Maybe? My dear friend you haven't read what I have. Here's something you can read for starters...Oh this was a good one.
Maybe the planet is NOT millions up bugzillions of biggest number to blow the mind years old.
Maybe? My dear friend you haven't read what I have. Here's something you can read for starters...
www.biblemysteries.com/library/adam.htm
There is no doubt in my mind that the correct solution is to SUM the patriarchs ages. With only certain exceptions that are very clear in Scripture. One must also use the Septuagint, as the ages in the Masoretic have been improperly shortened probably by rabbi Akiba.
There are a few are errors in this article......but only about 150 years short. But at any rate it pushes creation back to 11,000 BCE at least. And I have read some very scholarly articles that indicate there may well be gaps. It's plausible that creation could be 20,000 BCE.
At any rate, the common notion that the world is 6000 years old is wrong. In may well be only 12,000ish years old which would be enough time for all observable geologic conditions to have come to pass.
Wrong.....they found actual collagen.They didn't "find" any soft tissue. The subjected a horn to a chemical and afterwards they had something that was soft. The title of the video is misleading.
Standard model textbook theories are all complete nonsense. The plasma universe theory is undoubtedly correct. Billions of years is complete nonsense.Any blasphemy would needs be committed knowingly.
I believe the age of the universe is as given in the Word, yet I understand the theories utilized to compute the geological and astrophysical existence of all that is, thugh it is riddled with holes.
Anyone convinced of our Savior is not blaspheming if he does not understand a point in the Bible, though to me it is important to understanding many things related. God bless all who seek to please Jesus-Yeshua, amen.
Wrong.....they found actual collagen.
Good grief the reason they use the chemicals was to get rid of the bone-fossil matrix....in order to get at the collagen. The collagen is trapped inside there's no way to get at it.AFTER the chemical bath. The point is no soft tissue was "found". A fossil was found and they subjected the fossil to a chemical and only after that process was over did they "find" soft tissue. The title makes it sound like they cracked open a fossil and there was soft tissue.
Good grief the reason they use the chemicals was to get rid of the bone-fossil matrix....in order to get at the collagen. The collagen is trapped inside there's no way to get at it.
The whole point is that the tissue is not fossilized, which points to the fossils being far less than ~65 million years old.Do you have evidence to show there is any soft tissue when a fossil is first discovered (before any chemicals are introduced)?
I mean that's a fair point.The whole point is that the tissue is not fossilized, which points to the fossils being far less than ~65 million years old.
Take therefore no thought for the marrow: for the marrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.Marrow is the way lol