OrderedChaos

I want to direct you to <a href="http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch01.htm" target="_blank">this website</a>. Civilization started at around 4500 BCE and seemed to keep on going, seemingly oblivious to the massive flood that was surrounding them. Massive layers of mud found all around the world dated at 4000 BCE? I'm sorry, but I am going to have to call BS on that one. Either provide evidence or retract the claim.

If the bible was inspired by a supreme being, then why is it so wrong to assume that his writings would be perfect? Why would the writings of a supreme being be full of errors and contridictions? And nobody said that science was perfect, it is just the best way that we humans can discover the world around us.
It's not that science proves that a god did not create the Universe, it is that there is no proof that he did. The more we learn, the more we are finding that a supreme being is not needed in the equation. So if there is no evidence for a god, but evidence that says that a god is not needed, why assume there is one?

excreationist

bait:
I hope you will be responding to my post, which was the third post in this thread concerning the Green River formation. Otherwise I guess you can ignore the hard questions and just respond to the easy ones....

HRG

I'm afraid you misunderstand the point. No one goofed: it was known in advance that you cannot date marine organisms by C14, since they do not take carbon for their shells from the atmosphere.

If someone took this as an argument against C14-dating, this only shows that he did not understand the method, not that the method is not reliable.

Regards,
HRG.

Coragyps

Please read my comment about halfway down on <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000077" target="_blank">this page from January.</a> You can see where some of us on this board get our hostility sometimes: you come in, in all innocence, quoting what you believe to be accurate representations of what science has found. But like so much of what shows up on AiG or ICR, the actual work is so completely misrepresented that I can see no possibility other than deliberate deception on the part of the creationist that initially cited it. The lie then gets passed around the web in good faith (I prefer to assume) and shows up time and again as "truth" or "reputable scientists say."
I haven't been involved in this evo/cre debate all that long, and it amazes me how often I see the same old chunks float to the top. And I'm not putting any blame on you - you seem to be very open to discussion and facts. I'm merely clarifying, I hope, why you're "bait." Stick around.

Paradisedreams2

Though I'm a christian I'm not a "creationist" I'm for "Evolution".

I see where this guy is going and the verse about "a day is like a thousand years". THAT DAY is the CROSS itself and Christs Reign. The DAY of the cross can be reconciled into "the thousand years".

If Adam was only a patern of the one to come His "age" signifies 930 of these years and 70 years desolate to Jeruselem.

Saying that without writing an entire essay on what this all means which is besides the whole point.

The days of creation are a "patern of days" (evenings and mornings) spoken about in the vision to Daniel the prophet. This vision speaks of the end of sacrifes and offerings that the new covenant would usher in ("for thou has not desired it") And pertains to Christ and not the physical earth.

There are seven days of creation within it pictures or witnesses of the cross hidden. Davids child also died on the "seventh day". Drawing a simplified method in which to this we can see that the "rest" was pointing to a "death" (seen looking at these two pictures or witnesses). Christ was the one who said both He and the Father "work". and the "work" at the cross was "Finished" (as exclaimed).

To argue against evolution is crazy but to argue in favor of creationism is even crazier. If it was important to God I'm sure he would have gone to great lengths to be sure and get the vain applause for the act itself. If this is not so at all why walk down this road of speculation (the christian that is)?

Kosh

And I thought that Amos and Offa had the market
cornered on the psycho babble hidden meaning
B.S. Maybe we should create
a forum for them to take this stuff into.

excreationist

Some links about the time-frame during the six days of creation:

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1316.asp" target="_blank">AiG - The Necessity for believing in six literal days</a>
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp" target="_blank">AiG - The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach</a>

On the other hand, there's this:

<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/co/JesusFreak/day.html" target="_blank">Authenticating The "Day-Age" Theory</a>

Kosh

Ridiculous.

HeatherD

The error percent between 4.5 billion years and 6000 years would be 99.9998666667%

Yeah, just a bit more than 1% error.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Heather Donahue ]</p>

Bait

Hi Excreationist....
Haven't forgotten you....I've been off for the weekend, without the use of a computer. I still have to go to the site, and will answer as soon as I can.
As to the others...see above. I'll get to those I can. Remember though, there is several of you against lil' ol' me.

I do not necessarily believe as other Christians you've come across. One of the first things I'll admit to, is I don't know about a lot of things. I do think (believe) that many Christians are in error in what they read though, and have left out some really critical issues.

I believe to "prove" the bible, and their accounts, and their timelines, you need to match up the physical evidence to the archealogical finds...such as the "Pilate" as mentioned by one of your group. I do NOT believe the Bible sets exact times..especially for the flood, or for the Genesis story. I also think even some of the "scholars" forget certain possible "gaps" in genealogical timelines listed in the Bible....beginning in the first chapters of genesis. I think it is entirely possible the earth COULD be millions, billions, gillions, whatever years old...because I do not think the Bible tells the earths age specifically. Even in the Genesis account...after Adam was created, there was a time period (how long? No one knows)before Eve was created. Then after Eve was created, there was a time period (again, a gap)before their fall. Were they going on Gods timetable (a thousand years like a day, etc.)? Adam & Eve had not fallen...and aging, death, etc. were not known yet according to biblical accounts. Could thousands, or millions of years passed during this time? (I mean, according to the accounts, Adam would have had to have enough time to name all of the animals).
I personally do not think science and the bible disagree with each other (nor archealogy and the bible). At the same time, I see so often that those who do not believe use science as a source to disprove faiths in general. Saying that God did not create the world...even in the time period set by YEC, because science has established rocks, etc. as being 45 billion (or 4.5, whatever)is like if I built a house, told you it was a week old...you test the concrete by all of your scientific tests, find the rocks are 45 billion years old, then call me a liar because your science says so. I'd rather say, I was not there, and I don't know...and neither do you for a fact. As a gentleman pointed out, science is not exact...and all of it is educated guesses. At 4.5 billion years, a 1% descrepancy is 45 MILLION years...even worse is if you chose the 45 billion years with 1% descrepancy...that is 450 MILLION years (almost 1/2 billion years off).

Now to read the URL's that has been sent me.

Give me a chance to read some of the posts here...and try to start getting back to all of you. Sorry for the delay.
Bests,
Ron