Theory beyond my wildest imaginations
COLIN Bosman (Cape Argus, August 27) accuses me of being scientifically confused and states that I should brush up on my scientific reading since I will then come to see that carbon dating indicates that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old.
Maybe Colin can not only do myself, but all Argus readers a favour and provide scientific research material which confirms that carbon dating is used to indicate the age of the Earth.
Based on my post graduate research in radiometric carbon dating, I can assure him he will find none, but please try and prove me wrong.
The fact of the matter is that carbon dating can only date artefacts that are thousands of years old, or at most tens of thousands of years, and most definitely not millions or billions of years old!
The dating of any fossilised material is an extremely subjective matter. Just try sending samples of one item to different dating laboratories and you will receive a very wide range of dates. To dogmatically state that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago is not correct.
Colin unfortunately continues to propagate well-known macroevolutionary myths when he states that scientific evidence suggests that tiny fish’s survival instincts forced it out of the water on to the land. And then it grew legs and evolved into man.
Now I wonder if Colin could provide us with the scientific evidence that he is referring to since I have not found there to be any such scientific evidence whatsoever.
Does he really expect anyone to believe this myth, except maybe preschool kids?
If that is what fish do in order to survive, why do we still find fish in water today and why have all the fish not left the water to follow their survival instincts?
In terms of observational science, why do we not see any evidence of this? When a fish is taken out of the water they normally turn in the direction of the water and make an effort to get back into the water in terms of their survival instinct. I have never seen a fish turn in the direction of solid land in terms if its survival instincts, much less to start growing legs as Colin wants us to believe. Please do not say that much more time is needed. It is time that this major macro-evolutionary myth is no longer propagated.
What completely floors me is Colin’s contention that “there is no such thing as non-living matter in scientific terms”. So are the paving bricks in my court yard also living matter? What must I expect them to evolve into?
I wonder if Colin could help with my continuing scientific education and provide the scientific evidence he is referring to here.
Even at a university the faculties are divided into departments of physical science that generally study non-living matter and biological departments that study living matter.
To imply that there is no difference between living and non-living matter, and to state that the latter does not exist, is simply beyond my wildest scientific imaginations.