-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I want that one.
I'm going to PM you my email address. This sounds fascinating, and like it might make sense. More please.
Chris·tian (krĭs′chən)adj.1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
Funny..I don't see a single mention of a particular belief in origin that is required.
How about finding non-biased scientific articles that have the same results...as in not-relying on fellow young earth creationists who happen to have ph. d's as proof.
B
BananaPie
Guest
Last night Ken Ham's debate was historical. Check this out: the debate had more viewers than the Super Bowl this weekend. The debate had more viewers than the President's speech last week.
...and 2,000-something years later, the Lord Jesus Christ is still making headlines winning minds for God. Like sweet!
How about reading some of the articles, Nautilis, Tr and the other evolutionists who have somehow mistakenly wandered into a Christian site?
Just for those who can't be bothered to click on the articles, maybe this will help. Fourteen evidences for a young earth. I challenge you who believe the lies of evolutionary science to read it!
Also some good references, for those who somehow think that creationists should lose their degrees for believing in Creation. Sort of like the Inquisition, wouldn't you say? Where people get punished for what they believed.
Evidence for a Young World
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred millionyears old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.[SUP]1[/SUP]Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."[SUP]1[/SUP] The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.[SUP]2[/SUP]
2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over amillion years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.[SUP]3[/SUP]
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.[SUP]4[/SUP] Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.[SUP]5[/SUP] So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.[SUP]6[/SUP] This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.[SUP]7[/SUP] The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.[SUP]7[/SUP] As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers[SUP]8[/SUP] and other sources[SUP]9[/SUP] dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.[SUP]9,10[/SUP]As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.[SUP]10[/SUP] This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.[SUP]10[/SUP] Calculations[SUP]11[/SUP] for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.[SUP]12[/SUP] Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.[SUP]13[/SUP] This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.[SUP]14[/SUP] The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.[SUP]15[/SUP]
Second half to come!
Just for those who can't be bothered to click on the articles, maybe this will help. Fourteen evidences for a young earth. I challenge you who believe the lies of evolutionary science to read it!
Also some good references, for those who somehow think that creationists should lose their degrees for believing in Creation. Sort of like the Inquisition, wouldn't you say? Where people get punished for what they believed.
Evidence for a Young World
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred millionyears old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.[SUP]1[/SUP]Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."[SUP]1[/SUP] The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.[SUP]2[/SUP]
2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over amillion years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.[SUP]3[/SUP]
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.[SUP]4[/SUP] Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.[SUP]5[/SUP] So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.[SUP]6[/SUP] This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.[SUP]7[/SUP] The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.[SUP]7[/SUP] As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers[SUP]8[/SUP] and other sources[SUP]9[/SUP] dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.[SUP]9,10[/SUP]As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.[SUP]10[/SUP] This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.[SUP]10[/SUP] Calculations[SUP]11[/SUP] for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.[SUP]12[/SUP] Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.[SUP]13[/SUP] This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.[SUP]14[/SUP] The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.[SUP]15[/SUP]
Second half to come!
Part 2 - The article also has pictures, but they did not come out well here!
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.[SUP]16[/SUP]
8. Biological material decays too fast.
10. Too much helium in minerals.Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.[SUP]21[/SUP] "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.[SUP]22[/SUP] "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.[SUP]23,24[/SUP]
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.[SUP]25[/SUP] Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000(± 2000) years.[SUP]26[/SUP] This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,[SUP]28[/SUP] during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.[SUP]29[/SUP] If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.[SUP]29[/SUP] Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.[SUP]31[/SUP]
14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.[SUP]30[/SUP] Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.[SUP]31[/SUP]
References
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.[SUP]16[/SUP]
8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.[SUP]17[/SUP] DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.[SUP]18[/SUP] Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.[SUP]19[/SUP] Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.[SUP]20[/SUP]
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.10. Too much helium in minerals.Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.[SUP]21[/SUP] "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.[SUP]22[/SUP] "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.[SUP]23,24[/SUP]
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.[SUP]25[/SUP] Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000(± 2000) years.[SUP]26[/SUP] This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.[SUP]27[/SUP] These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,[SUP]28[/SUP] during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.[SUP]29[/SUP] If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.[SUP]29[/SUP] Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.[SUP]31[/SUP]
14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.[SUP]30[/SUP] Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.[SUP]31[/SUP]
References
- Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.
- D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313-315 (July 22, 1993).
- Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175-184, order from www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php.
- Steidl, P. F., Planets, comets, and asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), order from creationresearch.org.
- Whipple, F. L., Background of modern comet theory, Nature 263:15-19 (2 September 1976). Levison, H. F. et al. See also: The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296:2212-2215 (21 June 2002).
- Milliman, John D. and James P. M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525-544 (1992).
- Hay, W. W., et al., Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933-14,940 (10 December 1988).
- Meybeck, M., Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans, Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).
- Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 43:767-779 (1979).
- Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17-33, order fromwww.creationicc.org/proceedings.php.
- Nevins, S., [Austin, S. A.], Evolution: the oceans say no!, Impact No. 8 (Nov. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.
- Humphreys, D. R., The earth's magnetic field is still losing energy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39(1):3-13, June 2002.http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/art
icles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm. - Humphreys, D. R., Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 113-126, out of print but contactwww.creationicc.org for help in locating copies.
- Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal,Nature 374:687-92 (20 April 1995).
- Humphreys, D. R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 129-142, order fromwww.creationicc.org/proceedings.php.
- Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 3-15, out of print, contact www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php for help in locating copies.
- Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28-29 (2 January 1998).
- Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354-1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature363:536-8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19-30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature's ancient secrets, Nature413:358-359 (27 September 2001).
- Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897-900 (19 October 2000).
- Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952-1955 (25 March 2005).
- Gentry, R. V., Radioactive halos, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23:347-362 (1973).
- Gentry, R. V. , W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith, J. F. Emery, S. A. Reynolds, R. Walker, S. S. Christy, and P. A. Gentry, Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification, Science 194:315-318 (15 October 1976).
- Gentry, R. V., Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective, Science 184:62-66 (5 April 1974).
- Snelling, A. A. and M. H. Armitage, Radiohalos—a tale of three granitic plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243-267, order fromwww.creationicc.org/proceedings.php. Also archived on the ICR website at www.icr.org/article/radiohalos-granitic-
plutons/. - Gentry, R. V., G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment,Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129-1130 (October 1982).
- Humphreys, D. R, et al., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1-16 (June 2004). See archived article on following page of the CRS website:www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/4
1/41_1/Helium.htm. - Baumgardner, J. R., et al., Measurable [SUP]14[/SUP]C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model,Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127-142. Archived at www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baum
gardner.pdf. See poster presented to American Geophysical Union, Dec. 2003, AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf. - McDougall, I., F. H. Brown, and J. G. Fleagle, Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia, Nature433(7027):733-736 (17 February 2005).
- Deevey, E. S., The human population, Scientific American 203:194-204 (September 1960).
- Marshack, A., Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, National Geographic 147:64-89 (January 1975).
- Dritt, J. O., Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73-78, order fromwww.creationicc.org/proceedings.php.
I replied. I gaev a statement from the 'scientists' who posted this stuff admitting that they don't have solutions for the radioactive decay rates and they think that millions of years of decay happened in three days because they believe we are missing something and a complex, exotic solution will be found in the near future. AKA, they're making it up.
It took me a while to find any reference to this group, and when I read some of the entrails of the book, I understood why. From a scientific point of view, this is career suicide for those people. From a logical point of view, it's like you writing a book of all your theological fancies, pawning them off as true, and then putting a disclaimer at the bottom saying 'I know my theological opinions are true because I believe there are biblical scripts out there yet to be found that contradict 90% of the things in the current bible'.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.[SUP]29[/SUP] Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.
This, for instance, is pure speculation.
Who's to say that the hunter gatherers in all their intelligence didn't decide that hunter gathering in forests and sharing with other hunter gatherers was a much better pursuit than laying claim to land and all the control issues that come with it?
There are two types of homo sapiens, the sharers, who live OFF the land, and the conquerors, who lay claim to it. At any rate, this argument is petty tit-for-tat point proving and has nothing to do with the age of the Earth.
This, for instance, is pure speculation.
Who's to say that the hunter gatherers in all their intelligence didn't decide that hunter gathering in forests and sharing with other hunter gatherers was a much better pursuit than laying claim to land and all the control issues that come with it?
There are two types of homo sapiens, the sharers, who live OFF the land, and the conquerors, who lay claim to it. At any rate, this argument is petty tit-for-tat point proving and has nothing to do with the age of the Earth.
You are talking absolute nonsense! Yes, it can be suicide for a scientist to admit they are creationists, I agree.
But I have yet to see any links, any information, or any books quoted by you, Jhana. You can write anything you want, and I can deny it and you can claim it is true. Please post something from credible scientists, instead of just writing something you read somewhere. It is pretty obvious you have no knowledge of how to write a scientific paper, nor how to quote something that would be acceptable at a first year university level, let alone advanced degrees.
No one is making this up. Some of us truly believe that science supports, and does not contradict the Bible.
Sadly, not one of you evolutionists is open minded enough to read any of the articles I posted, nor open any of the links.
That says INDOCTRINATION, like nothing else can!
But I have yet to see any links, any information, or any books quoted by you, Jhana. You can write anything you want, and I can deny it and you can claim it is true. Please post something from credible scientists, instead of just writing something you read somewhere. It is pretty obvious you have no knowledge of how to write a scientific paper, nor how to quote something that would be acceptable at a first year university level, let alone advanced degrees.
No one is making this up. Some of us truly believe that science supports, and does not contradict the Bible.
Sadly, not one of you evolutionists is open minded enough to read any of the articles I posted, nor open any of the links.
That says INDOCTRINATION, like nothing else can!
I don't think either won. The problem was in the debating setup in which reasonable questions asked by the other debater are not responded to and often cannot be responded to given the setup of the debate.
I remember watching a political debate between the two leaders of the two main political parties in Canada. I remember coming away from the debate thinking the Liberal leader had wiped the floor with the Conservative leader. To my surprise I later learned that my father-in-law was convinced the opposite had happened. Conclusion: we each wear rose coloured glasses that distort our perception of the truth.
T
Tintin
Guest
You'll find all of the answers to these objections at Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis website and by reading the many, many free articles they have available. And yes, naturally Cain's wife was his sister because Adam and Eve and their children were the only ones living at the time. You really have to entertain non-biblical ideas and shove in the evolutionary theory understanding to even try to make it fit the Bible. How can you not see it's compromising!
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are you so angry? You're the one looking for evidence to support your view of the Earth. I just read some science books and saw the evidence making logical sense.
I don't need to post anything in the way of reference for this, it's patently ridiculous.
The author of the book you quoted thinks that the Earth is held in an alternate dimension to the rest of the universe that enables God to keep the earth time suspended while the rest of the universe ages. There is no scientific evidence for this. There is no data that supports this. Nothing. It's complete hogwash.
The man also thinks that the levels of salt in the seawater he has taken samples of can estimate the age of the Earth. Salt content is not the same in every place. Even with this 'data', your man still sets an upper limit of 62 million years for Earth's age taking sea-salt into consideration. That's a hell of a lot more than 6,000. At any rate, his methods are flawed on a base level. He uses the data that fits for him. It's like taking a measure of rain-fall and saying 'the rain falls at 1mm per hour, there is 6mms of rain, thus the Earth must be six hours old' ....
If you're going to believe this, there isn't much point in even trying to give you actual, reputable scientific research to look at. You wouldn't read it, and even if you did, you wouldn't believe it.
But perhaps, instead of saying the blatant evidence of science is wrong, you might consider the triple meaning of the hebrew word 'day'. The simplest solution is usually the right one.
Myself and many evolutionists who have become atheists started out believing in God (and please note that it was not evolution that drove me, personally, to atheism). I would say we were indoctrinated to believe in God. Many Christians have remained Christian, but have come to accept evolution for the same reason I have, because we have become convinced that the facts support the theory. In my mind the evidence for evolution is beyond doubt. It is totally overwhelming. As far as Flood theory goes I have never seen anything that makes any sense at all. In fact, I have found that when it comes to the Creation account in Genesis most believers simply will not discus the matter with me. They often refuse. They are quite happy to discus evolution, but they often will not discus the very document that underpins their refutation of evolution. You can guess what that tells me.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
Sweet like you!
Last night Ken Ham's debate was historical. Check this out: the debate had more viewers than the Super Bowl this weekend. The debate had more viewers than the President's speech last week.
...and 2,000-something years later, the Lord Jesus Christ is still making headlines winning minds for God. Like sweet!
M
megaman125
Guest
Sorry, I missed this post a while back.
Since you call it science, I expect evidence that follows the scientific method, or is that too disingenuous? Meaning, take your hypothesis that a given object is millions of years old, and perform a testible and repeatable experiement to verify that. If you wish to use a dating method you've mentioned, said dating method is another hypothesis and the scientific method needs to be applied. The hypothesis here would be that the dating method is accurate, so set up an experiment that is testible and repeatable to demonstrate that the dating method is accurate.
For someone who keeps claiming to have all this truth, it shouldn't be too hard for you.
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Matthew 7:21-23
They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
Titus 1:16
According to the Bible, there's more to being a Christian than just professing you're a Christian, and the Bible trumps dictionary.com in defining what a Christian is or isn't.
This would have been a much more interesting debate had it taken place between Bill Nye and Day-age creationist, Hugh Ross.
Nye would not have had anything over on old-earth creationists.
I think that is why Nye accepted this debate...because YEC's are such an easy target.
Nye would not have had anything over on old-earth creationists.
I think that is why Nye accepted this debate...because YEC's are such an easy target.
T