I can give examples. It is a fact the oceans get saltier every year. They take in more salt than they get rid of. There's only ever been evidence that the oceans have a net gain. A net loss or even a balance has never been observed.
Those are the facts.
I see that and conclude it's impossible for the world to be as old as Evolution claims. Otherwise the oceans would be too salty for life.
Evolutions will try to add unobservable evidence such as, once upon a time there was a net 0 gain due to x y or z.
Evolutions argue both sides of the coin when it suits the topic. They'll argue nobody knows what the salt content was in the beginning or what the net gain/loss was during the millions of years.
At the same time they'll use carbon dating as some full proof evidence for dating a bone. As if the half life of Carbon14 is somehow immune to changing over the same millions of years due to radiation.
It's illogical to have it both ways. You can't just guess the unknown until it fits your theory while the same time cast away the empirical evidence in front of you.
But they do and as I stated before, there is evidence all around. I see it one way and the evolutionists see it another.
By the way, to have a bone carbon dated you must submit what layer of stratum you found the bone in. The way the same scientists date the stratum is by which fossils are found in it. So they date the fossils by the layer of dirt and the layer of dirt by the fossils.
Circular reasoning much?
