nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: +
Talk:Arguments for a recent creation (view source)
Revision as of 01:39, October 8, 2008
, 01:39, October 8, 2008Not dates of the Earth, but dates compatible with a recent creation
33 and 34 those features would only have begun to form AFTER the flood. Any surface feature of that sort is not useful in dating the earth, because they didnt exist for the full duration. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:29, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
33 and 34 those features would only have begun to form AFTER the flood. Any surface feature of that sort is not useful in dating the earth, because they didnt exist for the full duration. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:29, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
: First let me say that I think this article needs a lot of work, including making the point(s) of the list clearer. The purpose of such arguments is not to point out that various indicators give a date of 6,000 years (or thereabouts), but to point out that various indicators give dates that are incompatible with the secular dates. So when it says that the sodium in the sea would take 42 to 62 million years to accumulate, that doesn't mean that the oceans are 42 to 62 million years old; it means that there's likely something wrong with the secular date of 3,000 million years. So to the two you mention: true, they don't speak directly to the age of the Earth, but the secular claim would be that these things are ''much'' older than the biblical age of the Earth, and these arguments point out that there are real problems with the secular ages, so even in the case of these two examples, the ''evidence'' is consistent with a biblical view, not ''inconsistent'' with it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)