(December 16, 2010 at 1:10 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Biblical Creationism has made many successful predictions -mmmmSo first it was, “Creationism has made no successful predictions.”- now it is “well the predictions that creationists have successfully made were not impressive enough for me.” Moving the goal posts I see. If this was such an easy prediction, then why did it take all the secular scientists so long to figure it out?
Creationists knew the Universe had a beginning long before the rest of secular science caught up. Even Richard Dawkins admits this in his "God Delusion" debate with John Lennox. - There really are only 2 options for this;it had a beginning or it is eternal. Getting a 50:50 bet right isn't impressive. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism.
Quote: Creationists also predicted that there would be measurable levels of C14 in both coal and diamonds, something thought to be impossible by Evolutionists. Low and behold, there’s C14 in coal and diamonds (over ten times the minimal detectable amount) - Whats an evolutionist? I don't think evolutionary theory has anything to say about c14 in coal. Coal is fully petrified fossial organic vegetation. C14 levels would deteriorate quickly geologically speaking, but that does not rule out post fossilisation introduction of c14 and other forms of contamination. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism.
The age of the Earth is closely tied to Evolution. That’s why the high school textbook “Teaching About Evolution” has two whole chapters dedicated to the age of the Earth. Secular scientists believed that it was impossible for C14 to be measured in both coal and diamonds because they are both believed to be far too old. Creationists believe they are young so they asked for secular labs to do the tests. Of course, there was C14 in both, and every time the tests were done. Rather than admitting this is strong evidence against old ages for the coal and diamonds, Evolutionists just say there was cross contamination, something they of course never observed and can never demonstrate. So it’s a nice way of ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the paradigm.
Quote: Creationists also predicted that many species that were thought to be extinct could be found still today. Low and behold, we find numerous species such as the Coelacanth that were thought to be extinct for millions of years. How does that bolster your case? - Evolutionary theory makes no prediction of what happened to a certain group of Crossopterygian fish prevously only known from fossils found in Permian marine sediments. As far as evolution is concerned its a so what, there are many animals that have survived through many geologic ages relatively unchanged. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism.
If you can’t see how organisms suddenly appearing in tact and identical to today’s creatures in the fossil record is evidence for Creation then I don’t know what to tell you. It most certainly can’t be used as evidence for evolution.
Quote: Creationists also predicted that all the major phyla of Organisms should appear at once in the fossil record. Low and behold, the Cambrian explosion holds all of the major phyla of organisms. When you say at once, the Cambrian explosion was about 50 million years of rapid expansion of life forms as they radiated out to fill available ecological niches which accompanyed an increase in atmospheric oxygen (enriching the seas), global arming and a retrenchment of ice sheets. There have also been other similar explosive radiations (at least in a geological sense as an explosion ould take millions fo years). I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism
50 million years is not nearly enough time for all of those different phyla to evolve. The genetic differences between them are far too great, and mutations occur far too slowly. Besides, the millions of transitional fossils depicting this evolution of all these phyla are still MIA. You are really operating under a faith based system.
Quote:Creationists also believed that finding soft tissue in Dinosaur fossils was a very real possibility. Low and behold, we find soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils. All it tells us is that the process of petrification isn't consistent between different sediments, which is what you'd expect. The bone itself was petrified and that still takes a very long time to achieve. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism
If this is no big deal then why did Mary Schweitzer have to do the test 17 times before she would believe it? The answer is because it’s young Earth implications were so undeniable that she thought it was impossible. This is the same reason Jack Horner didn’t believe her when she told him, and many reviewers told her what she was finding was impossible. They all knew the implications. It is impossible for soft tissue to survive for 65 million years. It’s amazing it even survived for a few thousand. So if you don’t see the obvious implications of this evidence, then you really are just ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit your paradigm.
At least Creationists can explain why certain evidence points to an older Earth and yet is still consistent with their young Earth model. Evolutionists just ignore young Earth evidence like you have just done, and then say there is no evidence to support a young Earth.
