Just how old is the earth anyway?

[Lewis]

Coal: Evidence for a Young Earth

"Coal: Evidence for a Young Earth"

Abstract:


Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits. However, laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. These vast coal deposits are unsullied by other material. The conclusion is drawn that actual research indicates a young age to the Earth that contains such coalified materials.



Introduction

"If coal takes millions and millions of years of heat and pressure to form, how is it possible that creationists are teaching that the earth is only a few thousand years old?" This is a commonly asked question among individuals seeking answers about the age of the earth and the universe. Research has been done by several creation organizations, as well as independent scientists, in order to answer such questions. The evidence actually shows that coal does not take millions of years to form, as is commonly asserted. In fact, the formation of coal has been proven to be a rapid process that can be duplicated in modern laboratories in a matter of days - or even hours.



I. Rapid Formation

In order for coal to be formed, several factors must be present. Pressure, temperature, water, time, and some sort of vegetation are the key elements for the formation of coal. According to evolutionary theory, the slow accumulation and decomposition of vegetation living in past ages accounts for the coal seams. However, this theory can not answer why such large amounts of original vegetation without soil can be found in the areas that are now coal seams, or how these coal seams became so thick - some being over two hundred feet in depth.

Scientist Robert Gentry analyzed coalified wood found on the Colorado Plateau in order to determine how long it took for coal to form.1 By treating coal with epoxy and slicing it into thin sheets, Dr. Gentry was able to examine tiny, compressed radiohalos found in the coal. Radiohalos are discolorations in the coal, ejected by radioactive elements in the centers (such as uranium).

According to evolutionary theory, in order for these halos to form, several processes must have occurred. First, water-saturated logs must have been laid down in several different geologic formations, including the Triassic, Jurassic and Eocene layers. Later, uranium solutions infiltrated the water-saturated logs, and uranium decay products were collected at tiny sites within the logs. The radioactive decay from the tiny particles ejected spherical radiation damage regions around those sites, thus producing halos. Finally, a pressure event on the site of the formations compressed the logs as well as the radioactive halos within them. However, because coal is not a malleable substance, scientists know that these logs had not turned to coal at the time the compression event occurred. This points to a quick burial and coalification of the logs – rather than a long time period.2



II. Decay Ratios

When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years.3



III. Polystrate Fossils

The presence of "polystrate" trees (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) point to a rapid coalification process. One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. According to evolutionary theory the different sedimentary layers took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. However, we know this is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate. Rather, this tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.



IV. Unsullied Deposits

Finally, coal seams such as those found in the Powder River Basin of Gillette, Wyoming, ranging from 150 to 200 feet in depth, point to a rapid coalification process. "These coal seams run remarkably thick and unsullied by other material. Usually, unwanted sediments, such as clay, washes over a deposit before coal seams can get very thick. This leaves scientists with the baffling question of how the seams get so massive and still remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken."4



Conclusion

The answer can be found in the Biblical account of Noah's Flood. The Biblical description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up gives strong reference to volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins.5 This would have provided several of the key factors need for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.

Although the coalification process has been used in the past to support theories of an aged universe, research done by leading creation scientists reveals that this process actually supports creation teachings of a young Earth. Physical evidence demonstrates that the coalification process must have occurred rapidly, rather than over vast time periods.



http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php? ... view&id=35

 

[jasoncran]

a creationist that i listened to today mentioned that. i was going to look up the source of that claim.

 

[logical bob]

I don't have sufficient knowledge to comment on the coal paper there (although I didn't think it explained itself very clearly), but let's be clear about what it's claiming. It argues that coal could form quickly if there was a catastrophic wordwide event like Noah's flood.

Even if it's correct on all points - and like I said, I can't comment one way or the other - this wouldn't be evidence for a young earth. It would be evidence for an earth that might have some young coal on it - assuming that the flood happened.

Geology, archaeology, biology, astronomy, radioactive decay rates, cosmology, genetics, paleontology etc etc all point to an earth considerably older than 6000 years. The specific figure of 4.5 billion years comes from radiometric dating of meteorites. These comments on coal just don't address these.

 

[Lewis]

Six Thousand Years:

The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old. How do we arrive at that number?

The age of the earthThe Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is older than 6,000 years old.

The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 yers old. Here's why:

Fossilize raptorHow do we get fossils?

The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.

Here's another Biblical reason why the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam:

When we examine fossils, in some of them we see evidence of sickness, disease and cancer. There is evidence of violence and of one animal eating another. So there were some problems. Not everything was good.

Yet, at the end of day six of creation: "God saw all that He made and behold. It was very good." (Genesis 1:31 NASB)

God didn't call His creation just good. He called it very good. A world with sickness, disease, cancer and violence is not good. So, the fossilized bones we now find had to have come from animals that died after God created Adam, and after the fall.http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis ... years.html

Dinosaurs In The Bible:

St. George and the DragonIf dinosaurs and people lived at the same time, shouldn't the Bible talk about dinosaurs?

Yes -- and it does. Dinosaurs are one of the most frequently mentioned animals in the Bible. The only thing is, the word dinosaur is not used.

The word "dinosaur" was not invented until 1841. It could not be used by early translators of the Bible. For example, the King James Version translation was completed in 1611, over 200 years before the word "dinosaur" was created.

Is there another word for dinosaur that is used in the Bible?

Yes! Here are a few verses:

"...and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." - Malachi 1:3 (KJV)

"...they snuffed up the wind like dragons." - Jereniah 14:6 (KJV)

"...and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." - Isaiah 27:1 (KJV)

The word is dragon. It's interesting to note that people around the world have similar stories about "dragons"... and the descriptions of "dragons" are similar in all cultures... and those descriptions basically match what we think dinosaurs look like.

When the Bible talks about dragons, it is talking about what we now call dinosaurs.

Here's a detailed description from Job 40:15-19

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is chief of the ways of God."

Behemoth Cartoon - Reprinted with permission from Answers in GenesisWhat is behemoth?

This is the largest (chief) land animal God made. Some Bible translators have said behemoth may be an elephant or hippopotomus. But both of those have small tails, not a tail that moves like a cedar tree.

The problem is that we limit ourselves to animals that are alive today, and none of those fit this description. What best fits the description is a Brachiosaurus--the largest of the dinosaurs. A dinosaur with a giant tail that was like a cedar, and huge legs that must have had the strength of brass and iron in order to support his enormous body. Brachiosaurus was 75 feet in length, 41 feet in height, and weighed 89 tons--as much as 12 African bull elphants. This was a true behemoth!http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/dinosaurs-in-the-bible.html

 

[ProphetMark]

The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.

God tells Adam in Genesis 2 v 17 that when he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die. Where does it say anything about animals not dieing before then though?

 

[jasoncran]

The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.

God tells Adam in Genesis 2 v 17 that when he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die. Where does it say anything about animals not dieing before then though?

by one man death entered the world. that is in bible. where i cant recall

 

[logical bob]

Lewis, I appreciate that it's possible to put together a biblical argument for an earth that's 6000 years old. If, however, you believe the Bible to be a source of truth this would be unwise. The earth is clearly not 6000 years old and if you insist that the Bible says it is then you make the Bible a source of lies. I can't see why you'd want to do that.

Look, here are two man-made objects that are more than 6000 years old. It's that simple.

 

[John]

Look, here are two man-made objects that are more than 6000 years old. It's that simple.

Ummm, says who? Was the date printed on the objects? Or did you use one of the magical dating methods floating around?

 

[Lewis]

Look, here are two man-made objects that are more than 6000 years old. It's that simple.

Ummm, says who? Was the date printed on the objects? Or did you use one of the magical dating methods floating around?

:biglol :rolling :biglol

 

[jasoncran]

Lewis, I appreciate that it's possible to put together a biblical argument for an earth that's 6000 years old. If, however, you believe the Bible to be a source of truth this would be unwise. The earth is clearly not 6000 years old and if you insist that the Bible says it is then you make the Bible a source of lies. I can't see why you'd want to do that.

Look, here are two man-made objects that are more than 6000 years old. It's that simple.

you do realise that by the scientific means the mentioning of the resurrection is deception as it not possible for a man to die and rise again. if look at that from the naturalist pov.

so, i guess the bible is a liar and men tell the truth :yes

 

[Lewis]

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Compiled by Rev. Jack Barr

Both creationists and evolutionists spend a great deal of time trying to find the exact age of the earth, and for a good reason. As extensive evidence continues to unfold that indicates the earth is less than 10,000 years old, the evolutionary theory falls apart. If the earth is truly less than 10,000 years old, it would be impossible for man to have evolved from a lower order in that amount of time.

Let's look for a moment, at how evolutionists date the age of the earth.

HOW THE RADIOCARBON DATING METHOD WORKS

The radiocarbon dating method was developed by Professor Willard Libby from California, for which he was awarded a Nobel prize. It is quite accurate in many applications for which the specimens are only a few thousand years old.

Here is how it works. The stratosphere above our earth is bombarded with cosmic rays from the sun, which converts the N14 in the stratosphere to radioactive carbon, or C14. This weak isotope is a part of our environment, and is absorbed by all living organisms (plants and animals) along with another version of carbon, C12, which is not radioactive. As long as the organism is alive, the ratio of C12 to C14 in the organism is theoretically the same as that of the environment; that is, the organism is in balance with the environment.

Once the organism dies, there is no longer a carbon intake. The amount of C12 in the organism remains constant, but the radioactive C14 decomposes with a half life of 5730 years into nitrogen. Nitrogen is a gas, which leaves the organism. This means after 5730 years, there will only be half as much C14 as when the organism died. Thus, by measuring the ratio of C12 to C14, one can (at least theoretically) determine when the organism died.

For practical reality, however, this doesn't always work. Researchers testing the shell of a live clam showed this live clam had been dead for 300 years. Dried up seal- carcasses only thirty years old have tested as old as 4600 years. Fresh carcasses often date as old as 1300 years.

Why is this so?

Radiocarbon dating makes several assumptions. If any of these is wrong, the results can be in error.

Assumption 1:
The Living Organism is in Balance with the Environment

This method assumes the C14 is absorbed by the organism at the same rate as the C12 from the environment. This is not always true. Some organisms have some type of internal metabolism that can reject the C14 more effectively than the C12. At death, then, these organisms have abnormally low C14 levels and appear much older than they really are.

In addition, while living the organism may eat and metabolize organic material that is old, thus loading their own system with the outdated organic material that returns the false reading.

Assumption 2:
The C12/C14 Level of the Atmosphere has remained constant.

Another assumption made in radiocarbon dating is that the ratio of C12 to the radioactive C14 has remained constant for thousands of years. Scientists today have a growing conviction that this ratio has not been constant. Immanuel Velikovsky and other scientists believe that cataclysmic events in the history of the earth could have radically altered the stratosphere, affecting the amount of C14 created.

Velikovsky, writing in WORLDS IN COLLISION, believed that the history of the earth was dramatically altered by the close approaches of Mars and Venus. The book described Venus as originally a planet which passed the earth as a comet only 3500 years ago and was captured by our solar system. Velikovsky believed the flood, the parting of the Red Sea as the Israelites escaped Egypt, the manna from heaven, and the day the sun stood still as the Israelites battled their enemies were all related to natural events.

For years several noted astronomers vigorously blocked the publishing of this book by Macmillan, as these concepts were contradictory to their own theories and the publishing would have affected their own income and status. With the landing of the astronauts on the moon, however, the dust levels that should have been several feet high for the Big Bang theory were found as only a few inches high, giving credence to Velikovsky's theories and giving him fresh recognition during the last years of his life.

Today more and more scientific evidence gives proof to Velikovsky's theories. The Bible describes the long life- times of early man, perhaps due to the increased cloud cover at that time. The lower levels of C14 at that time would make the current samples appear older than they actually are. Evidence exists that the earth's magnetic poles switch occasionally, as old samples often show magnetic patterns that do not match with he current magnetic alignment. Tropical plants have been found buried in Sweden that could not have there unless Sweden was, at one time, a lush tropical paradise.

Assumption 3:
The dating method assumes the sample is in a closed system.

Once the organism has died, the theory assumes the only continuing process is the decay of the C14. This, in fact, is seldom true. Ground water can leach C14 from a rock. Heat, changes in the magnetic field, and other factors can affect the ratio of C12 to C14.

Assumption 4:
There are no daughter elements in the sample originally.

There is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. Other elements can affect the ratio.

OTHER DATING METHODS

Other dating methods are often used that have similarities to the radiocarbon method. One popular method is potassium-argon dating. Radioactive potassium is found in small quantities in some rocks. This decomposes into calcium and argon. Another alternative is uranium-lead dating. With uranium-lead dating, radioactive uranium decomposes into lead and other elements. The half-life is a long 4 1/2 billion years. All of these suffer from the same basic assumptions.

Tree-Ring Dating

Another method of dating that is popular with some scientists is tree-ring dating. When a tree is cut, you can study a cross-section of the trunk and determine its age. Each year of growth produces a single ring. Moreover, the width of the ring is related to environmental conditions at the time the ring was formed.

The Bristle cone Pine, found particularly in California, is a very old tree, with specimens supposably dating as old as 7000 years. Scientists have studied the rings on these trees in an attempt to date the tree and the origins of the earth.

Unfortunately, this dating method leaves much to be desired. Ring patterns vary considerably between trees of similar ages. To resolve the discrepancies, patterns are compared between several trees, with the attempt made to identify common years in several ring patterns. The key rings that are used to align different trees are the rings for drought years, or the narrowest rings. In some cases, however, a drought year ring may be missing altogether, falling on the ring for an adjacent year.

This leads to what is known as the ''missing ring'' problem. To solve this, the scientists fall back to radiocarbon dating to identify the rings more completely. This, in turn, leads to circular logic; if the radiocarbon dating is incorrect, the resulting ring dating will also be incorrect. In the final analysis, the BRISTLE CONE Pines still hide their secret.

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

There are many methods that can be used to find the actual age of the earth, as various effects can be measured over a period of time and used to establish the historical time line.

The Shrinking Sun

Since 1836, observations of the sun indicate it is shrinking about five feet an hour. Studies show this has been true for at least 400 years. At this rate, 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. Twenty million years ago the sun would have touched the earth.

The Moon's Dust

Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth's age as only 8000 years.

The Magnetic Field

The earth has a magnetic field that is constantly decreasing due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The half-life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 2800 years ago the magnetic field would be four times as strong as it is now. Only 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would be as strong as a magnetic star and be a nuclear power source as the sun. For this reason the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.

The Earth's Rotation

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down at about .00002 seconds a year. The lost energy is transferred to the moon. The moon, therefore, is slowly moving away from the earth at about 4 centimeters a year. This would put the moon in contact with the earth less than 2 billion years ago. Yet, if the moon were closer than about 11,500 miles, the moon would be broken into tiny pieces, much as the rings of Saturn.

The Missing Helium

Helium is generated as radioactive uranium decays. This is known as radiogenic helium, and is the primary source of helium in the earth's atmosphere. If the earth were really 4.5 billion years old as claimed by the evolutionists, the atmosphere would be saturated with this helium. But it isn't. Where did it go? It can't escape to space. The simple answer, of course, is that the earth isn't really that old.

The Comet Mystery

Comets, as they orbit the sun, are literally torn apart by gravitational forces, internal explosions, and solar winds. Short period comets can't exist for more than 10,000 years. Most astronomers believe that comets originated at the same time as the solar system. That limits the age of the solar system to about 10,000 years.

SUMMARY

Putting this all together, there is growing evidence that the solar system is certainly less than 10,000 years old. As mentioned at the beginning, the issue is particularly important, as if the solar system is less than 10,000 years old there is not enough time for man to have evolved from a lower form.

http://prophecyarchive.com/ray/barr-family.com/godsword/old.htm

 

[freeway]

Also I would like to add, if the earth is 4.5 billion years old and coal is in the neighbor hood of around 300 million and if man has only been around 3 million. If all this is true as the evolutionist say, then by that simple statement we should not find any human artifacts in undisturbed coal seams.. But we do. So either the coal is not 300 million yrs old, or man has been here for at least 300 million yrs. I have this funny feeling neither is true.. Man has been here for around 6,000 yrs as my bible says. :yes

 

[logical bob]

you do realise that by the scientific means the mentioning of the resurrection is deception as it not possible for a man to die and rise again. if look at that from the naturalist pov.

The resurrection and the age of the earth are different.

We can't scientifically test whether Jesus rose from the dead. We don't know where he was buried and Christians say he disappeared into heaven leaving no evidence. What would we test?

We can scientifically test whether the Earth is 6000 years old. It isn't, and evidence from many scientific disciplines confirms this.

The resurrection claim is a claim what normally happens didn't happen in one particular case because God intervened. It doesn't directly contradict testable facts. The claim that the earth is 6000 years old does.

 

[Lewis]

Ummm, Bob, what do you have to say about Jack Bar's nice work in the above post, that I posted ?
HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Compiled by Rev. Jack Barr

 

[jasoncran]

you do realise that by the scientific means the mentioning of the resurrection is deception as it not possible for a man to die and rise again. if look at that from the naturalist pov.

The resurrection and the age of the earth are different.

We can't scientifically test whether Jesus rose from the dead. We don't know where he was buried and Christians say he disappeared into heaven leaving no evidence. What would we test?

We can scientifically test whether the Earth is 6000 years old. It isn't, and evidence from many scientific disciplines confirms this.

The resurrection claim is a claim what normally happens didn't happen in one particular case because God intervened. It doesn't directly contradict testable facts. The claim that the earth is 6000 years old does.

HOW Does one test the age of the earth vs ? a metorite that hit the earht after it was formed?
and how and where did that come from and how old was its source. could that source by know to have excessive radioactive materials and since the the earth hypothecitally was forming via molten materials.

could that metorite be containimated?

 

[logical bob]

OK Lewis, let's have a look at a few points. Again, I'm genuinely shocked at the lack of scientific knowledge this article demonstrates.

Helium is generated as radioactive uranium decays. This is known as radiogenic helium, and is the primary source of helium in the earth's atmosphere. If the earth were really 4.5 billion years old as claimed by the evolutionists, the atmosphere would be saturated with this helium. But it isn't. Where did it go? It can't escape to space. The simple answer, of course, is that the earth isn't really that old

Helium does escape to space. They teach you that in high school. Here's an article about it.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3.htm

I can't stress enough what a basic blunder this is. Whatever the Reverend Barr's qualifications might be, high school physics isn't among them.

The earth has a magnetic field that is constantly decreasing due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The half-life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 2800 years ago the magnetic field would be four times as strong as it is now. Only 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would be as strong as a magnetic star and be a nuclear power source as the sun. For this reason the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.

What?? The second law says nothing of the sort. Where does Barr get this idea that the magnetic field is uniformly weakening? It's completely untrue.

We can find out abut the magnetic field in the past because when iron rich rock forms, it contains the field pattern at that time just like you can use iron filings to see the field around a bar magnet. In this way we know that 3.5 billion years ago the field was actually weaker than it is now. Here’s an article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20203044

Since 1836, observations of the sun indicate it is shrinking about five feet an hour. Studies show this has been true for at least 400 years. At this rate, 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. Twenty million years ago the sun would have touched the earth.

That’s a pretty bizarre claim. So far Barr has demonstrated that he doesn’t know what the second law of thermodynamics says, that he doesn’t know that helium escapes to space and that he hasn’t got a clue about the earth’s magnetic field. I’m therefore not much inclined to believe him on this one. I’m skeptical that in 1836 the technology existed to measure the sun that accurately. I know that Einstein’s theory tells us that in it’s 4.7 billion year history the sun has lost less than a thousandth of its mass. I’d like to see some evidence of this claim.

I notice, though, that Barr assumes that if the sun were shrinking by 5 feet per hour now it would have always been shrinking at the same rate. But the volume of a sphere is proportional to the cube of the radius, so when the sun was twice the current size it would be shrinking at an eighth of the rate. Quadruple the size, 1/64 the rate etc etc.Barr’s sums don’t account for this – I checked.

Now this is the sort of maths we’d expect of a reasonably bright school kid. It’s evidently way over Barr’s head.

Putting those 3 points together, why should we believe what Barr says about anything? His article is full of the most blatant errors and falsehoods. I said it in the other thread and I’ll say it here. You just make yourself look stupid when cite this stuff. Get wise. You deserve better.

 

[Bronzesnake]

I won't go into any great detail here because it will only start an endless I say - you say, so I'm going to state what I believe and leave it there.

I believe the scriptures do in fact leave little room for an age of more than 6,000 years.
As has already been posted, we know how old Adam was when Cain was born etc, and the genealogies go back to around 6,000 years ago.
God gave us a parallel time line when He gave us the six days of creation and rest on the seventh day. The earth being six thousand years and a thousand years of rest when Jesus is among us for the millennial rein.
The radio metric dating method is extremely unreliable and is only good for corroborating dates which line up with evolutionary preconceptions.
All known dating methods are extremely unreliable and almost useless beyond a few thousand years.

Example; A piece of volcanic rock was split up and sent to several of the world’s premiere labs for dating.
The dates all came back in the millions of years and none of the dates matched.
In reality the rock was taken from a volcano that had erupted just twenty years prior, and therefore the rock that was dated in the millions of years was in fact just twenty years old.

There are many examples of this kind of vastly exaggerated dates given to young specimens.
The fact is that the incorrect dates are never allowed to be published and only those dates that match evolutionary preconceptions ever make it to publication.

I may begin a new topic thread and give detailed examples of exactly how these dating methods are manipulated and used by evolutionists. And of exactly how rocks and fossils are dated. It’s astonishingly deceptive and involves some serious circular reasoning.

Bronzesnake

 

[Lloyd81]

Not meaning to miss the point of this thread - it's certainly been a good read.

But what happens when the day comes and we ALL have to bow before God? Where will the theories, scientists, evolutionists, go then? What evidence will you have to support your claims?

One day we will all bow before the Lord, and truly understand his greatness.

This isn't a swipe at anyone by the way, so please don't take offence or think that I have dropped off topic and am blinded by my Biblical approach. I'm just sayin...

 

[happyjoy]

Not meaning to miss the point of this thread - it's certainly been a good read.

But what happens when the day comes and we ALL have to bow before God? Where will the theories, scientists, evolutionists, go then? What evidence will you have to support your claims?

One day we will all bow before the Lord, and truly understand his greatness.

This isn't a swipe at anyone by the way, so please don't take offence or think that I have dropped off topic and am blinded by my Biblical approach. I'm just sayin...

Why does understanding that the earth and universe are older than 6000 years old make God angry?

 

[Bronzesnake]

Not meaning to miss the point of this thread - it's certainly been a good read.

But what happens when the day comes and we ALL have to bow before God? Where will the theories, scientists, evolutionists, go then? What evidence will you have to support your claims?

One day we will all bow before the Lord, and truly understand his greatness.

This isn't a swipe at anyone by the way, so please don't take offence or think that I have dropped off topic and am blinded by my Biblical approach. I'm just sayin...

This is the exact reason I get involved in these discussions my friend.
It's not for my benefit that I engage this way. I have been verbally abused by people who do not believe in God, not all atheists are angry but there are some who get extremely upset.
It's for the glory of God that I engage. God loves all of us and does not want any of us to be lost.It is His command that we go forth and speak His truth.

It is my great hope and my constant prayer that even one person will actually take a good honest critical, unbiased look at the evidence for creation.
It would be so easy to just give in and have an attitude like "ahh, who cares about these people? I live my life they live theirs right? Who needs the controversy?" and just mind my own business.
But the good news is that I know of at least three people who were staunch evolutionists before we engaged in debating the topic. There are some people who actually want to know the Truth regardless of where it takes them. Hey, I used to believe in evolution as well, but I left my preconceptions and assumptions behind when I began to look at all the evidence from both sides.

I was critical and open minded and I now know for certain that there is excellent corroborating evidence that just about anyone can comprehend which will convince them that Jesus is a real historical figure who was God in the flesh.
That the scriptures are accurate and reliable to the minutest detail, and that the Genesis account is not myth, it is not even written in a mythical format, and is only relegated to myth by unbelievers and theistic Christians who have not studied evolution/creation with an unbiased, critical, and open mind.
Once we allow ourselves to accept the facts as they truly are, and not as we are told they are, we can be freed and open to salvation by Jesus.

Hey it changed my life completely!
I was the lead singer in a heavy metal band, and I lived the lifestyle...the women, the booze the inflated ego. I don’t think there’s a drug out there I haven’t tried, well except meth that wasn’t around twenty years ago. I enjoyed it thoroughly but there was always something missing. I tried to fill the hole in my life with all the wrong things; I enjoyed being “worshipped†by the audience. I loved the attention; I loved the back stage activities and the women. I actually didn’t disrespect women the way other bands did. I never felt the need to supplement my ego by the number of conquests I had. I really did enjoy the company of women; I listened to them and engaged in deep conversations. I was not the guy who carved out notches in my bed post, and in hindsight I believe, well I know that God was working in my life even back then.

Just at the time when we were in discussions with record companies and distributors, I had an encounter with Jesus and my life has never been the same!
I was instantly healed from cocaine addiction and never touched it again.
I eventually quit drinking and smoking (everything) and stopped all drugs use.
I quit the band and concentrated on my new wife and our baby boy.
We have three sons now all men.

I had a daughter when I met my wife and she has two children, so I’m a proud father and grandfather at 47years old! We also have a foster daughter who we consider our own. We’ve had her since she was four and she’s now 16.
My friends in the band did not speak to me for several years, but I am very good friends with the guitar player and I’m working on him, and am very close to closing the book because he is beginning to believe in Jesus! Amen?!
Anyway, I’m rambling, and so I’ll shut it down for now.

Perhaps I’ll start a new thread and share my whole testimony soon.
My encounter with Jesus is quite astonishing!

Take care my friends.

John Bronzesnake