well if any of u r familiar with the law of conservation and mass, then u know that it states that matter cannot be created from nothing, or completely destroyed. so evolutionists say this, then turn around and say the big bang created the universe as we know it. WTF!!?!?!?!the universe went from non existent to existent in a fraction of a nanosecond! and where did the bigbang come from? nothing? nope, because if the law of conservation and mass is true, then the bigbang isnt. simple...
Again i will stick to radioactive dating and see if anyone can try disprove or find a creationsit scientist who tries to disprove this method of testing and its results.
Again i will stick to radioactive dating and see if anyone can try disprove or find a creationsit scientist who tries to disprove this method of testing and its results.
SIGH my weakest argument, anyway im getting off ill look around tomorrow.
Please stop. Your argument always seem to end up "It's a religion it was writen to disprove evolution." It was written to support the idea of a young earth.
If you wish for me to refrain, stop giving me biased sources.
Again i will stick to radioactive dating and see if anyone can try disprove or find a creationsit scientist who tries to disprove this method of testing and its results.
God changed all the carbon with his noodley appendage. Wrong God, but you get the idea.
funny joke, but the fact remains, someone is yet to disprove the radioactive dating. In addition if you actually looked at the links you would know that radioactive dating is not affected by th environment of the fossil in question at all making it a flawless dating system.
Even though neither theories make much sense, the "god" theory makes even less sense than the big bang. The BB is scientific, but the "god" theory is just like a Santa Claus-type story. You believe in it until your logic kicks in.
Several months ago, a church near me had a HUGE sign touting their "NEW SCIENCE CLASSROOM!" <rofl> Yeah, I'm sure all sorts of SCIENCE happen in there.