interesting article - Page 3

Okay, If you wish I will watch it completely, while take a look at this.

Living mollusk shell were carbon dated as being 2300 years old, obviously they are not 2300 hundred years old which is they are still alive. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated 1300 hundred years old, they just killed it and it’s not 1300 hundred years old. Shells living snails carbon dated 27,000 thousand years old. Also one part of the mammoth was dated 29,000 thousand and the other part was 44,000 thousand. Baby dima was dated 40,000 thousand and another part was 26,000 thousand and the wood next to it 9,000 thousand years old.


I am not against it, but it gives all kind of different wild numbers.

If that video makes perfect sence for you, fine...

But I will also stick what the Bible says,
I will repost my old post.

Bible says that God created everything in 6 days, NOT millions/billions years; no professor of Hebrew will tell you that the days in Genesis means anything other than 24 hour days, they might not believe that but they know that is what the book teaches, the book clearly teaches the days of Genesis are normal days, they always say does the word “yom” mean you know, day - could be long - like day of the Lord. There is one reference out of 1800 hundred times "yom” used, always means a day.
 
There are 3 meaning of the word day, 24 hours day; Jesus said are their 12 hours in a day - that is the day light portion of the day. And then it says in the day of the Lord, now is that talking about long period of time or is that also just one day, I don’t know - I think that is just one day also. But certainly when it says evening and morning - the first day, the second day, there is no reason to say these days other than 24 hour days just like we have today. No verses in the Bible where the word “yom” is used indicate other than 24 hour day.

Shtal, "It says in the Bible..." proves nothing.  Bring some evidence and I'll take a look at it.  And you do realize that Hovind is dishonest, do you not?  I thought your religion was only supposed to deal in truth, but every source you've cited to uphold ANY of your claims have been snake-oil salesmen.  Kent Hovind is a charlatan, nowhere near a scientist.  If this is the kind of garbage you take as fact, you lost the battle before it ever began.

And BTW, search out and find the TRUTH about your (actually Hovind's) claims above, if you really care about truth.  I'm not doing the work for you this time.  You'll ignore that little challenge, not investigate any further than Kent's "theory", make one in a long list of excuses and yell "VICTORY!"  You are quite the funy little character.

You can't even understand what Kent Hovind is talking about what I posted or simply you being ignorant.


GSDtravels wrote: Bring some evidence and I'll take a look at it.

LOL, You want me to prove something that wasn't been proven. (If you believe in billions of years that is fine)



Shtal.

No Shtal, you are the one who's being ignorant and the sad part is, you're doing it willingly.  That, my dear Shtal, is dishonesty and dishonesy is lying.  If you were true to the credo you supposedly believe with all of your heart, you would be honest with yourself.  But then, your universe would fall apart, so you will prefer to remain ignorant and therefore, blameless.  That's quite a corner you've painted yourself into, now isn't it?

Now, what part of "Kent Hovind is a laughingstock in the scientific community." don't you understand?  And even when you try to tell me I don't understand, that proves more and more just how ignorant you are.  Every single one of Kent Hovind's hogwash "hypotheses" have been shot down long ago.  The Creation community has nothing else to go on, because they thought they found "holes" in the evolution theory and nothing could be closer to OR further from the truth, but not the same truth they're telling.  There are plenty of holes in theories, that's why nothing is ever 100%, but 99.999 is close enough for me.  When you bring something that has the same odds, but in the negative, and tell me to disprove it, you're being silly.  You can't disprove a negative, but that does not validate the hypothesis.  If one is claiming something to be true, they have to bring evidence to the table to prove it.  So, it's now been oaver 2000 years and you can't come up with one shred?  And your response is to put your .0000000000000000000000000000000000001% observations up for review with not one stitch of verifiable evidence to even push it to the stage of a hypothesis.  And then you go on to use that .0000000000000000000000000000000000001% against a THEORY with a likelihood of 99.999$ You will then portend to tell everybody else that you are confirmed in your "belief" and that we all must follow a specifice set of guidelines in our lives, all resting on your "proof"?  And your only true proof so far is that it can't be proven or disproven?  Really?  Remind me to use at least two cubes againt you, in backgammon :)

And the even sillier part is, nobody is telling you not to believe to your heart's content!  As long as your "beliefs" don't do harm to another, you are free to practice away!  All they're asking is that you not force them to suspend reason in order to buy it, and you act like it's too much to ask!

I don't understand what are you trying to say to me, my thread was about Kent Hovind and what he said, if you can't discuss what he is talking about then we are done.


btw, I am not going into his personal life/stuff, all I was trying to discuss what he is talking about on this subject..



Take care,
Shtal.

What he is talking about is unscientific gobbledy goop.  I know of Kent Hovind and he's a bag of wind who has no clue!  But then, as long as somebody is willing to support your preconcieved notions, I guess actual truth doesn't matter.  You're right, you're done.

GSDtravels,

Let me help...The troubles of radiocarbon dating are undeniably deep and serious.
Despite thirty five years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon dating may soon find itself how I see it - in a crisis situation.
Continuing use of this method depends on a “fix-it-as-you-go” approach, allowing for contamination here fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then that fully half the dates are and is rejected. Out of thousands carbon dating that have been done; half of the numbers has being thrown out.
How do they know first half is wrong? And also how do you know the other half is right. If half of the tests results have to be thrown out: This is stupid – it’s a waste of time this is shocking to me - that the remaining half - have come to be accepted.
As with my other post “No matter how ‘useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.

No Shtal, that's not the way you see it, that's the way a creationist website sees it and you're too lazy to do your own research.  You don't dare click on a credible, scientific link to find and weigh other answers.  You only haunt creationist sites and quote misguided "science", having no grasp of the concepts behind it in other to actually have to think about it.  It's all done for you, how convenient.

The only thing you're STILL right about is that you're done.