Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Try a real source
After all the continual monotonous pseudoscience threads you have made thus far, I have come to the scientific conclusion based on repeatable observation and testing that clergyman and theists shouldn't pretend they are expert scientists.
It does show one thing. That theists, Christians in this case, are nothing more than unthinking robots repeating and spamming the same pseudoscience nonsense over and over and over again whilst demonstrating by example, the adage of what the definition of insanity is.
Your first two articles are totally worthless since they come from an openly pseudoscientific organization. You might as well have admitted that you are wrong. The third one appears to be no better since they rely on PRATT's and in the one article that looked interesting but questionable, the claim of 250 million year old bacteria, they not only mentioned the article that showed that the bacteria was not 250 million years old but likely from a much younger source, they simply misinterpreted the refutation. The strata was 250 million years old, the bacteria in the saline water within it was from a younger source:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
But how do they “know“ it is 250 million years old?Your first two articles are totally worthless since they come from an openly pseudoscientific organization. You might as well have admitted that you are wrong. The third one appears to be no better since they rely on PRATT's and in the one article that looked interesting but questionable, the claim of 250 million year old bacteria, they not only mentioned the article that showed that the bacteria was not 250 million years old but likely from a much younger source, they simply misinterpreted the refutation. The strata was 250 million years old, the bacteria in the saline water within it was from a younger source:
Curiously modern DNA for a "250 million-year-old" bacterium - PubMed
Studies of ancient DNA have attracted considerable attention in scientific journals and the popular press. Several of the more extreme claims for ancient DNA have been questioned on biochemical grounds (i.e., DNA surviving longer than expected) and evolutionary grounds (i.e., nucleotide...
No, no, no. They did not use your sort of "logic". Don't be silly.
In fact, they report very unscientific dates for these long ages of things.
Those are facts. It is a pity that you are too afraid to learn.
Exactly
Evolution is propaganda.
I wouldn't do that.
To what end?
No, simply the evidence demonstrates and ancient earth 4.7 billions of years old.
Including walking into a university and doing the experiments yourself to find just how wrong all that pseudoscience is.
Those varves are from the flood.