|
|
| Learn How Evolution is Largely Based on the Silly Assumption of a Dead Lawyer |
Age of the earth
| Posted On: 08/11/08 09:54:52 AM |
Age 70, PA |
This information by Dr. Carlson reinforced my questioning of those who submit the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I have always questioned the means of measuring the earths age and now am more convinced than ever man simply has no credible data to support their conclusions....
Click here to reply to this post
|
Is There Anybody Out There
| Posted On: 08/09/08 07:11:14 AM |
Age 55, SCOTLAND |
At first viewing I thought that the contents of this video ironic, but to my utter astonishment it became clear that "Dr" Carlson is an idiot preaching to an an already deluded audience. This IS NOT SCIENCE!
Click here to reply to this post
|
A Few More Facts
| Posted On: 08/06/08 01:43:43 PM |
Age 53, OH |
Not only is the column non existent, but:
1-New zealand has a museum which displays a petrified felt hat and wooden wagonwheel from the 1800'S= doesn't take millions of years
2-coal mines from the 1800's have stalactites and stalagmites several feet long
3- the 'white cliffs of dover' on englands southern coast disapear into the sea and can be traced via drill cores to continue for 600 miles into europe=hard to explain w/out a universal flood
4-polystrate fossils (treetrunks) appear as vertical posts in several layers at once, even tho the layers are supposed to be millions of years old each.
There is plenty of geological data to support a young earth view-plenty.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Important points
| Posted On: 08/06/08 10:04:27 AM |
Age 27, SCOTLAND |
Most strata isn't dated from fossils. Strata is dated determined mainly by which strata are above others, but usually via other means, such as radiometric dating.
The geological column, which was determined BEFORE Darwin, isn't found as an entire column at one spot. Its parts exist in many places; all the overlap allows you to reconstruct the whole thing.
Even if all of evolutionary biology and geology were wrong, it wouldn't make Genesis true..
Click here to reply to this post
|
- more important points
| Posted On: 08/06/08 07:16:42 PM | | Age 50, VA |
... and radiometric dating is based on unproved assumptions on the constancy of initial concentrations of the measured isotopes. Moreover, accuracy decreases over time since, as isotopes are depleted by decay, faint, statistically unreliable readings result. Falsity of evolutionary biology and flaws in geology neither confirm nor deny Genesis, but error does lead to many woes including a tainted world view that discourages objective consideration of contrary positions, including the correct one.
Click here to reply to this post
Quote on Lyell
| Posted On: 08/06/08 07:45:52 AM |
Age 42, MO |
Gould, Stephen Jay, Professor of Paleontology and Geology at Harvard, in ‘Natural History’ Feb 1975 p.16.
‘Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate. … Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. … In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i2/quotes.asp
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Great Quote...
| Posted On: 10/16/08 04:02:26 AM | | Age 45, TX |
even up to the assumption that today’s catastrophists are not hardnosed empiricists.
Also radiometric dating is inaccurate in dating samples of know age and adjusted, using allege contamination to match the supposed date of the rock layer.
Click here to reply to this post
Christian Evolution vs. BIblical Creationism
| Posted On: 08/05/08 10:26:02 AM |
Age 61, NJ |
Dr. Ron Carlson is to be commended for his timely speech demolishing Evolution. In complementing and corroborating his testimony, I invite you to read the following article which exposes another clear and present danger to the church:
Christian Evolution:
MATTHEW DOWD'S CHRISTIAN EVOLUTION VS. BIBLICAL CREATIONIST: JAMES SUNDQUIST
Article can be pulled up by typing above title into you Google Search Engine.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Correct!
| Posted On: 08/05/08 10:13:43 AM |
Age 47, OH |
I want to thank Dr. Ron Carlson for enlightening the listener to hear truth! I am very pleased to see others standing up against the THEORY of evolution. Recently more and more churches/denominations are excepting the lie of the devil in bringing in deception in these last days. As Dr. Ron said, "there is no scientific evidence that the earth is older then 6,000 years." Today we must return to the founders and long time truth of major universities years past i nwhich they taught that th Bible proves science, medicine, etc, and not the other way around! It is amazing how the enemy is deceiving slowly more and more people every day!
Blessings in Christ,
Pastor Bob Tarasiak
Click here to reply to this post
|
Dr. Calrson Appears to be misinformed
| Posted On: 08/04/08 03:49:15 AM |
Age 42, FM |
While I am a young earth proponent and a conservative Pastor it did not take much effort to find information that refutes what Dr. Calrosn said about Charles Lyell. It appears he was in fact a geologist. http://www.gennet.org/facts/lyell.html
I tend to believe much fo what Dr. Calrson said, but this error leans toward discrediting him.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- "Dr. Calrson Appears to be misinformed" revisited.
| Posted On: 08/09/08 08:11:27 AM | | Age 46, FL |
I did a little research on Lyell. I found many references to him as a Geologist, but nothing saying that he had an earned Degree in Geology. Darwin appears to be in the same boat: his only earned Degree appears to be in Theology. By today’s educational standards, it seems that Lyell would be seen a Lawyer, and not a Geologist; I assume that this is Dr. Carlson’s point.
Click here to reply to this post
- I believe Carlson is right
| Posted On: 08/05/08 08:31:25 AM | | Age 21, KS |
Admittedly, my research only goes as far as Wikipedia, but they are by no means biased towards a Christian worldview, and even the Lyell article there says that he was a lawyer. He is classified as a geologist now, but had very little formal training. As if that wasn't enough, the radiometric dating techniques that supposedly work today weren't in use when he developed the geologic column. Lyell died 20 years before Marie Curie made her discoveries, so this basically means that there was no science involved in the formation of the timescale, just conjecture.
Click here to reply to this post
- Wikipedia Does Have an Anti-Christian Bias
| Posted On: 08/27/08 10:20:16 PM | | Age 63, PA |
Wikipedia is biased against Christians. For them religion has "evolved" along with everything else.
Click here to reply to this post
- Lawyer and Geologist
| Posted On: 08/06/08 08:00:57 AM | | Age 42, NM |
It appears that Lyell practiced law in the 1820's and was Professor of Geology at King's College London during the 1830's. He graduated from Exeter College before going into law, but had an interest in geology. His geological education is prety spotty and informal.
The fact that he was Professor of Geology does not refute Carlson's point even if a particular detail is incomplete (Carlson never claimed to tell you everything about Lyell). The whole basis for the age of the earth is still an assumption based on philosophical beliefs and the geological column has never been observed, yet it's taught as fact.
True science has to involve observation.
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
