> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Ihrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:01 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: LOLCreashun > > not sure if i do believe in carbon dating, but thats just me.
The evidence for Carbon dating (and regular radioactive decay in general) is incredibly sound but it's very, VERY far from the only evidence we have for an ancient earth. In fact Carbon dating in general is almost useless for determining geologic time spans (since its forte is organic materials). +) Sedimentation rates (and sedimentary rock formation). There are shale beds with many thousands of layers... even assuming that each layer takes only a single year to form then the beds must have taken more than 6,000 years to form. Looking at sandstone and limestone deposits and the sedimentation rates of rivers provides very clear time frames. +) Geologic strata diversification (the way that strata are formed and how long this MUST take). +) The measured rates of angular momentum of the planets (which cannot be lost but which must have been transferred regularly). +) Modern theories of planet formation only work if the planets were formed at the same time as the sun. Since the math of the sun's nuclear reactions (as far as mass needed to ignite and energy output needed to prevent collapse) are all well known the sun CAN'T be less than several billion years old to be in the state it's in today. +) There's tremendous evidence that ancient organisms lived in a radically atmosphere than we do. Maximum insect size is determined almost exclusively by molecular oxygen in the air (since they have no lungs) - the insects that we have today and the giants in the fossil record could not have lived in the same eras. Any mechanism we can conceive for changing the atmosphere to that extent would take millions or billions of years. Intellectually I'm fine with the whole "God made the Earth 6,000 years ago to look Billions of years old" argument. It's a form of the "God of the Gaps" logical fallacy but at least it's consistent with the evidence. But this demand of creationist to have their cake (creationism) and eat it (define all science according to their timeframe) is just ridiculous. > also isn't there a dino print in a river bed next to a human foot > print? No - there isn't. What there is a wacky kook who has a "roadside creation museum" that claims this when nothing is verified. It's selection bias and pareidolia at its textbook finest: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/TXGLEcreation.html It was so hilariously absurd that "The Daily Show" did a piece on him. He's actually got an exhibit which describes how the Flintstones are more fact than fiction. Note that he's SO wacky that the Creation Museum that you went to refused to display any of his "finds"! Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get involved in the latest ColdFusion discussions, product development sharing, and articles on the Adobe Labs wiki. http://labs/adobe.com/wiki/index.php/ColdFusion_8 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:247184 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
