First off, it would make things much easier if you would use the quote function to separate your comments from mine. To use the quote function, surround the text that you are quoting with {quote} at the beginning and {/quote} at the end, except replace the { } with ].
PHILIPP: You know what they are. No one who writes anything else other than that which is interpreted in favor of the “Sacred Cow” can publish in secular journals unless they go overseas. That’s a given.
So, you admit that it has not been published. Your response, by the way, is just an excuse for not publishing or at least trying to publish.
PHILIPP: So what! One does not have to be even a scientist to understand that macroevolution is NOT science; it’s a faith system with lots of pretty pictures based on assumptions and false chronologies.
That says it all right there. You are not a scientist yet you know more about science than scientists do.
PHILIPP: Radiocarbon dating is NOT “flawed.”
You are right. As long as it is used properly, it works. As long as it is used as you use it, it doesn’t work.
C-14 trumps any claims that you TE’s make on the chronology of the earth. Snelling and other groups [Duh! He has a Ph.D. in geology, Do You???
No, I don’t. I thought you indicated that scientists don’t know that much about science.
He, like others are dating fossils from Darwin/Lyell’s geologic column and getting RC ages that are 2000 times or more younger than what you and your ASA Ph.D.'s are claiming. Are we supposed to bow to thier judgement just because of their so-called expertise and training in universities where only evolution is taught? Give me a break!
Where did Snelling get his training? At a university? Isn’t your argument one against Snelling as well?
The fact is, Snelling and Baumgartner used flawed techniques, both in the sample collection and analysis. Garbage in, garbage out. The sad part is that Snelling and Baumgartner know that what they did was to decieve people like you.
I pity you poor brainwashed souls every time I see an RC date for a fossil including: amber, dinosaur bones and even coal and diamond. Those of us who test for the presence of C-14 in fossils are using cutting edge research on the widely accepted Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) in which all labs remove both old and young contaminants before the expensive testing procedure.
Cutting edge in the sense that you are misusing the technique to mislead others. Shame on you!
PHILIPP: I will most certainly read what they have to say when I get the time as I like to read what evolutionists have to say on earth and moon chronologies etc. in light of what I’ve learned from C-14 dating, dinosaur depictions world wide, and distinct fossil human footprints with and without the presence of dinosaurs. Laugh all you want, ridicule all you want but the truth will out.
Good. Remember, these guys are part of an organization of Christian scientists. They are not the atheist boogie man.
You and you buddies got it wrong because you believe in man’s claims for descent from a common ancestor over billions of years which C-14has shown simply don’t exist. You are deceiving yourself and others and again I feel sorry for you.
Your lack of understanding of C14 doesn’t negate the fact that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old.
Peace [PHILIPP: likewise I’m sure]
I mean it when I write it. You clearly don’t accept it, but I will wish it on you again.
Peace
Tim
[/quote]
You and you buddies got it wrong because you believe in man’s claims for descent from a common ancestor over billions of years which C-14has shown simply don’t exist. You are deceiving yourself and others and again I feel sorry for you.
]