Use of Science to Support Creationism

Yes it would be proof if the earth was that young. Creationists have plenty of it confirming the Bible. Its not a fact that the earth is billions of yrs old. Its fact for Evolutionists but not general science. Although the theory of Evolution has completely taken over mainstream science.This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 08:56 AM

The evidence for a old earth is not as overwhelming as it looks. Especially when Creationists find overwhelming evidence for a young earth. There both based on assumptions. For example : 5 layers means 5 million yrs thats just a theory. There is no way to date the age of the earth It cant be proven with a dating method or observing the present just and idea of what may have happened. Luckily for us Creationists we are basing it on a book of God who says he was there when it happened!...The evidence cant be all that bad since Creationists are standing just as tall against todays Evolutionists.

Your right i do swallow all they tell me. I thank them everyday for showing me the truth. Without them i would still have been an athiest with no truth with no purpose or meaning. More over evolution has got serious problems!...

Does the fact that in todays observable world nothing cannot ever become something prove that evolution is impossible?.. I mean throwing around millions of yrs to give the impression that anything can happen with chance doesnt really change much does it? A creationists one said that its a bit like leaving your computer on without no operating system or software and hoping that one day or a million yrs the computer may do the calculations you would want it to do. (thx for any replies to this).

What your explaining is Evolution after its arise. What im asking about is the explaination of the beginning. How nothing became everything. Evolutionists have long taught that all life on earth originated from a single ancester cell. But 3 fundamental types of cells are thought by scientist to form the building block of life, actually evolved independently, not in orderly succession from a common ancestor. It seems like the hopeless task of explaining how one ancestor organism could arise from dead matter triples in difficulty. The simplest cell is considered super complexed. I take you back again to a quote i wrote in a different thread. "Prebiotic soup is easy to optain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constitutes of nucleotides evolved into a self replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative" - Dr Leslie OrgelP.S - gjrjk"b"mdjj"r"majdnjdj"t""e"kh"o"akegf"n"nv"n"nmhbmamgkakjghkkmbfmskpep"o"kgha,lslkfkfaeij"o" taeanalug"r"ughvngerh"t"rwjhtj"t"kylkymklkjsjlmkjkukuiljyu"o"efafmek"t""e""b"klslmv;v bnkjlai"o" --- Must they be in order? Because i did reach the letters but i dont think in order edited to add a space to break up long line of chars to fix page width - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 05-09-2004 11:01 AM

No im not gullible. Ive only been a christian since this yr,Besides that i was an athiest and believed in evolution. So its more that i balanced both and came to a conclusion rather than just being brought up in creation and never even considering the evidence for another. I didnt become a christian from blind faith.

I understand this scientific pursuit for truth. Its very good in theory and does make sense. But the fact that there was nothing. Is a major problem. Everything about natural selection,transition,evolution,millions of yrs etc. All this is well and good. But at the beginning there was nothing. How did the nothing become something?. Every theory i hear involved something already there such as a soup,organism,densed state of heat,matter..Where did all these things arise from?. And if theres a theory to how then how did that come to being?. This is what i find difficult with evolutionary theory. It can become very apparent that intelligence may be needed in the form of God.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away" - Luke 21:33

AiG has plenty of real scientific evidence for a young earth. Unfortunately this conflicts with evolutions interpretation of the facts. So none of you will listen to what they say. The good news is its real science and real facts being based on the only God who was there when it happened.

Ok then will do. Just have patience for my posting suspension to be lifted.

You just said that theres nothing that cannot stand against scrutiny. But this is the same with evolution. They cannot prove the age. Especially not to 4 billion yrs. All this is necessary for evolution to have occured. Are you saying the age of the earth is fact or do you acknowledge they needed to interpret the evidence a little bit to get such an exessive age?.

I once read that no tree is older than 5,000yrs is this true?

Im not allowed to edit..I meant to write 10,000yrs.

Billions of yrs with no trees? Thats a bit odd? I would have thought trees evolved early on with plants or whatever im not upto date with what evolved 1st or 2nd but i thought nature was up there with the rest of it.

lol