• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Affirmative evidence towards creationism

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
rocketman said:
If we are going to debate his science, fine. If you can't seperate his data and his religious speculation/interpretation of the data then you are going to have to debate with someone else. If you can't see that the anomolies are real and go against the regular evidence of an old earth (without invoking God) then I give up trying to show you. You know Ryan, it's possible to admit that these anomilies exist without agreeing with the creationist position, because, as I've said, a young earth doesn't by itself prove a creator.
This is why I quoted this in my previous post...
Still, we must give Gentry his due. Nothing in geology fully explains the apparent occurrence of the polonium halos as described by Gentry. They do remain a minor mystery in the field of physics. But this does not mean that no explanations are possible or that it is time to throw in the towel and invoke the "god of the gaps." The generation, preservation, and alteration of the radioactive halos involve complex physical processes that are not yet well understood, and it is quite possible that they are not primordial polonium halos at all. Other explanations include the erasure or modification of the inner halos by the alpha radiation from other isotopes, the migration of uranium-series elements through the rock by fluids or by diffusion accompanied by precipitation of polonium at inclusion sites shortly after it is formed, and the modification of halos by heat and pressure and chemical changes during metamorphism. The very fact that Gentry's halos at these sites occur in areas of unusually high uranium mineralization and metamorphism suggest that halos may be connected with the migration of uranium-bearing fluids through or within the rocks.
I'll agree they exist but the big problem I have and have always had is that he is giving a supernatural cause to these anomalies rather than finding a natural cause. The article I just posted does not say there are no anomalies but rather has a problem with the "God of the gaps". It gives many alternate theories which do not include God that are quite plausible but require Gentrys materials be what he says they are. I in particular found it interesting that Gentry said there was no uranium or thorium when the materials came from a uranium mine... I also find it interesting that if there is uranium then there is an alternate theory that could have very easily happened (as quoted in the last quote).

rocketman said:
So tell me again what this all has to do with the OP?
Well... the op wants to know about evidence for creationism... Its a debate so we debate what is and is not evidence for creationism... Which is exactly what we are doing =p
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Ryan2065 said:
Well... the op wants to know about evidence for creationism... Its a debate so we debate what is and is not evidence for creationism... Which is exactly what we are doing =p
True, but I am still puzzled as to exactly what there IS to debate. :D
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Well. The thread asks for evidence of creationism.

There seem to be some wanting to discuss young-Earth without creation intermixed, but they are quoting someone who intermixes them. So I suppose "evidence of young Earth" would be a side-topic.

Then there's the discussion of the evidence presented, and why it does not establish a young Earth or creation by God.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JerryL said:
Then there's the discussion of the evidence presented, and why it does not establish a young Earth or creation by God.

Two seperate issues really. It is one thing to have evidence against a young earth, and quite another to have evidence against the existance of God.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Two seperate issues really. It is one thing to have evidence against a young earth, and quite another to have evidence against the existance of God.
Here two other seperate issues:

What you said "evidence against the existance of God"
and what I said "Evidence which fails to establish creation by God".

Please don't put words in my mouth.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JerryL said:
Here two other seperate issues:

What you said "evidence against the existance of God"
and what I said "Evidence which fails to establish creation by God".

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I stand corrected.....thanks.
 
Top