[QUOTE="olle90"][QUOTE="nyczfinest2300"][QUOTE="olle90"]

evolution makes atheists feel better about themselfs they are trying to run from God and they try to justify their sinful nature. Now they can say but we are just animals so what difference does it make that I have sex before marriage, what difference does it make if I get drunk when I die nothing is going to happen anyway.

 

Loonie

You are a F u k ing mor0n, the world would be a much better place w/o people like u ;)

iam sorry truth hurts i know.

Everything in my power? oh please i just started :). Also who are you to tell right from wrong? only God can do that. You base your belifes on fallible humans I base my knowledge in the bible and from an all knowing God  that one day will judge everyone of us it doesnt matter if you like it or not ! 

[QUOTE="olle90"]

evolution makes atheists feel better about themselfs they are trying to run from God and they try to justify their sinful nature. Now they can say but we are just animals so what difference does it make that I have sex before marriage, what difference does it make if I get drunk when I die nothing is going to happen anyway.

 

nyczfinest2300

You are a F u k ing mor0n, the world would be a much better place w/o people like u ;)

iam sorry truth hurts.

[QUOTE="olle90"]

This method has been
accepted as an accurate way to determine the age of an artifact, and until recently few
have questioned the accuracy of this method. The problem is, if radiometric dating is
accepted as an accurate way to date artifacts, when in fact it is not, then it is misleading people to belive artifacts are older then they really are.

A good example of how inaccurate this type of radiometric dating comes
from the famous Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Scientists know when that rock
solidified because they saw it happen. When they radiometric dated the new rock, the
results came back as if the rock was millions of years old even though it was actually less
then a year old. So if the dating method does not work when we know how old the rock
really is, why do we think it works any better when we don't know the actual age of the rocks?

An article written by Anthony Mitchell in the Washington Post gives one
example, "A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has
discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, ... they are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old." We know they did not get
the age of those bones from carbon dating. If they say they did, you know that is not
possible because carbon dating can not go back that far. Then how can they make this
claim. They take the rock layer that the fossil was found in and then try to find other
things in the same layer that help date when the layer could have been put down. The
most common way they do this is by finding igneous rock in the layer that they can
radiometric date. However, this method does not give an accurate answer that can be
considered scientific. But, none the less, it is used to "prove " the age of fossils and is
accepted by scientists and common people alike to be accurate. So the next time you read
a story in your paper about a million year old man, take it with a grain of salt, because all
it really means is that they found some bones that happen to be next to some rock that
were tested to be that old using a extremely fallible method.

so bite me I wont belive in your evolution crap anytime soon ;)

Dasc00

EDIT: Also, DNA 

Ever heard of your theories fails? Becuse that what it does.  So Í would suggest to you to repent before its to late :)

This method has been
accepted as an accurate way to determine the age of an artifact, and until recently few
have questioned the accuracy of this method. The problem is, if radiometric dating is
accepted as an accurate way to date artifacts, when in fact it is not, then it is misleading people to belive artifacts are older then they really are.

A good example of how inaccurate this type of radiometric dating comes
from the famous Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. Scientists know when that rock
solidified because they saw it happen. When they radiometric dated the new rock, the
results came back as if the rock was millions of years old even though it was actually less
then a year old. So if the dating method does not work when we know how old the rock
really is, why do we think it works any better when we don't know the actual age of the rocks?

An article written by Anthony Mitchell in the Washington Post gives one
example, "A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has
discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, ... they are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old." We know they did not get
the age of those bones from carbon dating. If they say they did, you know that is not
possible because carbon dating can not go back that far. Then how can they make this
claim. They take the rock layer that the fossil was found in and then try to find other
things in the same layer that help date when the layer could have been put down. The
most common way they do this is by finding igneous rock in the layer that they can
radiometric date. However, this method does not give an accurate answer that can be
considered scientific. But, none the less, it is used to "prove " the age of fossils and is
accepted by scientists and common people alike to be accurate. So the next time you read
a story in your paper about a million year old man, take it with a grain of salt, because all
it really means is that they found some bones that happen to be next to some rock that
were tested to be that old using a extremely fallible method.

so bite me I wont belive in your evolution crap anytime soon ;)

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]radiometric dating is a tried and proven method, it has shown the earth to be about 4.6 billion years old.CrimzonTide

please radiometric dating is unbelivevably fallible !! now you are the one that should do some research!.

You know, you should stop just listening to your peers and actually investigate these things for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth-Karayan-

For your information I dont listen to my peers this is my OWN research ok. So please dont make assumptions.