Creationism Science

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

A lot of people talk about Intelligent Design but never delve into the details. So I’d like to talk in more detail about the science behind Creationism and address some of the woes and errors of the scientific community who are out to disprove Creationism with a theory called “Human Evolution”.

I will limit the amount of scriptural references in order not to turn this into a religious discussion, and concentrate on the science and evidence of Creationism. For now I will just reference scriptures to lay the foundations of Creationism.

We know from the Bible and the Qur'an that a world and an age before this one existed and it was an absolute paradise, but that age had to be destroyed because man fell from grace.


Foundations of the World:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1

Here we have a separation in time between verses 1 & 2. This is more apparent in the original writings. In the first verse, we have God creating the universe and the first earth age, and then there is a pause and a gap in time. The word “beginning” means re'shiyth=the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically, a firstfruit). God does not give us a year when He did this; just that He did it "In the beginning". The earth is not 7000 years old as some Christians claim, but many millions of years old. It is only this earth age we live in now, the second, that is at the most 14,000 years old. The dinosaur bones and fossils that are found date back much more than 14,000 years and are from the first earth age. We know that One day with the Lord is a thousand years, and Genesis 1:1-2:3 ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking.

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:5-8

"And the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:2

In the second verse of Genesis 1, there is a mistranslation of the Hebrew. The word 'was' means hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary). The words 'without form' means tohuw; from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain. The word 'void' means bohuw; from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin. God did not create the earth without form and void but it became that way. God destroyed the first earth age because of the Rebellion of Satan. The first earth age is referenced throughout the Bible in several books such as the Psalms, Job, Isaiah, Peter etc.

The Heavens:

Genesis 1:14-15, the sun, moon, stars were appointed for a two-fold purpose; to give light, and to be for times and seasons. In order to be able to tell time and seasons by the arrangement of the stars, that means they have to follow a particular pattern in their cycles. Thus, the stars were appointed and arranged to follow a particular pattern for this earth age, but they certainly were not created in this age.

Mankind and dating methods:

In the first earth age, man existed in a spiritual body (angelic being), a body that did not age, ware or tare, did not produce waste and was absent of sexual organs. 1 Corinthians 15 goes into more detail regarding the nature of the earthly body and the celestial one. However, unlike humans, animals existed in the flesh form even in the first earth age. After Satan’s rebellion, man was placed in the flesh form.

The scientific community has a way of "exaggerating" dates in order to fit their Theory of Evolution. This is one of the main reasons you never see the skeletal remains and fossils of the giant hybrids from Genesis 6. These hybrids don't fit into the Theory of Evolution, so instead of talking about them, most scientists disregard their presence, and avoid discussions about these hybrid skeletal remains and fossils. http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html Scientists fix dates to their desire… and then the media backs them up.....and then the text books in school back them up.....and so the lie continues. There are also examples of outright fraud and forgery such as Piltdown man, Java man and many other examples…

Carbon dating techniques:

A prime example of date fixing can be seen if we take a look at arrowheads and what archaeologists claim regarding their dates. Arrowheads are made from rock and rock is not a living substance, therefore, does not contain the type of carbon needed to use carbon dating techniques, and yet archeologists will consistently base theories of cultures and civilizations based on how 'old’ the arrowheads found in these societies were. The problem is that all scientists can do is look at the arrowhead and determine how old the technique used to fashion the arrowhead is. These techniques were many times carried down through the ages for thousands and thousands of years. Archaeologists find arrowheads and other stone artifacts and then assume because the style is thousands of years old that the guy who dropped it must have done so thousands of years ago when this is not at all the case. For example, in the prairies of Canada, 98 percent of the bones found did not pre-date 350 years; yet the rock artifacts found many times have styles that go back thousands of years. This of course doesn’t mean that the artifacts are thousands of years old, but only that the style is, and yet so many archaeologists will attach a date to the site which fits their own skewed perception of reality that they have been taught. That’s not saying that there were no civilizations which pre-date 350 years in the central plains of Canada, but just that the more ancient ones lived further to the north within the tree line where wood was plentiful for burning in the winter time. Anyway, I got off track there a bit but the point is that we are being lied to consistently and the 40,000 year old civilization of humans idea is no exception. Archaeological evidence suggests that this earth underwent a tremendous upheaval of incredible proportions not more than 14,000 years ago is overwhelming yet the perception of scientists who are taught to believe history in a particular light seldom seem to be able to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Goes to show how all the degrees in the world are useless without intervention of even just a tiny bit of common sense. I also think it’s ironic that the age of civilization began during this time period…

Evolution: Inaccurate identification & flawed dating techniques:

Many features, proteins and DNA sequences in man are similar to or identical to other primates. But that doesn't prove man and chimpanzee had a common ancestor. It's just as reasonable to decide that the same Creator made them both. Any remains older than 14,000 years could not be considered to be human; we need only look at the physical appearance of these ancient apes to know that they are not advanced enough physiologically to be considered human. Their brains and brain functions were by every comparison, far inferior to those of human beings and in fact much closer to the capacities of animals. Very small frontal lobes, severe facial angles and very small brain size in general mean that the complexity of their brains was closer to those of apes than humans simply because..... they were actual apes. The physiology of the brain along with the general 'likeness' of human form would be 2 major factors in concluding whether or not a particular organism is human; take away either of these to a large degree and you can no longer consider that organism to be categorized as such. The first earth was able to support a more variety of life and species due to more favorable conditions.

As far as modern human remains, it would be almost pointless to include information regarding carbon dating because it leads to a debate concerning carbon decay rates and mathematics in relation to how the world was and how the world is now. Opponents of carbon dating techniques claim that the system used to come to such conclusions is wrong and that the rate of decay has changed over thousands of years due to changes in the environment which they say, means that we can’t use carbon dating to accurately date any fossil older than 7,500 years or so.

The Katabole and the ancient Water Canopy:

The Katabole (overthrow) of the World happened some 14,000 years ago, and this can be proven. There is evidence that palm trees use to grow in the region of Alaska. This would definitely indicate that there must have been a Water (Ice) canopy enveloping the Earth at some point in the past that would have allowed a Greenhouse effect thereby keeping the entire planet at an equal and constant temperature. The “water canopy” is referenced in the scriptures several times. There was a dinosaur found which had been fast frozen in Sibera with buttercups in its mouth. How did flowers grow in the frozen North land? The oil, gas, plastic and many other compounds derived from fossil fuel would indicate an orderly structure in a time long past. Thereby proving that there, at that time, must have been a sun in place allowing the floral and fauna to grow equally worldwide. Also we have evidence of prehistoric animals in the form of skeletal remains strewn about the Earth. Standing timber has been found in glaciated areas that had not deteriorated for over thousands of years due to the extremely cold water temperature. Now could this be glaciation or flooding that caused this phenomena? Formations around Ontario proving a vast flood and Ice Age. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/areas/area...fm?areaid=5033

There was a firmament in the first earth age made of water, which protected the earth from harmful UV rays by filtering the sunlight when it shined on the earth. A grape becomes a raisin by letting it dry out and shrivel up. Could this not be how the earth attained its present form? Take away the canopy, let the sun shine directly upon it and voila we now have our present planet. In conclusion I must say that I believe this Earth was a total paradise long before Gen 1:2 and was subsequently destroyed and the earth slightly kncked off it's axis. I am not saying that flesh man was in anyway present during that time but I believe that many animals inhabited the Earth during that period. According to Job 38, all of God's children sang with joy at His creation, which was long before Genesis 1:2.

Ancient Supernova Explosion:

There is a "theory" in science called the theory of heavy metals. The theory basically states:

Everything with a lower atomic mass than Fe (Iron) comes from nuclear fusion inside stars, everything with a higher atomic mass comes from a supernova or explosion of a large star. http://www.chemicool.com/

Scientists claim that our sun is not large enough to ever undergo a supernova explosion and that in about 5 billion years, it will turn nova, meaning it will expand and then explode, just not as powerful an explosion as a star much larger than the sun.

Observation of our planet easily shows that there are many elements present on it, which have a higher atomic mass than Iron, for example Gold, Platinum and Uranium. So according to their "theory", the only way these elements could have come into existence, is if there were a supernova explosion of a giant star in the ancient past which fused all these metals and the gravity of the earth pulled in some of the matter that was ejected from that explosion and that is why these elements are found on the earth today. What they never point out though, is how the Earth was able to survive such an explosion. If a supernova explosion happened in the ancient past as scientists claim it did, then the earth should have been obliterated from that explosion. Only God intervening to prevent it from destruction is the only viable answer as to why it remained, if the scientific theory is indeed true.

Here's a simple example. If I wanted to "create" a cake, I would first have to create a universe, to make the plants that produce the ingredients for that cake. If I wanted to "make" a cake however, I would simply use the ingredients that were already available for me to use.

Conclusion:

”The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.” Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

So, if you say the following axioms are true:
1. A universe can only be created by God.
2. All universes have a beginning and thus a creation.

Then, the proof is trivial.

It is readily observable that we live in a universe.
By postulate 2, all universes have a beginning.
By postulate 1 we can conclude that our universe was created by God.
Therefore, God must exist, or else our universe would never have been created.

Yes, God has foretold us all things, but they are the things we need to know, not necessarily what we want to know. In time we will…

”Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.” Psalm 147:5

[CPL]

Read my lips: Spontaneous singularity event.

Humans are so arrogant to shove their alter-ego in everything in nature.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by CPL

Read my lips: Spontaneous singularity event.

Humans are so arrogant to shove their alter-ego in everything in nature.

I read them, and I concluded you didn't address the points I made here and the evidence I presented. So what about those dating techniques, fraudalent identification, time sequence, the rise of civilization and so on...? What of the primeval atom, did it just appear out of nothing? Read some of Thomas Aquinas' works, he figured out the origins of this universe 800 years ago. What they verifiy today with raw data, he theorized with logic in medieval times.

Evolutionists ask for facts, and when they are presented with facts and evidence, they don't know what to do with them. Better stick to anthropology text books; I guess it's easier to be hand fed information without analyzing it with a free mind.

[Ashlen]

oh great thread this one!

I'll try to write down why the Theory of Evolution is wrong. First, i will base myself on Science. After, the Bible.
Evolution is not even a scientific law. A scientific law must be 100% correct! The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is full of errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

New variations of the species are possible (of course), but a new brand species has never (please, read never) been developed by science.

*** The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning!***

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have 'reflective' skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

Do you need more?
- If natural selection were true, humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos with skin that is half way between white and black. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution.

Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science... As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

An important factor that we must recognize, if we are honests, is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's

There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who think 'well you know... God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course'. Evolution is an enabler for atheism! Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe.

According to Scripture death didn't even enter the world until Adam sinned. hus there was no death in the world before that time ...and thus evolution could not possibly have occurred .... Only compromising Christains who have foolishly allowed themselves to be infected with evolution doctrine would say otherwise!

[Dalzi]

Originally Posted by Ashlen

According to Scripture death didn't even enter the world until Adam sinned. hus there was no death in the world before that time ...and thus evolution could not possibly have occurred .... Only compromising Christains who have foolishly allowed themselves to be infected with evolution doctrine would say otherwise!

I'd have to disagree. Adam was not the first creature to die on earth. It was inhabited by others long before man.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

A lot of people talk about Intelligent Design but never delve into the details. So I’d like to talk in more detail about the science behind Creationism and address some of the woes and errors of the scientific community who are out to disprove Creationism with a theory called “Human Evolution”.

I will limit the amount of scriptural references in order not to turn this into a religious discussion, and concentrate on the science and evidence of Creationism. For now I will just reference scriptures to lay the foundations of Creationism.

We know from the Bible and the Qur'an that a world and an age before this one existed and it was an absolute paradise, but that age had to be destroyed because man fell from grace.


Foundations of the World:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1

Here we have a separation in time between verses 1 & 2. This is more apparent in the original writings. In the first verse, we have God creating the universe and the first earth age, and then there is a pause and a gap in time. The word “beginning” means re'shiyth=the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically, a firstfruit). God does not give us a year when He did this; just that He did it "In the beginning". The earth is not 7000 years old as some Christians claim, but many millions of years old. It is only this earth age we live in now, the second, that is at the most 14,000 years old. The dinosaur bones and fossils that are found date back much more than 14,000 years and are from the first earth age. We know that One day with the Lord is a thousand years, and Genesis 1:1-2:3 ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking.

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:5-8

"And the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:2

In the second verse of Genesis 1, there is a mistranslation of the Hebrew. The word 'was' means hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary). The words 'without form' means tohuw; from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain. The word 'void' means bohuw; from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin. God did not create the earth without form and void but it became that way. God destroyed the first earth age because of the Rebellion of Satan. The first earth age is referenced throughout the Bible in several books such as the Psalms, Job, Isaiah, Peter etc.

The Heavens:

Genesis 1:14-15, the sun, moon, stars were appointed for a two-fold purpose; to give light, and to be for times and seasons. In order to be able to tell time and seasons by the arrangement of the stars, that means they have to follow a particular pattern in their cycles. Thus, the stars were appointed and arranged to follow a particular pattern for this earth age, but they certainly were not created in this age.

Mankind and dating methods:

In the first earth age, man existed in a spiritual body (angelic being), a body that did not age, ware or tare, did not produce waste and was absent of sexual organs. 1 Corinthians 15 goes into more detail regarding the nature of the earthly body and the celestial one. However, unlike humans, animals existed in the flesh form even in the first earth age. After Satan’s rebellion, man was placed in the flesh form.

The scientific community has a way of "exaggerating" dates in order to fit their Theory of Evolution. This is one of the main reasons you never see the skeletal remains and fossils of the giant hybrids from Genesis 6. These hybrids don't fit into the Theory of Evolution, so instead of talking about them, most scientists disregard their presence, and avoid discussions about these hybrid skeletal remains and fossils. http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html Scientists fix dates to their desire… and then the media backs them up.....and then the text books in school back them up.....and so the lie continues. There are also examples of outright fraud and forgery such as Piltdown man, Java man and many other examples…

Carbon dating techniques:

A prime example of date fixing can be seen if we take a look at arrowheads and what archaeologists claim regarding their dates. Arrowheads are made from rock and rock is not a living substance, therefore, does not contain the type of carbon needed to use carbon dating techniques, and yet archeologists will consistently base theories of cultures and civilizations based on how 'old’ the arrowheads found in these societies were. The problem is that all scientists can do is look at the arrowhead and determine how old the technique used to fashion the arrowhead is. These techniques were many times carried down through the ages for thousands and thousands of years. Archaeologists find arrowheads and other stone artifacts and then assume because the style is thousands of years old that the guy who dropped it must have done so thousands of years ago when this is not at all the case. For example, in the prairies of Canada, 98 percent of the bones found did not pre-date 350 years; yet the rock artifacts found many times have styles that go back thousands of years. This of course doesn’t mean that the artifacts are thousands of years old, but only that the style is, and yet so many archaeologists will attach a date to the site which fits their own skewed perception of reality that they have been taught. That’s not saying that there were no civilizations which pre-date 350 years in the central plains of Canada, but just that the more ancient ones lived further to the north within the tree line where wood was plentiful for burning in the winter time. Anyway, I got off track there a bit but the point is that we are being lied to consistently and the 40,000 year old civilization of humans idea is no exception. Archaeological evidence suggests that this earth underwent a tremendous upheaval of incredible proportions not more than 14,000 years ago is overwhelming yet the perception of scientists who are taught to believe history in a particular light seldom seem to be able to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Goes to show how all the degrees in the world are useless without intervention of even just a tiny bit of common sense. I also think it’s ironic that the age of civilization began during this time period…

Evolution: Inaccurate identification & flawed dating techniques:

Many features, proteins and DNA sequences in man are similar to or identical to other primates. But that doesn't prove man and chimpanzee had a common ancestor. It's just as reasonable to decide that the same Creator made them both. Any remains older than 14,000 years could not be considered to be human; we need only look at the physical appearance of these ancient apes to know that they are not advanced enough physiologically to be considered human. Their brains and brain functions were by every comparison, far inferior to those of human beings and in fact much closer to the capacities of animals. Very small frontal lobes, severe facial angles and very small brain size in general mean that the complexity of their brains was closer to those of apes than humans simply because..... they were actual apes. The physiology of the brain along with the general 'likeness' of human form would be 2 major factors in concluding whether or not a particular organism is human; take away either of these to a large degree and you can no longer consider that organism to be categorized as such. The first earth was able to support a more variety of life and species due to more favorable conditions.

As far as modern human remains, it would be almost pointless to include information regarding carbon dating because it leads to a debate concerning carbon decay rates and mathematics in relation to how the world was and how the world is now. Opponents of carbon dating techniques claim that the system used to come to such conclusions is wrong and that the rate of decay has changed over thousands of years due to changes in the environment which they say, means that we can’t use carbon dating to accurately date any fossil older than 7,500 years or so.

The Katabole and the ancient Water Canopy:

The Katabole (overthrow) of the World happened some 14,000 years ago, and this can be proven. There is evidence that palm trees use to grow in the region of Alaska. This would definitely indicate that there must have been a Water (Ice) canopy enveloping the Earth at some point in the past that would have allowed a Greenhouse effect thereby keeping the entire planet at an equal and constant temperature. The “water canopy” is referenced in the scriptures several times. There was a dinosaur found which had been fast frozen in Sibera with buttercups in its mouth. How did flowers grow in the frozen North land? The oil, gas, plastic and many other compounds derived from fossil fuel would indicate an orderly structure in a time long past. Thereby proving that there, at that time, must have been a sun in place allowing the floral and fauna to grow equally worldwide. Also we have evidence of prehistoric animals in the form of skeletal remains strewn about the Earth. Standing timber has been found in glaciated areas that had not deteriorated for over thousands of years due to the extremely cold water temperature. Now could this be glaciation or flooding that caused this phenomena? Formations around Ontario proving a vast flood and Ice Age. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/areas/area...fm?areaid=5033

There was a firmament in the first earth age made of water, which protected the earth from harmful UV rays by filtering the sunlight when it shined on the earth. A grape becomes a raisin by letting it dry out and shrivel up. Could this not be how the earth attained its present form? Take away the canopy, let the sun shine directly upon it and voila we now have our present planet. In conclusion I must say that I believe this Earth was a total paradise long before Gen 1:2 and was subsequently destroyed and the earth slightly kncked off it's axis. I am not saying that flesh man was in anyway present during that time but I believe that many animals inhabited the Earth during that period. According to Job 38, all of God's children sang with joy at His creation, which was long before Genesis 1:2.

Ancient Supernova Explosion:

There is a "theory" in science called the theory of heavy metals. The theory basically states:

Everything with a lower atomic mass than Fe (Iron) comes from nuclear fusion inside stars, everything with a higher atomic mass comes from a supernova or explosion of a large star. http://www.chemicool.com/

Scientists claim that our sun is not large enough to ever undergo a supernova explosion and that in about 5 billion years, it will turn nova, meaning it will expand and then explode, just not as powerful an explosion as a star much larger than the sun.

Observation of our planet easily shows that there are many elements present on it, which have a higher atomic mass than Iron, for example Gold, Platinum and Uranium. So according to their "theory", the only way these elements could have come into existence, is if there were a supernova explosion of a giant star in the ancient past which fused all these metals and the gravity of the earth pulled in some of the matter that was ejected from that explosion and that is why these elements are found on the earth today. What they never point out though, is how the Earth was able to survive such an explosion. If a supernova explosion happened in the ancient past as scientists claim it did, then the earth should have been obliterated from that explosion. Only God intervening to prevent it from destruction is the only viable answer as to why it remained, if the scientific theory is indeed true.

Here's a simple example. If I wanted to "create" a cake, I would first have to create a universe, to make the plants that produce the ingredients for that cake. If I wanted to "make" a cake however, I would simply use the ingredients that were already available for me to use.

Conclusion:

”The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.” Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

So, if you say the following axioms are true:
1. A universe can only be created by God.
2. All universes have a beginning and thus a creation.

Then, the proof is trivial.

It is readily observable that we live in a universe.
By postulate 2, all universes have a beginning.
By postulate 1 we can conclude that our universe was created by God.
Therefore, God must exist, or else our universe would never have been created.

Yes, God has foretold us all things, but they are the things we need to know, not necessarily what we want to know. In time we will…

”Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.” Psalm 147:5

Being a copy\paste thing, here's something to check:

The real heart of the age-of-the-earth debate (if "debate" is the right word) is always radiometric dating. There are lots of ways to guesstimate ages, and geologists knew the earth was old a long time ago (and I might add that they were mostly Christian creationist geologists). But they didn't know how old. Radiometric dating actually allows the measurement of absolute ages, and so it is deadly to the argument that the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

Radiometric methods measure the time elapsed since the particular radiometric clock was reset. Radiocarbon dating, which is probably best known in the general public, works only on things that were once alive and are now dead. It measures the time elapsed since death, but is limited in scale to no more than about 50,000 years ago. Other methods, such as Uranium/Lead, Potassium/Argon, Argon/Argon and others, are able to measure much longer time periods, and are not restricted to things that were once alive. Generally applied to igneous rocks (those of volcanic origin), they measure the time since the molten rock solidified. If that happens to be longer than 10,000 years, then the idea of a young-Earth is called into question. If that happens to be billions of years, then the young-Earth is in big trouble.

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.

The putative age of the Earth, about 4,500,000,000 years is based on the radiometrically measured age of meteorites, and is also about 500,000,000 years older than the oldest rocks. But regardless of the accuracy of this age for the earth, the existence of rocks circa 4,000,000,000 years old puts the squeeze on a 10,000 year old Earth.

So the natural response from a young-Earth perspective is to claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate or untrustworthy. Unfortunately, while the young-Earthers are long on criticism, they are short on support. It's easy to assert that radiometric methods don't work, but it's quite another thing to prove it. This the young-Earth creationist regularly fails to do.

I am not going to try to write a web-treatise on radiometric dating myself, simply because much better qualified writers have already done a much better job than I could. This is a list of resources, some on the web, some not, which can be consulted by anyone interested in learning more about how radiometric dating is done, or in responding to arguments criticising radiometric dating. My purpose is to show, through these resources that young-Earth creationist criticisms of radiometric dating are inadequate at best. So long as radiometric dating stands as scientifically valid, then the assertion of a young-Earth is falsified by direct observation. The argument from radiometriic dating is the strongest scientific argument that can be brought to bear on this issue, in my opinion.

There may be some sense of repetition, as there are a number of one-page, introductory type entries. But I put them all in anyway, figuring some readers would understand one more easily than the other.

For further reading

[Dalzi]

Hate to blow your bubble Chafic, but it's not a copy paste thing :).

[chafic]

Originally Posted by Ashlen

oh great thread this one!

I'll try to write down why the Theory of Evolution is wrong. First, i will base myself on Science. After, the Bible.
Evolution is not even a scientific law. A scientific law must be 100% correct! The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is full of errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

Good argument. You know for example that Newton's laws do not apply in quantum mechanics. The deduction by default would be that Newton's laws are wrong!

Originally Posted by Ashlen

New variations of the species are possible (of course), but a new brand species has never (please, read never) been developed by science.

What do you mean?

Originally Posted by Ashlen

*** The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning!***

What do you mean? The theory of natural selection does not create anything, it just explains many things. By the way, have you heard of genetic engineering?

Originally Posted by Ashlen

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else.

Natural selection is a gradual and very slow process. It is not random, but it depends on random singularities (such as mutations). Thus, there are many of possibilities that could explain why Eskimos don't have hair on: It could be that to have animal fur on the body, the human genome needs a big modification that no randomness was able to achieve, it could be that this modification took place but wasn't beneficial for that human's survival (for different side effects) and thus disappeared, and it is mostly probable that other physiological\biological changes that could be imperceptible to the eye were more beneficial to the survival to the arctic man, and was thus kept, but you simply cannot observe it.

Actually,to your surprise, or maybe disappointment, the Eskimos fit body, and the adaptation of their metabolic and circulatory system to the arctic weather are proof of genome modifications.

To resume, natural selection is not about having the best characteristics of survival at a particular time, but about having better characteristics for survival than in previous times (of course long intervals of time).

Originally Posted by Ashlen

If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have 'reflective' skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

Don't you just come with great propositions? All you have to do is equip them with reflective skin, and reduce the production of vitamin D,which is necessary for the normal composition, growth and regeneration of bone tissue. Don't recent studies suggest that sun exposure help preventing arthritis, osteoporosis...Oh, and what about warming oneself.

Of course, you never wondered why people who live in tropical areas don't all die from carcinoma, and the amount of melanin in their skin means nothing to you. It's not related to evolution or natural selection.

Originally Posted by Ashlen

- If natural selection were true, humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos with skin that is half way between white and black. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution.

You want them to have dark or light skin to satisfy your creation story?

Originally Posted by Ashlen

Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science... As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

Now that is one lovely argument. Don't question our little dandy supernatural myth which is by definition the farthest from science or logic, and, no matter how much overwhelming evidence you have to support your scientific theory, we'll always build on "temporary ignorance" (of course science progresses by gradually uncovering ignorance), or the inability of science to explain everything, to conclude by default that our dandy myth is true. Great.

Originally Posted by Ashlen

An important factor that we must recognize, if we are honests, is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's

Most of the creationists are religious; quite a solid argument, what are you trying to prove?
Darwin studied theology and became a clergyman. His gradual shift from religious orthodoxy to agnosticism and probably atheism came in time, of course in parallel with his findings of contradictions between logical science and religious teachings.

Originally Posted by Ashlen

There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who think 'well you know... God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course'. Evolution is an enabler for atheism! Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe.

And ignorance is an enabler for theism.

Originally Posted by Ashlen

According to Scripture death didn't even enter the world until Adam sinned. hus there was no death in the world before that time ...and thus evolution could not possibly have occurred .... Only compromising Christains who have foolishly allowed themselves to be infected with evolution doctrine would say otherwise!

I wouldn't reply to that.


I would only say that with the huge amount of fallacies in a single post, you might be able to qualify for the Templeton prize.

Regards

[Dalzi]

Various scriptures don't contradict science when it comes to the age of earth and man. Many people don't know what they're saying.

What makes Darwin's theory "logical"? It's just a theory which doesn't even make sense. I wonder what humans are going to "evolve" into with time.

[Zouxi]

Originally Posted by Dalzi

Various scriptures don't contradict science when it comes to the age of earth and man. Many people don't know what they're saying.

What makes Darwin's theory "logical"? It's just a theory which doesn't even make sense. I wonder what humans are going to "evolve" into with time.

the ex MP of HA Moussaoui (as jumblat said)...lolllllllll