Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Ack. No.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aaron Viviano on September 27, 2002 01:14:39 UTC

I'm was just saying that IF evolution was true then why do scientists think that birds evolved from dinosuars when there is "400 million" year old bird fossil.

I don't think that evolution is true at all I was just pointing out a confilicting idea between dating methods and the current evolution theory.

As for dating methods they are extermly unreliable scince the decay rate means didly squat if one can not determine how much was there in the first place.

"What does count is the fact that the fossils have been dated to be much more than 6,000 years old."

Dating means nothing unless the dating is acurate. Example: Scincetists dated a living seal at a few thousand years old!


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins