Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Burden of Proof: Why Most American Evangelicals Reject Long-Earth Evolution
ReligiousLiberty.TV ^ | 05/11/2012 | Michael D. Peabody

Posted on 05/11/2012 10:56:54 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV

[dc]O[/dc]n May 14, noted philanthropist and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University and receive an honorary degree. But there is a problem. In recent weeks Emory faculty and students have asked the University to disinvite Dr. Carson because he is a critic of evolutionary theory and advocate of creationism. Faculty and staff have written that Dr. Carson’s “great achievements in medicine allow him to be viewed as someone who ‘understands science’” poses a direct threat to science that “rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.”

The anti-Carson letter describes how there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils” and how this evolution process has advanced an ability to develop animal models for disease and that even “the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution.” The letter then argues that “the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”

In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years. Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years , and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention. Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago. Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years.

That the number of adherents of creationism remains so strong, even though Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” has been around since 1859 and has been taught in most public schools since the 1960s, is a testament to the persistent strength of American religious belief and faith over contradictory concepts.

Earlier this week, Forbes magazine staff writer Alex Knapp wrote an essay entitled, “Why Some Christians Reject Evolution,” arguing that many Christians reject evolutionary theory because it conflicts with the Protestant view of the doctrines of original sin and salvation.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="347" caption="Photo credit - iStockPhoto.com"]Earth - IStockPhoto[/caption]

Perhaps the only way to explain how evolved human beings would end up with a soul is expressed in the hybrid evolution-creation concept advanced by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis (1950). Pius XII writes, "For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided pre-existing, pre-created souls to those He designated and that these souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments.

In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life. There was no death before the fall of humanity. The time frames are important because they rely on the Biblical chronologies Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-28 to prove that Jesus was in the prophetically-designated ancestral line of David, and draw the genealogical line all the way back to Adam, the first created human being.

Many evangelicals reject the hybrid view of creation and evolution because it would necessarily require them to regard creation, as discussed in the books of Genesis and of a new earth in Revelation, as allegory and submit the pervasive teachings of the Bible referencing Creation and other supernatural activity to the realm of mythology or cultural contextualism. Acceptance of “scientific” views of evolution would then, by necessity, require a major reconfiguration of matters of faith – and that is something that most adherents to strict creationism are unwilling to do.

Knapp, whose own religious beliefs are not indicated, notes that while some churches have found ways to incorporate the idea of change over time into their belief systems, “for many Christians, evolution isn’t a minor fact of science that can be resolved into the mythos of their faith. It is, rather, a fundamental attack on their faith and many things that they believe.”

There have been a number of heated arguments on the campuses of a diverse array of religious universities regarding how issues of origins should be taught. Some have tried to walk the middle line of teaching “intelligent design” as an alternative to creationism and evolution. Critics of those teaching intelligent design point out that trying to split the issue down the middle does no favors to either side and in the end is nothing but a weakened form of creationism, and an explanation that is of no value to secular science.

Within the larger context of American Protestant Christianity the debate continues without resolution. Among Christians, creationists are often asked to consider various forms of evidence of a long-history of the earth, but those advocating for a long-earth have largely ignored discussion of the genealogies of the New Testament and the concepts of original sin and salvation. Christian evolutionists have failed to provide a verse-by-verse rebuttal to the Biblical Creation narrative or to acknowledge the extent to which acceptance of creation would impact theology.

Instead theistic evolutionists operate on the supposition that Creationists will eventually bifurcate their religious beliefs from scientific understanding, because incompatibilities must be resolved in favor of science. This places faith directly in conflict with science and any resultant battle on these issues will take centuries if true academic freedom is to be granted, but can resolve faster if the voices of religious dissent are silenced and those who have openly criticized evolution are denied a seat at the academic table.

The attempt to “purify” academia by silencing the voices of critics such as Dr. Carson would be the first step toward a secular Dark Ages. So far, it appears that despite the controversy, Emory University’s commencement ceremony will go forward as planned.

###

In response to the controversy at Emory, as of this writing nearly 2,000 people have signed a Petition to reaffirm “Dr. Ben Carson’s Welcome and Defend His Right to Express His Views.” Click here to view the Petition.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: academicfreedom; creationism; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last
To: Uncle Slayton
“The Bible is factual...” Ok. Then which version of Christ's birth is true and which one’s are lies?
51 posted on 05/12/2012 7:31:37 AM PDT by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV; varmintman; Salamander; LearsFool; HerrBlucher; Hayride; nuke rocketeer; ...
From the article:
"In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years.
Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years, and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention.
Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago.

Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years."

This is despite the fact that about 80% of Christian denominations (by membership) accept theistic evolutionism.
Theistic evolution, in short, means God created & directed the processes of evolution to achieve His plan.

"This view is generally accepted by [note the chart in link] major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some [actually most if not all] mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures.

"Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham...

"...All of the traditional mainline Protestant denominations support or accept theistic evolution.
For example, on 12 February 2006, the 197th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth was commemorated by "Evolution Sunday" where the message that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution was taught in classes and sermons at many Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches.[16]

"Additionally, the National Council of Churches USA has issued a teaching resource to

    'assist people of faith who experience no conflict between science and their faith and who embrace science as one way of appreciating the beauty and complexity of God's creation.'
"This resource cites the Episcopal Church, according to whom the stories of creation in Genesis
    'should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation.' "
The Roman Catholic church especially has a long history of respect for science, going back to Saints Augustine and Aquinas.

So the statistic that only about half (see chart noted above) of all Catholics, mainline Protestants and Eastern Orthodox -- denominations which account for 80% of all Christians -- only half accept their church's teachings on theistic evolution might tell us something...

52 posted on 05/12/2012 2:30:36 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varmintman; All

evolutionsts believe in either;

a) gradual evolution, or
b) punctuated equilibrium

so much for consensus


53 posted on 05/12/2012 4:07:17 PM PDT by Fithal the Wise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
This is despite the fact that about 80% of Christian denominations (by membership) accept theistic evolutionism.

I have one thing to say to "theistic evolosers": God does not use broken tools.

54 posted on 05/12/2012 4:17:20 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Thunderbolts forum (non-religious) thread on evidence for recent formation of Earth's surface.
55 posted on 05/12/2012 4:25:35 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV
This is an worthwhile discussion and I am reading all the comments with interest. I don't want to get off on a side-track, but I thought I'd mention this one inaccuracy early in the article:

"In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided pre-existing, pre-created souls to those He designated and that these souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments. "

This is a fairly serious misconstrual of Catholic doctrine. There is nothing whatsoever in the Catholic faith that points to the supposed existence of "pre-existing, pre-created" human souls. in fact, from a Catholic anthropological point of view, this is simply unintelligible.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is precisely the soul which makes a material "thing" (matter) a living human person: it is the "form" of the body. Therefore it is created immediately by God upon the formation of a new human body, i.e. at conception (since the zygote, even at one cell, IS a body,and IS ensouled, which is to say, alive.)

Anyone could have learned this in 2 minutes with a few mouse-clicks to the Catholic Catechism (Link). I was surprised to see this rather egregious blunder, and I hope it does not suggest an overall casualness about accuracy in this article.

56 posted on 05/12/2012 6:30:45 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious." George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA; Quix; Alamo-Girl; M. Espinola; whitedog57; stephenjohnbanker; Chunga85
And dinosaur flatulence was responsible for global warming . . . LOL !

Earth Changes Are Happening Right Now

Listen to info after 8 minutes in and buckle your seat belts !

57 posted on 05/13/2012 11:50:03 AM PDT by ex-Texan (Ecclesiastes 5:10 - 20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DManA; Quix; Alamo-Girl; M. Espinola; whitedog57; stephenjohnbanker; Chunga85
Images Here

More Images

http://standeyo.com/Whats_New/whats.new.html

58 posted on 05/13/2012 12:10:16 PM PDT by ex-Texan (Ecclesiastes 5:10 - 20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

Thanks for the ping!


59 posted on 05/13/2012 7:48:52 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Fithal the Wise
Fithal the Wise: "evolutionsts believe in either;
a) gradual evolution, or
b) punctuated equilibrium
so much for consensus."

This is not a problem for anyone who wants to understand it.

Evolution consists of two major factors: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.

In every generation of every species there are a small number of genetic mutations = "descent with modifications".
Most genetic mutations have no effect on either the appearance or functioning of their organism because they occur in regions sometimes called "junk DNA".
Those are, however, very useful in helping scientists calculate the most recent common ancestors within a species, or between species.

And once an organism becomes perfectly adapted to its environment, any mutation which causes a change will be a negative change, and natural selection will eliminate that mutation from the gene pool.

But as their environments changes (becoming colder, warmer, wetter, dryer, a new predator, etc.), some mutations will give some members of a species a survival advantage, so those genes will be passed on, and the species can evolve.

That explains how you get "micro-evolution" in every generation, but only "macro-evolution" during periods of major environmental changes.

60 posted on 05/14/2012 5:02:08 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "I have one thing to say to "theistic evolosers": God does not use broken tools."

Well... first of all, there is no possible way you can claim evolution is a "broken tool" since it produced us, just as God intended.

On the other hand, which human being not actually conceived by God was ever perfect?

So it seems to me that theistic evolution scientifically explains the basic human condition of being created by God, but still far from perfect.

61 posted on 05/14/2012 5:10:23 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "Thunderbolts forum (non-religious) thread on evidence for recent formation of Earth's surface."

Sorry FRiend, but there is no serious scientific evidence for recent formation of Earth's surface, and you can yourself see abundant evidence to the contrary any time you drive through mountains, or visit, for example, the Grand Canyon.

There you can see thousands of layers of sediments, layered down over hundreds of millions of years, and if you drill down underneath those you'd find thousands more layers, some going back billions of years.

Ages for these layers can be determined through multiple forms of radiometric dating, and pure common sense tells you they cannot be a mere few thousands of years old.

In Greenland and Antarctica there are ice formations whose layers can be counted, like tree-rings, and dated back hundreds of thousand, even millions of years.

And on and on... multiple methods for determining the age of the Universe show distant galaxies millions to billions of light years away, life cycles of stars show suns like ours evolve over billions of years...

So the list of scientific reasons for accepting a multi-billion year old Universe, Sun and Earth is very long.
By contrast, the list of genuine scientific reasons for suspecting an Earth a mere few thousands of years old is a null set.

But if there is some particular "evidence" for a "young Earth" you'd like to present here, let's see what you have.

62 posted on 05/14/2012 5:45:38 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
In Greenland and Antarctica there are ice formations whose layers can be counted, like tree-rings, and dated back hundreds of thousand, even millions of years.

Evo-loser dating schemes are basically all fubar. Try doing a google or youtube search on 'p38' and 'glacier girl' for the P38 which the Amalekites or Canaanites crash landed on the ice in Greenland 3400 years ago (at least according to Evo-loser dating schemes which figure one ice layer per year).

That's right, according to Evo-loser standards, that P38 was part of the Amalekite Air Force (AAF).

Amelekite Air force P38, circa 1400 BC. The plane should have been two or three feet under the ice surface and was found three or four hundred feet down, i.e. at a level corresponding to Old Testament times according to theory.

63 posted on 05/14/2012 6:43:45 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan; Quix; Alamo-Girl; M. Espinola; whitedog57; stephenjohnbanker; Chunga85
That sunspot I mentioned earlier:


64 posted on 05/14/2012 7:50:12 AM PDT by ex-Texan (Ecclesiastes 5:10 - 20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

Thanks for the pings!


65 posted on 05/14/2012 7:56:34 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

I won’t get into the age of the Earth, but a simple high school experiment showed how to cut through an ice cube with a thread and a fishing weight on each end. Ice melts under pressure, freezes after pressure point sinks. Toss a handful of rocks on a frozen pond, they are in craters very soon and sink out of sight. Park a 14,000 lb fighter plane on the ice, it sinks.


66 posted on 05/14/2012 7:59:49 AM PDT by eartrumpet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: eartrumpet

Like I noted according to theory it should have sank abouot 3’ and they were originally looking for it at about 3’ down with penetrating radar which is why it was as hard to find as it was i.e. they were looking in the wrong place. A P38 is only heavy if you try to lift it fully loaded, the wing loading was sufficiently light for it to fly at 400 mph and you’d be talking about that same surface sinking through ice which is positively not the same thing as a stone or fishing weight sinking.


67 posted on 05/14/2012 8:32:00 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Is a P38 neutrally buoyant or is it heavier than water? Ice is water, it sinks.


68 posted on 05/14/2012 8:35:35 AM PDT by eartrumpet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: eartrumpet

“Ice is water, it sinks.”

Ice is water, P38s sink. Oops.


69 posted on 05/14/2012 8:51:20 AM PDT by eartrumpet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: eartrumpet

http://www.damninteresting.com/exhuming-the-glacier-girl/


70 posted on 05/14/2012 9:01:11 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Elsiejay
The probability of occurrence of the utterly improbable is extremely low, to the point of unbelievability.

Yet...the crashing waves flooding the entire world and moving huge amounts of dirt unto great depths during 40 rainy days & nights somehow was to create intricate order in geologic layers, including preservation of delicate fossils.

And somehow the totality of the universe is explained within, and for the benefit of, just 100 human lifespans.

Neither point is, to that specificity, enunciated in Scripture.

Careful where the finger of unbelievability is pointed. Verses are vague in these areas; do not impute conclusion of more detail than what is there.

71 posted on 05/14/2012 9:17:03 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Cloud storage? Dropbox rocks! Sign up at http://db.tt/nQqWGd3 for 2GB free (and I get more too).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Yes, the RC church has a long history of respect for science. Like Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin being involved in both the Piltdown and Peking Man frauds. Things that make you go hmmmmm.


72 posted on 05/14/2012 5:03:49 PM PDT by Hayride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Thank you for your clarification on the Catholic view of souls. Would the term “separately-created souls” instead of “pre-existing, pre-created” be accurate?


73 posted on 05/14/2012 9:09:04 PM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

That’s pretty far-fetched BroJoeK - ice cores don not prove anything close to millions of years. You speak like one who has only lightly researched one side of the creation evolution debate.

Have you not read? Here are the first 11 indicators that not all natural clocks agree ~ and the majority differ vastly from the few evolution relies upon, but none are precise and accurate since we can neither prove starting conditions nor uniformity. From creation.com/age-of-the-earth...

=== Biological evidence for a young age of the earth ===

1. DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.

3. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.

4. The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.

5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.

6. Many fossil bones “dated” at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?

7. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.

8. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils “dated” at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.

9. Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.

10. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various “index” fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The “Lazarus effect”: rodent “resurrection”!

11. The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.

Read more please but don’t ever forget historical ‘science’ is hysterical science ~ you can conjur almost anything since you can never repeat natural history using the scientific method.

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


74 posted on 05/15/2012 6:11:56 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Have you not read? Here are the first 11 indicators that not all natural clocks agree ~ and the majority differ vastly from the few evolution relies upon, but none are precise and accurate since we can neither prove starting conditions nor uniformity. From creation.com/age-of-the-earth...

Conspicuously absent is Uranium. Even the RATE project could not reconcile the evidence of radiometric decay of Uranium with a young Earth. If the Earth is 10,000 years old, there should be samples of Uranium ore that only exhibit 10,000 years of decay. Where are they?

75 posted on 05/15/2012 6:22:21 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "The plane should have been two or three feet under the ice surface and was found three or four hundred feet down, i.e. at a level corresponding to Old Testament times according to theory."

Is that the best you've got, FRiend?
Pretty pathetic, I'd say.

First of all, "found three or four hundred feet down" is not a very accurate measurement, suggesting that no real scientific examination was made of the site.

Second, a typical rate of ice accumulation in Greenland is about eight inches per year.
That means we're really talking about 500 years -- not 3,400 years -- of ice layers above the crashed plane.
Of course, over many years that original eight inches gets compacted and squeezed down to small fractions of an inch, eventually becoming uncountable as distinct years.
As of 2005, Greenland ice cores have been counted back 65,000 years.

Third, what happens when a plane crash-lands?
Does it not dig into whatever it crashed on, in this case, ice?
And if it crashes into a crevasse, might it not then fall many feet into the the ice, enough to account for the years you claim?

Finally, how much do we know about the movements of ice in that region.
If the ice is moving relatively rapidly, a plane trapped in a crevasse could end up almost anywhere.

As for your allegations of "fubar" -- setting aside your affinity for course language -- I'll simply note the fact that ice-core layers can be counted, much like tree-rings, for thousands of feet down, and tiny air samples can be measured to determine changing global climate conditions, in some cases going back hundreds of thousands of years.
These have been matched with radio-metrically dated climate changes recorded in calcite deposits at Devils Hole, Nevada:

"Photograph of a section of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) ice core from 6,027 feet depth with clearly visible annual layers."

Devils Hole:

76 posted on 05/15/2012 7:14:47 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Perhaps you’ve not heard they did a blind test on rocks and strata from the 1980 Mt. Saint Helens eruption that was calibrated to be over a million years old using radio-isotope dating methods. The sedimentary layering mimics the evolution story of ‘millions’ of years.

Here are 51 thru 64 from my prior link that you apparently have not read...while uranium dating is not discussed in great detail, Ur is in much greater detail in the references listed - but only for those who read and think critically.

Don’t you see all of the evidence needs to agree for millions/billions to really be possible. The scientific method does not allow for ignoring so much contradictory data does it?! Even carbon dating is inconsistent b/c they often ASSUME uniformity rather than what effects burying all the plants and animals in a global flood would do to cause a massive spike in their calculations.

=== Radiometric dating and the age of the earth ===

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.

52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work.

55. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.

56. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).

57. Demonstrably non-radiogenic “isochrons” of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron “dating” that gives billions of years. “False” isochrons are common.

58. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different “ages” undermine all “dates” obtained from zircons.

59. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.

60. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005

61. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).

62. Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation 28(2):46–50, 2006.

63. Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical “young” earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.

64. Australia’s “Burning Mountain” speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).

Or consider polystrate fossils from:

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly any fossil must be buried. Had burial been slow, the tree tops would have decayed. Obviously, the trees could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide.


77 posted on 05/15/2012 7:24:07 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Hayride
"Please, someone give me the best 5 examples we see in nature today of something from one species that’s in the middle of turning into another. I’m not greedy, the top 5 will do."

The best possible examples I can think of:

Flying squirrels are in process of becoming bats or something like bats.

Tapirs are in transition to becoming elephants.

Okapis are in process of becoming giraffes, or striped deer.

Walruses are becoming whales.

Walruses are becoming short-legged fat wild pigs.

Fundamental Principle: These examples are arrived at by deductive reasoning. As we all know from our high school biology teachers, anything can become anything, given a little more time. We know this because there is something rather than nothing.

So there.

78 posted on 05/15/2012 7:31:02 AM PDT by cookcounty ("We're all born idiots, and we only get over that condition as we get less young." -J Goldberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
I've heard of it.

You're asserting that you can prove the Earth is 10,000 years old by excluding any evidence that it isn't. Not exactly rocket surgery, there.

79 posted on 05/15/2012 7:32:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

I for one welcome our Salamander Overlords

80 posted on 05/15/2012 7:45:54 AM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

No, I just pointed out the inconsistencies that many researchers have uncovered over the past several decades with your treasured radio-isotope dating ~ it is not accurate.


81 posted on 05/15/2012 7:47:23 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

If Americans came from Europeans - why are there still Europeans?


82 posted on 05/15/2012 7:52:28 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
No, I just pointed out the inconsistencies that many researchers have uncovered over the past several decades with your treasured radio-isotope dating ~ it is not accurate.

But I'm supposed to believe that it IS accurate to say that finding any instance of radiometric dating being inaccurate means that all of them must be?

That's hilarious.

83 posted on 05/15/2012 7:53:08 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

Um Ok you are asserting that DNA re-writes itself ~ never been observed. Mutations are copy errors that will eventually kill off the organism. Bacteria has approx 500 million A/C/T/G pairs that mimic computer codes [actually vice-versa] upto approx 3 billion coded pairs for humans and then peaking at approx 50 billion coded pairs for Paris Japonis. Macro-evolution has never been observed!!!

Or consider Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D. per creationscience.com:

15. Codes, Programs, and Information

In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form or language to another. Examples include Morse code and Braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again. It is hard to imagine how natural processes and long periods of time could produce one language. Having two languages form by natural processes and be able to automatically convert one to the other is unbelievable.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are very complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.

Life contains matter, energy, and information. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly. Nor do natural processes add information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

Macroevolution cannot occur.
Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.
Life could not result from a “big bang.”


84 posted on 05/15/2012 7:56:57 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV
I don't think the best term would be "separately-created" souls, but rather "individually-created."

You wouldn't want to imply that the soul was created "separately" --- it is at no time separate from the body of the newly-conceivced child. But it is, Catholics would say, "individually" created and infused as the body comes into being. In other words, you get your body from your parents, but your soul comes straight from God. Here's a Link to some Catechism references if you want to get it in context.

85 posted on 05/15/2012 8:04:15 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("He who does not have 3,000 years at his fingertips is living hand-to-mouth." -J Wolfgang von Goethe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Your bigger problem is in explaining the 101 natural clocks [so far but still going up] that completely contradict your one precious method.

How about you start by exploring the moon as a natural clock. It’s current orbit is receding at a constant rate, so how far back can you go before the tides cover the highest mountain peaks, or better yet before the Earth and Moon orbits collide? It’s almost like something major catastrophe knocked it out of it’s orbit or some such...


86 posted on 05/15/2012 8:04:57 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

That’s strange because I included a reference to your Ur dating reference but you are the one choosing to exclude these many varied other references that contradict your evolutionary timeframe.

Typical liberal defense mechanism - accuse your opponent of doing that which you are doing in spades.


87 posted on 05/15/2012 8:09:40 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Assuming you’ve read your own references, do they include all the instances of radiometric dating of Urainium providing consistent measurements of billions of years of measurable decay?


88 posted on 05/15/2012 8:14:00 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Hayride
Hayride: "Yes, the RC church has a long history of respect for science.
Like Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin being involved in both the Piltdown and Peking Man frauds.
Things that make you go hmmmmm."

Hmmmmmm.... is right.

Yes, Piltdown was a fraud, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was peripherally involved, to the extent that he searched for and found a tooth which fit the supposed jaw of "Piltdown Man".
After finding the tooth, Teilhard moved to France and had nothing more to do with it.

As for Peking Man, no fraud is alleged, even though original bones were lost during WWII, no new large cache has been found, and the controversy over possible Asian origins of homo erectus remains unresolved.
Certainly no wrong-doing by Tielhard is alleged.

Further, Tielhard had his own problems with Church hierarchy, which was not so happy about his theological outlook.

In that regard, we might also mention the Church's most famous scientific dispute: with Galileo Galilei.

But the larger point is this: the greatest of Catholic philosophers, those "doctors of the Church" such as Saints Augustine and Aquinas, always insisted there must be no contradiction between revealed and discovered truth.

Of course, mere church mortals have sometimes experienced difficulty meeting such a high standard, but that is what they are supposed to teach.

89 posted on 05/15/2012 8:16:07 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
How about you start by exploring the moon as a natural clock. It’s current orbit is receding at a constant rate, so how far back can you go before the tides cover the highest mountain peaks, or better yet before the Earth and Moon orbits collide? It’s almost like something major catastrophe knocked it out of it’s orbit or some such...

When I was a kid, I remember my Dad getting hold of a level that had the vial mis-mounted. When he figured out that it didn't work right, he threw it out and went and got a different level. He didn't just quit using levels.

90 posted on 05/15/2012 8:22:25 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

It’s not like Venus is the only conundrum for evolution in our solar system!

Again from creation.com/age-of-the-earth

=== Astronomical evidence for a young(er) age of the earth and the universe ===

65. Saturn’s rings are increasingly recognized as being relatively short-lived rather than essentially changeless over millions of years.

66. Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old.

66. Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.

67. The moon’s former magnetic field. Rocks sampled from the moon’s crust have residual magnetism that indicates that the moon once had a magnetic field much stronger than earth’s magnetic field today. No plausible ‘dynamo’ hypothesis could account for even a weak magnetic field, let alone a strong one that could leave such residual magnetism in a billions-of-years time-frame. The evidence is much more consistent with a recent creation of the moon and its magnetic field and free decay of the magnetic field in the 6,000 years since then. Humphreys, D.R., The moon’s former magnetic field—still a huge problem for evolutionists, Journal of Creation 26(1):5–6, 2012.

68. Ghost craters on the moon’s maria (singular mare: dark “seas” formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for the assumed long ages. Enormous impacts evidently caused the large craters and lava flows within those craters, and this lava partly buried other, smaller impact craters within the larger craters, leaving “ghosts”. But this means that the smaller impacts can’t have been too long after the huge ones, otherwise the lava would have flowed into the larger craters before the smaller impacts. This suggests a very narrow time frame for all this cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., Ghost craters in the sky, Creation Matters 4(1):6, 1999; A biblically based cratering theory (Faulkner); Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe.

69. The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ “dynamo” mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., Mercury’s magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation 22(3):8–9, 2008.

70. The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long “dead” if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs.

71. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.

72. Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys’ predictions. See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon, Journal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009.

73. Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced.

74. The surface of Jupiter’s moon Europa. Studies of the few craters indicated that up to 95% of small craters, and many medium-sized ones, are formed from debris thrown up by larger impacts. This means that there have been far fewer impacts than had been thought in the solar system and the age of other objects in the solar system, derived from cratering levels, have to be reduced drastically (see Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD, available from CMI).
Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—the methane should all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown. The products of photolysis should also have produced a huge sea of ethane. As the original Astrobiology paper said, “If the chemistry on Titan has gone on in steady-state over the age of the solar system, then we would predict that a layer of ethane 300 to 600 meters thick should be deposited on the surface.” No such sea is seen, which is consistent with Titan being a tiny fraction of the claimed age of the solar system.

75. The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness.

76. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the “billions of years” mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity (Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., 2009. Enceladus: Saturn’s sprightly moon looks young, Creation 31(3):54–55).

77. Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise. See Revelations in the solar system.

78. Neptune should be long since “cold”, lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet Voyager II in 1989 found it to be otherwise—it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years. See Neptune: monument to creation.

79. Neptune’s rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. Revelations in the solar system.

80. Young surface age of Neptune’s moon, Triton—less than 10 million years, even with evolutionary assumptions on rates of impacts.

81. Uranus and Neptune both have magnetic fields significantly off-axis, which is an unstable situation. When this was discovered with Uranus, it was assumed by evolutionary astronomers that Uranus must have just happened to be going through a magnetic field reversal. However, when a similar thing was found with Neptune, this AD hoc explanation was upset. These observations are consistent with ages of thousands of years rather than billions.

82. The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, Scientific American 259(4):20, 1988).

83. The existence of short-period comets (orbital period less than 200 years), e.g. Halley, which have a life of less than 20,000 years, is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000 years. ad hoc hypotheses have to be invented to circumvent this evidence (see Kuiper Belt). See Comets and the age of the solar system.

84. “Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10 million years, which is consistent with a young solar system, not one that is 5 billion years old.” See: The “waters above”.

85. Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. Again an ad hoc Oort Cloud was invented to try to account for these comets still being present after billions of years. See, Comets and the age of the solar system.

86. The maximum expected lifetime of near-earth asteroids is of the order of one million years, after which they collide with the sun. And the Yarkovsky effect moves main belt asteroids into near-earth orbits faster than had been thought. This brings into question the origin of asteroids with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or the solar system is much younger than the 4.5 billion years claimed. Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006.

87. The lifetime of binary asteroids—where a tiny asteroid “moon” orbits a larger asteroid— in the main belt (they represent about 15–17% of the total): tidal effects limit the life of such binary systems to about 100,000 years. The difficulties in conceiving of any scenario for getting binaries to form in such numbers to keep up the population, led some astronomers to doubt their existence, but space probes confirmed it.

88. The observed rapid rate of change in stars contradicts the vast ages assigned to stellar evolution. For example, Sakurai’s Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary nebula; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, New Scientist 177(2384):28–31).

89. The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a -2 ºC or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, Journal of Creation (TJ) 15(2):3–4, 2001. As of 2010, the faint young sun remains a problem.

90. Evidence of (very) recent geological activity (tectonic movements) on the moon is inconsistent with its supposed age of billions of years and its hot origin.

91. The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system. Saturn radiates nearly twice as much energy per unit mass as Jupiter. See The age of the Jovian planets.

92. Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds estimated at to 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies.

93. The ageing of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years. The discovery of extremely “young” spiral galaxies highlights the problem of this evidence for the evolutionary ages assumed.

94. The number of type I supernova remnants (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. See Davies, K., Proc. 3prd ICC, pp. 175–184, 1994.

95. The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are young (less than 10,000 years). See supernova remnants.


91 posted on 05/15/2012 8:37:39 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Have you checked the assumptions that are involved in radiometrics?


92 posted on 05/15/2012 8:41:44 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Thank you. I appreciate your suggestion and am making this change:

In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that the bodies of human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided separately-created souls to human beings. These souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments.

(You can see it in context at http://religiousliberty.tv/burden-of-proof-why-american-evangelicals-reject-long-earth-creationism-evolution.html )

I want to be as fair and accurate as possible when describing what people believe.

Michael Peabody


93 posted on 05/15/2012 8:42:41 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Thank you. I appreciate your suggestion and am making this change:

In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that the bodies of human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided separately-created souls to human beings. These souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments.

(You can see it in context at http://religiousliberty.tv/burden-of-proof-why-american-evangelicals-reject-long-earth-creationism-evolution.html )

I want to be as fair and accurate as possible when describing what people believe.

Michael Peabody


94 posted on 05/15/2012 8:42:56 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The problem is “scientists” counting ice layers as years when they should be counting them as snowstorms...


95 posted on 05/15/2012 8:45:51 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The only real problem with evolutionary science is how much bias and corruption gets introduced through government grants to continue ‘researching’ this worthless and godless ideology. Evolution continually presents more outright fraud and fabrication than all the other scientific disciplines combined.


96 posted on 05/15/2012 8:49:22 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Have you checked the assumptions that are involved in radiometrics?

The only assumption I know of is that the half-life of any given radioisotope is assumed to be constannt.

As far as I know there have never been two samples of the same radioisotope found to have different half-lives, so the assumption seems sound.

Do you have evidence that the half lives can be made variable to account for a margin of error of 4500000% ?

97 posted on 05/15/2012 8:55:17 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

It is all true - I assume you are referring to alleged contradictions in the accounts? Please point out the alleged contradictions that you think exists.


98 posted on 05/15/2012 9:00:20 AM PDT by utford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Are you claiming all the scientists that ever measured more than 10,000 years of decay in a radioisotope sample were bribed to falsify their results?


99 posted on 05/15/2012 9:00:52 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Yet you have no explanation for observed errors nor even what percent of these perceived errors are discarded.

Worst of all for critical thinking and the scientific method ~ zero explanation for the far easier to observe natural clocks that I’ve been pointing out throughout this thread.

Another couple of assumptions for radioisotope dating:

Initial ratio of father and daughter elements, and

Volcanic heat resets these radioisotope clocks.


100 posted on 05/15/2012 9:09:05 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson