How can Christians not admit Christianity is all a pile of garbage when ...?

[chi pan]

Radiometric dating is universally accepted amongst the scientific community as perfectly valid data which shows the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has also been used on meteorites and samples bought back from the moon landings, all of which concur with the 'old earth' theory. And I'm not just talking about carbon-14, there are many radioactive elements which can be use to reliably date matter, ALL of which are in agreement with each other (which is more than you can say about your hypocritical story book). How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations, it is dismissed without a thought.

And by the way, it isn't MY theory. It is the accepted theory amongst the scientific community. You state "It is estimated by most scientists that it would take about 50,000 years to reach equilibrium to the point where the amount of carbon 14 produced and the amount decaying are equal and the amount of existing carbon 14 remains constant", I would love to know where you got this information from...one of your creationist web-sites?

And please (for the love of god!) explain to me how "The theory of gravity does not support an old earth therefore the statement you made is false" supports your young-earth assertion?? I'm quite amused at that statement alone!

Regarding the Old-Earth theory as a way to prove the theory of evolution which requires the huge time scales, you're just clutching at straws here I'm afraid. Allow me to educate you a little . For decades after the great Charles Darwin first proposed his magnificent and eloquent theory there was much debate, and one of the biggest objections against his theory was the very long timescales involved which just couldn't be conceived of. At the time it was thought the sun was just a giant sphere of coal, slowing burning away, and it was thought only a few tens of thousands of years old so was impossible to allow the time necessary for evolution. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century with the advances made by the likes of Henri Becquerel and Ernest Rutherford in the field of radioactivity that it was discovered the sun wasn't a sphere of coal at all but a h

---

Radiometric dating is universally accepted amongst the scientific community as perfectly valid data which shows the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has also been used on meteorites and samples bought back from the moon landings, all of which concur with the 'old earth' theory. And I'm not just talking about carbon-14, there are many radioactive elements which can be use to reliably date matter, ALL of which are in agreement with each other (which is more than you can say about your hypocritical story book). How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations, it is dismissed without a thought.

And by the way, it isn't MY theory. It is the accepted theory amongst the scientific community. You state "It is estimated by most scientists that it would take about 50,000 years to reach equilibrium to the point where the amount of carbon 14 produced and the amount decaying are equal and the amount of existing carbon 14 remains constant", I would love to know where you got this information from...one of your creationist web-sites?

And please (for the love of god!) explain to me how "The theory of gravity does not support an old earth therefore the statement you made is false" supports your young-earth assertion?? I'm quite amused at that statement alone!

Regarding the Old-Earth theory as a way to prove the theory of evolution which requires the huge time scales, you're just clutching at straws here I'm afraid. Allow me to educate you a little . For decades after the great Charles Darwin first proposed his magnificent and eloquent theory there was much debate, and one of the biggest objections against his theory was the very long timescales involved which just couldn't be conceived of. At the time it was thought the sun was just a giant sphere of coal, slowing burning away, and it was thought only a few tens of thousands of years old so was impossible to allow the time necessary for evolution. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century with the advances made by the likes of Henri Becquerel and Ernest Rutherford in the field of radioactivity that it was discovered the sun wasn't a sphere of coal at all but a huge nuclear reactor! This allowed for a much longer timescale of the suns life which in turn vindicated Darwins theory (in regard to the timescale issue)

I'm doing something I keep telling myself not to, and that is try and reason with a religious fundamentalist. And yes you are a fundamentalist, anyone who actually believes the literal truth of the bible (in particular the old testement) is nothing short of a complete crackpot! Even your church leaders acknowledge a lot of the bible is just creative writing to impart some kind of moral or lesson to be learned!

Radio dating is all based on the geologic column that doesn't exist in one piece anywhere except in a textbook. This creates an assumption that they should use the dating methods that best fit the geologic column. They have never carbon dated a dinosaur. Why? Because they already assume it's millions of years old and carbon dating can only date up to 50,000 years theoretically. Also, they often repeat the dating until they get what they call an "accurate answer." its not consistant at all and as I learned in science "something can be consistant without being accurate, but nothing can be accurate without being consistant."

And Darwin's eloquent theory? Darwin was wrong about most all his theories according to all evolutionary scientists except for natural selection and the general sense of evolution. Any scientist will tell you that and say "but we've made so much progress since then with the discovery of DNA...." I don't see much evidence for the theory as far as the change of an animal to a completely different kind of animal. You can present your case though.