Creationists, when you see a fossil, what do you think?

Question

Do you think "oh look, another one of satan's tricks! Well it won't work on me! I'm way too smart to think this is millions of years old. HA! I know the world is only 6000 years old! Nice try Nick, but it won't work!"
Is that the kind of thing that goes through your minds?
No, really, I'd like to know...

Wayne* If I could give you 10 points for "most amount of BS in one post" I would. But I can't.
Though, you HAVE proven my point. Science, REAL science, frightens you. As it did to the small minded in the middle ages. Science seemed like magic to them as it does to you.
Sadly, instead of trying to learn, you've retreated to the comfort of mythology. "god did it" might be a comforting explanation, but it's utterly wrong.
In this day and age, for someone to think as you do, is shameful. I'm ashamed that the education system let you down.

Answer 1

Fossils are date stamped by an Isotope known as carbon 14.
All living things take up a specific amount of radioactive carbon 14 in there life time and it is distributed into there tissue even bones.When the carbon 14 begins to decay is at death when we stop taking it in. The decay rate is a known fact and yet creationists still to this day say that some scientist somewhere tested a live snail and found it to be 40000 years old and therefore proving that the dating process is flawed. There is no proof that this ever happened its just another hoax from people so sure in there own superiority that the very thought of them having evolved from some lesser primate appalls and mortifies them.
Most of my family are serious believers and I am the Odd man out. I have asked them about fossils and I was told that in the bible it mentions giants and dragons and that is where the fossils came from. If that were so then we would be able to go outside and find a brontosaur right now!

Answer 2

It has only recently came out that scientists themselves are stating that they can not time date anything in the millions of years. All of that has been a big show to get more funding for projects for these people to have a job. But in reality the scientists new themselves that their time dating was inacurate. Oh, but it is still taught in schools.

Flawed time date methods. Did you know that none of the evolutionary dating methods agree with one another! They all give different dates! There are so many false assumptions, errors of various types, and misinterpretations that researchers discard most of the dates and never report on them. Instead, only those dates are used which nicely support evolutionary theories. The laughable part is that the stated ages of the strata were hunched out in the nineteenth century, long before modern dating methods were discovered.—p. 13.

Long ages needed. Evolutionists need long ages in order to pretend that their theories are true. Yet all the non-historical dating methods are unreliable. In contrast, as shown in Age of the Earth, the evidence points toward the origin of our world being about 6,000 years old, with the universal Flood somewhere around 2348 B.C.—p. 13.

Expert: Arctica
Date: 12/29/2004
Subject: DAting Methods

Question
I asked a creationists about current dating methods and this is what he said, is what he's saying valid?
You are repeating some claims by the evolutionists that are simply NOT TRUE. "scientists use several dating methods which all coincide with the same age" They don't tell you they select those that agree and throw away MANY others that don't agree. "dating methods on the fossil records on the continents seems conclusive" NOT TRUE!!!
Dr. John Morris, a geologist, explains in easy-to-understand terms how true science supports a young Earth. Includes a critique of major dating methods. Filled with facts that will equip layman and scientist alike. Transparency masters are provided in the second half of this book. Use them in your Sunday school, church or youth group to challenge and teach.




Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:

1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;

2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating ground water; and

3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.

Radiometric dating methods make assumptions that have been proven to be inconsistent. If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any ‘dates' are false. Leaching, varying isotope ratios, etc. indicate the methods at best are unreliable. Dr. Steve Austin at ICR tested rocks from the bottom and top of Grand Canyon. Three of the four methods showed that the bottom rocks were younger than the top rock an IMPOSSIBLE conclusion. The radiological methods date rocks that were liquid and are now solid. These rocks do not contain fossils. The fossil bearing rock is sedimentary (laid down under water in Noah's flood). Evolutionists consistently disregard radiometric dates that conflict with their time scheme. If a date doesn't support evolution they throw it away. See John Morris' "Young Earth" and the book “Bone of Contention” for a detailed study of “missing links of apes to men.



Carbon Dating is a method that is often cited to “prove” evolution. It does not because:

1) as a method it can only extend to 50,000 years not millions of years,

2) C14 can only date tissue not fossils (stone impressions of bones). When you find (some have been found) real dinosaur bones it is a testimony to creation because biological tissue won't last millions of years.

3) Carbon 14 has not come to balance in the atmosphere indicating a young not old atmosphere.

Answer 3

When I see a fossil I admire it because I'm an amature Geologist. I would assume that at some point that animal died and was burried in sediment and over time the bones were replaced by mineral deposits.

Whether it happened thousands or millions of years ago doesn't matter a whole lot.

Note: That satanic myth thing is just that, a myth. No reputible creationist believes that fossils are false bones planted by satan.

Carbon 14 dating is NOT the only method used for dating things. It isn't used in dating things that are millions of years old because it's halflife is only in the thousands. There are other things used to date dinosaur bones, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Answer 4

no, the fossil is a dead animal, in a lot of cases burried suddenly by a massive wall of sediment (probably during the flood).

the fossil record doesn't agree with (or prove) Darwinian evolution, but in fact shows that evolution never happened.

When looking at the verdict of the fossil record (as well as every other area of science), the facts overwhelmingly agree with the creationist view, and condemn the Darwinian view as false and fraudulent.

There is no clear sequence from one animal to the other in the fossil record, but in fact, huge gaps where there should be a smooth transitional record (if Darwinism were true).

You need to look into this if you've been duped by the "science" (or the Darwinian "science" ) community into believing that the fossil record supports Darwinism.

The fossils are very likely only a few thousand years old at most.

If you knew anything about carbon dating (or any other kind of radiometric dating), you'd know they are highly unreliable, and the "results" are all over the place [ ranging from zero years old to hundreds of billions of years old, with nothing to determine which "age" is correct], so the "scientists" who submitted them are allowed to "pick" an age for the rock or fossil based on how old they think it should be if it's found in a given strata (level) of the earth.

This is, in fact, how it's done.

In fact, at the biggest such lab, Geochron in Massachussetts, on the form you submit the specimen on, there's a place where they require you to put down how old you think the fossil/rock is (so they'll know when to stop testing, so that they will then throw out all the other results when they finally get a "date" or "age" that's close to the one you said you thought it was, and then they "certify" that it "dated" to that age or date).

Again, this is in fact how it's done, how the moon rocks were done (even tho' the "ages" included some ages of only a few thousand years old, they went with the "ages" of over a billion years old, and even fudged those and made the "age" over 4 billion years old when that wasn't even one of the results).

When asked why they reported only the billion+ year dates but not the few thousand year old dates, they said, "well, we don't want to confuse the public, we know the moon is really over 4 billion years old, so that's what we reported".

This is typical of Darwinian "science." They lie about everything, especially how much evidence there is supporting their beloved theory.

Back to the fossils. There has never been found even ONE transitional fossil, that clearly is a transition from one creature to another. This is becuase they don't exist.

If Darwinism were true, instead of creation being true, then you would expect the transitional fossils to far outnumber the ones that aren't transitional, but not only is that not what you find, but there are NO transitional fossils (and no living species today that are transitionals). So this is very damaging evidence against Darwinism. Does this help explain why they don't want criticisms of Darwinism allowed in public schools?\

There are many additional arguments and evidences against Darwinian evolution, but the primary ones are a total lack of evidence and that Darwinism is impossible. It is more likely that I could take a running leap on my street and jump and reach the moon in one jump than that Darwinism could happen. It can't happen [ and didn't happen ] because it's impossible.

Here is a link to a page full of links about the real facts about fossils and the fossil record [not the nonsense you'll get from the local museum or from the Darwinist media ]:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=fossil%20record

If you'll look at and read these links (the articles these links take you to), you'll know a lot more about the fossil record and what its verdict is in the evolution/creation debate.

Another great page to look at is this one:

http://www.crev.info

Again, very informative if you dare to look at the actual facts. If you dare to look at both sides of the issue, and not just buy the Darwinist line hook, line and sinker.

Answer 5

No, that's not what we think.

What we think is that modern science is, unfortunately, based on a lot of assumptions. Specifically, the science of carbon or radiometric dating is based on the assumption that carbon and other radioactive materials decay at an unchanging rate, regardless of environmental effects.

This science is particularly questionable when things as reliable as the Earths magnetic polarity have repeatedly and rapidly reversed direction throughout history, as evidenced through geologic strata. That means, as time goes by, the characteristics of matter can change dramatically. If, hypothetically, the earth is millions or billions of years old, how can we really tell?

I'm willing to accept a theory that the earth is billions of years old, if you're willing to admit the science behind it isn't solid, and could be extremely wrong.

Unfortunately, a lot of modern science is based on the same sorts of assumptions. We measure the distance of stars based on the speed of light and triangulation. Triangulation is extremely inacurate when the difference between the sides of the triangle increase. So, if you claim that one side of the triangle is between two points on earth, and another side is between a point on earth and a point millions of light years away,...

Additionally, we have already proven that the movement of light can be variable. Strong gravitational fields are proven to bend the path of light. What other forces could be acting on it between us and a point "millions of lightyears away?" Could the speed of light be variable? We haven't yet determined that.

By accepting assumptions as science, we are being closed-minded. We don't examine other possibilities, because we "assume" that certain principles are true. And that's not the way the scientific process works.

Why can't scientists concede that, at the present time, there are some things we don't have real answers to. If science fails to explain something due to a lack of technological ability, this is not a failing of science, but a failing of technology. But technology is improving rapidly. Rather than rushing things and being sloppy, let's be scientists!

Answer 6

i think the thing that scares me the most is the one that said are the fossils date stamped

earlier today the guy actually said how do you explain human foot prints with dinosaur footprints,

and i just wanted to answer him the whole 65 million year extinct thing and humans evolved 3 to million years ago but, its almost at the point right now where the thing to do is first talk to them about god and then how much you wanna believe in god but theres some problems with the bible,

the best gem yet is 1 kings 7.23 which makes pi become 3,

using this to demonstrate the book isn't scientifically accurrate and sometimes humans have to use their own science seems to be a successful tactic

Answer 7

I am no longer a more youthful earth creationist, nonetheless must you counted the jewelry, by and large essentially the most you probably can deliver you is equipped six hundred....It's ironic that the ones insulting and demeaning "younger earth creationists" exhibit their possess loss of concentration while they are speakme approximately counting jewelry. "despite the fact that a unmarried tree trunk can end up at such a lot approximately six hundred years historical, the spruces had survived by way of pushing out an extra trunk as quickly because the historical one died, Professor Kullman stated." In different phrases, you would not to find greater than six hundred tree ring years of development. Incidentally, no clone (Swedish spruce or some thing else) presents you any type of carbon date influence, because clones are *new* plants, and as such don't preserve C-14 accumulation & decay records from their mum or dad plant....

Answer 8

I think, "Wow! Look what God did!"

You make a generalization about Creationists. Not all believe the world is only 6,000 years old.

The age of the Earth is not a requirement for Creationist to stand on. It is however a requirement for Evolutionists to believe, because you need all the time you can get to actually believe that the Earth and everything in it was created by an accidental explosion, without purpose, that happens to sustain life, and.....occured from nothing.

Do you REALLY believe that??

Answer 9

I believe that evolution had been going on for thousands of years before God decided to make man and the Garden of Eden. The Bible says that a day is like a thousand years to God. The reason we have never found the 'missing link' is because Adam and Eve slew two animals for their skins when they were evicted from the Garden. It would only make sense that it would be some hominid type of creature (to be a good fit).

Answer 10

God never explained everything in the Bible, He inspired Moses to write what applied to the people of the day.for instance the Bible starts out , In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, and the world was void and without form, now comes the question,
Did God create a world that was void and without form? or did it become void and without form when Satan tried to over throw God?
also in American Indian culture, there are stories of Mammoths in the Americas. now let us address why there are sea shells and other evidence of sea creatures in the deserts in middle America.
how is it that it is written in the Bible that God separated the land from the waters, several thousand years before science had any idea that they were there?