How do you know? Oh, right, faith... or circular logic.
Data shows nothing but data. A hypothesis about what the data means is something else
Right, but evidence only points one direction. ALL sources used to date the age of the earth point to old. Anomolies are trumped by the overwhelming data showing otherwise. They aren't thrown out, they're re-tested and re-evaluated. You can't take one anomoly and require
every piece of data to be re-evaluated.
Why would time be required if there is a global flood? The Biblical flood would be more than enough to create all the mud slides and volcanoes.
But not the fossilization. That's what I ment by time. Fossilization is NOT a fast process. This can NOT be used for a young earth model.
Please point me to the reference of this data.
Why don't you find me an oil bed with a good chunk of carbon 14 in it? I fell into your little trap earlier, and I'm sorry I didn't catch it then (I have a feeling it's gonna cause troubles now). There is no evidence suggesting carbon 14 is contained in any oil deposits, in any amounts greater than slight contamination.
Yes, yes
old dirt on the bottom and new dirt on the top. I have looked into plate tectonics.
Wait, I'm confused... you agreed with me and then flipped around what I said.
The Ice Age that would result from the catastrophic flood explains the frozen animals. That is what I was pointing out. What does the switching of polarity have to do with old earth that is not accounted by a new earth?
I think the Ice Age itself explains frozen animals.
What evidence suggests there was a flood, and that it started one? And what of all the other ice ages? Was there a flood for each one?
As for the polarity switching... it fits with an old earth model. How exactly does a young earth model account for the numerous polarity switches the earth has had?
There are references, from this book, to other books. I could give them to you if you are interested in looking up the references.
Well, lets see...
Are dinosaurs really extinct?
All signs point to yes. Seen one around lately? Even if you did, it would have no bearing on the already dead, millions of year old dinosaurs. Amazing, yes. Evidence for a young earth? No.
One cannot prove an organism is extinct without having knowledge of every part of the earth simultaneously.
True, but lack of an organism in the large part of the earth we do see simultaneously, is evidence for extinction. Not 'proof', but then (thanks Deut) proof is for logic, liquor, and math.
Experts have been embarrassed when. After having declared animals extinct, they were discovered alive and well.
Embarrased is hardly the world. Excited is a better one.
For example, explorers recently found elephants in Nepal that have many features of mammoths.
Right. But not mammoths. 1 point for evolution though.
Scientists in Australia found some living trees that they thought had become extinct with the dinosaurs.
Wollemi pines? I fail to see how decendants of 100 million year old trees suggest a young earth.
One scientist said
it was like finding a live dinosaur. There are hundreds of living fossils, a big embarrassment for those who believe in millions or years of earth history.
This quote is referring to ancient sea creatures found still alive. I think the only embarrasment is the fact that more is not spent on underwater research... and again, living versions of old animals still points to an old earth...
Explorers and natives in Africa have reported sighting dinosaur-like creatures, even recently.
Ah, dinosaur-like. Similar to mammoth-like, perhaps?
These have usually been confined to out-of-the-way places such as lakes deep in the Congo jungles. Descriptions certainly fit those of dinosaurs.
Unknown things in out of the way, unexplored places!? Madness!
Cave paintings by native Americans seem to depict a dinosaur scientists accept the mammoth drawings in the cave, so why not the dinosaur drawings?
Things like:
and
and
?
For the first one. Is that the head on the left? Or is that a tail with a head on it? Why does it look so awkward?
For the 2nd one. What the hell is it?
For the 3rd one. Fake.
More like them? I'm sure I can come up with absurd interpretations of them, except, that's all these can be. Interpretations. It has no bearing on the rest of the evidence showing an old earth.
Evolutionary indoctrination that man did not live at the same time as dinosaurs stops most scientists from even considering that the drawings are of dinosaurs.It certainly would be no embarrassment to a creationist if someone discovered a dinosaur living in a jungle. However, this should embarrass evolutionists.
No, and no.
I dont see how it is downright evidence for old earth and very close to it evidence for young earth. It seems to me they are both hypotheses with some data backing them up.
Like I said earlier,
none of your evidence is actually pointing to a young earth. You're just taking evidence that yells: HEY, IT'S OLD, ignoring it, and going: "nuh uh, if you look at some of the evidence with these special requirements (that don't exist and aren't evidenced) then it could suggest a young earth."
It seems to me you're searching for something to backup your
faith. Which is kinda self-defeating, isn't it? Unless you're a little insecure about it...
