Έγινε μέλος στις: Δεκ 06, 2022 Τελευταία δραστηριότητα στις: Μάιος 18, 2024 iNaturalist

I am a lifelong nature enthusiast, probably due to our family business Nature Friend Magazine. My main interest is birds, although I love (most) nature of any sort. My primary language is English, and I know a little Spanish. (Google Translate is very helpful, though!) I am not an "expert", but you are welcome to tag me on observations. However, please do not direct message me.

I am a Christian, and I believe God created the world in six normal-length days as Genesis describes.

Why am I a creationist? I believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is completely compatible with what we can observe in nature and the fossil record, and that evidence in nature supports creation rather than evolution.

I believe that the evidence of design in the world points to an almighty Creator. For example, the irreducible complexity found in countless organisms cannot be explained by gradual evolution: without complete systems, the organism would die.

As a creationist, I do not discredit speciation, mutations, and natural selection. These are observable scientific facts. However, they can only modify organisms within the existing genetic material. They cannot add new information to the genome of the type and quantity needed for evolution. The type of changes they make generally result in loss of data and are in the opposite direction of those needed for evolution. Hence, they cannot be used as valid proof for evolution.

I also believe that there are valid reasons to believe that the earth is relatively young (~6,000 years old). Some examples of evidence supporting a young earth include these:

~There have been repeated discoveries of soft, unfossilized tissue in dinosaur bones—this is incompatible with the view that dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years. Also, DNA has been found in fossils that are supposedly 425 million years old. Again, DNA cannot survive that long.

~C-14 found in coal, diamonds, oil, etc., is consistent with a date of thousands, not millions, of years.

~Instead of the millions of fossilized transitional forms we should find if evolution were true, there are only a few disputed examples. For example, Archaeopteryx is often cited as a transitional fossil, but it is actually a normal perching bird.

~Pollen from "modern" flowers has been found in fossil layers that supposedly date prior to the existence of these plants.

~Radiometric dating methods are notoriously inconsistent and/or incorrect. They are based on unmeasurable assumptions about historical isotope levels. Even on volcanic rocks that have a known age of formation, current dating methods have given wildly incorrect dates. If they are unreliable for recently-formed rocks that we know the age of, why should they be trusted for older rocks?

cbirds22 δεν ακολουθεί κάποιον.