Mysteries In Science

Is there hard scientific evidence for the existence of the biblical God who created the earth in 6 literal, 24 hour days? Scientists scoffingly and emphatically say, NO!, but in 1969, Dr. Robert Gentry, not long before an ardent evolutionist, discovered just such "fingerprints of creation," publishing his findings in several major peer reviewed science journals. This infomercial shows excerpts from two of his recent videos on the topic.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• fingerprints
• creation
• god
• existence
• proof
• granite
• polonium
• radiohalos

[NancyxEldridge]

Could you list some neutral websites as I'd like to examine both sides. Thanks.

[SymphoDeProggy]

@PicklePublishing

while we're on dating methods...

there are non radiometric dating methods.

biological dating methods (gov. by electromagnetic force) and astronomical dating methods (gov. by gravity)

and they sync up with the established radiometric methods.

wouldn't a young earth also demand independent variation in all these methods ?

that's an awful lot of assuming just to explain some halo rings.

makes more sense to invoke Occam and look for a less interdependent explanation.

[GodHasNOMother]

@skyblazer7 I personally feel that if we do not have the answers ourselves, and someone presents us with this kind of evidence,...the only LOGICAL conclusion to come to is to accept the explanation at face value. No one can tell me that something is NOT...when they cannot tell me what it IS... To know the difference one has to know both options, or there is nothing to compare it with in order to come to the conclusion that it is NOT.

[GodHasNOMother]

@skyblazer7 If it's not sentient or self aware...then explain why we (created in G-d's Image) can appreciate beauty outside of necessity... The only functional advantage of beauty is to attract in order to benefit the plant/animal... Yet WE perceive beauty outside these prerequisites, without that beauty doing ANYTHING to benefit itself, from our observation. We find galaxies in the sky beautiful...we find butterflies beautiful, we find poisonous plants beautiful... Why?

[skyblazer7]

IMHO we can't answer the question at present, we can only speculate and 'make believe'. Give us another million years to explore every facet of existence and we will likely be closer to an answer.

My speculation is that there is a creative force behind the universe, but I don't even think it is sentient or self-aware. My evidence is that there is far too much 'order' in the universe to be accidental or a coincidence.

[headchip26]

so his most reasonable and rational explanation is that god created all granite in seconds? ok sure.

[PicklePublishing]

@SymphoDeProggy What many do not realize is that the dates are often made to sync with preconceived ideas, so it isn't enough for someone to just assert that various dating methods all agree.

To illustrate my point, see educatetruthDOTcom /la-sierra-evidence/radiometri­c-dating-can-be-very-tuff where the same formation was dated at .5 to 230 my. Too much subjectivity.

It's not just Po halos. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones is also a problem.

We all tend to see what we are looking for.

[PicklePublishing]

@SymphoDeProggy Yet at times the traits of alleged descendants existed before the alleged ancestors.

Regarding the coalified wood U halo ratios, see halos dot com/reports/science-1976-coali­fied-wood.htm

[SymphoDeProggy]

@PicklePublishing

similarities don't mean much.

the phylogenetic trees as constructed through progression of traits, not similarity of traits.

it's this visible progression that is the basis of evolution, not the mere similarity animals.

as for dating methods...

science is statistics, so i'd want to see the ratio of "young" Jurassic coalified wood compared to "old" Jurassic found.

you wouldn't happen to have that handy, would ya ?

[PicklePublishing]

@SymphoDeProggy (a) It depends on the mechanism by which rates are increased.

(b) If the rate change were proportional to current rates, it be as easy to swallow as anything about radioactivity, quantum physics, or subatomic particles. And much easier to swallow than evolution, which requires a huge leap of faith.

One scientist stated that the complexity of the inner workings of a cell is such that if it was known in Darwin's day, evolution would have been considered a joke.

[PicklePublishing]

@SymphoDeProggy Delve into these other areas, and you'll find they aren't as solid as what they're made out to be.

Would you expect to find similarities in DNA and anatomy if there was a common Creator? Of course! So the key is to look for everything that can only fit one model, not both.

If descendant's traits predate the ancestors, the tree is fiction.

U/Pb ratios in U halos is Jurassic & Triassic coalified wood show that those strata are young. The fossils in them cannot be older.