RE: Silly Creationist
June 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm by Faith No More.)
(June 15, 2011 at 7:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hey FNM,
Well that’s a bit of a different issue, but I can give you a cliff notes answer if you’d like. There are dozens and dozens of methods to infer a date for the Earth. The results range from 4.5 billion years to only 6,000 years and many dates in between. I believe the methods that yield dates in the billions can be explained away by the fact that they assume a global flood did not occur, and they also do not have any control. Those methods have never accurately dated a rock of known age, so why assume they can dates rocks accurately of unknown age? I think that the majority of dating methods actually yield dates on the “younger” end of the spectrum for the earth than the old. Evolutionists require long periods of time though, so you will never hear them admit that the earth could be younger than 4.5 billion years. It really is just a house of cards though.
Could you point me in the direction of an example of a dating method that comes close to a date of 6,000 as this is the first I've heard of it?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
