|
ksuever009 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
na na na du du du du nu!
Hochemon2008 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Ok now we were having a good conversation and then you go into another one and got down right nasty. Who are you to say that Dawkins can't be sarcastic or say something ironically? Unless you are Professor Dawkins himself, which based on the claims you have been making I know you are not, you have no right make such an assumption. Afterall you know what it means when you assume something right?
Hochemon2008 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I am going to suggest that you go and watch some of the videos by DonExodus2 on radiometric dating but I will respond anyway.1)There is a known flaw in dating living animals and an even larger one in dating animals that once lived in the sea like this snail you are talking about did.2)If we are using carbon dating you wouldn't get dates of millions of years for anything so I doubt that this is the case for this mammoths although point me to where you heard this claim since I never have.
revjimbob (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Of course he thinks it is possible. I think it is possible too - just very unlikely, and it answers nothing. I am sure Dawkins thinks much the same. What is your point?
revjimbob (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
If you think I am going to waste any more of my time researching your lame insults, you are dumber than I thought.
shewey (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Carbon dating gives dates that vary incredibly from one to the next. A living snail was once dated as being millions of years old. Also, many cases show the dating of mammoths to be different by millions of years depending on which part of its body is tested. It is in no way as concrete as it is made out to be. In fact, the chosen dates are those which fit the assumed theory; hence, their reasoning is circular.
shewey (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Dawkins doesn't say things that he doesn't view as plausible, so by positing aliens as a means of seeding life, he truly believs that could've happened. Remember that he said it was because of an "intelligent signature" on the cell. So don't say that because he was lied to he made it up for argument. Dawkins wouldn't do that. Ironically, he was conned into telling us his true opinions.
ksuever009 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Wow so you set the rules eh? LOL I can tell your not American if you were you would know who he is if you were inquisitive you would google the name and learn something ; ) I don't have to change for you.
Hochemon2008 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
We know how to correct for these changes becuase we compare the dates we get with x method with objects of known age...Also note that a different atmospheric make up would effect the different isotopes differently so the fact that they all corespond means that we are doing something right.
revjimbob (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
ID proponents often claim they are nothing to do with religion, as the designer does not have to be god, but could be advanced aliens or some other unknown entity. He was only graciously going along with that specualtion for the sake of argument, when invited to (though of course, this was never made clear in the movie, in one of its frequent dishonesties.) |
