But Helen must be a billion years old.....
Posted on 06/04/2009 8:50:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
101 evidences for a young age of the earth...and the universe
Can science prove the age of the earth?
There are many different categories of evidence that the cosmos and the earth are much younger than is generally asserted today...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Who needs evidence? Creationism is an act of faith.
Ping!
The two are not mutually exclusive. Faith and reason can go hand-in-hand.
I wonder if I’ll get to read “Science is stupid” on this thread like on past, similarly themed threads.
What’s a Billion years here or there between friends.
But Helen must be a billion years old.....
I don’t know that “Science is stupid” but, that list is pretty funny.
Science is science. Evolution is not science, but pretends to be science, and is therefore stupid.
Very little factual data in this article. Most of the references are the result of severe ignorance or just the usual lies.
But at least Dr. Batton likes plants. Don’t see that too much around the creationist zoo.
I can’t help but think of ‘Grand Canyon 2’ whenever I see this sort of piece.
Ever wonder why you can’t mine plutonium anywhere? No shortage of people wanting it but nowhere on earth can so much as an atom of the stuff be found. Every bit we have is manmade. Why is that?
With all due respect - and as a person of faith:
Good grief? What is this creationist stuff doing here?
The “science” is just about as believable as drivel coming from Gore.
Leave God alone. The universe is quite good as it is. God is obviously a mathematician...and far more advanced than these creationists pushers are.
True; not mutually exclusive. But to my question: Who *needs* evidence?
Pure nonsense. The Appalachians, for example, formed in three separate episodes from 470 miilion years ago to 250 million years ago. Most of the Rockies formed about 65 million years ago.
When ever I hear someone saying that something is millions of years old I always wonder how they know that their calculation is correct. To me, that’s an act of faith.
Creationist are like David Letterman. They love putting out top-10 (or 100 in this case) lists that are somewhat amusing.
Yes, and I personally do not see any reason why science and faith cannot be together. I personally have never encountered any conflict whatsoever. The problem is that certain people on both sides (yes, not only the science side can have nut-jobs ...some of the greatest nutjobs are on the faith side) always have to try and one-up the other side. Like little birds fighting over a fleck sheared off grain of rice.
Your reading skills are hopelessly inadequate. Evolution, and Old Earth propaganda have nothing to do with science.
Well, one evolutionist has already posted that evidence is unnecessary, which is more of the theme of that side of the argument.
But anybody who follows the global warming hysteria knows that, while science is not stupid, scientists can and do push stupid ideas pretending they are science.
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.