Trixie
Member (Idle past 3736 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
Re: The fossil imprint's missing!
I agree whith you, Whatever, that dating the sediment the fossil is found in gives a false age. Boy, you're sure on the ball with that one! Isn't it a good job then, that fossils aren't dated by dating the sediment they're in? You see, the fatal flaw in dating the sedimentthe fossil is in has been known about for eons AND THAT'S WHY THE BLEEDIN' PALEONTOLOGISTS DON'T SODDING WELL DO IT THAT WAY!!!!! Yes, you're right in that the way you describe it is the wrong way to do it, but you only describe it like that IN ORDER to make it the wrong way to do it. It bears no relation to the methods of scientists or reality, but you can't fault the actual method they use. Instead, you make up a method and on the basis of this you see fit to suggest dishonesty by scientists. You have already been informed that scientists DON'T date a fossil by the sediment it is in, yet you continue to bang on about it - that's deliberate dishonesty, that's misrepresenting the truth. Someone on this board thinks that atheists have no morals because they can't tell right from wrong, but Christians do have morals because they do know the difference between right and wrong. You've just proved that person wrong YET AGAIN. Any chance of a bit more honesty from you in the future?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 88 by johnfolton, posted 04-25-2004 4:43 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 92 by JonF, posted 04-25-2004 6:48 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|