Evolution is riddled with holes like a piece of Swiss cheese

[JesusChristLover]

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.

[Minimalist]

C14 dating is not used for periods in excess of 50,000 years ago. Please stop with the Ken Ham inspired horseshit. You are making yourself look like more of a fool.

[JesusChristLover]

Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. 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.

Obviously, the evidences for Evolution is obtained through an / a philosophical & Ideological bias, 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.

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”
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.

[abaris]

Why not come back when you actually have an informed opinion? Since you let the ass do the talking, the outcoming statement is just a fart. Stinky, but not really substantial.

Edit: On second thought, and after reading your second post, you're just an ignorant idiot, thinking that throwing around bible verses is giving him some authority.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[Whateverist]

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.

Oh dear! The morons are attacking the sacred texts of atheistic science again. Whatever shall we do? May I suggest one of the following replies?

(a) (b) © (d) (e)

[Lucanus]

There might be holes in the Theory of Evolution (there actually aren't); their presence does not imply that Creationism is true.

I hope you choke on Ken Ham's propaganda-ejaculating dick, at least you'll stop swallowing it.

[abaris]

Oh dear! The morons are attacking the sacred texts of atheistic science again. Whatever shall we do? May I suggest one of the following replies?

(a) (b) © (d) (e)

Why bother coming up with explanations? He wouldn't read them anyway, since he's proudly ignorant. You can educate a moron, but not a robot. The robot will always act according to his operating software.

[Whateverist]

Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God.

Actually it is all of science with biology being the most pertinent field, and evolution is the most important overarching theory in the field as a whole.

Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe.

That's right. You're catching on.

Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism.

And you were so close to a break through. Actually evolution is the scientific approach to explaining how life came to be as we find it today. Science has no more to do with religion any more than atheism does.

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”

What a shame you don't join them. Atheism doesn't have any intrinsic advantage over theism when it comes to intelligence and insight. It is only choices like this one you've made which make it appear so.

[Elskidor]

I wish Brucer had not been a poe. His arrogant fake craziness would be more amusing than seeing this guy all over the place.