On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote:

On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:



Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind?



Yes



http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3



Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not

infallible...



Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather

is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort.



http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html





1990...



C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate

application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html



It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take

relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate

to infer that the whole field is unreliable.



As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some

are useful."



The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.







There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be

self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite

another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some

sort of "alternative."


Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?"

Can I be the first to sign the guest book?

?;^ )