ps3-sales! said:
No this has been going great!!! I only said that so there was no bashing, and their hasn't been. I've read all of the comments and opinions and it's facinating to see how others think about this topic. As for the Carbon/radiometric dating argument: I'm not a sponge. I don't just suck up all the information given to me and spew them back at people as facts. I like to do my own research mixed in with a little common sense here and there. I realize that you can approximate the age of a rock based on layers of earth fading away caused by erosion. But nobody will ever convince me that you can say that a certain rock or fossil is 65 million years old. What makes 60 million different from 80 million? They are all estimating. They don't know exactly. So always take the scientist's with a grain of salt. |
If you are geniunely interested in learning about these things, look up Isochron Dating. It's a process designed to eliminate as many assumptions as possibly when dating rocks. When you consider that different isotypes from different rocks, with the tests performed by different groups of scientists all produce very close results, you must consider it's unlikely it's all guess work or luck.
And even if you don't accept that that really works, there are simple dating mechanisms like counting varves that put the earth at a minimum of millions of years old.
As for men being related to chimps... the evidence for a specific human chromosome (can't remember which one) being a fusion of 2 chromosomes found in chimps is strong evidence for a common ancestor. And then Retroviruses. These copy their genome into a host genome and can be passed on to descendants. Retrogenes in the same chromosome position indicate common ancestry, and there are numerous shared retrovirus insertions between chimps and humans.
