Originally posted by ChurlantBrilliant.
There are a few ways.
1. The time needed for the Earth's shape as we see it today isn't nearly as long as believed by mainstream science.
2. God created the Earth to seem older than it actually is, including continents which appear to have drifted over millions of years.
3. Tectonics is a myth.
4. "6,000 years" is not the same to us today as it is within the context of scripture.
-JC
However much you polish a pile of cr@p its still a pile of cr@p
Originally posted by 7ate9What? Go out and immediately by a book on nuclear physics.
i'm tired, i've been up all night with only a little sleep today. yes, the hangi was yummy, but i just got back from the party which i couldn't really be bothered with. had a couple of cans, naa i'm going home.
i'm not sure what you mean by decay constants, but dating the earth a 4.5 billion years old does hold uncertainty either way in the fact at what a W ...[text shortened]... tches, and see if we all can fly on our broomsticks. lol, i'm going bed to dream of...
Are you seriously suggesting that any amount of water can alter the physics of the nucleus of the atom? Not only that, of every atom on the planet by exactly the right amount to give the multiple false impression of great (and consistant) age? Oh, and the atoms on the moon too, which have also been dated to 4.5 billion years.
Originally posted by 7ate9You know, humans and dinosaurs didn't coexist, right?
we had dinosaurs, animals, man, big trees (for the dinosaurs), and vegetation. this is a reasonable assumption. so if a flood happened which went seven meters above the highest mountain & wiped out mankind there must be physical evidence. it MUST be provable through science as to yes or no, 4500 yrs down the track. this could be proved/disproved through the same methods we use to prove evolution.
I just read through most of this thread and two things really jumped out at me. The first was that there seemed to be a little debate about a flood and continental drift. Can someone tell me what these two have to do with each other because continental drift has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of flooding.
The second thing was someone saying that they believed in continental drift but that didn't make them an evolutionist. Could someone please explain what the theory of evolution has to do with the creation and destruction of the Earths crust.
Originally posted by WheelyContinental drift and evolution are lies from Satan.
I just read through most of this thread and two things really jumped out at me. The first was that there seemed to be a little debate about a flood and continental drift. Can someone tell me what these two have to do with each other because continental drift has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of flooding.
The second thing was someone saying that ...[text shortened]... n what the theory of evolution has to do with the creation and destruction of the Earths crust.
The Flood is a lie from God.
So they are both lies. That's why they are tied together.
Originally posted by Wheelyshh. Don't spoil our fun.
I just read through most of this thread and two things really jumped out at me. The first was that there seemed to be a little debate about a flood and continental drift. Can someone tell me what these two have to do with each other because continental drift has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of flooding.
The second thing was someone saying that ...[text shortened]... n what the theory of evolution has to do with the creation and destruction of the Earths crust.
2 edits
Originally posted by 7ate9Besides fossils, what would you expect to see a few thousand years
we had dinosaurs, animals, man, big trees (for the dinosaurs), and vegetation. this is a reasonable assumption. so if a flood happened which went seven meters above the highest mountain & wiped out mankind there must be physical evidence. it MUST be provable through science as to yes or no, 4500 yrs down the track. this could be proved/disproved through the same methods we use to prove evolution.
after a world wide flood?
Kelly
Originally posted by 7ate9After over 4 thousand years plus, you think there would still be mud,
mud would be found.
in that small flood that happened by me there was mud all around, but this would be far different. it seems reasonable that in a WWflood the mud, 'unlike fossils', would NOT be present in a lot of places as after 40 days it would sink to the lower lying areas. only suitable flat areas with not much drainage would have mud, and a whole lot of it.
why? You ever been around land that was flooded, after a short time
once the surface of land reappears it starts to dry out, and even
before all the water drains, plants can start to grow even if the mud
was laid upon rock that will occur, and we are talking about over 4
thousand years plus of time too.
Kelly
Originally posted by 7ate9I believe the story, so when I talk about it, it isn't that I'm putting
i think the biggest problem people face trying to prove the flood happened is they lie about what actually happened. Christians have turned it into some fairytale fantasy so that children will like the story. it isn't the false image it was made into. it's a tragedy where mankind is KILLED and the whole earth is blown up. it's wrong to change God like that, cause it loses the whole meaning of what it's all about.
a false story out there, so I'm not lying, I'm telling the truth as I
believe it. You are very free with the word 'lie' I suggest you find
another way of attacking those you don't agree with that does not
require you to smear them with false accusations. A lie requires that
someone say something that is not true on purpose to deceive,
at worse I can be mistaken, but I am not lying.
Kelly