http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
The article at the link above goes to great lengths to refute the age of the "hammer", which is not the point.
The point is the age of the "rock".
Posted on 10/24/2006 1:33:25 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
"How about the speed of light and the distances to all stars, galaxies, etc that are over 6010light years from Earth?"
God is pretty big uh?
You're trying to tell me that creationism -- especially of the young earth variety -- isn't believable? I mean the evidence is so beyond overwhelming there isn't really much we can do except laugh at these people. For goodness sakes, we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation of the world.
Trees lie.
You need to learn to read. The article I posted was a rebuttal to your rebuttal. Let me guess... you didn't read either piece.
This thread should be in the Religion Forum.
So where exactly is this metal hammer? This plier? These keys?
I don't know about that, but they have a blatant arboreal bias, the bastards.
Science Ping
It's only that old if you copletely(sic) ignore proven physics
and use an old scientifically illiterate churchman
as the authority for the age of the planet.
38 posted on 10/24/2006 2:57:52 PM MDT by nuke rocketeer
Or you could read the writings of a Nuclear Physicist.
b'shem Y'shua
I guess I don't know why some people can't take the positive teachings from the bible or church teachings for what they are without accepting all the the history verbatim. Especially in the face of other evidence. I am willing to change my opinion of something given new evidence, but there can be no new evidence for a true believer I guess. I reason that man has reason for a reason.
Here are some details on the hammer.
Its another example of creation "science" in action. (Very creative, but no science.)
We can document the first Egyptians in the Nile River Valley at 3500 B.C. This is when Adam of Adam and Eve fame was merely middle aged, since he reportedly lived to be 930 years old.
And strangely enough, they had already completed the great pyramids of Giza before the 6010 year timeline allows for Noah's Flood. Somehow they managed to survive and flourish during the Flood and continue their amazing civilization.
I'm guessing there is no explanation for this in this book.
This is a joke, right? There are paleontological specimens that are carbon dated to be millions of years old!
The radiocarbon method tops out at about 50,000 years.
You need other radiometric methods for older specimens such as paleontological specimens.
We can document the first Egyptians in the Nile River Valley at 3500 B.C. This is when Adam of Adam and Eve fame was merely middle aged, since he reportedly lived to be 930 years old.
And strangely enough, they had already completed the great pyramids of Giza before the 6010 year timeline allows for Noah's Flood. Somehow they managed to survive and flourish during the Flood and continue their amazing civilization.
I'm guessing there is no explanation for this in this book.
You must be interpreting the evidence incorrectly. At least that's what I've heard. But whenever I ask for this systematic, comprehensive, coherent, rigorous, extensive, and well documented alternative interpretation of the evidence, all I ever get are links to AiG and ICR where they're trying to sell books and DVDs in which all of this must be explained.
You would think that if these people have a valid alternative interpretation of all of the scientific evidence that would overturn a couple of hundred years of accumulated and converging scientific research, analysis, and theories in physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, biology, genetics, etc., they would have a better marketing strategy on how to make money off of it.
I think they're making plenty of money off of it. There's a ready audience out there willing to shell out money for anything which seems to confirm their belief.
They know their arguments aren't going to convince serious scientists. But winning the argument isn't even a part of the marketing strategy. It doesn't need to be.
I think they're making plenty of money off of it. There's a ready audience out there willing to shell out money for anything which seems to confirm their belief.
They know their arguments aren't going to convince serious scientists. But winning the argument isn't even a part of the marketing strategy. It doesn't need to be.
When you are marketing fraudulent nonsense, you've got to really direct and target your efforts on those dupes and fools most likely to buy into it. So I guess their marketing strategy is as good as it can be, given what they are selling.
Nice touch.
Don't sugarcoat it! Anyway from what I've read about Calvin's Geneva it sure sounds dictatorial. Not to smear all the good Calvinists today and since then but Calvin the man left a lot to be desired. Ever heard of Michael Servetus?
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
The article at the link above goes to great lengths to refute the age of the "hammer", which is not the point.
The point is the age of the "rock".
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.