“None so blind as those that will not see.” Matthew Henry (1662-1714) English Presbyterian minister and writer
Posted on 12/06/2012 9:47:52 AM PST by ksen
“You don’t need billions of years. this argument is just to support evolutionary theory.”
Genesis 1:2:
“And the earth was “Hayah - became” without form, and void”
Of course, God would not initially create the earth without form and void:
Isaiah 45:18
“For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain “Tohuw - empty, formless and chaos”, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.”
And yes, since God created man in Genesis after Genesis 1:2 there would be no evolutionary connection between man and any life that existed prior to Genesis 1:2.
They didn’t come up with the 4.5 billion age estimate from radiometric dating techniques.
If one considers that the universe is becoming less dense from the creation event until today and into the future, then by General Relativity the passage of time passing more slowly from the current viewpoint of Earth, I believe it can be demonstrated that appx 4.5 billion years can indeed be the equivalent of 6 days.
I left out an important word
radiometric dating techniques ALONE.
Then the USGS lied to me.
What is this secret method they used, and blamed on radiometrics?
What else did they use?
Well, on the other hand, there is no repeatable experiment which shows the age of the earth. So it isn’t science in that sense, it is really history.
We use science as a forensics tool when determining historical events, but it’s not science. We know it’s not science, because periodically new announcements are made that change the “scientific understanding” of some presumed historical event, and when that happens, nobody complains that the previous belief was fraud.
And of course, forensics, which is both an art and a science, also deals in the realm of hypothesis. You have to adapt certain preconditions. We are pretty good at those, and they are tested as you compare the resulting determinations to what you figure out by other methods.
But one big presumption in all scientific forensics of origins is that there is NO GOD, and therefore NO “Magic”.
Given the presumption that nothing could just be created fully formed, it is easy to understand why the age of the earth is currently estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. That is how old it would have to be to get to where we are today from “nothing”.
Now, suppose we had an infintely powerful, all-knowledgeable being. And suppose he wanted to make a copy of our universe, and he did so. We certainly understand the mechanism of cloning, and so we see the theoretical possibility of an exact duplicate of our universe being created.
Well, if you lived in that alternative universe, you would of course believe that it was 4.5 billion years old, as it would have the identical CURRENT STATE as our universe.
BUT, you would be wrong, because it is 5 minutes old. Science would give you the wrong answer.
Well, if we believe God created the universe, how can we prove He didn’t do so 6000 years ago, or 60,000 years ago? Some might complain that God wouldn’t have a reason to create all these apparent age items in his creation, but given the Bible’s references to wanting to keep some blind to His existence, how better to do that than to give us a theological challenge — Do we believe in God, or not?
I understand and accept most of the evolutionary “science”, meaning what we observe today. Some of it is crazy on it’s face, sorry, but mostly it’s stuff we can test out for ourselves. I simply don’t believe that the history this science predicts is the real history of our universe.
I don’t reject science, I simply understand its limitations. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence that the story spun of origins by evolutionists is more of a fanciful wish — probabilities being just one, complexity of design for another, and the still-evident lack of viable genetic steps from one species to another (this last point is becoming more clear as we map more of the genomes)
OK, show me a repeatable experiment.
Oh, and don’t forget the “control”.
“None so blind as those that will not see.” Matthew Henry (1662-1714) English Presbyterian minister and writer
Measure the half-life of Uranium, and the half-lives of the resultant daughter elements, until you get down to stable lead. Then measure the actual time span against the time calculated based on the change in their respective ratios in the sample. Then do that over and over again, as many times as you want.
Apparently you haven’t researched the problems of extrapolating that over “billions of years”.
Get back to me when you have.
He is technically correct. Among the scientific community there is no real serious debate. It is all just radiological dating and who has
creationists may debate the issue but they are going nowhere fast.
oops part was cut off.
The full sentence shoudl be “It is all just radiological dated and who has the more precise instruments.”
Is he now campaigning for Geologist-in-Chief?
Ah. So the tactic is going to be to imply there are problems with that method, but not say what they are. We'll see how well that works out for you.
he is making an observation.
Ah, so you admit your ignorance.
Thanks.
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.