Originally posted by ZahlanziWe know that all varieties of dogs did not exist at creation. We know that many of these varieties came about through selective breeding by man. Darwin believed that varieties of finches came about through natural selective beeding without the help of man.
you will love this. many yecs believe that there weren't zebras, horses, donkeys, etc, just the general kind "horse like kind". after the flood, each kind diversified into species.
almost like evolution. but there is no such thing as evolution of course.
Zebras look like horses, so some believe that all horse like animals are a variety of the same kind. However, we are not sure that the zebra is the same kind as a horse. But if it is, then that would mean that not every variety of these kind of animals would need to be on the ark, just as not every variety of finches must be on the ark.
We believe that natural selective breeding can take place just like man-made selective breeding. Therefore, there would be no need for all the varieties (species) of every kind of animals that breath air to be placed on the ark. This does not mean we think one kind of animal evolved into another kind. It only means that one kind of animal can reproduce varieties (species) within the same kind.
The Instructor
Originally posted by KellyJayActually, we would since bones a few thousand years old leaves a distinct C14 signature whereas that dating technique poops out after about 50K years. Most scientists are ok with the idea that fossil dating techniques are pretty accurate, within the windows of error for each technique.
If the dinosaur bones you are dating as millions of years old were actually
thousands of years old, you'd never know it.
Kelly
The clincher is how they logically tie together, several deep past techniques converge on a common date so several technologies say the same age which adds real credence to the assessment of age.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou prove my point.
Actually, we would since bones a few thousand years old leaves a distinct C14 signature whereas that dating technique poops out after about 50K years. Most scientists are ok with the idea that fossil dating techniques are pretty accurate, within the windows of error for each technique.
The clincher is how they logically tie together, several deep past t ...[text shortened]... date so several technologies say the same age which adds real credence to the assessment of age.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Of course we know, they are too old for C14, a thousand times too old.
Published: May 31, 1990 The New York Times
Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html
The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias.
http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php
Doesn't Carbon 14 Dating Disprove the BIble?
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsErrors of thousands of years? OF COURSE THERE ARE ERRORS. He said it, THOUSANDS of years. We are talking about bones a THOUSAND TIMES OLDER YOU DOLT.
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Published: May 31, 1990 The New York Times
Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.
http://www.nytimes.com/1 ...[text shortened]... on 14 Dating Disprove the BIble?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5BBf4EYoNc
The Instructor