Posted on 05/26/2007 9:24:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
So the mountains just grew like mad right up until the time we could accurately measure them, then they slowed down to a normal rate?
Is this what happened to the continents too? Separated at a rapid rate after the flood (so the poor kangaroos wouldn't have to swim all the way home), but slowed down just as we started measuring the actual separation rates?
Do you really believe this stuff?
Yes...read the papers at the links. The authors are PhD scientists explaining it far better than I can.
Yes, in the same way a RoadRunner cartoon deals with physics.
If you have read anything about plate tectonics, you would not be asking these questions. Obviously, either you haven’t, or you think you have a better explanations than scientists at Los Alamos Labs...not exactly a bastion of Creation Science!
I assume you are referring to Dr. John Baumgardner?
So, is creation "science" an official position of Los Alamos National Laboratories, or is this fellow doing this "science" on his own?
And what do his colleagues at the Labs think of all of this?
It is interesting to note that when otherwise sensible scientists adopt young earth creationism as a belief they turn their back on science and the scientific method in order to make everything come out the way they need it to for their new belief -- no matter what.
That is not science; it is apologetics.
Please read the articles before taking any more swipes at hard working scientist who happen to also believe God was a part of the process.
you need to reread the articles. That is not at all what they say.
Here are a few more links:
http://www.nmsr.org/baumgard.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/rate_abandon_fantasies_henke.htm
This last link also deals with radiometric dating and the RATE project for anyone following that discussion.
As far as you making statements about how God will judge me you can go screw yourself. Threating people with God is foolish and childish - if you want to worship a god because you are scared $hitless of him/her that is your business. Don't threaten me unless of course you are God, then let's talk.
Funny you picked my post to challenge - is it to accurate for you? Or you just don't want to discuss the fossil record because you cannot argue it?
I did. From the first site:
"Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the Flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm."
There was a flood because the Bible said so. In the end they rely on Genesis.
First, you weren't exactly clear in what you were referring to.
But this is par for course for the Evolutionists who love to be coy.
Second,as for defending the Biblical account, ofcourse it does, it refer to one common female ancestor, which was Eve.
What you want to believe is that it can be shown to go back further than 6,000 years, which it doesn't.
Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago (In the Beginning, compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood, Walt Brown, Ph.D. 7th edit.2001, pg.229)
As far as you making statements about how God will judge me you can go screw yourself. Threating people with God is foolish and childish - if you want to worship a god because you are scared $hitless of him/her that is your business. Don't threaten me unless of course you are God, then let's talk.
I am not threatening you with anything.
I told you what the Scriptures say on the subject.
So when you are standing at the Judgement, your blood will not be on my hands.
Funny you picked my post to challenge - is it to accurate for you? Or you just don't want to discuss the fossil record because you cannot argue it?
What fossil record?
There is no fossil record for evolution.
You have not come up with any transitional forms (a species moving from one species to another higher species) in those fossils.
A fish is a fish.
All dating done by Evolutionists is based on pre-assumptions and a flawed paradigm.
The assumption usually made, but rarely acknowledged, is that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution was always the same-about one in a trillion. Actually, the ratio may have been quite different....Therefore the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight Recent measurements show this. (In The Beginning, Walt Brown, p.244)
Quaerit derisor sapentiam et non invenient. (Pr.14:6)
Isn't it lovely when a high school teacher knows more then a Ph.D. evolutionist?
Stop blowing hot air!
The dating is based on a flawed assumption, that the environment has not undergone any dramatic change that would affect the ratio between the C-14 and C-12.
For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available for decaying vegetation to cycle between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere woulld increase. If the atmospheres ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled organic remains would appear 11, 460 (2x5,730) years older etc. Consequently a 'radiocarbon year' would not correspond to an actual year....Therefore, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight. Recent measurements show this....Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years which are typical of coal, probably have a much younger true date near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000years ago. (In The Beginning, Walt Brown, p.245-246)
Thus, radiocarbon dating is only accurate up to 3,500 years.
Anything past that is conjecture.
All one needs to know about evolution is its presuppositions, since at that point, we are no longer dealing with science, we are dealing with a religion, based on faith.
Evolution is a myth cloaking itself with scientific jargon.
I am not evading anything.
God was not created, He existed before time and created it.
So, now, how did the universe come into being, from nothing
Well, they weren't lying about those dinosaur bones, now where they?
The Radiocarbon method is only accurate up to 3,500 years.
After that, the dating is based on a evolutionary presupposition-which is wrong.
So the only one lying are the evolutionists who try to palm off what they are pushing as science.
My, that was clever!
And something just somehow happened to come out of nothing!
And from rocks came life!
And from single cell life came Man!
You talk about fairy tales!
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.