Posted on 02/17/2009 8:25:37 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Where did the idea of “millions of years” come from?
All of our media outlets push evolution and “millions of years” ideas on the public. Even children’s cartoons reflect evolutionary philosophy! In an episode of the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants, entitled “SpongeBob B.C.,” the narrator begins: “Ah, dawn breaks over the primordial sea. It is here that millions of years ago, life began taking its first clumsy steps out of the darkness, opening its newly formed eyeballs to stare into the blinding light of intelligence.” Unfortunately, large segments of the church have swallowed the millions-of-years evolutionary history hook, line, and sinker. But it was not always this way. In this chapter, we will discover where the idea of millions of years came from and why the church went along with it. We will see that science does not require it, but rather it is a necessity of uniformitarian geology and evolutionary theory...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
I especially liked the “newly formed eyes.” That explained a lot.
Yeah, or more!
It’s OK. It’s a reflexive mechanism I developed after having my mistakes pointed out so often... :-)
One thing I learned from Bill Buckley is that it is useless to debate with dishonest people.
Speaking of dishonesty, the RATE Progect, one of the cornerstones of “scientific” creationism, found evidence of at least 500 million years of radioactive decay, but never talks about it in their publications.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/Education/origins/rate-ri.htm
Job 40 & 41 describe dinosaurs.
please quote me chapter and verse where the bible actually says that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
If the Bible was finished 2000 years ago, and we could do what you asked, would not that make the earth 8000 years old?
All funning aside, the age of the earth is derived from the geneologies in Genesis from Adam to Abraham, which provides a clear lineage of father to son, complete with the age at which the son was born.
Reasoned debate becomes impossible when one party decides that the facts are solely on his side.
That would be the science community.
That would be the science community.
This from a guy who puts forth a theory that fossils are just one big practical joke. You really, really can't be serious with this line of attack.
How do you know it wasn't created that way?
Try studying the geology of the Grand Canyon. You have a tremendous range of geological formations that represent different depositional environments - including some from terrestial formation, sandwhiched between marine deposition formations. In addition, you have two major unconformities - one angular - that shows there was deposition, tilting, erosion, and then more deposition. Try to explain that with a single flood.
The Big Bang theory certainly has a lot of problems, but that’s not news. It’s been debated for decades in science journals.
The bigger problem is if there was no big bang or creation event, then the Bible is wrong.
Most physicists don’t accept that and are hanging onto the big bang awaiting new evidence.
Among it’s many problems, your link is out of date. The measurement errors that led to the conclusion that some stars were more than 15 billion years old were corrected.
Also Hubble’s red-shift isn’t measured using x-rays.
When I look at “In the beginning..” I see no way to determine at time involved in the CREATION of the heavens and earth in contrast to the PREPARATION of earth for life and finally man.
The objection offered to me con this possibility is the question, “Why would the Creator let the earth set doing nothing for millions or billions of years?”
One, Our Creator does not operate on our time schedule and who is to say nothing was happening. And Two, God can take as long as He wishes, He being the maker of time.
That being the case then, why could not the earth been formless and waste for any amount of time, even billions of years before The Creator says the seven days of Genesis commence?
I think it is the crowding of one thing, creation of “the heavens and earth” into the time of preparation of the earth for man that creates a conflict between much of the thinking of you and I on the subject.
Believing that “the beginning” was a long time ago, with an exact amount of time, makes more sense to me than a very short few thousand years as it fits more easily with we can observe today.
But whatever explanation one accepts I also think it has to fit with the Scriptures.
Well, maybe not to you ... but it sure makes sense to me.
The fact that there is an argument proves the presence of an evil distracter. Let’s all argue over 6 thousand years or 4.5 billion years! ...and the whispering in your ear goes: focus on fighting so as to stop the symbiotic union relationship between yourself and God. The Legions win again.
You can Google Dr. Jaqmes Hansen for the 'straight story' on global warming too.
Its another religious belief, not objective science.
It mystifies me that so many hang their belief in God entirely on this 6,000 year nonsense. I'm thankful that my faith does not rest on such a silly notion.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf
This is Volume I of the RATE report. Check out page 343.
The only way to get the radiometric dating to agree with YEC is to assume a wildly accelerated rate of decay that would vaporize the planet.
In other words, the science doesn’t work, so we are back to miracles.
I have nothing against belief in miracles as long as it isn’t disguised as science.
In order for the Flood to have created the reef structure in El Capitan in Texas (the photo I posted earlier), it is estimated the coral that forms the reef would have to have grown 1.6 meters per day, or at a rate 80,000 times faster than observed today. Maybe the coral polyps were on ‘roids or something like it.
The cliff in that picture from Mt. St. Helens—is that stuff rock yet? Particularly the mudflow and air-fall deposits? If not, are you claiming that the Grand Canyon was cut while the sides were still soft, and everything turned to rock since then?
You didn’t answer the question posed in comment #29. Perhaps the scientific answer doesn’t mesh with your understanding of how “all this” came about?
Good point!!
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.