in the YECs attempt to prove evolution wrong you can do better (and by better I mean not AiG). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)