Skip to content
>>Carbon dating has shown fossils to be as old as 3.4 billion years, and as young as 10,000 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil]. Even allowing for some discrepancy in the carbon dating proccess.<<
Hum, "some discrepancy"?
So many times when we make bold statements such as you have made, it shows up later that the facts don't follow what we have decided in our minds to be true.
Example: "carbon dating" doesn't date anything up to 3.4 billion years old. Carbon 14 has a radioactive 1/2 life of around 5600 to 5800 years. (depending on who you believe). Anything past 40,000 to 60,000 years is an extreme stretch. Some think the 40,000 to 60,000 an outward limit.
What else that may interest you is that carbon dating is the only dating method that can date what was previously alive. The only dating method that can go back that far is Radio metric dating. And only volcanic rocks can be dated to this extreme.
And to another of your points, tired as it may be, your contention:
>>Scientists and critical thinkers discounted the notion that all fossils came from the flood many years ago. Da Vinci questioned it, 350 years before Darwin published Origin of Species. In fact, there's hardly a credible scientist around who believes there ever was a global flood of the kind described in the bible. It's nonsense.<<
You batch all "scientists" into the same little mold, then you batch all people that believe in the bible as "regard the bible as nothing more than a bunch of fairy stories made up to scare the ignorant."
If you even take a minimal examination of history you will find that people such as Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and many current "scientists" as believers in God. Even Einstein indicated that the "god" idea as one that is of important consideration based on what we observe about our surroundings.
And your comments about the flood are shortsighted. Rather than pin your hopes of biblical knowledge of the speculated "hardly credible scientist" why not look into the evidence yourself rather than just parrot what you think might be the case.
When actually examining both sides of this argument you will find that a large number of "scientists" that don't think that Darwin's idea of the reason for the variety of life is a reasonable argument given what we now know. You must remember that when Darwin made his hypothesis known to the public with his book, the common idea of the cell was of a simple batch of protoplasm.
Oh how far that basis of thought is now that we have advanced knowledge of the cell.
The only reason that the idea of long ages have come about, and the start of which was 15 hundred to two thousand years prior to Darwin's assertion, was due to reaction of the biblical narative.
At that point they considered and later came to the firm conclusion that the universe was static and eternal. But when Hubble "looked" through his telescope in 1929 all that changed. The most important discovery of all time, the fact that the universe is in fact expanding and that it had a beginning, is now considered to be fact. So, my friend, facts change over time, and "scientist" opinion does as well.
So don't rest so assuredly and arrogantly on what you call "science". It is like all other efforts of man, flawed by our observation point. We can only observe results of past events and try and interpret them. That interpretation comes with bias developed from our world view. And maybe from an archeologist's point of having to make payroll and pleasing those that are funding his research.
Consider what Charles Wolcott said about the coverup of the the fossil evidence that he discovered in the British Columbia shale deposits. These clearly showed every body form present all in the same cambrian layer. "The cambrian explosion" as it has now come to be known. While Wolcott wasn't a "scientist" he was indoctrinated into a certain view point. And if fossils that show clearly different conclusions, then those fossils must be excluded from consideration. The cover up lasted for 80 years before those "findings" were what is now called "reinterpreted" better described as "rediscovered". The "scientific" community passed along the diatribe that this long age non-sense was final truth.
But what was the actual case? The then leader of the Smithsonian institute was covering up evidence because it didn't fit the accepted view.
Your comments on "fairy" tales is the same cover up.
The Bible is an accurate historical document that IS backed up by archeology. If you spent just a little time in research you would realize that and revise your thinking.
Archeology is the science of examining the evidence left behind by prior cultures. When examined to determine the actual history that the Bible comments on, it is a flawless historical record of what is stated.
Archeology has no clear evidence of any "transitional" forms that Darwin said would have to be present. The few examples that are present are either 100% ape, 100% human or an outright fraud/mistake.
Better to be considered a fool, than to open ones mouth and confirm the fact.
Till the Trumpet sounds
More information about formatting options
Copyright 2014 Creation Moments. All Rights Reserved.
August Ash, Inc. -
Minneapolis Web Design