If we lived where there were no Bristle Cones or Coral Reefs, but we knew of a Turtle that lived 150 years, would it then be reasonable for us to assume that the age of the planet was 150 years????
Not really, but it would be a better indication than carbon or radon dating, which is entirely inconsistent.
To suggest that a mechanism for evolution (Natural Selection) is not a reality is to be willfully ignorant of what humans have been able to achieve in a few hundred years employing an Absolute Selection.
http://www.dogbreed4u.com/sites/dogbreed4u.com/files/content-images/large-dog-breeds.jpg
http://soupscoop.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tomatoes.jpg
Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. That would be like saying, because we engineered all the best design features of previous models into our latest car that it will one day turn into a jet airplane. You can say different types of dogs prove evolution, but dogs will never be able to mate with horses, because they are not the same type. So how do we have all these different types of animals that can't reproduce outside of their type if they have a common origin as Darwin claims? It seems like they're awfully similar, as if they came from the same origin, and yet they are different types. How can this be? A common designer doesn't make sense, it's probably that they came from an amoeboid. Yeah.
The funny thing about the theory of evolution is that it would say the dogs and tomatoes are related. But no, of course this is not the case, and all we have seen is a given type developing into sub-types, which is in the Bible and, IMO, suggests a common designer.
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind."
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind."
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."
So as we can see, having different types of dogs coming from dogs is normal, and it is not an example of evolution or proof of the theory of evolution. Now, if we could prove the whale turned into a dog, we'd have a start. But even then, that's still life to life. Evolution requires life from non-life, so it's more like that dog came from a rock. I mean, why not? They both contain carbon.
I know this sounds ridiculous, but don't blame me, it's evolution.
Humans these days are greatly concerned about the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps and the desertification of lush regions within our lifetimes.
None of this was caused by a supernatural power but rather super stupid humans
Desertification is caused by wind, which occurs naturally.
It is a VERY reasonable notion that the Earth's magnetic fields could flip.
Fact is, before the advent of GPS, when we relied on magnetic compasses to do accurate navigation and cartography, they had to publish yearly charts so that you could compensate for an enormous amount of drift.
http://mtnspirit.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/pole-drift.jpg
Ask an old sailor.
Not at all the same thing. The last pole shift supposedly occurred 780,000 years ago... what you have there is it drifting laterally nearly 15 degrees in only 200 years, which would go around in about 2,400 years at that rate. At the average statistical rate of 10km/year, it would take 2,000 years. So how come it hasn't flipped since supposedly 780,000 years? The reason: it never has. The poles may move around but they don't flip, and because they don't flip the original rate of demagnification is accurate, thus cutting the evolutionary time scale way to short to be even remotely plausible.
Embracing the obscure and unlikely in order to explain away the obvious is not the path to finding the truth, and it certainly shouldn't be called science.
I 'spose this is to infer that if a solid Earth were 4 billion yeas old, and IF nothing ever changed, THEN the falls would have long eroded away.
But the very fact that the falls DO erode points to the flaw in this supposition.
In 4 billion years continents have came and gone,
The Ice sheets rolled back the last time about 10,000 years ago and the basins that became the great lakes slowly filled from the melt.
Only once full did the lakes start spilling into the Atlantic
...and that's when the clock starts on that.
I have done some more research on this and found that it was actually a claim to support the evolutionary time scale which was later removed because it supported the creationist time scale in the manner that it was presented, so I will concede this as it was never actually a point presented pro-ID.
Oh, come on dude!
Humans living in caves painting with their fingers by the torch light were able to depict animals that we can easily recognize.
As a primitive tribal band, the ancient Jews were able to accurately record the histories of their conquest and defeats. And there were advanced civilizations in the Nile Delta, the Fertile Crescent, and China that were much more capable of record keeping and artistic expression.
Are you trying to tell me in all of 1500 years of effort that never once is there an accurate description or visual depiction of the creatures from the fossil record???
That no one ever depicted a dragon that could have actually flown supported by a full-body flight membrane similar to a bat???
I never said they didn't, the matter at hand here is the timeline, and none of those drawings mean a thing.
Who says dragons flied? It's irrelevant. The issue is that the evolutionary time scale requires that dinosaurs came before humans, and this is because it's one of the symptoms you'd have if the sedimentary layer dating were real. It's irrelevant because we know they are not. If anything, as soon as the sedimentary layer dating was debunked, it should then be accepted that "scientifically" (if you could have ever called it that) it was more likely that the two occurred at the same time. But that makes things awfully uncomfortable for evolutionists, so we skipped that.
Or when the writer of Genesis wanted to show God's dominion over the animals that he chose the puny-ass Lion when he could have made a more powerful demonstration of God's dominion by saying "And the T. Rex laid down with the Lamb"????
Those animals were used, I believe (because this is deviating from the topic quite a bit, this is just my personal opinion), to depict character traits. It is both literal, and an illustration to the heart of what the world became after the fall of man.
there is no reason to bring it to the SCIENCE sub-forum and shit on a thread where people want to apply critical thought.
There's no reason to believe in evolution either, except that the undeniable existence of a Creator makes evolutionists squirm in their seat. It has nothing to do with critical thought.