Carbon Dating Debunks Darwinism
Uploader Comments (CreationMinistries)
Top Comments
-
You do realize, that when they said they "carbon dated" something at some million years old, they are just using a blanket term, right? Its called "Radiometric Dating" and there are handfuls of different radiometric isotopes (Argon 39/40, Uranium 230, Potassium 40, these have ranges of millions of years, Carbon dating is good for the last 75,000 years, roughly the duration of man's time on earth. Before you "Debunk" anything, make sure you know what you're talking about you ignorant prick
-
@CreationMinistries 240,000 peer reviewed papers on evolution is hardly no viable evidence and dna is the fingerprint proof, the smoking gun, so your lies are seen for what they are.
If there is a god he must have put you here to mentally torture thinking people.
All Comments (99)
-
BEWARE OF THE CREATIONIST LUNATICS
-
You do know that carbon dating isn't regularly used anymore, right.
-
@CreationMinistries by the way, i forgot to mention... my 8-year old brother is smarter than you because HE REALIZES YOUR GOD IS FAKE. AND HE HAS A MENTAL DISORDER. what is your excuse?
-
@CreationMinistries If we are wrong about the age of the universe (which EVERY PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTS) then science in general is wrong. I FIND IT FUCKING HILLAIROUS that you tell me science is wrong, over a computer, on the internet which are both developed using the findings of SCIENCE. SCIENCE has done more for humans than your fucking immoral god ever will. I AM MORALLY SUPERIOR TO YOUR GOD! (because i think slavery is wrong, and women are equal to men.)
-
@CreationMinistries I DARE YOU IMMORAL FUCKS TO CALL INTO THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE TV SHOW. YOU CANNOT WIN A DEBATE AGAINST A SCIENTIST, AND I (a high schooler) CLEARLY KNOW MORE ABOUT RADIOMETRIC DATING THAN YOU DO.
If we are wrong about the age of the universe, then the speed of light is wrong, making all of physics disintegrate. If we are wrong about the age of the universe, then chemistry is wrong, because that is where radiometric dating comes from. Biology would be wrong too.
-
@CreationMinistries Your god is an immoral fuck. killing everyone on earth in the biblical flood INCLUDES BABIES!
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
-Richard Dawkins
-
@CreationMinistries if the global flood had happened it would have wiped out all life as fresh water and salt water does not mix and the depth and pressure would have killed the rest of the life on earth, meaning you and I would not be here. and fat change of anything surviving on top of it I.e. Noah, is it would be far to cold and not enough oxygen to live up there. besides the flood when on for what 1 mouth or so, all the creatures would only have had enough food for 1/2 day of that.
-
I think for some people the word 'truth' just means whatever they think is morally desirable within their world view. Such people start with the 'truth' in this sense and only then go about collecting evidence that appears to support it, instead of starting with evidence and letting it guide them to a conclusion that they may or may not like.
-
Carbon dating is like shooting a gun at night,you can hit short target's but you can't hit the distant night target,no matter how much math and calculation the shooter makes,the gun powder is weak. The shooter may end up shooting his foot. :D
-
What amazed Geologist is that after the 1/2 million years of empty rock layer,all of the sudden, LIFE,vegetation, mammals,and it's in post-cretaceous rock layer that man is found.
If the earth is young (approx 6000 years?) how could there be fossils of tropical and temperate climate species in Antarctica, a continent that is permanently covered with ice and snow? The only thing I can think of is the theory of plate tectonics. Of course this would mean that Antartica was much further north. Is it possible for Antartica to move thousands of miles in just a few thousand years and accumulate ice over two miles thick?
thybigballs 3 months ago
@thybigballs the earth's sedimentary layers which contain the fossils were laid down by water. This is all evidence of the global flood. Continental drift occurred during the year-long flood, not over 'millions of years." Most of the ice accumulated over the poles as a result of the warm flood waters which led to massive evaporation and huge snowfall on the poles
CreationMinistries 3 months ago
@CreationMinistries The continent drifted from tropical areas to present day in a year? That's a distance of approx. 5400 miles? 5400mi./ 365 days= 15 miles per day! I'm curious what indicators you have that shows this because in my mind the earths crust would have to basically split wide open for this to occur. A massive evaporation would mean a much hotter planet, not cooler. There would be no ice anywhere. Besides, there is not enough water at the poles for a total flood to occur. ;-)
thybigballs 3 months ago
@thybigballs When the fountains erupted to begin the global flood earth's crust split (evidenced by the 50K miles of fault lines around the globe). The mountains arose & the sea basins collapsed toward flood's end as any land drift occurred. The thermal waters of the fountains warmed the seas leading to the evaporation & the ice caps. The supposed "ice age" enjoyed a tropical climate (A cooling cycle on earth would have cooled ocean waters ending evaporation & snowfall on the poles). :-)
CreationMinistries 3 months ago
I would like to see references for the statements made here. I would also like to offer a video response: /watch?v=riLm-AMa7_I I seriously doubt my post will survive after offering the following counterpart to ole Russ. This scientist just shreads Russ' statements and shows him to not be entirely honest...not even close. See for yourself: /watch?v=XojFKG0_Vws
thybigballs 3 months ago
@thybigballs I have learned it's a waste of time to respond to scoffers who generally have nothng but insults to offer (name calling is the last bastion for those with nothing else). I decided to see the 'scientist's" comments in case he had ANYTHING worth learning to offer. I watched 3 hours of his comments. Unless you like to see someone swearing he offered NOTHING. I suggest everyone go to this linke. You will see they have nothing
CreationMinistries 3 months ago