Radiocarbon Dating Is Inaccurate

The age of the earth has been debated for centuries. Many people believe in evolution that it took billions of years for everything and everyone to form. Others believe that God created the earth in seven days and that the earth is young. Secular scientist and Christian scientist both use different methods for determining how old the earth is. For example, Secular scientist look and use the layers of rocks to help them, while Christian scientist uses the Bible and look at historical data from other cultures to help them. Doesn't looking at archeological data seem more accurate than looking at rocks? If the earth is truly billions of years old, then why is there little sediment on the sea floor? Or how can secular scientist explain finding soft tissue in a fossil if the earth is old? The most logical explanation is that the earth is young. Many people believe something just because people say that it is true, sometimes it is good to investigate for yourself and see if it is good for you.

The second reason why evolution is false is that there is little evidence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Even Darwin and other scientists have admitted the lack of evidence and fossils. For example, Stephen M. Stanley, an evolutionist, has made comments about this: “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another” (Snyder, 44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults). If evolution has happened, and is still in process today, then the world would be filled with species that are transitioning into another, instead, there are none alive today. To add to this, no human has ever witnessed macroevolution, so therefore, there is little proof and no possible record

Young- Earth view point on the age of earth is based on not only science but the Bible as well. There try to combine the two areas in an effort to present the true age of the earth. One of the areas they use is how long it takes for material to harden. They present

Why is it a a strength of evolutionary theory that it can potentially be falsified?

The Dawkins chapter speaks about the debate between religion and science and how religious people refuse to even give science teachers and professors the time of day. Most of the time people will refuse to listen to what has been proven due to their religious beliefs. Evolution professors have even been threatened with the loss of their jobs. Even though, many professors have tried to explain that evolution is a fact and one of the greatest of God’s works, still their time is wasted. The pope and educated priests and professors of theology have been known to no longer have a problem with evolution because they understand that evolution is a fact and not intended to be an anti-religious study.

Because science does not have an omniscient back-up source, any lack of explanation for current phenomenon is easily construed as a weakness to a scientifically unsophisticated audience, placing the burden of proof unfairly at the feet of science. Despite these tactics, a thorough explanation of current scientific understanding eliminates any question of doubt about the age of the Earth, and can directly combat what Young-Earthers consider their strongest claims.

Evolution theory is not true because it gives a vague explanation of how the world developed to be what it is today and it also fails to explain why it is no longer going on today. As absurd as it is there are people in the world today who believe it majority of them being atheist.

Creationism is the belief that God created the universe and all that exists. There has been a long disagreement between the evolution believers called evolutionists and Creationism believers called creationists. Thomas defends his belief in evolutionism from the creationists. The creationists claimed the evolutionists’ argument, which is fossilization, has gaps in it that make their ideals flawed. Thomas defends his position by giving evidence on how he can prove that fossilization is valid truthful evidence to support evolutionism. Thomas uses the explanation of the formation of the fossils to defend his case. He gives a series of descriptive steps all telling how each step helps support his argument, each step supporting evolution in different ways. The formation of fossils gives the explanation that animals must die and be buried in a compositional area. This allows scientists to be able to date the age of the discovered fossils. Thomas admits that dating fossils might not be one hundred percent accurate, and there are gaps. Thomas also claims that dating the fossils is much more evidence based than any evidence creationists have. This article is just a small portion of the arguments for both sides have it’s primarily evolutionists. It’s just defending one of the many critiques of the creationists. Thomas explains to the readers that even though he can’t physically prove that evolution is true, he can back up his claims with science based calculations,

The earth is known to be old, but what is the truth of how old is the earth. There is scientific evidence of how old it is, some would say it’s Billions of years and some would say Thousands of years old. There is a lot of factors like rocks layers, plants, animals, sun, moon and many more facts that can predict how many years has the earth been around. But to find the truth if it’s a Billions of years or Thousands of years we would have to compare the two and even look into scientist discovering facts. Or do we go off the what God has created and the Bibles authors?

In 1947 Clair "Pat" Patterson began to calculate the age of the Earth by the request of Harrison Brown at the University of Chicago. The age of the Earth was always questionable to historians before Pat Patterson. In 1650 James Usher Archbishop of Ireland accepted biblical views as authoritative and used events from the old testament to calculate the age of the Earth. His calculations gave him the result of Saturday October 22, 4004 B.C. at six o' clock P.M. Scientists after that began to try and measure the sediments of rock in the Earth but their calculations varied too widely from three million to fifteen billion years. It was then discovered that by calculating the amount of lead in meteorites you will be able to see exactly how old the Earth really is.

Opposing claims have to be addressed in any argument so that the amount of questions on the argument are minimized. In the Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins is forced to address a variety of creationist critiques of evolution. The author presents opposing claims in two ways. He does it either directly or indirectly. Directly meaning he says it out right and indirectly meaning it is up to the reader to infer the subclaim he is arguing against. The author also never concedes an opposing claim. The way he addresses them is either by clarifying a concept or actually arguing against it. Analyzing the book, one can see how the author introduces and addresses opposing claims.

(The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1]). “Whatever effect selection may possibly have had on random processes in later biological reproduction, it is clear beyond any rational argument that chance processes could have never produced even the simplest forms of life in the first place. Without a living God to create life, the laws of probability and complexity prove beyond doubt that life could never come into existence at all. Life, at the very simplest level conceivable, has absolutely no possibility of having been generated by any other means than special creation by a living Creator.” (H. Morris and J. Morris

On the other hand, if the earth is billions of years old, this wouldn't prove that either of these had occurred, but it would make them possible. There is another reason for the importance. God presumably doesn't teach us things for no reason. If He has clearly taught that the earth is a certain age, then that must be important. Further, if the earth is only thousands of years old, then erosion and deposition, and other slow geologic processes, can't have been responsible for many of the geologic phenomena which we observe.

Current geological indicators suggest that parts of Earth’s crust had already solidified by 4.4 billion years ago, which is not long before oxygen started showing up in ancient rocks. Furthermore, other microfossils (or chemical evidence suggesting their presence) have been discovered in the past year by research scientists, and possibly date as far back as 4.28 billion years ago.

Mikhail Lomonosov, a Russian naturalist in the 1700s, believed that the earth was several hundred thousand years old. Such estimate was then improved when the earth was dated at 75,000 years old by Comte du Buffon, a French scientist. He established this from the rapid caliber of cooling in the rocks that he had calculated. The father of contemporary geology, Charles Lyell, attacked the idea of catastrophism and popularized the law of uniformitarianism, which is that, since the beginning of the earth, the current processes of the earth have been transpiring. Such principle resulted in more ancient estimates of the earth's age. Many scientists, around the time of Darwin, assumed an age around four hundred million years old, give or take one million years. The most widely acknowledged assessment of the earth's age today is nearly four and a half billion years old. Following these assertions, humans did not exist on the earth until about three million years ago ("What Does the Fossil Record Show?"). Therefore, because of these ancient estimates, rooted in science, the Bible is in conflict with science and should not be accepted as truth, since it advertises the creation of the world in one week, and the creation of humans within that