.
Quote:
|
Quote by: weasel if you read (not skimmed) any of links I provided sonart, you would be enititled to an opinion. |
Have YOU read them, weasel???
Let's look at your first link...
The Age of the Earth
Let's see...
Section 1:. says.... what? Only 8 people on Noah's Ark, where'd the black Africans come from, new analysis of Biblical geneologies came up with 4004 BC, blah, blah...yeah, so?
Section 2: multiple geological layers .. blah blah ...how could local flooding occur unless the land was shifting?... Lyell publishes
Principles of Geology. Interesting if you completely ignore the proven facts regarding continental drift and plate tectonics.
Section 3: blah, blah, Niagara Falls... Lyell suggests more evidence of a very old earth.... but Niagara Falls is probably not older than 6,000 years. (Yawn) Yeah, so? Are you suggesting the Niagara Falls has existed eterally, through all the continental shifts since Pangea?
Section 4: The Big Bang, blah, blah, but by golly comets, being made of ice, can't be more than few thousand years old. blah blah. No
direct evidence the Oort cloud exists. blah, blah. Meanwhile, let's ignore the fact that we can observe objects billions of light years old and the 'convenient discovery' of Dark Matter is now a proven fact.
Section 5: Shrinking sun... blah, blah... paper by Eddy and Boornazian... sun can therefore not be any older than 5,000 yrs. Wait, ignore that...
subsequent research has proven them wrong. Oh well.
Section 6: Hmmm, there should be more dust on the moon. New technologies for measuring dustfall should be ignored because they conveniently account for errors in earlier estimates... an obvious anti-creationist plot. :rolleyes:
Section 7: The hot core of an old earth should have cooled by now... radiation can't account for it.
Why not? Section 8: Based on salt levels, the Dead Sea is only about 6,000 years old, beginning with the Great Flood. Again, so? How does this prove nothing existed there before the flood, which research increasingly attributes to the end of the last Ice Age... melt water.
Section 9: The earth's current population, based on growth. can only be 5,000 years old, blah, blah... unless, of course, you understand the concept of exponential growth and the hyperbolic curve.... to say nothing of archeological findings.
Section 10: Since radiometric dating is so unreliable, obviously the only reason science uses it is because it gives them artificially old ages scientists desire... because... um.... they hate creation theory so much. Yeah, that's it.
Section 11: Amazingly, at least two species thought to be long extinct, have be found
alive! Uuuh... okay.... so? Sharks, alligators and cockroaches also existed tens of millions of years ago. How does this undermine the fossil record?
-------------------------------------------------
Gosh, this has been loads of fun. :rolleyes: Shall I take the next week off and rebut ALL your links???
.