Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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.

 

[pat34lee]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In a deep enough flood, the heavier rocks will fall to the bottom first, and
layers will form naturally above them.

But we don't see that. That is not a description of the sediment layers in the Grand Canyon.

 

[pat34lee]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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?

 

[pat34lee]

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/

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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/

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.

 

[pat34lee]

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?

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.

 

[pat34lee]

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.

Why would I want to ask someone out to replace God with chaos, random chance,
nature, or whatever you want to call the source in naturalistic science today? You
think they are objective when this is their religion?

 

[pat34lee]

I forgot dinosaur soft tissue and DNA which cannot last a million years
under any circumstances, much less hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First, eyewitness testimony from the creator.

The Bible is the words of man. Not the word of God. The word of God is in the world around us.

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.

The theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin of the universe, the origin of the Earth, any stellar bodies or the origin of life.
The origin of consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness and language stems from the evolution of an increased brain size.
And there is no proof that ancient man was more intelligent than people today. Did Bronze Age nomads know that if you took a metal tube and placed two magnets, negative and positive, on either side of the tube, you could increase the travelling speed of an object travelling down it? No.

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.

Dating methods used in geology and paleontology are in no way dependent on the speed of light.

You've been taken in by liars and frauds who seek to make God look a fool to suit their own poor interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

Because RickG has done something hardly any creationists have done: he has actually studied God's creation, i.e. this world, and the splendour in it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I forgot dinosaur soft tissue and DNA which cannot last a million years
under any circumstances, much less hundreds of millions of years.

'Soft' tissue in dinosaurs is easily explainable by the iron in the blood cells which, when the animal died, became free from the blood stream, forming itself, on a molecular level, in to knots creating a preservative similar to formaldehyde, preserving the dinosaur tissue. Easy to explain. Here's an article explaining it.
And DNA is preserved in fossils. It's not intact, but it's still there. They even explain it in the hit film Jurassic Park (although they go in to greater detail in the novel).

 

[RickG]

Where do you see thousands of feet of limestone?

Well, there are quite a few places. Just to throw some out:

Madison Group in Montana 2100 ft
Chalk group eastern England 4921 ft

Grand Canyon:
Redwall Limestone 800 ft.
Kaibab 500 ft
Muav 650 ft
Combined - 1950 ft

Northern Limestone Alps 9961 ft
Southern Limestone Alps 3905 ft

 

[RickG]

In a deep enough flood, the heavier rocks will fall to the bottom first, and
layers will form naturally above them.

And where do you see that in the geologic column?

 

[juvenissun]

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.

The example given by creationists does not show any distortion.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

It depends on what kind of limestone is that.

 

[RickG]

Dating methods. All depend on the speed of light as a constant
or they become unreliable.

No dating method, radiometric or non-radiometric has anything to do with the speed of light.

Guess what? The speed of light can
be changed, and has been slowing down since the beginning.

Source?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The example given by creationists does not show any distortion.

Exactly. If the Grand Canyon had been formed quickly, and violently if the account of Noah's Flood is true, then we would see distortion that would have resulted from a violent and quick removal of sediment and rock. But we don't see that.
What we do see is the slow process of downhill erosion by flowing water over millions of years.

 

[RickG]

It depends on what kind of limestone is that.

Name a limestone formation and show us how it formed in less than 1 year.