Macro evolution 7

Simple as this Evolution is impossible because the earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years and there for no evidence that evolutionest have are valid and there for evolution is impossible.

I disagree and view dinosaur fossils and carbon dating as very clear evidence that proves the Earth is far older than 10,000 years.

i would like to thank all of you that have taken an interest in my debates and or taken one of them up for those of you who did not get one and wish you would have i will have another set of them coming when i finish this set in about a week. Special thanks to solo for taking up 2 of my debates. Ok my debate will be posted in one piece which is a general statement because many of you made the same argument. I would appreciate if you would be so kind to read any of the other debates so that I don't end up copy pasting the same argument several times

_______________________________________________________________________________

First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are. This then immediately posses the question well how do we know that. Here is the answer creationist receive well that's how old the dirt is. This posses the question "how do you know that." here is the answer we receive oh well its cause off the fossils that are in it then we say well you just told me you date the fossils by the dirt which you date by the fossils. isn't that the same thing as saying we date the fossils by the fossils and there fore I say well then cant i say the fossil is 6,000 years old and there for the dirt is and then the fossil is. Those who would like to post links that would explain this in a scientifically provable way please. Ok next many of you brought up the fact of me not providing evidence for the earth being under 10,000 years old

1.The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out .
2.ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it.
3.ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen
4.ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth.
5.next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was ¼ of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period.

Ok well there you go

HA! My argument was "I disagree and view dinosaur fossils and carbon dating as very clear evidence that proves the Earth is far older than 10,000 years."

My argument stands. Since your argument is based on the age of the Earth, my point invalidates the rest of your argument, as its foundation has been obliterated.

You don't get to delcare that you don't want me to take this approach in the debate. That would be like me asking you to play a game of soccer with me, then telling you that you cannot use your legs or feet to make contact with the ball, in addition to not using your hands. It's too late for that. You should've mentioned that handicap in your opening, not Round Two. Get it? Good!

Address my point with the proper respect it deserves, then I will address yours.

carbon dating is based on the thory that the earth is 4.5 billion years onld and they know how really old carboon looks and they know what brand new carbon looks like then they took the diffrence diffided by 4.5 billion thats why when you carbon date a living human or someone burried with in a hundred years are carbon dated its 14,000 years plus please thats obvious to the eye how old they are so why does carbon dating give 14,000 years huh? there is your reason not to use carbon dating and also that is why your dinasuars were dieing before the earth was created

<<carbon dating is based on the thory that the earth is 4.5 billion years onld and they know how really old carboon looks and they know what brand new carbon looks like then they took the diffrence diffided by 4.5 billion thats why when you carbon date a living human or someone burried with in a hundred years are carbon dated its 14,000 years plus please thats obvious to the eye how old they are so why does carbon dating give 14,000 years huh?>>

People tend to believe they can measure up many things by "eyeing" it, but never have I known anyone to eye a body (or anything else) and know how long it has been dead. When have you heard of a crime scene investigator being able to accurately determine a time of death based on appearance? At the very least the temperature has to be taken. It's always a guess that has to be confirmed with lab work, so I refute your claim (from what I could make of it).

<<there is your reason not to use carbon dating and also that is why your dinasuars were dieing before the earth was created>>1

Carbon dating "is why your dinasuars were dieing before the earth was created"? So how were they able to thrive? You didn't answer anything with that statement. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I appreciated the debate and thank you, but you failed to answer the burden of proof, which was on you, to make a strong argument as to why "macro evolution" could not have taken place. Your claims were questionable, at best. Better luck next time!