ok jack,- "easy to show that the earth is more than 10,000 years old"
go ahead !
and yes , I may not know all the right words and some claim they don't know what I am referring to. such claim is stu's at 5.05 above [ and 01.58].
c14 should not be detectable ,due to continuing deminishing half lives beyond a certain age,- which age is far beyond the claimed evolutionary dating of dinos. c14 has been reported in dino bone , though currently disputed I think.
but the various delicate soft tissue finds were also vigorously contested for some time, till resistance was futile. I referred to the latest attempt to explain how they hope this might be possible, ie an experiment on preserving blood vessel by pickling in solution containing iron. as I previously noted, dino dating assumed, despite the evidence ,so the believers are trying to find something to explain why it is contrary to formerly accepted experimentally verified science.
so what do you would be science teachers do to try to prove [sorry..provide evidence] for the evolutionism story ?
read books which they themselves fail to provide any argument from !.
as I formerly suggested, probably because they know those arguments are far from being watertight.
the latest recommendation being about finch beaks. I think I have heard of this one....a couple that observed changes in size and shapes over a few decades?
that is not evolution...in the normally understood way of microbes to man stuff. it is natural selection, though it suits the darwinists to confuse the two , as they cannot demonstrate the former experimentally,,,ie by observable, testable repeatable science
I am certain that any fair minded person reading these posts will note that whatever lack of science education I may have, the arguments I present are more reasonable than some of those who are presumably qualified, yet whose regular response is mockery, patronising or vulgar jibes in place of reasoned discussion.