Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Loudmouth]

Many Evolutionists fail to understand the faith they have in "evolution".

Tooth and nail they fight to deny any faith is required.

JacksBratt has listed above the obvious and clear to see faith Evolutionists have.

I don't know how life started. How does that statement require faith?

What faith are you talking about?

I remembered the day when I woke up to recognizing the faith I had placed in natural processes to produce continual mutation, adaptation, and natural selection of life forms over geologic time.

Why would we need faith when we have evidence?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[Loudmouth]

What you have is species that get mutated and new features are added or subtracted and become a different type of the same animal. Like a yellow lab and a Shepard. But they are both still the dog 'kind'. You don't have fossils of one 'kind' of animal turning into another 'kind' of animal. Eg, an ape into a man or a dog into a whale.

First of all, the species you listed are all in the same mammal kind. They are all the same type of animal, from human to dog to whale.

Second, no one thinks a dog evolved into a whale.

The first horse would have mutated and became other types of horse but it's still a horse of course.

And we are still mammals, of course, as was the common ancestor we share with other mammals.

 

[Loudmouth]

Jack has correctly stated how God spoke this natural world into existence, that Creation has not existed for billions of years.

You say this is not so because of not "understanding evolution".

Evolution has nothing to do with measuring the age of the Earth.

It appears you have tripped over interpreting natural artifacts through mental deductions. We can all make mistakes in the process of learning to be sensitive to and taught by His Holy Spirit.

Please show how these interpretations are incorrect.

 

[Heissonear]

If the Earth has only existed for 6,000 years, as the Bible claims, then why does all of the evidence point towards the Earth existing for 4.5 billion years?
And if the Bible is the word of God (I thoroughly do not believe it is, but for the sake of the argument let's pretend it is), then does that mean that God has been deceptive in making all of the evidence point towards an old Earth?

At a point in times past you became aware Adam and particularly Eve were created with apparent age.

Now tie that to tripping over natural artifacts through mental deductions.

We can all make mistakes by not being sensitive to the Holy Spirit, when reasoning, making decisions, and after incorrect decisions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

At a point in times past you became aware Adam and particularly Eve were created with apparent age.

Now tie that to tripping over natural artifacts through mental deductions.

We can all make mistakes by not being sensitive to the Holy Spirit, when reasoning, making decisions, and after incorrect decisions.

You're not answering the questions. So I'll repeat them:
If the Earth has only existed for 6,000 years, as the Bible claims, then why does all of the evidence point towards the Earth existing for 4.5 billion years?
And if the Bible is the word of God (I thoroughly do not believe it is, but for the sake of the argument let's pretend it is), then does that mean that God has been deceptive in making all of the evidence point towards an old Earth?

 

[RickG]

Jack has correctly stated how God spoke this natural world into existence, that Creation has not existed for billions of years.

From a scientific point of view, why would the world not be billions of years old?

 

[-57]

God uses evolution, it would appear that the evolutionists do not have much of a clue as to what evolution is. Just run a google search and you will get many many definitions as to what evolution is. Some say it is a process, some say it is a model, some say it is a theory, one guy says it is a fact and a theory. You would think that maybe they would get something right but they keep fighting with each other over what it is and how to define it.

I think it's pretty obvious what is meant by evolution. The bible doesn't teach man evolved from lesser primates.

 

[-57]

You're not answering the questions. So I'll repeat them:
If the Earth has only existed for 6,000 years, as the Bible claims, then why does all of the evidence point towards the Earth existing for 4.5 billion years?
And if the Bible is the word of God (I thoroughly do not believe it is, but for the sake of the argument let's pretend it is), then does that mean that God has been deceptive in making all of the evidence point towards an old Earth?

I really don't understand your post...the earth looks young.

 

[Loudmouth]

At a point in times past you became aware Adam and particularly Eve were created with apparent age.

Now tie that to tripping over natural artifacts through mental deductions.

We can all make mistakes by not being sensitive to the Holy Spirit, when reasoning, making decisions, and after incorrect decisions.

Are you saying that God created the Earth with fossils already in the ground?

 

[Loudmouth]

I really don't understand your post...the earth looks young.

If the Earth looked young then we wouldn't be able to find any zircons with large amounts of Pb in them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think it's pretty obvious what is meant by evolution. The bible doesn't teach man evolved from lesser primates.

And yet the scientific investigation of God's Earth shows that humans did evolve from ancestral primates.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I really don't understand your post...the earth looks young.

What's there not to understand?
All of the scientific evidence shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This shows the Biblical claim of a young Earth to be in error.
This tells one of two things:

1. The Biblical claim of a young Earth is in error or
2. God has deceptively made the Earth and the universe to be older than it actually is.

Personal, I prefer number 1.

 

[-57]

What's there not to understand?
All of the scientific evidence shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This shows the Biblical claim of a young Earth to be in error.
This tells one of two things:

1. The Biblical claim of a young Earth is in error or
2. God has deceptively made the Earth and the universe to be older than it actually is.

Personal, I prefer number 1.

The only thing that makes the earth look old is a misinterpretation of the data. Then again you already knew that.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only thing that makes the earth look old is a misinterpretation of the data. Then again you already knew that.

How is the U/Pb ratio in zircons misrepresented?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The only thing that makes the earth look old is a misinterpretation of the data. Then again you already knew that.

How can millions of bits of data, found by thousands of scientists all over the world, many of whom are Christian or believe in the Abrahamic religions, misinterpret the data? Data that solidly points to an old Earth?
What have they missed that only you, -57, know?

 

[-57]

How is the U/Pb ratio in zircons misrepresented?

What is the ratio?
Anyway...from what i read they find helium in zircon crystals that show if they were as old as you claim the helium would have all escaped long, long ago.

 

[TheBear]

The only thing that makes the earth look old is a misinterpretation of the data. Then again you already knew that.

How do explain how several different lines of study, and several different methodologies used, all being a misinterpretation of the data, yet all pointing to the same age? If all were wrong, the findings would be randomly scattered and all over the place, with no 2 in agreement, (let alone several). But that's not the case. How do you explain that?

 

[Loudmouth]

What is the ratio?

Anyway...from what i read they find helium in zircon crystals that show if they were as old as you claim the helium would have all escaped long, long ago.

That isn't the case. What you are referring to is a case of creationists misrepresenting the data.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

But what I find most intriguing about this argument is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Creationists claim that radiometric dating is unreliable because the daughter product can move in and out of the rock. Of course, this isn't the case for things like U/Pb dating in zircons. So what do they do for their own method of dating? They pick helium, a gas known to move in and out of zircons.

 

[fargonic]

Were you raised by Him to be a geologist by calling like me?

God called you to be a geologist? I chose the field because it was interesting. I really liked the minerals.

Evolution requires faith. Evolution on Earth never happened.

It is a special form of science that can make universal negative claims. This is probably easier when one is called to be a geologist by God himself, however.

 

[fargonic]

Because it's not in scripture. It's my stance that the strata was not layed out over billions of years but by one massive event, the flood.

Unfortunately in order to lay out all the earth's strata in one event makes it very hard if not completely impossible to explain most of geology that we see.

Take for instance this:

That's called an "Angular Unconformity". Note how the lower strata are tilted with respect to the upper strata. Unless you know of a way to deposit a lot of strata like that at an angle in one go it's going to be hard to explain geology without deep time.