How can primates explain their own existance???

Question

The theory of evolution is taken as fact and is based on carbon dating that is inaccurate. If creation is wrong then how do you explain your existance in a shorter time frame???
God created the earth as a working model with age.
God created Adam as a adult with age, at creation 0 years but he looked like he had existed a few years.
God created the animals as adults
How can you date something that wasn't born, but was created??
If the earth really has only 7,000 years how do you explain man without creation??

I will make it easier for Steve W.. The earth is not millions of years old, so then we are left with the only other age at around 7 to 10 thousand years. Atheists claim to be educated primates, so in light of the fact that the earth is not OLD OLD, how can they explain their existance?? How did they come about without creation in only 10,000 years??

I have read Darwins book..

Answer 1

macro evolution (cow to whale) is more a speculation than a theory and if you mean micro evolution (wolf to dog) creaitonist and non creationists agree on micro evolution but in the end.. it is VERY ironic that evolutionist often use Cabon dating as an example

Cabon dating has become creationists best friend as cambian diamonds supposedly 300 million years old has significan C14 although the half like is 5600 years

Interestinglly coal samples accross the geological column have roughtly the same C14 level although the coal are supposedly ranging form 300 thousand to 3 million to 30 million years old.. so inthe end C14 is strong evidence for a young earth These wer actually rock layers laid down during the flood of Noah and the C14 provides good evidence for that

in the end the axe being grinded be evoltuionists is not one demanded by the data, it is an axe to grind demanded by materialist philosophy and has no positive impact on daily living

Answer 2

First of all, the theory of evolution is not taken as fact, that is why it is still called a theory. For a scientific theory to even BE a theory it must be testable. As scientists test that hypothesis and no tests disprove it, when enough supporting evidence mounts it becomes a law or a principle eventually. Creation is not a scientifically testable theory, so it is not a scientific theory. Also, many elements of the Creation theory, which are testable, have been disproved by scientific means, multiple times. So, little or no measureable support has accumulated to support Creation as a viable means for how we came to be on this planet.

Every single shred of scientific evidence points to that the earth is a few billion years old, not only 7000 years old. There are civilizations that existed 7000 years or more ago actually, so if the Earth was created 7000 years ago, how could there be civilizations of many people already spread out across the globe?

Dinosaurs... when did they exist then... or maybe someone told you that Atheists planted their bones in the ground... like people have nothing better to do than create a whole entire mixture of species which are now extinct. We are currently living through the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaus actually. Canyons... did God just carve them out, or years of water running through them? The Appelachian Mountains, were they created so weathered down, or were they actually weathered down by the weather over millions of years???

Anyway, it is silly to argue with you about it, I am not going to convince you. Obviously if you really believe the world is 7000 years old, then you have not studied thoroughly any sort of relevant science, and if you have, then you let your faith blind you to empiracal evidence, which by nature is unbiased. I don't want to tell you you are stupid or a bad person, but just to open up your mind. Science is not there to disprove God, or undermine his power, it is simply a way by which we can really understand the mechanical workings and origins of our being. God and science do not have to be exclusive, but just remember that the Bible is a book about having a relationship with God, it is not a science textbook and was never intended for that purpose. It says that the sun revolves around the Earth, and people who believed the contrary were once thought to commit blasphemy and be against God. I think that now, we can all agree that the Earth revolves around the sun, despite what it says in the bible,and despite religious leaders' interpretation of those passages back then. Just because the people who, at the time, didn't know of a proper way to translate God's great word, doesn't mean we should ignore science because we want to stay true to our faith. Both can exist, and both are important.

Answer 3

Evolution is in no waywhatsoeverbased upon carbon dating. Darwin, Neo-Darwinism and the beginnings of the Modern Synthesis all predate carbon dating by a matter of years (and in some cases a century). Not only that, Carbon dating is only one method of radioactive dating that we use. However, the real kicker is that it is one of the shortest half-life methods of dating that we use, and has no place in establishing the age of the earth, as it is only used to date organic material. And by the way, when correctly applied, carbon dating is quite accurate.

We've long known that the earth simply cannot be 6000 years old, since the early geologists like Lyell, who were sincere, bible believing Christians who believed in a literal creation event, there simply has not been the time to cause the massive geological change, erosion and so forth which we see the evidence for all around us.

So, in short, you have no idea what you are talking about, with rgard to the age of the earth, carbon dating or the state of science in general. Why do you think you are qualified to pass judgement upon it again?

EDIT: Darwin's book? Which one exactly? If that is the case, then why do you imply that carbon dating is somehow related? Certainly you'd be aware that Darwin in no way relies upon evidence from the as yet undiscovered mechanism of carbon dating.

Answer 4

People like you make me sad. I'm a pious Christian but I believe in evolution. This is because I like many other people take the Bible as a metaphorical book of hope, like it was meant to be, not a literal history of the planet.Carbon dating is not flawed and the Earth is not 7000 years old it is 4 billion check any natural science book + they do not use carbon dating to measure the age of the earth carbon dating only works back to 60,000 years ago. They use Uranium 235 dating to measure the age of the earth. Anyway evolution is a proven fact you can observe it going on all around you. Ever heard of a bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? That's evolution!!!!!! By the way you should see the movie "Inherit the Wind" it was based on the Scopes Monkey trial it will answear all your questions.

Answer 5

I think that you nullify your own argument in your final question: "IF the earth really has only 7,000 years" (which I'm assuming to mean "If the earth realy has only existed for 7,000 years"). If you believe that the earth is only 6-7k years old, it's pretty tough to explain "main without creation." But If the earth is much older (and there is evidence that strongly suggests that it is), then there are other explanations that are well supported with evidence.

I believe the earth is much older. I don't take the Bible literally. And I also believe that translations of numbers in Old Testament texts were likely done in error when they were transferred from one language to the next. For example, in the case Methuselah being over 960 years old.

And how does your rant address your question regarding primates' ability to explain their existence?

Answer 6

The earth is most likely 4.55 billion years old. If in fact the earth is only 7k then most likely everything was created. That would force God into your narrow literal (rather than literary) translation of the Bible. Instead of a Factual account of creation, I can now read it as ancient knowledge that sedentary city folk will almost always destroy nomadic or tribal gathering societies. You fail to see the Truth in the Truth.

This problem occurs when you interpret an ancient document all by yourself or with someone who cannot accept that people told STORIES with POINTS rather than factual account 4000 years ago. Please seek a literary and/or historical commentary on the document and use a good bible, either one of those college textbook ones or the NAB (possibly NASB though I'm not all that familiar with it). Life is too short to use an unclean bible.

Answer 7

well assuming that all scientific evidence was put on earth by a god or higher power to create the illusion that his greatest work is incorrect. i would say that is then unprovable. and by the way carbon dating is only about two hundred years inaccurate, so if you date something at three billion years old, well you can see how that works.

Answer 8

All you've done is assume that god created everything 7000 years ago with apparent age, and then concluded that since he built deception into the fabric of the universe, we can't rely on scientific dating techniques.

Other than a bunch of silly myths written by superstitious bronze age tribesmen, do you have anything of substance to back up your premise?

Answer 9

Your problem is that all of your assumptions are wrong. First of all, there is no God, which pretty much makes all of the claims meaningless. Since the Earth is in fact billions of years old, the Biblical story is false in just about every claim it makes.

Answer 10

Humans evolved by natural selection. Read Darwin's Origin of Species before criticising it. I HAVE READ IT, believe me. It makes better sense than the Genesis creation myth.