Posted on 08/18/2009 7:35:45 PM PDT by The Ignorant Fisherman
Much of the controversy between evolutionists and creationists concerns the age of the earth and its fossils. Evolution, depending as it does on pure chance, requires an immense amount of time to stumble upon anything remotely approaching the complexity we see in even the simplest living things. For over 1200 years, geologists have attempted to devise methods for determining the age of the earth that would be consistent with evolutionary dogma. At the time Darwin's Origin of Species was published [1859], the earth was “scientifically” determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, geologists firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally, in 1976, they discovered that the earth is “really” 4.6 billion years old. These dates indicate that for 100 years the age of the earth doubled every 20 years. If this trend were to continue, the earth would be 700 thousand-trillion-trillion ye ars old by the year 4000 AD. This “prediction,” however, is based on selected data and certain assumptions that might not be true. As we will see, selected data and unprovable assumptions are a problem with all methods for determining the age of the earth, as well as for dating its fossils and rocks. It has all become something of a “dating game” in which only the evolutionarily-correct are allowed to play.
(Excerpt) Read more at theignorantfishermen.com ...
Nice article. ;)
Stopped right there, I can't dumb myself down any further to read the rest of your blog.
I hope you have a day job
Just another religion with their own priests.
Ah!
Yet some guy sitting in the sand, chipping away at an (old) rock, suddenly decided that the earth was 6000 thousand years old, because his neighbor, counting on ten fingers and toes, couldn’t remember the names of the generations of forebearers!
Gimme a break! Maybe man is 6000 years old!
What’s wrong with agreeing to the “fiction” that the earth, and pre-man and other animals were here millions of years ago??
Yeah, so maybe there was a flood. Yeah, so maybe there was an asteriod 65 million years ago wiping out dinosaurs!
? Who really cares?
Love your parents, love your family, love your friends and your country, even with all its political overtones.
Let God do with us what he will.
I only hope that I will be able to join my family and friends in the hereafter, regardless whether it’s 6000 years old or 3.5 billion years old!
aShepard!
I’m considering a new theory. The earth is only 175 years old. The American Revolution? A lie. All this “history” you see is fabricated by atheists who want you to believe this so-called “evidence.” I saw a pic of Thomas Edison with a fuzzy, yet identifiable image of a T. Rex in the background.
I agree with your sentiments, I disgree with your conclusion. If you are a follower of Christ there is no disputing the fact that the earth is thousands of years old. Does it matter in my salvation? Well yes and no. If you believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God, you can’t ry to thow any of it our.
Be objective my brother. Can your theory stand the challenge? Don’t run and hide put your faith to the test!
Faith is not willful ignorance.
Is it conceivable that when God created the earth, it had the look of millions of years, yet was really new? Something I chew on occasionally.
Too bad, you might have learned something. Oh well, you just fulfilled a Biblical prophecy.
How do we counter the claims of the global warming alarmists if all the evidence that warming and cooling cycles have been going on long before we were here is supposed to be rejected as simply impossible because it doesn't fit your interpretaion of scripture?
We used those dating methods to determine that Yucca Flats was a good place to build a nuclear waste storage facility, and make assumptions about constant decay rates to know how long it's going to have to be contained. We use those same assumptions to build nuclear reactors.
You're prepared to destroy those disciplines, and all the research and methodology based on them that has proven quite useful. What do you offer as an alternative to replace them with?
Talk about your alarmists - sheesh!
.................. If you are a follower of Christ there is no disputing the fact that the earth is thousands of years old........................
Sorry! Christ didn’t write the bible.
God didn’t scribe the bible.
A bunch of men, who pre-dated Christ, scribed on tablets or paper or animal skins, their interpretation of what messages in their head told them.
Then some Catholic monks centurys later, decided what to include in their “bible”, and what to exclude in their “bible”, and wrote their interpretion of what the tablets recorded, and what the Pope wanted included.
A very similar situation to what Mohammad scribed 700 years after Christ’s passing. He scribed what was in his head, creating the Koran.
Yet you believe what the tablets record, but reject what the Koran records.
Same basis, but fortunately a different religion.
Well, not exactly...
Christ studied and re-affirmed much of what was written by Moses, and referenced many other Biblical texts in His teachings.
He simply affirmed the truthfulness and reliability of these old testament prophets.
Ever hear of prophecy? Try reading Psalm 22 as it foretells many things describing Christ’s crucifixion and predates this execution method by hundreds of years!
Or try some related reading...
“More than a Carpenter” by Josh McDowell
“The Signature of God” by Grant Jeffries
3 books on tape I’d highly recommend by Lee Strobel
“The Case for Christ”
“The Case for Faith” &
“The Case for Creation”
- maybe some of these writings will open your ignorant eyes enough to see christianity and the Bible does not deserve to be compared with the muslim religion nor the koran.
Where do you think the scientific movement has it’s roots? Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence either!!!
read a little history about how the Koran was recorded, and your comparison falls extremely short. It’s like calling night day. Muhammed went into trances, and his disciples recorded what he said, not muhammed. He was illiterate. Personally I am positive it was demon possession. Go back and read your history. You couldn’t be more wrong.
If it's inconsequential, why should anybody bother reading about it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.