Evidence against creation

[Neber]

Thanks for your response Esquilax.

My apologies for mislabelling you guys, maybe i should have avoided using any labels to begin with. Anyways i've just changed it to scientific point of view at this time.

Thinking about what you said.

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.

Yeah this is a very interesting thing i was thinking about. How would the formation or in a sense reformation of rock determine the real age of the rock. St Helens seems the closest to this event, but the numbers don't seem to match up with what i heard. Anyways it has similar results, where a team measured in through some methods, however dubious it was, and though it occurred within this century, the dating set it from 0.35 - 2 million years old.

Anyways getting to the point, since i couldn't find too much argument against wrongly dating the rocks due to already being formed i assume there when it undergoes volcanic activity it heats up so much that the actual structure of the rocks changes completely to essentially being formed again at its core but i could be wrong. Regardless though, the dating measurements should show in millions or billions of years according to the current estimates on the age of earth according to current measurements, though i definitely think there's something more complex going on here? My lack of knowledge on the formation of rocks leaves much to be desired here though.

Another interesting thing to think about would be how do they determine the formation of rocks, i'd assume all rocks should be in essence the age of the earth at ~4.8 billion years, yet they use rock and sediment around dinosaur fossils to determine the dinosaur ages, measured in the millions of years generally, would be interesting to find the science behind this.

There are no other large animals but dinosaurs?

Animals with the eyes the size of a greek shield would lend itself to being a dinosaur, that was the recount of Alexander the great. Elephants are what the biggest, otherwise it'd need to be a large sea creature, but the instance of Alexander the great's was that his army was walking through a foreign nation and those people referred an animal with huge eyes and told them not to annoy it, but as Alexander's Army marched across the valley they heard a huge roar and were terrified, and some had sighted the great beast.

A quick link to a brief on that account Alexander encounters a great beast

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?

That picture if it depicts a dinosaur and is not somehow from an artists imagination would just be evidence that dinosaurs roamed within the last 6000 years, throwing out general thinking that they exist only million years ago. The topic is mores evidence against creation not against evolution, since imo creationist evidence is far less abundant seemingly at this stage.

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.

Interesting. I could only find this occurrence with the T-rex they found of possible soft tissue, so it doesn't seem to point anyway.