Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: trumandogz

==Less than 10,000 years old or millions or billions of years old?

I believe the rocks are less than 10,000 years old. And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.


27 posted on 08/18/2008 10:37:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: GodGunsGuts

Do you believe that man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time?


29 posted on 08/18/2008 10:46:31 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts

Oh, there “are no scientists” on the other side of the debate.

The evo/atheist/billions of years crowd defines them as “not scientists”, avoiding, therefore, any need to address the debate.

In dating rocks, what ASSUMPTIONS are made, fellas?
Are those assumptions valid? Do you know the starting conditions, absolutely?


34 posted on 08/18/2008 10:54:59 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.

The issue has been debated and settled.

(Your side lost. You guys are worse than Al Gore! "Just one more recount, pretty please!")

36 posted on 08/18/2008 10:58:36 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
I believe the rocks are less than 10,000 years old. And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.

Is there any evidence they haven't been allowed to present?

40 posted on 08/18/2008 11:04:23 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
I believe the rocks are less than 10,000 years old. And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth.

"I'm not a scientist, but I play one at Churchy Creation Seminars"

212 posted on 08/18/2008 5:33:11 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (optional, printed after your name on post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
I believe the rocks are less than 10,000 years old. And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.
lol... what about that dastardly speed of light?
276 posted on 08/18/2008 9:06:42 PM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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