Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: biblewonk
I'm asking this to be serious, so please don't jump all over me, but I'm not really sure I understand your position.

Are you actually saying that all of the scientific evidence about cavemen, ice ages, continental drift, dinosaurs, etc etc. is just all wrong? How can that be? How can everyone be wrong?
52 posted on 04/30/2004 5:59:46 AM PDT by Clobbersaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: Clobbersaurus
Are you actually saying that all of the scientific evidence about cavemen, ice ages, continental drift, dinosaurs, etc etc. is just all wrong? How can that be? How can everyone be wrong?

You can't really measure when something happened, so if there are writings in a cave, you have no clue how long they have been there. Ice age evidence is based on what? Continental drift is discussed in the bible very briefly. There is mention of the land separating somewhere in there. Dinosaurs are definitely mentioned in the bible in Job and were most likely present on the ark. They were not able to survive in the changed atmosphere. What kind of change do you suppose God made when He made rainbows exist that didn't exist before. Either it never rained or light was not refracted by water or something.

There is evidence that just 4000 years ago, before the flood, the whole earth was a much warmer and more tropical place which is why they find mastadons in syberia frozen in place with tropical plants in their mouth. There are literally hundreds of books on this topic but you will not find them in colleges and public schools. I got saved from being a major evolutionist so it was very interesting to hear this new perspective on creation that turned out to be held by millions of people in this country.

53 posted on 04/30/2004 6:39:36 AM PDT by biblewonk (Horatius Bonar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: Clobbersaurus
There's lots more though. There was a theory that gravitational collapse powered the stars. It was the need for age that lead to the fusion theory but I heard that there is a lack of nutrinos emitted from the stars to account for fusion. This is a very weak proof but interesting. There are supposedly fossilized dinsaur and human footprints together.

How do fossiles form in the first place. When things die they decay away to dust, only a giant flood would produce the fossiles we find. Naturalists assume 100's of millions of years to form the layers of sediment yet we find whales fossilized through a billion years of this sediment. He would have had to wait there a billion years while all this sediment formed around him. NOPE: It was the flood.

There is a study of the population of man. Look at our rate of increase, even before modern medicine. It simply doesn't work out that we have been around for a million years and our population not expand in a much different way. There are literally hundreds of evidences for a young earth, not PROOFS, but evidences to put along side the old universe people leaving us with only faith in either one model or the other.

54 posted on 04/30/2004 6:45:09 AM PDT by biblewonk (Horatius Bonar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson