Evidence for an Old Earth

Radiometric Dating provides several dates, they date again and again until they get the date that agrees with the evolutionary timeline...------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk

Crashfrog, the bible was originaly written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Translated into English! What the english Bible says is what the others say just in another language! Sheesh...------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk

I said I firmly believe that the world is young, I never said I firmly believe in the Site Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca! But you put words into my mouth. Now that you brought it up I do firmly believe that what this guy is saying on bible.ca is reliable. Now that article being decades old, that I didn't know was true and if it is, so what you know, the site is doing a great job of telling people what is right (from the Creationist point of view.) Thats all that matters to me. I was asking for evidence and it seems I'm the only one providing it. This wasn't supposed to be a debate. Just a question.------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk

I'm afraid that you don't understand the problems of translation. Translations do not completely preserve meaning - ambiguities may be added or lost, idioms may be misunderstood there may be no exact equivalent to a word. That is why Muslims insist that the Arabic rendition of the Quran is the only authoritative version.In the case of the Bible there are even a few words where the meaning has been lost.

Well besides the whole geologic column, I'd have to say plate tectonics.Plate tectonics, which supports the theory of continental drift, is responsible for moving continents and making new ones, creating mountains, for most of the earthquakes and volcanoes around the globe, etc.. There is absolutely no evidence for catastropic plate tectonics, so that is not even a remote possibility.Evidence:-- rocks, as well as mineralized and petroleum systems that match up across divides;-- current movement of the plates (at about a couple cm per year);-- ocean derived sedimentary rocks at tops of mountains;-- paleomagnetism;-- intracontinental island arc and ophiolite remnants;-- tropical vegetation and fossils in todays artic regions and vice versa;-- aulocogens;-- relatively young age of the ocean floor;--overturned, folded, metamorphosed sedimentary layers.

You're a bit difficult to satisfy. Your lengthy cut-n-pastes drew a nearly equally lengthy point-by-point rebuttal from John, but you blew it off in a few sentences claiming what you really wanted was evidence. What a great strategy! Win the debate by exhausting oppenents by raising issues that take an hour to address, then blow them off in a one minute reply. If you didn't want a reply to the points raised by your cut-n-pastes then why did you post them?To give you an idea of the degree to which radiometric dates are confirmed experimentally by multiple researchers using a variety of methods, here are a couple tables from Brent Dalrymple's book, The Age of the Earth. This one is for dating rocks in Greenland: And these are for moon rocks: These tables are evidence of wide agreement between the various dating methods of the great antiquity of the earth and moon.--Percy

Yes, the conspiracy.Dating helps us find mineral deposits and petroleum fields - these are industries whose sole purpose is to make money, and lots of it. Would they invest millions on a method that doesn't work? Just for the sake of evolution? No.Do you really think we sit in our offices making sure nothing is studied that might negatively affect evolution? That we make sure the dates match so that evolution looks good? What a waste of time and money. No way could you convince the hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world to continue such a ridiculous charade - and for 200 years at that!!

Would you provide documentation of this happening, please?

Are you truly that ignorant about translation? I assume you speak no foreign languages, right? But surely you've heard the phrase "lost in the translation"? Why do you suppose we have that phrase if translation is simply a matter of word exchange?Furthermore, if it's so easy to translate bibles (or anything else) why are there so many translations of the bible in English?Rrhain has told you what the Bible says in Greek. Your bible translates wrong. What part of this aren't you getting? The Greek is there for you to read. So is the English. They don't agree. What more evidence do you need to say that your bible is mistranslated?

quote:

---

But surely you've heard the phrase "lost in the translation"?

---

It's hard enough just within English. Although I know the word means something different in England, I sure wouldn't want to go into a Texas bar and ask anyone if they'll bum me a fag.

I thought the verb they used was "pinch", as in "pinch me a fag".

Say either of those in this part of Texas and you'll probably end up beat to a pulp in a bar ditch.

Focus on the topic, or I might suspend everyones posting priviledges to this topic (ie. I'll give it a temporary closing).Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

no, really...why do dates from different methods largely agree with each other? This goes beyond just radiometric dating, although that's enough.There has to be an explanation for the consistency. "Unreliable" doesn't cut it. For example:The Age of the Earthgives examples of meteorites which were dated by either 1) different methods or 2) by multiple applications of the same method; as is nearly always the case, the dates were consistent with each other.Regardless of whether or not you think the methods are reliable, why would they be unreliable in such a way that they all agree in the vast majority of cases? This topic was the focus of a pretty recent thread, and I don't think the featured creationist had any response beyond miracles. Can you do better?[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 08-11-2003]

you ignored my post........ answer it Please. I gave you some things to think about. and if you answer I will give you more. Without dating there is evidence for an earth much older then the Bible says it is. Now those sites you gave have already been discussed here and been concluded to be false information. Almost All things in Creationist sites(against evolution) have been proven wrong. yet they never EVER Update. wonder why....... search the web I am sure you can easily find Answers that prove them wrong on everything they say.You seem to think we would Hide errors if there where any? No my friend science doesn't work like that. Believe me If I could Disprove Evolution I and every other Evolutionist would do it in a heart beat. We can't Because there is no evidence that goes against it. Right now all the evidence Points to Evolution and None point to the Bible