Replies

***Atomic physics introduces us to isotopes which give us a means to measure through measuring radioactive decay, to date accurately rock and the fossils it contains. ***

JimSEA.... A couple of things on this.
First of all this has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.

Second.... the only thing that is accurate about radiometric dating is the measurement of the parent & daughter elements. Everything else is conjecture. To use Potassium/Argon as an example... you can’t know how much of each was there at the formation of the rock, you only know how much is there now.

You also can’t know if the decay rate has been constant, whether anything has leached into the sample, whether any of the Argon has diffused out of the sample.... it’s not knowable.

Try answering this question:

An 8 oz. glass contains 50% ice and 50% water. How long did it take to get that way?

Obviously this is unanswerable, there’s too much that you don’t know... room temperature variance is but one factor of many you’d need to know.

How is that any different than this:

A rock is tested and contains equal parts of Potassium and Argon. How long did it take to get that way?

To get the answer you have to make some things up. They may be “educated guesses” but that is all they are.

One thing we do know about radiometric dating is that rocks of known ages have been dated and been wildly wrong. Mt. St. Helen’s is a primary example of that.

***Comparative morphology will show relationships of fossils over time. You don’t have to be there to watch.***

Comparative morphology proves nothing. In fact it could be used to argue the counterpoint that there was a common designer.

The fossil record is actually not good for the evolutionary side of the argument.

Stephen J. Gould posited Punctuated Equilibrium precisely because the fossil record does not show gradual change.

Stephen Meyer wrote a book called “The Signature in the Cell” in which he discussed in great detail the Cambrian Explosion.... certainly something that evolutionists have to explain away, not use as a basis for argument.

Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature magazine wrote this back in 1999:

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

Needless to say, Henry Gee was no Creationist.

***Scripture is often allegorical. It gives us faith and values that science can never address beyond validating the age and origin of written material but never the religious presentations.***

All of the top Hebrew scholars (and I don’t use the term “all” loosely) are in agreement that the Creation account in the Book of Genesis is a historical narrative and is not allegorical.

You can refer to the works of Dr. Stephen Boyd who did a statistical study of Genesis 1-11 and determined that it was a non-starter to call it allegory.

While scripture uses all of the literary tools that we use today (similes, metaphors, hyperbole and the like), there is no indication that any of it is allegorical.

Archaeologists routinely vouch for the historicity of the Bible.

Blessings to you JimSEA.