Evolution False? Absolute proof inside.

[beck12]

Burce Malone on Its supernatural by SidRoth, absolute proof evolution is false. http://www.sidroth.org/television/tv-archives/bruce-malone

 

[Oncedeceived]

Burce Malone on Its supernatural by SidRoth, absolute proof evolution is false. sidroth.org/television/tv-archives/bruce-malone

Please provide a live link. Thanks.

 

[beck12]

Please provide a live link. Thanks.

There its added.

 

[lasthero]

I really don't have thirty minutes to spare. Could you summarize whatever his points are? Thanks.

 

[beck12]

I really don't have thirty minutes to spare. Could you summarize whatever his points are? Thanks.

Ehh alot of things, so I recommend watch it later when you have time, or watch it in the background.

 

[lasthero]

Ehh alot of things, so I recommend watch it later when you have time, or watch it in the background.

Just pick one or two things the guy said that you find compelling, and we can discuss that.

 

[beck12]

Just pick one or two things the guy said that you find compelling, and we can discuss that.

Ehh,
Okay, so he says carbon dating and many other ways proves a young earth, the carbon dating way is, that after so many years the carbon splits in half, so if a dinasour bone was found it could not have any carbon if it was billions of years old, sense all of the carbon would be gone from splitting in half, sense it splits in half after a few years, so therefor, it can not be that old, because scientists find carbon inside disasour bones, around as big as a finger nail, which if it was that old, would be litterly impossible.

Shall we go in debate of this one? theres many other ones too.
such as evidence of the flood, sea shells on mount everest found in the 1950's.

 

[lasthero]

Ehh,
Okay, so he says carbon dating and many other ways proves a young earth, the carbon dating way is, that after so many years the carbon splits in half, so if a dinasour bone was found it could not have any carbon if it was billions of years old, sense all of the carbon would be gone from splitting in half, sense it splits in half after a few years, so therefor, it can not be that old, because scientists find carbon inside disasour bones, around as big as a finger nail, which if it was that old, would be litterly impossible.

Did he present a dinosaur bone with carbon in it? Because I'm not aware of any dinosaur bones with carbon in them.

Edit: Come to think of it, I'm not aware of any dinosaur bones that anyone claimed were BILLIONS of years old.

One More Edit: Also, that wouldn't be evidence against evolution, it would be evidence against an old earth. Which isn't quite the same thing.

such as evidence of the flood, sea shells on mount everest found in the 1950's

How is that evidence of a global flood?

 

[beck12]

Did he present a dinosaur bone with carbon in it? Because I'm not aware of any dinosaur bones with carbon in them.

Edit: Come to think of it, I'm not aware of any dinosaur bones that anyone claimed were BILLIONS of years old.



How is that evidence of a global flood?

Scientists use carbon dating to find out if somethings billions of years old.
and that proves the flood, because how could seashells get on top of the mountain and so called turn in to fossils? which only takes around 4000 or so years to do so, in all truth, but scientists say it takes much longer, but it does not, so back to the question, how could sea shells get 25,000 feet above sea level?

 

[AV1611VET]

Burce Malone on Its supernatural by SidRoth, absolute proof evolution is false. Bruce Malone | Sid Roth - It's Supernatural

Just out of curiosity, does this Burce Malone assume Bible believers need "abosolute proof" ... or even evidence ... that evolution is false?

He must have a low opinion of our faith then, eh?

 

[lasthero]

Scientists use carbon dating to find out if somethings billions of years old.

No.

They use radiometric dating. Carbon dating can't be used to age anything beyond 20,000 years or so, I think. But it's not the only dating method we have.

and that proves the flood, because how could seashells get on top of the mountain and so called turn in to fossils?

Well, it's not 'so called' fossil, they are fossils. And it's quite simple. The mountain we see were always mountains. A long time ago, some of them were quite lower and in a marine environment. Organisms die. They fossil. When the mountains rise, they bring the fossils with them.

 

[beck12]

Just out of curiosity, does this Burce Malone assume Bible believers need "abosolute proof" ... or even evidence ... that evolution is false?

He must have a low opinion of our faith then, eh?

No he does not, not at all, he became a christian before a scientist, he just wants to provide proof to the unsaved.

 

[Davian]

I jumped to the 22 min mark and listened for a minute.

Synopsis: "The bible says they (scientists?) will deny the flood, they do deny the flood, we have found the ark, we are in the end of days, I am right."

Not very compelling.

 

[beck12]

I jumped to the 22 min mark and listened for a minute.

Synopsis: "The bible says they (scientists?) will deny the flood, they do deny the flood, we have found the ark, we are in the end of days, I am right."

Not very compelling.

Watch the whole video. xD

 

[Dizredux]

Scientists use carbon dating to find out if somethings billions of years old.

I hate to break the news to you but carbon dating is only good to around 40,000 years or so.

and that proves the flood, because how could seashells get on top of the mountain and so called turn in to fossils?

See below.

which only takes around 4000 or so years to do so, in all truth, but scientists say it takes much longer, but it does not,

And you know this how?

so back to the question, how could sea shells get 25,000 feet above sea level?

Plate tectonics and uplift. Well known, studied and measured.

I know you are getting this from someone you should be able to trust but these things have been known for many years and refuted years ago. Someone is not telling you the truth. Deliberate or innocent is something you have to decide for yourself.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

No he does not, not at all, he became a christian before a scientist, he just wants to provide proof to the unsaved.

Well then I wish him Godspeed, but if he is a scientist, why is he attempting to provide "proof"?

Scientists don't do that ... and will even tell you there is no such a thing.

The only time a scientist will use "proof" is when they demand we supply them with it.

In short, scientists don't give proof ... but they will require it from us.

 

[beck12]

Well then I wish him Godspeed, but if he is a scientist, why is he attempting to provide "proof"?

Scientists don't do that ... and will even tell you there is no such a thing.

The only time a scientist will use "proof" is when they demand we supply them with it.

In short, scientists don't give proof ... but they will require it from us.

Hes a Christian-Scientist, xD 100% different you could say.

 

[lasthero]

Hes a Christian-Scientist, xD 100% different you could say.

I wouldn't say he's a scientist. He's a chemical engineer and he holds some patents, but as near as I can tell he doesn't do any science. He has no research, no articles, nothing produced.

Scientists do science. I can't find any science he's done.

 

[AV1611VET]

With evidence being put forward like that I'm surprised there are still any Christians left,

Christians run on evidence, do they?

 

[beck12]

I wouldn't say he's a scientist. He's a chemical engineer and he holds some patents, but as near as I can tell he doesn't do any science. He has no research, no articles, nothing produced.

Scientists do science. I can't find any science he's done.

He has written books, he apparently has made around 15 inventions that made millions.