Age of the Earth 2

[sagz4Christ]

Keep on preaching The Truth, and ignore the rest. True scientists have proven in the laboratory that the oldest rock according to evolutionists was created so fast that man can't even figure it. This information is known by all scientists but they purposly choose to ignore it because the scientists who prove it are Christians. So there are man who call themselves Christians who also choose to ignore The Truth. God knows how long it took Him to create, and He tells us all about it.

Maybe they ignored the evidence because it wasn't conclusive? Or maybe the scientists that *discovered* this information did so by using bad science? Who knows, there could be a dozen reasons why this is rejected. To say it is because the ones that found this are Christians is assuming too much.

Maybe a link to this information will help us all decide on our own what information you are even talking about. I for one have never even heard of this.

~in Christ

[His son]

Keep on preaching The Truth, and ignore the rest. True scientists have proven in the laboratory that the oldest rock according to evolutionists was created so fast that man can't even figure it. This information is known by all scientists but they purposly choose to ignore it because the scientists who prove it are Christians. So there are man who call themselves Christians who also choose to ignore The Truth. God knows how long it took Him to create, and He tells us all about it.

Maybe they ignored the evidence because it wasn't conclusive? Or maybe the scientists that *discovered* this information did so by using bad science? Who knows, there could be a dozen reasons why this is rejected. To say it is because the ones that found this are Christians is assuming too much.

Maybe a link to this information will help us all decide on our own what information you are even talking about. I for one have never even heard of this.

~in Christ

You speak from lack of knowledge. One of the most renowed scientists in the world was one of those who proved it and demonstrated it in the lab. Evolution is a man made doctrine and none of their claims have ever been actually proven in the lab. They are all pure theory, based on assumptions, and for the purpose of saving face. You can check it out through Dr. Carl Baugh.

[sagz4Christ]

You speak from lack of knowledge. One of the most renowed scientists in the world was one of those who proved it and demonstrated it in the lab. Evolution is a man made doctrine and none of their claims have ever been actually proven in the lab. They are all pure theory, based on assumptions, and for the purpose of saving face. You can check it out through Dr. Carl Baugh.

you would do well to learn what the word, "L-O-V-E" means.

As a matter of fact, I never tried speaking from knowledge. I quite plainly spoke in generalities as you can see with all my "maybe" sentences.

I have nothing to prove to you or anyone. I merely asked for some information I could check your post against. I didn't want you saying things without having something to back it up. So the whole saving face thing, you can leave that with the grade school arguements. you simply needed to give me a name, a link, a book title, a science paper, or anything.

there really was no need to slap those *immature* thoughts into your post.

Thanks for showing your age.

As Elisha said, I no longer have anything to say to you.

~in Christ

[Bread_of_Life]

Radiometric dating does not work. PERIOD. It is all a fantasy. There are numerous issues that, in effect, require you to take "radiometric dating" on faith. Therefore, this is just one tenet of faith in the Evolutionary Religion.

I call for a discussion of the evidence and this is what I get? If you have strong opinions, feel free to voice them, but for goodness sakes at least do us the courtesy of backing them up with some sort of substantial fact or argument.

[Lekcit]

Sagz,

While I agree with you that it doesn't matter what you believe about 6 days when it comes to Salvation. No where does Scripture indicate that as a requirement for Salvation. However once we get past that, I think it does matter because it comes down to Biblical authority and whether you believe what God's word says or don't you. God's word clearly states 6 days and clearly, based on the language from the Hebrew, intends for them to be literal days as I have shown already. The other thing is that if we say that we can add man's interpretation to Scripture in Genesis 1 what is to stop people from inserting their own interpretation to the matter of Salvation and whether Jesus was who He said He was. You see, as my college professor once said, "If you have trouble with Genesis 1; you will have trouble with John 3:16."

Also I tihnk that I have already addressed your point from 2 Peter.

In His Grip.

[sagz4Christ]

Sagz,

While I agree with you that it doesn't matter what you believe about 6 days when it comes to Salvation. No where does Scripture indicate that as a requirement for Salvation. However once we get past that, I think it does matter because it comes down to Biblical authority and whether you believe what God's word says or don't you. God's word clearly states 6 days and clearly, based on the language from the Hebrew, intends for them to be literal days as I have shown already. The other thing is that if we say that we can add man's interpretation to Scripture in Genesis 1 what is to stop people from inserting their own interpretation to the matter of Salvation and whether Jesus was who He said He was. You see, as my college professor once said, "If you have trouble with Genesis 1; you will have trouble with John 3:16."

Also I tihnk that I have already addressed your point from 2 Peter.

In His Grip.

brother Lekcit;

I must admit to being baffled at your response to my post earlier. I was quite confused. I think you and I are saying essentially the same thing. My post was directed to the arguement that said it would be inpossible for Adam to name all those animals. the arguement was based on flawed logic and gross assumptions. Yes, the [incorrect] interpretation of Scripture is one of the leading problems with the church today. Yes, we need to test ideas about the meaning of certain passages against other passages to see if they are wanting.

Nowhere did I add anything to the interpretation of the passages in Genesis. I think you know that, and I don't think you were trying to insinuate that I was. You must forgive me, I am confused with the bolded part of my quote of your post. I don't remember you ever *showing* other than just saying it in another post how the language clearly justifies a 24 hour day.

NOT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

With God, ALL things are possible.

Yes, even the creation of the whole known universe.

Anyway, I would like to hear what you have to say about the text/language that supports a 24 hour day.

Until then;

~in Christ -- 4 Christ

[Lekcit]

Sagz,

Yes my friend. That is in essence what I am saying. I never meant to insinuate that you specifically were adding to Scripture, only that it is happening and to our detriment.

Also what are you confused about? I might be able to help but perhaps a PM is in order to do so.

In His Grip.

[MrClickBoy]

ScientificAtheist,

Thank you for posting this information

I graduated with an undergrade in Physics and didn't feel compelled to continue, and found more money in software dev (which is where I have stayed) I disagreed strongly with one comment about the "evidence" you gave as "beginner/intermediate" information. It's not.

I tried to process it on my read through and frankly, I would have to spend a chunk of time, that I do not have, re-analyzing it. However, I do appreciate the time you took to share your evidence with me.

But assuming your point is correct (about the radio active dating), then what? Is there more to your point?

I'm not amazed, but I am amused, that we came to such different conclusions about Physics... for it was not an evangelist, but physics that led me to a belief in a god. Once I was convinced that there was too much order (built upon what appears to be chaos) I began to believe that something put this all together. That there was too much order.

Nebula made a reference to the mathmatics being discovered (rather than invented) which I realized to be very true while I studied. It seemed that mathematics could describe almost *everything* in the *physical* world. Yet it couldn't explain anything else, and it couldn't explain the *why* things existed.

As for evolution, that never panned out... I asked, and asked, but I couldn't find any evidence from my teachers... they always wanted to go back to evolution, even thought there was never any evidence of migration between species. A horse may get bigger, a giraffe might get taller, a sparrow might learn to eat something, but the evidence always pointed back to a horse, giraffe and a sparow.

I pondered the human eye which required "parts" that did different jobs, certain nerves, certain lenses, etc... and the ability for the brain to process protons to information, to thoughts, to emotion... I came to the belief that the *WHAT* could be explained, but the *HOW* and especially the *WHY* couldn't.

I'm not throwing up defenses here... I kind of like your reasonability... and I'm no genious, I'm learning. I not afraid of informaiton that apparently challenges my beliefs... I find it deepens most of them.

Thanks Again,

Clicky

[Elisha]

sagz4Christ,

I'm not sure if you've kept up with my replies, but if you want to see my replies to Lekcit's arguments, just read the last page and the one before it.

Enjoy.

[artsylady]

I have vowed to myself not to get involved with public discussions like this again after what happened with Fovezer.

Hi Sagz:

What happened to him?