Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[Undeceived]

Did you know that C-14 dating organisms in the oldest stratum makes the world out to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

Real scientists know that C-14 is useful only to about 50,000 years ago.

That is a non factor and red herring. If the earth happens to be young, obviously C-14 is okay. You're already assuming the earth is old before we've even done any testing. Suppose the world is young. C-14 would work. And K-Ar would be inaccurate in the exact same way that it is. The problem is, you don't know if the earth is old or young to begin with. You must know whether it is old or young before you date. If the earth is 6,000 years old, you get the dates we get with both C-14 (6k-10k) and K-Ar (4-5B) K-Ar is thrown off because it is not supposed to be used on younger ages, by the very same logic as your above statement. Dating therefore supports creationism, period. Next thought. If the earth is billions of years old, you get the same K-Ar you get if the earth is 6,000 years (4-5Billion) and you shouldn't get a C-14 at all, yet you do. All traces of C-14 should be gone. Yet not only is there enough C-14 to date, but it happens to come out to the near exact age the Bible implies the earth is. Do you think that's mere coincidence?

---

The evidence for evolution can be made from four main sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species

There is no 'change' recorded in the fossil record. No before and after or evidence of cause and effect. All we have are fossils of separate species that scientists piece together according to similarities. We should have transitional fossils, since theoretically gradual evolution requires hundreds of forms between most of our known species. Why is it we have 20+ fossils of many extinct organisms but not a single one of the necessary hundred between them?

2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

These are the similarities behind the fossil record. But similarities don't mean one came from another, it just means they're similar. If God wanted to make 10 types of cats, they would all be similar or they wouldn't be cats. Scientists have a difficult time arranging the fossil tree using this method because there are organisms on opposite sides that are oftentimes more similar than ones close by. They call this 'convergent evolution' which is basically the assumption that two separate trees of species will be so lucky as to evolve the same traits, as if they weren't lucky enough to gain them in the first place. The chances of the eye forming is something like 10^20 and scientists want us to believe it could have happened multiple times in different places? That's real faith.

3. the geographic distribution of related species

There are birds, flies, primates, felines, ect. all over the world. Species are too well distributed to have evolved and found their places before Pangea supposedly split. Specific species are in specific habitats because they are suited for that habitat. They could have evolved to fit that habitat or God could have put them in that habitat to begin with. As climates change, they migrate. I'm using the dichotomy of the God of the Bible versus evolution here. Evolution fits, but so does God. We haven't moved anywhere. Evolution, you will find, always fits given enough time because it is a 'response theory,' meaning scientists see what they need and conform evolution to it. Anytime something contradicts evolution, they alter their theory. So don't accuse creationists of doing that, because it's mutual.

4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

Provide a link to these recorded changes, please. My bet is you mean microevolution, or variance, which is not true evolution in terms of increasing complexity. In microevolution, non-useful genes die out over time and the stronger ones take precedence. Maybe, if you're lucky, you'll have a mutation in there. Creationists wholeheartedly agree that microevolution occurs. If it didn't, we couldn't breed special cows that provided more milk or engineer disease-resistant tomato plants. It's macroevolution, or long-term speciation, that we are still looking for. One species must become another, and new information (like new tissues) must be added to the genetic code. The organism must gain complexity, and we have never observed an organism gaining complexity except in 1-1000 odds in which the majority of the test subjects died. There should be a tendency to increase complexity, and so far scientists have not been able to demonstrate that. If they can't show it in a lab, what makes you think it will happen in real, uncontrolled environments?

Natural selection itself is sufficient evidence to explain the functionality and complexity of the biological world.

Natural selection by definition reduces complexity. The organism with the suitable gene lives and the organism with the less-suitable gene dies. The less-suitable gene is lost and the gene pool shrinks. Ex: We had black and white rabbits before. We only have white ones now because we're in the arctic. No new tissues have been gained in the process, and species go extinct rather than break into separate species. Genes need to come from somewhere before natural selection takes place.