And honestly, fossils provide some of the best evidence for Creationism, and also Young Earth Creationism.
No. No. A thousand times no (to the Young Earth part, at the very least).
Fossils have been dated through a process called radiometric dating to be millions of years old. That is all.
Radiometric dating has several flaws, most of them are discussed here:
http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/decay.htm (admittedly this site seems sketchy)
Besides the possible flaws in these methods, it overlooks a simple exchange of arguments:
- An all powerful God could create rocks that "date" to however old he wants them to be
- Well, why would God try to deceive the human race?
- God did not say that the rocks were millions of years old, people interpreted them that way
- Well didn't God know that humans would date them that way?
- Yes, but that doesn't mean that God wouldn't have created them with certain amounts of radioactive materials inside
I'm sure you could imagine how this argument would continue, but it's not an impossible point.
So you can find articles for the flaws in Radiometric dating but no research articles on your scientifically sound explanation of how the universe was created? Come on man, I'm still waiting here.
How is this flawed? Where are your scientific sources for your claims?You mention "there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe" and yet you haven't given me any of this research and scientific study.
2. I firmly believe in Young Earth Creationism because there is no other scientifically sound explanation for the creation of the universe.