Thanks for the great information Lucaspa.
As Christian Courier was recommend by our friend, I did a search as was also recommended and found this,
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/evolutionaryProblems.htm
Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was dated by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the clock is broken, then what would?
No. What this demonstrates is that they dont know what they are talking about.
K/Ar dating was never supposed to be used on young samples. To use K/Ar dating on a young sample is to misuse the dating method, and thus, bad results are expected because of incorrect use. There are basically two reasons why K/Ar dating is not supposed to be used on young samples. One, the half life of K is very long, and thus there is very little decay in a 50 year old sample, making it very hard to measure it accurately. Two, there is always a possibility of a small amount of contamination, this contamination doesnt matter as decay goes on, it gets blurred out by the range that is returned by K/Ar dating. However, it can have a significant impact on young samples, that have not had enough time to age. Thus K/Ar was used incorrectly because it was used on samples outside of its known working range, It is best used on samples 100,000 years or older.
Most scientists double check their results against other dating methods, especially when getting a wild range of dates, to make sure there isnt something strange going on. AIG did not do that. If they had used multiple methods to test the rocks or area, they might have discovered their error and would not have reported these rocks as millions of years old.
These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 4
If this [natural selection] has been the guiding factor in evolution, over vast periods of time, one would expect to find, in the fossil record, evidence of the increasing the hardiness of the species as time passes.
Actually, just the opposite is true. The fossil record bears mute testimony to the fact of degeneration. Earths creatures were much more robust in the past than they now are. For example, the January (2000) issue of National Geographic magazine reports concerning a huge depository of fossils found in a large cave in Brazil. It contained, for instance, the skull of a spider monkey that was twice the size of modern spider monkeys. The fossil of a twenty foot ground sloth was also discovered. These discoveries literally shout, digression! - not progression.
Welcome to a strawman version of natural selection. Apparently their idea of progression is for something to get bigger. This is not what Natural Selection says at all. Its basically that better adapted animals will survive.
In our larger Spider monkey example. An animal twice the size will probably need around 2x-8x more food than the smaller animal. In an area with lots of food, this isnt a problem. But when food becomes less and less, it becomes harder and harder for our large animal to surive, because it needs a lot more food that the small animal. The small animal would be able to survive longer than the large animal. Making the small animal fitter than the large one.
(Note, this is assuming everything is equal, there are other ways to adapt to food shortage than getting smaller)
It is commonly believed that fossils take vast ages to form; this, supposedly, is another of those proofs employed by novices to suggest an earth of millions of years old. This doesnt make a lot of sense, of course, when you think about the fact that when animals die, they are usually consumed by other animals, or simply decay away.
This is of course why Fossils are rare compared to the number of animals that have been alive on the earth.
In her abdomen they discovered a fossilized fetus that had been conceived forty-six years ago. The report asserted that only three such cases have been recorded in history. The tiny fetus (0.7 ounce) had solidified into a rock-like substance, hardened by calcium buildup.
Looking up the article I found that they didnt actually say it was fossilized,
Those quotes around Fossilized do mean something.
it appears to have calcified, like what can happen to your pipes if you have hard water.
However, lets make an assumption that it was fossilized, what does this prove?
It proves that in very rare cases, given the right conditions its possible for a fossil to form fast.
This is a far cry from what is needed, evidence that Every fossil was fossilized this way in a very fast event. Often the event that is said to have created all the fossils, the flood, is said to have been much shorter than the age of the fetus.
But then, most people do not investigate. They simply believe what they are told - especially when it has the fumes of science. Many scientists have a vested interest in pushing evolution. Why is that? Because the only other alternative is creation. And that, of course, points to God - and a responsibility to him. For them, that is simply out of the question.
The Irony meter pegs. They apparently believe what they are told as research into things such as the Mt St Helens dating would reveal something much different.
And now we see that they are really trying to equate Evolution with atheism, and are trying to fight Theism vs Atheism. As was pointed out by Lucaspa this is false. I do find it interesting that they seem to be claiming that any scientist that accepts evolution can not be Christian.
They even mixed up creation with creationism. Creation is the belief that god created. Creationism is a specific How, just like evolution. You can believe in creation and accept evolution at the same time, many do.
