Christianity - Page 7

Because "they" tell you so.

So .... Shut up!

If you breed the darkest African (pure black, brown eyes etc.) With the whitest Scandanavian (blue eyes, blond hair etc.). The children may be born anywhere from the blackest black to the whitest white, and all variations inbetween.

Therefore, the it is possible (just possible) that Adam and Eve had racially diverse offspring.

Don't forget about the flooding of the Earth. The gene pool was then constricted to Moses's family who eventually split up to the different parts of the Earth. And carbon dating is totally wrong. Bones that have been around for billions of years. Yea right.

So you're saying that Adam was black and Eve was white, or vice versa?

How do you conclude that carbon dating is wrong? I mean, unless your'e prejudiced and think that species should only date like species...I for one wouldn't mind dating a carbon.

Carbon-Based Bi-pod



.

You have to have a actual known carbon that if proven to be a certain date to use as the guide. We don't have that. Where did we get it from? Carbon dated it?

Lets thank mom and dad for that. I hope they kept reproducing.

i think i would carbone date that one myself....

http://ask.yahoo.com/20000530.html

Jaz, I believe carbon dating can be accurate. But it is common knowledge that its accuracy is applicable only to objects which are less than 50,000 years old.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

And they can only test it on things they know are of a certain age. Egyptian burials is the test that they put their success on. Around 5000 years old.

Radioactive carbon is formed in the earths upper atmosphere resulting from incoming cosmic radiation and atmospheric nitrogen 14. It then unites with oxygen to form carbon dioxcide and is absorbed by all plants and animals. at the moment of death plants and animals cease to absorb C-14. It then begins to decay back into nitrogen 14. this has a half-life of 5730 years. five half-lives of c-14 would equal 29,000 years and would leave only 1/32 of the original c-14 content.
Therefore c-14 method becomes increasingly weak after a few thousand years.

The amount of natural carbon may have varied in the past. It is known that the earth once had far more vegatation than today. Organisms living at that time would would be subject to a very low C-14 to C-12 ratio. and their remains would would contain no measurable radio carbon at all... even if they lived ony 6,000 years ago.

The amount of helium-4 in the atmosphere suggests that our atmosphere is less than
15,000 years old.

I am not trying to be rude oor a smart-##s just offereing a different point of view

Helium 4 escapes from the atmosphere at a fairly rapid rate. So to use as a measure of the earths age would be inaccurate.

My point was that carbon dating isn't accurate either.

There is scientific evidence for creation also.

Coal has been made in the modern lab.

Petrified wood has been made in the lab and has a patent.

My original point was on the basis that evolution does not happen at all. That is Macro or Micro Evolution. That is something a significant number of people believe. Hence, everyone would look very similar.

There is evidence for "Macro" . Macro is just an extension of Micro. You just cannot be bothered to look for it or accept.

Well it is accurate, if you use it under the certain constaints that have been set out.




[/QUOTE]

and your point is....

Can't be. The Earth is only 7,000 years old.

.

I'm thinking closer to 6,000.