Creationists say fossil discoveries back their theories

THE ORLANDO SENTINEL ^ | Jan. 07, 2006 | Jim Stratton

[Lesforlife]

I had this very same discussion yesterday
at a gathering. The individual was pointing
to cro-magnon man and neanderthals whom
he stated had no souls.

Made me really uncomfortable.

[frgoff]

Finding microbial life on Mars would force the conlcusion that life on Earth was seeded by life on Mars because even Dawkins admits that the odds of abiogenesis are fantastically remote. He ducks around the issue by saying basically that, well, there are lots of worlds, and lots of time, and it only has to happen once, you know (paraphrase from the Blind Watchmaker).

[frgoff]

But, interestingly enough, they always seem to be the SAME mutations, or mutations that result in the same effects. Random mutations causing random variation does not seem to occur.

[frgoff]

So what?

[RightWhale]

So where did Cain's wife come from?

[savedbygrace]

Yeah, that would make his sisters younger than him. What's your point?

[RightWhale]

Cain married his wife before Adam had daughters. So where did the women come from? Adams first wife?

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

As well it should make you uncomfortable. Cro-magnon man and Neanderthals were as much flesh and blood as any other men and women that have ever lived.

[savedbygrace]

Where do you get that idea?

[RightWhale]

Did he marry his SISTER?

[savedbygrace]

Yes.

[Wiseghy]

Yeah, but that whole geological record kinda gets in the way, don't it?
The Dems will continue to bash us as ignorant trailer trash if the conservative movement embraces ID.

My faith in God is immense and growing. I need no fossils to prove his existence, which he gave me consciousness to recognize in my heart.

That is the real miracle of our creation.

[RightWhale]

Wow!

[savedbygrace]

That was the only option & the gene pool was ultra clean then. This preceded the Mosiac law, so there was no problem.

Think: Adam was the first man, Eve was the first woman, and Cain was their son. ANY women in the world HAD to be Adam & Eve's daughters.

[RightWhale]

What about Adam's first wife?

[savedbygrace]

OK, you've now convinced me you're just messing around. Buh bye.

[RightWhale]

The story is common knowledge.

[Coyoteman]

Son, I know a bit about radiocarbon dating.

This post you made contains nothing but creationist's dreams. It is not science, but a ridiculous attempt to distort science to a particular result. (Its not only wrong, but spectacularly wrong!)

Tell me, how many scientists who actually do radiocarbon dating have signed on to this?

the group met and delineated a five-year plan of research to explain the apparent disparity between conventional and biblical dates.

That's a laugh. Most biblical scholars don't even believe what you are peddling. Check out these links:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

[SirLinksalot]

<<<<
Son, I know a bit about radiocarbon dating.
>>>

Yes father, I think you do. But I think there are other people who also DO radio carbon dating who disagree with you. You may call them ignorant, thats fine with me. But I don't think you can dismiss their academic credentials so easily.

<<<<<<
This post you made contains nothing but creationist's dreams.
>>>>>>

Maybe we can replace dreams with challenges.

<<<<<<<<
It is not science, but a ridiculous attempt to distort science to a particular result. (Its not only wrong, but spectacularly wrong!)
>>>>>>>>>

Very nice attack. But the devil is in the details.

<<<<<
Tell me, how many scientists who actually do radiocarbon dating have signed on to this?
>>>>

1) How many scientists during Galileo's time actually supported him ? ANSWER : A MINORITY

2) How many scientists during Jenner's time believed him ?

Since we are into links, might as well provide some to balance the ones you provided :

Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico to examine various approaches to stratigraphy within the creation model.

http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp

Geology and the Age of the Earth

http://www.trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp

Examining the credibility of the much-publicized “geologic column” (and why it always seems to look bigger in print!).

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

Examining the facts behind radiometric (& other) dating methods cited by evolutionists to “prove” their million-year scenarios.

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Examining the documentations provided by National Geographic regarding radio carbon dating.

http://www.trueorigin.org/natgeo_jw01.asp

Examining the science behind the claims of a very old earth using carbon dating techniques

http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp