YET MORE PROOF for Instant Creation of Earth (God Is Right!)

[SackLunch]

Did granites form by magma slowly cooling over millions and millions of years? Could polonium halos prove once and for all the sudden creation of the earth as recorded in the Bible?

This article contains objective information along with objections and challenges to this theory.

As a side note, this also proves that Creation Science is a valid scholarly pursuit.

http://www.halos.com
<snip>
Fingerprints of Creation
Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood? Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature? Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community? Etched within Earth's foundation rocks &#8212; the granites &#8212; are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
<snip>

 

[notto]

Do you want to actually discuss this? Will you stick around for it?

 

[Herman Hedning]

http://www.halos.com

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

 

[JoshDanger]

People who make rational leaps like this are trying to have it both ways. They want the slow, elegant, and fool-proof measure of the scientific process, but are not willing to see it all the way out once they think they find results that please them. Its not about finding results that matches your belief system, its about formulating a theory that matches your results.
The thing about supposed "scientists" like the ones looking for verification of a young Earth is that they will never be willing to falsify their hypothesis. When they reach a hole in the tracks they'll just bridge it with "Godidit". They are not scientists, they in fact undermine the entire scientific community.

 

[SackLunch]

The thing about supposed "scientists" like the ones looking for verification of a young Earth is that they will never be willing to falsify their hypothesis. When they reach a hole in the tracks they'll just bridge it with "Godidit". They are not scientists, they in fact undermine the entire scientific community.

And evolutionists are willing to falsify their hypothesis on a regular basis? Do evolutionists not say, "nature did it" when they reach a hole in the tracks? In doing these things (or NOT doing these things), don't evolutionists undermine the entire scientific community?

It's kinda like when Jesus said "pluck out the log in your own eye first."

 

[MartinM]

And evolutionists are willing to falsify their hypothesis on a regular basis?

Yes, actually. There are a vast number of things that could falsify evolution. That none of them have actually been found is hardly our fault.

 

[watcher215]

God DID do it!

 

[SackLunch]

Also Josh, each belief system (evolution & creationism) starts off with a presupposition. You accuse creationists of being biased at the outset regarding a young earth, and then turn around and say that evolutionists are NOT biased. Truth is, evolutionists start out with the belief that God did not create the earth. That is a presupposition. A bias. Evolution starts off with the theory that the earth is old. That is a presupposition and a bias.

 

[random_guy]

Sacklunch, I'm having problems understanding this argument. Could you explain it to me in a more easy way of how/why this is evidence for Creation?

 

[notto]

Truth is, evolutionists start out with the belief that God did not create the earth.

No they don't. Just ask Darwin.

 

[MartinM]

Truth is, evolutionists start out with the belief that God did not create the earth.

What, even the Christian ones? Nonsense.

Evolution starts off with the theory that the earth is old.

Nonsense again. That the Earth is old is a conclusion derived from data, not a presupposition. And it is entirely independent of the conclusion that evolution occurred.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Truth is, evolutionists start out with the belief that God did not create the earth.

Actually, this is completely false. There are plenty of "evolutionists" that also believe in God.

Evolution starts off with the theory that the earth is old. That is a presupposition and a bias.

No it doesn't. The idea that the Earth is old comes from varying independent lines of evidence that have nothing to do with evolution. Furthermore, it's not presupposition or a bias, but rather a conclusion based on independent data.

Quite frankly, I think you have no idea what you are really arguing against.

 

[Elduran]

Also Josh, each belief system (evolution & creationism) starts off with a presupposition. You accuse creationists of being biased at the outset regarding a young earth, and then turn around and say that evolutionists are NOT biased. Truth is, evolutionists start out with the belief that God did not create the earth. That is a presupposition. A bias. Evolution starts off with the theory that the earth is old. That is a presupposition and a bias.

Actually evolutionary theory starts off with one supposition: that the scientific method is an accurate way of determining facts. A much better presupposition than "right, god did it, now let's twist some facts to fit it"

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

So Sack, aren’t you going to defend your OP assertion in light of this refutation? You are finally putting forth an assertion with some kind of scientific merit and a source. Why aren’t you defending your assertion? Do you concede that you were mistaken and that the halo argument is flawed?

 

[Valkhorn]

The ancient Earth is not a presupposition. In fact the Earth being Ancient was discovered when christian scientists couldn't find evidence for a 6000 year old Earth 200 years ago.

Wake up and smell the coffee SackLunch.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Sack, I’d like to ask you an honest question and I’d appreciate an honest answer.

Is there any evidence that can be provided to you that will make you believe that you are not correct in your assertion that the earth is only 6000 years old?

 

[Andrea77]

Sack, I’d like to ask you an honest question and I’d appreciate an honest answer.

Is there any evidence that can be provided to you that will make you believe that you are not correct in your assertion that the earth is only 6000 years old?

I would like some.

 

[Andrea77]

Lets all take a break and chill out a bit.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/kittyfan.php

Don't worry the Kitty's fine.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I would like some.

If you are being honest, please start a thread concerning what evidence you are looking for or would like explained and I will honestly participate to the best of my ability. Please be specific and please stick to the subject at hand once it has been started. If this sounds fair to you I will honestly take the time and be as thorough as I can.

 

[Andrea77]

If you are being honest, please start a thread concerning what evidence you are looking for or would like explained and I will honestly participate to the best of my ability. Please be specific and please stick to the subject at hand once it has been started. If this sounds fair to you I will honestly take the time and be as thorough as I can.

Evidence that the earth is not 6000 years old