Scientific Evidence of a Young Earth

[Dr. Walter]

Scientific evidence for a YOUNG earth versus BILLIONS of years can be found documented at the following address:

http://dsclick.infospace.com/ClickH...7&app=1&hash=6511B61B0AB3A57DC918887F040911EC


http://dsclick.infospace.com/ClickH...7&app=1&hash=5DB976441B6D40E2D711FE05CA18CB0E

http://www.icr.org/rate/

Here is the evidence!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And many of the assertions made by the creation institute have been refuted by main line science. You are still in the area of attempting for force facts to fit a predetermined conclusion. Not a good method if you ask me.

 

[Dr. Walter]

And many of the assertions made by the creation institute have been refuted by main line science. You are still in the area of attempting for force facts to fit a predetermined conclusion. Not a good method if you ask me.

it is the very method you are using against me! Are you a scientist? No! So you are TRUSTING the arguments provided by certain scientists you have chosen to follow.

How many times have "MAIN LINE SCIENCE" been later demonstrated to be educational ignorance gone wild? Too many times to count!

http://creationrevolution.com/2011/01/science-frauds-and-hoaxes/

You have not provided a single solitary argument concerning Genesis 2:5-7 that cannot be explained to harmonize with Genesis 1:10-13. You simply press the langauge into a form to aide you in denying other alternatives.

No evidence will convince you and it is a waste of time to try to convince you. So why I am responding? Not for you.

 

[webdog]

And many of the assertions made by the creation institute have been refuted by main line science. You are still in the area of attempting for force facts to fit a predetermined conclusion. Not a good method if you ask me.

...you mean like carbon dating a live moth to be hundreds of thousands of years old?

What you accuse the young earth theorists of is the exact same thing the darwinians do. They now know Darwin was incorrect on his theory of where life began, so instead of accepting intelligent design from God, they are looking outside of earth to the universe as the origin of life.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

...you mean like carbon dating a live moth to be hundreds of thousands of years old?

What you accuse the young earth theorists of is the exact same thing the darwinians do. They now know Darwin was incorrect on his theory of where life began, so instead of accepting intelligent design from God, they are looking outside of earth to the universe as the origin of life.

I understand it goes both ways however adjusting data to suite your end pet theory is wrong. And both camps do it. However, when you get the majority of the scientific community disagreeing with a minority you should take a hard look.

 

[webdog]

I understand it goes both ways however adjusting data to suite your end pet theory is wrong. And both camps do it. However, when you get the majority of the scientific community disagreeing with a minority you should take a hard look.

The majority of scientists believe we evolved from apes that originated on a snot in the ocean. The majority are also on the broad path of destruction. I have no problem believing in the minority if it's the truth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The majority of scientists believe we evolved from apes that originated on a snot in the ocean. The majority are also on the broad path of destruction. I have no problem believing in the minority if it's the truth.

Truth is the key word. And You've got your scientific terminology all wrong. You inaccurately describe what scientist purport. Note that there are so many evidences that point to an old earth rather than a young earth that at some point you must ask yourself some hard questions.

 

[webdog]

Truth is the key word. And You've got your scientific terminology all wrong. You inaccurately describe what scientist purport. Note that there are so many evidences that point to an old earth rather than a young earth that at some point you must ask yourself some hard questions.

Why? If these "many evidences" are attributed wrongly, they cease to be evidences. A global flood accounts for much of the error of the old earthists. Have you ever seen the fossilized worm embedded in 3 layers of sediment? Without seeing the worm scientists stated each layer was thousands (maybe millions) of years old. That worm must have died reeeeeaaaalllllyyyyy sssslllllooooowwwwlllllyyyyy

At any rate, even if these evidences were true, who are they coming from? Those on the broad path.

 

[Amy.G]

Why? If these "many evidences" are attributed wrongly, they cease to be evidences. A global flood accounts for much of the error of the old earthists. Have you ever seen the fossilized worm embedded in 3 layers of sediment? Without seeing the worm scientists stated each layer was thousands (maybe millions) of years old. That worm must have died reeeeeaaaalllllyyyyy sssslllllooooowwwwlllllyyyyy

At any rate, even if these evidences were true, who are they coming from? Those on the broad path.

Web, have you seen the pictures of 20 ft. tall trees fossilized standing straight up? Old earth scientists say that they were fossilized in layers millions of years apart. Hard to believe the top part of the tree would have gone millions of years exposed to the elements without decomposing. :tongue3:

 

[webdog]

Web, have you seen the pictures of 20 ft. tall trees fossilized standing straight up? Old earth scientists say that they were fossilized in layers millions of years apart. Hard to believe the top part of the tree would have gone millions of years exposed to the elements without decomposing. :tongue3:

I'll have to find that one, the worm one is priceless. Actually I recall the looks on the scientists faces as being priceless when they were shown!

 

[Amy.G]

I'll have to find that one, the worm one is priceless. Actually I recall the looks on the scientists faces as being priceless when they were shown!

It has a name but I am drawing a blank right now. That's probably because I'm not theologically trained and I am spiritually immature. It makes me forget things.

 

[Amy.G]

Check this out

 

[webdog]

It has a name but I am drawing a blank right now. That's probably because I'm not theologically trained and I am spiritually immature. It makes me forget things.

Don't feel bad, that happens to us "average church goers"

Just add a "Dr." or "pastor" to your login name, or post a picture of a deceased reformer, you will garner more respect on this forum.

 

[Amy.G]

Don't feel bad, that happens to us "average church goers"

Just add a "Dr." or "pastor" to your login name, or post a picture of a deceased reformer, you will garner more respect on this forum.

HA! I've been called Dr. Mom many times, but not Dr. Amy. I think I may have to try that!

 

[Jedi Knight]

Science needs to bow to the Bible...not the other way around. Science is great UNTILL it become Science fiction.

 

[DHK]

Science needs to bow to the Bible...not the other way around. Science is great UNTILL it become Science fiction.

How true.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (1 Timothy 6:20)

 

[BobRyan]

And many of the assertions made by the creation institute have been refuted by main line science. You are still in the area of attempting for force facts to fit a predetermined conclusion. Not a good method if you ask me.

At worst you are accusing Walter of having a religious belief on the doctrine of origins and seeking observations in nature that are compatible with that POV.

Here is a quote from one of Walter's links showing that religious by-faith-alone feature for evolutionists seeking to find anything at all that will discredit God.

1. The Sokal Affair:Many scientists end up faking results to gain esteem and further their careers, but this physicist set out creating a fraud to simply prove a point. Alan Sokal contributed an article to several scientific journals in an attempt to see if they would publish something fairly nonsensical so long as it sounded good and appealed to their ideological preconceptions. As it turned out, they would. This hoax launched a huge debate on the scholarly merit of sociological studies of the physical sciences, academic ethics, the quality of academic journals and a whole host of other issues. The article appeared in publication in 1996, but the ramifications of it are still being felt in the scholarly world today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

>Web, have you seen the pictures of 20 ft. tall trees fossilized standing straight up? Old earth scientists say that they were fossilized in layers millions of years apart.

More likely buried in volcanic ash or mud.

 

[DHK]

Truth is the key word.

Yes it is. What is truth? What is the authority for truth? What is your authority? I know what mine is.

And You've got your scientific terminology all wrong.

Let's put the focus on you.
Please define "science." Give an accurate definition. You accuse others of "inaccurately describing what scientists purport," so you define what science is.

You inaccurately describe what scientist purport.

A true scientist follows the scientific method. Do you know what that is?
Do you follow it in your conclusions?

Note that there are so many evidences that point to an old earth rather than a young earth that at some point you must ask yourself some hard questions.

I believe that you are the one that must answer the hard questions. Don't worry, if you haven't received many by now, you will if you pay attention, and especially if you read the right material.

 

[Winman]

Yes it is. What is truth? What is the authority for truth? What is your authority? I know what mine is.

Let's put the focus on you.
Please define "science." Give an accurate definition. You accuse others of "inaccurately describing what scientists purport," so you define what science is.

A true scientist follows the scientific method. Do you know what that is?
Do you follow it in your conclusions?

I believe that you are the one that must answer the hard questions. Don't worry, if you haven't received many by now, you will if you pay attention, and especially if you read the right material.

In the last 20 years several preserved dinosaurs have been found with soft tissue. Not fossils. One complete dinosaur was found with food in it's stomach. There have even been reports of DNA being extracted. Many scientists saw this as evidence that dinos were walking the earth until very recently, as soft tissue and DNA cannot survive long in the wild. Of course, this enraged Evos who say dinos passed off the scene over 70 million years ago, so they theorized that there must be a previously unknown form of preservation that can preserve soft tissue for millions of years. Absurd.

This is all documented by major universities and you can find it on the Web.