Evidence against creation

[Esquilax]

Hi all to be honest i'm here to collect some evidence surrounding evidence against creation from the Evolutionist and the Atheist point of view.

Well, that's good: investigation is never bad. However, one quick tip: "Evolutionist," is not a word. It's not even a thing; it's a dishonest rhetorical tactic employed by creationists to try and equate acceptance of evolution with a religious position. I'd suggest rejecting the term outright; acceptance of gravity doesn't make you a Gravitationalist, after all.

Hopefully this doesn't put you off but i've recently listened to the creationist talk at church about evidence of Dinosaurs within last 6000 years, evidence of flood through tectonic plates leading to Mt Ararat(showing that land masses literally moved upwards from the surface) and also inaccuracy and uses of Carbon dating only to within the the last 25000-50000 years or so.

Well, that is off-putting, but only insofar as creationists always tend to, you know, lie, when they talk about this subject. Dishonesty is off-putting.

[*]Carbon dating has inaccuracies, where pyroclastic flows and volcanic activities have showed a volcano explosion dated at 23.7 million years whereas it only occured in the last 200 years.

Let me ask you this: where did the matter that makes up the pyroclastic flow come from? Did it pop into existence 200 years ago? Or did it exist before then, just in a different form that ended up within the volcano?

Now consider this: carbon dating measures the age of the materials, not the current state of the materials.

[*]Carbon dating relies on C-14 with calculations dependent on trees accurate to what i've found 14,000 years and possible use of coral reefs beyond that to determine carbon dates. My question is how can you carbon date to the millions or billions of years? What techniques does science use alongside carbon-dating, how can the substantiate the 50000+ years dates of historical evidence if it only can accurately go to 50,000. I've read that fossils rely on the rock and sediments around it, but does this use carbon-dating? What am i missing here?

What you're missing is that carbon dating is just one of a number of radiometric dating methods that are available to us. Other dating methods can reach back further, and through the use of all of them together, we can get a hold on a really rather impressive range of dates.

[*]For Evidence with dinosaurs, Alexander the great wrote in his diary of an experience with a huge animal with eyes as big as a shield.

There are no other large animals but dinosaurs?

An asian temple has a picture of a fleshed out brachisarausBrachiasaurus, how did they come up with this besides imagination, something so accurate as a carving on their temple,

That's not a dinosaur, more likely it's a pig or some other farm animal; note the exterior ears, which no dinosaur has. Also note that the pattern on its back- you're thinking of a Stegosaurus, not a Brachiosaur, by the way. The things along its back are reminiscent of the spines- is a recurring pattern throughout the carving, not a specific part of the figure itself. It's quite simply not a dinosaur carving, and even if it was, that's not evidence against evolution: why would it be?

Also they've found the existence of soft-tissue within dinosaurs this seems to prove in theory they're far more recent than we expected, what's the refutation for this?

The refutation is that this is a lie: the tissue was found fossilized, and rehydrated after discovery to become "soft." Additionally, it isn't even known if this is original tissue of something added later.

[*]Lastly the evidence for the flood whilst seemingly more of a stretch was that in the bible it says:

The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.

So according to this the earth needed to rise and from what i heard that evidence for this is that alot of the tectonic plates actually line up with Mt Ararat where Noah landed so if the earth were to rise it lines up with Noah landing at Mt Ararat. Also evidence at Mt Everest that water and a layer of dirt was found shows evidence of the flood which you may heard of. And the last of that evidence was talking about how the Grand Canyons and similar type structures exist because of water-formations, and a flood seems to explain that very well.

Considering that there are layers of the geologic column, consistent and continuous, that are seasonal or windblown in ways that would be impossible during a worldwide flood, it doesn't even matter if this is true: it is literally impossible that the flood happened, so presenting stuff that maybe lines up with the old story if you squint is simply irrelevant.