BeagleBob writes:
If AiG actually read this article they should've known clearly that the experiment didn't demonstrate any levels of C14 in diamonds. The amount of intellectual dishonesty in this degree of distortion and misquoting is absolutely grotesque.
It's not just the AiG that are doing this. Long time members here at EvC do this also.
Our very own member
reversespin recently posted this claim
in this post that, and I quote
quote:
If the russian study would of found nothing older than 6,000 years or everything older than 9,500 years it would of been a problem with taking the bible literally 9,500 years fits fine. 2 peter 3:8.
and this claim
in this post that, and I quote
quote:
Don't forget to include no evidence of anything older than 9,500 years old in Siberia and the Purdue study saying the artic sea temperature not air temp was approximately 73 degree's.
When asked, he gave us a link to the article of the research in question
here (pdf file)
If anyone with half a brain actually read this article correctly, it didn't say the oldest age of the Earth they found was around 9,000. It said, and I quote
quote:
The first forest appearnce in the Seyaha River valley can be dated to about 9000 BP, according to the oldest date in the Seyaha valley (No 6 in Table 6).
It's the date when the forests began to migrate north in the Holocene Optimum.
Isn't "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" one of the 10 commandments? Either these people have the reading comprehension level of a 3rd grader or they are outright lying to the fool gullible.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
™ Version 4.2