You should look into both relative dating and radiometric dating. c14 is not the only method there is.

Anyway I am just glad that JC freaks have acknowledged the cheese albeit with imaginary holes. It's a good start...

I was gonna say something. Then I read Min's post. He and Whateverist summed it up perfectly.

Seriously, JCL. Were you just not born with the capacity of thinking for yourself? Or did you willingly surrender it at some undefined point in your life? If the former, I am so sorry for you, and if the latter, I am so sorry for you.

It's threads like these that have you skipping to the op's posts. Slim pickings.

Evolution is full of holes but an invisible sky man creating out of thin air has none?

(December 29, 2014 at 7:32 pm)abaris Wrote: Actually, just today, watching a video, I heard someone define atheism. And it's by far the most to the point definition I've heard so far.

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby"

I like that! The way I've always heard it expressed is, 'Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour', but yours is better.

Boru

So... what exactly are all of these "holes" in the theory of evolution? "Carbon dating is limited" is not a problem for the theory of evolution, and is not a "hole" in the theory. There are other ways to reliably date the rocks in which fossils are discovered. Please, list for us the many "holes" in the theory of evolution. At the least it might provide a bit of education and entertainment, though perhaps not in that order.

What the hell are people doing saying evolution has holes in it? DNA proves evolution. You can find lots of history of science where older data got tweaked and revised yes, but as an entire theory evolution is rock solid. Please do not feed the fundys because they do not understand what it means in science to self correct and improve on prior data.

I think it is far more important to show them other religions trying to trash science and or co opt it to prop up other gods. They need to know their religion is not the center of the universe, nor can it be used to debunk science. The only thing that confirms or denies data, is science itself, not holy books, not claims of Allah, or Yahweh or Vishnu or Jesus.

Religion has absolutely no scientific value outside explaining the evolutionary psychology as to why humans gap fill and allow their false perceptions to come to very bad conclusions. It is a artificial construct humans invent to create social order.

Christians are not the only ones who try to attack science or try to co opt science. It is a desperate act to cling to myth and invisible sky hero claims, but it is not unique to Christianity.

(December 30, 2014 at 6:39 am)Tonus Wrote: So... what exactly are all of these "holes" in the theory of evolution? "Carbon dating is limited" is not a problem for the theory of evolution, and is not a "hole" in the theory. There are other ways to reliably date the rocks in which fossils are discovered. Please, list for us the many "holes" in the theory of evolution. At the least it might provide a bit of education and entertainment, though perhaps not in that order.

Don't expect too much, it'll probably be on the level of "why don't give women birth to monkeys" and "piltdown man was a boax"

(December 30, 2014 at 7:22 am)Alex K Wrote: Don't expect too much, it'll probably be on the level of "why don't give women birth to monkeys" and "piltdown man was a boax"

Don't forget "Kinds are a thing!" and "Just a theory!"

(December 29, 2014 at 6:53 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: Carbon-14 dating is just one example from the very long laundry list of inconsistencies and holes in the theory. Radiocarbon dates that do not fit evolutionary theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Most C-14 dates are thrown out.

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions and is subject to bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. It is science's dirty little secret, and yet they continue to lie that it is proof of evolution.

Which is why Carbon-dating is used to support archaeology, not evolution.

---

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God.

So? If evolution was completely overturned tomorrow, it wouldn't make God a whit more likely, unless it was replaced by scientific evidence of God. Being wrong about something or not knowing something is ignorance and/or error, not God, though with some people those all seem to be synonyms.

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe.

Nonsense. For one, evolution isn't in the category of things that can deny things. For another, it has nothing to do with whether there's a God involved with the universe. Have you not ever heard of deism?

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism.

It's just what the science shows us. Atheism is an opinion on a single topic. It isn't a religion, and neither is mere theism.

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

We can believe credulous fools who think a book saying it's from God means it must really be from God, or we can accept what hard-sought and thoroughly-tested science indicates.

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: Obviously, the evidences for Evolution is obtained through an / a philosophical & Ideological bias.

It's mostly from understanding how heredity works, millions of fossils discovered that conform to the theory's prediction, the findings of genetics and molecular biology, biogeography, and experiments with and observations on organisms with short life cycles.

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: One just has to see the answers posted on this forum by Atheist to see that with their lying Evolution Web sites and pseudo-Science they employ.

Yet over and over and over again, it's you guys and your sources that are exposed as dishonest. If you're right, why does your side have to lie so much?

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: What is tragic is that many Christians (and I use that word Christian loosely) are succumbing to worldly pressure to adjust their theology to “Make it Fit”

There were those who felt the same way when Christians succumbed to the worldly pressure to adjust their theology to 'Make it Fit' the earth revolving around the sun.

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: For it is Written “ 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NKJV) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

That should be in every 'holy' scripture ever, because it will always be true, no matter what the religion. It's like predicting there will be wars and unrest: that is, glaringly obvious rather than much of a prediction.