Ok, here's a VERY large problem you haven't dealt with. You keep saying "yes the radiometric equipment needs calibration" Yah it does. But what are you calibrating it to?? Do you even have a -slight- idea as to what you CAN calibrate it to? Also, if a world wide flood happened, yes the radio active materials would be around the bones here and there, but the sapping of the radioactive material and the chances of the radioactive material being right next to the bones are very small, and would take a good amount of time to get into the bones, etc. Another problem is that radio active material is here one day, gone the next (not literally, it does have very rapid decay). That is supposedly what they are measuring, but why would you see anything then? Uranium has a very short life span, so if the earth is, what was it? "65,000,000 years" old, much less 65,000 years... URANIUM WOULD NOT BE EXISTANT! It would have burned off long ago and left us with no nuclear power plants, or the all mighty atomic bomb. Another thing is, by the evolutionary theory, the earth was "forming" and there was supposedly no atmosphere. So the rocks of the surface would be bombarded with radioactivity of the sun and make the rocks look really, really old. Same with the moon, which was tested with radiometric dating and was shown to be supposedly older than earth. Even though, by evolutionary theory, it was formed by earth's crust in "formation". So, wouldn't that be contradictory to say that the earth is younger than the moon when it was made of the earth's crust? Also, what happened to that mars-sized object that hit earth? What happened to the little evolving bacteria? (*foom*). Most of you people seem to simply state that creationist theories are false without any real evidence, or proof of your statement being true. Also, who are you to argue and debate with a several thousand year old book (Estimated to be written within a margin of 1445-1600 B.C. Somewhere around there.)? Are you claiming to know more than a ancient book?
It even says in plain words that the earth moves around the sun (Psalms 19:4-6), a couple of thousand of years before it was accepted by the scientific world, or even the creation of the sciences. Finally, what's harder to believe in? A God that actually spoke things into existance, or a "big bang" that came from nothing. Where's your material for the "big bang"? "Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed in a chemical reaction." So, you going to keep thinking you are correct on a theory that is dispoven by it's own law? If so, then if the beginning is wrong, is the rest right? And as to the "heat is a problem with creationists", no it's not. It's a very large problem for evolution, those forming bacteria and such would be long incinerated before the earth was even close to being suitable for population. Also, if the radioactive decay was accelerated by the "heat", then the bacteria would also be microwaved. Dunno if I will be able to get on anytime soon. NO QUOTE MINING! IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE MY QUOTES, YOU USE THE WHOLE SENTENCE AND/OR RELATED SENTENCES AROUND IT!
Edited by Raedril Delvon, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
