The requirements to have one?

Yes

Yes I do.

Then you know, its **very very very** rare for a fossil to appear

And we have a plethora of them

Plethora??

What?

Are you insane?

Yeah like only .001% of fossils found are of animals with bones.

We're talking in the millions

Yet there still isn’t a single fossil to support your fairy tale of evolution.

7 billion people live on Earth today
Lets assume we all die and some of us turn into fossils in the future
20 of us turn into fossils
20 out of 7 billion
"plethora"

Fossils also don’t take millions of years. That’s a lie from the false science of carbon dating.

So by your math there would have been 17.5 billion tyrannosauruses walking the earth

Yeah, because the only dinosaur species was a tyrannosaur

If we include all dinosaurs? Then the number is through the roof

700 trillion

So the likelihood of fossilization must be much higher than your estimate

Across the millions of years we had of dinosaurs living on Earth, how many do you think lived?

Because over 2100 fossils have been found

2100 fossils, in a population that lived through millions of years

Very good number 👍

Again your millions of years is bullshit.

Carbon dating, bla bla bla

Yeah, its fake news because its not in the Bible, ok

The closest thing we can use to actually get something from how old the earth is, is from historical records.

The oldest we can get would be China or Egypt. Based on their calendar and historical writings.

Well, wrong

You have paleolithic pictures

*paintings, tbf

Cave paintings don’t have dates

You can’t rely on that. I can write a cave painting now and in 5 years your carbon dating retards would say it was 50,000 years old.

It wouldnt

lol

Yeah it would. Very easy to do. Start a fire next to it

It's been estimated by scientists. Not by antireligious fags, but by scientists. That the population density of dinosaurs was around the same as any of the very rural states, like Kentucky

You claim to be some enlightened individual. Go look at the variables in carbon dating. Then see how many they assume are constants.

Do you know how to fake carbon dating?

The actual element that is analysed?

With nuclear reactors

If you believe carbon dating, I bet you believe Al Gore invented the Internet 🤣

Unless you are stating that there is a conspiracy that archaeologists and paleontologists all have access to nuclear reactors to fake carbon dating

Well

You also probably believe that InfoWars is trustworthy news source XD

It’s not faking it. It’s a bad methodology.

lol Alex Jones is hilarious

He is very

love the dude

But believing in InfoWars is like believing in HuffPost

Is cancer

Carbon dating measures what is an assumed “normal” level of carbon content in an object. Then used the “half-life” of the carbon isotope to estimate how old the object is.

This assumes you know what the carbon content was at the beginning. Assumes no catastrophic event has happened to change the carbon content.

Radiation from the sun can change the carbon content.

First of all, you know when catastrophic events happened because of sediments in the soil

That radiation is assumed to be constant. It is not constant at all.

And no, that doesnt come from carbon dating, it comes from different layers of soil

Carbon dating doesn't work past 50,000 years

You assume there’s never been an earthquake or tidal wove to displace the object you are observing.

It doesnt, my friend. Thats why you have "sediment analysis", or "Relative Dating"

up to 50.000 years ago, gucci with carbon

from that point you must look at the soil

I'm not your friend

Let's approach this from another angle, Casimir's way

You believe morality is relative

You also believe in evolution and therefore survival of the fittest

Yes

Beyond any reasonable doubt, I could kill you. I box, I wrestle, I shoot, I hike, I have combat experience from the middle east and from the street. By the evolutionary standard, I am the better man and it would take a huge mistake on my part to lose, and I don't make very many of those.

Would that make it right for me to kill you?

You're probably wrong

And I firmly believe in there is always someone better.

Physical ability isnt the only thing that makes someone superior

So there is definitely someone out there who can fight better than me

Otherwise Humans wouldnt be superior to bears

Now, regarding your question

It depends on **your** view of morality

If **you** or the society you live in believe that to be the "optimal way of living", then it is moral

aka Spartans and their "purge" of disabled babies

But what is moral to you, isnt moral to me.

I don't just have physical ability and I'm not a very big guy anyway.

I make up for it with extensive training and experience

Lets assume that I was rich

I would just hire someone bigger and with more experience than you

You may now ask: Is that really survival of the fittest?

My answer is: Yes

But you are not rich

I'm talking about the here and now

I also have no idea if you are telling me the truth

Reality, not fantasy

Read what I said above

Given the conditions I stated, would it be right for me to kill you?

I've already answered it

Are you skipping stuff?

I'll even throw one below the belt: I assume in your life there is a woman you care about. Wife, girlfriend, mother, sister, daughter.

I know I can beat you, so it would be a joke to think I couldn't beat her

What morality prevents me from raping her?

Read what I said above

Jeez

You are having a tough time, arent you?

Depends on my view. So my view can be anything

At one time, in some places, it was considered moral to kill landowners and take their property