Assassin Xaero said:
Ignorant people around here, and most of they are really religious. Like some know-it-all I work with, but he really doesn't know much at all. Like most the religious people I know, this guy was going on about how carbon dating lies and saying that the 4 million year old person they found wasn't really that old and just had some bone deformities. Yet, the piece of the Ark they found that was dated (using carbon dating) back to when Noah was around, oh, in that case carbon dating is true since it proved the bible. Morons.
There are over 100 different ways to calculate the age of things, and only three are used by evolutionists. How do they decide which three to use? By figuring out which one has the most "Accurate" reading according to their assumptions of how old the world is. For example, one of those three could say a new dinosaur recently discovered in Wyoming is only 20 million years old, another could say it's only 20 thousand. But the third will say 70 million. So they'll go for the 70 million, because we
know that dinosaurs died out 63 million years ago.
What do the other 97 or so dating methods say? they vary from billions to only decades, however, the point is that scientist use any particular method to back up their own biased beliefs on any given subject.
Personally, I love talking about evolution vs. creation because it proves how ignorant people will stick to their own bias no matter what, refuting any flaws in their own beliefs as so much rif-raf and treating any opposing ideas as preposterous ideologies bent on ruining the world. It's the myth of pure evil at its best. It's hilarious.
