Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5659 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 162 of 176 (486558)
10-22-2008 1:08 PM


Ok, I'll bite. I'm not sure the "best" evidence for creation would ever be in the form of a scientific testable theory, but since I think that's the kind of evidence you want, I'll throw some out there. Here they are, in no particular order.
1. In 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted. Sometime following the eruption, a canyon on the north side of the mountain was cut in a matter of hours. The canyon is 1000 ft wide and 140 ft deep and looks like a miniature version of the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists say the Grand Canyon was cut over thousands to millions of years. This new canyon is very strong evidence that it could have been cut in hours or days by a huge amount of water, just as creationists have been saying all along.
2. In 2005, an NC State Paleontologist discovered soft bone tissue in dinosaur bones. The scientific community immediately responded, many saying that we have a lot to learn about bone preservation to explain how this tissue lasted that long as a fossil. Wouldn't an open minded scientist say that this could be evidence that the bones aren't as old as we think? That thought was immediately thrown out as not possible simply because it doesn't agree with current evolutionary models. (so how many other such evidences are thrown out because they don't agree with current models?)
3. Back to Mt. St. Helens: Since the eruption, several dating methods have been used on rocks in that area. Since we know when the eruption occurred, we know how old the samples are. The dating methods have given answers all over the chart, many saying they are millions of years old, when we know the samples are only decades old. This has drawn dating methods into question. If the readings aren't accurate for young samples, how do we know they are accurate for older ones? (http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm)
My lunch hour is over, so I'll just post a link with some other thoughts on evidences for a young earth. I know some people will be upset that it is a Christian website, but oh well.
Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 1:29 PM wardog25 has replied
 Message 165 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2008 1:40 PM wardog25 has replied

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5659 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 164 of 176 (486563)
10-22-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Agobot
10-22-2008 1:29 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 1:29 PM Agobot has not replied

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5659 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 169 of 176 (486637)
10-23-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Coyote
10-22-2008 1:40 PM


quote:
I don't think anyone will be upset that it is a Christian website.
My problem with AiG is that it lies, misrepresents, and distorts a lot of the data, or ignores the data entirely. Its track record in terms of both science and accuracy is abysmal.
Here is a link that might serve you better:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This article seems like a very wordy way of saying that since dating methods basically agree with each other, they must be right.
Well if I set all the clocks in my house to the wrong time, they might agree, but they are still wrong. The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested? I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2008 1:40 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Chiroptera, posted 10-23-2008 10:49 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 171 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2008 11:27 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 172 by obvious Child, posted 10-24-2008 4:31 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 173 by bluescat48, posted 10-24-2008 6:06 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 175 by Huntard, posted 10-24-2008 9:33 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2008 11:05 PM wardog25 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024