posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by Zamini
Thank you for the lecture, I'm going to call the registrar and demand all the money I spent on my biology degree back.
It's funny that you made the comments that you have even after the post showing that at 29ish million years this is a distant ancestor to
primates, not just humans. As far as proof I'm going to go out on a limb and say that dating methods are pretty reliable.
It's a pretty sturdy limb too; I have personally collected, catelogued and prepped samples for dating (sadly my university didn't have it's own lab
or I would have done that too) so I am fully aware of the limitations.
It's odd though, I Googled the dating methods that are used by science and it wasn't until the bottom of the second page that I came across
something actually presented by a scientist/lab...everything else was religious sites explaining why the science is wrong.
Seems like a lot of effort expended by people who are supposedly secure in their beliefs.
I also find it curious that scientific debate on issues is a key factor in people's dismissal. The defining quality of science is to question and
argue ideas, not blindly accept what they are told. Unlike religion where everything is an unquestionable fact, science has theories that can be
proven wrong or incomplete.
post made no comment beyond the fact
that 2/3 responses questioned evolution. I find this odd because most of the educated
believers that I know can at least concede that GOD probably used evolution to create us instead of *POOF* here we are.
Perhaps though before calling me a militant athiest (which I am not) or a scientific zealot (which again I am not) you should take even just a moment
to find out which one of the two of us has the problem.
The funniest part of all this is that if the Garden of Eden was discovered and dated it to 6000ish years ago there wouldn't be a peep about how
biased or inaccurate the methods are.
[edit on 15-7-2010 by [davinci]]