Originally Posted by Schmuckley
^This.I disagree with their findings.Irrefutable proof is not provided.Entire speculation built upon speculation is.
Anything irrefutable is inherently false
Originally Posted by Phelan
Calling these numbers "facts" is no different than humans that called the Earth flat over 500 yrs ago. All these "facts" about time scales are based on a carbon dating system that is completely unproven. How can it detect 11,000 yrs when the margins of error are greater than the period of our existence? It takes just as much faith or more to believe in Carbon dating as it does to believe what I do (not to bring beliefs into the discussion). This is interesting Science and good, but as mentioned above me, no proof is irrefutable.
Carbon dating is based on scientific method, even if it isn't entirely accurate.
Originally Posted by Clipze
i assume descendants means descendants from EVOLUTION.
you EVOLVED from your grandparents?
Not really sure you know what evolved means.
Originally Posted by homestyle
if this breakthrough were scientifically proven or more accurate, shouldn't it be published in a more prestigious source?
Pretty much like saying "if this book really is that good, why didn't Dostojevskij write it?" The scientific worth of something does not correlate to where it's published. In general less reputable journals are less likely to provide you with accurate articles, but that doesn't mean that they all are bad.
"Proves" is the wrong word it shoudl be something like this "the scientifically sound finger that points at dinosaurs getting wiped out by an asteroid is now bigger, pointier and flashing in red"