How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Crazylegs77]

The elavata

[Ta Khent]

The problem is that what you have just said is true for the evolutionists. They need the earth to be millions of years old to fit their false theory, even though the process for dating the rocks is seriously flawed. Evolution is their best explanation that leavs God out of the picture, yet it doesn't stand up to logic. It's smoke and mirrors and even hides things that that contradict it.

You just lost what little credibility you had with this statement. How can someone who believes two people populated the planet tell me about logic? I will say this...the evolutionary theory is FAR more plausible the creation myth.

[squealpiggy]

The problem is that what you have just said is true for the evolutionists. They need the earth to be millions of years old to fit their false theory, even though the process for dating the rocks is seriously flawed. Evolution is their best explanation that leavs God out of the picture, yet it doesn't stand up to logic. It's smoke and mirrors and even hides things that that contradict it.

Evolution as a theory was expounded by Darwin who was initially a skeptic following his observations on the Galapagos. The scientific theory of evolution (which is accepted as fact in science and is central to any field of modern biology - try and get a biology degree by saying "God did it") was brought about as a result of observations, not speculation. It has withstood 150 years of scientific inquiry and testing and still holds.

The "flawed dating technique" you are referring to is Carbon 14 dating which is accurate to around 50,000 years (not sufficient for dating dinosaur fossils but certainly useful for disproving the 6000 year young-earth hypothesis) and has been tested against other dating methods such as rock strata and tree ring dating (tree rings incidentally which stretch back 11,000 years, not 6,000). It has shown itself to be an accurate measure of human evidence, though there is a possibility of contamination affecting the results. Contamination incidentally would produce younger results, not older.

Carbon dating is not the only radiometric dating. Radiometric dating relying on detecting the relative decay of various isotopes of sedimentary and igneous rocks has produced accurate results and these techniques have been tested against previous techniques such as rock strata and other geological dating techniques and concur with those techniques. Creationists contend that scientific dating methods are all bunkum and are completely inaccurate. If that were the case you would expect all of these dating techniques to produce random results. They do not, the results agree with one another. This pattern suggests accuracy.

In short there is plenty of evidence for evolution that requires no call to theology, unlike the notion of biblical creation.
Now I'll look at your links.

http://www.creationevidence.org/

I clicked on the handy page, scientific evidence for creation. Aside from notions which do not match scientific observations (such as the shrinking magnetic field idea) almost every single article in the section is devoted to debunking scientific theory, not to actually providing evidence. Science is about researching to find out the truth, not trying to prove somebody else's theory wrong.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/Creation-Evidence.htm

Wow. The opening statement on this website:

Creation Evidence - The Great Debate of Origins
Creation Evidence is sought by Creationists to discredit Evolution, not to validate Special Creation…

As I mentioned I'm looking for evidence FOR creation, not an attempt to discredit accepted scientific fact. If you're too lazy to bother reading the pages you link don't bother posting them.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

Again this site is devoted to debunking evolution, not in formulating a body of scientific evidence of its own. There is nothing new here, a series of misquotes, bad science and argument from incredulity. Pre-flood brains were three times the size of modern brains? Wow.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/

There is still a preoccupation with debunking scientific theory and there are some omissions in dating techniques. No evidence for a 6000 year old earth created by God but let me look at those cases in more details. I have a sneaky feeling that some of that art is forged.

[j]

how can people be absolutely pleased with their belief when it is based on a damn book?

scientologist believe in books too. L ron hubbard books.

if i wrote a book claiming that those who didn't believe would be endlessly tortured, does that mean it's fact? it would certainly make more people, in those times, believers.

folks, remember, in those times, people believed in many types of bull****. it was easier to trick people.

but, the belief in christianity today shows that many are still gullible.

[squealpiggy]

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/

This is one of the better presenyed sites so I'll go all out. Here we go:

Section 1 - evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-exist

Exhibit A

Malachite Man

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC111.html

Exhibit B

Fossilized hammer

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

Exhibit C

Fossilized human finger

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC120.html

Exhibit D

Fossilized human hand print

No explanation of this print is evident on bible.ca's website beyond assurances that it was found in Glen Rose Limestone with an age of 110 million years. Looks like a kid's art project to be honest but the site gives few details, no context for where it was found and in common with the other "evidence" here has not been submitted for independent corroboration by scientists, an unusual move for something that would apparently "blow evolution out of the water". This leaves two possible conclusions: 1. Creationists quite like having evolution as a political rallying point or 2. They know that their "evidence" wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

Exhibit E

Dinosaur and human fossil tracks together

There are eight examples. Seven of them are at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Essentially the age of these tracks is not in doubt, but it seems unlikely that they are human.

The other one was "discovered" by bible literalist Jerry MacDonald in New Mexico in 1987. An alusion is made to a 1992 artical in Smithsonian magazine but very little data is available on this picture, a surprising fact when you consider how monumental this "evidence" is . There are only two references I can find, one of which is a link to the above site, the other a link to another bible site.

[squealpiggy]

Still working on it, this site is obscure and is lacking in citation, not really surprising.

[squealpiggy]

The cracks start to show after a little searching. Check here:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm

Item 1

The "ancient" Cambodian tomb is actually only about 800 years old. Despite the insistence of creationists that mankind and dinosaurs interacted not even the most brazen of bible thumpers claim that dinosaurs and humans were living side by side after the Norman conquest of England, and during the course of the Third Crusade in the lifetime of Saladin. There is plenty of writing from that period worldwide, and none of it mentions dinosaurs.

Item 2

Mexican ceramic figures: There were problems with the find outlined in a peer reviewed paper.

De Peso, C. C., 1953, Figurines of Acambaro, Guanajunto, Mexico. American Antiquity. Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 388-389. (April 1953).

Some of his observations made by De Peso are:

1. "Further, none of the specimens were marred by patinantion nor did they possess the surface coating of soluble salts characteristic of objects of more certain antiquity coming from same area. Upon the word of the owner none of the figure had been washed in acid. Examination showed the edges of the depressions forming eyes, mouths, or scales to be sharp and new. No dirt was packed into any of the crevices."

2."In the entire collection of 32,000 specimens no shovel, mattock, or pick marks were noted." .... "Their field technique when witnessed on the site, however indicated that they were neither careful nor experienced."

(De Peso refers to the expertise in excavating artifacts of the farmers who claimed to dug up the Acambaro figurines. Given their lack of expertise, it is remarkable that they could have excavated such fragile artifacts without any obvious shovel, mattock, or pick damage.)

3. "The author spent two days watching the excavators burrow and dig; during the course of their search they managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects. On the second day the two struck a cache and the author examined the material in situ. The cache had been very recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a depth of approximately 1.30 m. Within the stratum there were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their original excavation was, as a result, a simple task."

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul03.html

This entry can be found about a third of the way down the page. Try searching for "Tarascan". "Tarascan" is the name of the people who created the artifacts that these dinosaur figurines were allegedly found with. They lived in the area between 900 and 1600 AD. This corresponds with no definition of "ancient" that I am aware of.

There are apparent examples of Peruvian dinosaur paintings dating back 2000 years. However the very same site states that these artifacts date to 700 AD. That's a pretty major inaccuracy for people who believe the earth to be only 6000 years old. That's like a geology paper being out by 450 million years!

Mixed in with these are some more claims about dinosaur art "predicting" future discoveries, but again the timelines are off.

The biggest problems with the evidence as presented on this site is that artwork is presented as evidence of dino and human cohabiting but while there is a plethora of artifacts of human origin that accompanies these alleged paintings including human and animal body parts there are absolutely no leftover dinosaur parts. I would find that unlikely considering how big the dinosaurs are.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Darwin realized that his theory was false and became a born again Christian later on in life.

[squealpiggy]

Darwin realized that his theory was false and became a born again Christian later on in life.

That's fascinating for two reasons:

Firstly it doesn't matter if Darwin recanted and converted. Science is based on the strength of the theory, not the credentials of those who subscribe to it.

Secondly the nugget you mention here isn't actually true. It's made up. Baloney.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

[xfrodobagginsx]

It really boils down to who you want to believe. Notice that the story that you posted wasn't posted by darwin's sister, but someone else. How do we know that darwin's sister said what it says she said? The bottom line is that the theory is wrong and is leading millions to hell with no hope, because they placed their faith in the creation/creature rather than the creator.

Ro 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.