Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Happy birthday, Earth - Creation occurred 6,010 years
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2006

Posted on 10/24/2006 1:33:25 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan


How old is the world?

Most people would say: "Nobody knows."

But the author of the book frequently described as the greatest history book ever written, said the world was created Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. – making it 6,010 yesterday.

In the 1650s, an Anglican bishop named James Ussher published his "Annals of the World," subtitled, "The Origin of Time, and Continued to the Beginning of the Emperor Vespasian's Reign and the Total Destruction and Abolition of the Temple and Commonwealth of the Jews." First published in Latin, it consisted of more than 1,600 pages.

The book, now published in English for the first time, is a favorite of homeschoolers and those who take ancient history seriously. It's the history of the world from the Garden of Eden to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with Ussher's calculations of time – especially evolutionists who need billions of years to explain their theory of how life sprang from non-life and mutated from one-celled animals into human beings.


Ussher's arrival at the date of Oct. 23 was determined based on the fact that most peoples of antiquity, especially the Jews, started their calendar at harvest time. Ussher concluded there must be good reason for this, so he chose the first Sunday following autumnal equinox.

Although the autumnal equinox is Sept. 21 today, that is only because of historical calendar-juggling to make the years come out right.

If you think this is a startling fact – an actual date for Creation – you haven't seen anything until you've pored through the rest of Ussher's "Annals of the World." It's a classic history book for those who believe in the Bible – and a compelling challenge for those who don't.

The new edition of "Annals" is one of the most significant publishing events of the 21st century.

In this masterful and legendary volume, commissioned by Master Books to be updated from the 17th-century original Latin manuscript to modern English and made available to the general public, is the fascinating history of the ancient world from the Genesis creation through the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.

Find out:

Ussher traveled throughout Europe, gathering much information from the actual historical documents. Many of these documents are no longer available, having been destroyed since the time of his research.

Integrating biblical history (around 15 percent of the text is from the Bible) with secular sources, Ussher wrote this masterpiece. Considered not only a literary classic, but also an accurate reference, "The Annals of the World" was so highly regarded for its preciseness that the timeline from it was included in the margins of many King James Version Bibles throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

"The Annals of the World" is a necessary addition to any church library, pastor's library, or any library – public or personal. The entire text has been updated from 17th-century English to present-day vernacular in a five-year project commissioned by Master Books. Containing many human-interest stories from the original historical documents collected by Ussher, this is more than just a history book – it's a work of history.

Special features:

About the book:



TOPICS: Books/Literature; History; Religion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last
To: Coyoteman

Yes, they do have a goal in mind and they are amassing their evidence...and you say that's not science? LOL...recont the scientific method...give me those 6 steps and then tell me that's not science either...LOLOL


101 posted on 10/24/2006 2:32:04 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: edpc
Is there a Reader's Digest version of post 76?

Yes. It's that if you seriously believe that there's any evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old you are in fact quite seriously mistaken.

102 posted on 10/24/2006 2:33:25 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

The article you just posted was the response that my article successfully rebutted. Your article may have pretty graphs and photographs and even scientific terminology (to a point), but it isn't science. Don't kid yourself.


103 posted on 10/24/2006 2:36:21 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

I posted the rebuttal by Dr. Humphreys to Kevin Henke...given that you googled and came up with Henke's piece. As to having my own arguments...do you have your own arguments? What exactly am I responding to...I thought I was simply trying to show that there is evidence out there to support a creationist theory and it only takes a conditioned prejudice to cause people to automatically reject such a notion and disguise prejudicial language with scientific jargon...it comes down to bombastic laymen. I don't find the argumentation from your side to be that intellectual or noteworthy...there is a guy standing in the store telling me how President Bush is responsible for the rise and fall of gas prices...because he heard...and he heard.


104 posted on 10/24/2006 2:38:35 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
I am not nearly as knowledgeable as Ken Hamm on the subject, so I am not going to try and stand in his place. All I know is that I have heard him debate a number of evolutionists, and well. . . they don't debate him anymore.

A good friend of mine is a microbiology professor, and he believes in the creation account in Genesis. He rarely bothers debating people though. He basically thinks that most so called academics are really not interested in the facts, only their preferred conclusions. I tend to agree with him. But I am a lawyer, and admittedly we tend to see facts that we need to support our conclusions. Anyway, God bless.

105 posted on 10/24/2006 2:38:56 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
So a minor 17th century Irish cleric

Wrong.

106 posted on 10/24/2006 2:39:21 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Recent research has shown that diamonds may not take millions of years to form. They are
believed to form rapidly, rising from a depth of 150-250 Km, taking just 8-25 hrs to form. Geoscience
Canada, Vol 18, No. 1, 1991 p:1-16

A metal hammer, with its fossilized wooden handle, has been found in sandstone at Paluxy River
(Texas, USA). The sandstone has been dated as being 400 million years old. This is 399 million years
before the first human is supposed to have evolved. Also found inside rock has been a pair of pliers, a
bolt, and a set of car keys. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1984 p:16; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992 p:20; Creation Ex
Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1995 p:45 [photographs included]


107 posted on 10/24/2006 2:41:01 PM PDT by be4everfree (Liberals are "Thick as a Brick" ......JT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

Clearly we need to take this to the parking lot!


108 posted on 10/24/2006 2:42:14 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Main Entry: tau·tol·o·gous
Pronunciation: to-'tä-l&-g&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek tautologos, from taut- + legein to say -- more at LEGEND
1 : involving or containing rhetorical tautology : REDUNDANT
2 : true by virtue of its logical form alone
- tau·tol·o·gous·ly adverb

Tautological statements, such as, "it isn't science," are as ridiculous the fact that I offered a rebuttal to your rebuttal and yet you only recognize the rebuttal you posited...even though you didn't read it or my latter rebuttal to your rebuttal...but you still have this authority that evidence of a young earth isn't science...this is a worthless discussion because you don't need evidence and you are perfectly willing to exclude anything that doesn't conform to widely held beliefs...you lack the slightest skepticism of your own notions of the topic and you are wholly closed to anything outside such notions...therefore you will not be reconciled...good bye.
109 posted on 10/24/2006 2:45:48 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

P.S. - Tautology isn't science!


110 posted on 10/24/2006 2:47:13 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
I posted the rebuttal by Dr. Humphreys to Kevin Henke.

And I posted Henke's counter-rebuttal. Did you even read what I posted before you ran away to Google?

What exactly am I responding to...I thought I was simply trying to show that there is evidence out there to support a creationist theory and it only takes a conditioned prejudice to cause people to automatically reject such a notion and disguise prejudicial language with scientific jargon.

You haven't posted an example of evidence supporting creationism. The Helium stuff is demonstrable pseudo-science masquerading as science designed to impress laymen with big words. But even IF it were true (which it obviously isn't) it would just suggest a different age to the earth. It would NOT be positive evidence in support of creationism.

111 posted on 10/24/2006 2:53:37 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

"You are assuming there is a gap in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2"

If you assume God would make the earth "without form, and void". I don't believe God screws up when He makes or creates anything. Then you have the problem with Lucifer having a war with God and then him being cast down out of heaven to the earth. Too many problems with no gap.


112 posted on 10/24/2006 2:56:14 PM PDT by jwh_Denver (I hate election ads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I think Europe's first totalitatian regime was Calvin's Geneva.


113 posted on 10/24/2006 2:57:49 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Yes, they do have a goal in mind and they are amassing their evidence...and you say that's not science? LOL...recont the scientific method...give me those 6 steps and then tell me that's not science either...LOLOL

The "scientific" approach of most creationists is along the lines of the Creation Research Society (see below). That appears to be what the RATE group is doing as well.

This does not follow the scientific method.


The Creation Research Society has the following on their home page:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

Lets see what else they say.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research?

Anytime preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing apologetics, not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as this, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science.

114 posted on 10/24/2006 3:01:15 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Borges

I suppose a nihilist would think so..


115 posted on 10/24/2006 3:02:09 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Excuse me, excuse me, can you please recount the scientific method...list six steps...starting with the first, and then tell me that isn't science.


116 posted on 10/24/2006 3:03:09 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Excuse me, excuse me, can you please recount the scientific method...list six steps...starting with the first, and then tell me that isn't science.

Read the requirements for the CRS I listed in post #114. That is not science as it does not follow the scientific method.

You cannot start with a goal of, for example, supporting young earth and global flood and filter all data through that filter and call it science. That is what creationists are doing, and in fact must do, because otherwise there is no way the data supports their position.

Don't bother asking me about those six steps. If you can't see where the CRS and general creationist positions violate the scientific method you wouldn't understand the rest of the details either.

(Any questions on radiocarbon dating? That's something I do a lot of.)

117 posted on 10/24/2006 3:17:33 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Clump
I recently read an article about how trees are believed to become petrified in a much shorter time span than previously believed. In fact, scientist have done it in the lab in a couple of days. In the Columbia gorge there are a large number of petrified trees believed to have been from trees buried in a massive land slide 600-800 years ago. But I am sure fossilization must take millions of years. Why we have so many eye witnesses.
118 posted on 10/24/2006 3:17:44 PM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Clump
All I know is that I have heard him debate a number of evolutionists, and well. . . they don't debate him anymore.

Here's why...

Long story short: creationists are whores for publicity; it gives them prestige to further dupe their marks. (These would include the customers to Hamm's little "The-Flintstones-Is-A-Documentary" museum.)

The scientists get nothing out of it but the flim-flam men, like Hamm, get notoriety. They use that notoriety to scam little old ladies out of their pension checks and to push to get school boards to spread their filthy creationist/ID lies to children.

119 posted on 10/24/2006 3:22:41 PM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

We have pretty good empherical evidence for the speed of light. If that speed holds true, then all of the observable universe must be within 4000-6000 light years from Earth, since some star maps date back at least a couple thousand years. So all those galaxies and stars are crammed into a pretty small space then, wouldn't you say? How does our Milky Way, estimated at 100,000 light years across, fit into the 12,000 light year wide universe, let alone the other 100 billion or so galaxies? 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars is like 10 to the 22nd power, and a 12,000 light year diameter universe has about 2.3 x 10 to the 18th power cubic km, so there should be a star every .00023 cubic km. I thought stars were a bit bigger than that. Of course, look at the sun, it doesn't look very big, only a couple centimeters wide, so I guess the earth really is only 6000 years old.


120 posted on 10/24/2006 3:22:58 PM PDT by JTHomes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: nuke rocketeer

"How about the speed of light and the distances to all stars, galaxies, etc that are over 6010light years from Earth?"

God is pretty big uh?


121 posted on 10/24/2006 3:25:00 PM PDT by jwh_Denver (I hate election ads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: JTHomes

You're trying to tell me that creationism -- especially of the young earth variety -- isn't believable? I mean the evidence is so beyond overwhelming there isn't really much we can do except laugh at these people. For goodness sakes, we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation of the world.


122 posted on 10/24/2006 3:27:09 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
For goodness sakes, we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation of the world.

Trees lie.

123 posted on 10/24/2006 3:30:39 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Tautological statements, such as, "it isn't science," are as ridiculous the fact that I offered a rebuttal to your rebuttal and yet you only recognize the rebuttal you posited...

You need to learn to read. The article I posted was a rebuttal to your rebuttal. Let me guess... you didn't read either piece.

124 posted on 10/24/2006 3:30:46 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

This thread should be in the Religion Forum.


125 posted on 10/24/2006 3:32:28 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree

So where exactly is this metal hammer? This plier? These keys?


126 posted on 10/24/2006 3:32:53 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Trees lie.

I don't know about that, but they have a blatant arboreal bias, the bastards.

127 posted on 10/24/2006 3:34:18 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Science Ping


128 posted on 10/24/2006 3:37:27 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuke rocketeer; Conservative Coulter Fan

It's only that old if you copletely(sic) ignore proven physics
and use an old scientifically illiterate churchman
as the authority for the age of the planet.

38 posted on 10/24/2006 2:57:52 PM MDT by nuke rocketeer

Or you could read the writings of a Nuclear Physicist.

Dr Gerald Schroeder Ph.D.

b'shem Y'shua
129 posted on 10/24/2006 3:41:39 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

I guess I don't know why some people can't take the positive teachings from the bible or church teachings for what they are without accepting all the the history verbatim. Especially in the face of other evidence. I am willing to change my opinion of something given new evidence, but there can be no new evidence for a true believer I guess. I reason that man has reason for a reason.


130 posted on 10/24/2006 3:42:17 PM PDT by JTHomes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
So where exactly is this metal hammer? This plier? These keys?

Here are some details on the hammer.

Its another example of creation "science" in action. (Very creative, but no science.)

131 posted on 10/24/2006 3:47:02 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

We can document the first Egyptians in the Nile River Valley at 3500 B.C. This is when Adam of Adam and Eve fame was merely middle aged, since he reportedly lived to be 930 years old.

And strangely enough, they had already completed the great pyramids of Giza before the 6010 year timeline allows for Noah's Flood. Somehow they managed to survive and flourish during the Flood and continue their amazing civilization.

I'm guessing there is no explanation for this in this book.


132 posted on 10/24/2006 3:48:23 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
the world was created Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. – making it 6,010 yesterday.

This is a joke, right? There are paleontological specimens that are carbon dated to be millions of years old!
133 posted on 10/24/2006 3:53:26 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G8 Diplomat
the world was created Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. – making it 6,010 yesterday.

This is a joke, right? There are paleontological specimens that are carbon dated to be millions of years old!

The radiocarbon method tops out at about 50,000 years.

You need other radiometric methods for older specimens such as paleontological specimens.

134 posted on 10/24/2006 3:58:23 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

We can document the first Egyptians in the Nile River Valley at 3500 B.C. This is when Adam of Adam and Eve fame was merely middle aged, since he reportedly lived to be 930 years old.

And strangely enough, they had already completed the great pyramids of Giza before the 6010 year timeline allows for Noah's Flood. Somehow they managed to survive and flourish during the Flood and continue their amazing civilization.

I'm guessing there is no explanation for this in this book.

You must be interpreting the evidence incorrectly. At least that's what I've heard. But whenever I ask for this systematic, comprehensive, coherent, rigorous, extensive, and well documented alternative interpretation of the evidence, all I ever get are links to AiG and ICR where they're trying to sell books and DVDs in which all of this must be explained.

You would think that if these people have a valid alternative interpretation of all of the scientific evidence that would overturn a couple of hundred years of accumulated and converging scientific research, analysis, and theories in physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, biology, genetics, etc., they would have a better marketing strategy on how to make money off of it.

135 posted on 10/24/2006 4:05:27 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

I think they're making plenty of money off of it. There's a ready audience out there willing to shell out money for anything which seems to confirm their belief.

They know their arguments aren't going to convince serious scientists. But winning the argument isn't even a part of the marketing strategy. It doesn't need to be.


136 posted on 10/24/2006 4:13:51 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

I think they're making plenty of money off of it. There's a ready audience out there willing to shell out money for anything which seems to confirm their belief.

They know their arguments aren't going to convince serious scientists. But winning the argument isn't even a part of the marketing strategy. It doesn't need to be.

When you are marketing fraudulent nonsense, you've got to really direct and target your efforts on those dupes and fools most likely to buy into it. So I guess their marketing strategy is as good as it can be, given what they are selling.

137 posted on 10/24/2006 4:36:42 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Nice touch.


138 posted on 10/24/2006 4:42:11 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Dhimmicrati delenda est! https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan; wideawake

Don't sugarcoat it! Anyway from what I've read about Calvin's Geneva it sure sounds dictatorial. Not to smear all the good Calvinists today and since then but Calvin the man left a lot to be desired. Ever heard of Michael Servetus?


139 posted on 10/24/2006 4:42:55 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; Coyoteman
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

The article at the link above goes to great lengths to refute the age of the "hammer", which is not the point.

The point is the age of the "rock".

140 posted on 10/24/2006 4:45:39 PM PDT by be4everfree (Liberals are "Thick as a Brick" ......JT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree
The article at the link above goes to great lengths to refute the age of the "hammer", which is not the point.

The point is the age of the "rock".

And your conclusion is?

141 posted on 10/24/2006 4:48:00 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
And your conclusion is?

There seems to be some pretty big discrepancies in carbon dating as well as what the geologic record contains.
I have not come to a conclusion yet.

142 posted on 10/24/2006 4:54:00 PM PDT by be4everfree (Liberals are "Thick as a Brick" ......JT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree

There seems to be some pretty big discrepancies in carbon dating as well as what the geologic record contains. I have not come to a conclusion yet.

Yes you have. Your conclusion is..."There seems to be some pretty big discrepancies in carbon dating as well as what the geologic record contains", and all you think that implies, but don't have the courage to state outright. Some people here do recognize connotative statements and what they mean.

143 posted on 10/24/2006 5:00:26 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree
And your conclusion is?

There seems to be some pretty big discrepancies in carbon dating as well as what the geologic record contains.

I have not come to a conclusion yet.

Actually, carbon dating is not used to date stone. It could be used to date the handle, but I don't think anyone really disputes the recent age of the hammer.

About the rock deposits, I found these sentences in the article:

Other relatively recent implements have been found encased in by similar nodules, and can form within centuries or even decades under proper conditions (Stromberg, 2004). The hammer in question was probably dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved limy sediment hardened into a nodule around it.

Does not seem to be a very good issue with which to be supporting the young earth idea.
144 posted on 10/24/2006 5:02:18 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Wow, you have got me all figured out.

The fact of the matter is that I have not come to a conclusion and maybe that's the type of courage that's lacking on both sides of this debate.


145 posted on 10/24/2006 5:06:11 PM PDT by be4everfree (Liberals are "Thick as a Brick" ......JT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I think you've missed the point here.

It's my understanding that geologist use the surrounding strata to help date their fossil finds.

146 posted on 10/24/2006 5:11:18 PM PDT by be4everfree (Liberals are "Thick as a Brick" ......JT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree
It's my understanding that geologist use the surrounding strata to help date their fossil finds.

I think the point of the article is that that type of stone can form in a short time, and that it is not of the same age as the surrounding strata.

Limestone and other soft stones are easily eroded and redeposited.

I see no way that this shows the earth is about 6000 years old.

The tree ring sequence for the bristlecone pines of southeastern California is continuous past 12,000 years.

147 posted on 10/24/2006 5:19:16 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree; Coyoteman

The fact of the matter is that I have not come to a conclusion and maybe that's the type of courage that's lacking on both sides of this debate.

There's no debate in the scientific community. There hasn't been for a long, long time. That you think there is a debate when all of the science that eliminated any debate about a 6000 year old earth/universe has been available for all to see, read, and study for many, many decades says....what? That you choose to post your doubts here on FR instead of doing your own investigation using the almost limitless sources available to you on-line says what?

If you are looking to what is posted on FR to answerer all of your claimed doubts and skepticism, you are looking in the wrong place. The few scientists left here who either haven't been banned or left in disgust, like Coyoteman, will try to help you, but it is up to you to avail yourself of the great wealth of information at your fingertips that no other past generation could have even dreamed of.

148 posted on 10/24/2006 5:23:45 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Hammer of Thor Placemarker


149 posted on 10/24/2006 5:29:57 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
15 billion or six days?

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small
billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about
the last few years- in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time"
from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics
text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today
is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says
"I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds.
Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days?
If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days?
No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from
the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in
years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the
universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim.
I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it
step-by-step. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the
expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small
, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer.
This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power.
That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy:
10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of
the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years.
The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days
. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world,
and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint.
They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

from The Age of the Universe
b'shem Y'shua

150 posted on 10/24/2006 5:52:25 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson