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

How Old Is The Earth

How old is the earth? How do you know?

Moderator - Maximum of 10,000 years. Science and the Bible both say so.

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 5/2/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Post a New Blog



Atheist, "They that are well need not a physician, but they that are sick. I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. And for this cause God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie: that they all might be condemned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Mt.9:12,13+ Is.5:20+ II The.2:11,12.
---Eloy on 5/6/12


Jerry6593, On the sixth day Jesus created Adam, the first man, on Friday afternoon on April 1st, 4190 B.C. God's time is a 1,000 to 1 ratio, where 1,000 years on earth to man equals 1 day to God in heaven. Now adding 6000 to 4190, is 10,190. Thus Jesus created the world on the night of April 1st 10190 B.C.
---Eloy on 5/6/12


Eloy,

You may need medication for your specialness.
---atheist on 5/6/12


Eloy, you said that man has free will. That God cannot infringe His rights on others. That man has to let God come into his heart. That God cannot do anything until man let Him.

Now, you first say,
" Lord Jesus, I ask you to open the eyes and the hearts of these creatures that you have made after your shape." You are asking God to do something you don't believe God can do.
Then you say,
Papa, the enemy has blinded the hearts and the minds of these people, for he wants to keep them in the dark and in bondage. Remove the scales from their hearts, and let them come to know and to receive you as Lord and King"
If they are blinded, in the dark, scales in their hearts, what happen to their free will?
---Mark_V. on 5/6/12


But Jerry,

Do we have scientific proof that Eloy is not god?
---atheist on 5/6/12




Shira4368, I do. I pray for all the adversaries opposing God and his Spirit. Lord Jesus, I ask you to open the eyes and the hearts of these creatures that you have made after your shape. Let them see that you are good, that your word is good, and that you created this world and the things in it for mankind to have dominion, and to share in your goodness. Papa, the enemy has blinded the hearts and the minds of these people, for he wants to keep them in the dark and in bondage. Remove the scales from their hearts, and let them come to know and to receive you as Lord and King, merciful and good, onto all whom come to you seeking. In Jesus I pray, Amen.
---Eloy on 5/6/12


Steveng, this is why I recommend studying the Hebrew and the Greek, rather than passively accepting an English version of the Bible at face value.
The hebrew conjunction word in Psalm 90:4 is "kiy" (in strong's concordance #3588), and
the ancient greek word in II Peter 3:8 is "os" (in strong's concordance #3739),
both meaning "that".
---Eloy on 5/6/12


Atheist: I see that you have found the same problem with our brother Eloy that the rest of us mere mortals have encountered. The problem with any of these "could be thousands of years" theories is that they are not long enough for Evolution to even be postulated. Even 4.5 Billion years is not enough according to some calculations. But, Eloy's math is of a higher origin (since he has previously claimed to be God himself), so it is no wonder that none of us can follow it.


---jerry6593 on 5/6/12


Eloy, you would argue with an angel but now you are arguing with Satan. An anti christ of the lowest kind. Just pray he will be saved.
---Shira4368 on 5/5/12


Atheist, I am special. And you also can become likewise special, all you have to do is surrender up your life to Christ and let him convert you and make you into a new creation, a life which is indued with the Holy Ghost and is one with Christ Jesus.
---Eloy on 5/5/12




Eloy: "1 day=1000 yrs: Ps.90:4+ II Pt.3:8+ Gn.2:16,17+ 5:5."

Scripture is full of metaphors and similes for example: "as" and "like". All scripture showing the "one year" and compares it to "a thousand years" only pertain that God's time is not the same as man's time. There is not one verse in scripture that shows one day IS a thousand years.
---Steveng on 5/5/12


Eloy:"atheist, you are NonChristianed! is that being nasty? Atheist, Get saved, and then afterward you too will rightly know whom is Christianed and whom is antiChristianed, otherwise being outside of Christ you have zero measure and a zero foundation to qualify yourself to judge another's Christian walk, and whether they have the Holy Spirit or not....

Now I get it...You are qualified to judge other Christians, but they are not because the are not real Christians, and I am not because I am an atheist.

Aren't YOU special....?
---atheist on 5/5/12


Eloy:

Thank you.

If day#6=1000 years, there were 52177 of each day of the week. How can you know on which of those 365242 days Adam was born?

Gn.1:31..2:7-9,15 do not mention month or season. Ex.12:2+Dt.16:1 date the Exodus, not Genesis.

Not everyone has the same birthday. Adam begat Seth in his 105th year, so Seth was born 105 years plus 0-364 days (or maybe plus/minus 0-184 days) after Adam. In the 22 generations from Adam to Abraham, there could be an unknown variation of up to 22 years whose length cannot be determined from the text. Thus, one can't be accurate to within even decades, let alone years, months, or days.
---StrongAxe on 5/5/12


atheist, you are NonChristianed! is that being nasty? Atheist, Get saved, and then afterward you too will rightly know whom is Christianed and whom is antiChristianed, otherwise being outside of Christ you have zero measure and a zero foundation to qualify yourself to judge another's Christian walk, and whether they have the Holy Spirit or not. During Christ's physical life on earth, sinners likewise misjudged him as being nasty an ungodly, and they even blasphemed him saying that he was Satan or from Satan. All their misjudgements and opposing words went with them down to the grave, and after the mocked and killed holy Christ he got back up from the dead to prove that he indeed is the Lord and will rightly judge them for their sins.
---Eloy on 5/5/12


Peter, I find the creation site most helpful. I know most of the scientists involved and trust their scholarship, and balance.

To get the the bottom of this issue takes quite a bit of study.

At the crinum mine in Queensland Australia timber was found encapsulated in basalt. The basalt was dated (K-Ar method) giving an average age of c47 million years. However the encapsulated wood gave a c14 age of c37,000 years. Which test do we trust? If there is any c14 present it means the wood is some thousands of years old, (max. c70,000) not even 100,000yrs let alone millions. Therefore the 47million yrs is way out! I calculate the K-Ar is inaccurate to the degree of 1,270 times!
---Warwick on 5/5/12


1 day=1000 yrs: Ps.90:4+ II Pt.3:8+ Gn.2:16,17+ 5:5.
Adam created on 6th day: Gn.1:26,31.
At the end of 6th day of the week, after all the land creatures created, being Friday before the sabbath, Adam was made: Gn.1:24-26,31.
Abib, April in spring, Adam was made: Gn.1:31+ 2:7-9,15+ Ex.12:2+ Dt.16:1.
For the year, add up all of the genealogies (from when the fathers sired their sons) and count them backwards, and we come to 4190 B.C. when Adam was made (ref: Adam at 130 years had Seth (Gn.5:3) Seth at 105 years had Enosh (Gn.5:6) Enosh at 90 years had Kenan (Gn.5:9), and so on through the whole old testament). Then 6000 is added to 4190 (for the 6th day, and being 1000 years to 1 day), and we get 10190 B.C. when the world was made.
---Eloy on 5/5/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Athiest, you have many questions and give answers, but you will never understand the Truth of God. Such a God cannot be found out by searching. He can be known only as He is revealed to the heart by the Holy Spirit through the Word. So all the answers anyone gives you will just blow right through you. The God of Scripture can only be known by those to whom He makes Himself known. Nor is God known by the intellect. "God is Spirit" (John 4:24), and therefore can only be known spiritually. But fallen man is not spiritual, he is carnal. He is dead to all that is spiritual. Unless he is born again, supernaturally brought from death unto life, miraculously translated out of darkness into the light, he cannot see the things of God.
---Mark_V. on 5/5/12


Eloy,

This real Christian thing you folks throw about is really nasty. It's like some of you think you are more righteous and correct than others. From what I was told about Christ, this is very un-Jesus like.

The odd thing is that you, Eloy, could be the unreal Christian and those you accuse the real Christians. I think this should be called the Eloy paradox. The one claiming to know false Christians is one himself. Or is it the HOLIER THAN THOU conundrum?
---atheist on 5/5/12


Some people's fruits are rotten, yet they say with their lips that they are in fellowsip with Christ. But we know them by their fruits, for real Christians do not blaspheme Christians.
---Eloy on 5/5/12


strongax, you are still dissing. I am not going to research every past posting which I posted in order to find the one that I posted references to this same subject to, merely to continue to upbraid your flesh.
Sinners are so busy slinging their mud on the pearls from God, that they can receive no pearls. Do you truly want to know, or is your carnal flesh preventing you from getting what you want?
---Eloy on 5/4/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


Warwick: You wrote about that 'test' that got itself messed up.

I would be interested in reading about it, so if you could tell me where to search, I'd be most grateful. If you also know where I can read about all the decay methods, so I can read up and work out what the presuppositions of each one is, I'd also be happy

PS: I know the problem about C14 (the problem is it assumes the thing died with as much C14 as we see now - good if the earth is ancient, but if its 6000 years old, forget it!)
---Peter on 5/4/12


Eloy:

You mentioned 10190 B.C. on "When did Jesus Arise" on 11/15/11 and 4190 B.C. on "Earth only 6000 year old" on 12/5/11. You didn't explain it in either place. Unfortunately, a search doesn't reveal any others.

Where and when on these blogs DID you say it? I would be glad to examine your sources. If you won't provide specific references to other sources, can you at least provide references to your own?

You'd rather waste 8 messages (so far) ducking my question (and forcing me to waste an equal number asking you to justify yourself) - almost a quarter of the messages allowed - rather than just one justifying your claims. So who values truth?

(And I AM a Christian. I have been for 36 years.)
---StrongAxe on 5/4/12


Peter, thank you for the explanation.
---Warwick on 5/4/12


Warwick: Sorry.

I did not mean that YOUR logic has flaws.

I only meant that sometimes I have also found flaws in the logic from people who take creation as true - not because creation is flawed, just that people, in defending it, may also have flawed LOGIC - only their logic!

Blessings
---Peter on 5/4/12


Shop For Church Pews


strongax, I already posted the references to this subject on older blogs, and if you would become a Christian then your heart and your mind would know that I post the truth and the Holy Scripture and not any "wild ideas out of thin air", as you sinuously dis, and you would also not be lying and bearing false witness against a proven sancitified Christian whom posts the truth.
Now for the last time, whenever you are ready to receive the truth and the Biblical references, then address me, but until then don't.
---Eloy on 5/4/12


Eloy:

When I call such numbers "wild assertions", I do so because they do not occur ANYWHERE in the Bible, so they must be either be personal opinions (that we don't want to hear), or derived from the Bible through careful study (that we DO want to hear), or private revelation (for which we would need corroborating witnesses).

Every time you make assertions like this, I ask you to substantite them, AS THE BIBLE DEMANDS, but you constantly refuse. Don't do it because I ask. Do it because GOD asks.

Also, if you want to have any credence in asking others to not mock you, you should also stop mocking others. Otherwise, it's the pot calling the kettle black, and then demanding the kettle to remain silent.
---StrongAxe on 5/4/12


strongax, your dissings: "How do you know? (please cite chapter and verse, not just personal opinions/revelations)four meaningless numbers will yield a meaningless result. What I have trouble with is when you make wild assertions, such as the one you just made, pulling numbers out of thin air. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make wild claims, but continuously refuse to substantiate those claims? How am I dissing you? Please be specific. What I am doing is asking you where you get your ideas from (such as the exact day and month and year of man's creation - none of which are mentioned in Genesis). it is YOU dissing what the Bible itself demands of you."
Whenever you're ready to receive the truth, address me.
---Eloy on 5/4/12


Eloy:

How am I dissing you? Please be specific.

What I am doing is asking you where you get your ideas from (such as the exact day and month and year of man's creation - none of which are mentioned in Genesis). I did not say these were false. I merely expressed skepticism (i.e. I am not accepting them at face value until you show where they came from - I am requiring what the Bible requires for establishment of truth).

That you do not supply such corroboration is not me dissing YOU - it is YOU dissing what the Bible itself demands of you.
---StrongAxe on 5/4/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


steveng, good posts.
---aka on 5/4/12


Let us consider what survival value there is in a skin cell which has become sensitive to light. We can see, not because we have an eye but because that eye is wired into the optic nerve which conveys information to our brain. Medical reports show that long-term blind people who have their sight restored do not immediately see correctly. It takes time for the brain to interpret the information which is now flowing in.

A mutation which provides a light sensitive cell therefore gives no survival value and in the evolutionary belief will not be retained. Note that Atheist does not address this as he cannot. He has blind faith, no pun intended.
---Warwick on 5/4/12


Peter, what flaws do you see in the reasoning of those who say the eye cannot have evolved over millions of years?
---Warwick on 5/4/12


In the foregoing discussion of the evolution of the eye, one small detail has been left out - PRECURSORS. Evolutionists continually invoke the fossil record as "proof" of Evolution, and always speak of the slow transformation of one species or feature from the life forms in the strata below. The Trilobites of the early Cambrian Layer exhibit eyes with highly sophisticated lens designs, but they have NO PRECURSORS, as the Precambrian Layer below is essentially devoid of fossilized life forms. Until they can explain the "magical" appearance of precursorless life in the Cambriam, evolutionists' theories are nothing but silly children's stories.


---jerry6593 on 5/4/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Cluny: You've gone strangely silent. Once again,

How do YOU personally know which version of science to choose (in radiometric date selection)? What are YOUR pre-conceived paradigms that color your choices?


---jerry6593 on 5/4/12


"Elder, particles in water chew away rock, salts and oxygen in water dissolve steel. Get your "facts" straight.

Saying there is an intelligent designer that you can't find and have no idea how he/she/it came to be explains exactly nothing."
Athiest
Oh, but you see I have found Him, and you could too if only we were speaking to an intelligent receptor.
My facts remain to same.... how come these same items you speak of do not ruin the human body?
---Elder on 5/4/12


Atheist: 'One mutation that results in one cell sensitive to light'

It's not actually enough. Together with that, there needs to be a neural system that can carry that to the brain (animals without an eye don't have an optical nerve), and a receptor in the brain that can understand what it means.

I know, it seems like a single cell can fix it - but it's sort of like writing for windows 7 - the 'protocol' also needs to be sorted out.

PS: I'll be happy to discuss this, and we can chat for a while, as to what can and can't work as a reason.

PS: My view has been that BOTH sides have flaws in their logic
---Peter on 5/3/12


Maria, exactly, it can't.
---Moderator on 5/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


Eyeless creatures existed for millions of years when one day a creature thought that their kind needed eyes to see with. How did the eyeless creature decide that eyes were needed? Why did they need eyes when they have survived millions of years without them?

The eye is a very complex organ made up of several major complex parts. How can one part of the eye develop without the other parts? How did evolution know what part of the eye comes first? How did evolution know how to connect the eye to the brain?

And that most important proverbial question: Which came first the retina, the lens, or the optic nerve.
---Steveng on 5/3/12


As for the age of the earth:

God put everything in the universe in its proper place from the smallest of molecules to the largest of celestal objects. Scientists have calculated two elements: one, the speed of light and two, the distance of far away stars. From these two elements one can determine the time it takes light to travel from that star to our planet and, therefore, the age. One must also realize that God put the light molecules in its proper place including the light from the distance star. To man the light traveling to earth is billions of years old, to God light appeared when he spoke it.
---Steveng on 5/3/12


strongax, as long as you are dissing me when addressing me you manifest that you are not ready to receive any of God's word that I post. So whenever you decide to get serious and stop your foolishness, and when you really want to know, then and only then address me, else you get zero.
---Eloy on 5/3/12


Elder, particles in water chew away rock, salts and oxygen in water dissolve steel. Get your "facts" straight.

Saying there is an intelligent designer that you can't find and have no idea how he/she/it came to be explains exactly nothing.


Marc,

One mutation that results in one cell sensitive to light is all that is needed to get started.

You seem to be the one inferring a magical god with magical words that got everything started. Where's the "intellectual honesty" in that?


All, explain how the creator got created....that's harder.

{IT'S WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.}
Oh. Why is that true?
{IT'S THE WORD OF GOD.}
Oh. How do you know that?
{IT'S WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.}
---atheist on 5/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Moderator: - Maximum of 10,000 years. Science and the Bible both say so.

Science remains somewhat scattered in what it says. It is best not the state one number for science, as they are still arguing with each other!
---Peter on 5/3/12


Cluny: "Science (geology and cosmology) says the earth is 4 billion years old."

This is a self-fulfilling prediction. It ASSUMES that when the earth was formed, the isotope distribution is what we get when we predict the formation of the earth 'out of space'

BUT if the earth was formed by God's hand, then that isotope distribution (which is how they find ages FOR EVERYTHING 'OLD') is just a lot of nonsense
---Peter on 5/3/12


Moderator: Your comment about the eyeball (which can also be said about a number of other 'major changes' - invertebrate to vertebrate is the other one I can think of. Is a big problem, because the eyeball needs a number of things to be even partially useful - it can do without the lens, but it still needs the transparent vitreous something to work.

How can that all start slowly?
---Maria on 5/3/12


Relevantly, this morning I heard a news report regarding a blind man who has had a chip attached to his optic nerve. This is the latest technology of homo sapiens sapiens (very wise man) but all he can see is light and dark, and faint outlines. But there are those who believe the human eye, immeasurably superior to the latest and best man can do, came about without a designer by a series of fortunate random chances! Fantasy!
---Warwick on 5/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


Atheist you avoid what I have written. Partial sight, or full sight, requires the same 3 mechanisms. The creature needs a light/image receptor, an attached optic nerve which conveys the image to the brain which needs to be programmed to interpret this transmitted image. And in evolutionary terms the 3 systems have to come into being at the same time, to provide partial sight so as to be retained. There is no possibility of this occurring by slow and gradual, step by step, naturalistic processes.
---Warwick on 5/3/12


atheist, You are cointradicting Darwin's "survival of the fittest" premise. In the wild if you are weak or impared, you are left by the species to die, so in that case partial blindness is worse than whole blindness. For in the wild, being wholly blind leaves no question as to your certain demise, but in partial or in impared life then there will be more suffering. That is why euthanasia is executed on horses which break their leg.
---Eloy on 5/3/12


Atheist, we can take your very words to Moderator and apply them to you. There are so many things that require an intelligent creator that you reject.
If you can explain water. It is the strongest liquid on earth. It can chew through rock and completely eat your car away yet preserves your life when processed through your body and it does no harm there. Tell me why?
PS: Your car also had an intelligent designer or did it just appear in your driveway?
---Elder on 5/3/12


strongax, whenever you're ready to receive, address me.
---Eloy on 5/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


strongax, you are not ready yet. Whenever you're ready to receive, address me.
---Eloy on 5/3/12


Atheist,

One is only partially blind with respect to fully functioning sight. If there is no sight in the beginning, as is the evoutionary tale, then you aren't partially blind but partially seeing. The onus of proof is on you to provide the experiments that show how NOTHING (i.e. no sight) can become SOMETHING (i.e. partial sight). You claim we can infer sight comes from no sight. This is avoidance of your intellectual responsibility. You are just invoking word magic: replace 'infer' with 'abracadabra' and it's the same trick.
---Marc on 5/3/12


Eloy:

I AM ready to listen, as I just pointed out. However, whenever I say this, you just ignore it, and repeat your request.

Just as when I ask that you provide 2-3 witnesses for your claims (note, these are BIBLICAL mandates, not my own personal wishes) you ignore those as well.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make wild claims, but continuously refuse to substantiate those claims?
---StrongAxe on 5/3/12


Moderator,

I will not attempt to explain in 150 words what it would take 10,000 words to explain when explained by an expert.

Also, it is clear that you have assumed definitions of many words, as do most YEC's, that are not in accordance with the majority of scientists.

But to you and Warwick I would ask,"Would you prefer to be completely blind, or just be partially blind?"

If any awareness of light allows an animal to survive and procreate, then even the slightest improvement provides evolutionary advantage. Poor, near non-existent "sight" is better than none at all.
---atheist on 5/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


strongax, whenever you're ready to receive, address me.
---Eloy on 5/3/12


No, I want you in your words to explain how an eyeball develops through evolution since that is your belief.
---Moderator on 5/3/12


Eloy:

I am always ready to listen to anything you say that is ACTUALLY true. I do agree to some of your posts here for this reason. What I have trouble with is when you make wild assertions, such as the one you just made, pulling numbers out of thin air.

If those numbers are actually from the Bible, I (and others) want to know about it, and to know where they are mentioned. If they are NOT from the Bible, then your claim is wild speculation and should be ignored.

It is our BIBLICAL DUTY (1 John 4:1) to test every claim anyone makes to see if it lines up with scripture. I would be remiss if I did not. It is also our BIBLICAL DUTY (Matthew 18:16 and others) to provide coroboration (2-3 sources) for every claim. Do you do so?
---StrongAxe on 5/3/12


strongax, When you are ready to receive, address me.
---Eloy on 5/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


Mark_Eaton:

If you fundamental constants like the speed of light are subject to drastic changes, why can't the rate of evolution be too?



Eloy:

1) How do you know it was Friday?
(If you are equating 1 day = 1000 years, you can't rely on the fact that it was "the day before the sabbath", because those 1000 years will have over 52000 of each day of the week.)
2) How do you know it was April 1st?
3) How do you know it was 4190 B.C.?
4) Where do you get 6000 years from?
(and please cite chapter and verse, not just personal opinions/revelations).

A mathematical equation that adds four meaningless numbers will yield a meaningless result.
---StrongAxe on 5/3/12


Atheist, Dawkins story regarding the naturalistic development of the eye is just story. No testable, observable,repeable experiment was done.

When in Australia Dawkins and friends were challenged to debate highly qualified scientists who accept Biblical creation. Dawkins and co wimped out!

In the evolutionary story genetic changes will be retained only if they give survival advantage. The eyeball without vision transport system is valueless. The eyeball with vision transport system but without brain programming to process images is also valueless. For the eye to be retained it would have to appear fully functional, in one step. The idea it could develop over long-ages is therefore contrary to evolutionary belief.
---Warwick on 5/3/12


Cluny: "Science (geology and cosmology) says the earth is 4 billion years old."

No, it doesn't. Science is every bit as conflicted as Christianity. Do you see unanimity of opinion on these blogs? In religion, as in science, there are pre-conceived paradigms which color the assumptions (and there are assumptions) of the scientist (not to mention political and financial pressures). How do YOU personally know which version of science to choose? What are YOUR pre-conceived paradigms that color your choices?


---jerry6593 on 5/3/12


Moderator,

If you are going to limit your belief that the earth is a maximum of 10,000 years, then of course there is no explanation. I am certain that few scientists would contend that the earth is that young. The rest would say more like 4.5 billion and that those saying otherwise are not real scientists.

Read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins if you really want to know the how of the development of eyes. It happened by small gradual changes over tens of millions of years.
---atheist on 5/2/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


On the sixth day Jesus created Adam, the first man, on Friday afternoon on April 1st, 4190 B.C. God's time is a 1,000 to 1 ratio, where 1,000 years on earth to man equals 1 day to God in heaven. Now adding 6000 to 4190, is 10,190. Thus Jesus created the world on the night of April 1st 10190 B.C.
---Eloy on 5/2/12


i dont know ,and dont care,all iam interested in is knowing jesus.for now we see as a mist ,but then we will know as we are known. ---tom2 on 5/2/12

amen.
---aka on 5/2/12


i dont know ,and dont care,all iam interested in is knowing jesus.for now we see as a mist ,but then we will know as we are known.
---tom2 on 5/2/12


Explain how an eyeball gradually develops. I can't wait to hear this one.
---Moderator on 5/2/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Only God knows this answer. I tihnk it's over 10,000 yrs because of fossills found etc.. we have to remember mankind didnot appear immediatly on the earth whne it was formed.it took time & God knows the exact time.
---candice on 5/2/12


Marc,

The statement can be supported by inference. Are you saying that inference is not part of the scientific method when determining what happened millions of years ago.
---atheist on 5/2/12


read genesis verses 1 and 2. the heavens and the earth were made by God and the earth was without form,sounds like a ecretion disc doesnt it?
---tom2 on 5/2/12


yes, the earth is one day older than yesterday, and one day younger than tomorrow.
---Eloy on 5/2/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Atheist,

You said that the eye ''developed gradually and became more useful over time.''

Care to show us all the experiments and observations that support this bit of religious faith?

No, you won't. You'll hide and ignore us.
---Marc on 5/2/12


Universal linear time decay would be in the scope of theories not scientific fact.

Theories are supported by scientific fact. Strawman.

Do you really think it took people millions of years to get to the Americans through evolution?
No. I think they walked.

Do you really think an eyeball just appeared one day and worked through evolution? No. It developed gradually and became more useful over time.

Do you really think it took hundreds of millions of years to get fossils on top of the Himalayan mountain through evolution? It took hundreds of millions of years for the top of the Himilaya to get to the top of the Himilayas.

If so your faith is greater than mine. Your are mixing faith and science.
---atheist on 5/2/12


Anyone conversant with radiometric dating knows it is based upon untestable assumptions. Therefore it is not proveable scientific fact.

Some years ago radiometric dating was used to discover the age of basaltic rocks at the Uinkaret Plateau at the Grand Canyon. They used 4 methods including Potasssium-Argon. The dates given ranged from 10,000 years to 26 billion years! And further some methods showed this surface rock to be vastly older than rock 1.6km below at the base of the canyon. And some wish to tell us these results are scientific fact.

Different to what some believe Carbon 14 dating has an upper limit of c70,000 years and can only be used on things which were once alive.
---Warwick on 5/2/12


Universal linear time decay would be in the scope of theories not scientific fact.

Do you really think it took people millions of years to get to the Americans through evolution?

Do you really think an eyeball just appeared one day and worked through evolution?

Do you really think it took hundreds of millions of years to get fossils on top of the Himalayan mountain through evolution?

If so your faith is greater than mine.
---Moderator on 5/2/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


\\You are using the same assumptions that science uses.\\

Since I'm quoting what the sciences are saying, how could I help using their assumptions?

I'm merely correcting the moderator.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/2/12


Science (geology and cosmology) says the earth is 4 billion years old, though recorded human history may be about 10,000.
---Cluny on 5/2/12

Wrong. You are using the same assumptions that science uses. The assumptions being that the rate of decay in the carbon atom has not changed and that the speed of light has not changed.

I rather think that the Creator of all things could in fact have modified the decay rates of the carbon atom as well as the decay rates of human beings...

Gen 6:3 "Then the LORD said, My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh, nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years"
---Mark_Eaton on 5/2/12


Wrong, moderator.

Science (geology and cosmology) says the earth is 4 billion years old, though recorded human history may be about 10,000.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/2/12


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