A Few Things That Support a Young Earth
Evidence of Length of recorded history is only a few thousnad years.
Evidence of agriculture is only a few thousnad years.
The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005
The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
Carbon-14 in coal, oil, and fossil wood suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years.
In 1984, scientists measured the amount of salt accumulated in Australia's largest salt lake — Lake Eyre in South Australia. They found that it would have taken about 73,000 years to accumulate, assuming a flood occurred every 50 years.
However, the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1991 stated that 'almost all its area is covered on average once in 8 years.'2 This reduces the time period for accumulation to only 12,000 years. This has to be a maximum time because the fossil evidence suggests that inland Australia was much wetter in the past, being covered in rainforest during the Tertiary Period when the lake was supposedly formed. With flooding every year, as could have occurred in the past, the minimum time for accumulation would be 1,500 years.
Evolutionists date the Tertiary between two and 65 million years ago. Even if Lake Eyre formed two million years ago, and we assume floods every eight years, 99.4 per cent of the expected salt is missing. If we assume it is older, and take into account the wetter climate of the past, the problem becomes even greater, with up to 99.99 per cent of the expected salt missing.
The scientists who did the work were puzzled by this discrepancy and could find no explanation for where the salt could have gone.
However, if only several thousand years have elapsed since the Flood of Noah's time, as the Bible implies, then maybe all the salt is still there.
Originally posted by RJHindsno
[b]A Few Things That Support a Young Earth
Evidence of Length of recorded history is only a few thousnad years.
Evidence of agriculture is only a few thousnad years.
The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 ...[text shortened]... ince the Flood of Noah's time, as the Bible implies, then maybe all the salt is still there.[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat you have is a bunch of statements, completely unsubstantiated. For instance, DNA has NOT been extracted from 425 million year old bacteria, we have trouble getting decent DNA from wooly mammoths 40,000 years old much less millions of years.
[b]A Few Things That Support a Young Earth
Evidence of Length of recorded history is only a few thousnad years.
Evidence of agriculture is only a few thousnad years.
The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 ...[text shortened]... ince the Flood of Noah's time, as the Bible implies, then maybe all the salt is still there.[/b]
So the fact that agriculture is only about 11,000 years old makes the world 6,000 years old? Interesting argument.
Of course seals, lions, horses, cows, and such don't use agriculture, so I guess that makes them only 6,000 years old too.
Your so-called arguments are so full of shyte it's not worth rebutting AGAIN.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindshave you already made up your mind rj? you are sure you are 100% correct. even though there is mountains of scientific data that suggest you are wrong. have a read through this.
[b]A Few Things That Support a Young Earth
Evidence of Length of recorded history is only a few thousnad years.
Evidence of agriculture is only a few thousnad years.
The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 ...[text shortened]... ince the Flood of Noah's time, as the Bible implies, then maybe all the salt is still there.[/b]
http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/thetwocomings.htm
im not saying you need to admit you are wrong. but i think you need to admit there is a chance you are wrong. looking at your set of science and my set of science do you think you have the knowledge to decide 100% which one is correct??? to me it seems you have decided to believe in god, so there fore will believe anything that looks like it supports your belief, all reason goes out of the window.
Originally posted by stellspalfieYOU THINK?
have you already made up your mind rj? you are sure you are 100% correct. even though there is mountains of scientific data that suggest you are wrong. have a read through this.
http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/thetwocomings.htm
im not saying you need to admit you are wrong. but i think you need to admit there is a chance you are wr ...[text shortened]... ill believe anything that looks like it supports your belief, all reason goes out of the window.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by stellspalfiewhooaaaaa!!!! cut and paste failure!!!!
have you already made up your mind rj? you are sure you are 100% correct. even though there is mountains of scientific data that suggest you are wrong. have a read through this.
http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/thetwocomings.htm
im not saying you need to admit you are wrong. but i think you need to admit there is a chance you are wr ...[text shortened]... ill believe anything that looks like it supports your belief, all reason goes out of the window.
the link should have been : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#dal12
its like god didnt want me to post it!
Originally posted by sonhouseYou said, "DNA has NOT been extracted from 425 million year old bacteria..."
What you have is a bunch of statements, completely unsubstantiated. For instance, DNA has NOT been extracted from 425 million year old bacteria, we have trouble getting decent DNA from wooly mammoths 40,000 years old much less millions of years.
So the fact that agriculture is only about 11,000 years old makes the world 6,000 years old? Interesting argu ...[text shortened]... ears old too.
Your so-called arguments are so full of shyte it's not worth rebutting AGAIN.
That is the point. They could not be as old as the evolutionists had claimed them to be.
The claim is that agriculture is about 11,000 years old, that does not mean it is. But it does not speak well of the intelligence of man if he is supposed to be here a million years ago and just found out how to plant crops about 11,000 years ago, which of course is an exaggeration.
Originally posted by stellspalfieYes, I have decided to believe God, because man in unreliable.
have you already made up your mind rj? you are sure you are 100% correct. even though there is mountains of scientific data that suggest you are wrong. have a read through this.
http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/thetwocomings.htm
im not saying you need to admit you are wrong. but i think you need to admit there is a chance you are wr ...[text shortened]... ill believe anything that looks like it supports your belief, all reason goes out of the window.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsthen why do you put forward 'scientific' theories created by man as proof of creation? why do you follow a bible written by many men? are you just saying things for effect or do you really believe it? if you do id be interested to know exactly what you mean by 'man is unreliable'.
Yes, I have decided to believe God, because man in unreliable.
id also point out that im not asking you to believe or not to. accepting scientific facts doesnt make you an atheist. there are many christians who accept evolution theory and an old earth and still believe in god.
Originally posted by stellspalfieChristian that accept evolution do not know the Holy Bible and may not really be Christians. I put forward those scientific theories that do not disagree with the Holy Bible because many people, like you, will not except what is written in the Holy Bible. That does not mean either theory is correct. It only means to me that the one that does not disagree with scripture is more likely to be true. The one that disagrees with scripture is diffently wrong.
then why do you put forward 'scientific' theories created by man as proof of creation? why do you follow a bible written by many men? are you just saying things for effect or do you really believe it? if you do id be interested to know exactly what you mean by 'man is unreliable'.
id also point out that im not asking you to believe or not to. accep ...[text shortened]... e are many christians who accept evolution theory and an old earth and still believe in god.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsno i disagree. some parts of the bible are supposedly literal, some are metaphors, analogies, similes and (ive been told) written in a language that was understandable for the people of the time. so god isnt exactly going to write a science paper, he would have to write a book larger than the bible to explain the deeply complex theories, maths, physics, biology and chemistry that all add up to the creation of the universe and then life on earth. so it would be fair to say the story of creation is a simple way of covering a lot of complex topics quickly, in a way that people back then would appreciate.
Christian that accept evolution do not know the Holy Bible and may not really be Christians. I put forward those scientific theories that do not disagree with the Holy Bible because many people, like you, will not except what is written in the Holy Bible. That does not mean either theory is correct. It only means to me that the one that does not disagree ...[text shortened]... scripture is more likely to be true. The one that disagrees with scripture is diffently wrong.
another way of looking at it - genesis goes through the process of god creating parts of the world. he creates them in 6 or 7 days and he is happy or whatever. maybe by creation he means it is like an architect who creates schematics. he designs the different facets then puts them through a building process which works to his design and takes billions of years. the design takes days the building takes billions.
im sure there are many ways to translate the words of genesis and make them fit lots of different theories. youve picked one and seem stuck to it.