6,000 Year Old Earth (part 1)

[Carri20]

I posted this on MySpace and decided to copy it here as well, for feedback...

_____________________________

I used to think it was common knowledge among the Christian community that the earth is only about 6,000 - 10,000 years old, NOT 4.5 billion as evolutionists claim. But a few days ago I was shocked to learn that even my own family, who are Christians, would sooner reject this truth than reject what years of evolutionist propaganda has taught them to believe.

::RANT WARNING::

Before I get into the unreliability of a lot of today's "scientists", let's look at what the Bible says about the age of the earth.

First of all, what is the Bible?

- It is the infallible Word of God, completely inspired by God.
- It is a guide for life.
- It is an accurate record of history.

Let's start at the beginning...

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." - Genesis 1:1-5 KJV

There you have it. "In the beginning.............and the evening and the morning were the first day." Let's make that our starting point for world history.

We continue on...

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." - Genesis 1:6-31

This covers the rest of creation and shows us a few important things -- first of all that man was created within the first week of time, and second that God wants us to have an accurate record of time. He said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years..." This seems to indicate that God wants us to understand something about our world and our history. That's why He made the Bible like a record of history, and why I believe it must be taken at face value when determining the age of the earth.

Some argue that the six days of creation may not be literal days but rather a thousand years, because 2 Peter 3:8 says "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." However in Genesis God clearly states that the light was called day and the darkness was called night, and "the evening and the morning were the first day". These are literal days.

So there we have the beginning. Now how do we figure out how many years have passed since then?

The Bible logs the bloodline of Jesus Christ starting with Adam. By adding the years between births, we can determine that at Christ's birth the earth was around 4,000 years old. At the time of this writing the year is 2006 AD, which when added to the previous 4,000 years would equal about 6,000 years.

Some argue that there may be gaps in the recorded geneology from Adam to Jesus, so there could have been a span of time greater than 4,000 years between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus. However we have already seen that history is important to God -- If it wasn't, then He wouldn't have given us a way to measure time and He wouldn't have had a reason to tell us how He made the earth and everything on it. He would have had no apparent reason to give us the recorded bloodline to begin with if it was false or lacking. Therefore I lean toward the belief that the geneology presented in the Bible is complete and accurate. Even if it isn't, and there are gaps in the bloodline of Christ as we know it, the difference wouldn't be near enough to account for 4.5 billion years. In fact it is unlikely that the gaps would equal as much as 2,000 years, but if it did, that would still give us an earth that is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old.

There you have it. The Bible teaches that the earth is about 6,000 - 10,000 years old.

On the other hand we have science telling us that the age of the earth is up in the billions. Both are not correct. Either the Bible is wrong or science is.

So how does science calculate the age of the earth?

One way is known as carbon dating. The idea is that when a living organism dies, its carbon content decreases as it decays, and we can discover the age of that organism simply by figuring out how much the carbon has decreased. But is carbon dating really accurate?

No. Many scientists fail to take into account several factors that can alter the results of carbon dating.

Here's what www.christiananswers.net has to say:

"The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the "half-life." So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant -- for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s. This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the "clock" is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.

.......

"The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages."

(http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html) See the footnotes on this site.

Carbon dating is just one way scientists try to determine the age of the earth.

This site covers everyting else pretty well: http://creationanswers.net/geology/CRYOUNG3.HTM

My favorite example of carbon dating inaccuracy:

"A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years." - Dort, Wakefield Jr., 'Mummified seals of southern Victoria
Land,' Antarctic Journal (Washington), vol. 6, Sept.-Oct.
1971, p211.

Wow, go figure.

Another quote I like:

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the
absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age
estimates on a given geological stratum by different
radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by
hundreds of millions of years)." - Stansfield, William D., The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1977, pp 82, 84.

If dating methods are so inaccurate, how can scientists claim them as fact?

Bias, for one thing. Scientists who believe in evolution and a billion-year-old earth will throw away any findings that support Creationism and the young earth belief. They'll instead keep the findings that support evolution.

(TO BE CONTINUED)

 

[Carri20]

Now for the big question... If the earth is young, where do dinosaurs fit in?

This has been a fascinating find for me.

First of all you have to understand that science has a lot of gaps to fill in determining what the dinosaurs actually looked like. Bones and fossils are all they have to go by, aside from the flesh samples that were recently found, which may also point to a young earth by the way. So a lot is still unknown about them.

Many Christians, including myself, believe that the dinosaurs appear in scripture. Of course, the word "dinosaur" wasn't introduced to our vocabulary until long after the Bible was written, so you have to go by the description of the creature:

"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 the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares." - Job 40:15-24

What other creature would match this description? With a tail like a cedar tree? It's very likely that this beast "behemoth" was in fact what we might call a "dinosaur".

One possible explanation for the dinosaurs is that they were simply large reptiles and amphibians. Unlike us, they continue to grow bigger until they die. Before the worldwide flood, the lifespan was considerably longer than it is today, and these creatures might have grown to great sizes. (Read on for more about this...)

The website www.godsaidmansaid.com has this to say about the flood and the dinosaurs:

"Genesis Chapter 2, Verses 5-6:

5. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

God watered the earth with a mist. The first record of rain is in the days of Noah when God opened the windows of Heaven. Note that the token of the covenant God gave Noah assuring him that he would not destroy the whole earth again by a flood was a rainbow. A rainbow appears to be something Noah had never seen before. The ancient civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, India, Hawaii, Indonesia, Europe, Asia & Australia testify of a water canopy above the firmament. In the 1850's British archaeologists found about 20,000 clay tablets in the ruins of a library excavated in Ninevah. Among these were 12 tablets with astonishing text. (It's important to remember that these people were not adherents to the Bible.) The 12 ancient tablets known, as the Epic of Gilgamesh, described the destruction of the earth by a flood extremely similar to the Bible's record in Genesis. Other ancient civilizations tell a very similar story. The water canopy was rained down upon the earth.

According to scientists a water canopy of that magnitude would have very powerful benefits. One of these benefits would be a greenhouse effect making the whole world tropical. For example, if you had a greenhouse you would have tropical temperatures inside with frigid temperatures outside. So then the water canopy God describes in Genesis would have as one of its major benefits a balmy tropical temperature encompassing the globe. Every day would have featured a beautiful, rainless, cloudless, postcard sky. However, immediately after God opened the windows of heaven and rained down that water canopy, the greenhouse effect ended and the north and south poles went into an immediate frigid deep freeze. According to an AP science writer, and I quote, 'The frigid Arctic regions were as balmy as present-day Florida some 90 million years ago according to researchers who found fossils in northern Canada of a crocodile-like animal.'

.......

In northern Siberia and Alaska there are an estimated 5,000,000 elephant-like mammoths destroyed by a flood and frozen in ice and permafrost.

.......

Kellog, an expert on ancient civilizations recounts their record which tells of a visible water heaven that was titillating with light. These ancient civilizations claimed this water heaven was home of the gods and that it obstructed the power of the sun god. One day this water heaven was banished and cast down to the earth and the sun came riding through as the conqueror of heaven, the master of the wind and rain. Until the worldwide flood that took place in the days of Noah, approximately 4,350 years ago, there was a water canopy above the firmament and the climate was balmy...every day was a beautiful, cloudless, post card sky.

Another major benefit of this global water canopy was the filtering out of ultraviolet killer rays from the sun as well as other sun related detriments. Ultraviolet radiation is responsible for at lest 60 major diseases such as: cancer, high blood pressure, strokes, Altzheimer's, down's syndrome, mental loss, arteriosclerosis, just to name a few.

Many of God's critics, being ignorant of the benefits of the water canopy, have ridiculed the tremendously long lives of those who lived before Noah's flood, before the end of the water canopy. Methuselah, the oldest man who ever lived, lived until the ancient age of 969 years. The average pre-Noah lifespan was 911 years or 13 times longer than we live today. Imagine living in a perfect tropical atmosphere, perfect air, perfect water, perfect diet and without harmful effects from the sun. The obvious result would be long, long healthy life...13 times longer. The pre-Noah water canopy is central to the explanation of what has perplexed many about the idea of a young 6,000-year-old earth, and how about, what has happened to the dinosaurs?

First, remember that nearly all dinosaurs that have been unearthed have been buried in sandstone, which means they were destroyed by water action--Noah's water action: the collapsing water canopy and the fountains of the deep breaking up. The word dinosaur is a Greek word meaning "terrible lizard." A dinosaur is simply a giant lizard. They were created in the same six days God created all things and they were contemporary to man. The Bible speaks about giant lizard-type creatures in numerous places. The Bible books of Job and Psalms speak of Leviathan, which was a giant seagoing dinosaur-like creature.

.......

God speaks about behemoth in the book of Job Chapter 40, Verses 15-24, which is an excellent description of a dinosaur with a tail like a cedar tree. The word of God speaks about dragons 35 times.

God declares, in the book of Isaiah, that in the earth there were fiery flying serpents. In a book titled, After the Flood, the author goes to considerable length documenting dinosaur sightings in relatively recent history. In England alone there were 216 sites of dinosaur activity. Because of dinosaur activity many places have gained their names such as Dragon's Green, Sharpfight Meadow, Dragonhoard and so on. Many of the accounts are recorded in what today would be similar to a police blotter (daily record). In the book, After the Flood, is found the following record:

The giant reptile at Bures in Suffolk, for example, is known to us from a chronicle of the year 1405:

'Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.'

After an unsuccessful attempt by local archers to kill the beast, due to its impenetrable hide:

'...in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more to be seen.'

And in another excerpt:

The early Britons, from whom the modern Welsh are descended, provide us with our earliest surviving European accounts of reptilian monsters, one of whom killed and devoured king Morvidus (Morydd) in 336 BC. We are told in the account translated for us by Geoffrey of Monmouth, that the monster 'gulped down the body of Morvidus as a big fish swallows a little one.' Geoffrey described the animal as a Belua.

Concerning Isaiah's account of fiery flying serpents, the elderly people of Penllin, England, spoke of them as late as the early 1900's. Marie Trevelyan tells us:

'The woods around Penllin Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike. An aged inhabitant of Pennlyne, who died a few years ago, said that in his boyhood the winged serpents were described as very beautiful. They were coiled when in repose and "looked as if they were covered in jewels of all sorts. Some of them had crests sparkling with all the colours of the rainbow". When disturbed they glided swiftly, 'sparkling all over,' to their hiding places. When angry, they "flew over people's heads, with outspread wings bright, and sometimes with eyes too, like the feathers in a peacock's tail". He said it was "no old story invented to frighten children", but a real fact. His father and uncle had killed some of them, for they were as bad as foxes for poultry. The old man attributed the extinction of the winged serpents to the fact that they were "terrors in the farmyards and coverts".'

To this very day there have been reported sightings of dinosaur-like creatures in Africa and South America. The natives speak of these creatures dwelling in the rain forest under its heavy green canopy, which would give it some protection from the sun's UV rays. The dinosaur is a reptile and it can do something that we can't do...it never stops growing.

In A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians, which is part of the Patterson Field Guide series, and which is sponsored by the National Audobon Society and National Wildlife Federation, I found the following statement:

'Size: Reptiles and amphibians may continue to grow as long as they live, rapidly at first but more slowly after maturity. Hence, giant specimens may be encountered on very rare occasions.'

The older it is the bigger it gets. Note, before the water canopy was eliminated, the average lifespan was 13 times longer than it is today. Remember the air was near perfect, the water was clean and diet near perfect, no harmful rays from the sun and the lifespan was 13 times longer. Consider the present day Chinese Iguana that grows as large as 12 feet long. Suppose before the flood, in a near perfect environment, he lives 13 times longer and because he never stops growing gets 13 times bigger. That Chinese Iguana would be 156 feet long and about three stories tall. Dinosaur...terrible lizard...the dinosaur is simply a giant lizard which was created by God in the same six-day span as man."

One more reason why the dinosaurs could not possibly predate man, even if you believe that the 6 days of creation were not literal days -- After He made the beasts and man He said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat." (Genesis 1:29-30) This means that before the Fall, ALL the creatures of the earth were vegetarian. Yet from what we do know of the dinosaurs, there is evidence that some of them ate meat and were killed by meat-eaters. There is also evidence of disease, another concept that didn't exist before the Fall.

For some this is a hard pill to swallow, because we've been brainwashed to believe in an entirely different history of our world...a "history" that is based on many assumptions, lies, and theories parading as "fact".

CONCLUSION...

The point is, don't believe everything you've been taught. Do the math yourself and remember that God's Word is the only truly reliable source.

The earth is only about 6,000 - 10,000 years old.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I am sorry you did not follow your own advice and do the math for yourself, if you had, you would not be railing against evolution, but against those who have sold you this false doctorine you are spouting.

Please do your own math so you will not be fooled into spouting these "lies for Jesus" that someone seems to have filled your head with.

 

[Melethiel]

Carbon dating is just one way scientists try to determine the age of the earth.

No, it isn't. It has never been used to determine the age of the earth. If your source blatantly lies about this, why should you trust it?

 

[RightWingGirl]

No, it isn't. If your source blatantly lies about this, why should you trust it?

If it isn't "just one way (among many)" Than it must be the only way----which I'm sure you didn't mean to say.

Talk Origins tells of quite a number of dating methods.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If it isn't "just one way (among many)" Than it must be the only way----which I'm sure you didn't mean to say.

Talk Origins tells of quite a number of dating methods.

No, RWG, C14 dating is not used to date the age of the Earth at all, it never has been.

If you are going to protest something at least know what you are protesting.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

C14 dating is a reasonably accessible technique that is not a bad place to start your education to see that the sites like AiG and ICR are just plain wrong.

google C14 and dendrochronology and see how the raw data is being calibrated by tree rings for the changing amount of C14 production in the upper atmosphere.

 

[Smidlee]

First of all, what is the Bible?

- It is the infallible Word of God, completely inspired by God.
- It is a guide for life.
- It is an accurate record of history.

Let's start at the beginning...

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I believe that's fair enough. I will just use the Bible. Did you have an cooncordance? it a very handy tool to have along with the KJV.
The phase "and the earth was without form and void" appears in another passage of scripture. Jeremiah 4:23 " I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light." This verse by itself you would think Jeremiah referring to creation but he's not; If you continue reading you will see he talking about judgment.
For in 28 "For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it."

So Genesis 1:2 could have been a past judgment on Earth before man arrived on the scene. Of course I wouldn't dogmaticly claim there is a huge gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 but also I wouldn't be dogmatic to say there isn't either. So even if you use only scriptures it's possible that the earth (planet Earth that is. Notice in Genesis 1:10 dry land was called earth) is older than 6,000 to 10,000 years. Of course YEC knows about these verses and disagree but there no doubt that Jeremiah is referring to judgment using the same phrases as Genesis 1.

"In the beginning" phrase should be lefted as it is.

 

[notto]

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.

Carbon dating is just one way scientists try to determine the age of the earth.

These two false statements show that you really haven't done a lot of valid research on the subject or even cracked a book written by actual people who use carbon dating at all.

And then you go on to call scientists bias.

Sorry Carri, your claims don't have much creditibility. You might want to look at your own bias before you accuse others of it.

Have you actually read a real honest to goodness science book on the subject? How do you know that they are wrong if you haven't?

You are being fed a line of false information in an effort to decieve you into believing things that simply are not true. The two statements here are evidence of that.

Now, ask yourself, is it really the scientists who are trying to decieve you or the people who have lied to you about science and gave you bad information like what you presented here.

You should take a step back, learn some real science and valid inforamation, and then reassess who you should trust on the matter.

Any objective analysis will show you that it is creationist sources that distort science in an effort to make people like you believe things that simply are not true.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The bible is 100 per cent true and accurate. We just don't understand it yet. Considering that no one has yet discovered the major theme of the bible how can anyone unravel the mystery of creation.

 

[gluadys]

I posted this on MySpace and decided to copy it here as well, for feedback...

_____________________________

I used to think it was common knowledge among the Christian community that the earth is only about 6,000 - 10,000 years old, NOT 4.5 billion as evolutionists claim.

Actually, that claim comes from geology and physics, not evolution.

But is carbon dating really accurate?

Yes, when used properly.

No. Many scientists fail to take into account several factors that can alter the results of carbon dating.

Actually scientists do take these factors into account and can therefore explain many of the apparent anomalies you cite.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.

Carbon dating has been calibrated to 50,000 years.

My favorite example of carbon dating inaccuracy:

"A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years." - Dort, Wakefield Jr., 'Mummified seals of southern Victoria
Land,' Antarctic Journal (Washington), vol. 6, Sept.-Oct.
1971, p211.

Wow, go figure.

An example of two ways of not using carbon dating correctly.

1. Carbon dating cannot work on freshly killed animals because there is insufficient time for c14 decay to be measurable.

2. Carbon dating does not work on seals and other marine mammals because they ingest so much calcium carbonate from the shell-fish they eat.

Any carbon dating of a freshly-killed seal will certainly be inaccurate, so if this was a scientific experiment, the probable point was to find out how inaccurate the date would be.

If dating methods are so inaccurate, how can scientists claim them as fact?

Because they are no where near as inaccurate as you have been told. Your sources have given you some examples of where these dating methods can go wrong. But have they given you any information on how much more often they are right?

Scientists are interested in accurate measures. Why would they be interested in carbon dating or other radioactive dating if they could not rely on them to be accurate most of the time. And most of the time, they are.

Bias, for one thing. Scientists who believe in evolution and a billion-year-old earth will throw away any findings that support Creationism and the young earth belief. They'll instead keep the findings that support evolution.

Incorrect. They don't have to throw away findings that support creationism as they haven't discovered any such findings.

If you know of any, feel free to present them.

 

[gluadys]

What other creature would match this description? With a tail like a cedar tree? It's very likely that this beast "behemoth" was in fact what we might call a "dinosaur".

But it doesn't say behemoth's tail is like a cedar. It says:

He moveth his tail like a cedar​

Many tails of many sizes can be moved like a cedar.

Your translation also says behemoth had a navel. Since dinosaurs hatched from eggs, they had no navel.

According to scientists a water canopy of that magnitude would have very powerful benefits.

One of those powerful benefits would be so much atmospheric pressure and so much heat that all surface water would be vaporized and every living thing crushed to death.

In northern Siberia and Alaska there are an estimated 5,000,000 elephant-like mammoths destroyed by a flood and frozen in ice and permafrost.

In many different places and at many different times separated by thousands of years.

The point is, don't believe everything you've been taught..

Good advice. I hope you take it.

 

[KerrMetric]

Given this -

...... We just don't understand it yet. Considering that no one has yet discovered the major theme of the bible how can anyone unravel the mystery of creation.

How can you state this?

The bible is 100 per cent true and accurate

Don't you think there is a disconnect here? How on earth can you state something is 100% true and accurate when you also claim no one understands it? That is illogic at its finest.

 

[Gus2009]

Don't you think there is a disconnect here? How on earth can you state something is 100% true and accurate when you also claim no one understands it? That is illogic at its finest.

Not really. In the strictest sense, i agree. It could be veiwed as a jump in logic. How can somone state something to be all true, if they themselves dont even know enough about it to be able to see what all it implies? Then and only then can they compare it to what they see as truth and then make the statement "Its 100% true". But this means truth is defined by the individual or society as a whole. In a more strict sense, his statement isnt illogical at all. I believe quantum physics is true, i myself dont understand all of it, neither do quantam physicists. I believe mathematics are true, once again, i dont understand all mathematics, niether do all mathematicians. I believe the Bible is all true but to say i understand all of it(not only pertaining to creation but in matters as to how i should love my enemies or predestination and free will or pretty much anything it adresses) would be the height of arrogance. So while youre argument makes sense from a sort of "philosophical altruism of the individual" prespective. It probably isnt healthy to view life through that lens.

 

[Breetai]

These two false statements show that you really haven't done a lot of valid research on the subject or even cracked a book written by actual people who use carbon dating at all.

And then you go on to call scientists bias.

Sorry Carri, your claims don't have much creditibility. You might want to look at your own bias before you accuse others of it.

Have you actually read a real honest to goodness science book on the subject? How do you know that they are wrong if you haven't?

You are being fed a line of false information in an effort to decieve you into believing things that simply are not true. The two statements here are evidence of that.

Now, ask yourself, is it really the scientists who are trying to decieve you or the people who have lied to you about science and gave you bad information like what you presented here.

You should take a step back, learn some real science and valid inforamation, and then reassess who you should trust on the matter.

Any objective analysis will show you that it is creationist sources that distort science in an effort to make people like you believe things that simply are not true.

I love posts that amount to nothing other than ad hominem attacks against someone who disagrees with their view.

 

[notto]

I love posts that amount to nothing other than ad hominem attacks against someone who disagrees with their view.

Since when has pointing out that an argument is based on a falsehood equivalent to an ad hominem attack?

I don't 'disagree' with the posters view. The posters view is incorrect. Reality disagrees with the posters view.

If you look at the 2 statements I was commenting on, you should realize that they are falsehoods. The use of these falsehoods points to a conclusion that the poster isn't qualified to discount the science they are discussing and in fact i basing their view on false information.

Can you show me why my comments would be considered ad-hominem? I quite clearly discussed the content of the posters claim and pointed out what was wrong with it and then came to the conclusion that the poster did not do their homework. I did not object to the posters content because of who the poster was but rather based on the falsehoods it contained.

 

[Breetai]

I don't 'disagree' with the posters view. The posters view is incorrect. Reality disagrees with the posters view.

Great! I love it!

If you look at the 2 statements I was commenting on, you should realize that they are falsehoods.

You say that, but I didn't see any evidence posted in support of what you claimed. All I saw was "you didn't do this", and "you didn't do that."

I quite clearly discussed the content of the posters claim and pointed out what was wrong with it...

 

[KerrMetric]

Breetai, I take it you don't know what ad hominem means. You should before levelling that criticism against notto.

 

[notto]

Great! I love it!
You say that, but I didn't see any evidence posted in support of what you claimed. All I saw was "you didn't do this", and "you didn't do that."

The errors were so blatant that I didn't think it was really necessary. Still doesn't change the fact that your accusation is incorrect. I was certainly addressing the content of the posters argument and not the poster as a whole.

Do you think that the poster was objective and did objective research before accusing scientists of bias?

 

[Pats]

I used to think it was common knowledge among the Christian community that the earth is only about 6,000 - 10,000 years old, NOT 4.5 billion as evolutionists claim. But a few days ago I was shocked to learn that even my own family, who are Christians, would sooner reject this truth than reject what years of evolutionist propaganda has taught them to believe.

I used to think most all Christians were Young or Old Earth Creationists, myself. This was because although it seemed like I had had a lot of experience within the Christian church, actually my experience had been quite limited to fundamentalists with the Christian religion.

I was also under the misconception that most all Christians were fundamentalists, lol!

Before I get into the unreliability of a lot of today's "scientists", let's look at what the Bible says about the age of the earth.

Why would we use the Bible to "examine" what scientists say, when the Bible is clearly not a science book?

First of all, what is the Bible?

- It is the infallible Word of God, completely inspired by God.
- It is a guide for life.
- It is an accurate record of history.

Although the Bible contains some historically accurate writings, it is also not a history book. Not all of its stories are there to convey an accurate historical record.

Can you explain what you mean by completely inspired by God?

Scholars of the scriptures do not deny tha while the scriptures were divinely inspired, the individual passages definately reflect the human author's sense of style, culture, etc. The passages of scripture we call the Bible were not written in a vaccum.

Let's start at the beginning...

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." - Genesis 1:1-5 KJV

There you have it. "In the beginning.............and the evening and the morning were the first day." Let's make that our starting point for world history.

We continue on...

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." - Genesis 1:6-31

This passage is a poem. If we were to take the Psalms this literally, we would believe in geocentrism, wich we know is false. The truth of the Psalms is contained within their meaning. Same with Gen.1-2:4, it was a poem written to show the ancient Israelites, and us today, that the Isralie God is the one God responsible for all of creation. Twisting it into a scientific passage dimishes its meaning and essance.

Some argue that the six days of creation may not be literal days but rather a thousand years, because 2 Peter 3:8 says "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." However in Genesis God clearly states that the light was called day and the darkness was called night, and "the evening and the morning were the first day". These are literal days.

I don't think you have shown why we should accept these days as literal.

Why would God break every natural law He Himself set into motion?

Why would God reveal to us through His creation that the Earth is not 6,000 years old and did not form over the course of 6 days, and conflict Himself with his written revelation? This is not the God I follow. The God I follow had to follow His own laws to the point of requiring an ultimate sacrifice from His only Son in order to save my soul. If His habbit is go around changing His own laws on a whim, why did Jesus need to suffer?

EDIT: Important rewording on the last question. Oops.