I'll wait for @BUCKS4REAL to ask a ? that follow from previous ?s & stays on topic w/o switching"termite--->Cambrian--->I win (no evidence)"
@ScientiaPercept @BUCKS4REAL It's as if we've never seen these arguments before. Let's first get this out of the way: http://twitpic.com/ctd56c
-
-
@emlynaddison
@ScientiaPercept@GSpellchecker sort of like: Artifacts dated by strata, strata dated by artifacts.
-
Your
#creationist#strawman is a known LIE@BUCKS4REAL Absolute dating is via radioactive isotopes while Relative dating is by position -
@ScientiaPercept can exterior values affect carbon dating? Fire? Anyhing? -
EVERY element
@BUCKS4REAL has at least 1 radioactive isotope,when we test them ALL the different half-lives converge STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBLE -
@ScientiaPercept so carbon dating is infallible?#science -
You don't seem to understand
#science@BUCKS4REAL Absolute=radioactive isotopes (not just C14). Relative=position DISPARATE yet converge -
@ScientiaPercept answer please dont keep vomiting same repetitive question. Is it infallable?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.