Posted on 11/19/2025 8:37:08 AM PST by cuz1961
MILLIONS Left the Faith Because of This Sneaky Lie Taught in Schools Calvin Smith November 15, 2025 This sneaky lie taught in schools all over the world has caused MILLIONS to abandon the Christian faith… Join me as I expose why evolutionary ideas about rock layers are not only false, but very harmful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9xnsOtSjakr
Runtime 12 m 22 s
One problem with carbon 14 ratios is no one knew what the atmospheric ratio of c14/c12 in the atmosphere was during the time of the organisms living years. Nevertheless if certain assumptions are made it can be a good ballpark estimate up to maybe 8 half lives..most likely less. Almost always better to know the age by historical record.
IMHO
In an earlier post you said that the Hebrew word “yôm” has only one literal meaning:
/
I said nothing of the kind.
I said nothing about yom
I said the context of the text illustrated and defined that a day is a cycle of light and dark, day and night.
Quit trying to put words and things in my mouth
My gawd you’re as bad as CP.
There are no “ multiple possibilities”
My gawd, do you do that with what all verses say ?
No wonder you preterists and cematarian weasels are so confused.
You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
You keep trying to base your exegesis by conflating verses that have different contexts.
You’re playing Mr
Potato head with scripture.
You all do nothing more than variations in satans theme of
“did God REALLLY SAY ?”
Done with you guys.
So go ahead and crow victory and bloat with pride as a last word.
You know you will.
You guys can’t help yourselves.
Prove me wrong and don’t post a response.
the context of the text illustrated and defined that in this specific verse, that the day talked about, is a cycle of light and dark, day and night.
Literally.
The word may mean something else within the context of another non related verse but in this specific set of verses about the days of creation the context defined the day as a 24 hr cycle of night and day.
I stand corrected. I’m sorry I confused you with the FReeper who replied to me in post #33. lol
It was the test they use to say something is millions of years old. They were wrong. Because man and the earth is about 6 thousand years old. Any test is bogus. It’s not science. It made up.
He wanted the shortfalls of what you thought *fundamentalist Christian* schooling is. Not the shortfalls of Catholicism period, including Catholic schooling.
That’s some massive projecting you’re doing there.
And lastly: of course it is lamentable that Answers in Genesis content is not mainstream BUT the great thing about chronically online Gen Z is that: if God wants them to find the Answers in Genesis video, the Holy Spirit will direct the algorithm to reach people, as they self-educate online.
Christians headed to med school or NASA or something, need to at least have some understanding of mainstream non-Biblical theories, even if only to challenge it.
But Creationism, in and of itself, doesn’t keep someone in the fold of faith. Many more factors at play…
I was hoping someone knew that. I am amazed by some on here. I expect the uneducated on Facebook, but I have higher expectations for creepers.
Unresolved questions in physics and in science in general are what keep labs and university science departments in business. The role of consciousness in quantum physics arises out of quantum entanglement, which is so counter-intuitive that physicists have struggled to accept it for more than a century. Arguably, it implies the existence of a universal consciousness that keeps the whole megillah of existence going.
Because the “new land” that erupted out of the Earth was still millions of years old, just redistributed.
Let’s assume he meant radiometric dating.
It couldn’t mean a 24 hr period, because there was no sun or planets until the 4rth Day, and would only be 24 hrs relative to Earth. Plus the Law of Entropy means everything was spinning and moving faster back then.
In Genesis, God created the Sun on Day 4. So the previous 3 days would have to have been “God” days, not 24 hour Earth days, which would argue for a likely substantially longer period of time than understood from this planet. That being the case, the remaining 3 days would also likely have been on “God” time as well. How long, do you suppose, is a single day in eternity?
Maybe. But not relevant to an attempt to date something that was not once alive.
That would be a far too kind an assumption for that crowd, for many reasons.
The biggest problems in physics are caused when humans claim to have theories which are in fact hypotheses—and then use peer review and cancel culture to shut down dissenting views.
That creates a culture of obedience instead of discovery.
Sometimes. Physics though has an ethic of relying on experiments and observations to establish scientific truth. Einstein famously called for observations of a solar eclipse to confirm or refute his predicted value for gravitational deflection of light. As it was, observation in 1919 confirmed Einstein’s theory.
If you take a close look at many (not all) physics experiments in the last one hundred years or so they have built in assumptions and adjustments and toss out data that does not fit as “anomalous”.
The most common flaw is that there is often more than one possible explanation for something—and they pick the one that fits in with existing approved “theory”.
Rinse and repeat over and over and you have a very shaky foundation.
Imho that is responsible for many of the “problems” in physics.
“Dark matter” and “dark energy” are excellent examples of this issue.
If there is a fair example of a current failure of the scientific process, it is the reaction of established physics to cold fusion claims. In spite of that, various researchers continue to pursue cold fusion (or low energy nuclear reactions, which is now the preferred term) with some success.
Notably, technologists are beginning to harness quantum entanglement in a new form of computing that promises to tackle an entire class of problems that are now beyond reach. If so, that will validate the effort. If not, failure will lead to an accounting of where the effort went wrong.
The subject at hand was treated in detail in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a highly influential 1962 book about the history of science by philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn. In essence, Kuhn describes science as reflecting a process in which scientific theories are overthrown by new paradigms as anomalies emerge that prevailing theories cannot fully address.
Along the same lines, the great physicist Max Planck offered that "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Or, as Paul Samuelson put it, "Science advances funeral by funeral."
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.