Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong
"Wrong" is relative.
Anyway, it's clear nobody is actually interested in debating evolution. They're only interested in attacking a strawman they call evolution, but really isn't.
Kenneth brought up dating techniques and how unreliable they are. He's the only one I've talked to today who has presented an actual argument against evolution! I would love to answer his question, but it will no doubt fall on deaf ears. If I correct it, I highly doubt he will acknowledge himself as wrong or present a reliable counter argument. I would predict he would simply repeat himself and try to find another point to try and stump me. And the process will start over again.
Why am I hear? Admittedly, I probably shouldn't be wasting my time debating about evolution with people who clearly refuse to understand it.
Here's another "actual argument against evolution!"
Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon) At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).
So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!
For some years creation scientists have been doing their own investigation of radiocarbon in fossils. Pieces of fossilized wood in Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian rock layers supposedly 32–250 million years old all contain measurable radiocarbon, equivalent to “ages” of 20,700 to 44,700 years. (Creation geologists believe that with careful recalibration, even these extremely “young” time periods would be fewer than 10,000 years.)
Similarly, carefully sampled pieces of coal from ten U.S. coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian and supposedly 40–320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels equivalent to “ages” of 48,000 to 50,000 years. Even fossilized ammonite shells found alongside fossilized wood in a Cretaceous layer, supposedly 112–120 million years old, contained measurable radiocarbon equivalent to “ages” of 36,400 to 48,710 years.
Diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years. These results have been confirmed by other investigators. So even though these diamonds are conventionally regarded by evolutionary geologists as up to billions of years old, this radiocarbon has to be intrinsic to them.
This carbon-14 would have been implanted in them when they were formed deep inside the earth, and it could not have come from the earth’s atmosphere. This is not such a problem for creationist scientists, but it is a serious problem for evolutionists.
Science works best when dealing with things that are testable and repeatable. But it's not so good at telling us what happened in the past.
