posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:05 PM
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.