Story Comments

Posted by: cloud15 6 months, 2 weeks ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Report

0%
cloud156 months, 2 weeks ago

Thats simply not true. I for one am catholic but given the facts, evolution is how it happened. The stories of the bible aren't meant to be taken literally, most of them were probably made up by the authors who wanted to add their own perspective as to how life should be lived. Does that mean the bible is nothing but fiction? Absolutely not, but whether some of the stories are true or not is not the point. You're supposed to take the stories and learn the meaning. Its supposed to be a guide on how to live.
With carbon dating they are able to determine how old fossils are. The dinosaurs were around far before the creation of the earth in bible words.
Reply
4 Replies
- 0%
  Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  If you are Catholic and hold that view you are not in accordance with your religion. The Catholic Church is one of the most conservative Christian denominations. That means that the Church takes the bible literally as the word of God. Go ask your priest.
  Carbon dating doesn't accurately go back more than 30,000 years. A live seal was dated at 25,000 years. The front of a mammoth was dated at 30,000 years and the back was dated at 60,000 years. The way it is done is they take a small amount of material. They remove everything except carbon. They then compare the amount of carbon 14 to the rest of the carbon. You are dealing with some very small amounts of carbon. Going past 30,000 years you are almost counting atoms.
  I am friends with an archaeologist. They get this type of dating and if it matches their idea they keep it and if not they throw it away. The real method of dating is using pottery.
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 0%
    Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    Do it again.
    Evolution has some major problems.
    For starters the fossil record does not show the gradual transition that Darwin said it would. They have come up with explanations about that.
    There are fossils in one strata and their ancestors are in a few strata above it. They have convoluted explanations for that
    There are places where petrified trees are going through several strata. They ignore that.
    There has been found human artifacts in coal. One item was a metal head small sledge hammer. Others are intricate metal objects. Again they ignore that.
    The crust of rock covering oil deposits has not been broken. With the stresses they should have broken after 7,000 years. They ignore that.
    Reply
    2 Replies
    - 0%
      smithichie6 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC130.html
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD231.html
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD232.html
      You ignore the fact your claims HAVE been addressed.
      
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Did you bother reading most of those claims. I like the one about extra C14 added to the existing C14. The concept of C14 dating is that a set amount of C14 is in continuous supply in the environment and gets in the organism. When the organism dies it slowly decays away. This presupposes two facts not in evidence. the first is that through time the presence of C14 was constant and that nothing could inject C14 after death. And here you go shooting C14 dating in the foot with that one.
        The hammer incident fails to talk about the fact that the hammer came from a coal mine and the coal was all around the object. They removed the coal when it was found. It ignores the other artifacts found in coal. Why?
        Some of these basically say that it is the way it is and other science is ignored.
        You didn't address the petrified trees going through several strata. You didn't address how a strata can have ancestors in strata above it.
        Reply