The evolutionists have no concept of time. They simply lengthen it more and more in hopes of accomodating the science that speculates how long it would take for a fin to turn into a leg or jell-o into a brain. Shadows and illusions.
Thanks for sharing complete and utter bull***t with us. This is such tired old nonsense that I'm just going to recycle a post I made earlier:
It hasn't happened within recorded history, so that keeps making the earth older and older to fit these theories.If you'd actually like to learn something for a change, instead of parroting creationist disinformation (unlikely, I know, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt), see: The Age of the Earth FAQsThis is a blatant falsehood. The age of the Earth hasn't been revised appreciably in more than half a century, and back when it *was* being revised, it was revised due to discoveries in physics which allowed the age to be more accurately measured, and in no way due to any considerations from or for biology or in order to accomodate any aspect of evolutionary biology. Even from the time of Darwin, evolutionary biology has worked to fit the theory to the facts (including the best estimates of the age of the Earth at the time), and not vice versa.
Please try to learn something about science before you make any more false claims about it.
In the 1700's many lines of evidence led to widespread doubt about the Bible's 6000-year chronology for the age of the Earth. By the mid 1850's estimates of millions of years were suggested, and the Earth has been known to be on the order of a billion or more years old since at least 1911. Calculations of the age of the Earth were converging on the true age as long ago as the 1920's -- for example: 4.0 billion years (Russell, 1921), 3.4 billion years (Rutherford 1929); 4.6 billion years (Meyer 1937); and 3 to 4 billion years (Starik 1937). The number hasn't changed appreciably since the 1940's, when it converged to 4.5 +/- 0.1 billion years due to advances in analytical equipment (thanks to the Manhattan project).
Shadows and illusions.
No, that appears to be *your* department.
Actually that's not so. Those who study evolution and a lot of other scientists (such as archaeologists) are dependent on the physical sciences for the inventions which permit radiometric dating. We have to take their inventions and use them within the appropriate limits; we don't just make this stuff up ourselves!
So, while bashing evolutionists for what they do, you also have to bash those who invented and run the dating tools we use.
(Personally, I think you just don't like the results some of us come up with.)