How Old Is The Earth?

[eternally-gratefull]

Eternal, it sad that I have to say that PER will back me up on this. That star that is 50,000 light years away shines it light on us at night. A light year is how far light travels in a year ( 186,000 miles per second) so if it was created 6,00 years ago we should not be able to see its light yet we do. Have you seen a T-Rex in your neck of the woods?

lol. I already answered this Kerry.

God created man on day 6. He created the earth for man to inhabit and to take care of. He created the stars in the night.

Thus he created the earth as aged and stars already shining on the earth when he created it.

He is God is he not. is he not capable of doing this?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Since the 6,000 year creation when has there been no man?

Jeremiah 4:24

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.

Explain? When since God created man has there been no man?

it is a prophesy. not a look back. context man context!

Unless you think adam was not the first man. who made those cities??

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yeah okay. Well that left skid marks on my head? what are you talking about? Didn't click the link. Maybe that's why.

AAANNYYY way. Look at what science digs up today. What their digging up is what was before Adam. The Earth was never destroyed and never will be. Only the life that was on it. If not for Noah ( type of Christ) we would not be here. According to Jeremiah there was no man yet there were cities. Whoa, If you look at the lie of evolution and whats being found and what the bible says. It makes perfect since. The evolutionist are trying to tie the Preadamic to the Adamic. Which is impossible and why they cannot produce a missing link. The Earth is way way older than 6,000 years and so is the universe. I meant God resides in the heavens and he has no beginning nor any end. It fits, it makes since, and explains true science.

No it does not fit. And it plays right into the evolutionists hands, where do you think this belief came from. Thr gap theory was formed to try to make scripture line up with what evolution was trying to prove (old earth) thats the only reason it was even formed. I cam close to buying into it. Thank God I studied some more, and realised how error prone it was.

 

[Kerry]

The theory that they were OK with God because they obeyed the law, (or they thought they did which was another theory they held to)

Yet studious as they were, going to all depths. When the Messiah came, they did not recognize Him. In fact wanted to kill Him. They could not of themselves, so they got the Romans to do it.

Here we are back to the cross. All of this means nothing without the cross. Our faith must be in the work of the cross and details like how old the Earth is will be revealed to us. Ask and you shall receive. Never lean to me or another man for one is your teacher and He is the Holy Spirit. Hold fast that which leads you to the end of the race. If the gap throws you, then reject it and hold to the cross. I often times forget that I'm talking ( not to be conceited) shall I say those who haven't studied for themselves and ask God to reveal His secrets and not that I know all, I am far from it. I do not intend to lead astray nor be a stumbling block. God bless you and keep the faith. what does it matter how old the Earth is? what matters is what Jesus did on the cross and nothing else. Amen and Amen. Love ya.

I do not wish to offend Eternal nor am I any smarter than you, The meek shall inherit the Earth. I say that you are smarter than me. Why, because you hold to the cross and are not lead astray by tangents, The mystery's that abound. The rock and solid ground is the cross and nothing else.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yet studious as they were, going to all depths. When the Messiah came, they did not recognize Him. In fact wanted to kill Him. They could not of themselves, so they got the Romans to do it.

Here we are back to the cross. All of this means nothing without the cross. Our faith must be in the work of the cross and details like how old the Earth is will be revealed to us. Ask and you shall receive. Never lean to me or another man for one is your teacher and He is the Holy Spirit. Hold fast that which leads you to the end of the race. If the gap throws you, then reject it and hold to the cross. I often times forget that I'm talking ( not to be conceited) shall I say those who haven't studied for themselves and ask God to reveal His secrets and not that I know all, I am far from it. I do not intend to lead astray nor be a stumbling block. God bless you and keep the faith. what does it matter how old the Earth is? what matters is what Jesus did on the cross and nothing else. Amen and Amen. Love ya.

I do not wish to offend Eternal nor am I any smarter than you, The meek shall inherit the Earth. I say that you are smarter than me. Why, because you hold to the cross and are not lead astray by tangents, The mystery's that abound. The rock and solid ground is the cross and nothing else.

I am not any smarter than you. We just have differing views.

What you just posted is the most important part. Amen.

 

[Jackson123]

[h=1]Books[/h][h=2]Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution[/h][h=5]By Brett A. Rutherford[/h]

Previous | Next | Table of Contents​

​

​

[h=3]Lesson Three[/h][h=4]How do Paleontologists and Paleoanthropologists Arrive at Their Dates?[/h]
Have you ever wondered how evolutionists arrive at their numbers for the age of the earth and the beginning of life on it? The evolutionist may present you with these numbers as if those figures have been arrived at by sound, unshakable scientific means. In truth, these incredible dates are for the most part arbitrary. Evolutionists emphatically state that the world originated from a cosmic explosion 4.6 billion years ago. They will also say that a clearly distinct ancestor of man appeared on the evolutionary scale about 4.5 million years ago. In fact, there are no scientific measures, equations, or accuratedating methods that can tell one how old the earth really is, or when man first appeared.
This chapter reveals the various means employed by paleontologists and paleoanthropologists (those who study ancient fossils) in dating fossil remains. The latter half of this chapter will analyze these methods in order to determine their reliability. One will see from this analysis that he can dismiss any thoughts that the study of evolution is an exact science by looking no further than their dating methods.
[h=4]Radiocarbon Dating (Carbon 14)[/h]Willard F. Libby, a physical chemist, developed this technique in 1949.Radiocarbon dating was formulated upon the understanding that neutrons are produced by cosmic radiation. These neutrons enter the earth's atmosphere and react with nitrogen. This reaction results in carbon 14. Carbon 14 is a "heavy" carbon isotope because it contains fourteen neutrons in its nucleus instead of the more common load of twelve. The two additional neutrons make carbon 14 unstable and causes it to decay at a gradual rate. As the carbon 14 decays, neutrons leave the nucleus and emit a radioactive particle which theoretically can be measured to determine the rate of decay.
How does one apply this to an artifact he wishes to date? Plants and animals digest carbon (CO[SUP]2[/SUP]) while they are living. When plants and animals die they no longer take in carbon. The carbon that is present begins to decay supposedly at a steady rate when an animal or plant dies. By measuring the rate of carbon decay through neutron emissions, one can theoretically determine how long ago death occurred.[SUP]16[/SUP]
[h=4]How Reliable is Radiocarbon Dating for Determining the Age of Ancient Fossils?[/h]Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, Libby assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, Libby believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere. Dr. David Hurst Thomas of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History addressed the problems of these assumptions when he wrote:
Radiocarbon dating relies on a number of key assumptions, perhaps the most important being that the radiocarbon level -- that is, the ratio between carbon 12 and carbon 14 -- has remained constant in the earth's atmosphere. Libby assumed this when developing the method, but we now know that this assumption is notvalid. That is, levels of atmospheric carbon 14 have shifted somewhat over the past millennia.[SUP]17[/SUP]
Shortly after Libby developed his carbon 14 dating method, Egyptologists, who applied his method to well-established historical material, said that "his dates did not square with the historically derived dynastic chronology."[SUP]18[/SUP] Dr. Stuart Piggott, a British archaeologist, excavating near Durington Walls in England, received a radiocarbon date for his site. The radiocarbon test on a piece of charcoal suggested that Piggott's site was 1000 years older than it actually was. Conclusive data from the site proved that the radiocarbon test was grossly in error. Piggott said of radiocarbon dating that it was "archaeologically unacceptable."[SUP]19[/SUP]
In June of 1985 the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference met in Trondheim, Norway to discuss the flaws in radiocarbon dating. From this conference a correction curve was developed for carbon 14 dates based upon the fairly exact dating method of dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Unfortunately, there are a limited number of tree types that are suitable for providing an accurate correction curve for carbon 14 dates. The ideal tree is the Bristle Cone Pine which is only found in the buildings of ancient North American Indian sites. The oldest of the Bristle Cone Pines found are only 4600 years old. Using living samples and ancient trunks, scientists were able to develop a correction curve for radiocarbon dates going back 8200 years.[SUP]20[/SUP] In other words, radiocarbon dates can only be corrected as far back as 6200 B.C. Any samples that date further back than 6200 B.C. cannot be corrected, and therefore their age cannot be accurately determined.
One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. One might also question the reason there are no Bristle Cone Pines older than 4600 years. The reason may simply be that the flood occurred approximately 4600 years ago. Why can carbon 14 dates only be corrected as far back as 8200 years ago? Is it because the earth did not exist much more than 8200 years ago?
Paleontologists are reluctantly beginning to realize the limitations of radiocarbon dating. David Hurst Thomas grudgingly proclaims that radiocarbon dating is accurate when it reveals a date for an object which is within a range of just over 75,000 years ago.[SUP]21[/SUP] Unfortunately, he is still in denial of the facts. However, he at least recognizes that radiocarbon dating cannot be used to prove that ancient "primitive man" goes back 4 million, or even 100,000 years ago.
[h=4]Potassium-Argon Dating[/h]Potassium-Argon dating is similar to radiocarbon dating in principle. Instead of measuring radioactive emissions, this method measures the decay of potassium (K-40) into argon gas (A-40). The K-40 method determines the ratio of potassium to argon in rocks. Theoretically, argon remains fairly constant through time, but potassium decays. Therefore, the level of potassium to argon determines the age. Theoretically, older samples will have lower potassium levels. Older samples will also have higher argon levels.[SUP]22[/SUP] Even paleontologists admit that potassium-argon dating is only useful for dating a limited variety of minerals.
[h=4]How Reliable is Potassium-Argon Dating?[/h]First of all, the rate at which potassium decays in rock samples has never been accurately determined. Another difficulty is that argon is often more unstable than potassium. Geologist G.W. Wetherill admits "the two principal problems have been the uncertainties in the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the ability of minerals to retain the argon produced by this decay."[SUP]23[/SUP]
On occasion, even the paleoanthropologist has to undermine the accuracy of a potassium-argon dated artifact when the date for that item does not coincide with what he believes to be true about human evolution. For example, paleoanthropologist Alberto Angela, made the following statement when a potassium-argon date for an artifact did not support his previously held notion: "Of course, there may be uncertainties about the dating and interpretation of fossils (and, in fact, there are divergences)".[SUP]24[/SUP] In this statement, Angela has made some incredible and profound admissions. In the first place, he is saying that potassium-argon dating is an unreliable or an "uncertain" dating method. In the second place, in a display of honesty not often found among evolutionists, Angela admits that his, as well as any other paleoanthropologist's, interpretation of the fossil record can be often uncertain.
That is not the kind of honesty you will find among anthropologists in the university classroom. They present their interpretation of the fossil record as if it were irrefutable and undeniable evidence for evolution. In truth, the evolutionists know their interpretation of the fossil record may not be the correct one. This will be dealt with more in subsequent chapters.
[h=4]Uranium Dating[/h]Uranium in rocks decays, forming helium and lead. Theoretically, the age of a rock can be determined by measuring its lead content.[SUP]25[/SUP] If there is a significant amount of lead within a rock, it supposedly implies that a great deal of uranium decay has taken place and the rock is very old. The evolutionists used this method to determine an extreme age for the earth (4.6 billion years old). It is also the reason paleoanthropologists believe that certain fossils, essential to evolution theory, are millions of years old.
What are the problems with uranium dating and all radioactive dating methods? All of the radioactive dating methods are unreliable in determining the age of the earth, fossils, and the strata in which fossils are found. Radiocarbon, potassium-argon, and the even less-proven uranium and radio-calcium methods depend too much on nonfluctuating radioactive conditions through time. (It has already been noted that radioactive conditions have fluctuated through time.) Additionally, Doctors John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris have suggested that a world-wide flood would cause rapid decay in radioactive elements causing those elements to appear older than their actual age.[SUP]26[/SUP]

 

[Kerry]

Books

Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution

By Brett A. Rutherford

Previous | Next | Table of Contents​

Lesson Three

How do Paleontologists and Paleoanthropologists Arrive at Their Dates?


Have you ever wondered how evolutionists arrive at their numbers for the age of the earth and the beginning of life on it? The evolutionist may present you with these numbers as if those figures have been arrived at by sound, unshakable scientific means. In truth, these incredible dates are for the most part arbitrary. Evolutionists emphatically state that the world originated from a cosmic explosion 4.6 billion years ago. They will also say that a clearly distinct ancestor of man appeared on the evolutionary scale about 4.5 million years ago. In fact, there are no scientific measures, equations, or accuratedating methods that can tell one how old the earth really is, or when man first appeared.
This chapter reveals the various means employed by paleontologists and paleoanthropologists (those who study ancient fossils) in dating fossil remains. The latter half of this chapter will analyze these methods in order to determine their reliability. One will see from this analysis that he can dismiss any thoughts that the study of evolution is an exact science by looking no further than their dating methods.
Radiocarbon Dating (Carbon 14)

Willard F. Libby, a physical chemist, developed this technique in 1949.Radiocarbon dating was formulated upon the understanding that neutrons are produced by cosmic radiation. These neutrons enter the earth's atmosphere and react with nitrogen. This reaction results in carbon 14. Carbon 14 is a "heavy" carbon isotope because it contains fourteen neutrons in its nucleus instead of the more common load of twelve. The two additional neutrons make carbon 14 unstable and causes it to decay at a gradual rate. As the carbon 14 decays, neutrons leave the nucleus and emit a radioactive particle which theoretically can be measured to determine the rate of decay.
How does one apply this to an artifact he wishes to date? Plants and animals digest carbon (CO[SUP]2[/SUP]) while they are living. When plants and animals die they no longer take in carbon. The carbon that is present begins to decay supposedly at a steady rate when an animal or plant dies. By measuring the rate of carbon decay through neutron emissions, one can theoretically determine how long ago death occurred.[SUP]16[/SUP]
How Reliable is Radiocarbon Dating for Determining the Age of Ancient Fossils?

Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, Libby assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, Libby believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere. Dr. David Hurst Thomas of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History addressed the problems of these assumptions when he wrote:
Radiocarbon dating relies on a number of key assumptions, perhaps the most important being that the radiocarbon level -- that is, the ratio between carbon 12 and carbon 14 -- has remained constant in the earth's atmosphere. Libby assumed this when developing the method, but we now know that this assumption is notvalid. That is, levels of atmospheric carbon 14 have shifted somewhat over the past millennia.[SUP]17[/SUP]
Shortly after Libby developed his carbon 14 dating method, Egyptologists, who applied his method to well-established historical material, said that "his dates did not square with the historically derived dynastic chronology."[SUP]18[/SUP] Dr. Stuart Piggott, a British archaeologist, excavating near Durington Walls in England, received a radiocarbon date for his site. The radiocarbon test on a piece of charcoal suggested that Piggott's site was 1000 years older than it actually was. Conclusive data from the site proved that the radiocarbon test was grossly in error. Piggott said of radiocarbon dating that it was "archaeologically unacceptable."[SUP]19[/SUP]
In June of 1985 the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference met in Trondheim, Norway to discuss the flaws in radiocarbon dating. From this conference a correction curve was developed for carbon 14 dates based upon the fairly exact dating method of dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Unfortunately, there are a limited number of tree types that are suitable for providing an accurate correction curve for carbon 14 dates. The ideal tree is the Bristle Cone Pine which is only found in the buildings of ancient North American Indian sites. The oldest of the Bristle Cone Pines found are only 4600 years old. Using living samples and ancient trunks, scientists were able to develop a correction curve for radiocarbon dates going back 8200 years.[SUP]20[/SUP] In other words, radiocarbon dates can only be corrected as far back as 6200 B.C. Any samples that date further back than 6200 B.C. cannot be corrected, and therefore their age cannot be accurately determined.
One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. One might also question the reason there are no Bristle Cone Pines older than 4600 years. The reason may simply be that the flood occurred approximately 4600 years ago. Why can carbon 14 dates only be corrected as far back as 8200 years ago? Is it because the earth did not exist much more than 8200 years ago?
Paleontologists are reluctantly beginning to realize the limitations of radiocarbon dating. David Hurst Thomas grudgingly proclaims that radiocarbon dating is accurate when it reveals a date for an object which is within a range of just over 75,000 years ago.[SUP]21[/SUP] Unfortunately, he is still in denial of the facts. However, he at least recognizes that radiocarbon dating cannot be used to prove that ancient "primitive man" goes back 4 million, or even 100,000 years ago.
Potassium-Argon Dating

Potassium-Argon dating is similar to radiocarbon dating in principle. Instead of measuring radioactive emissions, this method measures the decay of potassium (K-40) into argon gas (A-40). The K-40 method determines the ratio of potassium to argon in rocks. Theoretically, argon remains fairly constant through time, but potassium decays. Therefore, the level of potassium to argon determines the age. Theoretically, older samples will have lower potassium levels. Older samples will also have higher argon levels.[SUP]22[/SUP] Even paleontologists admit that potassium-argon dating is only useful for dating a limited variety of minerals.
How Reliable is Potassium-Argon Dating?

First of all, the rate at which potassium decays in rock samples has never been accurately determined. Another difficulty is that argon is often more unstable than potassium. Geologist G.W. Wetherill admits "the two principal problems have been the uncertainties in the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the ability of minerals to retain the argon produced by this decay."[SUP]23[/SUP]
On occasion, even the paleoanthropologist has to undermine the accuracy of a potassium-argon dated artifact when the date for that item does not coincide with what he believes to be true about human evolution. For example, paleoanthropologist Alberto Angela, made the following statement when a potassium-argon date for an artifact did not support his previously held notion: "Of course, there may be uncertainties about the dating and interpretation of fossils (and, in fact, there are divergences)".[SUP]24[/SUP] In this statement, Angela has made some incredible and profound admissions. In the first place, he is saying that potassium-argon dating is an unreliable or an "uncertain" dating method. In the second place, in a display of honesty not often found among evolutionists, Angela admits that his, as well as any other paleoanthropologist's, interpretation of the fossil record can be often uncertain.
That is not the kind of honesty you will find among anthropologists in the university classroom. They present their interpretation of the fossil record as if it were irrefutable and undeniable evidence for evolution. In truth, the evolutionists know their interpretation of the fossil record may not be the correct one. This will be dealt with more in subsequent chapters.
Uranium Dating

Uranium in rocks decays, forming helium and lead. Theoretically, the age of a rock can be determined by measuring its lead content.[SUP]25[/SUP] If there is a significant amount of lead within a rock, it supposedly implies that a great deal of uranium decay has taken place and the rock is very old. The evolutionists used this method to determine an extreme age for the earth (4.6 billion years old). It is also the reason paleoanthropologists believe that certain fossils, essential to evolution theory, are millions of years old.
What are the problems with uranium dating and all radioactive dating methods? All of the radioactive dating methods are unreliable in determining the age of the earth, fossils, and the strata in which fossils are found. Radiocarbon, potassium-argon, and the even less-proven uranium and radio-calcium methods depend too much on nonfluctuating radioactive conditions through time. (It has already been noted that radioactive conditions have fluctuated through time.) Additionally, Doctors John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris have suggested that a world-wide flood would cause rapid decay in radioactive elements causing those elements to appear older than their actual age.[SUP]26[/SUP]

hey did the guy's that wrote this pet a brontosaurus? or maybe they watched a T-rex take down a Stegosaurus. were they there was anybody there. Did they see the woolly mammoth get frozen with green grass in it's mouth in Antarctica. Millions of years does not explain that. It implies that it happened instantly. All of the beast described in creation still exist today. God blessed them and said be fruitful and multiply. Where are these beast that we dig up? has anybody seen one? what of the so called lemon shark that a man fills 1/8 of it's mouth. where did these beast come from? I meant a beast 200 feet long and weighing 3,000 pounds couldn't hide very well. Or did they disobey Gods command?

 

[Tintin]

Dinosaurs died out. They became rarer and rarer after their habitations were destroyed or lessened, also because they were large sources of meat for people. Many would have been killed because they were fierce-some and killed livestock and sometimes people. Dinosaurs were really just great, big lizards. Extinct lizards. Lizards that sometimes grew to enormous sizes because of their old age (reptiles don't stop growing until they die). There are many stories from all over the world of man's encounter with dinosaurs, but most people these days dismiss such things because they don't line up with what evolutionary theory teaches (the number one religion in the world today). The result is that they're relegated to the myth and legend category. Yes, the stories were likely often exaggerated beyond all measure but some of these stories just describe a battle with a giant, often dangerous, lizard-like creature.

 

[Kerry]

Come on Tin we dig up their bones. They are not mythical. look I whole heartedly disagree with evolution. Science tries to tie that world with ours because they find evidence of the first and conclude that we come from them. When that is far from the truth the first was destroyed when the Earth became void and full of darkness. You cannot say that God created a planet that was void and full darkness. When everything else was good that he created.

 

[Tintin]

No, no. You've got me wrong. I'm saying dinosaurs weren't myth but true animals and that they lived around the time of humans. They have paintings and sculptures and are mentioned in ancient history books. The evidence is there, if only we look.

Again, no, to the gap theory. Genesis 1:1 introduces/provides an overview of what the chapter records (God creating the heavens and the earth). The next verse, Genesis 1:2 is just the beginning act of the creation account. There's no room for the gap theory. None.

 

[Percepi]

Thanks Jackson for providing a wonderful example of a lying fraud.

Have you ever wondered how evolutionists arrive at their numbers for the age of the earth and the beginning of life on it? The evolutionist may present you with these numbers as if those figures have been arrived at by sound, unshakable scientific means.

The ways scientists have come to know the age of the Earth comes from verified experiments.

In fact, there are no scientific measures, equations, or accuratedating methods that can tell one how old the earth really is, or when man first appeared.

How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated? | BioLogos

Here's the scoop on a 4.4 billion year old crystal. Notice how the crystals were put through multiple tests to compensate with knownvariables that may skew results.

Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts).

Assumptions?! Carbon dating has been repeatedly tested and verified through other dating methods. Assumptions?! I'm sorry Brett, but it seems your mother dropped you on your head one too many times.

The author goes on to explain how carbon dating created flawed results - acting as if carbon dating is wildly inaccurate. But scientists understand how and why these dates were so varied! I'm linking Wikipedia, because it's easily sorted out there :Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can tell, scientists are aware of the limits of carbon dating. Pretending scientists ignore these limits is asinine, and fraudulent.

The rest of the article is Brett, the fraud author, saying "We don't actually know" when we do, and saying, "There are issues with this dated method that renders the whole thing useless", when scientists are well aware of these limits and understand what they need to watch out for when testing.

hey did the guy's that wrote this pet a brontosaurus? or maybe they watched a T-rex take down a Stegosaurus. were they there was anybody there. Did they see the woolly mammoth get frozen with green grass in it's mouth in Antarctica. Millions of years does not explain that. It implies that it happened instantly. All of the beast described in creation still exist today. God blessed them and said be fruitful and multiply. Where are these beast that we dig up? has anybody seen one? what of the so called lemon shark that a man fills 1/8 of it's mouth. where did these beast come from? I meant a beast 200 feet long and weighing 3,000 pounds couldn't hide very well. Or did they disobey Gods command?

You need to stop reading children's Bible Story books and look at SCIENCE. You believe all animals from creation exist still today? Have you never been to a museum and observed all the different fossils?

Dinosaurs died out. They became rarer and rarer after their habitations were destroyed or lessened, also because they were large sources of meat for people.

Humans and dinosaurs did NOT co-exist! We find ZERO dinosaur fossils or dinosaur bones mingled with ancient human civilizations!

Dinosaurs were really just great, big lizards.

No. They weren't! Dinosaurs were NOT reptiles!

Archosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extinct lizards. Lizards that sometimes grew to enormous sizes because of their old age (reptiles don't stop growing until they die).

*facepalm*

I've heard this argument come from the mouth of Kent Hovind, who's completely illiterate when it comes to science, and is known to either make up wild claims and pretend they're scientific, or use made up claims from creationists before him. So much of what he says is demonstrably wrong, that you should completely ignore everything he says - less you become more ignorant of reality.

There are literally ZERO, peer reviewed, published, papers that back up this asinine claim.

There are many stories from all over the world of man's encounter with dinosaurs, but most people these days dismiss such things because they don't line up with what evolutionary theory teaches (the number one religion in the world today)

1. Evolution isn't a religion. You don't know what a religion is.

2. There are numerous animals ancient people referred to. AronRa did an amazing speech and I couldn't do the video justice trying to explain it. Please, take the time to listen to it - all of it. Flintstones Archaeology - YouTube

Yes, the stories were likely often exaggerated beyond all measure but some of these stories just describe a battle with a giant, often dangerous, lizard-like creature.

Such as crocodiles or komodo dragons?

No, no. You've got me wrong. I'm saying dinosaurs weren't myth but true animals and that they lived around the time of humans. They have paintings and sculptures and are mentioned in ancient history books. The evidence is there, if only we look.

Again, watch the video I linked.

 

[Tintin]

Yes, actually you are a prophet for evolution and it most definitely is a religion. People would not have been referring to crocodiles and komodo dragons. They were well aware of such creatures and would've found them common-place. How do you explain the dinosaurs in ancient paintings, sculptures, carvings etc? Not Carl Sagan's inherited memories bollocks, I hope!

I'm no friend of Kent Hovind, he's not reputable or credible. As for why they're not available in peer-reviewed journals and the like, the reason is because nothing but articles with a basis in evolutionary theory will be published by those who believe science is the answer to everything. There are peer-reviewed creation journals, but of course, you wouldn't even consider them true science, because they allow for another voice in the science debate.

 

[Tintin]

Blasted timer: Continued...

As for why information about so-called dragons being dinosaurs isn't available in peer-reviewed journals and the like, the reason is because only articles with a basis in evolutionary theory will be published by those who believe science is the answer to everything. They don't want anything to do with God. They don't want to be accountable to anyone but themselves. They've relegated the stories of humans encountering dragons to myth and legend, so they don't even ponder such things. There are peer-reviewed creation journals, but of course, you probably wouldn't even consider them true science, because they allow for another voice in the science debate, one that entails a divine Creator.

 

[Percepi]

Yes, actually you are a prophet for evolution and it most definitely is a religion.

So I guess physics is also a religion, as well as the theory of gravity.

People would not have been referring to crocodiles and komodo dragons. They were well aware of such creatures and would've found them common-place. How do you explain the dinosaurs in ancient paintings, sculptures, carvings etc?

You mean the artwork that's often incredibly vague and doesn't actually represent dinosaurs or they represent other mythological creatures such as dragons? Again, take a look at the video I linked.

I'm no friend of Kent Hovind, he's not reputable or credible. As for why they're not available in peer-reviewed journals and the like, the reason is because nothing but articles with a basis in evolutionary theory will be published by those who believe science is the answer to everything.

Well, we are talking about scientific journals - so it makes sense to only publish science. But, here's the problem, what you claims was proposed as science, not religion - the idea that lizards never stop growing.

There are peer-reviewed creation journals, but of course, you wouldn't even consider them true science, because they allow for another voice in the science debate.

The only peer reviewed creationist studies I'm aware of were verified by creationists. More importantly, these peer reviewed studies either can not be replicated, are based on false premises, or are simply wrong.

They've relegated the stories of humans encountering dragons to myth and legend, so they don't even ponder such things

If you had an understanding of science, you would understand why scientists don't accept murals as proofs.

Science isn't dictated by a bunch of people who ponder until something sounds right. Science refers to a very strict process of testing that must be verifiable and repeatable, as well as done in double-blind environments as to prevent bias. That's not to say all science is flawless, but bad science is most often replaced by good science - that's not a weakness, it's a strength.

 

[Jackson123]

hey did the guy's that wrote this pet a brontosaurus? or maybe they watched a T-rex take down a Stegosaurus. were they there was anybody there. Did they see the woolly mammoth get frozen with green grass in it's mouth in Antarctica. Millions of years does not explain that. It implies that it happened instantly. All of the beast described in creation still exist today. God blessed them and said be fruitful and multiply. Where are these beast that we dig up? has anybody seen one? what of the so called lemon shark that a man fills 1/8 of it's mouth. where did these beast come from? I meant a beast 200 feet long and weighing 3,000 pounds couldn't hide very well. Or did they disobey Gods command?

The bottom line is this gentlemen who wrote this article conclude that the method to measured the rate of decay is not valid. And they use this method to measure ages of fossil and earth.

I copy one of his statement.

hortly after Libby developed his carbon 14 dating method, Egyptologists, who applied his method to well-established historical material, said that "his dates did not square with the historically derived dynastic

 

[Tintin]

Percepi, take off the blinkers, man. See the world for what it is. By the way, I can't find your blessed video.

 

[Percepi]

The bottom line is this gentlemen who wrote this article conclude that the method to measured the rate of decay is not valid. And they use this method to measure ages of fossil and earth.

I copy one of his statement.

Read my response to your post. You'll see that scientists are well aware of these issues and they know what to look for when using dating methods. You need to also understand that multiple dating methods are used just in case one of the methods prove faulty. I gave a wonderful example in one of my links in response to a different person on here.

Percepi, take off the blinkers, man. See the world for what it is. By the way, I can't find your blessed video.

Understand, from my perspective, your statement is ironic.

Anyway, give this video a watch. AronRa goes over various "proofs" creationists have tried to use to verify humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Flintstones Archaeology - YouTube

It is a bit of a lengthy video and it starts off somewhat slow but it will cover quite a few of the proofs that are often used by creationists, many of which I'm sure you'll be familiar with.

 

[Bookends]

Dinosaurs died out. They became rarer and rarer after their habitations were destroyed or lessened, also because they were large sources of meat for people. Many would have been killed because they were fierce-some and killed livestock and sometimes people. Dinosaurs were really just great, big lizards. Extinct lizards. Lizards that sometimes grew to enormous sizes because of their old age (reptiles don't stop growing until they die). There are many stories from all over the world of man's encounter with dinosaurs, but most people these days dismiss such things because they don't line up with what evolutionary theory teaches (the number one religion in the world today). The result is that they're relegated to the myth and legend category. Yes, the stories were likely often exaggerated beyond all measure but some of these stories just describe a battle with a giant, often dangerous, lizard-like creature.

This is nothing but speculation. There is no proof that man killed all the dinosaurs and not all dinosaurs are considered carnivores.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No, no. You've got me wrong. I'm saying dinosaurs weren't myth but true animals and that they lived around the time of humans. They have paintings and sculptures and are mentioned in ancient history books. The evidence is there, if only we look.

Again, no, to the gap theory. Genesis 1:1 introduces/provides an overview of what the chapter records (God creating the heavens and the earth). The next verse, Genesis 1:2 is just the beginning act of the creation account. There's no room for the gap theory. None.

People seem to forget (actually I would say Hide the fact) That there were dino's in the OT. The behemoth is mentioned in Job. He is said to have the tail of a cedar tree.. Anyone who has seen a lebenon cedar (of which would have been used as a symbol to represent what this creature's tail looked like) would know and understand these trees are massive, A human standing next to one looks like an ant. This is the symbol used to describe this massive creature. Yet some want is to believe it is A hippo (a tail like a small bush), when in reality it would more likely represent a brontosaur or similar type creature.

Even looking at the fossil record is not realistic. Creatures that they claimed have either evolved into something more advanced, or died off, and have not been seen for so called billions of years, are found in remote parts of the world with NO signs of evolution. exactly as the fossil record shows them to be.

the problem is like you said. We have scientists on both sides of the spectrum. many great scientists have turned to a creation, YEC belief because of what is found in science. The problem is, if you do not want to believe it, you will just write them off as crazy Christians trying to twist scientific truth, to get people to believe what they believe, and not true scientists.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Read my response to your post. You'll see that scientists are well aware of these issues and they know what to look for when using dating methods. You need to also understand that multiple dating methods are used just in case one of the methods prove faulty. I gave a wonderful example in one of my links in response to a different person on here.



Understand, from my perspective, your statement is ironic.

Anyway, give this video a watch. AronRa goes over various "proofs" creationists have tried to use to verify humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Flintstones Archaeology - YouTube

It is a bit of a lengthy video and it starts off somewhat slow but it will cover quite a few of the proofs that are often used by creationists, many of which I'm sure you'll be familiar with.

the only problem is, if the pre flood world (as scripture states it) had a completely different climat than the post flood world (ie more of a protective layer of water in the autmosphere which prevented, or massively slowed the entrance of solar radiation into the earths surface. All of these so called carbon based means to date things can be thrown out the window. Because you could never date anything preflood. Even post flood. The decay brought on by radiation would have taken years to start showing it effects on the earth. And would be a MUCH slower process of decay. So to use the methods that all things have always been as they are today to date things would be invalid. Because things would appear MUCH older (on the order of thousands of years or more) than they really are)