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

Skip to comments.

Science and a Young Earth - Evolution Vs Creationism Christian Perspective on Science
Best Syndication ^ | July 31, 2006 | Babu Ranganathan

Posted on 07/31/2006 8:33:32 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "no".

Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the Earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.

For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the Earth's atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.

Complicated as the subject of the Earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the Earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age.

Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the Earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary Rock). Therefore, most of of the billions of fossils in the earth were formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure.

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust. This is only one view.

Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth. Obviously, if it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth it would not have taken very long. But, if the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in various layers all over the Earth.

There are many problems, however, with the local flood theory as the cause behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks, now and then, over millions of years was capable of performing such a feat!

The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the Earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the Earth's past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth.

Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.

The fossils in the Earth are found to exist in various layers of the Earth's crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the Earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

Furthermoree, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!

Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.

Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.

Highly respected sientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the Earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

According to evolutionists, the Moon is nearly as old as the Earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the Moon's surface over billions of years, there should have been many feet of lunar dust on the Moon. But, when we landed on the Moon we discovered only a thin layer of dust. The Moon has no atmosphere to burn up such meteors as the earth does so such collection of dust was a major concern for scientists before the astronuts landed there.

There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article. Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his site www.creationscience.com. Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research at www.icr.org.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. He has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author has a website at: www.religionscience.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: afoolandhismoney; bewarefrevolutionist; buymybooks; commonscold; creation; creationism; creationist; creationists; crevo; crevodebates; crevolist; enoughalready; evolution; evolutionist; foolishness; frevolutionist; geology; id; idiocy; idiot; intelligentdesign; mythology; pavlovian; pigignorant; scam; science; sendmemoney; spam; trash; videosforsale; wasteoftime; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-343 next last
To: Coyoteman

Well, you could at least tell me if some of what I wrote has some legitimacy. Seriously, science is not perfect nor many times accurate. We are constantly discovering new things as well as mistakes we have made previously due to advances in science. I am not saying that some day there might be a way to more accurately test for dates. But for now, it is neither accurate nor completely valid.


141 posted on 08/01/2006 6:30:07 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
thank you for plucking those two words out of the context of several that included the words "relevant and conclusive".

OK, please provide "relevant and conclusive" data that refute the Theory of Evolution. There is a ton of data that support it.

ou people really need to brush up on your rhetoric so I don't have to send these rebutals that make you look as stupid as you are ignorant.

I see you walk in Jesus' footsteps. Thank you for another example of Creationist insults and hatred. I'll toss it on the huge stack I already have.

142 posted on 08/01/2006 6:31:18 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
What was false? He submitted a rock to the lab and it came back with an old date.

He did nothing of the kind. Read the article again.

He took a Science article written in 1963 and pulled a factoid out of it.

143 posted on 08/01/2006 6:32:09 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Jesus? Why would I do that? I'm agnostic. Also, in none of my posts did I refute the Theory of Evolution. Because it is just that, a theory. The evidence and facts that support it are quite valid and relevant and absolutely ensure that it should be taught and studied. What I don't like, is for our school systems to be so narrow and close minded when it comes to competing theories. There should be a balance to the evidence that supports both theories. Of course, both sides are so far apart on the issue, that coming together and acutally finding common ground seems futile. It is rather amusing from my point of view. Because I subscribe to neither theory, I keep an open mind on the subject. Just thought it would be nice to teach our young people how to do that.


144 posted on 08/01/2006 6:38:48 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Paragraphs are our friends.

This is exactly the attitude that I have been discussing. Because you've been doing this for thirty years, it is your undeniable opinion that it is accurate and valid. And I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I do disagree with is your attitude that it is so infallible.

You seem to confuse (in)fallibility with approach. As data are introduced into the process they are evaluated for their probative value (either in support of or directing away from existing trends).

It is faulty, has been shown to be faulty on many occasions, yet your going to tell me that it is my ignorance that proves that you are right and I am wrong.

Exactly WHAT is faulty? The process? The conclusions? The method for arriving at conclusions?

Please, I may be ignorant, but I am certainly not stupid.

An external observer can't tell the difference. To pontificate on a subject with which you have a passing interest (as opposed to people who DO THIS FOR A LIVING) is the height of arrogance.

I have done some reading on the subject. I haven't written a thesis or done any doctoral work, but I have done enough of my own reading to believe that dating systems used today are not effective at all for ages past 50k or 60k.

So you have read propaganda from Creationists. Your reading is flat-out wrong. There are hundreds of ways that intersect to determine aging, not just one. If something is dated at 10 Million years old and is "actually" 9.5 million years old, we are still in the same ballpark.

And because of this, I am not going to just believe that the earth is billions of years old. I won't necessarily disbelieve it either. I am not going to tell people that I have any idea how old the earth is, because I don't know.

If you are presented with an mountain of evidence and conclusions that pretty much determine the age, then you are just being willfully ignorant.

And to be quite honest, neither do you. Nor does any present or past scientist for that matter. Sciences such as paleontology, anthropology, climatology, and others that study events in the distant path are speculative on the issue of dates. They are not just not exact, there are so many disparaging opinions on many things that it makes the whole issue almost irrelevant, IMO. You may be preoccupied with when things happened, because that is what you were taught was important. I tend to disagree with you on that point. What is more important is that something happened, what happened? Heck, it's interesting to me to know just the specifics of the event outside of time line. Knowing when things came and went on a the planet is another rather irrelevant issue, IMO. So the Native Americans came from Asia ten thousand years ago, according to some of you. But other evidence suggests they were here, in South America over 30,000 years ago. So, to complete my thought here. The sciences we are discussing, that make assumptions as to the origins of our planet, and the life on it, IMO take too much time trying to prove the irrelevant and not enough trying to tie the pieces together to better understand the central issue. Where did we come from, how did we get here, and hopefully we will eventually understand where we are going. I know that sounds simplistic, but hey, call me a simpleton.

You are a simpleton. A dabbler in areas which you have no knowledge and, based on your post, have no desire to learn.

You are entitled to your opinion, ignorant as it may be. But you are NOT entitled to speak to a subject which you have no knowledge of (much less the constellation of subjects you list).

And by disseminating this information to children, you creep into the "dangerous" column.

Bottom line: Run along and leave the hard sciences to the adults in the crowd. "Just 'cause I think so" (the distillation of your rant) doesn't really have much weight.

145 posted on 08/01/2006 6:46:47 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Jesus? Why would I do that? I'm agnostic. Also, in none of my posts did I refute the Theory of Evolution.

You throw insults like a Creationist. I guess I shouldn't have assumed you were one.

Because it is just that, a theory. The evidence and facts that support it are quite valid and relevant and absolutely ensure that it should be taught and studied.

If you don't know what a scientific theory is you cannot be involved in these discussions. Go learn what a scientific theory is and come back. All of these threads have links that will teach you. But you are not qualified to weigh in on subjects in which you are totally ignorant.

What I don't like, is for our school systems to be so narrow and close minded when it comes to competing theories.

Please name a competing scientific theory for TToE.

There should be a balance to the evidence that supports both theories.

"Both?" What is the other scientific theory?

146 posted on 08/01/2006 6:51:25 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Well, you could at least tell me if some of what I wrote has some legitimacy. Seriously, science is not perfect nor many times accurate. We are constantly discovering new things as well as mistakes we have made previously due to advances in science. I am not saying that some day there might be a way to more accurately test for dates. But for now, it is neither accurate nor completely valid.

OK, short form:

This is exactly the attitude that I have been discussing. Because you've been doing this for thirty years, it is your undeniable opinion that it is accurate and valid.

Not just me; tens of thousands of archaeologists around the world, supported by tens of thousands more in the physical sciences who help formulate the dating methods we use.

And I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I do disagree with is your attitude that it is so infallible.

No attitude that it is infallible. Just that, based on current evidence, the various dating methods work pretty well. And, they are improving all the time, so errors get straightened out.

It is faulty, has been shown to be faulty on many occasions, yet your going to tell me that it is my ignorance that proves that you are right and I am wrong. Please, I may be ignorant, but I am certainly not stupid. I have done some reading on the subject.

Dating methods are internally consistent. There are many of them in use, depending on the time depth. Individual dates can be in error, but when three or four different methods agree...

I haven't written a thesis or done any doctoral work, but I have done enough of my own reading to believe that dating systems used today are not effective at all for ages past 50k or 60k. And because of this, I am not going to just believe that the earth is billions of years old. I won't necessarily disbelieve it either.

There are thousands folks who have studied this subject for a long time, from the physical and chemical sciences to geology and paleontology. They all agree things are older than 50,000-60,000 years. Your belief or disbelief is not critical unless you have scientific data to back it up.

I am not going to tell people that I have any idea how old the earth is, because I don't know. And to be quite honest, neither do you. Nor does any present or past scientist for that matter.

Not true. The folks who study the age of the earth have a pretty good idea of how old it is.

Sciences such as paleontology, anthropology, climatology, and others that study events in the distant path are speculative on the issue of dates. They are not just not exact, there are so many disparaging opinions on many things that it makes the whole issue almost irrelevant, IMO.

Not true. When things happened is critical to these studies. If everything happened at once, it would be too confusing. That is what time is for, to spread things out. Dating methods are pretty good at figuring out these details.

You may be preoccupied with when things happened, because that is what you were taught was important. I tend to disagree with you on that point. What is more important is that something happened, what happened?

Not for an archaeologist! One of the first steps of historiography is to arrange data in chronological order. Lots of sciences do this, not just archaeology.

Heck, it's interesting to me to know just the specifics of the event outside of time line. Knowing when things came and went on a the planet is another rather irrelevant issue, IMO.

Archaeologists do not agree.

So the Native Americans came from Asia ten thousand years ago, according to some of you. But other evidence suggests they were here, in South America over 30,000 years ago.

Different migrations it looks like. The Bering migration was not the first. There is now good evidence for an early coastal migration along the west coast. Not sure about the 30,000 year date, but folks are working on those details.

So, to complete my thought here. The sciences we are discussing, that make assumptions as to the origins of our planet, and the life on it, IMO take too much time trying to prove the irrelevant and not enough trying to tie the pieces together to better understand the central issue. Where did we come from, how did we get here, and hopefully we will eventually understand where we are going. I know that sounds simplistic, but hey, call me a simpleton.

For the "here did we come from, how did we get here, and where we are going" try a philosopher or the Ouija board or something. I don't deal with that metaphysical nonsense.

Q. How many metaphysisists does it take to dig an archaeological unit?

A. Nobody knows. None of them have never tried!

I do dirt and rocks and bones and shells, mostly the last 10,000 years. And I do it pretty well. If you have data, present it.

You may not believe the scientists who study the age of the earth, but unless you come up with something more than "a few mistakes have been made in the past" and "your methods are not perfect" I don't much care.

Sorry for the abruptness, but I really am short on time.

147 posted on 08/01/2006 6:51:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

See my 145 when you get a minute.


148 posted on 08/01/2006 6:52:27 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
See my 145 when you get a minute.

Different approach, same bottom line.

Night all!

149 posted on 08/01/2006 6:55:46 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I think I've had something like this posted by you in the past freedumb, and I ignored it then because it is generally just attacking me for not believing in what you are so educated in. I have every right to speak on any subject I choose. Regardless of my ignorance or knowledge of it. To belittle me and call me childish because I point out the arrogance of many scientists is equally arrogant and childish. If I offended you because I made this statement, so be it. I really couldn't care less about your feelings. I will stick to my opinion on the lack of objectivity in most of science today because I observe it constantly. When I am told by someone like you that there is a mountain of evidence to prove something, and the evidence is acutally more cursory than conclusive I have to wonder at your actual motives. What you see as conclusive evidence has been and will continue to be seen by others as disputable. Not just creationists, which I am not, but those who use objectivity and are seeking the truth and not their version of it.


150 posted on 08/01/2006 6:57:11 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

'Night!


151 posted on 08/01/2006 6:57:25 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
I think I've had something like this posted by you in the past freedumb, and I ignored it then because it is generally just attacking me for not believing in what you are so educated in.

That is the most beautifully succinct definition of willful ignorance I have ever read. Thank you.

I have every right to speak on any subject I choose. Regardless of my ignorance or knowledge of it.

You certainly MAY, but it makes you look foolish. If we were discussing Math and you didn't know what i stood for or how to solve a quadratic equation or the difference between differential and integral calculus, you could CERTAINLY chime in and say something like "but I don't think there is any such thing as non-Eucledian Geometry." But you wouldn't be qualified to make such a statement.

To belittle me and call me childish because I point out the arrogance of many scientists is equally arrogant and childish.

I recommend that you learn the fundamentals -- just the basics -- of the subject at hand. I call you childish because your opinion is that of an uninformed child. Adults speak on subjects they understand. If they don't have the requisite knowledge they get it. Only a child pipes in from a position of complete ignorance.

If I offended you because I made this statement, so be it. I really couldn't care less about your feelings. I will stick to my opinion on the lack of objectivity in most of science today because I observe it constantly.

Observe what?

When I am told by someone like you that there is a mountain of evidence to prove something, and the evidence is acutally more cursory than conclusive I have to wonder at your actual motives. What you see as conclusive evidence has been and will continue to be seen by others as disputable.

Coyoteman has, in his patient kindness, given you the information about how these things interrelate. You have yet to present a single credible scientific dispute of the age of the earth, TToE, or any of your other bald assertions.

Not just creationists, which I am not, but those who use objectivity and are seeking the truth and not their version of it.

You are being a contrarian on purpose. Given evidence and scientific conclusions you act like a 13-yo and say "nya nya nya" and the knock over a chair.

You have been asked for specific scientific refutation of the aging process, TToE or any of your assertions.

Put up or shut up.

152 posted on 08/01/2006 7:10:17 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Courtesy ping because I mentioned you. No need to respond or even read.

Sleep well


153 posted on 08/01/2006 7:11:57 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Hey feedumb, I'm not going to continue a flame war with you in this thread. You're obviously not getting my basic point anyway, seeing that you jumped in halfway in my coversation with another poster. Oh, you can go back and try to find out what my original issue was, but I doubt you'll find it seeing that you won't be looking for it. You will most likely find more fodder for your intellectual attacks though. Use them at your discretion. But I'm done with you here.


154 posted on 08/01/2006 7:26:24 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Hey feedumb, I'm not going to continue a flame war with you in this thread.

It's not a flame war. It is me helping you.

My advice: Learn a subject before posting on it.

I mean this as the most sincere, friendly advice I can offer.

Good night.

155 posted on 08/01/2006 7:32:58 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

You sounded far from friendly, believe me. As for learning the subject, you again got lost in your inaccurate and off topic responses to my original post. So I will clue you in. My post only mentioned that, IMO, there is a lack of objectivity in the teaching of sciences today, especially on the secondary level. I do realize that objectivity is taught in many colleges and universities, and respect that. But it is a fact that it is still something that could be improved upon at all levels in all sciences. Now, if you still disagree with me, I would like to know why. About archeology, I don't think I'll be making anymore replies to that subject, especially to individuals who have vast and superior knowledge of the subject(.sarcasm off).

I don't think, in any of my replies here, that I ever disputed the fact that the systems are usefull. I only stated that they are unreliable in some cases. Especially in the case of dating the age of the earth.


156 posted on 08/01/2006 7:58:29 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
You sounded far from friendly, believe me. As for learning the subject, you again got lost in your inaccurate and off topic responses to my original post. So I will clue you in. My post only mentioned that, IMO, there is a lack of objectivity in the teaching of sciences today, especially on the secondary level.

Sometimes the height of being friendly is cuffing someone about the ears to help them learn. Tough Love is tough on all of us.

You have yet to provide demonstrable proof of anything less than objectivity in the sciences. You have to bring more than "'cause I think so."

I don't think, in any of my replies here, that I ever disputed the fact that the systems are usefull. I only stated that they are unreliable in some cases. Especially in the case of dating the age of the earth.

But you supply no proof. Just your intuition.

Let's all take a moment and think about what group of people who let their emotions and feelings guide their lives.

Hint: It starts with an "L."

'Night.

157 posted on 08/01/2006 8:10:45 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

So, now, because I believe there is a lack of objectivity in the sciences I'm a liberal. Wow, is this how you go about making discoveries in your field of expertise? Because if it is, I think I'm right, thanks.


158 posted on 08/01/2006 8:21:29 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
So, now, because I believe there is a lack of objectivity in the sciences I'm a liberal.

It appears that the point is that in claiming that in claiming that your "belief" that a claim is true makes it a valid point of contention despite having no evidence for your claim you are arguing like a liberal.
159 posted on 08/01/2006 8:24:42 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; ...
"Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth."

Small problem; basic geo-physics dictate that what came up had to be super-heated steam and a large amount of crushed aggregate, not "water" as such, and misunderstanding this point causes a total misunderstanding of what the flood really was. The "fountains of the great deep" are the source of most if not all of the round aggregate on Earth.

160 posted on 08/01/2006 8:25:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-343 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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