(December 29, 2014 at 7:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Actually, radiocarbon dating is highly accurate, but (as Min said), limited. Other methods of radiometric dating are used for older artifacts, and accord VERY well with non-radiometric methods.
You aren't required to accept evolution, but you also are not allowed to posit fantasy as fact.
Furthermore, if you're going to simply copy/paste from other websites, it is considered good form to link to other websites or (at the very least) acknowledge that the work is not your own. Otherwise, people might come to think of you as a semi-literate boob without the capacity for original thought.
Boru
Actually, before I realized it was copypasta, I thought he was simply an idiot with no understanding of evolution.
Now I know that he's an idiot with no understanding of evolution, and additionally is unable to frame his objections himself using his own native tongue, and is comfortable plagiarizing.
In that sense, it's all good; we've got a better bead on his character. Typical dishonest Christian, bereft of both education and ethics.
