Selam

I think modern archaelogy proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that creationism of false. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

---
"Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you." - Jesus, from the Gospel of Thomas.

[ # ]

Tweek,

From what angle do you speak of? Some would say that mere proof that man has been around longer than 6,000 + years is enough to blow creationism in the dirt but I'm not so sure that is all you are addressing. Are you referring to the theory that man was not created as MAN but was rather an outspring of something lowlier?
Love ya!
Stacie

[ # ]

Tweek,

My friend, you have fallen victim to the propaganda machine of the scientific community. The data they claim "proves" creation by God didn't happen, doesn't prove that at all. Let's explore some of the data and the total weakness upon which the evolutionary theory rests.

First, the entire foundation of evolutionary theory is based on unprovable and untestable assumptions, which, if they were honest would disqualify it as a true science because the scientific method requires something be testable. Specifically, they assume that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has been constant for the millions of years they claim life has existed on this planet. This is totally untestable and unprovable. And what if the amount of carbon 14 was significantly less in the recent past? Then anything which lived during that time would appear much older when dated today. This is exactly what the Biblical record indicates. It indicates that prior to the flood there was a layer of water above the earth, similar to our Ozone which would have caused a global temperate climate and significantly reduced the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere. All of this would result in the carbon dating techniques being invalid for determining the age of fossils which lived prior to the flood. So the evolutionary theory has the assumption radiocarbon has been constant for millions of years and creation science has the assumption that radiocarbon significantly spiked after the flood. Can you prove which is the correct assumption? And not being able to prove either then can you honestly, scientifically “prove” the age of this skeleton?

Further, the evolutionary theory states that the earth developed from a proto-earth around 4.5 billion years ago in a semi-molten condition. They claim over millions of years the cooling took place and different types of rock were formed from this process. Again totally untestable and unprovable – another pseudo science assumption. But there is testable and provable scientific data that PROVES this theory wrong. Namely the polonium radio halos found in bedrock granite biotite all over the entire world. On every continent of the world the bedrock granite biotite contains millions and millions of these radio halos. And why is this significant? Because their half life is only micro-seconds and they could not possibly be there if the earthy cooled over millions of years as the evolutionary theory has suggested. But they would be there if God spoke them into existence as the Bible states. The worlds foremost leading evolutionary geologists have been publicly challenged to explain how these could possible exist in light of their theory and they have been unable to give an answer. These radio halos are not assumptions they are testable and provable scientific facts which supports the creation story and which disproves evolutionary theory.

Now, regarding the age of the rock itself. The Bible never indicates the rock of the earth was created by God 6000 years ago. In fact, I believe the Bible indicates in the Genesis account that there was a black hole here is space that God had created some time before, perhaps billions of years before and then 6000 years ago came and dispersed the black hole and from the remaining matter that had been within it created this planet and solar system. This is not provable, but all the scientific data will fit with this explanation of events.

So the real question for you Tweek is, are you willing to start thinking for yourself and really examine all the evidence or do you insist on ignoring the facts in order to keep your faith in the religion of evolution?

Tim

[ # ]

Kevin,

Thanks for the history, I like it and it is totally consistent with the Biblical creation story. No problems with me allowing for a few thousand years difference.

Tim

[ # ]