We have found fossil series that clearly illustrate the transitions of dozens of major features in various lines.We have found “fishapods” and “frogamanders” and walking whales and feathered dinosaurs and half-shelled turtles.For example, the theory of evolution predicts that large-scale changes, like those that turned fishy ancestors into land-treading mammals, take many millions of years, so the fact that we borne out this and other predictions, it would have immediately required modifications to the theory, and may have falsified it altogether.This, of course, is the defining characteristic of science: Not that is observable and repeatable, but that it is testable and falsifiable.We have often and repeatedly found exactly what the theory of evolution predicted we would find, in the time period in which the theory predicted we would find it. You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes changes. This is another one of those incredibly common and completely untrue statements that nothing more than a few minutes’ research on the Internet could have corrected.When I’m talking with atheists or agnostics who are passionately against any and all religion, I sometimes find that they have inaccurate (or just plain wrong) ideas about the teachings of the Bible, the nature of the Christian faith and the qualities of the God I believe in.In other words, some of those whom I’ve encountered have a poor understanding of the very thing they think they oppose.
We would, in fact, be prohibited from exploring most matters that cannot be brought inside or recreated within a laboratory, whether they be large (the composition and origin of stars, for example) or small (like the forensic recreation of a crime scene).This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another.In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent.
Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.And I’ve found that the same is often true of anti-evolutionists — in my experience, anyway.