BestValue I could pick apart absolutely everyone of your "arguments", but I don't have time - let's look just at the scientific mistakes you've made:
As you might not be aware, carbon dating is only used to date fossils up to about 50,000 years old. Beyond that, there should be no measurable carbon14 left. Yet, there has never been a fossil that didn't have some amount of carbon 14 left - indicating they are not millions of years old
A big, big mistake here - detectable and measurable are not necessarily the same thing. No measurable C-14 has been found in fossils or fossil fuels, but some has been detected. There?s many and various reasons for this - but to suggest that NONE should be detectable is nonsense. There will be some due to the nature of it?s formation and decomposition - but it?s no longer measurable so can?t be used for dating purposes.
Your understanding of the fossil record is also desperately flawed. You are right in that fossils do not form readily, they need special and specific conditions in order to form at all (that?s why the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of creatures that have existed have left no record of themselves at all) but a worldwide flood is not one of them. The clue is in the phrase ?worldwide?. Such an event would affect every living thing in every part of the world - this clearly and obviously is not what has happened. Fossils form in a variety of ways, but it?s very rare that it should happen at all. This does not suggest that a global catastrophe that happened everywhere at once is in any way responsible for fossils.
Further, if evolution were true we would expect to find many
transitional fossils And we do. Every fossil ever found is ?transitional?. Know why? Because every single creature that has ever existed (including you and me) is ?transitional?. If I dropped dead in a peat bog tomorrow and fossilised, I?d be dug up as a transitional fossil. Not to understand this is, I?m sorry, not to understand evolutionary theory at all.
Willard Libby, who won a Nobel prize for inventing the carbon14 dating method, knew that in order for his system to work the earth's atmosphere had to be at equilibrium. (No time to explain this now. I'd love to explain the whole dating method thing, how it works and its assumptions at a later date because it's fun to talk about.)
Libby calculated that if you started with a brand new earth/sun system, our atmosphere would reach equilibrium in about 30,000 years. He thought because we know the earth is billions of years old (can't recall if they'd arrived at the 4.54 billion figure yet but I don't think so) the earth's atmosphere MUST be at equilibrium and he could ignore the equilibrium problem.
The fact is that we have since measured and discovered the atmosphere is only ONE THIRD of the way to equilibrium. What's one third of 30,000? 10,000 years. So the implications for carbon 14 dating are this:
*1. The earth/sun system is less than 10,000 years old and
- Carbon14 dating doesn't work*
Right. This is what happens when you swallow whole what creationists say without taking the trouble to learn the science behind it.
Equilibrium WOULD be reached in 30,000 years IF the amount of input & loss of C-14 in the atmosphere were equal and consistent. They are not - the production and decay rate fluctuate wildly. If you take this into account (as you have singularly failed to do) you?ll see that this argument is baseless and completely wrong.
CoteDAzur, "fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs" (including dinosaur bones) all still have carbon left in them which strongly indicates that they are only thousands of years old, not millions Bull. There are DETECTABLE amounts of C-14, not MEASURABLE amounts. A big difference that you seem unable to grasp.
Because the majority of the process of evolution takes place in the past, it can never rightly be called a scientific fact
Really? A ?fact? points to the truth of something. It?s a fact that every one of my ancestors had sex at least once in their lives. I wasn?t there to see it and it all happened in the past - but my existence PROVES the fact of it. We are in the same sort of place with evolution - we don?t need to see it with our own eyes to know that it happened. Evidence comes to us in many forms.
You have fallen, it seems, into the microevolution vs macroevolution trap. They are in essence two stages of the same thing - the ONLY people who make this distinction are creationists, real scientists do not. A long journey begins with one step (microevolution) it concludes with a zillion steps having been taken - the effect of macroevolution. Microevolution + time = macroevolution. What mechanism exists, do you think, to stop those tiny steps building into a journey, the end result of which is macroevolution?
But the grander claims of macroevolutiion and common ancestry have very little factual support. What apologists for evolution like Dawkins must do is claim that macroevolution is just microevolution over time. That's a nice belief but I don't have that much faith. Further, the "evolution" we see in bacterial resistance is not the kind of change we need in order to turn an amoeba into a man over millions of years
You don?t need faith, you just need to bother looking at the evidence - which is immense.
Macroevolution is another word for evolution above the species level, yes? Also known as speciation. This HAS been observed, quite a lot. How have you missed it?
And what kind of change do you think we should see to turn an ?amoeba into a man?? It could only happen in tiny, incremental steps - that's what evolution is.
I?m slightly losing the will to live here - you?ve managed to get everything wrong so far. But I?ll address one more thing:
The speed of light has been slowing down for the past two centuries we've measured it. And Harvard University has slowed and even stopped light in the laboratory 13 years ago. So maybe the speed of light is not a constant. If it were faster in the past, the light could reach earth in less time
This is just bonkers - where are you getting this tripe?
No, the speed of light has not been slowing down. Our measurements over the past 200 years have gotten better! And sorry - but of course we can slow down and stop light! Light speed remains constant only IN A VACUUM - there are all sorts of ways of slowing it down and stopping it. Good grief!
In the creationist's theory of cosmology, if the universe had an edge and the earth were at or near the centre, earth would be in a "gravitational well" and time would tick slower here than at the edge of the universe. Thus, 13.72 billion years could pass out there while a mere 6,000 years passed here on earth
There's no evidence whatsoever that the universe has an "edge" or that we are at or near the centre in the bottom of a gravitational well. If this were true, we would expect to see blue-shifted light instead of the red-shifted that we do see. The red-shifted light that we see is in line with an expanding universe as predicted by Hubble's Law.
Sounds crazy but such is science. That's not science, that's utter rubbish that has been refuted again and again and again.