The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

[Mr.Right]

This is exactly the response I expected from you atheist fools. Now, how about trying to refute what I posted? It might fool someone Into thinking you have some intelligence.

And here you have it folks. The tragedy of home schooling. Give, and give generously. A mind is a terrible thing to lose (Dan Quayle)

So you're refusing to even discuss it? Coward!

 

[Mr.Right]

What a bunch of nonsense. You didn't post any evidence, you posted a lame opinion piece and passed it off as science. You're free to believe whatever poppycock you wish but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

Then try to refute. You cant. That's why you won't even try.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Then you shouldn't have any problem refuting my evidence. Assuming you actually read it. Which I sincerely doubt.

You haven't posted any.

I most certainly did. Here it is again.
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth Answers in Genesis

For those of you that don't want to click the link here is what it sends you to:

 

[cnm]

The first two were by

Dr. Andrew A. Snelling
Geologist, Speaker, Author, Researcher, Editor-in-chief of Answers Research Journal

I didn't bother checking any more

This site had interesting information on Drs A.A. Spelling

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please
Stand Up?

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up ​

There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications - a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling. ​

 

[pillars]

Wow, I'm going to have a hard time taking Mr. Young Earth seriously from here on out.


LULZ.

 

[pillars]

What a bunch of nonsense. You didn't post any evidence, you posted a lame opinion piece and passed it off as science. You're free to believe whatever poppycock you wish but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

BUT THE BIBLE!!! THE BIBLE!!! That is all the evidence we NEED, you ignorant atheist.

 

[cnm]

Can you refute any of the evidence I provided?

Dr A. A. Spelling refuted it...

SNELLING 2

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up

If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale. ​

The latest paper by Snelling 2 (1990, 807 -812) is a detailed technical account of the "Koongarra Uranium Deposits" in the Northern Territory. It appears in an authoritative two volume work on "Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. The references list eight earlier papers by Snelling 2 in refereed journals (or symposium volumes) on aspects of uranium mineralisation; three as sole author and five as junior co-author.

In discussing the regional geology (p. 807) and age (p. 811) of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Snelling 2 describes their geological history in fairly technical terms, however, to avoid the charge we lay against the creationists, of taking quotations out of context, I will quote Snelling 2 verbatim from the paper (p. 807):

"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

"The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."​

 

[cnm]

Mr.Right is always Wrong.

 

[mdk]

What a bunch of nonsense. You didn't post any evidence, you posted a lame opinion piece and passed it off as science. You're free to believe whatever poppycock you wish but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

Then try to refute. You cant. That's why you won't even try.

It isn't my place to try and refute your faith. You can ignore basic facts all you wish but we are under zero obligation to follow suit.

 

[cnm]

This will be good.

So you're refusing to even discuss it? Coward!

 

[Vandalshandle]

What a bunch of nonsense. You didn't post any evidence, you posted a lame opinion piece and passed it off as science. You're free to believe whatever poppycock you wish but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

Then try to refute. You cant. That's why you won't even try.

I never used to argue with my 3 year old about whether or not is was her bedtime, either. However, she always lost on that issue, too....

 

[Mr.Right]

What a bunch of nonsense. You didn't post any evidence, you posted a lame opinion piece and passed it off as science. You're free to believe whatever poppycock you wish but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

Then try to refute. You cant. That's why you won't even try.

I never used to argue with my 3 year old about whether or not is was her bedtime, either. However, she always lost on that issue, too....

Deflection and insults. That's all you have. You lose by default. I accept your surrender

 

[Syriusly]

The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy.
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth Answers in Genesis

LOL.....what idiocy.

 

[Syriusly]

This is exactly the response I expected from you atheist fools. Now, how about trying to refute what I posted? It might fool someone Into thinking you have some intelligence.

You posted a link.

You didn't post any 'evidence'

You can't even explain what you think the link says.

I didn't go to the link- hell it might be another link to PrisonPlanet- apparently one of your 'sources' of 'information'.

 

[cnm]

It was as good as I though it would be.

Brave brave Mr.Right...

 

[cnm]

And here you have it folks. The tragedy of home schooling. [...]

I was wondering about that. But aren't there some batshit crazy schools around?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy.
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth Answers in Genesis

You really shouldn't post links that you don't understand.

 

[aaronleland]

So please, there isn't a fucking thing supporting young earth. It is no surprise that someone that is anti-science would post such bullcrap.

Then you shouldn't have any problem refuting my evidence. Assuming you actually read it. Which I sincerely doubt.

No, I honestly didn't read an article from answeringgenesis.org. I wouldn't waste my time.

 

[Mr.Right]

The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy.
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth Answers in Genesis

You really shouldn't post links that you don't understand.

You're all a bunch on gutless cowards.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy.
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth Answers in Genesis

You really shouldn't post links that you don't understand.

You're all a bunch on gutless cowards.

Now, Mr. right, I am sure that there is a thread somewhere where you would fit right in, and people would be of an intelligence level where you would be accepted, and even generate a conversation.Maybe a thread like, 'Was Jesus an alien from Kyrpton?" I just don't think that will happen here.