Spock Posted January 3, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.85 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 3, 2014 why assumptions, were you there - wincam Why do you put God in a box? God has been around since who knows when past. To make Earth a recent phenomena is so restricting. Remember, he is the alpha and omega. Who is putting God in a box??? God said He created the earth in six literal 24 hour days and there is no way around what the Bible says. That is not putting God in a box. It amounts to taking God at His word and believing what He says. You can believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old OR you can believe God when He says that he created the earth in six days. I don't have a problem with six literal days. I have a problem with making Earth a young planet, like 10,000 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 why assumptions, were you there - wincam Why do you put God in a box? God has been around since who knows when past. To make Earth a recent phenomena is so restricting. Remember, he is the alpha and omega. Who is putting God in a box??? God said He created the earth in six literal 24 hour days and there is no way around what the Bible says. That is not putting God in a box. It amounts to taking God at His word and believing what He says. You can believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old OR you can believe God when He says that he created the earth in six days. I don't have a problem with six literal days. I have a problem with making Earth a young planet, like 10,000 years old. The notion that the earth is old goes back over 200 years to the age of englightenment, long before radiometric dating and long before carbon dating. Long before there was any science to support the notion of an old earth. Modern science has simply tried to make the evidence fit the assumption that the earth is old. One reason science needs an old earth is to make room for evolution. The age of the earth has miraculously gotten older and older the more we learn about the complexity of life in order to make room for evolution. The evidence is tweaked whenever necessary to be whatever they need it to be in order to fit the assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted January 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Well one thing for sure, it certainly appears to be a very old universe, unless it was created with apparent age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Well one thing for sure, it certainly appears to be a very old universe, unless it was created with apparent age. ~ For Sure Many Do Not Approve Of His Word Yet It Was His Pleasure Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11 To Have Created His Universe Just As It Appears Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3 And Yet, Still It Seems It's Man's This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope. It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. Lamentations 3:21-23 Free Will To Agree Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. Psalms 148:1-5 Or Not For thou, LORD, hast made me glad through thy work: I will triumph in the works of thy hands. O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep. A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. Psalms 92:4-6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Well one thing for sure, it certainly appears to be a very old universe, unless it was created with apparent age. Hey Grey Wolf, That begs the question, what would a Young Universe look like? And I agree 100% with Shiloh...it's a backdoor attempt to question the Authority of the WORD of GOD and weasel evolution into the mix. To justify it, they wheel out Radiometric Dating....13th Century Alchemy has more going for it. Also, I went searching where this 4.5 Billion Years came from..... The 4.5 b.y. era started about 1955 with the publication of a classic paper by Patterson et al. Patterson, C., Tilton, G. and Inghram, M., Science 121:69, 1955. The 4.5 Billion Year Estimate relies heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods. They estimated the age of the Earth by substituting the lead isotope ratios of certain meteorites in the Holmes-Houtermans equation. These values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites. Big sample size, eh? Moreover, later... it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson et al were found not to be representative of the majority of meteorites.-----Faul, H., Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 75, 1966 THEN, in 1972, Gale et al dropped a LEAD "Isotope" ANVIL on all of the 13th Century Alchemy...... “ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established. “This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition. “It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.” Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972 Appears nobody got Gale et al memo. Moreover.... Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand erupted from 13 May 1954 to 10 March 1955. In 1996, Rock samples were collected and sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the Lab. The Potassium Argon date for the 30 June 1954 flow was 3.5 Million years old!! The rocks were 42 years old!!!!!!!!!!!! Snelling, AA., The cause of anomalous potassium-argon 'ages' for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and inmplications for potassium-argon 'dating', In: Walsh, R.E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 503–525, 1998 Look @ that, My Home Town "No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years. A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years. Question: Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years? Lucy has some splainin to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted January 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Well, I'm not an authority on dating. I went on a couple in high school. A younger earth... How would it look? Maybe fewer ocean life fossils in the mountains indicating that it was once a seabed. Maybe less contrast between the Rockies and the Appalachians. Maybe S. America and Africa would be closer. Maybe shorter stalactites and stalagmites? Fewer light years between us and distant stars. Perhaps fewer extinct forms of life. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted January 4, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,644 Content Per Day: 8.02 Reputation: 21,730 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Well one thing for sure, it certainly appears to be a very old universe, unless it was created with apparent age. Hey Grey Wolf, That begs the question, what would a Young Universe look like? And I agree 100% with Shiloh...it's a backdoor attempt to question the Authority of the WORD of GOD and weasel evolution into the mix. To justify it, they wheel out Radiometric Dating....13th Century Alchemy has more going for it. Also, I went searching where this 4.5 Billion Years came from..... The 4.5 b.y. era started about 1955 with the publication of a classic paper by Patterson et al. Patterson, C., Tilton, G. and Inghram, M., Science 121:69, 1955. The 4.5 Billion Year Estimate relies heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods. They estimated the age of the Earth by substituting the lead isotope ratios of certain meteorites in the Holmes-Houtermans equation. These values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites. Big sample size, eh? Moreover, later... it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson et al were found not to be representative of the majority of meteorites.-----Faul, H., Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 75, 1966 THEN, in 1972, Gale et al dropped a LEAD "Isotope" ANVIL on all of the 13th Century Alchemy...... “ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established. “This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition. “It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.” Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972 Appears nobody got Gale et al memo. Moreover.... Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand erupted from 13 May 1954 to 10 March 1955. In 1996, Rock samples were collected and sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the Lab. The Potassium Argon date for the 30 June 1954 flow was 3.5 Million years old!! The rocks were 42 years old!!!!!!!!!!!! Snelling, AA., The cause of anomalous potassium-argon 'ages' for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and inmplications for potassium-argon 'dating', In: Walsh, R.E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 503–525, 1998 Look @ that, My Home Town "No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years. A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years. Question: Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years? Lucy has some splainin to do! If Ricky's an evolutionist He will just pile more data into this to hide this fact! and we will rename him ricky retardo ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Well, I'm not an authority on dating. I went on a couple in high school. A younger earth... How would it look? Maybe fewer ocean life fossils in the mountains indicating that it was once a seabed. Maybe less contrast between the Rockies and the Appalachians. Maybe S. America and Africa would be closer. Maybe shorter stalactites and stalagmites? Fewer light years between us and distant stars. Perhaps fewer extinct forms of life. What do you think? "Well, I'm not an authority on dating. I went on a couple in high school." Too funny. "Maybe fewer ocean life fossils in the mountains indicating that it was once a seabed." That's a Pre-Supposition. Didn't GOD say that all the Mountains were covered by a pretty good depth during the Flood? "Maybe less contrast between the Rockies and the Appalachians." Not Following "Maybe S. America and Africa would be closer." Why? "Maybe shorter stalactites and stalagmites?" Do we know that the rate of deposition has always been constant or are we assuming again. "Fewer light years between us and distant stars." I've heard some whispers that that may not be as much as a constant as we would believe. It's outside the realm of Empirical/Operational Science like a majority of "so-called" science today. I am not making any claims with it. "Perhaps fewer extinct forms of life." Not following Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted January 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Are you telling me that all those fossils got there not to mention those in the Ohio valley as a result of a deluge that lasted only a short time? All those sedimentary layers? The Appalachian mountains are more worn down foremost. South America and Africa obviously used to be attached. I'm just puzzled by all the extinct life forms in the fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 5, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Are you telling me that all those fossils got there not to mention those in the Ohio valley as a result of a deluge that lasted only a short time? All those sedimentary layers? The Appalachian mountains are more worn down foremost. South America and Africa obviously used to be attached. I'm just puzzled by all the extinct life forms in the fossils. "Are you telling me that all those fossils got there not to mention those in the Ohio valley as a result of a deluge that lasted only a short time? All those sedimentary layers?" yea "The Appalachian mountains are more worn down foremost" "worn down", is that an Industry term? "South America and Africa obviously used to be attached." They're still attached....just remove the water. My Geology isn't that strong and I'd like to forget my Geography Acumen but the "Obvious" attachment is not so obvious to me. "I'm just puzzled by all the extinct life forms in the fossils." Worldwide Flood?.......Maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts