To Skeptics Who Believe In Evolution: Where Will Your So Called ‘Science’ Be Then? [Spirituality & Religion]

@JimboSaturn And?

@JimboSaturn
This guy is totally deceived by Satan who comes to kill and destroy! If you want a messed up life then listen to this guy and you will go down a sorry road to self destruction!

@Carazaa There is no supernatural, no satan, no god.

@JimboSaturn
Where did the stars and planets and life come from?

@Carazaa The big bang. We can actually see how the universe is expanding from a central point.

@JimboSaturn How did it start if not God spoke and it was so?

@Carazaa The universe? By natural processes like every single other thing we have found so far. People used to think that god or gods held up the planets, now we know that gravity guides the stellar objects.

@Carazaa In fact most of the stars you see in the sky are millions if not billions of light years away. That means the light has taken millions or billions of years to travel from that star to our planet. All this information has been around for a long time. Have you never watched one single science TV show ? What did you learn in school?

I don't understand how anyone can not know these scientific facts just by existing on this planet and absorbing things you hear, see, and read!

@JimboSaturn I have a masters in science! What’s your degree? Please explain and answer my 3 questions!

@Carazaa If you had a masters in science, then you would know all the scientific evidence. I already did answer your three questions in order , look above. I have a degree in business but I'm interested in science. My father was a Christian and a scientist himself.

@Carazaa You never answer my questions . Again How do you explain
1) Carbon 14 dating of rocks
2) The distance of the stars and the time it takes light to get to earth
3) The fossil record

@JimboSaturn [quote]If you had a masters in science,[/quote]
She doesn't seem to know which science she has a masters in either. Maybe things are different wherever she is or claims she got her degrees, but I find it difficult to believe anyone could get even a first degree in "science" [i]per se[/i], never mind a masters.

@JimboSaturn Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. There is much to consider.

How old is the earth? Source: Selections from
Refuting Evolution, Chapter 8

Teaching about Evolution addresses this assumption:

It assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.

This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.

There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from < 0.27 to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975!

What happened was that excess radiogenic argon (40Ar*) from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess 40Ar* causing ‘dates’ of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.

If excess 40Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the K-Ar method at c. 45 million years old! Other fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers has been found with 14C still present. Detectable 14C would have all disintegrated if the wood were really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these Upper Permian rock layers.

According to the Bible’s chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence, but we are not yet sure of the true cause in all cases. A group of creationist Ph.D. geologists and physicists from the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research are currently working on this topic. Their aim is to find out the precise geochemical and/or geophysical causes of the observed isotope ratios.13 One promising lead is questioning Assumption 1—the initial conditions are not what the evolutionists think, but are affected, for example, by the chemistry of the rock that melted to form the magma. [Update: It turned out there is strong evidence that decay rates were much faster in the past. See the results of their experiments in Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth volumes 1 and 2.]

Evidence for a young world

A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.

Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.

Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.

@JimboSaturn interpretation!

@Sharon Did you ask her what field and what university?

@JimboSaturn I asked here which science but not which university. As I recall, she declined to say which science, claiming her father was a Nobel Prize winner and/or world famous in his field so answering could identify her. 🤪

@Sharon yes she told me something about her father awarding a peace prize

@JimboSaturn Didn't she say something about him being on the panel that awards the prizes? I didn't take much notice as it's almost certainly all BS.

@Sharon Yes he was on the panel. But unlike them, I can't accuse them of lying because I have no proof.

@JimboSaturn But since lying is a sin she couldn't possibly do that.

@JimboSaturn nope

@JimboSaturn That video has nothing to do with Jesus saving grace! You missed the mark!

@Carazaa What has Jesus to do with anything?

@Sharon [quote]What has Jesus to do with anything?[/quote]

More than you can imagine.