Dallas Creationist Researchers Have Already Proven Bible's Version of Earth's Beginning, According to Their Own Website

Categories: Science

1280px-Michelangelo_-_Creation_of_Adam.jpg
This isn't art as much as journalism, according to science.
You've probably heard about the nine researchers with real Ph.D.s who are on a mission to prove that the Bible's version of how the Earth formed is real, using scientific evidence. Sure, many pastors have argued for years that the creation story in Genesis shouldn't be taken literally and that it's more about the message. But those pastors aren't scientists.

"Our attempt is to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate, not just religiously authoritative," Henry Morris III, CEO of the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research, told The Dallas Morning News in a profile of the group.

On the surface, fact-checking the Bible sounds like a productive endeavor for people who want to devote their lives to faith, but only if the faith can be proven literally. "The rationale behind it is this: If God really does exist, he shouldn't be lying to us," Morris told the News. "And if he's lying to us right off the bat in the book of Genesis, we've got some real problems." That almost sounds like skepticism.

But the Institute for Creation Research might be wasting its time. A simple web search shows there are already plenty of scientific papers, published somewhere, reporting that humans and apes didn't evolve from a common ancestor, the story of Noah's Ark is scientifically true and that the Earth's age is in the thousands of years, not millions.

In 2013, for instance, Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, a research associate at the Institute for Creation Research, compared 40,000 chimpanzee genomic sequences against the human genome. He found that levels of human-chimp DNA similarity are "significantly lower than commonly reported." In fact, he said, genome-wide, only 70 percent of chimp DNA shares similarities to human DNA. That number is much lower than the 96 percent or so figure that other researchers have identified.

The implications of Tomkins' findings are huge, explains Tomkins: "... the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."

Tomkins' study has been published by Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism, and can be found on the Institute for Creation Research website.

Much of this is old news. It was back in 2012 when Dr. Jeffrey Lisle published an article on the "Back to Genesis" section of the Institute for Creation Research's website reporting that the three bright blue stars in the constellation Orion's belt "are a strong confirmation of the biblical timescale" because blue stars don't live very long, relatively speaking.

In another article published on the Institute for Creation Research website, data extracted from the cylindrical cores of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets show that the ice sheets have formed only in the past 4,500 years -- "the time since the Flood," according to Dr. Jake Hebert, another research associate.

This is just a small sampling of the dozens of papers that each of the institute's research associates have published. They've examined numerous parts of creation to make their findings -- the stars, the oceans, fossils and even oil fields.

Dr. Tim Clarey, for instance, has reported in several Institute for Creation Research papers that oilfields are capable of regenerating themselves. His examination of the processes of oil generation, migration and entrapment confirmed that a Flood happened 4,500 years ago.

On a totally random side-note, many depleted oilfields may partially refill in the next century, Clarey writes. This has huge implications for new fracking technologies, which Clarey says "have greatly benefited the economies in Texas, Ohio, and North Dakota, where shale oil is quite plentiful." We're not exactly sure how fracking benefiting economies has anything to do with biblical creation, but it does sound like awesome news for Chevron, one of Clarey's former employers.

My Voice Nation Help
132 comments
msmoralesii25
msmoralesii25

@DonkeyHotay@msmoralesii25 Of course I RESPECT and HONOR that RIGHT. But right now, I see no point in continuing this conversation because my argument is an ethical one. Since we appear to hold to different ethical systems, we cannot establish a proper basis for meaningful dialogue. So you can say whatever and however much you want, but I am done. I respect and honor your freedom of speech, but I (as in ME, not YOU) have nothing more to say.

msmoralesii25
msmoralesii25

@DonkeyHotay@msmoralesii25 Of course I RESPECT and HONOR that RIGHT. But right now, I see no point in continuing this conversation because my argument is an ethical one. Since we appear to hold to different ethical systems, we cannot establish a proper basis for meaningful dialogue. So you can say whatever and however much you want, but I am done. I respect and honor your freedom of speech, but I (as in ME, not YOU) have nothing more to say.

donuan1
donuan1

Remembering that the "BEST" example evolutionists gave under oath at the scopes trials was a single tooth that was of Nebraska man--part ape, part human. Yes under oath the "BEST" evidence evolutionists could concoct that got it even allowed to be legally discussed in the public school room...turned out to be a pig's tooth. It happens like that all the time...EVERY EXAMPLE of "evolutionary" fossil has been debunked. Yet another...watch VERY CLOSELY HOW SURE EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE BEEN ON THIS "PROOF" OF EVOLUTION FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS using it to mock creationists. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-v-cmPCaAI

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

I will support their hypotheses when they can show causality between their hypotheses and the ratio of U238 and daughter decay products as found in zircons and the known half life decay rates of U238 and its daughter products.

donuan1
donuan1

I find it hilarious that evolutionists are vainly attempting to discredit PhD scientists. Is that your version of "scientific" debate? An EMOTIONAL appeal completely unrelated to facts? Yes, of course it is. That's as close to "science" as evolutionists typically get, especially laymen. A creationist could win a Nobel Prize in science and they would attempt to discredit him so that NO ONE LISTENS TO EVIDENCE but keeps on being TOLD WHAT TO THINK. Want the truth? Look for it. You won't find it among those who look at only 1% of the "Evidence" as evolutionists do. 

donuan1
donuan1

Former atheist here---yes, it's true. The evidence that evolutionists SUPPRESS mainly by name calling and other brilliant scientific methods shows without a doubt that the earth is young (90 of the 100 scientific dating methods available agree). The religious atheists would love for you to, without thinking for yourself, 'believe' that the universe magically created itself out of....absolutely nothing. Brilliant I know. Every piece of verifiable evidence is called a preposterous 'lie' (that's their scientific terminology)---yet with zero contradictory evidence such as human remains in supposedly 100 million year old rocks--such as trees fossilized through layers that we are told represents "millions and millions of years" of the earth's history, the few dating methods they use that literally contradict each other sometimes by BILLIONS of years not to mention inconsistent within the same method by hundreds of millions. No folks, it's just a matter of faith and misinformation by the religious zealots of atheism. 

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@donuan1 Your fundamental mistake, donuan, is not a scientific one -- though that is abysmal enough -- but a theological (and even a Biblical) error:  You imagine that God can be encompassed by science, if only we do the science right.

Think about this for a moment. Do you not see a problem?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1


So explain how the Few Thousand species saved by Noah turned into MILLIONS of diverse species and spread from Mt. Ararat worldwide -- including the uniquely indigenous marsupials of Australia -- in less than 7000 years.


Super-accelerated Bible Evolution, millions of times faster than anything Scientific Evolution has ever proposed?



WaitWhat
WaitWhat

@donuan1 The religious atheists would love for you to, without thinking for yourself, 'believe' that the universe magically created itself out of....absolutely nothing.


While your much more scientific explanation is that God  magically created itself out of....absolutely nothing.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@donuan1

I am amazed that your strawman hasn't burst into flames due to rubbing up against electrons on the intertubes.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@bmarvel Your fundamental mistake is that you propose a "god" that cannot be encompassed by science, yet provide NO EVIDENCE nor logical reason to support such an absurd special pleading of "forever invisible and unknowable".



donuan1
donuan1

@WaitWhat @donuan1 God is spirit and has always existed who has "no beginning or end". Interesting you think God needs a creator but not all of creation. I see the logic. That's fair. 

donuan1
donuan1

@WaitWhat @donuan1 That's not a strawman argument for several reasons. In fact Bill Nye admitted in his recent debate that he, like every single evolutionist in the world, has ZERO SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION of the spontaneous creation of the universe out of nothing. So it's 100% valid to bring it up, it shows the vastness of the void of rational thinking and reliance on faith by the atheistic evolutionist. Oh...and I can post 1000 youtube videos that 'debunk evolution' it's really simple. 

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

@TheCredibleHulk @donuan1

That would be science-y.

But if Mephistopheles pulled the wings off some angels, they would burst into flames, I'm pretty sure.

donuan1
donuan1

@TheCredibleHulk @donuan1 Actually strawman argument would have built up a false argument on the evolutionary side, then tore it down. But I get what you are saying. You are using the most scientific argument I've seen from an evolutionist in quite a while...which is still, of course, zero. There is no intelligent dialogue because honestly, literally, evolutionists seldom venture into the evidence on internet debates because #1 they really don't KNOW what the state of the 'evidence' actually is, and #2 The evidence is not on their side at all in reality---""To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition." (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought . The fossil record for every plant and animal clearly shows no gradual change and the mechanisms are not even fully philosophized let alone OBSERVED. I simply stated the condition of the evidence and some specific "scientific" evidences that demolishes the philosophy of evolution soundly. That is not a strawman. Hey if you are going to argue, at least look up the non scientific terminology on google before attempting it. 

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @bmarvel Your argument then, Donkey, is that if there were a God, surely His existence could be shown by the evidence of science.

But isn't this precisely donuan's argument, Donkey -- and that of the ICR? 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1 The Universe is spirit and has always existed that has "no beginning or end". Interesting you think The Universe needs a creator but not your proposed creator. I see your illogical contradictions.


If something can create itself -- or always exist -- as you propose of your "god", then there is no need for your god since the universe itself can be ascribed the same attributes by decree.

Occam's razor.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@donuan1

Yes, it is.

You set up the premise of what "religious atheists" (whatever those are) "would love for you to believe".

What religious atheists? What "magic" do they propose?

It is the very definition of "strawman".

Nobody is saying that something was created from nothing, they are merely saying that we don't yet know or understand what came before. That is true humility in the face of creation, unlike the arrogant stance of "creationists" like yourself that purport to "know" how it all came about.

I prefer to keep league with the seekers and stay far away from those that think they have the answers.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1 "ZERO SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION of the spontaneous creation of the universe out of nothing."


So what is your scientific explanation for the spontaneous creation of YOUR GOD out of nothing?


donuan1
donuan1

@Montemalone @TheCredibleHulk @donuan1 Are you aware that the fossil record is evidence FOR CREATION according to leading evolutionists? I think that ends all argument. That is the ONLY real evidence that you could ever even tout if it existed. Done. 

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@donuan1

Directly from your initial post: "The religious atheists would love for you to, without thinking for yourself, 'believe' that the universe magically created itself out of....absolutely nothing."

How is this not a "strawman" argument?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@bmarvel ... what evidence do you have that any "god(s)" can never be known or discovered by science?


Be specific.


btw -- donuan and the ICR don't appear to have any cogent rational argument, neither philosophical nor scientific.

donuan1
donuan1

@TheCredibleHulk @donuan1 Ok well I disagree on your strawman definition but by your definition everything you say is a strawman argument so I'm not sure how that argument helps you.  "Nobody is saying that something was created from nothing" Wow...wow! That is PRECISELY what your side preaches (it is ZERO science and 100% religious conjecture). Isaac Asimov - "In the beginning there was NOTHING" then, he says there was an "explosion"...huh? What?  Yes that is literally what your side preaches. Have you ever really thought about this? Because I'm pretty sure you don't even know what the atheists preach about their faith in origins or the history of SCIENCE. Your side was forced to believe that ALL MATTER WAS ETERNAL. and therefore no 'need for God' in their darkened minds. Then ALONG CAME SCIENCE which sides with creationism and DEMOLISHED THE ATHEIST FOUNDATION by DISPROVING YOUR STEADY-STATE THEORY that matter was eternal---OOPS!  Game over. Now your side is reduced to there was NOTHING wich YES MAGICALLY turned into a trillion galaxies all by itself. If that ain't magic then I don't know what you call it but IT SURE ISN'T SCIENCE---100% faith. So cast your stones all you want but you all seem to have the same knack for avoiding science and side stepping any rational debate with your constant unscientific insults that are remarkably hypocritical.  Arrogance? Really? Seriously? Wow. Look in the mirror. Atheists are the most insulting and least scientific (I know you don't believe that because you ASSUME your side is right and therefor must be the most scientific but where is the science YOU LISTED IN THIS DEBATE?!). Just look back at your side in this debate vs mine. 

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@donuan1 @Montemalone @TheCredibleHulk "I think that ends all argument."

The most ignorant statement I've seen  in this whole discussion, donuan, and  that's saying a lot. No argument is ever ended this side of eternity.You, above all, as a believing Christian, should know that.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1 UTTER NONSENSE!


Please explain how the Few Thousand species saved by Noah turned into MILLIONS of diverse species and spread from Mt. Ararat worldwide -- including the uniquely indigenous marsupials of Australia -- in less than 7000 years.


Then tell us how ALL of the BILLIONS of Stars and Galaxies in the VISIBLE universe must be LESS THAN 7000 light-years away.


Be specific, and show your work.

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @bmarvel 

btw,yourself, Donkey: What distinction do you make between "philosophical" and "scientific" arguments? Might a philosophical argument be rational but not scientific?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1   religious fools like you don't comprehend logic, which is why you're a religulous fool

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@donuan1 @TheCredibleHulk

It's a free country, you're as free as any other person to be wrong about the definition of what a "straw man argument" is - but that doesn't change the definition.

And I don't have to take a "side" in the matter because there aren't "sides" to take. The evidence humanity has gathered up to now in the scientific record is quite compelling.

I disregard the Bible as any sort of authoritative text on such matters and look at it as more of an anthropological curiosity. But you are certainly free to interpret the selective writings of unreliable narrators any way you choose. Free country and all that . . .

donuan1
donuan1

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1 No problem first tell me how the universe created itself. The Noah issue has been WELL DOCUMENTED AS VALID. Stars is easy, God is smart enough to do as Jesus did with creating wine from water that was aged instantaneously. Now answer the first question. Good luck with that. Oh and be specific...show your work which is 100% faith as all scientists know. It's a philosophy based upon nothing. At lease my faith is based upon the fact that God still does miracles and predicted 1000s of events of history ahead of time. You assume that's hogwash but without actually examining any of the evindence because you only want to argue...not actually find truth...you fail to realize that I, as a former atheist, have been on both sides and I don't believe in religion at all. I believe in what the evidence points to. It points to God but I dont have to philosophize or guess because I have encountered God in a very real way. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@bmarvel  ... neither you, nor donuan nor the ICR,  have provided ANY RATIONAL philosophical or scientific evidence for your absurd proposition of a biblical male "god" creature.


What EVIDENCE do you have to support YOUR absurd proposition of an unknowable, invisible male god?

donuan1
donuan1

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1 I see your logic. Your faith that everything was created OUT OF NOTHING AND BY NOTHING is much better. LOL!!! Then you go back to your scientific position of nothing more than name calling? Really? Hypocrisy...you must drink it for breakfast. You have no LOGICAL RESPONSE so you simply act like a 3rd grader and resort to name calling. Every atheist seems the same. I simply say hey, the fossil record supports creationism and here are 100 quotes from evolutionists that confirm it. Here is a statement from Isaac Asimov about the atheistic belief in the universe being created out of nothing....and you....well you just call me names. I get it. The difference between me as an atheist and you is that I was a TINY bit open minded to the truth---whatever the truth is. So please don't fool yourself into thinking that you can debate science since you have none on your side and you don't even try. You just..what? Call people a fool and insist they are incapable of even thinking logically at all...and then you call them arrogant. Wow. Amazing how you think...or don't. 

P.S. Thanks for all the "science" you listed. Remarkable. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1 "No problem first tell me how the universe created itself. "


Same way your "god" created itself.



@donuan1 "The Noah issue has been WELL DOCUMENTED AS VALID"


So explain how a Few Thousand species all located in one location on earth -- Mt. Ararat -- spread worldwide and diversified into the MILLIONS of species that exist today, all in less than 7000 years.


Super Evolution ?? ... MILLIONS of times FASTER than anything the scientific evolution community has ever proposed?



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1 Your faith that some god creature was created OUT OF NOTHING AND BY NOTHING is much better. LOL!!!


hth.



@donuan1 "I simply say hey, the fossil record supports creationism"


No part of the fossil record supports creationism. You are profoundly ignorant, hence your attraction to the simpleminded stupidity of religion.


Still waiting for you to explain how MILLIONS of Species across the entire Earth dispersed and evolved from Noah's few thousand in less than 7000 years. 


You idiots claim you don't accept natural Evolution that takes 100s of MILLIONS of years -- or BILLIONS of years --- but you morons believe by implication in some HYPER Evolution that supposedly accounts for EVERY SPECIES on the planet in less than 7000 years since the biblical flood?


You also haven't explained how ALL the visible Stars and Galaxies in the sky -- BILLIONS of them -- must all be located less than 7000 light-years away. All that mass and energy, concentrated within 7000 light-years distance from Earth ... ROTFLMAO !!

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1 You and donuan, Donkey: An exactly even match. You're accepting the same premises and even speaking the same language. Which is why you are making the same error, though in opposite ways

donuan1
donuan1

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1  This is why your insults are so silly. You don't realize how ridiculous the "evidence" is that is used for your side. You keep ASSuming. Then you insult me when I'm the straight "A" Archaeology student who actually IS EDUCATED on this. “It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.

donuan1
donuan1

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1 Properly read, the evolution books by your own EXPERTS are the most potent force for creationism---it worked on me. Now let's see if you have the GUTS to actually READ those quotes and address them. I doubt it. 

donuan1
donuan1

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1 "No part of the fossil record supports creationism. You are profoundly ignorant, hence your attraction to the simpleminded stupidity of religion."  Ok  So let me make an appeal to you. This is what changed my "belief" in evolution when I found out just a fraction of what I am going to show you.... you really don't know do you? Let me ask you this.IF I can show you that even EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT that the fossil record supports creationist account will you reconsider your belief in God? Or is your faith in 'No God" only based upon emotion? Just curious. "Not one change of species into another is on record (IN THE FOSSIL RECORD) ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)  


"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists." (Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose) WHAT?!!!! Yeah...read on to what they DIDN'T TEACH YOU in school...what evolutionists themselves REALLY SAY. 


"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM." (David Kitts, Ph.D. Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)


"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record." (Tom Kemp, Oxford University) --Huh. why is this not "well known to the public as it is to the evolutionists that teach? Because it's CENSORED so you can keep your faith in your atheist religion. 


"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)---who does that sound like?


"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove." (Dr. Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist)


"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge." (Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University)


"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection HAS NEVER HAD ANY PROOF, yet it has been universally accepted." (Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)


"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." (Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267)


"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." (Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist) OOPS they didn't tell you that in school?  SO THEN WHAT IS THE MECHANISM? faith


"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." (Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)


WHERE CAN WE FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD?---

"None of five museum officials could offer A SINGLE EXAMPLE of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."(Luther Sunderland, science researcher)


THIS is why I don't believe in evolution...I assumed there was so much evidence---but can you see from even evolutionists that just simply is not the case? That doesn't make me foolish---it makes me open to the actual evidence. 



"You idiots claim you don't accept natural Evolution that takes 100s of MILLIONS of years -- or BILLIONS of years --- but you morons believe by implication in some HYPER Evolution that supposedly accounts for EVERY SPECIES on the planet in less than 7000 years since the biblical flood?" --Did you know that hyper insults are a defense mechanism as an escape from addressing the core of an issue you have no answer for? First off there is no "hyper-evolution" but creaionists fully understand ADAPTATION WITHIN SPECIES...NEVER has it been shown EVER---that one species EVOLVED into a completely different species ---dogs to other dogs...not dogs to cats. Not in biology and NOT in the fossil record if you read the above you can no longer make that claim because evolutionists do NOT claim to SEE that only BELIEVE that---(by definition that is faith FYI)



"You also haven't explained how ALL the visible Stars and Galaxies in the sky -- BILLIONS of them -- must all be located less than 7000 light-years away. All that mass and energy, concentrated within 7000 light-years distance from Earth ... ROTFLMAO !!"  no problem - God created light and time and Jesus first recorded miracle turned the water into AGED wine INSTANTLY. Same with light and stars. You don't get to even ask that question if you can't even explain how the stars were created out of nothing by nothing and since you say "WE DON'T KNOW" I will tell you about that which you DON'T KNOW. God always existed. He speaks to the world though they don't listen. 


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@bmarvel ... so answer the questions that COMPLETELY CONTRADICT Biblical Creationism.


What's the matter, "god" got your tongue?





DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1


Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

  • The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.

  • Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

    The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock’s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

    Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old.

    Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

Hot.Sauce
Hot.Sauce

@donuan1

You're not reading properly.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1 "Properly read, the evolution books by your own EXPERTS are the most potent force for creationism---it worked on me"


Because you're a profoundly ignorant, uneducated, simpleminded imbecile.


hth.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1 ... stay stupid, it's your best skill.


HipTip: the VAST MAJORITY of the Fossil Record -- nearly all of it -- is far older than 7000 years.


BTW -- which "god" are you referring to? ... there are 1000s of them proposed by man. Be specific, and do tell why your god is the correct one and the 1000s of others are false.




donuan1
donuan1

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1 Ok if you can't speak intelligent english without spouting insults like a 3rd grader then you don't deserve the education I'm providing you on what YOUR OWN SIDE ACTUALLY SAYS. Clearly you didn't even READ YOUR OWN SIDES STATEMENTS ON THE FOSSIL RECORD. You are here just to hear your self babble apparently. And if I'm so uneducated why is it that YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOUR OWN SIDE SAYS OF THE FOSSIL RECORD? What does that make you? And if I'm an imbecile yet I have actually PROVIDED what your side says that you were completely ignorant of what does that make you? My gosh what's below an imbecile? That's what you are calling yourself...

donuan1
donuan1

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1 Based upon what dating method? According to MOST dating methods the earth is very young. And some make it IMPOSSIBLE that the earth is "millions of years old" 

Clock

Age Estimate

    1.     Receding Moon

750 m.y.a. max

    2.     Oil Pressure

5,000 - 10,000 years

    3.     The Sun

1,000,000 years max

    4.     The Oldest Living Thing

4,900 years max

    5.     Helium in the Atmosphere

 1,750,000 years max

6.     Short Period Comets

 5,000 - 10,000 years

7.     The Earth's Magnetic Field

10,000 years max

    8.     C-14 Dating of Dino Bones

10,000 - 50,000 years

    9A.  Dino Blood and Old DNA

5,000 - 50,000 years

    9B.  Unfossilized Dino Bones

5,000 - 50,000 years

9C.  165 M.Y.O. Ammonites

5,000 - 50,000 years

   10.    Axel Heiberg Island

 5,000 - 10,000 years

   11.    Carbon-14 in Atmosphere

10,000 years max

   12.    The Dead Sea

13,000 years max

   13.    Niagara Falls

5,000 - 8,800 years max

   14.    Historical Records

5,000 years max

   15.    The San Andreas Fault

5,000 - 10,000 years

   16.    Mitochondrial Eve

6,500 years

   17.    Population Growth

10,000 years max

   18.    Minerals in the Oceans

Various (mostly young) Ages

   19.    Rapid Mountain Uplift

Less than 10 million years

20.    Carbon 14 Dating

10,000 to 50,000 years

21.    Dark Matter & Spiral Galaxies

1 million years (max)

22.    Helium and lead in Zircons

6,000 years


Short list---which one of these methods are you educated on since you claim to be so much smarter than me? 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1 "According to MOST dating methods the earth is very young."


If 4.5 billion years is "very young" in your mentally retarded world.



donuan1
donuan1

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1 How would I know? I just listed a complete novel of information from YOUR side that you are ignorant of---something I would be embarrassed about if I were you. Imagine all the evidence I know from my side you are ignorant of. So really, I have no clue if it hurts. Perhaps you can tell me since I know much more than you on the subject and you still have no answer except---"You're just dumb! blah blah blah" how intelligent of you. Seriously are you like 10 years old? Just curious because you are completely unable to grasp even the simplest facts such as the fact that evolutionists admit that the fossil record does NOT show evolution---it's still just a belief. What do you say to that? 

donuan1
donuan1

@DonkeyHotay @donuan1 Ok I'll type slower so maybe you can understand...you see all those numbers up there that I posted on the age of the earth? Ok THOSE NUMBERS are not 4.5 billion years and they are a LONGER list of dating methods. Are you smart enough to count?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@donuan1 


You really are retarded, aren't you?


The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years(4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).

This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.

The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...