Recently this petrified human brain site has been getting some attention. I have no idea whether it's real or a parody, but this kind of thing is certainly common among creationist arguments. I've already posted about the fossilized teddy bear, and the below image shows what is apparently a fossilized human foot, still inside its boot:
These nutjobs don't seem to realize that the time it takes for fossils to form is entirely irrelevant. What matters is the age of the fossils since formation, and many independent dating techniques (radiometric dating, fission-track dating, paleomagnetism, amino acid dating) all agree that dinosaur bones are many millions of years old.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi! I could have sworn I've visited this web site before but after browsing through a few of the articles I realized it's
new to me. Regardless, I'm certainly pleased I found it and I'll be bookmarking
it and checking back frequently!
My web site :: usa casino review
dog insurance Lots of well being ideas now provide you with a lower price at gym subscriptions, using tobacco classes and other healthful way of life prospects.
Some breeds of dog are not covered by insurers and it is important to check beforehand if you think your dog may be one of these.
Of course the time it takes to form a fossil is relevant. When someone points out that the object in question is probably far younger than dated, one of the first arguments used is how long it allegedly takes to form a fossil. There are many, many examples that show fossils of dinosaurs cannot be millions of years old (such as soft tissue, stretchy blood vessels, and even viable DNA), not to mention fossils that span several strata that in themselves allegedly span millions of years. Rock layers, I may add, that were given dates arbitrarily before any of the "dating" methods you mention were even thought of. You can call people "nut jobs" for not believing as you do, if you like, but the evidence is well on the side of those who believe such things were not buried millions of years ago, but only within a few thousand years. The point is, that all the dating systems you mentioned are founded on *belief*, not science, with assumptions that cause them to provide dates expected, or worse - dates that they give outside of the pre-determined range are ignored or adjusted. I mean, have you seen the error margins? Those in themselves give pause for thought. You should look into it some more.
Post a Comment