Radioactive dating of fossils depends on the decay of
The only comment that remotely resembles your first complaint is a response to a fact-free rant by a Paul C., from the USA, where Paul C.made unsupported charges about the article being "an insult to real science".Furthermore, in most cases I am citing work by specialists in their fields.Regarding your claim about Lindahl's paper that I cited, note the introductory summary statement to the paper: "The spontaneous decay of DNA is likely to be a major factor in mutagenesis, carcinogenesis and ageing, and also , under the heading "Ancient DNA" (p.713), he comments on what it means for the recovery of DNA from fossils: "Thus, in connection with favourable preservation conditions, it seems feasible that useful DNA sequences tens of thousands of years old could be recovered, particularly if the fossil has been retained at low temperature." He suggests that partial dehydration of DNA, as in bacterial spores, could extend this ("further increased stabilization").If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.
"Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Join us in the 2018 October school holidays for the Creation Super Conference on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. I spent an hour or more reading through this with my wife. Up until 6 years ago when i met my wife, I just naturaly thought the earth was millions of yrs old. And it would take an amount of money to float a new company to do oil exploration using a creationist approach to geology, money that I would think most Christians would be better spent elsewhere.4 days, 10 Speakers, full kids program, Youth activities, access to resort facilities and much more! Evidence of very recent or even present formation of oil is consistent with a young earth.In response, Dr Sarfati, a physical chemist, pointed out that the author is a real scientist.Your approach is to 'shoot the messenger' (an informal fallacy), which is commonly done to avoid engaging the actual arguments.