Salty seas indicate that the Earth can't be any older than 62 million years old. That contradicts an Old Earth perspective.
Also, Saturns rings are properly dated back to 6000 years old. That would indicate the universe is much younger than presupposed by Evolutionists.
The list goes on and on really.
Losses of Genetic Information, destruction of DNA is a good case for people devolving, and not evolving, which means once again, advantage YECS. Being that YECS use the correct formulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (order to disorder)....once again, DNA is supporting a YECS viewpoint over Evolution.
As such, modern Science favors a Creation Science perspective on the matter.
40 comments
And the hair on my head dates back to only a few months ago. Plus, many of the cells in my body only live a few weeks. I only have an accurate and vivid recollection of things that have occured this past day.
YECS that cite the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics simply prove that they don't understand it. Salty seas say no such thing. I've never heard that Saturn' s rings date to 6000 years old, but even if they did, that has nothing to do with anything. DNA supports evolution. Absolutely nothing about DNA supports YECism.
"Salty seas indicate that the Earth can't be any older than 62 million years old. That contradicts an Old Earth perspective." "Also, Saturns rings are properly dated back to 6000 years old. That would indicate the universe is much younger than presupposed by Evolutionists."
Again, according to who? Your uncited claims are really irritating. You can claim anything if you want to. Hell, I can claim to be God, but that doesn't make it true. Cite your sources, you ignoramus.
"The list goes on and on really."
It does? Really? So where's the rest of the list? You got a link? A book? An article in a newspaper? A friggin' segment of Faux News? Anything? No? Sigh.
"As such, modern Science favors a Creation Science perspective on the matter."
Only when the "modern" scientist has made a conscious choice to ignore all empirical evidence and observable data in favor of a position based on faith, dogma, and a book written by bronze-age nomads with a persecution complex.
If Saturn's rings are less than 6000 years old, this would tend to indicate that Saturn's rings are less than 6000 years old. How is this in any way shape or form related to the age of the universe or the evolution of life on this planet? (BTW: Can anyone confirm that this statement about Saturn is true?)
In which sci-Fi book or nursery rhyme book did you read that salt is a proof of longevity?, do you really know how old THE SATURN RINGS are?.Have you proofs of what you say in the last paragraph?, why has Old Earth to be valid?, it´s a theory to be proved(and it hasn´t)
Kent Hovind strikes again.added to by viruses, splitting and rejoining differently, etc. That's why 97% of our DNA is non-functioning garbage. Ferns have thousands of chromosomes because their genes are particularly subject to accidentally duplicating and reversing pieces of DNA during cell division.
Salty seas indicate that the Earth can't be any older than 62 million years old. That contradicts an Old Earth perspective. Also, Saturns rings are properly dated back to 6000 years old. That would indicate the universe is much younger than presupposed by Evolutionists.
Proof? References?
We actually know that Saturn's rings weren't always the way they are. The spectacular rings she has now will exist for a geological eyeblink, and be gone. Nice try, though -- using other planets' conditions is an attempt I haven't seen before.
I do believe he is referencing a Christian Science website, dedicated entirely to shoehorning "science" into Genesis...fuck if I can remember the address, I was mostly looking at it for a laugh.
Hey, stupid--the law of thermodynamics talks about heat being given up to cool the thing off. What the hell is it with you fanatics that you repeatedly compare evolution to thermodynamics? Have a degree in physics like my engineering one, do ya?
If Saturns rings were properly dated back to 6000 years old, it would prove that Saturn's rings are 6,000 years old - what does this have to do with the age of the universe?
...How does the presence of salt in seas prove the age of anything?
Sandman wrote:"Salty seas indicate that the Earth can't be any older than 62 million years old. That contradicts an Old Earth perspective."
According to who? "
It's from Henry M. Morris's 1974 book, Scientific Creationism . Morris worked out how long it would take to reach the concentrations of various elements found in the oceans given the best current estimates for how fast they are being added by rivers, etc. The idea was that as you can't have less than none of something, these ages are the upper limits of how old the oceans must be.
However, he only showed the results that agreed with his opinion of age of the Earth. Rather tellingly, he left out Aluminium, which by Morris's method gives an upper limit on the age of the oceans of less than 100 years.
Lying for Jeebus!
David B.:
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
