James Brown,
People who are interested in the other side of the coin should watch Kent Hovinds videos there are at least 20 of them, Your thought process will reflect what you feed your brain. Garbage in garbage out vs Quality in quality out.
Yes, if you fill your head with nonsense from a convicted fraudster then yes garbage in garbage out.
Carbon dating doesn't work it is based on circular reasoning.
No, it isn't, it is based on the rate of radioactive decay, how on earth do you reckon that is circular reasoning? It is basic first year graduate level science.
All the dating methods are based on circular reasoning. The geological column dates the bone. The bone dates the geological column. That is circular reasoning, don't let it go over your head.
Fossils can be used to give relative ages, however geologists use radiometric dating of related igneous rocks to date sedimentary rocks (i.e. the rocks that fossils are found in) So your statement is incorrect and misleading, geologists don't use circular reasoning.
Various dating methods do not work when we know how old the item to be dated is, they only work when we don't know how old the item to be dated is, which is pure nonsense.
Different dating methods are used in different circumstances, most times in relation to geological dating multiple techniques are used to date rocks not just one technique. If six different techniques all give you the same answer more or less then you can be reasonably sure the average is correct.
Macro evolution is not a science it is not scientific it is a secular humanistic religion to shape and control the gullible. Macro evolution is a useless hypothesis it doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help doctors, surgeons, medicine or real science. It is not the science that gave us computers and microwaves and cell phones. Evolution is pseudoscience.
Evolution gives us new antibiotics, disease resistant crops, medical research and is used in crime prevention and detection.
The grand canyon was formed over a short period of time not millions of years.
Based on what evidence?
Man and dinosaurs coexisted before and after the flood they were called dragons and there are historic drawings of dragons/ dinosaurs.
Based on what evidence? There are also drawings of pixies, goblins, unicorns, fairys, trolls and santa claus, that is simply evidence of a fertile imagination .
The word dinosaur is less than 200 years old.
Finally you have stated something factual.
There are stories of dragons and big creatures throughout history.
You do understand that harry potter isn't real and that there is no actual school called hogwarts?
The idea of man or life combining in a primordial soup or primeval sea is mathematically impossible.
Please provide a link to peer reviewed proof of this.
God is the light before the sun was created in Genesis, God preforms (sic) and works miracles that we don't and cant (sic) understand. Atheist don't believe in God or miracles. If you don't believe in God or miracles you can be an atheist. If you dont (sic) believe in God or miracles how else can you describe yourself?
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any gods or miracles. congratulations on stating the obvious. What has that got to do with evolution or geology or the OP
It is not possible that all the elements on the periodic table evolved let alone man from them.
Elements on the periodic table didn't evolve, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
The whole atheistic evolution hypothesis and misinformation agenda is a plan by Satin (sic) to send people with big egos and little brains to hell.
Evolution is a theory not a hypothesis, Satin is a vastly underrated material and I will not hear a bad word about it although I do prefer silk.
Kent Hovind has at least 20 videos, you can find them on youtube. Rather than coming on here and arguing with the same confused people spend a month watching his videos and you will be done with it.
If you go to a car dealership do you just blindly accept everything the salesman says? No if you are sensible you will find out what independant experts think of the car when compared with the competition. If you choose to just take the word of a convicted fraudster then prepare to be defrauded about what evolution is really about. The best idea would be to read some books by real scientists about the facts of evolution.
Macro evolution is not scientific it can not be duplicated it does not follow the scientific method. That is why it is not scientific it is not a theory it is a hypothesis which is not scientific. It is a secular humanistic religion, no matter how many times atheist say it isn't. They are trying to tell a lie big enough they hope some people believe it.
You do realise that you simply stating something doesn't make it so, if you can prove what you are saying you will become the most well known scientist in history. Evolution has been proven by multiple independant lines of enquiry since Darwin's day never mind that he proved it with his own experiments. As has been pointed out the whole of evolution could be diproven by finding a single fossil in the wrong strata. So put your money where you mouth is and show me the evidence.
The evolution atheist talk of is (sic) macro evolution. Life forms do adapt and that is called micro evolution. Micro evolution adaptation, is not what atheist are talking about they are talking about macro evolution. Which has never been observed and is not scientific.
The nylon bug has evolved to metabolise nylon waste (an entirely artificial substance)within our lifetimes, that is evolution in action.
Any way those who want to know the other side of the coin should watch the video, I doubt I will argue any more beyond this why should I argue pseudo scientific hypothesis with a group of other laymen?
I would agree your hypothesis is pseudoscience.
As far as I can see when it comes to arguing atheism and evolution everyone is a layman.
You may well be, however some of us have studied this subject extensively.
There is no amount of education or lack of education that will make one an atheist or a believer in God. it is a choice each must make. The world is full of doctors, medical doctors, engineers, biologist, teachers who are creationist and believe in God and also who are atheist and don't believe in God. It is just a choice of what religious view of the world one wants to adopt.
The statistics tell a different story, the better educated you are the less likely you are to believe in gods or creationist fairytales.
The atheist are accountable to no one in their mind they can do what ever they want there is no right or wrong it is a dog eat dog world and it is survival of the fittest.
No, I like most atheists have a finely honed sense of right and wrong, have you ever actually listened to anything an atheist has actually said to you? Human morality and social justice are as important to me as an atheist as they are to a christian.
The fact is, there is no qualification to preach evolution or creation the only qualification is common sense and common sense is not common.
I think I could tell that you have no qualifications, perhaps I suggest you start by listening to what real atheists tell you about what they actually believe rather than the strawman concoction in your head.
I close and still say those who want the other side of the coin and what I call the truth should take a month or two and watch all of Kent Hovinds videos and then you will know in your own mind that there is no stone unturned and that you have the most logical scientific understanding of the issue.
Apart from actually finding out what real scientists have to say about the theory of evolution of course.
If your (sic) too lazy shame on you. You have time to hang out here and go nowhere and learn nothing. This is a topic of confusion.
No, not lazy, I just require peer reviewed empirical proof not the ravings of a convicted fraudster.
The blind leading the blind to hell.
Have you seen this place, has anyone actually seen hell? So how do you know it exists?
