It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hold on to your faith. It's in for a bumpy ride.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Produkt

Because I know no other, nor Is there any other, nor will there ever be, nor has there ever been. Myth spawns from truth. Truth spawns from the begining, the begining Is absolute.

Really? So then your one true god isn't the one true god. The begining started with MANY god's. You've never heard of osiris, anubis, odin, etc etc etc? They all predate your god. Your god was never mentioned prior to them. So I guess, those people's myth's of MANY god's was spawned from truth by what your saying.

I guess the same would go for all the various creation myth's that predate the biblical creation myth. We were all created by MANY gods

You know god? C'mon really now ... How well do you know god? You read about him, bout it. Have you ever seen him? Goto a coffee shop in amsterdam with him and toke one out with the old guy? Really now... exactly how well do you know your god outside of a book written by men less then 2000 years ago.

I'd really like for someone to point out ANY evidence of YOUR god being mentioned 6,000 or rvrn 10,000 years ago. No, I dare you to LOOK and open your eye's and really try to find this. You won't find it though. There's NO mention of your god this far back in time. None. Good luck though

Hahahaha my dear Product, we are very confused are we not, my GOD the one and only has existed from the begining of our time, no god prior or after this just GOD.

Your looking In the wrong place for your answers, look at the true core, past the INTENTIONAL #e!

Yes I know GOD, I know him well, I know his love like I know my own breath, I know his compassion as I have experianced It many times, It Is thanks to GOD that my life Is as good as It Is today.

Only you can come to know GOD, the bible can In no way do this, It can't be tought, friendship Is real, love Is real. GOD Is a living entity Inside you, his character becomes plain to see In your own reflection, this Is undeniable.

Remember the man who stands tall, but the man three step behind will look on and say why do you stand so tall for there Is nothing beneath your feet, but how can that be, do your eyes play tricks on you, look again.

God exists in Eternal Awareness and is unlimited, unbounded Infinite.


To best understand God, one must grasp one simple yet difficult concept; Aspects of God are impossible to understand or to comprehend. Logic, thought and mental processes are completely inadequate and cannot describe or encompass the ineffable part of God. This truth must be surrendered to and accepted. Ironically, although some truths are impossible to understand or to be expressed with words, these ineffable truths can be experienced.

That which can be described in words is merely a conception of the mind. Althought names and descriptions have been applied to it, the subtle reality is beyond description."

What few recognize is that the very concept of a beginning is a hint of a deep spiritual truth. What is commonly recognized as reality had a beginning. The part of God that created had a beginning. This beginning was the Word. The subtle truth that this verse also reveals is that there is a beginningless uncreated God. What we recognize as Christ is the personal God that before the beginning was a meaningless concept.

The part of God that is Eternal Infinite Awareness in perfect Balance still exists, always has and always will.

"Thy heart is cleaving still to self;
thou art anxious about heaven
but thou seekest the pleasures of self in heaven,
and thus thou canst not see the bliss of truth
and the immortality of truth."



> World Population

The population of the planet in 1985 was: 5 billion

in 1977: 4 billion
in 1900: 1 billion
in Jesus’ day: 1/4 billion
If man has been here for 3 million years, as scientist claim, the current population should be 150,000 people per square inch!!

> The Sun

The sun burns up approximately 5 million tons of "fuel" per second. As it burns its shrinking. Which means it use to be bigger than it is now. And heavier... meaning heavier gravity.


If the earth was even 20 to 40 million years old (scientists claim it is much older than that), the sun would have been touching the earth! (talk about hot!). Far too hot to support any life whatsoever.

> Spinning Galaxies

The stars inside of the galaxy are moving faster than the stars outside.


If the universe is billions of years old, the galaxy should be "smoothed" out, not in a spiral shape which it is.

> The Planets

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and many other planets are cooling off twice as fast as they gain heat from the sun.


If they were billions of years old, they would be cold by now. Saturn’s rings are expanding - they’d be gone by now

> The Moon

As the moon goes around the earth, it is slowly getting further away (about 2 inches per year). Which means it used to be closer.


What does that do to the Tides then? The Inverse Square Law says: "if you half the distance, you quadruple the attraction".


2 million years ago the moon would have been so close, the tides would have completely flooded the earth 2 times a day!! (a bit difficult for life to evolve in that environment wouldn't you say? Much less dinasours roaming around!) Also, as the moon goes around the earth, and the moon and the earth together go around the sun at 66,000 mph, they (the moon and earth) run into "cosmic dust". The earth’s atmosphere burns up most of the cosmic dust it hits and the earth’s water and wind takes care of the rest. However, the moon does not have atmosphere, wind or water. Therefore the moon collects the "cosmic dust". NASA scientist calculated that the moon collect approximately 1 inch of dust per 10,000 years. As they believe the moon is billions of yrs.old, they figured the moon would be covered in a layer of dust 1 mile thick (which is why they designed the landing shuttle with large, wide pads). However, when they landed on the moon, they found only 1/2 to 3/4 inches of dust on the surface. Which is more suggestive of moon being only 6,000 to 7,000 years old (which, coincedently, is the estimated age of the earth biblically.)

> Earth’s magnetic field

The magnetic field around the earth is getting weaker. Which means it used to be stronger.


If we go back millions of years, the magnetic field would have been too strong to support life.
Also, the declining magnetic field explains why carbon dating is not accurate. More carbon-14 is being made now than 5,000 years ago.

> Earth spinning

The earth spins at a speed of over 1,000 mph., but is slowing down, approximately one thousandth of a second per day, or 1 second per 10 months. Which means the earth used to spin faster.


If the earth is millions of years old (scientists claim dinosaurs reigned about 70 million years ago and man came on the scene 3 million years ago), it would have been spinning much too fast to support live (extreme gravity).

> Oil

Oil in the ground is under extreme pressure - 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi). Scientists say the pressure should have cracked the rock and the pressure should have leaked off in at most 10 to 15 thousand years.


Why is the oil still under so much pressure if it has been there for millions of years?

Biblical teaching - 4,400 years ago there was a total worldwide flood, killing all animals, people, plant life, etc. (except those in the Ark.). All the living matter would have been covered by immense layers of mud. The layers of mud / water could easily provide enough pressure to in time create the pockets of oil we now find. And the fact that this only occurs a few thousand years ago, stands up well to the dilemma mentioned above.

> The Bristle Cone Pine Tree

The oldest living organism yet found on earth is the Bristle Cone Pine Tree. It has been dated to be 4,300 years old.


Why would this be the oldest living organism on earth if earth is millions of years old?

Biblical Teaching - again the flood theory (4,400 years ago) holds up quite well. The whole earth was flooded for a year, when again life bloomed (4,300).

> Corral Reefs

Growth rate average for the Great Corral Reef places its age at approximately 4,200 years old.


Why isn’t it bigger if the earth is millions of years old?

> Oceans

The salt in the oceans is ever increasing.


Why then are they only 3.6% salt if millions of years old?


Genesis 1:6
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky". And there was evening, and there was morning - the second day."

This canopy would have shielded the earth from much radiation (x-rays do not pass through water) and increased air pressure. It would make the earth a kind of "green house".

Earth’s current air pressure is approximately 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi). A Canopy would likely double the air pressure to approximately 30 psi. Therefore there would be much more air intake on each breath. Current studies of dinosaurs find that most had very small rib cages (indicating small lungs). Also, the nostrils on an 80 foot dinosaur, was found to be no bigger than that of a present day horse.


with today’s air pressure (14.7 psi) present it is inconceivable that dinosaurs could survive. But with double air pressure (30 psi), it is quite conceivable.

Additionally, findings suggest the earth’s atmosphere contained a higher percentage of oxygen (30%), as opposed to our current atmosphere of oxygen (20%). Evidence is when scientists drilled into petrified tree sap, the "Amber", they sometimes have air bubbles trapped in them. These air bubbles had 30% oxygen.
Consider the ramifications of earth with a vapor canopy and atmosphere of 30% oxygen and double air pressure:

Incredible, lush, high producing vegetation

Longer life span (Bible speaks of pre-Flood life span 900 years, post-Flood 400, Moses time 100, etc.)
A person could run for hundreds of miles and not get tired
Less illness and quicker healing (current use of Hypobaric chambers in hospitals)


So you make your own conclusion!

Ive made mine not from the above but some people need a little help I guess!

Peace and love.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:41 AM
Sorry for this rather long winded boring post. Thought I'd answer your question's for you.
All of what you stated was nothing more then the common ignorance for those of faith.

Hahahaha my dear Product, we are very confused are we not, my GOD the one and only has existed from the begining of our time, no god prior or after this just GOD.

Really? Based upon what evidence? There is no mention of your god even 5,000 year's ago. So ... Really, what evidence do you have that your god is the right god when those 5,000 years ago were believing in many god's. And different one's worldwide for that matter! All with different creation myths too. I think it's you who is very confused my blind faithed friend.

Age of Human Civilizations [DB 1506 (7); OAB 3] It is true that human civilization is recent, although its age is closer to 10,000-15,000 years than to 4,000. Everyone, except the young-Earth proponents themselves, agrees that human civilization is much younger than the Earth itself, thus the age of human civilization does not affect the age of the Earth unless you assume a young-Earth view in the first place. That, of course, would be circular reasoning.

Growth of Human Population [DB 1506 (9); OAB 37] It is claimed that the case for a young Earth is strengthened by the calculation that the current world population could be produced from only two people in 4,000 years, using the appropriate exponential arithmetic (Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1987 edition, pp.167-169). The fallacy in this claim, of course, is that the human population has not been growing at a steady rate. This is a classic One-Sided Equation, failing to consider factors that limit the population. Human population is limited mainly by its ability to feed itself, and until the past few hundred years, that limitation (combined with humanity's lower ability in the past to cope with natural catastrophes) has kept the population steady and fairly low. Only recently have we had the technology to remove these environmental limitations, resulting in a population explosion. Therefore, it is not valid to extrapolate the current rate of growth, which is much less affected by its past limitations, back in time.

Shrinking Sun [OAB 94] This claim was made in 1979 by J.A. Eddy and A.A. Boornazian (Science News, v.32, no.9, pp.17-19 (Sept 1979)), who analyzed 120 years of Sun measurements from the Greenwich Observatory in London. Eddy and Boornazian claimed that these measurements indicated that the Sun is shrinking at a rate of about 2 arcseconds per century (an arcsecond is a measure of angles, equal to 1/3600 of a degree). At such a rate, the Sun would shrink down to nothing in only 200,000 years, so this shrinking obviously could not be going on steadily for several billion years. However, even if these measurements were accurate, it would not be much of a problem for scientists because it could easily be explained by a shift in the Sun's fusion process which would cause a temporary change in size. In fact, Eddy and Boornazian's research was motivated by a desire to investigate the possibility of such a shift, which is an important point, because it shows that the shrinking Sun claim was not discredited in order to "preserve evolutionary timescales." However, these measurements were in fact shown to be incorrect only a year after they were first published. I.I. Shapiro (Science, v.208, pp.51-53 (4 April 1980)) analyzed measurements of transits of the planet Mercury across the solar disk from 1736 to 1973, and showed that the size of the Sun has remained constant during that time within 0.3 arcseconds. Parkinson, Morrison, and Stephenson (Nature, v.288, pp.548-551 (11 Dec 1980)) re-analyzed the Greenwich data from 1715 onward, taking into account the changes in instrumentation over that period, changes in the transparency of the atmosphere, and differences in the person making the measurements. They showed that the uncertainty in Eddy and Boornazian's data is much too large to support their claim. Even J.A. Eddy himself was so convinced by these refutations that he never again referred in print to his research on this subject. In summary, the claim of a shrinking Sun was refuted less than a year after it was published, and should not be used as evidence for the age of the Solar System.

Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field [DB 1506 (1); OAB 50] Since devices for measuring the Earth's magnetic field were invented a few hundred years ago, measurements have shown that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing over those few hundred years. It is claimed that these measurements indicate that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily losing energy ever since it formed. By extrapolating the decay backwards in time, it is then claimed that an age greater than 10,000 years is impossible. However, it is easily shown that such a simple extrapolation is not justified. Scientific instruments are not the only mechanisms that have ever existed for measuring the Earth's magnetic field. Ovens used by ancient civilizations and the igneous rocks making up the ocean floor are two of the more obvious examples. Both record the direction and strength of the magnetic field as it was at the time they were last heated, and both prove conclusively that the hypothetical exponential decay of Earth's magnetic field has not occurred (according to the young-Earth theories, the magnetic field was many times greater only a few thousand years ago, a hypothesis that is clearly at odds with the above-mentioned evidence). Instead, the evidence shows that the magnetic field has fluctuated back and forth in strength as well as direction. These fluctuations are clearly observed in places where the stratigraphy (i.e., which rocks are older than which rocks) is obvious due to either layering or distance from a sea-floor spreading ridge. The decrease measured in the past few hundred years, therefore, is nothing more than a downward trend as part of an overall fluctuation, and has no implication for the age of the Earth (for a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Thompson (1997)).

It has been proposed by Young-Earth scientists that all of the magnetic reversals recorded in the sea floor were created during Noah's Flood. There are several problems with this theory that make it physically implausible, but regardless of whether or not this theory is valid, the fact remains that a coherent Old-Earth theory exists to explain the recent decline in Earth's magnetic field strength. Therefore, that decline should not be used to argue against an ancient Earth.

Over-Pressurized Oil Traps [DB 1506 (20); OAB 65; ICR Creation Online] Underground oil deposits are always under a great amount of pressure, due to the weight of the material overlying them. The pressure does not leak away from these deposits, because the surrounding rock is also buried under the same pressure, and thus it is not at all surprising that pressurized oil deposits are found. Some versions of this claim point to certain oil deposits that are found to be under greater pressure than would be expected from the weight of the overlying material. One paper reporting these observations (P.A. Dickey et al, Science, v.160, pp.609-615 (10 May 1968)) was written before it was fully realized how extremely impermeable some rocks (such as certain forms of shale) can be to water. It is now known that these over-pressurized deposits are completely surrounded and sealed by impermeable layers, due to underground faulting. The formation and retention of these over-pressurized deposits is no longer a mystery.

Galaxy Spirals [OAB 32] The claim is made that galaxies would not have coherent spirals if they were not young. It is based on research performed by Kevin Prendergast, who ran computer simulations 25 years ago that showed that static galaxy spirals were not stable, but it ignores subsequent research by Prendergast and others. In fact, since this question was first posed, it has been discovered that ongoing star formation stabilizes the spiral structure. Young-Earth advocates respond that this explanation of the maintenance of galaxy spirals "has not been confirmed by observation," but this is not really true. Although the complete process of star formation cannot be observed on a single star because the process is so slow, the physics of star formation are well understood (in fact, they are simpler than the physics of raindrop formation), and stars are observed in every stage that is predicted by theory. Notwithstanding complaints about the lack of observations which are impossible anyway, a robust and coherent theory exists for the existence of galaxy spirals, and therefore they should not be cited as if they were a challenge to mainstream astronomical ideas.

Heat of Jupiter and Saturn [OAB 40,76] Jupiter and Saturn give off a good deal more heat than they absorb from the Sun, therefore there must be some additional source of heat within these two planets. The primary solution to this problem is that, unlike the Earth (see Cooling of the Earth, above), Jupiter and Saturn are so large that they have not had time to completely get rid of the heat produced by gravitational formation. Gravitational heat and radioactive decay together account for very nearly all of the heat given off by Jupiter, and most of the heat given off by Saturn. It is thought that any remaining discrepancy is explained by helium rainout. Saturn's lower temperatures, along with the relative lack of helium in its atmosphere, support the theory that helium rainout has been more important in Saturn than Jupiter. Furthermore, even if the aforementioned explanations are not sufficient to account for Jupiter and Saturn's heat, we are simply left with the harmless unexplained mystery fallacy.

Deceleration of Earth by Tidal Friction [DB 1507 (39); OAB 60] It is claimed that tidal interactions between the Earth and the Moon are causing the Moon to move away from the Earth, and the Earth to rotate more slowly. This much is true, and in fact paleontological studies of ancient corals and stromatolites has confirmed that the Earth did rotate faster in the past, resulting in more than 365 days in a year. It is also true that such a faster rotation would have caused a much greater equatorial bulge in the past than currently exists. The fallacy is the assumption that such a bulge would have remained for us to observe today. The Earth's mantle, made up of rock subjected to high temperatures and pressures, acts like a fluid over long time periods -- it does not hold its shape over billions of years. The current equatorial bulge is very close to what you would expect to be produced by the current rotation rate, although it is slightly larger because the Earth has not completely relaxed from previous times when it rotated faster.

A related question concerns the rate at which the Moon is receding from the Earth. If you simply extrapolate the Moon's orbit backwards in time, assuming that the rate at which it is currently receding has not changed, you find that the Moon would have been close enough for the Earth's gravity to pull it apart only 2 billion years ago. However, K.S. Hansen described a very plausible answer to this question (Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, v.20, no.3, pp.457-480 (1982)). He pointed out that the current Earth-Moon configuration contains a resonance which increases the efficiency of the tidal interactions that are causing the Moon to recede, and that therefore the Moon is currently receding faster than usual. In his computer models, by carefully keeping track of the changing tidal parameters as the Moon spirals away from the Earth, Hansen determined that the Moon would have been at an acceptable distance from the Earth 4.5 billion years ago (for a more detailed discussion, including more recent research based on Hansen's breakthrough, see Thompson (1999)).

Incidentally, a misunderstanding of how "leap seconds" work has led some people to grossly overestimate the rate of change of Earth's rotation. The U.S. Naval Observatory, along with other international agencies, adds a "leap second" to the calendar whenever they determine that Earth's rotation is out-of-sync with their atomic clocks. Properly understood, the rate of about one "leap second" every two years does not mean that Earth's rotation is slowing by a half-second every year. Rather, it means that Earth's rotation is consistently a tiny fraction slower than it was when the length of the second was rigorously defined, a discrepancy that builds up over a year to a difference of half a second. If Earth's rotation were really declining measurably, we would expect to see "leap seconds" become more and more frequent, since every year the discrepancy in year-length would be greater than it was the previous year. In fact, we do not see this. "Leap seconds" are due, not to a consistent decline, but to fluctuations in Earth's rotation rate about a mean value, which are caused by entirely different processes and have little long-term effect. On the other hand, the consistent deceleration of Earth by the Moon is so slow that it cannot be directly measured (physical calculations put it at about one second every 70,000 years), although it is corroborated by fossil corals that show more days per year in the past.

Age of the Oldest Living Part of the Biosphere [DB 1506 (6); OAB 45] The fact that the oldest known living organism is about 5,000 years old does not prove anything about the age of the Earth. It only proves that we don't know of any organisms that are able to live longer than 5,000 years.

Influx of Salts and Metals into the Ocean via Rivers [DB 1506-1508 (15-19,42-68); OAB2] By citing measurements of the amounts of various chemical compounds3 in the oceans, and measurements of the rate at which rivers are adding those compounds to the oceans, it is claimed that a maximum age for the oceans can be derived. The answer here is twofold. Firstly, processes that remove these compounds from the oceans generally are not adequately accounted for. Secondly, because these measurements are difficult to carry out, their accuracy is not terribly high, so that, when removal processes are considered, a state of equilibrium is either within the margin of error or very close to it (Some recent young-Earth studies attempt to show that the claim is still valid even when removal processes are accounted for; however, overly optimistic assumptions about groundwater addition and statistical precision account for the remaining discrepancy). Therefore, this claim is both a One-Sided Equation and an unexplained mystery. There are many processes that take salt out of seawater, including sea spray, high-temperature alteration of brine into albite at undersea hydrothermal vents, and deposition to the ocean floor. Precipitates on the sea floor will be swept clear periodically by plate tectonic subduction. It is also important to realize that there is a great deal that we do not understand about the deep ocean floor, due to the obvious difficulties in studying it, and it is likely that there are other important processes going on there that have yet to be discovered. For that reason, it is not very responsible to speak as if we knew for sure that there is no other process removing these compounds from seawater. D.R. Humphreys states that "as far as we know, the remainder [of these chemicals] simply accumulates in the ocean" (Creation: Ex Nihilo, v.13, no.1, p.31 (1991)). However, it is just as true (and much more responsible) to say that, as far as we know, the processes exist on the ocean floor that are keeping the concentrations of these chemicals in equilibrium, but we have not yet rigorously measured them.

Another important point is that several of these "dating methods" published in young-Earth references give ages that are impossibly young from any perspective. For example, if this line of reasoning were valid, the amount of aluminum in the ocean would prove that the Earth was only 100 years old! In fact, if you look closely, the claims concerning Al, Pb, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Th, and W all "prove" Earth ages less of than 2,000 years! Are we to conclude that the death and resurrection of Christ occurred before the Earth was created? Obviously this is not true. The failure to give "Earth-age limits" that are reasonable even from a young-Earth perspective demonstrates that this line of reasoning cannot be valid: processes which remove salts from the ocean have not been adequately taken into account.

Abundance of Oxygen in the Atmosphere [OAB 67] It is pointed out that the present quantity of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere could be generated by plants in 5,000 years. That may be true, but this One-Sided Equation fails to account for processes that remove oxygen from the atmosphere, most notably the breathing of animals. The balance between plant photosynthesis (which turns carbon dioxide into oxygen) and animal breathing (which turns oxygen into carbon dioxide) has kept the amount of Earth's oxygen in equilibrium for a long time.

Evidence of Former Worldwide Warm Climate [DB 1515 (72)] We know from paleomagnetism (which is able to determine a rock's latitude at the time it solidified) and from plate tectonics that landmasses which are now at high latitudes (including Antarctica) were all much closer to the Equator at one time or another. Therefore, warm-climate fossils found in these places are not surprising, and do not necessarily provide evidence for a global pre-Flood tropical climate. Furthermore, fossil evidence of cold climates are found in areas that are now warm, also contradicting this claim.

And for the vapor theory, go here

[edit on 19-2-2006 by Produkt]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:47 AM
Most of your questions have to do with science. You believe certain things pertaining to science yet don't believe science on the age of the earth. Why? How do you know how hot the sun is and etc.? Answer:scientists. Why is it so hard to believe the earth is millions of years old? Population of people through times is easy. We now have medicines and vaccines to cure. We did not have those in early times and large populations of people died at once. Think about it.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:42 PM
Very Interesting post , one love one god. The world population figure you gave was excellent, you know your stuff. I mean , its so obvious that we have only been here for a couple of thousand years not millions of years. No Evolution, just creation!

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:44 PM
You're kidding right? The world population he states makes no sense.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Heavens_Tears
Very Interesting post , one love one god. The world population figure you gave was excellent, you know your stuff. I mean , its so obvious that we have only been here for a couple of thousand years not millions of years. No Evolution, just creation!

I really hope that was just an attempt at sarcasim.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:52 PM
One_love_one_god, no argument is compelling that considers only the evidence that supports it and hand waves away everything else.

The water vapor canopy "theory" is a great example of this type of one-sided argument. It poses more problems than it supposedly addresses , like the fact that plants need sunlight and that even fairly low levels of cloud cover block sunlight out enough to prevent sufficient photosynthesis, and that there is no mechanism for keeping the water from precipitating prior to the flood. Yet when these are brought up, the questions are either ignored, even more elaborate speculations are invented from whole cloth to account for them, or magic (aka miracles) is invoked.

Creationism is a form of deception that tries to make magic appear as if it were science.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:15 PM
First of all as to weather or not the Earth Is old or young has no relavence to me nor to any man questioning GOD, however as I value learning I see It right to put up all aspects of the past and present so that things can be weighed up fair and square, as to weather that means lies have to be taken seriously for a breath period then so be It.

Sometimes people need a footup to stepup.

Summarizing just some of the evidence that is consistent with a young age for the world:

1) The continents are eroding too quickly.
If the continents were billions of years old, they would have eroded by wind and water many times over. Mountain uplift and other ‘recycling’ processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this.

2) There is not enough helium in the atmosphere.
Helium, a light gas, is formed during radioactive alpha decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth’s gravity. Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around two million years to accumulate. This is far less than the assumed 3,000-million-year age of the atmosphere.

3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.

a) Common fossils.

There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks. A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah’s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres.

b) Special examples.

The mother ichthyosaur apparently ‘freeze-framed’ in the process of giving birth. Then there are the fossil fish which are found either in the process of swallowing other fish or with undigested fish intact in their stomachs.

4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all.

a) Coal formation.

Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150°C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.

b) Stalactites and stalagmites.

Many examples have shown that cave decorations form quickly, given the right conditions.

c) Opals.

Despite the common teaching that it takes millions of years to form opal, Australian researcher Len Cram has long been growing opal in his backyard laboratory. His opal (photo below, by Dr Cram) is indistinguishable, under the electron microscope, from that mined in the field. He was awarded an honorary doctorate (by a secular university) for this research. All he does is mix together the right common chemicals — no heat, no pressure, and definitely no millions of years.

d) Rock and fossil formation.

Scientists have long known that petrifaction can happen quickly. The ‘petrified’ bowler hat (below right, by Renton Maclachlan) is on display in ‘The Buried Village’, an open air museum dedicated to the Mt Tarawera eruption, in New Zealand. The photo (below left) shows a roll of no. 8 fencing wire which, in only 20 years, became encased in solid sandstone, containing hundreds of fossil shells. Petrified wood can also form quickly under the right conditions—one process has even been patented.

The famous multiple levels of ‘fossil forests’ in America’s Yellowstone National Park (photo below, by Clyde Webster) have now been shown to have formed in one volcanic event. Successive mudflows transported upright trees (minus most of their roots and branches) whose tree-ring signatures confirm that they grew at the one time.

5) The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.
Each year, the world’s rivers and underground streams add millions of tonnes of salt to the sea, and only a fraction of this goes back onto the land. Using the most favourable possible assumptions for long-agers, the absolute maximum age of the oceans is only a tiny fraction of their assumed billions-of-years age.

Despite some inevitable unsolved problems in such a complex issue (it is thus not hard to establish:

i) The reasonableness of believing what the Creator of the world says in His Word, the Bible, about the world being thousands, not millions or billions, of years old.

ii) The fact that the earth neither ‘looks old’ nor ‘looks young’ as such—it all depends on the ‘glasses’ through which the evidence is interpreted. We all need to be aware of how much we have been conditioned by our culture to ‘see’ geological things as ‘looking old’.

The Earth is old!

But let us stretch our minds still further. It concerns the way we use words such as ‘old’ or ‘young’ for the earth’s age. I actually believe that the earth is old—very old. It is thousands of years old—as many as six thousand, in fact. Does that angle surprise you? My point is to make us aware of how we have allowed our culture to condition us into thinking that a thousand years is a very short time, and that ‘old’ always means millions or billions of years.

That is why tourists, coming across the ‘petrified waterwheel’ in Western Australia gawk in amazement. ‘It only took sixty years to cover this thing in solid rock?’ Sixty years, with water carrying dissolved limestone dripping night and day onto an object, is actually an incredibly long time. It is our culture, soaked in the myth of ‘deep time’, that has indoctrinated us into the belief that a million years (an unimaginable time period, in reality) is only like ‘yesterday’.

What about the radioactive dating methods?


1. ALL dating methods (including ones that point to thousands, not billions of years, are based on assumptions—beliefs, no matter how reasonable-sounding, that you can’t prove, but must accept by faith. For example:

Assuming how much of a particular chemical was originally present;

Assuming that there has been no leaching by water of the chemicals in or out of the rock;

Assuming that radioactive decay rates have stayed the same for billions of years, and more.

2. Radiometric ‘dating’ labs do not measure age—they measure amounts of chemicals, then from this they infer age, based on the underlying assumptions.

3. When the assumptions are tested by measuring rocks of known age—e.g. recent lava flows—they often fail miserably.8

4. Objects of the same age, tested by different methods, have been shown to give ‘dates’ varying by a factor of a thousand.9

5. The fact that there is some consistency to radiometric dates is explained in part by the tendency to publish only data consistent with the ‘evolutionary age’ already ‘established’ by fossils. Most radioactive dating laboratories prefer you to tell them what age you expect. It is hard to see why this would be necessary if these were ‘absolute’ methods. The entire geological ‘millions of years’ system was largely in place, based on the philosophical assumptions of men like Charles Lyell and James Hutton, before radioactivity was even discovered. Where a radioactive date contradicts the ‘system’, it is invariably discarded.

6. If a ‘radiometric’ date and a ‘fossil’ (evolutionary) date conflict, the radiometric date is always discarded.

There are many other solid reasons for not accepting fallible man-made methods, such as radioactive ‘dating’, as an authority in opposition to the clear testimony of God’s infallible Word.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:59 PM
Seem's your not learning much at all. Still quoting those creationist's I see.

Hydrogen and Helium in Terrestrial Planets [ICR Creation Online] It is claimed that prevailing theories of Solar System formation cannot account for the lack of hydrogen and helium in the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. The simple answer is that these light gases were in fact present when the terrestrial planets were formed, but they escaped into space for two reasons. The first reason is that the terrestrial planets are closer to the Sun, and the higher temperatures made the light gases more energetic, and therefore more likely to escape. The second reason is that these four planets are smaller than the outer gas giants, and therefore they did not have enough gravity to hold on to these energetic light gases.

Influx of Sediment into the Ocean [DB 1506 (10); OAB 78] This claim is based on observations of the thickness of sediments on the ocean floor. ICR author Stuart Nevins, in ICR Impact #8, roughly estimates the amount of sediment on the ocean floor and the amount of sediment being delivered to the oceans by rivers. He arrives at the conclusion that it would only take about 30 million years for the observed sediment to accumulate. This estimate is probably roughly correct, but Nevins' conclusion that this number represents a limitation for the Earth's age fails to recognize the periodic recycling of the ocean floor (the other side of the One-Sided Equation). Due to Plate Tectonics, ocean floor is continuously created at mid-ocean ridges and subducted into the Earth's mantle at ocean trenches. This process moves at about an inch or two per year, so the average age of the ocean floor is in fact a few tens of millions of years, as Nevins estimated, and thus his result is completely consistent with old-Earth science.

It is sometimes claimed that subduction only gets rid of 10 percent of the sediment being added to the oceans (D.R. Humphreys, Creation: Ex Nihilo, v.13, no.1, p.31 (1991)). This claim is made by comparing one researcher's estimate of the sediment being added to the oceans (V.V. Gordeyev et al, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, v.238, p.150 (1980)), to another researcher's estimate of the amount of sediment being subducted (W.W. Hay et al, Journal of Geophysical Research, v.93, no.B12, pp.14933-14940 (1988)). Humphreys claims that, since Gordeyev's estimate is 25 times larger than Hay's, sediment must be added to the ocean much faster than subduction can get rid of it, and thus the lack of observed accumulated sediments remains a problem for old-Earth scientists. The fallacy in that statement is that Hay based his estimate entirely on the assumption that ocean sediment is in a steady state. Hay used his own calculation of the amount of sediment in the ocean, which is much less than Gordeyev's, to calculate the amount being subducted. If Hay had instead used Gordeyev's estimate of the sediment in the ocean, his estimate of the amount of sediment being subducted would have been correspondingly larger. In short, Hay's estimate was based on an assumption of steady state, and it does not make sense to compare his estimate with an alternate rate of accumulation in an attempt to prove that a steady state does not exist.

Mountain Uplift Rate [OAB 61] The claim is that Earth's mountains should be taller if the current rate of tectonic uplift has been maintained over long time periods. Of course, it is erosion that balances the process.

1) The continents are eroding too quickly.
If the continents were billions of years old, they would have eroded by wind and water many times over. Mountain uplift and other ‘recycling’ processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this.

I would like to see the evidence concerning this. You failed to post it.

5) The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.
Each year, the world’s rivers and underground streams add millions of tonnes of salt to the sea, and only a fraction of this goes back onto the land. Using the most favourable possible assumptions for long-agers, the absolute maximum age of the oceans is only a tiny fraction of their assumed billions-of-years age.

We already covered this in my previous post. Perhap's you decided not to read it?

Radiometric Dating Problems with radiometric dating techniques are greatly overstated by most young-Earth advocates. They often cite isolated instances of implausible dates, but these are generally caused by obsolete dating methods, contamination that a good scientist would detect (and which does not affect the large majority of dates), or by attempting to date materials that are younger than the dating method's margin of error (using radiometric methods to date recent Hawaiian lavas or living sea creatures, for example, is akin to using an unmarked yard-long stick to measure the thickness of a human hair). Most modern radiometric dating uses the isochron method, which measures several different decay paths and correlates them. The isochron method basically cross-checks itself constantly, and results that do not represent real ages will fail the isochron tests. Consequently, the isochron method does not require any assumption about initial amounts of parent and daughter elements (a common young-Earth objection to radiometric dating). Also, any addition or removal of parent or daughter elements (another common objection) would leave tell-tale chemical clues that scientists could detect, and furthermore such contamination could not possibly account for all of the world's radiometric measurements, which are in good agreement. Finally, radioactive decay rates are known to be constant under all relevant physical conditions. The fact is that, although radiometric dating is imperfect like any other science, there is tremendous overall agreement among radiometric ages, as well as with stratigraphic (relative) ages, giving very strong circumstantial evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating methods. For more detail on radiometric dating, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Christian geologist Roger Wiens.

Marine Fossils on Mountaintops [DB 1515 (71)] Due to the uplift of mountains through Plate Tectonics, many surfaces that are currently several thousand feet in altitude were once near sea level. Tectonic forces are easily powerful enough to accomplish this over millions of years. Therefore, the detection of marine fossils at such high altitudes is no great surprise, and does not necessarily provide evidence for global flood.

Polystrate Fossils [DB 1516 (87); OAB 71] Most so-called "polystrate fossils" are tree trunks that were buried as they grew by several layers of mud in relatively quick succession. That they were buried in place is attested to by the way in which their root systems often extend into the surrounding sediment. Far from supporting "Flood Geology," these buried forests (which often grew with many meters of supposedly Flood-deposited sediment below them) were recognized in the 19th century as strong evidence against it. Although some fossilized tree trunks may have been transported by water, rather than buried as they grew, this does not support "Flood Geology" either, since local floods could easily have accomplished the same task.

Another well-known reported "polystrate fossil" was a whale skeleton that was supposedly oriented vertically on its tail, cutting perpendicularly through hundreds of feet of strata. It turns out that this story was much distorted through re-telling, and that in fact the whale and the strata both dipped at the same angle of 50 degrees from the horizontal. So the "whale on its tail" was not even a "polystrate fossil" at all.

Read this

a) Coal formation.

Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150°C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.

How many coal deposits have been found in sealed quartz tubes?

Many of the thing's your posting I've been posting the corrected answer's for them. We could keep this up all day, but in the end your creationist view's will still be squashed and refuted as false. You may believe whatever you want, but you'll be believing that with a blind eye and a closed mind if you don't take into account the truth of reality. So far, all you've done is demonstrate your ignorance as a follower of faith and you still seem to be having trouble explaining to me how your god is the true god when stories of other god's predate your's. Name one example of your god being mentioned just a mere 6,000 year's ago when he supposedly created everything. You won't find it, because none exist, because your god does not exist. Sorry.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:01 PM
ACK! Forgot to mention we can make diamond's out of peanut's under the right condition's ...

Guess that's proof positive diamond's are made from peanut's in nature.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:51 PM

Many of the thing's your posting I've been posting the corrected answer's for them. We could keep this up all day, but in the end your creationist view's will still be squashed and refuted as false. You may believe whatever you want, but you'll be believing that with a blind eye and a closed mind if you don't take into account the truth of reality. So far, all you've done is demonstrate your ignorance as a follower of faith and you still seem to be having trouble explaining to me how your god is the true god when stories of other god's predate your's.

Evolution is an unproven theory. If what its fundamentalist supporters believe is true, fishes decided to grow lungs and legs and walk up the beach. The idea is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival—that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the Universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.

Contrary to what we have been told over and over again by the evolution-believing mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth / slow-Creationists (who don't want God to get too much glory), there are, in fact, numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, these young-earth measuring rods are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the mass media are biased in favor of evolution, and against the Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth in order to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely informed of the mounting evidence that contradicts the old earth dogma of evolution.

The Oldest Living Thing:

The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. Because these trees are still alive and growing, and because we don't yet know how old they will get before they die, this indicates that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, there hasn't been anyone able to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. This is significant because we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1500 - 1800 years before the Worldwide Flood.

Short Period Comets:
Short period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less. With each revolution they lose 1-2% of their mass. After several hundred revolutions they disintegrate. At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of which have periods of less than 20 years. Comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system. New comets are still being discovered. Whether these are new creations is uncertain.

Evolutionists have come up with theories to explain the existence of comets, and how new ones are being added to the solar system. One is called the Oort Cloud theory, named after J. Oort. It is a hypothetical cloud that surrounds the solar system and which is said to extend past the orbit of Pluto. The other theory is called the Kuiper belt theory. It is directed at short period comets, as opposed to to Oort Cloud theory, which is directed at both long and short period ones. The existence of short period comets is a strong indication that our solar system is quite young (i.e. less than 10,000 years old) otherwise they would have burned out long ago.

Note also that some say that the Kuiper belt has been discovered; however, to this author's knowledge this is not the case. Nor (to this author's knowledge) has even one hypothetical object (i.e. asteroid of comet material) ever been seen to transform into a would-be comet.

Direct Dating of Dragon Bones:

By evolutionary reasoning, dragon bones only occur in the so-called Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic eras. According to the geological time chart such creatures (i.e. dinosaurs) died out between 65 and 220 million years ago. What is not well known about these eras is that they are based upon the theory of evolution -- which requires extremely long periods of time. When evolution-biased scientists say that they "know" such things, they not telling the truth. And while they may, in fact, believe such things; however, if they were honest they would admit that such "dates" assigned to these eras are highly questionable.

So how can we date dragon bones?

One piece to the puzzle is the fact that many dinosaur bones are not per mineralized (i.e. turned into stone). This means they can be directly dated by the Carbon-14 method, the exact same way a mammoth or Neanderthal bone is dated. This has also been done at least 30 times, by various laboratories in the United States and Europe, and the dates indicate that dinosaurs were alive from 9,800 -- 50,000 years ago. This author discussed this with Paul LeBlond, Professor of Oceanography at the University of British Columbia. Dr. LeBlonde said that any C14 date over 5,000 years is highly questionable. Therefore, despite what popular publications may report, we can establish that all mammoths, Neanderthals, or other bones "dated" over 5,000 years by the C14 method are likewise "highly questionable." If we accept any, then we must accept them all (including the dinosaur dates) -- which are incompatible with the evolution-based "ages" associated with the Geological Time Chart. In other words, the fact that many dragon bones contain organic material is a strong indication that these creatures became extinct in the recent past.

Dinosaur Blood and "Ancient" DNA:

Before the existence of supposedly "ancient" organic material had been well publicized, it was predicted that "no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years." This prediction was based upon the observed breakdown of DNA.

Not long after this prediction was made, very old DNA started turning up. For example, at the Clarkia Fossil Beds of northern Idaho, a green magnolia leaf was discovered in strata that is supposed to be 17 million years old. Because it was so fresh-looking and still pliable, scientists decided to see if any DNA was present. And to their surprise they discovered that there was, and also that it matched that of modern magnolia trees.

Since then, DNA claims have been made for supposedly older material such as dragon bones, and insects in amber. It was said that the reason the magnolia leaf was preserved was because it was buried in clay, and this has a lot of truth to it; however, the 17 million year date is still doubtful. Likewise, scientists say that DNA (from the insects) was preserved because they were entombed in amber.

However, a serious problem arises when we come to the dragon bones; for these were not entombed in amber, nor clay, but rather sandstone. And because sandstone and bone are both porous, this means that ground and rain water would be able to seep into the rocks, and thus into the bones as well. The fact that the outer part of one of these bones was mineralized 41 gives strong evidence that water -- and thus oxygen -- had access to the bones. The fact that the inside of the bones are not mineralized is an indication that they are young. The fact that the partially mineralized bone had (what looked like) red blood cells in it 42 is a strong indication that it is young -- most likely less than 10,000 years old.

When Mary Schweitzer first saw the bones under a microscope, she said:

I got goose bumps,"..."It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But ... I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?

This is good question indeed; however, the answer from the "scientific" establishment says even more. So far they have refused to even consider the possibility that the bones are as much as 64,995,000 years younger than what they have told us.

Remember that the ancient DNA from the 17 mythion-year-old magnolia leaf was supposed to last for only (a maximum of) 10,000 years before totally decaying into inorganic matter. Therefore, if the 17 m.y.o. "date" is correct, then scientists were off by a factor of 1,700 in their (observation-based) prediction with regard to the breakdown rate of DNA. So much for using "science" when it seems to HINT that something is amiss with the evolutionary-based Geological Time Chart.

More recently, DNA has been extracted from two 30-million-year-old insects (a beetle and a bee) that were trapped in amber. In this case they were off by a factor of 3,000 with regard to the observation-based prediction of DNA preservation. However, it is this author's opinion that the organic dinosaur remains present the greatest difficulty for the "scientific" establishment to overcome. This is due to the alleged greater age involved and because of the much greater exposure to the elements.

Because sandstone and bone are porous,49,50 and because the bones were partially mineralized, it is virtually certain that water could (and did) get to the dragon bones. Because DNA only lasts for about 10,000 years before it disintegrates, it is likely that no organic matter at all would survive much longer than 20,000 years. This means that the prediction with regard to how long organic matter can survive was off by a factor of over 3,000 or that something is seriously wrong with the evolution-based dating system (i.e. the geological time chart itself). Either the scientific methods used to estimate the rate of breakdown of organic matter are grossly in error, or the great ages associated with these organic remains are off by a factor of over 3,000. This, coupled with the fact that such unfossilized dinosaur bones can be (and have been) dated by the Carbon 14 method, and yield dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old, suggests that the "mythions of years old" dates promoted by the evolution-believing establishment are in error.

Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere:

Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old. In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old. Some of these estimates place the atmosphere's age at 50,000 years, and others at 100,000 but they each pose serious problems for the standard evolution-based scenarios.

Niagara Falls:

Up until the recent past, when the top of Niagara Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward Lake Erie at the rate of about four to five feet per year. Since the cannel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet), this means that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant. The age of North America, is likely the same.

How Far Back do the Records Go?

Languages - Ancient languages never back beyond c. 3000 B.C., and radiate outward from Mesopotamia

Ancient Historical Records - The oldest dates go back to about 3000 B.C.

The Oldest People - They do not go back before c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia

Conclusion - Man, whom the evolutionists claim to have come into existence over a million years ago, is said to have "stopped evolving" 100,000 years ago. Why then do we not have at least 100,000 years of civilizations, cities, and human remains?


Ancient languages never back beyond c. 3000 B.C., and radiate outward from Mesopotamia.

Mankind is so intelligent that languages are soon put into written records which are left lying about on the surface of the earth. It is clear that language and dialect differences suddenly developed shortly after the Flood, at which time men separated and traveled off in groups whose members could understand one another (Genesis 11:1-9).

The records of ancient languages never go back beyond c. 3000 B.C. Philological and linguistic studies reveal that a majority of them are part of large "language families," and most of these appear to radiate outward from the area of Babylonia.

For example, the Japhetic peoples, listed in Genesis 10, traveled to Europe and India, where they became the so-called Aryan peoples. These all use what we today call the Indo-European Language Family. Recent linguistic studies reveal that these languages originated at a common center in southeastern Europe on the Baltic. This would be close to the Ararat range. Thieme, a Sanskrit and comparative philology expert at Yale University, gives this estimate:

"Indo-European, I conjecture, was spoken on the Baltic coast of Germany late in the fourth millennium B.C. [c. 3000 B.C.]."—*Paul Thieme, "The Indo-European Language," in Scientific American, October 1958.


The oldest dates go back to about 3000 B.C.

Historical records constitute the only dating information we really have. Prior to the beginnings of history, which is only a few thousand years ago, we have only rocks, water, sky, and conjectures. Here are additional statements in regard to the dating of our earliest actual information about recorded history:

The earliest records only go back to about 3000 B.C.

"The earliest records we have of human history go back only about 5,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 edition, Vol. 6.

Another scientist tells us that historical records only go back to 2000 B.C.

"It is a common error to think of man's existence in terms of recorded history, Historical records go back to about 3000 B.C., but this is only a small fraction of the time man has lived on earth."

Montague suggests 4000 B.C. as the absolute limit of possible historical records.

"Recorded history is no more than six thousand years old, whereas human beings have been making history ever since they have been on this earth, a period believed to be about one million years."

Even with the use of certain time-extending devices, the very earliest possible dates given for the invention of writing only go back to 4000 B.C.

"The invention of writing, about 6,000 years ago, ushered in the historic period of man. The time prior to 6,000 years ago is known as the prehistoric period.

Although it is said that the earliest writing goes back to 4000 B.C., the earliest written language only goes back to 3500 B.C.

"The earliest written language, Sumerian cuneiform, goes back to about 3500 B.C.

We have no data on any human civilization prior to 4000 B.C.

"Historical records of any human civilization before 4000 B.C. are completely absent.

Oddly enough, man has accomplished more in the last 6,000 years than he did in the previous million years. This would be true in light of the fact that we have not one shred of evidence that man did anything in that previous one million years!

"In the last six thousand years, man has advanced far more rapidly than he did in the million or more years of his prehistoric existence.

The developer of radiocarbon dating was astounded to learn that there are no records of mankind prior to 3000 B.C. (His teachers had not mentioned it in college.)

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered, by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case.

Dates going back to 3000 to 4000 B.C. are estimated as the longest possible dates. But "well-authenticated" dates from Egypt, which scientists consider to have been history's oldest civilization, only go back to 1600 B.C.

"Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as about 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history.


They do not go back before c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.

The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.

We have no records indicating human civilization going back beyond a few thousand years.

"Only six or seven thousand years ago . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world."—*Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth (1982).

There are no written records before about 3000 B.C.

"In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 1000 and 5000 B.C. . . Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.

Almost as soon as there was civilization, there were towns and cities, and the oldest were in Mesopotamia.

"In most civilizations, urbanization began early. There is little doubt that this was the case for the oldest civilization and the earliest cities: those of ancient Mesopotamia.

The earliest king lists only go back to shortly before 3000 B.C.

"The Egyptian king lists go back to the First Dynasty of Egypt, and little before 3000 B.C. Before that, there were no written records anywhere.


Man, whom the evolutionists claim to have come into existence over a million years ago, is said to have "stopped evolving" 100,000 years ago. Why then do we not have at least 100,000 years of civilizations, cities, and human remains?

Evolutionary estimates of the age of the earth have constantly changed and lengthened with the passing of time. (It currently stands at 5 billion years.) But the scientific evidence remains constant and, as new authentic evidence emerges, it only fastens down the dates even more firmly. It all points to a beginning for our planet, about 6,000 years ago. Some may see it as 7,000 to 10,000 years, but the evidence points most distinctly toward a date of about 4000 B.C. for the origin of our planet. The evidence for a recent earth is scientifically solid.

The earliest man is said, by the evolutionists, to have existed one or two million years old. Yet, they add quite emphatically, that he "stopped evolving" about 100,000 years ago.

—Why then do we not have 100,000 years of civilizations, cities, and remains of all kinds? But we do not. The reason is the Bible is right and the evolutionists are wrong.

The God of heaven created our world about 6,000 years ago. Then, about 2348 B.C., a gigantic Flood covered the earth. Keeping in mind that we are dealing with very ancient events, all the evidence can be reconciled with these figures.

Name one example of your god being mentioned just a mere 6,000 year's ago when he supposedly created everything. You won't find it, because none exist, because your god does not exist. Sorry.

Hmmm I wonder why

For once we agree Mr.Product, for once we agree


posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:46 PM

Evolution is an unproven theory. If what its fundamentalist supporters believe is true, fishes decided to grow lungs and legs and walk up the beach. The idea is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival—that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the Universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.

Hmm. I'm far from lonely and frightened. I'm not afraid of the possibility that this planet could contain the only life in the universe, which I doubt it does. I have no need to expel something that doesn't even exist in my life. Nor am I even the slightest bit uncomfortable with something that doesn't even exist. How could I be? Your also showing a profound lack of knowledge of what evolution is. Thing's don't just decided on they're own free will to evolve. If that were the case I'd force myself to evolve into a demon just for kicks
If you'd like to learn more about evolution, you could start here.

Google is also a good place to start.

The Oldest Living Thing:

The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. Because these trees are still alive and growing, and because we don't yet know how old they will get before they die, this indicates that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, there hasn't been anyone able to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. This is significant because we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1500 - 1800 years before the Worldwide Flood.

We already went over this. The oldest living thing is just the oldest living thing. It's not an indicator for the age of the earth. I refer you back to my first post about this. I'm really starting to doubt you read any of it, or just skimmed it quickly.

Maximum Life of Comets [DB 1507 (32,33); OAB 17,18] The claim is that comets that pass close to the Sun (the comets we see) cannot have survived for 4.6 billion years in their present orbits. This is not necessarily true for some comets with very long orbital periods, but generally the point is a valid one. However, this claim is a One-Sided Equation that considers the rate at which comets are destroyed without considering how the comet population is replenished. The population of comets is kept in equilibrium by new comets which are continuously introduced into our solar system from beyond Pluto's orbit. When they are far away from the Sun's deteriorating effects, comets can last indefinitely. Comets that are in orbits which bring them close to the sun have not been in those orbits since the formation of the solar system, rather they were perturbed into a close-encounter trajectory by some larger body (e.g. a planet or star or even another comet). Based upon observed comet orbits, scientists have concluded that they come from two major comet sources: the Kuiper belt, a disk-shaped cloud just beyond the orbit of Neptune; and the Oort cloud, a spherically-shaped cloud that may stretch for as far as 1 light-year from the Sun. One piece of evidence favoring this theory is the fact that comets, unlike everything else in the Solar System, have retrograde orbits just as commonly as they have prograde orbits (See Orbits in the Solar System, above). This is strong evidence that comets are not in their original orbits, that rather their orbital directions were picked up randomly when they were thrown into their present orbits, in keeping with the Oort/Kuiper theory. However, due to their small size, low reflectivity, and great distance from the Sun, these objects are nearly impossible to detect. But since the Oort/Kuiper theory is coherent and explains all of the evidence amply, it alone should be sufficient to dispense with the young-Earth objection concerning comet lifetimes. Recently, however, our telescope technology has improved to the point where we no longer need to rely on theory alone to deal with this objection. Since 1995, over 50 Kuiper belt objects have been discovered, dramatically confirming the Oort/Kuiper theory of comet origins. Kuiper belt observations continue to be an ongoing frontier of Planetary Science.

LOL ... Dragon's don't exist nor ever existed. You must mean dinosaurs.

First off, C-14 isn't used to date dinosaur fossil's. If you'd like more information on the method's used, a quick and dirty description can be found here
ttp:// but I would recomend you try learning more using my favorite tool,

One piece to the puzzle is the fact that many dinosaur bones are not per mineralized

First I've heard of this. Post some source's.

For the magnolia leaf thing, go here

Actually, it's got alot of false creationist's claim's there as well.

As for the language thing ... I'd suggest you keep learning. Your talk about written language. Yes, we developed written language roughly 5ish thousand year's ago. We've been around much much longer with oral language's. We've even made cave painting's before our first written language's. We've even recorded the phases of the moon before we created written language. All of this thousand's of years older then the first true written languages.

There's nothing in the bible suggesting the bible is right. Judaism is even older the christianity. So why don't you believe their faith? Why aren't you jewish? The jew's actually wrote some pretty nasty thing's about marry and her prostitution and jesus being a bastard. And this all predate's the evil's of christianity. So why not pick the form of monotheism that's older then christianity?

Why no explaination's for some of the thing's I've already answered? Why the constant reverting to bring up different thing's rather then working on what's already been refuted? Seems like your the one who's afraid. Afraid your wrong. Afraid you don't have some fluffy little happy place to goto after you die and rot under six feet of dirt.

But I ask again, where's there mention of your god in the first written language?

[edit on 19-2-2006 by Produkt]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:54 PM
And here we have the examples of meaningless debate seen time and time again over the history of the bible and scientific 'facts' on the age of the earth. Which by the way staggeringly lean in favour of traditional science.

Anyway, I find it interesting how many christians say they 'know' god and they 'know' jesus. They are always very vague about this, yet say it with a sense of superiority.
Is this the same 'god' that buddhists swear to know, the same god which muslims will swear with their life they know? Every religion has members in which they will always confidently yet vaguely say they 'know' their god and have experienced him. Which I find interesting.
It leads me to conclude that either
a) People can fool and blind themselves into a total delusionary state and actually do have experiences with this god.
b) They're lying.
c) There is one god, but one not bound by religions yet can be experienced anyway.

Surely the gods people are all experiencing from seperate religions are not all seperate gods? As there are people from EVERY religion that will wholeheartedly say they know their god.

Just a short example of what i mean when i say religion is limiting.
Reality is thought by some to be not as rigid as people think. Some aspects of it may be created by what you think and believe. Looking at a desk from inside the mind of someone else will be totally unrecognisable due to that other persons sense of reality.
Therefore...limiting yourself to one set of rules and beliefs, is putting a limit on the true nature of reality, which ultimately may be whatever you wish to make of it in the first place.
Placing rules and guidelines upon the infinite seems limiting. Limiting infinity? If god is infinite do not try and limit him.

But try and make sense of it all best you can, upon your own model of reality. Not someone elses, let alone a book from 2000 years ago.
I cannot stress the importance of deciding things for yourself, as opposed to having your beliefs modelled upon something that has caused so much destruction over the years. The worth of something may be valued by the fruits it blossoms.
THIS is what is wrong with todays world, and has been for a long time.
Improper belief structures caused by religion.
- Toby

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:08 PM
One_Love...all I can say is WOW!!! I gotta copy and past your stuff in my Word program so I can have it as reference! Man, you seem very informed and educated and I commend you for not giving up on the debate thus far, know as well as I do that this debate has gone on for ages. Believers and non-believers alike have been dooking it out all this time trying to convince one another that what we/they believe is the truth. Believers will never convince non-believers because it's a matter of faith and heart. The only way non-belivers will EVER be convinced that God/Christ exists is when they meet Him face to face. Then, unfortunately, it'll be too late. Other than that, it's a matter of the Holy Spirit softening their hard and I cannot do that no matter HOW MUCH evidence we point them to. God bless my brother!

[edit on 19-2-2006 by mytquin]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:12 PM
For the record, alot of our hearts are not hard.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:15 PM
Honestly, he doesn't seem very educated at all. He's been posting so called 'evidence' that has been proven wrong. If anything, he's showing his ignorance in the information he's posted. Everything he's posted is common creationist's misconception's and misunderstanding's and down right lie's. All this in an attempt to save their faith. Notice how, instead of questioning the information I provide he run's off to grab something different or something that just says the same thing but reworded? He has no educated answer's against truth and reality. All he has going for him is blind faith and ignorance.

And he still hasn't answered my question ... Just keep's sneaking past that one.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:22 PM
I'm used to people copying and pasting recycled information from the internet in regards to the earths age. They will take for fact what they want to be fact, and disregard what they do not like, in the same manner they have with the bible. It is the exact same way of thinking. Most have researched neither. Yet they sit happily in the belief that we will be judged by god for our sins.
I can't accept this type of thinking, and reject the whole concept altogether, regardless of what information they may provide. That is the point.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:09 PM
For the Christians that take everything in the Bible literally, and believe every single word of it unquestioningly, and have some excuse for every translational error and/or logical/moral contradiction in every version, all I have to ask is:

Why not just follow Jesus' message?

I don't consider myself Christian, but I have immense respect for Jesus and his teachings (what of them have not been corrupted). It might really serve some of you guys to (a) stop obsessing over irrelevant details, over which the Bible is most probably wrong anyway (Consider who wrote it, guys; Earth is flat? Sun revolves around the Earth? Ring a bell? They were far from geniuses.), and (b) realize that Jesus and his message, and the Church/Bible/Doctrine/etc., are not the same things!

The Church has killed many hundreds of thousands, if not outright millions of people in the past, in its name: Native Americans, Muslims, even their own subjects, in very brutal and disgusting ways during the Inquisition. And that's just one of their fallacies.

Screw the church, whatever sects, etc. Screw all of this organized bullcrap. All they're doing is using you as a power base! And they use Jesus and all of this holy, religious mentality to keep you in line! It's only important for them that you believe all the irrelevant crap!, who said what in the Bible and who was who's son or daughter or blalalalalalalala, and whether or not the Earth's still flat.

Why do you think the Church was so hard on Galileo?

Not because he threatened the teachings of Jesus, but because he threatened the power base of the Roman Catholic Church, the most powerful institution in the world at that time! He threatened that sheep mentality!

I don't recall Jesus being a big proponent of the Earth being flat, or only a few thousand years old. I seriously doubt that he really cared about any of that. Do you think he really cared about that stuff?

The ones that care more about that stuff, you shouldn't be paying any mind to anyway. They're not in it for the same reasons you think you are. Easy mistake to make, though, apparently.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:33 PM

Originally posted by One_Love_One_GOD
Evolution is an unproven theory. If what its fundamentalist supporters believe is true, fishes decided to grow lungs and legs and walk up the beach.

A typical strawman that proves you have an interest only in preserving the possibility of your perspective, rather than an interest in actually trying to understand all positions and judge its merits. You claim it doesn't matter whether the earth is young or old to your faith. I say you are deceiving yourself in that regard. The 6000 year old earth is crucial to your faith or you would not be promoting every argument the YECers have conceived. If someone could demonstrate to your satisfactrion that the earth was much older than 6000 years, your religious faith would collapse, and you know it.

The idea that animals evolve based on what they decide or need was debunked long long ago, before people even understood cellular biology.

FYI, there are modern fish that can breath air and have primitive lung-like organs that aid in surviving droughts when water oxygenation drops below critical levels. There are also modern fish that can climb trees and stay out of the water for extended periods of time. Surely you know these facts already.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:07 AM
I can't say that I share your view with the theory you presented, but I must commend you on a very well structured argument to support your case. The perspective you have is certainly quite unique and it is refreshing to read. I suppose the theory you present is no less plausable than the popular scientific theory that is supposedly based on "fact", thus it must be considered a feasible alternative. Good post!

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in