ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Belief In Creationism Required

Does one have to believe the earth is approximately 10,000 years old to be a Christian?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---Donna on 4/3/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (11)

Post a New Blog



MikeM: "All organisms on the Earth both living and extinct have been or are descended from a common ancestor." Just making such a statement is not proof, it is your perverted religious dogma. From what ancestors were the Cambrian life forms or the duck-billed platypus derived? If you can't name them, then your statement is scientifically false.
---jerry6593 on 7/5/07


MikeTheHeretic also displays his parochialism. In the biblical culture, and indeed in most cultures over time, using the same structures in different ways would bring honour to the designer, showing his master over what he made.

We see examples of this principle in Scripture, where appropriate application of passages to the current situation demonstrated mastery of the material. A good example is Mary's magnificat, largely from Hannah's song.
---Ktisophilos on 7/4/07


Common design explains both "homologies" and "homoplasies", while the latter is a puzzle for evos, explained away by "convergence". But many alleged homologies are being recognized as homoplasies, i.e. not explainable by inheritance of this feature from a common ancestor.

But the biblical principle of honour for the use of common features explains all. They also point to a single designer as opposed to many designers as the pagans believed.
---Ktisophilos on 7/4/07


Evangelistjerry Jesus the Creator was obviously well aware when He made man. Also able to read Genesis he was aware man was made on day 6. None the less He called this 'at the beginning of creation'-Mark 10:6,7-quoting Genesis 1:27 & 2:24.

As explained day 6 in relation to 4,000 yrs from day one to Jesus is less than 6/10,000ths of 1% from the beginning. That does Jesus as 'at the beginning' & it will do me.

Worldly views have man appearing billions of years after the beginning.
---Warwick on 7/4/07


MikeM always confuses evidence with proof. They are not one & the same. He knows that but keeps up the pretence.

The evidence from fossils & living animals speaks just as strongly for common design (ie God the designer)as it does for common descent.
---Warwick on 7/4/07




Biology 101; A group of organisms shares a common descent if they share a common ancestor. All organisms on the Earth both living and extinct have been or are descended from a common ancestor. This in no way precludes belief in the Creator. The only conflict is with fundamentalism, both Christian and Islamic.
---MikeM on 7/4/07


Warick, Please show me this scripture that says man was created at the VERY beginning and not on the sixth day. The sixth day is simply put the sixth day of God creating the earth as we know it now. Again read verse two, if God created it all at the same time then he would not have had to form the earth.
---evangelistjerry on 7/3/07


Evangelistjerry Jesus the Creator said man was made 'at the beginning of Creation'-speaking about 4,000 years after the beginning, or 1,460,000 days, with man made on day six. This is consistent with 'at the beginning', it being 6/10,000th of 1% from the absolute instant of beginning.

The alternative is that Jesus the Creator didn't know the truth. -

The alternative long-ages view has man appeareing after billions of years of evolution. Would anyone imagine this is 'at the beginning?'
---Warwick on 7/3/07


Jack- but nowhere does it say we can believe whatever we like about God's Word, reinterpreting it to conform to man's ideas & still stay in right relationship with God. Does it?

In ignorance we have believed all sorts of things but if we reject the clear meaning of God's Word for worldly reasons are we truly following Him, no matter what else we say?

You are saying that we can even deny that God is creator & still be saved.
---Warwick on 7/3/07


I see some have commented that man was created toward the beginning of creation. This is not supported by scripture. Here's why, In the beginning God created... If you go on to verse 2 it very clearly says that "the earth was without form and void. Without form clearly means God had to form it, in other words God created it and then he formed it. Are we so high minded that we believe the eternal existence of God but that we are the very first thing he created.
---evangelistjerry on 7/3/07




#2 Does scripture not say that one day we will rule worlds. If there will be more worlds then, what makes us think that this is the first world God created. Even in Hebrews it says that by the word of God the worldS were framed. Evolution of man coming from the gene pool, so to speak or that man and ape evolved from the same thing is not an option, the Bible clearly says that God created man.
---evangelistjerry on 7/3/07


#3 It also says that God created the heaven and the earth, but in no way does it say when or that we are the first creation any other conclusion is to assume that we are Gods first creation and we know that God created the angels long before he created us.
---evangelistjerry on 7/3/07


Now Jerry; Belief is faith, science is based on objective evidence. evolution by Natural election is science. I imagine if you became directer of a musium of natural history, that very day the dumpsters would become full of fossils.
---MikeM on 7/3/07


Jack; Love your in-depth comments! Keep up the good work!
---MikeM on 7/3/07


greetings.Belief in the biblical creation peroids is not self authenticating.It remains beliefs.Belief in the saving truth is self authenticating.It remains forever true.Those who are angered when others do not tell their same story are authenticating domination and authority over others of questionable intelligence .Creationists by their definition cannot change the pre Adam age of man or destroy the stone records .
---earl on 7/3/07


The last time I read the Bible, it talked about how confession of Jesus Christ and belief in His Resurrection was what was required for salvation.

Nowhere did I see, "If you believe creationism in your heart, and confess with your mouth a young earth, you shall be saved."

Did I miss something?
---Jack on 7/3/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Queen ... Why is it sinful to have a different view of the meaning of the Bible?
---alan_of_UK on 7/3/07


Kitso: Love your in-depth comments! Keep up the good work.
---jerry6593 on 7/3/07


Hello Mike M, I saw Hell with my own 2 eyes and it is real which proves that the bible is real. God is real, his word is true,just like he set it to be. I pray that you allow the lord to change your heart because if you do not change your heart and continue living in sin, you will spend an eternity in a place that is real and you will regret everytime someone tried to minister the gospel to you. You choose.
---queen on 7/3/07


If natural selection were God's means of creation, then it would mean that He used what He called "the last enemy" (1 cor. 15:26) as His means of brining about what He declared was a "very good" creation (Gen. 1:31).

Millions of years of death and suffering before Adam's sin undermines the teaching that the Last Adam would die for sins then conquer death by His Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45).
---Ktisophilos on 7/2/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


MiketheHeretic can rant against "fundamentalists" all he wants, but he doesn't deal with the biblical teachings. Nor does he even deal with the science beyond bald assertions.
---Ktisophilos on 7/2/07


MikeM: If you believe in evolution in any form, then you necessarily believe that your distant ancestors were animals. The belief in animal ancestors is also held in Hindu reincarnation. It is also my understanding that Mormons believe that they may "evolve" into gods of their own worlds. You believe in evolution, don't you? You are a Mormon, aren't you?
---jerry6593 on 6/29/07


I am not so self-assured to accept all that I hear in a class, or even in the field. There are many, many, variables. I would NOT say "I believe God created the world and evolution was His plan" I would say evolution by natural selection was a component of the plan, My argument for God remains ontological and evolution is inconsequential to the point.
---MikeM on 6/25/07


Man MikeM must have a shed full of straw considering the number of 'straw-man' arguments he creates. What is a straw-man argument? It is when one person claims another has a certain belief (usually a ridiculous belief) then agues against that belief, showing it to be ridiculous & false. The problem being that the second person doesnt hold that belief. A tactic of deceit!

'MikeM says 'I fail to see how fundamentalist science repudiates evolution and science.' Cont.
---Warwick on 6/25/07


Locate House Parent Jobs


Cont1.
In reality I said 'However the observable, testable repeatable facts of science repudiate evolution & support (not prove) Scripture.'

Notice how MikeM invents 'fundamentalist science' which neither exists nor was mentioned by me. Secondly he puts words in my mouth deceitfully saying I believe the scientific method disproves science. He will say anything no matter how foolish. He is entertaining.

If you cannot see his deceit let me know & I'll explain further.
---Warwick on 6/25/07


As to the 10 Commandments they are 'out of effect' according to some fundamentalist, in reality most protestants Calvinist, lutherens, did, still hold up the commandments. Yes I know basic theology, the old, new Covenents-old law on stone, new law on hearts.

I am reminded of the Marcionites who completly dismissed the OT, perhaps fundamentalist are about to do that, with the exception of Genesis.
---MikeM on 6/25/07


My religion says, 'Do not rest or lean your salvation on a theory of man." -that Satan "Shows you 9 truths to prove the 10th lie." Evolution is debated in some circles but is NOT a central issue as say preservation of marriage or other real moral issues; it doesent make the top 10. Many say "God used evolution, but some men use evolution to deny God." At the local University or my Church college no one from any dept. would say something like 'the earth is 10,000 years old'
---MikeM on 6/25/07


I am not so self-assured to accept all that I hear in a class, or even in the field. There are many, many, variables. I would NOT say "I believe God created the world and evolution was His plan" I would say evolution by natural selection was a component of the plan, My argument for God remains ontological and evolution is inconsequential to the point.
---MikeM on 6/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


I am not so self-assured to accept all that I hear in a class, or even in the field. There are many, many, variables. I would NOT say "I believe God created the world and evolution was His plan" I would say evolution by natural selection was a component of the plan, My argument for God remains ontological and evolution is inconsequential to the point.
---MikeM on 6/25/07


After considerable research thirty years ago, I still stand by my original premise that the real age of the earth is subjective and has no bearing on one's salvation - and, therefore, a frivolous subject to discuss.
---Steveng on 6/25/07


However the observable, testable repeatable facts of science repudiate evolution & support (not prove) Scripture. I fail to see how fundamentalist science repudiates evolution and science. Fundamentalist have a narrow spectrum, wiggle room and as a fact reality does not conform to that constrained, subjective view.
You have avoided my question, like the one about Enoch-

Do fundamentalist apply the same literalness to Exodus where is says do not suffer a witch to live as to young earth?
---MikeM on 6/25/07


There is only one way to be a christian and that is to be born again by the Holy Spirit and believe in the name of Jesus.

There are many things about God that are still deep mysteries but I believe the Word of God that God did indeed create the universe as it states in Genesis.

Thee is a lot of talk about evolution and therories and wordly philosophies but these are deceitful spirits and falsehood. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
---Jacqu3869 on 6/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Jerry; I do not work to discredit the Bible, any more than I am a believer in reincarnation, as you asserted. You may not be aware, or be informed of this, but there are a lot of people-in fact there are millions who accept the4 Bible as inspired, and place it at the center of their lives that are NOT fundamentalist.
---MikeM on 6/25/07


I ahve been asked to particiate in a CN poll as follows:
Which belief represents your view?
...I believe in creationism.
...I believe God created the world and evolution was His plan.
...I believe in evolution.

I find it difficult to regard this as a serious poll ... cont ...
---alan_of_UK on 6/25/07


# 2
Why?
a...Because answer 1 would still apply if you beleive 2.
b...Answer 2 would include answer 3.
c...There is no place to answer "Don't know"
---alan_of_UK on 6/25/07


Lorra as regards the genealogies notice they give the age at which each father had his first son who in turn had his son at a certain age. By adding these ages up we get only thousands of years fron Adam to Jesus.
---Warwick on 6/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


MikeM as a deceiver you are persistent but not good at it-too obvious! It is by faith we accept Scripture is true. Mens opinions which some falsly call science are no threat to Scripture as they are not facts. However the observable, testable repeatable facts of science repudiate evolution & support (not prove) Scripture.

The scientific method which has provided us with modern technology was developed by Christians & is not evil. Yours is poor reasoning.
---Warwick on 6/25/07


Stevenq the tradional view of Genesis is that it's a true record of History. Jesus said man was made at the beginning of creation & the Biblical geneaologies show the earth as being only thousands of years old. So why would anyone leave room for beliefs which contradict Scripture? Only for non-Biblical views. Not a position of faith. Why reinterpret God's perfect word for the unproven ideas of man?
---Warwick on 6/25/07


MikeM you are being naughty again. There is much in the OT whch was relevant to the people of that time. The 10 commandments are relevant for us today but only, as Scripture says, to show us how impossible it is for us to be saved by obeying the law. As God knows we can't God sent His Son to pay the price for sin,, once & for all, for us.
---Warwick on 6/25/07


Mike M: The Bible and true science are never in conflict. I think that Paul's advice for Timothy applies equally well to you.

1Ti 6:20 ... avoid[ing] profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Faith, like science, is substance and evidenced based:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Too bad you work so hard to discredit the Bible when it is the ultimate source of truth.
---jerry6593 on 6/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Lorra God defined the days of creation by saying-evening & the morning were the 1st,2nd.. day. Only 24hr day has evening & morning plus by the laws of grammar whenever you say 1st day, 2nd day etc it always means a 24hr day.

God is eternal,outside time however Scripture was written for us, so He wrote in earthly terms. In the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:8) He says He created in 6-days,rested the 7th so his people would work six & rest the 7th. He created over 6-days to set us a pattern.
---Warwick on 6/25/07


I posted this elsewhere, but this seems like a more appropriate spot...
I just realized that since Jesus is called the son of david, and there were many many generations b/w david and jesus, couldnt some of the "sons" mentioned in geneologies be multiple generations rather than just the literal son???
---mark_B. on 6/24/07


Warwick, I hold the geneologies to be true, but I also noticed a fantastic difference in lifespans from the time before the flood and the period after. Further, the world and many of its lifeforms were created before man was made, so this does not give you a definite timeline - God does not have "days" the way that we do and since He has always been, there is no reason to assume that He rushed the creation of our world and anything on it.
---lorra8574 on 6/24/07


I was refering to Donna's question. What was Jesus' main concern? The Gospel of the Kingdom of God and how to get there. He didn't talk about the age of the universe and that is what this blog is about. He also didn't talk about if dinosours roamed the earth beside man or any of the other frivolous scientific topics man talks about. Yes, He did talk about the flood and so on in context of His message. What was the purpose of His confrontaion with the guy in the graveyard?
---Steveng on 6/24/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


Warwick; "Scripture says we accept creation by faith & that which is not of faith is sin."

Science is based on the scientific method. Scripture, accepted as inspired, (or as literal by fundamentalist) is a faith based paradigm. Therefore according to Warwick that which is not faith, science itself is sinful, and thus must be rejected, abandoned. So the whole truth is admitted; science itself is considered evil and must be wholly,entirely be dismissed.
---MikeM on 6/24/07


Warwick-So if we personally don't care how old it all is should we reject what Scripture says?
-
To be credible, one must be consistent. I have asked this a thousand times, and never received a straight answer. Do fundamentalist apply the same literalness to Exodus where is says do not suffer a witch to live as to young earth? To reject the scriptural mandate of killing witches and other uncomfortable verses is to reject what scripture says, right?
---MikeM on 6/24/07


Steveng: "[Jesus] talked about the present and future, not the past."

?? Jesus talked about God creating man and woman at the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6 ff), citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as real history -- the basis for marriage.

Jesus affirmed the reality of the Flood, Noah and the Ark (Luke 17:26 f.). His second coming would be just as sudden.

Jesus used the reality of Jonah's three days in the sea giant as a type of His resurrection (Mt. 12: 39f.).
---Ktisophilos on 6/24/07


Steve I disagree. Scriptural genealogies, give a timeline-Adam to Jesus. Jesus (Matt.19 & Mark 10) says man was made at the beginning of creation. Put this together & you have earth & universe only thousands of years old, with man created at the beginning, not the result of long processes.

Scripture says we accept creation by faith & that which is not of faith is sin. So if we personally don't care how old it all is should we reject what Scripture says?
---Warwick on 6/24/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Steve cont.
You say Jesus didnt talk of the past but He did. In His Word He & the Apostles quoted from or referred to just the first 11 chapters of Genesis no less than 107 times! They say the events of Genesis 1& 2 are The basis of The Gospel. Who are we to disagree or consider what His Word says as being unimportant?
---Warwick on 6/24/07


Warwick, I have one better, I like the three thousand year old live frogs (at least live before they tested them). Various methods of dating are not always perfect, but I do not discount them completely. I do believe that the world is older than ten thousand years old, even if I am not convinced that everything is as old as some suggest. I believe that God created everything that is from nothing, and I am less concerned with when or how long it took.
---lorra8574 on 6/23/07


To Donna's question: no, it is not important to know the age of the universe/earth. Jesus came to spread the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God and how to get there. He talked about the present and future, not the past. Once you have formed an intimate relationship with God like Job had, then you can ask your questions and God will reveal the mysteries of the universe. People today only have a superficial relationship with God, any guesses of the age of the earth is purely conjecture and subjective.
---Steveng on 6/23/07


Isn't it interesting how some threads such as this one just slide off the screen only to appear later?

Strange.
---Warwick on 6/23/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


Ktiso you are right. In fact the idea is a straw-man argument-accuse your opponent of some evil or foolishness then show how wrong or foolish the belief(which he actually doesn't have)is.

Remember the idea that Christians believed in a flat earth? Shown conclusively to be the creation of atheists aimed at making Christianity look foolish.

I also do not know any YEC who believes that young earth belief is necessary for salvation.
---Warwick on 6/23/07


Jack, right! Young-belief is not essential for salvation. I can't think of any YEC believer who says it is!

However, when Paul explains the Good News in 1 Cor. 15, he shows it is needed because of the bad news: the first man, Adam, sinned and brought death, "the last enemy" into the world. So Christ, the Last Adam, came to die for our sins and bring resurrection from the dead.

All old-earth schemes place death before Adam, and undermine this vital sin-death causality.
---Ktisophilos on 6/23/07


Warwick ... Do you have any eye witness accounts of the creation of "recently formed rock"?
---alan_of_UK on 5/25/07

There are many Alan e.g. at Mt St Helen's in the US lava flows were later dated at millions of years old (when they hardened) by the Potassium-Argon method. The 'clock' starts 'ticking' when the rock hardens. Therefore the testing should have shown a few years not millions. You can read about this & much more on the creationontheweb site.
---Warwick on 5/29/07


Warwick, millions of years ago is fairly recent in geologic time scales.
---Jack on 5/29/07

Jack basalt(cooled lava)in Hawaii has been dated by the Potassium-Argon method as being from 130 million to up to 3.3 billion years old. However eye witness accounts show it formed about 200 years ago.

When we know how old the rock is radiometric dating doesn't work so why should we assume it works when there is a lack of evidence?

Check it out on creationontheweb dot com
---Warwick on 5/29/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


**If you were honest, you would realise that evolutionism (which most proponesnt agree is only a theory, and unproven)**

I agree with most of your posting, but it's only fair to point out that "theory" has an entirely different meaning in a scientific context from what it has in ordinary speech.

What ordinary speech calls "theory" science calls a "hypothesis." In the lexicon of science, the two terms are not synonyms.
---Jack on 5/29/07


**This is why recently formed rock has tested as being millions of years old.**

Warwick, millions of years ago is fairly recent in geologic time scales.
---Jack on 5/29/07


Donna, most Bibles I've seen say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

They talk about believing in His Resurrection as a requirement, too.

NOT ONE OF THEM say, "Believe in a young earth/universe and thou shalt be saved."

So what do you think, Donna?
---Jack on 5/29/07


Oke ... If you were honest, you would realise that evolutionism (which most proponesnt agree is only a theory, and unproven) does not conflict with the Truth contained in Genesis... That God made the universe and us
Nor do those who beleive God used various mathods and took a long time to create the world and us deny the Truth of Genesis.
---alan_of_UK on 5/29/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Alan, let me explain what you refuse to understand from Angry_for_the_Lord's statement: any knowledge that CONTRADICTS scripture is false, even if it seems through. Satan, errors, etc. can make lies seem very convincing. You may think I'm being blind to sciene, but people like MikeM put too much trust in it...only to find out someday that an illiterate like me was perfectly right all along! :)
---Okebaram on 5/27/07


Angry ... "Any knowledge apart from scripture is of no merit"
So ... do you scorn antibiotics, electricity, motor cars, air-conditioning, aircraft, radio?
And how come you use a computer to communicate here?
---alan_of_UK on 5/25/07


Warwick ... Do you have any eye witness accounts of the creation of "recently formed rock"?
---alan_of_UK on 5/25/07


MikeM you keep avoiding confronting the assumptions which undergird radiometric dating, & for good reason as they show the methods are not scientifically verifyable.

Of course we can measure decay rates today but we cannot say they were the same even 100 years ago so this is just one unverifyable assumption. So on what scientific basis can we say what they were an imagined billion years ago? None.

This is why recently formed rock has tested as being millions of years old.
---Warwick on 5/23/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


Cont. 1
What about the others assumptions Mike?

The point is that Jesus the Creator believed man was made at the beginning of creation while the billions of years view you hold has man appearing near the end of creation. If Jesus was totally wrong as you say then we can't trust Him about earthly things how then can we trust him about heavenly things? A question he asked-John 3:12. A serious question for Christians but not for you a non-Christian.
---Warwick on 5/23/07


Radiometric Clocks show that an accurate determination of a half-life is easily achieved by direct counting of decays over a decade or less. This is because all decay curves have exactly the same form differing only in the half-life, and trillions of decays can be counted in one year even using only a fraction of a gram of material with a half-life of a billion years. Additionally, lavas of historically known ages have been correctly dated even using methods with long half-lives!
---MikeM on 5/23/07


I heard here, "The decay rates are poorly known, so the dates are inaccurate?

Most of the decay rates used for dating rocks are known to within two percent. Uncertainties are only slightly higher for rhenium (5%), lutetium (3%), and beryllium (3%), discussed in connection with Table 1. Such small uncertainties are no reason to dismiss radiometric dating. Whether a rock is 100 million years or 102 million years old does not make a great deal of difference.
---MikeM on 5/23/07


Someone posted, "There are only a few different dating methods, all ASSUMPTIONS."

There are a number number of different radiometric dating methods over forty different radiometric dating methods are in use, dismissing thm is delusional. There are a number of non-radiogenic methods, like ice cores, etc etc etc. all which confirm the earths age.
---MikeM on 5/23/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


"The waters of Noah's flood leached isotopes out of rocks, disturbing their ages"
There is no trouble dating interior portions of most rocks from the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans. If ages were disturbed by leaching, the leaching would affect different isotopes at vastly different rates. Ages determined by different methods would be in great disagreement! If the flood were global in scope, why do we have any rocks for which a number of different methods all agree with each other?
---MikeM on 5/23/07


Someone posted "atheists and liberals are involved in radiometric dating"

The fact is that there are a number of evangical Christians who are involved in radiometric dating, I know some- and who can see its validity firsthand. Most Christians are firmly convinced that radiometric dating shows evidence that God created the Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago.
---MikeM on 5/23/07


One of the fundamentalist arguments i heard here; "Radiometric dating is based on index fossils whose dates were assigned long before radioactivity was discovered"

This is not at all true, though it is implied by some fundamentalist. Radiometric dating is based on the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes. These half-lives have been measured over the last 40-90 years. They are not calibrated by fossils.
---MikeM on 5/23/07


Come on MikeM stop dancing around the truth. All radiometric dating methods are based upon untestable assumptions therefore the results are not scientifically verifyable.

Many of us here are well versed in the scientific method, have no problem with real science, but reject theories about the past as science.
---Warwick on 5/22/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Any knowledge apart from scripture is of no merit. That is why evolutionism is evil. Yes, the world is only 6000 years old. Bible says it I believe it, that settles it.
---Angry_for_the_Lord on 5/22/07


what I note is no matter fact,or evidence from ANY physical ecidence all that is repeated is 'lies and assumptions' fom the fundamentalist, who in reality reject all science. Their paradigm is based 100% on subjective beliefs, and this fact is danced around and around.

Example they used to attack Austriopithicus as being 'put together wrong,' that Dr. Johannson lied about the upright kneecap. Now that several more full skeletons have been found, fundamentalist are silent.
---MikeM on 5/22/07


I'm probably at least as qualified in science as MikeMocker. That's why I don't accept atheistic evolutionary ideas masquerading as science, as he does so uncritically.

Radiometric dating relies on certain assumptions, which have been shown to be questionable by the Ph.D. geologists and biologists of RATE.
---Ktisophilos on 5/21/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.