I love hearing these testimonies -- Dr. Henry Morris came to our little college in the fall of 1974 (Sheldon Jackson College, in Sitka, Alaska -- now defunct, but it was a Jr. college at the time), and spoke every evening for a week. I attended every session, and it was like light bulbs going off. I'd only been a Christian for a few months, and hadn't really thought deeply yet about the implications of evolution as I'd learned it in the public schools, as contrasted with the Bible account, but Dr. Morris's presentations made me think about it, and it greatly strengthened my walk with the Lord. The two teachers who'd invited Dr. Morris to speak at our school started a creation science ministry a few years later, which is still going strong (Alpha Omega Institute, based in Grand Junction, CO).
@georg7120 the evidence is the same evidence that atheists use. The difference is the interpretation of the evidence. Creationists believe there is a creator so the evidence is interpreted that way. Atheists assume there were millions and billions of years so they interpret the evidence that way.
@@georg7120 in what way? Did you watch the video? The evidence is showing that the earth and universe are not not millions or billions of years old. The evidence supports the biblical creation account.
Yeshua (Jesus) is the whole point of the Bible. The redemption of mankind and God’s love toward us is such a beautiful thing when one begins to understand. Blessings upon you all, as you learn to follow Him.
It has been a wonderful conversation, but the way you all wrapped it up was the ultimate climax. Praise be to our Lord Jesus Christ, our Creator and Sustainer, and the author of our Salvation.
Thank you ICR for being the ones to introduce me to young earth creationism back in the 90's. I am so grateful to God for you and you will always hold a special place in my heart. ♥️🙏✝️🕊️
I graduated in 93 and probably 2 years later I was listening to Chuck Swindol. He was my favorite pastor at the time and one day I heard him talking about dinosaurs walking with man, and because of my public school indoctrination, I thought "oh great, he's a quack". It wasn't until 2017 when I got injured at work that I came across Dr. Dino, Kent Hovind. I watched a whole series of his and finally came around. Now, you couldn't force me to believe anything but. GOD is good, merciful and ful of grace.
In 100% of the cases where the date of a rock sample is known, radiometric dating is wrong by orders of magnitude. And yet, the scientific world expects us to believe that where the date is historically not known, it is always accurate.
@haggismcbaggis94 they knew the date beforehand and excluded false readings and only kept those that agreed with known dates. When objects of known age are tested but the analysts don't know the age, the dates are invariably wrong because they can't exclude the outliers. The problem with C14 dating is that the earth's magnetic field has been decaying since creation. In the past it was stronger, reducing cosmic radiation effect of converting N14 to C14, so the residual levels of C14 in tissue samples always gives a much longer age than the actual age. For very recent organic tissue, the dating is more accurate but it becomes very problematic for older samples.
@@garrygraham That does not appear to be the methodology Lanphere et al. (2007) used. The took a weighted average of their aliquants using 40Ar/Ar39 isochrons. Prior researchers have had similar results, but with less precision.
@@Mario_Sky_521 It is actually to date rocks from millions of years ago as the isotope ratios are better established. The Hawaiian Island/Emperor Seamount chain is an example of consecutive dating that matches the observed rate of plate tectonic movement and erosion of each island.
Is the dating for ice core samples similarly under suspicion? I can see how fossilized tree rings could give incorrect dates due to surrounding rocks being incorrectly dated, but what about ice core samples?
Ice core rings are weather events. WW2 planes landed on Iceland I think it was and a few decades later were dug out of 250 ice core rings. Making the planes 250 years old. We know that is false
Yes, ice core sample dating is extremely suspect. The primary reason is that age cannot be measured by any means of counting objects. More specific to ice cores, layers form intermittently between freeze / thaw cycles, not one per year. If there happened to only be one freeze / thaw cycle in an entire year, you would only get one couplet. But that happening in one year is extremely rare in the real world, and ridiculously unrealistic over the course of thousands and thousands of years.
@@cargumdeu You're welcome. BTW, tree ring dating is also suspect because multiple rings can form in a single year. As many as 11 have been seen to form in a single year. And as many as 4 per year average over the life of the tree have also been known. Which points back to the primary reason that age cannot be measured by counting objects, radiogenic isotopes included.
I’m interested to know if anyone has ever taken sample of rock layers at the canyon, crushed them into dust. Put that dust into a container with water, mixed thoroughly and then allowed them to sort into layers? Would they end up in the same order as they had been found?
There isn't any particular reason to think that experiment would tell you something meaningful. How sediments sort is highly dependent on how the water moves. Crushing the stone into dust further complicates the issue because original particle size makes a difference. Nevertheless, many flume experiments have been done by both sides of the argument. It is unanimously observed that particles do sort in a variety of ways depending on the specific circumstances. If you see mixed, unsorted conglomerations, you are probably seeing more of a mud slide and tumble action than a high water volume flow. Turbulence and laminar flow also a major role and can be mixed in a wide range of magnitudes.
@@appaloosa42 At the best you can get two layers under certain conditions. More relevant to look at places where you get actual flooding, or tsunami and the result is almost always a single layer of mud or silt.
@@haggismcbaggis9485 The C14 concentrations were measured (in one case) across the gradient from outside the fossils to the inside. If the C14 were from sort of external source after bio material deposition, then the gradient should go from stronger to weaker as you get closer to the fossil. If the C14 were insitu and native to the bio material, the gradient should go from weaker to stronger as you get closer to the fossil.
Eve did not disobey God in the garden. 1 the woman was not called Eve until after Bing thrown out if the garden 2 nowhere is recorded tgat God told her not to eat of the fruit. We have evidence, not proof, she got that from Adam because someone added not to touch. Adam not having named her nor God having said he was to command, teach or lead her did not have the right to ell her what to do 3 we see this in that Paul says that while Adam sinned, the woman fell into sin. We'll, the whole world fell into sin when Adam sinned. 5 this is important because as only through Adam is there original sin, a man born of a virgin, ie the seed of the woman, is thus born without original sin. Mary was a sinner as she had a father and she herself said she needed a savior.
Jesus is the Word, so I do not understand those who change the first 11 chapters of the Bible or the first two verses and think it's not literally🤔 why plant a flag here when there is great evidence for a young creation this seems like a 🚩 John 1:1 NKJV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
When you believe in biblical creation you MUST also deny what NASA says about the earth & what is surrounding the earth. Biblical cosmology must also be accepted & it's definitely NOT what NASA says.
You're conflating observable science with the opinions of people published in popular journals. You're also conflating observable science with history. We can see the earth, its shape, and what's around it. We cannot see nor test millions of years nor any other secular rendering of ancient earth history. And your comment about Biblical cosmology is way, way off base. There is nothing in the Biblical text that contradicts what we observe in the world today. As in nothing. You are either taking things way out of context, or you're relying on the opinions of others who have done that.
What do you mean? Scientific sense? Remember, science is not about what makes sense, because what makes sense is subjective. Data and evidence demonstrates Earth is billions of years old. When we discover something in reality that seems to conflict with our beliefs, we should always go with reality, because there is a really good chance that we are misinterpreting ancient texts. If you believe God created Earth, then you should accept how he did it and the age of the Earth.
@@Mark-h2s "... a really good chance we are misinterpreting ancient texts." -- There is a much bigger chance that data alone cannot tell you the history of the world.
It's not unreasonable to corroborate the historical, secular location, people, geologic, and secular events of the bible. However, it's unlikely that folks read the bible as a history lesson. They want the magic. And so far, there's no fact-based evidence to prove anything spiritual or metaphysical in the bible is true.
Unlikely that folks read the Bible as a history lesson? Many of us read it as a very precise history lesson, just not exclusively as a history lesson. And if it is an actual history lesson (i.e. real history), then it is by definition true.
@@mmaimmortals "Unlikely that folks read the Bible as a history lesson?" I think most people want the Christianity from it. I didn't say they JUST want history -- I meant they can get many more sources of secular history. I do notice that you phrase it -- " IF it is an actual history, then it is by definition true." "IF" means there's some doubt about it. Also, I don't see how "if it's an actual history lesson" why would that make it by definition true? Many history lesson books have been shown to contain errors. And in my research, I've found many errors in the bible.
@@darz3829 "if" isn't a statement of doubt. It's a logical qualifier. The Bible is an actual history, so it is true. If the history actually happened, how could it not logically be true? The miracles had to happen, the words had to be spoken, and the actions had to have happened. If they didn't, it wouldn't be a history book. But archaeology confirms that many of the details that can be known have been discovered. Archaeologists have even had to correct themselves after assuming some of the writings in the Bible weren't true and then later finding evidence that it was. Details about Daniel's authority in the Babylonian kingdom are an example. You haven't found any errors in the Bible. You've probably made some of the same logical errors that the archaeologists made. I've reviewed alleged errors that skeptics have cited. They usually haven't even read the text clearly enough to make a valid argument.
@StudentDad-mc3pu Got a property here in Asbury that used to be a Freemason Temple. What got lost in the mix is 20 million in Gold Disguised in Plain sight as a bronze fountain statue. Anybody can approach it and see for themselves.
@@EdwardSchwarz-n9j Bronze is bronze, gold is gold - I don't believe this statue is what you claim. Freemasonry is definitely not that wealthy in the UK.
@@EdwardSchwarz-n9jwhat is the name of that fountain, specifically? I did a little research on 'Bronze fountain in Asbury actually gold' or something like that, but I couldn't find anything. Interested in this, sounds really cool.
There are multiple reasons why the Biblical flood explanation and the old earth model are not compatible. The reason for the development of the old earth model was that evolution was going to require vast amounts of time and the motivation for the old earth interpretation was specifically stated by Charles Lyell, to separate the sciences from the books of Moses. The two models are antithetical on purpose.
@boxelder9167 - it was not Linnaeus, it was Lyell. And it was not motivated. He just could not believe that those geological formations could have formed in such short time
@ - We could take one example from forensic science where experiments have been performed on tissues and their proteins to see how long they take to degrade which increases as temperature increases. From this we can extrapolate how long proteins take to degrade in nature. Since we have now found tissues, proteins, and DNA in fossils from all layers of the geological column- but the maximum length of time that we can expect for these structures to remain intact is well under 100,000 years yet we have found soft tissue in fossils that date back to millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years old. Therefore we have a legitimate problem for old earth that we don’t have for a Biblical model. The list could easily go on and on. From the spiral arms of galaxies that should have become a disc by now to the magnetic fields of planets and moons. How many young earth evidences have to be true for a young planet? The actual best evidence for old earth would be radiometric decay but even that is based on several unprovable assumptions. As is the case with science we can disprove a hypothesis but ultimately we can never fully prove it. After several decades of research I have personally concluded that there is lots of evidence that would suggest that the earth was far younger than the deep time proponents predicted and only a few lines of evidence suggesting deep time and those are problematic in themselves and also have alternative interpretations.
Lol. Just goes to show the bible is right. People will reject the truth no matter what evidence they show to prove it. As far as soft tissue issue. Just go and watch a road kill near you. Let me know how fast it's eaten and decayed. Go watch a crime show on dead bodies they've dug up. Usually still full of maggots and other insects eating in it. There's no way 1 dinosaur survived to be buried with mammals let alone millions of them but that's what we see in the fossil record. Get your head out the sand look at the evidence. Even my 10 year old daughter said "that doesn't make sense." When I told her about darwins claim that bears evolved into whales. I also showed my kids a road kill so they could see nothing dies and stays whole for millions of years to be fossilized millions of years later
Just goes to show the bible correct people will reject the truth even with evidence to prove it in these last days. Asl yourself and try to answer it honestly. How did millions of dinosaurs die and wait for millions of years to be buried and fossilized with mammals and other modern animals. Why did they not get eaten and decay like all other animals that die. Real science proves this and you can test it yourself. go and watch a local road kill over the next few days. Watch it get eaten and decay in a few days
God is real science, today's science is pagan psuedo dogma, does not know where we came from ,why were here, or where were going.so one gets a PhD for that.really.
NO ONE HAS EVER FORUND DINOSAUR SOFT TISSUE. EVER. THAT IS A LIE ! To find such tissue is the holy grail of dinosaur research. 🦕. You need to do your home work or stop lying. Whichever is applicable. 😅
I love hearing these testimonies -- Dr. Henry Morris came to our little college in the fall of 1974 (Sheldon Jackson College, in Sitka, Alaska -- now defunct, but it was a Jr. college at the time), and spoke every evening for a week. I attended every session, and it was like light bulbs going off. I'd only been a Christian for a few months, and hadn't really thought deeply yet about the implications of evolution as I'd learned it in the public schools, as contrasted with the Bible account, but Dr. Morris's presentations made me think about it, and it greatly strengthened my walk with the Lord. The two teachers who'd invited Dr. Morris to speak at our school started a creation science ministry a few years later, which is still going strong (Alpha Omega Institute, based in Grand Junction, CO).
The foundation for scriptural creation is evidence-based. The foundation for darwinism is myth-based.
Precisely.
Then show me some evidence.
Actually, the contradictions in the bible show that you can't use the bible as evidence
@georg7120 the evidence is the same evidence that atheists use. The difference is the interpretation of the evidence. Creationists believe there is a creator so the evidence is interpreted that way. Atheists assume there were millions and billions of years so they interpret the evidence that way.
@@Night_Crew_Artist But there is no evidence for creation.
@@georg7120 in what way? Did you watch the video? The evidence is showing that the earth and universe are not not millions or billions of years old. The evidence supports the biblical creation account.
Excellent interview!
God Bless you brother !
What a great ministry shepherding school kids! 📝🖍️📚🙌🏻🙏🏻
Yeshua (Jesus) is the whole point of the Bible. The redemption of mankind and God’s love toward us is such a beautiful thing when one begins to understand.
Blessings upon you all, as you learn to follow Him.
It has been a wonderful conversation, but the way you all wrapped it up was the ultimate climax. Praise be to our Lord Jesus Christ, our Creator and Sustainer, and the author of our Salvation.
Amen ICR 🙏 Thank you for sharing this
Sehr gut, die Wahrheit macht frei, Danke für die Präsentation
Off topic but the audio mix is absolute fire
Thank you Brian, Steve and Ann for this podcast and for your testimonies. Glory to Jesus Christ who saved me, a poor man, from eternal death.
Thank you ICR for being the ones to introduce me to young earth creationism back in the 90's. I am so grateful to God for you and you will always hold a special place in my heart. ♥️🙏✝️🕊️
I graduated in 93 and probably 2 years later I was listening to Chuck Swindol. He was my favorite pastor at the time and one day I heard him talking about dinosaurs walking with man, and because of my public school indoctrination, I thought "oh great, he's a quack". It wasn't until 2017 when I got injured at work that I came across Dr. Dino, Kent Hovind. I watched a whole series of his and finally came around. Now, you couldn't force me to believe anything but. GOD is good, merciful and ful of grace.
Praise God! 🙌
In 100% of the cases where the date of a rock sample is known, radiometric dating is wrong by orders of magnitude.
And yet, the scientific world expects us to believe that where the date is historically not known, it is always accurate.
And of course this is complete nonsense.
Vesuvius was dated correctly. Thera has been narrowed down to a few centuries.
@haggismcbaggis94
they knew the date beforehand and excluded false readings and only kept those that agreed with known dates. When objects of known age are tested but the analysts don't know the age, the dates are invariably wrong because they can't exclude the outliers.
The problem with C14 dating is that the earth's magnetic field has been decaying since creation. In the past it was stronger, reducing cosmic radiation effect of converting N14 to C14, so the residual levels of C14 in tissue samples always gives a much longer age than the actual age. For very recent organic tissue, the dating is more accurate but it becomes very problematic for older samples.
@@garrygraham That does not appear to be the methodology Lanphere et al. (2007) used. The took a weighted average of their aliquants using 40Ar/Ar39 isochrons. Prior researchers have had similar results, but with less precision.
@@Mario_Sky_521 It is actually to date rocks from millions of years ago as the isotope ratios are better established. The Hawaiian Island/Emperor Seamount chain is an example of consecutive dating that matches the observed rate of plate tectonic movement and erosion of each island.
Thy word is true from the beginning. Psalms 119:160
Is the dating for ice core samples similarly under suspicion? I can see how fossilized tree rings could give incorrect dates due to surrounding rocks being incorrectly dated, but what about ice core samples?
Ice core rings are weather events. WW2 planes landed on Iceland I think it was and a few decades later were dug out of 250 ice core rings. Making the planes 250 years old. We know that is false
Yes, ice core sample dating is extremely suspect.
The primary reason is that age cannot be measured by any means of counting objects.
More specific to ice cores, layers form intermittently between freeze / thaw cycles, not one per year.
If there happened to only be one freeze / thaw cycle in an entire year, you would only get one couplet.
But that happening in one year is extremely rare in the real world, and ridiculously unrealistic over the course of thousands and thousands of years.
@@mmaimmortals thanks very much for taking the time to answer, as it was bothering me!
@@cargumdeu
You're welcome.
BTW, tree ring dating is also suspect because multiple rings can form in a single year.
As many as 11 have been seen to form in a single year.
And as many as 4 per year average over the life of the tree have also been known.
Which points back to the primary reason that age cannot be measured by counting objects, radiogenic isotopes included.
God's word > wisdom of Man.
I’m interested to know if anyone has ever taken sample of rock layers at the canyon, crushed them into dust. Put that dust into a container with water, mixed thoroughly and then allowed them to sort into layers? Would they end up in the same order as they had been found?
Lol
There isn't any particular reason to think that experiment would tell you something meaningful.
How sediments sort is highly dependent on how the water moves.
Crushing the stone into dust further complicates the issue because original particle size makes a difference.
Nevertheless, many flume experiments have been done by both sides of the argument.
It is unanimously observed that particles do sort in a variety of ways depending on the specific circumstances.
If you see mixed, unsorted conglomerations, you are probably seeing more of a mud slide and tumble action than a high water volume flow.
Turbulence and laminar flow also a major role and can be mixed in a wide range of magnitudes.
@@mmaimmortals Interesting the points you make seem valid. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Yes. There have been ‘racetrack flume’ demonstrations that reproduce the results.
@@appaloosa42 At the best you can get two layers under certain conditions. More relevant to look at places where you get actual flooding, or tsunami and the result is almost always a single layer of mud or silt.
Matter before Mind. Interesting concept
All the evidence points to creation!
You should also check dinosaur bones for carbon 14.
They have and it's there in spades. Mainstream science says it's all contaminated XD
Could it be from uranium permineralization?
@@haggismcbaggis9485how could that affect c14 levels.
@@haggismcbaggis9485
The C14 concentrations were measured (in one case) across the gradient from outside the fossils to the inside.
If the C14 were from sort of external source after bio material deposition, then the gradient should go from stronger to weaker as you get closer to the fossil.
If the C14 were insitu and native to the bio material, the gradient should go from weaker to stronger as you get closer to the fossil.
@mmaimmortals If the uranium is inside the fossil, wouldn't that also generate C-14 in situ?
Eve did not disobey God in the garden.
1 the woman was not called Eve until after Bing thrown out if the garden
2 nowhere is recorded tgat God told her not to eat of the fruit. We have evidence, not proof, she got that from Adam because someone added not to touch. Adam not having named her nor God having said he was to command, teach or lead her did not have the right to ell her what to do
3 we see this in that Paul says that while Adam sinned, the woman fell into sin. We'll, the whole world fell into sin when Adam sinned.
5 this is important because as only through Adam is there original sin, a man born of a virgin, ie the seed of the woman, is thus born without original sin. Mary was a sinner as she had a father and she herself said she needed a savior.
It's one thing to explain something. It's another thing entirely to predict it!
Jesus is the Word, so I do not understand those who change the first 11 chapters of the Bible or the first two verses and think it's not literally🤔 why plant a flag here when there is great evidence for a young creation this seems like a 🚩
John 1:1 NKJV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
We need PhD's who challenge the science.
Thanks for an interesting video
🙂
thank you
When you believe in biblical creation you MUST also deny what NASA says about the earth & what is surrounding the earth. Biblical cosmology must also be accepted & it's definitely NOT what NASA says.
You're conflating observable science with the opinions of people published in popular journals.
You're also conflating observable science with history.
We can see the earth, its shape, and what's around it.
We cannot see nor test millions of years nor any other secular rendering of ancient earth history.
And your comment about Biblical cosmology is way, way off base.
There is nothing in the Biblical text that contradicts what we observe in the world today.
As in nothing.
You are either taking things way out of context, or you're relying on the opinions of others who have done that.
Great witnesses
***NO BIG DEAL, BELIEVES DO NOT CHANGE REALITY-***
Young earth makes scientific sense to me!
What do you mean? Scientific sense? Remember, science is not about what makes sense, because what makes sense is subjective. Data and evidence demonstrates Earth is billions of years old. When we discover something in reality that seems to conflict with our beliefs, we should always go with reality, because there is a really good chance that we are misinterpreting ancient texts. If you believe God created Earth, then you should accept how he did it and the age of the Earth.
@@Mark-h2s
"... a really good chance we are misinterpreting ancient texts."
-- There is a much bigger chance that data alone cannot tell you the history of the world.
It's not unreasonable to corroborate the historical, secular location, people, geologic, and secular events of the bible. However, it's unlikely that folks read the bible as a history lesson. They want the magic. And so far, there's no fact-based evidence to prove anything spiritual or metaphysical in the bible is true.
Unlikely that folks read the Bible as a history lesson?
Many of us read it as a very precise history lesson, just not exclusively as a history lesson.
And if it is an actual history lesson (i.e. real history), then it is by definition true.
@@mmaimmortals "Unlikely that folks read the Bible as a history lesson?"
I think most people want the Christianity from it. I didn't say they JUST want history -- I meant they can get many more sources of secular history. I do notice that you phrase it -- " IF it is an actual history, then it is by definition true." "IF" means there's some doubt about it.
Also, I don't see how "if it's an actual history lesson" why would that make it by definition true? Many history lesson books have been shown to contain errors. And in my research, I've found many errors in the bible.
@@darz3829
"if" isn't a statement of doubt.
It's a logical qualifier.
The Bible is an actual history, so it is true.
If the history actually happened, how could it not logically be true?
The miracles had to happen, the words had to be spoken, and the actions had to have happened.
If they didn't, it wouldn't be a history book.
But archaeology confirms that many of the details that can be known have been discovered.
Archaeologists have even had to correct themselves after assuming some of the writings in the Bible weren't true and then later finding evidence that it was. Details about Daniel's authority in the Babylonian kingdom are an example.
You haven't found any errors in the Bible.
You've probably made some of the same logical errors that the archaeologists made.
I've reviewed alleged errors that skeptics have cited.
They usually haven't even read the text clearly enough to make a valid argument.
The Freemasoms were in possesion of the Ark of the Covenant, Menorah etc. and have stashed the treasure in God's country USA, Asbury Park NJ.
Er . . . right. Of course that happened.
@StudentDad-mc3pu Got a property here in Asbury that used to be a Freemason Temple. What got lost in the mix is 20 million in Gold Disguised in Plain sight as a bronze fountain statue. Anybody can approach it and see for themselves.
@@EdwardSchwarz-n9j Bronze is bronze, gold is gold - I don't believe this statue is what you claim. Freemasonry is definitely not that wealthy in the UK.
@@EdwardSchwarz-n9jwhat is the name of that fountain, specifically? I did a little research on 'Bronze fountain in Asbury actually gold' or something like that, but I couldn't find anything. Interested in this, sounds really cool.
So, you stole the premise of National Treasure. Real creative.
The title of evolution says it all..... Darwin's theory. Theories are unproven ideas❤
The Biblical flood explanation seems old-earth compatible, as far as I can see.
There are multiple reasons why the Biblical flood explanation and the old earth model are not compatible. The reason for the development of the old earth model was that evolution was going to require vast amounts of time and the motivation for the old earth interpretation was specifically stated by Charles Lyell, to separate the sciences from the books of Moses. The two models are antithetical on purpose.
@boxelder9167 I agree with you, except that it doesn't, in itself, logically rule out an old earth.
@boxelder9167 - it was not Linnaeus, it was Lyell. And it was not motivated. He just could not believe that those geological formations could have formed in such short time
@ - We could take one example from forensic science where experiments have been performed on tissues and their proteins to see how long they take to degrade which increases as temperature increases. From this we can extrapolate how long proteins take to degrade in nature. Since we have now found tissues, proteins, and DNA in fossils from all layers of the geological column- but the maximum length of time that we can expect for these structures to remain intact is well under 100,000 years yet we have found soft tissue in fossils that date back to millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years old. Therefore we have a legitimate problem for old earth that we don’t have for a Biblical model.
The list could easily go on and on. From the spiral arms of galaxies that should have become a disc by now to the magnetic fields of planets and moons. How many young earth evidences have to be true for a young planet? The actual best evidence for old earth would be radiometric decay but even that is based on several unprovable assumptions.
As is the case with science we can disprove a hypothesis but ultimately we can never fully prove it. After several decades of research I have personally concluded that there is lots of evidence that would suggest that the earth was far younger than the deep time proponents predicted and only a few lines of evidence suggesting deep time and those are problematic in themselves and also have alternative interpretations.
From Bible chronology, we can at least deduce that the human race is young.
There is no god.
It's good.
Just goes to show you can have a Phd and still be unable to tell fhe difference between real science and religious dogma.
Lol. Just goes to show the bible is right. People will reject the truth no matter what evidence they show to prove it. As far as soft tissue issue. Just go and watch a road kill near you. Let me know how fast it's eaten and decayed. Go watch a crime show on dead bodies they've dug up. Usually still full of maggots and other insects eating in it. There's no way 1 dinosaur survived to be buried with mammals let alone millions of them but that's what we see in the fossil record. Get your head out the sand look at the evidence. Even my 10 year old daughter said "that doesn't make sense." When I told her about darwins claim that bears evolved into whales. I also showed my kids a road kill so they could see nothing dies and stays whole for millions of years to be fossilized millions of years later
Just goes to show the bible correct people will reject the truth even with evidence to prove it in these last days. Asl yourself and try to answer it honestly. How did millions of dinosaurs die and wait for millions of years to be buried and fossilized with mammals and other modern animals. Why did they not get eaten and decay like all other animals that die. Real science proves this and you can test it yourself. go and watch a local road kill over the next few days. Watch it get eaten and decay in a few days
God is real science, today's science is pagan psuedo dogma, does not know where we came from ,why were here, or where were going.so one gets a PhD for that.really.
NO ONE HAS EVER FORUND DINOSAUR SOFT TISSUE. EVER. THAT IS A LIE ! To find such tissue is the holy grail of dinosaur research. 🦕. You need to do your home work or stop lying. Whichever is applicable. 😅