Why dna compromised radiometric dating Free adult senior nude webcam chat rooms
While we do appreciate CRI’s efforts to reveal the problems with molecules-to-man evolution as a scientific hypothesis and to refute the biblically compromised position of scientists like Francis Collins of Bio Logos, this magazine promotes other positions of equal compromise.
Given the implicit long-age background evident in the CRJ’s anti-evolution and theological articles, what position does the magazine formally take on the age of the earth?
He also mentions gross discrepancies between radiometric dating methods, and he notes the Grand Canyon’s geological features could not have survived for “tens of millions of years.” While Dr.
Austin’s article at least introduces the possibility of a young earth, “How Old Is the Earth?
These multiple independent empirical means all converge on a limited range of dates for the origin of the universe between ten and twenty billion years ago. None of these observations proves billions of years of cosmic history or any of these claimed things at all.
Another, “Unlocking the DNA Enigma,” explodes the myth that minute random evolutionary changes could produce the incredible complexity of the structure of the cell and the information in DNA.
“Thinking Clearly about God and Evolution” torpedoes the philosophical bankruptcy of theistic evolution.
The CRJ authors (bar one) ignore the ample documented evidence for a young earth as well as the fatal flaws and inconsistencies in the geologic and astronomic methods used to support an old earth.
This evident lack of critical thinking should be apparent to any reader (creationist or evolutionist) who understands the dependence of biological evolution on so-called “deep time.” Evolutionists regard it as “the hero of the plot” and therefore an unassailable given.