CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: this may help you understand
Mighty.Sun.Tzu Views: 2,352
Published: 9 years ago
This is a reply to # 1,946,711

Re: this may help you understand

You have much more faith in the totalitarian evolutionist community's ability (or willingness) to emerge with truth than me. The dating methods all are based on massive assumptions which are specifically geared to support the presupposition of darwinist theory which requires 3000 million years to work. As well they employ circular reasoning. The fossils date the rock layers and the rock layers date the fossils. Both of which "support" the ages needed by the theory. Well they would, wouldn't they? Radiometric old world dating is laden with assumptions which it desperately relies upon including uniformitarianism and a very old earth assumption to "calibrate the scale". If we assume a 4.5 billion year old earth, radiometric dating gives us the 4.5 billion years we want to see give or take a billion years or so just like magic. If we assume a thousands of years old earth, old earth radiometric dating is a completely invalid dating method.

The majority of dating methods which most of us never even hear about along the path of our indoctrination into evolutionism support a young earth. Any time i hear a date from the evolutionist community and there is no date written on the back of the item (rock, fossil, artifact, diamond...), i am immediately and immensely skeptical.

For example, are you familiar with the recent find of t-rex soft tissue which has managed to retain its elasticity for supposedly 70 million years? This flies in the face of everything scientists know about deterioration rates of soft tissue and yet they appear to be willing to throw all of this out to protect the 70 million years (and of course evolutionism).

To this point any time scientists have found elastic tissue, they have known it to be thousands of years old at the most. Is this really the one exception throughout all history or is this specimen thousands of years old too in accordance with everything we know about deterioration rates of tissue?

Could it be that the various evidences for dinosaurs living with man (nonexistent of course in the mainstream to the point where it sounds ridiculous when they are brought up) are actually true? Dragon stories in writings throughout the entire world (the word dinosaur was only established in the past couple hundred years or so), dinosaur paintings and carvings among ancient peoples, dino and human footprints in the same sites? As well there are dinosaur descriptions in the bible including behemoth (with a tail like a cedar) and leviathon.

Why are the oldest trees (something actually reliably datable by the rings) about 4500 years and still healthy and strong? If 4500 years is as old as trees can grow, shouldn't they all be dying about now?

And i refer you back to my previous post about the population explosion that would only take 4500 years to reach 7 billion which you seemed to have maybe just ignored? 3 with 200 zeroes after is is the population we should expect starting with 2 humans 100,000 years ago if it merely doubled every 150 years.

"God is not incompatible with the theory of evolution."

If you mean to say the bible is not incompatible with the theory of evolution, my reply is "how can anybody possibly believe this?". There is no way whatsoever in which the two ARE compatible. One speaks of a specific 6 day creation account including Adam and Eve being created on the 6th day and the other forces materialistic causes for everything that has happened in spite of what the evidence points to (which is intelligent design).


Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

1.688 sec, (2)