They don't, go do some research on the Ediacaran fossils, they clearly show ancestors of the Cambrian "explosion".
Once again empty claims. Where do the Ediacaran fossils show ancesters in the cambriam explosion?
Upvote
0
They don't, go do some research on the Ediacaran fossils, they clearly show ancestors of the Cambrian "explosion".
I don't think anyone was making the claim that radiometric dating was "reset" during the flood.
Secondly you didn't address the issue why we still find soft tissue in dino bone/fossils that shouldn't be there as well as C14 that should have decayed in 57K years and it still being found in coal and diamonds.
Once again empty claims. Where do the Ediacaran fossils show ancesters in the cambriam explosion?
You are dodging the question. The evidence is absolutely clear that the strata of the earth are not of the same age. It is also absolutely clear that some of them were in no way formed under water.
No such material has ever been found. What has been found is mineralised soft tissue which is a very different thing. Also you need to supply a reason as to why such material cannot survive as we have known that amber can preserve protein fragments for extremely long times.
The C14 in coal and diamonds is present due to well-known processes and is due to the radiation that exists underground.
You said "we have known that amber can preserve protein fragments for extremely long times."
...That's an assumption.
No, its a fact. We can determine how old a sample of amber is and we know that protein fragments can be recovered from insects and plant fragments trapped inside amber.
The ages are faulty. Everyone knows that.
The soft dino tissue CLEARLY points that out.
The C14 found in coal backs up the previous.
As you have already been informed there is no dinosaur soft tissue.
The C14 in coal comes from known underground sources.
No soft dino tissue? If you say so.
C14 came from a known underground source? If that were the case he "source" would have to be enourmous...and that isn't the case.
Says the people who find such things. Says the evidence.
Natural radioactivity is the source, more than enough of that underground. The level of such radiation in surrounding rocks correlates with the levels of C14 found in the coal. Some coal has no C14, a fact that YECs never seem to mention, so much for it being formed recently.
Reference please.
All that is required is beta decay, releasing neutrons (which is the mechanism of C14 creation in the atmosphere). Radium and Uranium are not uncommon in rock deposits.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
You can start at 5:40
You want me to watch Juby?
He managed 15 seconds before demonstrating his ignorance (or more likely his wilful dishonesty). If contamination was occurring in artefacts that would make them older than the result obtained from testing, which makes a young earth even less possible.
Of course the possibility of contamination is why reputable scientists take great care with sample preparation.
At around 6 minutes he just lies his ass off. Uranium is not the only source of neutrons and the slow decay of uranium allows the continuous generation of neutrons and thus C14. He has no concept of the physics involved, as evidenced by his "98% Uranium" comment.
Anyone want to TRY and support the false ToE with actual evidence which agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science?
I don't want a discussion with someone who is incapable of understanding what evidence is.
Your post demonstrates the fact that you have no clue about what is and what is not evidence.I know what evidence is and that is WHY I show that the False Theory of Evolution has NO evidence to support it which is not easily REFUTED (proven wrong). Want to try and bamboozle us with your "evidence" of how and when God's superior intelligence got into Apes? Of course not since you follow the religion of evolution, which is supported ONLY by other evol religionists. I call it "circular reasoning" since it has NO evidence to support it and it MUST be accepted by Blind Faith in the changeable science/beliefs of mere mortal men.
Your post demonstrates the fact that you have no clue about what is and what is not evidence.
Here is a big hint for you:
Read my sig.