We all realise that creationists must shun so many basic priciples of mainstream science in order to defend their beliefs, but this question deal with timescales and dating methods.
We are aware of the usual attacks on C-14 dating methods, and of the missrepresentations creationists make about it, but there are many other independant dating techniques, all of which corroborate and cross refence each other..
Creationists are aware of mainstream scientific chrononlogical timescales, even if they deny their validity, however these many dating methods are the cornerstone of mainstream scientific timescales, from hours ago, to billions of years ago.
The question for creationists is, would you please name any of the many OTHER dating techniques, and outline where it is flawed, in your opinion..?
Presumably you must know all about them to know they are flawed..?
2007-07-08 17:47:56 · 9 answers · asked by Commonancestor 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Just as I thought. It seems creationists have no ability to disprove any of the many dating methods used in science, and can offer no proof of their alternative timescale beliefs, and so just search for something sounding remotely scientific to gripe about..
Time for creationists to face tacts, that they cannot demonstrate flawes in mainstream science without misrepresenting it..
Demonising something of which you no nothing about must surely be a sin..?? It is not acceptable in the real world anyway..
2007-07-08 18:08:52 · update #1
@ sisterzeal
Unfortunately, you're incorrect. There is compelling and indisputable proof that the Earth is as old as science claims it is. If you actually did any research on your own instead of booing science, you'd know this yourself. Read on.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
2007-07-08 17:56:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You don't know what you're talking about. What you term attacks on C-14 dating methods are not attacks on the method, they're statements exposing its flaws. You don't misrepresent something by exposing its flaws. Can't you handle the truth about the methods by which the theory of evolution is supported? Would you rather blindly believe in something that can't support its claims than be shown the truth?
There is also the rocks and fossils circular reasoning flaw. The strata of rock are dated by the fossils found in them, and the fossils are dated by the strata they're found in. What's up with that?
2007-07-08 18:03:16 · answer #2 · answered by hisgloryisgreat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When one buy a pond of meat, we know the standard of a pond, so we know what we are paying for. we use a scale to determine what one pond is.
Where is the standard for a 1 million year old rock?
Every time a scientist does some estimating of a rock, a questionnaire is REQUIRED to be filled out. One Question,
How old does the rock need to be? IN other words there
is an expectation of an age before any test is done,
There also have been set ups or a sting.. Two rocks taken from the same sample. The questionnaire is filled out, but the dates given very different.
The answers given by the scientist after the test were done
were also very different
Question science....
2007-07-08 17:56:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Oh yes, thank you for reminding me that I don't believe in mainstream science. I'll add that to the list of things I didn't know that I believed and didn't believe in as a Christian/creationist until some whack job on yahoo told me...let's see, I apparently believe the world is only 6,000 years old and flat, am afraid of science, (now) "shun so many basic principals of mainstream science", don't believe in dinosaurs, don't believe in evolution, and, (my personal favorite) want a theocracy.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy day of eating corn chips in your mothers basement to prove your ignorance to the masses.
2007-07-08 17:58:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The issue as I see it is that you are looking at only those things that are from man...not from God.
I am a believer in God as I have a personal and continuing relationship with Him 24/7 and he has proven himself to me over and over again so I have no doubts.
However, men will disagree with one another always...as long as they are not depending on God Himself for their answers.
I am aware of the arguments between those who believe or do not believe in the standard creation theory. They are all just human beings giving their own interpretation of what information means to them.
Based on my own experience, God couldn't care less about our silly ideas about how He did or did not do something...or how long it took. It is not important to Him. He is the source...the beginning of it all and it really doesn't matter how or even why.
If you want real wisdom...seek Him. He will lead you.
2007-07-08 17:57:18 · answer #5 · answered by Poohcat1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it so out of the question to believe that God made the earth with an age? That the world wasn't one day old on the day of creation (c-14 standards)... why couldn't he make it as old as he wanted on day one?
2007-07-08 17:53:23 · answer #6 · answered by firefly1334 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a couple of misconceptions here...
Not ALL creationists believe there was no evolution...
And not ALL creationists believe that the Earth is only some 2K years old.
2007-07-08 17:51:31 · answer #7 · answered by Basil 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The reason they say there flawed is because God spoke to there pastor and he relayed it back to them in his sermon.
2007-07-08 17:51:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah. They're all flawed.
2007-07-08 17:50:27 · answer #9 · answered by LELAND 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋