If one can believe that fossil records ,genetic correllations and carbon dating, etc, were planted ..?

Question

..to mislead people into wrong ideas about our origins, then are not the Bible, and all other phenomena similarly untrustworthy to creationists of that view ?

Answer 1

When will the creationists stop peddling their pseudo-science as if it was the real thing?

The age of rocks containing fossils is determined by a combination of the depths of rock deposited AND the measurable rates of decomposition of radio-active elements AND the fact that there are not even remote living relatives of many fossilised species AND the fact that many sedimentary rocks are NOT of diluvian origin but can ONLY have been laid down in stable conditions extending over millions OF YEARS from uncountable skeletons of TINY, TINY creatures.

SO, a couple of hundred years ago some natural scientists fudged their results to prove that the white man was superior. WHY did they do that? Because the BIBLE told them it was so; our coloured brethren were intended by God to be 'hewers of wood and drawers of water'. It was religion not science that led to these particular perversions. A man who fudges scientific results is not a scientist, he's a lying liar who lies for pride, for money or through fear!

No religious leader has ever lied, of course and the Spanish Inquisition didn't burn people at the stake, the 6000 year age of the Earth was calculated over 400 years ago by Archbishop Usher, who was so clever he could tell the exact date and time of day (6am on 23rd October) and we all know how good they were at science stuff 400 years ago in the Church.

Give me a break!

If you're going to stick with the Bible here's something you've over-looked: your cotton poly-ester clothing deserves to get you the death penalty because it contains more than one type of fibre.

FORGET GENESIS FOR A MINUTE AND READ LEVITICUS, ALL THE WAY THROUGH, THEN TELL ME YOU'RE LIVING BY THE WORD OF GOD!

Answer 2

The Bible gives accurate and trustworthy information on our origins.
I suspect you're just having a tease, but if you're really interested in finding out the answers to your questions I can recommend Answers in Genesis.

Who believes the fossil record ws 'planted'?
Certainly not any well-informed Creationist.
In the Creationist model almost all the fossils were created during the global flood. That is why there are billions of them all over the world in sedimentary rock which has been laid down by water. You don't get even a trilobyte fossil, much less a dinosaur fossil, unless the creature is buried very quickly. There is even a fossil of an ichthyosaur in the process of giving birth! We don't see any fossils being created today, yet there are billions of them.

Fossils are strong evidence for Creation and the Flood, and do no show evidence for evolution.

By genetic correlations, I assume you mean homology?
You will find that the creationist position is no less strong than the evolutionist one. In fact the field of genetics has given evolutionsts a real problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp

As for Carbon dating, not sure what you're trying to say. Carbon dating can only date to about 50,000 years. Other radiometric dating methods claim to date much older but are deeply flawed.
Rock from a recent volcano was dated as millions of years old!
Basically the dating methods rely on various assumptions.
Check out here for lots of info http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Answer 3

I think that is a great point, that the origin of the bible should be questioned as well. I love Dr. Stephen Gould's books and he obviously had a very good understanding for evolution. It is ironic that with his great mind he argued convincingly for evolution yet the creationists continually spin his arguments to their favor. They need to pay attention a little be more to what he was really saying.

Answer 4

Many "youthful Earth" creationists I relatively have spoken with who have not got self assurance in evolution lack even a rudimentary information of paleontology and the forensic sciences. they do no longer seem to be stupid - they only only are not knowledgeable. by way of fact the belief-approximately an historical Earth contradicts their non secular ideals, they're going to enthusiastically embody any a million/2-baked clarification that doubtless debunks evidence of an historical Earth (e.g., carbon dating, the fossil checklist, and so on.). the anomaly for me is they're going to effectively settle for different clinical theories. seems scientists are clever whilst it is composed of coming up new drugs or development area stations, yet ignorant whilst it is composed of the age of the Earth. i've got self assurance that "creationism" will at last succumb, only by way of fact the heliocentric view of our photograph voltaic gadget previous the geocentric view long held via the church. of direction it in basic terms took the Catholic Church 4 hundred years or so which you could finally admit Galileo grow to be real all alongside, and that grow to be years AFTER human beings had visited the Moon and sent robotic probes to Mars, Jupiter and previous. what is going to it take for creationists to alter their perspectives? Time commute???

Answer 5

lol, this is a loaded question. It all depends on your stance. Personally, I think Darwin was a closet case ~ suggesting that man slowly over millions of years evolved from a single cell organism to become slime, then fish, then mammels, then... you know the rest. Ultimately man came from Ape. However, in Steven Jay Gould pointed out in his book " The Mismeasure of Man" that " anthropologists were not above falsifying their data to prove the "superiority" of the white race. They intentionally exaggerated the size of Caucasian skulls and underestimated the size of skulls from Blacks and First Nations People.

There fore, scientists say that the world is millions of years old BUT in the Bible it suggests that the world is only 6,000 years old. Personally I belive the Bible.

Answer 6

Yes, they to would indeed be subjected to their own views....and who planted these fossil records? Satan I take it? That couldn't be true because according to the bible satan is strictly forbid to place animate or inanimate objects he is only allowed to make us doubt by using persuasion of mind. So if that is thier logic, then WHO or WHAT actually "planted" those things

Answer 7

That's a good question. While I maintain that the Bible was written by Man, the mere thought that the complex biological systems that exist could have just randomly occured is not possible, imho.

Answer 8

i don't believe anyone planted fossils etc and idealism, prophecy is all just say so, always someone Else's point of view and Chinese whispers so to say.........faith and science don't mix and never have, 2 entirely different things, yet clash all the time

Answer 9

Some Christians like myself are Old-Earth creationists but we don't believe in darwinism because modern science doesn't support darwinism, it supports biblical creation. www.reasons.org

Answer 10

You would think so. However, you are forgetting that their god wrote that book with his bare hands!! and that makes every word completely true!! ha ha
People think that stuff is "planted"? hilarious! what will they try to pretend never happened next?!