“The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.” That and the Bible says that the Flood covered "the whole earth.’’
There is a problem with arguing about who has more “evidence”, because both sides have the same evidence. A creationist can look at Archaeopteryx and think,
“A bird before the supposed missing links between dinosaurs and birds! Great evidence for creation!” and an evolutionist can look at it and say,
“A cousin of the dinosaur that evolved into birds! Great evidence for evolution!” It all has to do with presuppositions. And both sides take observations and extrapolate too far. Just like Darwin did. The theory of microevolution is obviously true, and actually helps to account for how all the animals got on the Ark, but macroevolution was quite an extrapolation to make. And both sides sometimes revert to lousy and/or fake evidence, like a supposed dead plesiosaur caught in Australia. Neither side has any evidence that doesn’t need to be interpreted. That is one fact all would do well to remember.
Do you suppose there is a way to slow down your juggernaut to judgment?
- The unique pattern of fossil finds in Australia, namely only marsupial mammals with the exception of flying bats, is impossible to fit into a flood scenario, but does quite well with Evolutionary interpretations.
And
- the complete absence of large mammals (bears, tigers, giraffes, rhinos) amongst any of the dinosaur age fossil layers - - including whales who for some reason don’t succumb to the flood waters until the last moment, compared to the giant marine reptiles that immediately drown.
And
- the parallel immediate drownings of even the largest of dinosaurs (both meat and plant - eating), while all the large mammals, skinny or fat, avoid their demise even longer than proto-whales do!
And
- the complete lack of human fossils even in the dinosaur finds of the Nile Valley.
And
- the strange pattern that all the large mammals found in the fossil stacks appear in the middle of the post K/T layer, in the middle of the stacks, but only after smaller versions of these larger mammals first appear lower than the larger ones, but still well above the K/T layer.
To defeat these five (5) interlocking patterns of evidence, one needs an equally large pattern that says the opposite … not just a single odd find that doesn’t fit the pattern.
This is a “pattern vs. pattern” contest!
1 Like
I’m sorry Joshua but it simply doesn’t work that way. The age of the earth is determined by measuring things. Measurements do not give you different results depending on your presuppositions or worldview: Mount Everest is 8,848 metres tall whether you are looking down at it from an aeroplane, or looking up at it from base camp.
Seriously, claiming that it all has to do with presuppositions just demonstrates a total ignorance of the most basic rules and principles of how measurement works.
I’m sorry, but once again it simply doesn’t work that way. There are strict rules that interpretations of evidence have to follow – rules of basic honesty, factual accuracy, technical rigour and quality control that have nothing whatsoever to do with taking sides. In fact some of these rules come from the Bible itself. For example, Deuteronomy 25:13-16 says this:
13Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
I’m sorry to say this but I am yet to see a single claim of evidence for a young earth that obeys that instruction of Scripture. Tiny samples with huge error bars can not be interpreted as evidence for accelerated nuclear decay on a scale that would have raised the Earth’s temperature to 22,000°C by any stretch of the imagination.
On the other hand, old earth evidence tends to be quite meticulous about sticking to the rules.
1 Like
This is not true. Radioactive decay rates are measurements. So is redshift. So is counting tree rings and ice varves. It’s math. There’s no “interpretation.” There’s just believing what the math says or insisting that it can’t be true because…the Bible.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.