Objective evidence matters!!

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Wiki is alright but I prefer to read journal entries and scientific sites. I use Wiki as a starting point of my research just to get ideas. Sometimes Wiki is accurate though but it only gives a one sided limited perception many times.

I prefer articles like this, they are more interesting. This is just one quick example I found, there are hundreds more out there. I expect you will probably just read a little bit of the article and say it backs up your perception. Most people only see what they think they know. I see both sides in this article.

sciencevsevolution.org...

You shouldn't prefer sources like that because they're GARBAGE.

Why?

Because the authors are all working for places like the "Kolbe Centre for the Study of Creation"

They also blatantly omit the FACT that carbon-14 can't be used to date the actual dinosaur fossils. That's not how scientists date them anyway, the actual bone isn't dated...the immediate surrounding rock is.

And their "rebuttal" is laughable. Essentially they answer the "C-14 can't be used to date dinosaur fossils" with "that's only the case if you believe dinosaurs haven't roamed the earth with humans". That's nonsense

But it's a great example of why checking your sources is so important. The website you linked is one of the more well-known pseudo-scientific sources that are full of bias and scientifically incorrect information.

reply to post by MrXYZ


So if you don't like that one here's another one. www.allaboutarchaeology.org... Look under the Controversy part. This is all common knowledge between most people who actually studied carbon dating and not just read it on Wiki. There are lots of articles out there not related to creationism that address this kind of stuff.

I don't believe in creationism either and agree with some evolution aspects but do not believe the theory of evolution is open enough for some of the stuff that has already been observed by rapid evolution.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So if you don't like that one here's another one. www.allaboutarchaeology.org... Look under the Controversy part. This is all common knowledge between most people who actually studied carbon dating and not just read it on Wiki. There are lots of articles out there not related to creationism that address this kind of stuff.

I don't believe in creationism either and agree with some evolution aspects but do not believe the theory of evolution is open enough for some of the stuff that has already been observed by rapid evolution.

Again...radiometric decay rates are constant as the article I linked earlier proves. The "controversies" mentioned in your article aren't scientific controversies because they are nonsense.

I'll tell you why:

1) The first thing that should make you VERY suspicious about the bias of the site is that the first "archeology" article is called "Bethlehem"...followed by entirely Christian creation inspired articles.

2) The author of the sources they list are equally as questionable. One of them for example is a regular contributor to "creationscience.com".

3) They only list a single source, yet make dozens of (often blatantly false) claims throughout the article.

4) They call young earth creationism "not unreasonable".

So this is the second source you list that contains nothing but pseudo-science, and both have a heavy religious bias. To me, it seems as if you WANT a certain answer, and therefore go look for sources that confirm your proconceived belief. That's NOT how science works, you have to examine facts and objective evidence...whether you like it or not.

So as you say, you might "like" those sources you list more...but that doesn't change the FACT that they're full of lies and pure pseudo-science that's demonstrably wrong.