Posted on 02/21/2009 6:03:46 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
BTW what did I win?
Obama will know the answer.. He knows everything.
Sun up and sun down. That’s the time reference to primitives. Who says the actual measureable time between sun up an sun down has been constant all this time?
The Earth is about 5-6 Billion years old.
People that for some reason can’t get over it get over it.
==The problem with offering such proof to a Young Earth creationist is that no level of proof is sufficient, because it is an article of faith that any contradiction of the Bible’s literal accuracy is false by definition.
I could say the exact same thing about the Old-Earth Evos:
The problem with offering such proof to Old-Earth Evos is that no level of proof is sufficient, because it is an article of faith that any contradiction of long-age accuracy is false by definition.
You seem really, really confused.
The site you’re linking to attacks and dismantles a variety of creationist claims, including the infamous fake “Dr.” Kent Hovind, now in prison for tax evasion. Why are you citing it as evidence supporting your view the earth is less than 10,000 years old?
The age of the earth is estabilished through radioisotope dating of a variety of types, including argon, lead, etc. Radiocarbon dating has never been used to estabilish the age of of the earth.
Those false memories of your childhood are implants. The universe was created five minutes ago. If you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right, right?
The question makes an invalid assumption. The assumption is that one day it was not there and another day it was.
At first there was one particle that accreted with another and the pair then attracted another and so on. The procass continues as growth until the point where we recently began to expel mass in to space.
The accretion process took a very long tome. Any estimate is at best a guess. Do we date the earth from conception, that is the first attraction between two protoparticles or from the point when toe process of gathering was 99.999999 % complete?
If the measurable time between evening and morning (not just sun up and sun down, since the sun was not created until day four) then God would have made mention of it. The passage was written so that whoever read it would know that God is talking about our frame of reference.
It *can’t* be gone. I’m looking at it. Just look up 127 on Wikipedia.
It says, “127 is a Mersenne prime, 27 - 1, and as such, in binary it is a repunit prime, a permutable prime and a palindromic prime. This also means it is the largest integer that can be represented by a signed byte.”
It is THE LARGEST INTEGER THAT CAN BE REPRESENTED BY A SIGNED BYTE. CAN’T YOU SEE???!!!!
That’s all the proof I need.
If you had one, you would have won all of the next $3 trillion bailout.
Makes about as much sense as looking for God with a telescope.
first, I hate wikipedia
second, i am depressed that i in fact did not win
third, how can you be so unbelievably cruel to me (/sarc) LOL!!
The Bible is clear that long-ages were not involved. God said let there be light, and there was light. God said let there be the sun, moon, and stars, and there they were. The Bible makes no mention of long-age particle accretion.
I can be so cruel because it says so in the Bible (I’m pretty sure somewhere from an interpretation I could make).
Secondly, I have obviously not had enough to drink yet. I said “one” and “won” interchangeably. I should have said something more like “snthe” or something.
People that for some reason can’t get over it get over it.
Exactly. And posting 5-6 YEC threads a day only reminds me why I don't want creationists controlling the school boards.
"Because God said so!" isn't science.
” . . . with the Lord a day is like a thousand years.”
Yeah, I’m pretty sure you can blow that one off too. Why let the Bible get in the way of, well, you know, the Bible.
BTW, you realize that the link you supplied is to an article DEBUNKING creationist claims?
==” . . . with the Lord a day is like a thousand years.”
God was not using His own frame of reference when he defined each creation day as having an evening and a morning, He was using ours. And that is the way the vast majority of the Jews and Christian fathers have understood it for thousands of years.
Of course I realize that. It proves the Earth is 127 days old.
Oh, you are speaking to someone else about some other article and *not* about the incredibly unbelievable “127” Wikipedia entry.
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.