www.creationmuseum.org

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
genesis cannot be taken as a serious timeline. even if one says that between 1:1 and 1:2 there were billions of years, that still doesn't explain why god created the plants before the sun. the earth was created before the sun. there was day and night before the sun.

the genesis timeline must be discarded completely and regarded as a cute story god told t ...[text shortened]... instead of the big bang theory and all the physics those simpletons would not have understood.

Because God Himself is light, He does not need stars to have light
in the universe. Day and night before the sun doesn't have anything
to do with the sun, it has to do with how the earth rotated. The
Big Bang does not discuss how everything got here, it starts with
things already in place and moves on from there.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As if you know.
Kelly

Of course I know.

There are massive evidence of the time-line of dinosaurs and humans. Dinosaurs died ut 65 millions of years ago, man arose by evolution in it's primitive form no earlier than 5 million of years ago. Massiev amount of evidence.

None evidence of the contrary. Or do you know something that backs up your beliefs that Dinos and Noah lived at the very same time? Even that Noah brought Dinos (of every kind) with him in his ark?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Of course I know.

There are massive evidence of the time-line of dinosaurs and humans. Dinosaurs died ut 65 millions of years ago, man arose by evolution in it's primitive form no earlier than 5 million of years ago. Massiev amount of evidence.

None evidence of the contrary. Or do you know something that backs up your beliefs that Dinos and Noah lived at the very same time? Even that Noah brought Dinos (of every kind) with him in his ark?

Like I said, as if you know.
Its all the same evidence, the truth of it all does not depend upon
how you or I read it. Noah would have had to have dino's on the ark.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Because God Himself is light, He does not need stars to have light
in the universe. Day and night before the sun doesn't have anything
to do with the sun, it has to do with how the earth rotated. The
Big Bang does not discuss how everything got here, it starts with
things already in place and moves on from there.
Kelly

dude, do you agree that god is everywhere? then if god is light, how can there be a day and a night? did god made a half of him non-light so there be night? but even so, it cannot be a day and a night because there is always day somewhere on the earth, and night somwhere else. the ancient people thought the earth was flat so they created the myth like this. why is the creation story more believable?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said, as if you know.
Its all the same evidence, the truth of it all does not depend upon
how you or I read it. Noah would have had to have dino's on the ark.
Kelly

Noah would have had to have dino's on the ark.

it is like me saying "KellyJay must have really bad teeth because he eats candy all day and never brushes his teeth". which is apparently true, if one eats candy all day and doesn't brush one teeth, cavities will appear. the problem with my sentence is that i didn't prove that you eat candy all day yet.

so yes, if noah existed and dinos existed, noah had to have dinos on the ark. just that you haven't proven noah existed yet. and the bible doesn't count. i have faith in jesus and god. all others must offer proof of existence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said, as if you know.
Its all the same evidence, the truth of it all does not depend upon
how you or I read it. Noah would have had to have dino's on the ark.
Kelly

And your evidence are? None, I suppose?

Noone with their intelligence intact cannot seriously believe in dinos and humans in the same time. The same for people believing that the earth is flat. Or that the moon is made of green cheese, and babies comes from cabbage...

Give me proofs or I will believe that it is faith and faith only.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And your evidence are? None, I suppose?

Noone with their intelligence intact cannot seriously believe in dinos and humans in the same time. The same for people believing that the earth is flat. Or that the moon is made of green cheese, and babies comes from cabbage...

Give me proofs or I will believe that it is faith and faith only.

You yourself have faith in the theory of evolution. It cannot be proven true. No one was here to perform observational science. There is no way to date an occurrence that old. Mathematically it doesn't make sense to have our solar system that old. The human population doesn't make sense mathematically either if it started 5 million years ago.

Originally posted by freightdog37
You yourself have faith in the theory of evolution. It cannot be proven true. No one was here to perform observational science. There is no way to date an occurrence that old. Mathematically it doesn't make sense to have our solar system that old. The human population doesn't make sense mathematically either if it started 5 million years ago.

Huh? You totally lost me here.

It can be proven that dinosaurs and humans did not coexist. Yessir, hard
core scientific fact, facts that would not have been available to the ancients
who were writing their mythologies. They would not have had a clue.

Now if the human population doesn't make sense mathematically if they
arise 5 million years ago, what is it that one is trying to proof
mathematically? This is where I'm lost. You make a statement that some
sort of mathematics does not make sense, without context or mathematics.

Originally posted by freightdog37
You yourself have faith in the theory of evolution. It cannot be proven true. No one was here to perform observational science. There is no way to date an occurrence that old. Mathematically it doesn't make sense to have our solar system that old. The human population doesn't make sense mathematically either if it started 5 million years ago.

"It cannot be proven true." "There is no way to date an occurrence that old."

Have you head of radiometric dating?

The controversy continues.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20081201/NEWS01/81201045

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"It cannot be proven true." "There is no way to date an occurrence that old."

Have you head of radiometric dating?

Taken from http://www.gotquestions.org/radiometric-dating.html

While the second and third assumptions have always been a bit troublesome, especially the third assumption which considers the original constitution of a particular specimen, the first assumption was thought to be a pretty safe bet since scientists were not able to vary the decay rates much in a lab. Recently however new research has revealed that the decay rates may have been drastically different in the unobservable past. This calls the whole method into question. AiG’s Dr. Carl Wieland explains, “When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. …Results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place” (Carl Wieland, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp#_ftn1).

For more on this, see AiG’s radiometric dating FAQ page at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp.

The point is that radiometric dating is not the sure thing that it has been made out to be over the last century. There still remains a lot of research to do but as it currently stands, the accuracy of radiometric dating remains ambiguously suspect at best.

Originally posted by Badwater

Now if the human population doesn't make sense mathematically if they
arise 5 million years ago, what is it that one is trying to proof
mathematically? This is where I'm lost. You make a statement that some
sort of mathematics does not make sense, without context or mathematics.

Taken from

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/billions-of-people




Billions of People in Thousands of Years?
by Monty White, Ph.D.September 5, 2006

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth.
Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

One Plus One Equals Billions
Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

Impact of the Flood
We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

From two people, created about 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could easily have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion.
Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.
This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.
Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion.

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?” This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.

Dr. Monty White is now a young-earth creationist; however, as a young Christian, he believed in theistic evolution. Since 2000, he has been the CEO of Answers in Genesis—UK.

Footnotes
www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldpop.gif Back
www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html Back
White, A. J. Monty, How Old Is the Earth? Evangelical Press, p. 22, 1985. Back

Originally posted by freightdog37
"With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?” This is a question that evolution supporters must answer. "

The writer admits that the earths population currently doubles every 40 years yets uses 150 years for his own calculation. He then refuses to accept any other possible figure for population doubling and ignores the obvious possibility that there may be various factors involved in population dynamics.

Let us try is claims out:
At the time of Noah there were two rabbits. Rabbit populations double every month or so. .........

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And your evidence are? None, I suppose?

Noone with their intelligence intact cannot seriously believe in dinos and humans in the same time. The same for people believing that the earth is flat. Or that the moon is made of green cheese, and babies comes from cabbage...

Give me proofs or I will believe that it is faith and faith only.

If I could give you proofs, it wouldn't be a matter of faith now would
it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I could give you proofs, it wouldn't be a matter of faith now would
it.
Kelly

Non-responsing... So you have no proofs... Imagine...