Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Fiji Hill

Lots of things appear to be old but are not.

If we had not had video and photographic evidence of Mt St Helens carving out canyons in a day, but appearing exactly like the Grand canyon “layers” tey claim took millions of years to make, but hydrological sorting in a day can make identical canyons with the same kind of layers...

If you look at polonium in minerals, if you understand you can under great pressure and energy make petrified wood in a few days, if you understand the fact that all dating methods assume things that may not be true, such as air and atmospheric temperatures being the same as today, and that there are flaws in dating methods, if you look at the fact they are finding organic material (marrow, blood cells) in animals they claim were dead millions of years - conflicting with their own certainties that that is not possible to have organic tissue and cells surviving in millions of years old remains...

Someone mentioned einsteins time dilation for certain reasons why we can see the universe the way we do.

All I know is that things may appear to be older than they actually are. Given bad assumptions and limitations of dating methods, I am open to the idea there are problems with man’s measuring methods. I believe that a reasonable person can look at the evidence and how the evidence is measured that they can have problems with the measuring and the assumptions that go along with the meadurement methods, and based on other evidence of nature being able to create things that if we did not observe, some would look at and say it took millions of years to do, but in reality took far shorter time to create, I believe it supports the concept that the biblical creation account happened the way it is described.


14 posted on 08/01/2013 1:37:11 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Secret Agent Man
All I know is that things may appear to be older than they actually are. Given bad assumptions and limitations of dating methods, I am open to the idea there are problems with man’s measuring methods.

Why is it a given that the assumptions are bad? Aren't you simply substituting one set of assumptions for another that has even less supporting evidence behind them?

16 posted on 08/01/2013 1:50:29 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Secret Agent Man

So do you believe that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans? If so, what evidence do you have of that?


18 posted on 08/01/2013 2:13:19 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Secret Agent Man; tacticalogic; BroJoeK
I believe it supports the concept that the biblical creation account happened the way it is described.

Which creation account? The first one where the creator is described by a plural name (Elohim) or the second one where the creator is described by a singular name (Yahweh)?

63 posted on 09/29/2013 10:24:57 PM PDT by R7 Rocket (The Cathedral is Sovereign, you're not. Unfortunately, the Cathedral is crazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson