Hi Ted. If you are dating the rock based on two dozen different ways we have, you are definitely not lying.
We have about three dozen different way of dating the earth and they all conclude it is billions of years old. Are you saying that ALL of these ways are unreliable? Are you serious?????But, if the information I am giving is wrong because the testing methods are not as reliable as I believe them to be, then neither am I telling the truth.
We have about three dozen different way of dating the earth and they all conclude it is billions of years old. Are you saying that ALL of these ways are unreliable? Are you serious?????
Including the fact that modern man has been around twice that long.Added to this: We have many more means for dating it to more than 100,000 years.
We have about three dozen different way of dating the earth and they all conclude it is billions of years old. Are you saying that ALL of these ways are unreliable? Are you serious?????
Including the fact that modern man has been around twice that long.
It isn't just radiometric dating, nor is just the amount of time it takes for diamonds to form. Follow this link and check out the 36 different ways that we know the Earth isn't young.When we date things upon the earth we generally find some atomic formation and by knowing how long it takes for the atomic formation to break down, we then measure what is in the sample and extrapolate that back to a date. We look at diamonds and oil and opals and understand that they are formed by great pressures and long ages. However, in reasonably natural mimicking experiments, we can make all those things in a much, much shorter period of time.
My assumption is that everyone will find the suggestion that God is a liar outrageous. And so the suggestion that the earth is 6000 years old IS just that outrageous.I pray this is not a serious question... God is not, nor could He ever be a liar, the Bible clearly states that.
It isn't just radiometric dating, nor is just the amount of time it takes for diamonds to form. Follow this link and check out the 36 different ways that we know the Earth isn't young.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
I didn't call him a liar. I asked a rhetorical question. You do understand what a rhetorical question is, I'm sure?You do realize calling Him a liar is blasphemous?
I pray this is not a serious question... God is not, nor could He ever be a liar, the Bible clearly states that.
As for evidences of an old earth, that's bogus, please YouTube Kent Hovind. If there is any evidence at all, it would point to a young earth.
I'm afraid Kent Hovind is so dishonest that even other creationist organizations will have nothing to do with him. He basically makes up his facts, wholesale. You will never see him cited on a creationist organization website.
I doubt it, don't let him being in prison because of the governments lies make you question the truth.
I disagree 100% since suggesting God is a liar is against the Bible which I believe is the "word of God" while believing a young earth is not.My assumption is that everyone will find the suggestion that God is a liar outrageous. And so the suggestion that the earth is 6000 years old IS just that outrageous.
I didn't suggest God was a liar. I asked a rhetorical question the answer to which was NO. Sheesh. What I was saying is that saying that the earth is 6000 years old calls God a liar, which is outrageous. Why is this so hard for some people to get?I disagree 100% since suggesting God is a liar is against the Bible which I believe is the "word of God" while believing a young earth is not.
I understood what you are saying. You seem to be suggesting the voice of "the scientist" are the voice of God. I strongly disagree with that assumption. The universe could be 6000 years old without touching the character of God.I didn't suggest God was a liar. I asked a rhetorical question the answer to which was NO. Sheesh. What I was saying is that saying that the earth is 6000 years old calls God a liar, which is outrageous. Why is this so hard for some people to get?
It is the voice of the Earth that is the voice of God. The scientist merely has a good set of ears.I understood what you are saying. You seem to be suggesting the voice of the scientist are the voice of God. I strongly disagree with that assumption. The universe could be 6000 years old without touching the character of God.
I would totally disagree the voice of the Earth is the Voice of God as well. No where does the Bible claimed the Voice of the Earth is God's voice. Time and time again in scriptures God prove He was greater than any force of nature.It is the voice of the Earth that is the voice of God. The scientist merely has a good set of ears.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?