Creationism is just a flat-out lie. Agree?

Question

For those who believe that carbon-14 is the only form of radiometric dating, there are also other elements around, such as uranium. We rely on these datings to tell us about the earth and the universe, as the half-life on such more complicated elements has a much greater decay rate, sometimes up to billions of years. This has been completely ignored by the 'Creationist Community'.

Instead of arguing Christ vs. Science, I'm just going to say that Creationists not only choose to ignore the fundamental principles about archeology and radiation, but lie about it too. In fact, they don't just lie about it, but render ignorance to the possibility it isn't essential that the Bible says the earth is only a few thousand years old, but choose that path because its blatant contraditions offer great controversy and attention. In short, lying attention seekers. Anyone out there disagree?

Answer 1

actually, it's a flat earth lie

Answer 2

You are completely missing the point. The story of creation in the Bible is being told to people who were very primitive. Most of these people were illiterate. They had very little ability to understand. So the story is an extremely simplified way of explaining the emergance of man and what God expects of man.

I attended Catholic school from first grade through high school. We were taught all about evolution and natural selection. There are some fundamentalists that take a strick literal view of the Bible but not everyone who believes in God or a Creator does. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There is evolution and natural selection; heck just look at any pedigree dog. But that does not preclude a Creator. The Creator is the origin.

The way I see it, there are only two possible explainations. Either the physical universe always was and always will be or it was created by a being that always was or always will be. Both defy logic. Both are equally unfathomable. This is the simple unknowable truth. Now at the absolute maximum the only conclusion the most strict skeptic can honestly present is that he does not know which is correct.

No human being knows the answer and our limited science fails us. So before you go making a case for evolution, it has already been made. Just understand that it does not account for the sudden emergence of man on earth. Nothing so complex has ever emerged so quickly. The large complicated brain, necessary for self-realization, runs against the grain of natural selection.

From the time a human child is born it is about twelve years before he is capable of supporting himself or contributing to the group in any meaningful way. Imagine the massive burden this was on early man. It takes about a year before the baby can even walk effectively. Not exactly something that would make survival more likely.

So which do you prefer? There is evolution, there is natural selection. Both were created by the Creator just like everything else.

.

Answer 3

Are you familiar with Eisteins theory of Time Dilation. In the 4 billion years since the Earth was formed the solar system has been slowing in speed along with the rest of the universe and as such time dialates.

This same fact happens to radiactivity, in fact it is the PROOF of the Einstein proposal. When two atomic clocks in sychronization are then postioned one one Earth and one in Oribit, the one in orbit loses time.

So, how can you take radiactive dating seriously when time dilation is a factor and one that is not yet adequately postuatlated into account.

Relativity states, without multiple reference points you can't accurately define anything in space and time.

We can't make any concerete assumptions on the speed or direction of anything because we lack multiple reference points or a KNOWN fixed point in space that has no motion.

Are you familiar with the Michelson Morely experiment, a Noble winning experiment that CONCLUDED that the EARTH may have NO motion at all, taking error into account!

Modern science ASSUMES the EARTH is in motion, we SEEM to be able to prove it, but the Michelson Morely experiment also shows the EARTH may be motionless!

And other's have obtain the same results.

Answer 4

I do. When scientists use radioactive dating on living creatures, it doesn't work. Then they assume that it does work on dead creatures. That doesn't make sense. Also, Charles Lyell didn't use radioactive dating for the geologic column. If they really use that now, then his column should've changed a lot, but the basics remain the same. Scientists do think the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. That's much older than others in previous centuries thought, but evolution demands an old earth, so their ideas had to change to fit that theory.

The whole column is very questionable because fossils are not arranged in nice neat little patterns out in the real world. They are scattered all over the place in jumbled up messes, which I think points to a flood that buried them quickly in a big mess. There are different ways to interpret evidence. I should think a scientist like yourself would recognize that.

edit: Genesis 1 was referring to the whole world. Genesis 2 was referring to the Garden of Eden specificly. God worked a little differently in Eden than in the rest of the world, in case anyone wanted to know.

Answer 5

The last I heard, it was the THEORY of evolution. And it will remain a theory because no one was around to write down what happened. When Darwin wrote his book, he was greatly concerned that it would be ridiculed and laughed at. Geology and the other earth sciences had not progressed to the point of acceptance in the scientific community. But his one concern was the eye of man. He related that the eye was the one point that could kill his thesis. To date I know of no one that has put forth any theories as to how the eye developed. Though there is a general consensus about evolution, there is no concrete, final acceptance of it as fact. there just are too many variables. (I know that Carl Sagan would disagree with that statement, but I am right in saying it and any one who is honest will tell you the same.)

What I wonder about is--what is the latest example of evolutionary change? Is it 100 yrs ago, 100 centuries ago, or when? Does anybody know for sure? (And don't answer with the moths of England, they are an example of adaptivity not evolution.)

Answer 6

Yeah, I hate it when people ignore the fundamentals of science. Like say, the scientific fact that life CANNOT come from anything other than life. Oh, then there's the one where, according to the law of entropy, the universe is actually breaking down. It isn't getting better and more complex at all. I suppose I am being nit picky though.

Answer 7

I agree! And I just cannot believe what Esther wrote....basically she is saying science is too complicated...so she believes the bible because it's simpler!!!! Finally...a christian who admits the only reason for accepting the creation story over evolution is because she doesn't understand....I really MUST add this question to my watchlist....

Answer 8

Well said. Too bad so many of them take the easy way out. Just look at some of the other replies. They aren't interested in complicated, they're interested in easy.

Answer 9

I disagree. I do believe that God is THE creator. If you choose to believe in the "theory" of evolution, that's fine. But even IF it were so, can you tell me who or what put all of the gases and matter in space (and where did space come from?) and so directed them to come together the way they did? I can accept the fact that you don't buy the Bible's version of creation BUT, you have to admit, that all of those gases had to have been "created." And, if so, by whom?

Answer 10

Yes, I agree. Most (if not all) of the Creationist sites that I have run across do present misinformation to support their case.

Answer 11

Creationists are trying to cling to ancient myth in a modern society.