Posted on 05/17/2009 6:24:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Recently the Brits have found out what really separated them from mainland Europe: catastrophic flooding!...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
You do great work with the articles you post here.
Very informative and encourages our faith.
Thanks for what you do GGG!
since the timeline is made up of darwinists and various templars or whatever, they all could have happened at the same exact global flood time that’s in the bible. and junk.
Because that would make God a liar.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. (Psalm 19:1)
By studying the heavens with many different branches of science, we know that the universe had an initial beginning and was created out of nothing. Isn't that what the Bible says? The heavens also say that the universe is approximately 14.5 billion years old.
Scientists -- both believers and non-believers -- have studied the earth and have found it to be about 4.5 billion years old.
God has revealed to us his glory through the splendor of creation. The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth. But, as the Bible notes in several places, God also speaks to us through his creation. And his creation irrefutably indicates that the earth and the universe are much, much more than 6,000 years old.
Why do you assume the Evo/uniformitarian dates are correct?
______
Ummmm, I’m pretty sure you were the one posting the article with the 450,000 year old dating, right? So you don’t even agree with the article you have posted yourself, but it mentions the word ‘flood’ so you jump all in it.
It’s a tad humorous.
Pituitary gland most likely but did Adam have a belly button?
I find your question/comment about your geophysics degree interesting.
When I once mentioned that my uncle (who would support GGGs posts) has a PhD in geology, I was told he wasn’t a real scientist.
So are you a real scientist?
I could with the flat earth theory, after all if the earth weren’t flat maps would be round.
Thanks, Woollyone :o)
OK, so if you don't accept the scientific timeline then what is the creationist one? If Noah's flood was about 4500 years ago then when did the rest of the stuff talked about in the post happen?
==Ummmm, I’m pretty sure you were the one posting the article with the 450,000 year old dating, right?
From the article:
“Within the evolutionary (long-age) timeframe,
the first flooding event is believed to
have occurred about 425,000 years
ago during the Ice Age. In my view,
however, the first erosional event was
the receding water of Noah’s Flood [3]
(~4,500 years ago, Genesis 8) cutting a
deep canyon through the landbridge that
then connected Europe and the British
Isles, a structural ridge known as the
Weald-Artois anticline made almost
entirely of chalk.”
Don’t cofuse Clamper with facts- He’s too bitter to even begin to contemplate anyhtign that upsets the Darwinian applecart apparently
Wow are you bitter- How abotu discussing hte article in a mature manner instead of breaking out in the usual tiresome childish antiCreationist blubbering and generalized sweeping accusaitons that have absolutely ZERO relevence to the thread? IF you have all this info refuting a world wide flood- then post it mr Geologist- act liek a grown up and participate i nthe thread and stickign to hte issues-
According to most Evos you’re uncle is not a scientist “by definition.”
70 posts later and noone has even bothered addressing hte article- all the anticreationsits can do is brag about hteir credentials and criticise those that don’t drink the coolaid of Darwin. Let’s just take a look at hte dating methods employed to come up with the ‘Facts’ that ‘support’ an old earth age- Seems they are rife with problems and heavy on assumptions- not somethign that ‘facts’ are supposed to be made from- but apaprently some don’t care that the methods used are dubious and ridden with problems- if a ;scientist’ says it, it must hterefore be true apparently, and htose that quesiton hte mthods must therefore be ‘antiscience’ apparently:
Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm
Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html
Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm
Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm
Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/
Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html
Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm
Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating
why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059
RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/
My apologies. I am talking about the graphic you posted in #5.
As you can imagine, I get that a lot!
Thanks for the links...I have never read many of them...so I best roll up my sleaves and get started.
Copy and paste them into a notepad file or something as I see the claims about the dating methods used to date ages quite often, and many folks just aren’t aware of hte problems with htose methods, and just take dates and scientific claims for granted. The only relaibe dating method is carbon dating which is only accurate to ... get ready for it ... around 5000 years- everythign after that date is based on pure assumptions-
I also had a link showing how many long age dates are thrown out each year because they didn’t mesh with preconceived a priori beliefs about how old something ‘looks’- but have since lost it- it was quite revealing as to how manipulated the long age dates really are!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
I can cut and paste too ...
Where is your righteous indignation clamper1797? After all, I was just turning his own words back around on him! Could it be that you already have a dog in this fight?
A scientist, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy.
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.