Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How many of them observed 4.5 billion years of time go by?
If none, then they can infer or deduce or wish or make up fairy tales, but they can't PROVE anything.
You do know that erosion works by wearing DOWN the rock, right? And water follows a basic law of gravity: it goes downhill, not up.
And here's a question: if the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood, why are all the layers stacked (nearly) neatly from top to bottom? If it was caused by a flood, they'd all be jumbled around.
In a deep enough flood, the heavier rocks will fall to the bottom first, and
layers will form naturally above them.
Rates of radioactive decay and half-life of radioactive materials found in rocks shows the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years ago. None of the observed evidence shows a 6,000 year old world.
ALL of the observed evidence proves 6000 years. The problem isn't the evidence,
it's the need for time for evolution to replace God. That is why the earth grew
from a few hundred million years old to billions of years over the last 100 years.
But we don't see that. That is not a description of the sediment layers in the Grand Canyon.
One thing to notice when looking at the canyon.
There is no weathering between layers.
Please read the following.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/when-and-how-did-the-grand-canyon-form/
None of the evidence points to a 6000 year old Earth. In what way does the evidence point to a 6000 year old Earth?
This is what I wanted this thread to be about: what is this piece (or pieces) of evidence that scientists worldwide have missed but only a tiny number of creationists have found that proves all other scientists wrong?
Ah, Answers In Genesis. A site that says that the Bible is true. Yeah, that's a good scientific source.
In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.
There is proof of weathering in the Grand Canyon: it's along the entire length of the canyon!
Here's a site that actually talks about the geology of the site and, if you want to talk to an ACTUAL geologist, I'm sure @RickG will gladly help you out.
First, eyewitness testimony from the creator.
Second, the impossibility of naturalism to explain:
the beginning.
star formation.
planet formation.
moon, planets and even galaxies spinning the wrong direction.
origin of life.
origin of information.
origin of consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness.
language.
proof that ancient man, far from being ape-like, was
far more intelligent than people today.
Dating methods. All depend on the speed of light as a constant
or they become unreliable. Guess what? The speed of light can
be changed, and has been slowing down since the beginning.
Why would I want to ask someone out to replace God with chaos, random chance,
nature, or whatever you want to call naturalistic science today? You think they are
objective when this is their religion?
I forgot dinosaur soft tissue and DNA which cannot last a million years
under any circumstances, much less hundreds of millions of years.
Where do you see thousands of feet of limestone?
In a deep enough flood, the heavier rocks will fall to the bottom first, and
layers will form naturally above them.
But there would be evidence of distortion, evidence of catastrophic distortion, in the rocks if we the rocks were deposited in a shorter period of time.
However, their example(s) do not even come close to any of the natural processes. How do they get thousands of feet of limestone from a flood in less than a year?
Dating methods. All depend on the speed of light as a constant
or they become unreliable.
Guess what? The speed of light can
be changed, and has been slowing down since the beginning.
The example given by creationists does not show any distortion.
It depends on what kind of limestone is that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?