Dr Kent Hovind Is a specialist on the topic, and his arguments have never been disproved. Why do i use his words instead of my own? because i agree with him 100%. There is no way anyone can say that carbon dating is accurate when confronted with these important factors. There is just as much evidence here to disprove evolution, as there is to support it. Young earth = no evolution matter of fact, most scientist admit these as problems during the many live debates Dr Hovind has participated in
Carbon 14 dating is good to about 50,000 - 70,000 years, much more than the 5,000 years you claim the Earth to be, so even at 50% accuarcy they could date back 25,000 years. They also use other isotopes to date back further and cross test to get accurate dating. Here is a good article for you to read from http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
You missed my point. Merely cutting and pasting someone else's work without citing that work is disingenuous at best - it appears one is trying to pass off the writing as their own, when in fact the argument and thought, and mind that created both, belong to someone else. You shouldn't do this, as it's wrong. Beyond this, I reiterate I am puzzled why you are relying on carbon-14 dating as the source of doubt, when it's admitted it's only decent (and not flawless) up to 10's of 1000's of years. Here, I'll add to your doubt, by Richard Dawkins: (From his book, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 226). Hence, scientists use a plethora of methods to investigate not only the age of the earth, but evolution. If you are truly interested in investigating, here's an interesting site that critiques creationism as a "scientific" theory: http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1499#cambrian Best of luck on your search.
I think it is very interesting how someone can drill a hole in the ground and analyze the dirt/rock etc.. to make a definite determination what has happened in the last however many tens of thousands of years. Based on what exactly? Based entirely on what someone else says 99% of the time. No human has lived over 140 years old (of what is recorded in the last 100 years or so) so the real evidence is very telling in that alone. There are hundreds of millions pouring their heart into researching we came from nothing. For what purpose? Oh! "Just to prove I'm right!" What most of these scientists/atheists don't ever think about is how this information affects society as a whole. Without any hope of living longer, people don't care anymore about pretty much anything. I am just plain confounded that nobody thinks about the ramifications of their actions anymore. This entire society needs a real shake up and I know it's coming soon. I just hope more people will wake up to themselves before they get caught up in this ludicrous spiraling system of things.
Col, we've gone around on this a few times. No scientist drills into the ground to spout something someone else said "99% of the time." They use methods that are empirically approachable, and to wholesale dismiss their work on an accusation of unethical backslapping is a gross distortion of the truth as I know it, anyway. The same to be said for "100's of millions to prove we came from nothing." Scientists are curious, and curiosity isn't a bad thing. Nor is it, I would warrant, a sin, in your faith. It is curiosity that leads scientists to seek to discover the origins of things - moving from the known to the unknown, to make the unknown known. Nothing more. I've certainly said this countless times on the forum, and I'm not alone. Equally, I suppose, folks of faith have said the science I find convincing is a bunch of malarkey as many times. There's nothing more tiring to me than arguing the merits of science, since the merits are available for the appraisal in the here and now. Hence, goodnight, all. Whatever brings you peace.
I think you might have missed my point altogether. Look. It does not matter. No one pays attention to either of us anyway. Now there's reality for ya!
The way I see it religion is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. A lot of people that believe in God live very good, wholesome lives and do a lot of good for humanity. On the flip side, religion leads to a lot of violence and death. Just having faith, whether God exists or not, can enrich peoples lives or it can lead to violence. Now for science, science saves lives through medical advancement and also IMHO gives us a purpose for we may never truly understand the intracasies of the universe, but the search for all the answers will keep us busy for a very long, long time. If God were to reveal himself and prove 100% he/she exists then I'm sure the world would be a better place as people would repent and all would accept him and there would be only one unified religion and no need for violence. Again on the flip side, if science proved God doesn't exist 100% there would be no need for religious arguements or holy wars, and people wouldn't waste their lives in trying to satisfy something that doesn't exist. If either was proved a lot of lives would be saved, but that will not happen for a very long time if ever. It's your choice to believe in creation, evolution or even both and no arguement will make you say "I was wrong, how could I be so stupid" so the bottom line is; does your belief make you a better person who lives a productive life, if so then either way you are not wrong.
What a lot of interest this thread has generated. I read a bit of Genesis one day and I was struck by the similarity to the sequence of events after the big bang. If you think of the seven days that God took to create the world as seven eras it makes sense although not quite in the right order. (They probably had a minor Civil Servant somewhere writing it all up and bits of it probably got lost in the post). Anyway, the bit that struck me was, "and then there was light," because that is actually what happened. It's just a thought.
I have never understood where science is in conflict with faith. I do not find them mutually exclusive. I believe in evolution and intelligent design. The former to some degree and the latter entirely.
WOW! What a 100% diplomatic response! I do applaud. This post could not possibly offend anyone whatever their belief is. However, some will try very hard to be offended. I think it's very interesting how many people are either 100% pro-God or 100% pro-science. Me, I think God created science and we imperfect humans are hellbent trying to work out how he did it using the very science he created. But that's just my opinion for whatever it is worth. I feel I live a productive life in my mission to help people have as much joy as I am having as far as a relationship with God goes. As stated many times before, I invite people to learn more about the Bible. If they choose not to learn then that's their decision and I respect that. There are many who believe we try and force our doctrine on people. This belief could not be further from the truth. It's an invitation point blank. Yes, some have overstepped the mark and tried hard to convince, but this is not what we are taught to do in regards to respecting people we talk to. Roman, thanks for a good read. Col
I've stopped reading Scientific American, Nature, Space(dot)com and anything else that would confuse me. Just stop looking at these distractions, and believe in One God. God created Earth 4 billion years ago, just like He created the Universe, the life on Earth. But He decided to send Prophet Adam to earth only later. So, when Prophet Adam came to earth from Heaven, life was already there on Earth.
I believe that evolution occurs, but I also believe in God. I do not believe that man evolved from a single celled organism. I believe that we were all (animals, plants, etc) created with the fundamental ability to adapt and survive. I do not believe that God and science are mutually exclusive.
There's a lot of evidence that Monkeys evolved from Humans http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11611.html
That article is a classic one. I still can't get my head around it. Chimps are more advanced than humans??? The funny thing is that no matter how many challenges the evolutionists face they still continue to believe in this joke called "evolution". After all that is what science is supposed to do right??? Look at the evidence and come up with answers. Or as some "scientists" do: evidence that challenges the strongly held belief (evolution) has to be interpreted because no matter what, evolution MUST prevail (forget the evidence though).
Look, it's obvious you have no idea what they're talking about in that article and you also lack a basic understanding of evolution, so instead of calling evolution a joke and insulting the intelligence of millions worldwide, why don't you keep your ignorant opinions to yourself? Or at least think before you post, however hard that may be for you.
actually no i didnt, and it was intended to be a joke, i figured it was actually some kind of skin disorder