Undeceived Wrote:I just discovered these:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-ca...tric-dates
http://www.icr.org/article/excessively-o...ava-flows/
If you examined a meta-study, you might find the dates inconsistent (depending on how much leeway you want to give scientists). The picture in the second link is especially interesting (edit: better color picture partway down http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...nas-basalt ). The higher layers are thin and flat. Old layers should be tilted, since pitch indicates erosion. No erosion = young. The higher layers must therefore have been laid down in rapid succession. How do you suppose that happened?
If you're proposing that the Grand Canyon was formed after the flood, then why doesn't the rest of the world look like it's been flooded and eroded to that extent? I find it suspicious that the Grand Canyon is the only example of the flood that creationists can give in terms of erosion and stuff.
Quote:As for stars, their light may be evidence of age, but it is not where God is concerned. He made the stars for us to see. It is logical that the all-powerful Designer of the universe would create the light-trails too, rather than create a mass of rock and wait 14 billion years before adding humans. Or maybe he did, thereby reconciling modern science with Bible. Pick your poison.
Why would God deceive like that though? Not only deceive but contradict himself by giving a description of his creation that doesn't match the observations of his creation.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
