In the film “Is Genesis History?”, multiple experts discuss a variety of topics regarding several theories and views concerning the beginning of creation and the historical accuracy of scripture. From analyzing fossils to analyzing the earth's strata, these experts seem to agree that there is a consistent theme in the debate regarding creation: time. In this film, experts approach this debatable topic from a variety of perspectives influenced by their areas of expertise.
Kevin Anderson, a microbiologist and the director of the Creation Research Center at Kansas State University, identifies a piece of evidence that negates the foundation of the Conventional paradigm of creation. This paradigm suggests that the earth is 13.7 billions of years old and came to be through a series of natural processes rather than being created by a Creator with a unique design 6,000 years ago. Due to my passion regarding the human body and the field of medicine, Dr. Anderson's approach to supporting the validity of scripture gained my interest immediately. …show more content…
Anderson used microscopic samples of organic tissue found on fossils to prove that the earth was not created billions of years ago and that there is error found in the Conventional paradigm. Due to the cellular make-up of organic tissue, the tissue found on the Triceratops fossil would not have survived billions of years of breakdown and decay. Although these cellular samples could not have remained intact for billions of years, they could have survived thousands of years of breakdown and decay, which is more consistent with the Historical Genesis paradigm. Dr. Anderson’s discovery suggests that there is an error in the method of dating regarding these fossils because the science of organic tissues cannot be discredited as a method of
Kevin Anderson, a microbiologist and the director of the Creation Research Center at Kansas State University, identifies a piece of evidence that negates the foundation of the Conventional paradigm of creation. This paradigm suggests that the earth is 13.7 billions of years old and came to be through a series of natural processes rather than being created by a Creator with a unique design 6,000 years ago. Due to my passion regarding the human body and the field of medicine, Dr. Anderson's approach to supporting the validity of scripture gained my interest immediately. …show more content…
Anderson used microscopic samples of organic tissue found on fossils to prove that the earth was not created billions of years ago and that there is error found in the Conventional paradigm. Due to the cellular make-up of organic tissue, the tissue found on the Triceratops fossil would not have survived billions of years of breakdown and decay. Although these cellular samples could not have remained intact for billions of years, they could have survived thousands of years of breakdown and decay, which is more consistent with the Historical Genesis paradigm. Dr. Anderson’s discovery suggests that there is an error in the method of dating regarding these fossils because the science of organic tissues cannot be discredited as a method of