Posted on 02/21/2009 6:03:46 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
The question of the age of the earth has produced heated discussions on debate boards, classrooms, TV, radio, and in many churches, Christian colleges, and seminaries. The primary sides are:
*Young earth proponents (biblical age of the earth and universe of about 6,000 years)1
*Old earth proponents (secular age of the earth of about 4.5 billion years and a universe about 14 billion years old)2
The difference is immense! Let’s give a little history of where these two basic calculations came from and which worldview is more reasonable...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
old enough to know better
I am inclined to think so. For instance, when we examine Exodus 20:9–11, we find the Lord once again equating Day 7 (His day of rest) to an Earth day:
‘Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.’
Let me guess - you believe that Vince Foster committed suicide?
Excellent point, E-S!!!
did you miss this part:
Quote:
“Another problem that calls into question the credibility of radiometric dating is heat contamination. For example, In 1973, in Alberta, Canada (near the town of Grand Prarie) a high voltage line fell which caused nearby tree roots to fossilize almost instantly. When scientists at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan were asked what the results would be if these roots were dated by Potassium Argon method. Their response was that the results:
“WOULD BE MEANINGLESS; it would indicate an age of millions of years BECAUSE HEAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE PETRIFICATION PROCESS.” The Mysteries of Creation, by Dennis Petersen, p. 47.
Two well-documented examples of “heat contamination” are the 1800 and 1801 eruptions from two Hawaiian volcanoes. Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the radiometric “dates” obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96 billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other — depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was obtained. This is documented in Table 1 below.” unquote.
Your are under the illusion that the article supports a 6000 year old Earth? EPIC FAIL
Too bad, so sad to see that the beliefs of conservative Christians get under your skin like that that. Maybe you can appeal to the admin moderator to censor posts that don’t agree with your world view.
Let us all know how that works out for you.
..in Jim’s living room.
Or...here’s an interesting idea...
You could simply ignore threads that don’t interest you.
No, the clintons had him knocked off for sure, but who can prove it.
Yep, easy! - - But it hasn't happened yet.
No it doesn’t make my point, it is an unbeliever scientist condemning the creationist argument...it shows that the argument will not be resolved. I don’t have a copy of the Yale Study...but this link will show what I mean by fallible science when carbon dating:
This link validates my point, and that is that scientific research is “relative” to what has happened at the site the sample is taken and when:
be sure to read about HEAT CONTAMINATION.
Sounds wonderful!!!
Keyword spamming again......
And this time I would bet that you didn’t put them all in.
No it doesn’t make my point, it is an unbeliever scientist condemning the creationist argument...it shows that the argument will not be resolved. I don’t have a copy of the Yale Study...but this link will show what I mean by fallible science when carbon dating:
This link validates my point, and that is that scientific research is “relative” to what has happened at the site the sample is taken and when:
be sure to read about HEAT CONTAMINATION.
No it doesn’t make my point, it is an unbeliever scientist condemning the creationist argument...it shows that the argument will not be resolved. I don’t have a copy of the Yale Study...but this link will show what I mean by fallible science when carbon dating:
This link validates my point, and that is that scientific research is “relative” to what has happened at the site the sample is taken and when:
be sure to read about HEAT CONTAMINATION.
Or he was at a dinosaur rodeo?
If he "spoke" the world into existence, why would he need to "rest" after doing so?
And why would it take him six times 24 hours?
??*&%$*? - Did you read that before posting?
Anyway, what you need to "get over," is that time itself was created at the same time as the Earth, 5769 years ago (regardless of how long those years may have been)
You are right. No big deal. Let them have their fun. They’re just upset that that God’s creation keeps falsifying Darwin’s fanciful creation myth.
Take a look at the complexity of the earth, and wouldn’t you want to rest after that?
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.