This is interesting, it's a short list, and it does not include the most obvious, recent occurances.

I would encourage any and all of you to compare the density and concentration of this list to ANY other time in recorded history.

After, scroll to the bottom for a final thought.


A chronology of major earthquakes over the last ten years:

December 12, 1992 - Indonesia - A quake measuring 6.8 killed at least 2,200 people throughout an eastern section of islands.

September 30, 1993 - India - A string of quakes killed almost 10,000 people in western and southern India. The largest quake measured 6.4.

June 6, 1994 - Columbia - A quake and resultant mudslides killed about 1,000 people in the Paez River valley in southwestern Colombia.

January 17, 1995 - Japan - A quake measuring 7.2 killed 6,430 people in Kobe.

May 28, 1995 - Russia - An earthquake measuring 7.5, Russia's largest on record, killed 1,989 people in the eastern portion of the country.

February 28, 1997 - Iran - A quake measuring 5.5 killed about 1,000 people in northern Iran.

May 10, 1997 - Iran - A quake measuring 7.1 killed 1,560 people in eastern Iran near the Afghan border.

February 4, 1998 - Afghanistan - A quake measuring 6.1 killed at least 4,500 people in the Takhar province.

May 30, 1998 - Afghanistan - A quake measuring 6.9 killed about 4,000 people in the Takhar province.

July 17, 1998 - Papua New Guinea - An under-sea quake measuring 7.1 created three tidal waves, which killed approximately 2,100 people.

January 25, 1999 - Columbia - A quake measuring 6.3 killed about 1,170 people in the central region.

August 17, 1999 - Turkey - At least 17,800 people were killed by a 7.4 quake.

September 21, 1999 - Taiwan - A quake measuring 7.6 killed at least 2,000 people in central Taiwan.

January 26, 2001 - India - An monster earthquake measuring 7.7 struck the western state of Gujarat and neighboring Pakistan, killing at least 19,700 people.

March 26, 2002 - Afghanistan - At least 1,800 people were killed when a series of earthquakes struck northern Afghanistan and destroyed the district capital of Nahrin.

June 22, 2002 - Iran - A quake measuring a 6 killed at least 500 people in northwestern Iran.

February 24, 2003 - China - A magnitude 6.3+ earthquake killed at least 266 people in western China.

May 1, 2003 - Turkey - A 6.4 quake killed 167 people in southwestern Turkey.
December 26, 2003 - Iran - A massive earthquake killed more than 30,000 people in Bam, Iran.


But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God -- having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5 NIV). But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up (2 Peter 3:10 KJV).


no peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

To previous periods in recorded history is that "recorded history" is tiny insignificant portion of time. The fact is the earth is 4.6 billion years old. So, if history only began to be recorded around 5,000 years ago than recorded history is but a tiny little blip on the huge time line of the earth's history. In my opinion these are natural cycles that the earth goes through over periods of time that our brains simply cannot comprehend...And it's a lot more logical than the coming of the ends of time, thats for damn sure. It's bigger than us, and it's bigger than silly religions

peace



>
>

The "fact" is that your figure (4.6) is NOT a fact... it is a theory.

If you concede that, we can proceed. If not, it's no use trying to rationally debate.

It's a theory.


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

That thinks the earth is 7,000 years old?

That I'm attempting to be one of those (few) who doesn't let my innate desire for moral autonomy, in combination with a conspiracy of suppressed evidence in the academic world, blind me to the fact that there is a GREAT devide between accomplished, respected scientists on this issue.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

So you think it's possible the Earth is only 7000 years old?


>That I'm attempting to be one of those (few) who doesn't let
>my innate desire for moral autonomy, in combination with a
>conspiracy of suppressed evidence in the academic world,

What "suppressed evidence"?

>blind
>me to the fact that there is a GREAT devide between
>accomplished, respected scientists on this issue.

No there isn't.


------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

The reason I threw that number out there 40th St, is I heard that over and over coming up. There were many churches that taught the earth was around 7,000 years old. As crazy as that sounds, there are many who believe this.

it's based on the biblical geneological account, like Methusala lived to be 938 years old or whatever, so they go back and back all the way to Adam, add up all the years and come up with the number. I thought it was supposed to be 6000 years though, but yeah I knew exaclty what you were talking about.

------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

U know the deal

>What "suppressed evidence"?


Exactly!


you're great 40. Good to see you.


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

>>What "suppressed evidence"?
>
>
>Exactly!

Dude, Johnny Cochran is the only one who could pull off an argument like that, and he just died.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

Age of the Earth: A Feasibility Study
Age of the Earth - Is it possible to determine such a thing with any certainty? The formation of the Earth is what is known as a "singularity." The event cannot be repeated in a lab and is not occurring in nature now. In determining the Age of the Earth, scientists must make assumptions that seem reasonable based on observable data. Certainty and assumption are contrary to each other. Therefore, the study of the Age of the Earth is a "feasibility study."

Age of the Earth: Young Earth vs. Old Earth
The scientific community presents the Age of the Earth from two distinct camps: The "Young Earth" advocates and the "Old Earth" advocates. There are various natural chronometers that seem to indicate either a Young Earth or an Old Earth. Both camps use such chronometers to back their position. They both claim their model is most feasible. How then will the dispute be settled?

Age of the Earth: Limiting Factors
The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in "Limiting Factors." While it may be impossible to be certain when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this illustration: A boat sinks. On board is a chest full of gold coins. As time passes, the wreck is forgotten. Centuries later, the boat is discovered, and the chest full of coins is recovered. How can we determine when the boat sank? We may not be able to pinpoint the date, but we are able to determine when it did not sink by looking at the dates on the coins. If a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in 1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin was minted. The coin is a "Limiting Factor."

Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth
There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of the Earth. Here are a few:
Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation).
Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it.
Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth.

Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable
There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more and more frequent basis. Interestingly, they all seem to indicate a Young Earth, or certainly, not one that is millions or billions of years old. Contrary to the general thinking of the last century, many scientists now accept that it is reasonable to view the Earth as fairly young.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

>Age of the Earth: A Feasibility Study
>Age of the Earth - Is it possible to determine such a thing
>with any certainty?

Yes. That's what we call "science."

>The formation of the Earth is what is
>known as a "singularity." The event cannot be repeated in a
>lab

That in no way means that the question does not fall under the purview of science! Case in point: I spend a large part of my time studying the astrophysics of black holes. Black holes were not detected experimantally until about a decade ago. The study of black hole physics, however, did not start a decade ago. It started with a paper due to Pierre Simeon de Laplace, dated 1799. Since then, literally thousands of people have devoted their lives' work to the study of these objects. These people knew that if we came to understand deeply the behavior of those aspects of the world which *are* experimentally available to us, we can apply mathematical rigor to the extension of this understanding far beyond the realm of our current experience. When black holes were finally detected in astrophysical observations, it was hardly a surprise. It barely made the papers. We already knew they existed, even though we hadn't seen them.

>and is not occurring in nature now.

Au contraire! Planet formation is most certainly occurring right now. The astronomical study of the processes of planet formation is one of the most exciting fields of modern science.

>In determining the Age
>of the Earth, scientists must make assumptions that seem
>reasonable based on observable data. Certainty and assumption
>are contrary to each other.

Absolutely. That's why scientists never pretend to hold to any logically rigorous (bivalent) sense of certainty. Certainty, at that level, is irrelevant to science. That does NOT mean that we cannot hold on to strong epistemological structures. There's a difference between saying "nothing is known up to the strictest measures of logical certainty", and saying "nothing is known." The first statement is completely obvious. The second statement is absolute bullshit (anyone here who doubts that has a strange habit of punching away at computer keys for no reason).

>Therefore, the study of the Age of
>the Earth is a "feasibility study."
>
>Age of the Earth: Young Earth vs. Old Earth
>The scientific community presents the Age of the Earth from
>two distinct camps: The "Young Earth" advocates and the "Old
>Earth" advocates.

Well, nowadays, the "Young Earth" "advocates" are generally not scientists, but rather poorly veiled preachers. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt (as scientists generally try to do), and look at their "evidence."

>There are various natural chronometers that
>seem to indicate either a Young Earth or an Old Earth. Both
>camps use such chronometers to back their position. They both
>claim their model is most feasible. How then will the dispute
>be settled?
>
>Age of the Earth: Limiting Factors
>The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in
>"Limiting Factors." While it may be impossible to be certain
>when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not
>form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this
>illustration: A boat sinks. On board is a chest full of gold
>coins. As time passes, the wreck is forgotten. Centuries
>later, the boat is discovered, and the chest full of coins is
>recovered. How can we determine when the boat sank? We may not
>be able to pinpoint the date, but we are able to determine
>when it did not sink by looking at the dates on the coins. If
>a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in
>1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin
>was minted. The coin is a "Limiting Factor."
>
>Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth
>There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of
>the Earth. Here are a few:
>Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to
>life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects
>much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life.

Well, life as we see it today. That hardly constitutes all life. I'm perfectly happy to assume, for the time being, that all of the life that has, well, evolved on earth has been incapable of handling ionizing cosmic radiation (there is indeed much evidence to support this view). But it's a little odd that this dude, who pretends that for a full scientific understanding of the formation of the earth we need to see it forming, then pretends to understand the biology of lifeforms he has never observed. Just an aside.

>Precise
>measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made
>since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has
>deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a
>predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that
>life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field
>would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease
>to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical
>purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic
>radiation).

Here we see the dangers of utterly naive extrapolation. There are many curves which can fit any given data set. I think it was von Neumann who once said "give me three parameters, and I can fit an elephant!"

One cannot make statistical inferences in a theoretical vacuum. One cannot look at a small family of data, say "hey that looks exponential", trace out an exponential curve over the data and call your result science. Scientific statistics involves the fitting of a small number of free parameters in an otherwise fixed mathematical model. If one simply draws a curve through a data set, one is in essense fitting an indenumerably infinite set of parameters, rendering any statistical conclusions useless.

Oh and by the way, dude says we have measurements of the magnetic field dating back to 1829. In fact we have a lot more than that. For instance, ice cores give us measurements dating back millions of years. And the long-term behavior is not exponential. Of course, the "young earth" hypothesist cannot accept those data. For the earth clearly didn't even exist when they were deposited!

>Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We
>experience a "leap second" every year and a half.

Holy shit!!! Is this dude serious?! The existence of leap seconds in no way indicates that the earth's rotation is slowing down! It merely exhibits an inaccuracy of our calendar. Our calendar assumes that the earth's revolution period is an integer multiple of its rotation period. This is simply not the case. The error introduced by this flawed assumption is corrected in part by our recognition of February 29 on leap years. But this correction is itself only approximate, hence the further correction enacted by these so-called leap seconds.

If this dude actually thinks the existence of leap seconds is an indication that the earth is slowing down, I shudder to think of how he might explain daylight-savings time.

>If it is
>slowing down, at one time it was going much faster.

Not necessarily (even if it were slowing down as much as he says). Again, this dude is making a completely unjustified extrapolation.

>A faster
>spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would
>be impossible as we know it.
>Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth.
>If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much
>closer.

The Moon's orbital radius is indeed increasing these days. But again, this extrapolation is completely unjustified. Any physics graduate student can do a simple perturbation theory analysis to derive long-term oscillations of an orbital radius. If one extrapolated linearly from any small region of even a modest oscillation, he will find catastrophe, not oscillation. This is the clothing of science, stripped of its substance.

>The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the
>moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on
>our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it
>would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day.

I can forgive him for being unaware of a cute little detail of the earth's tides: The earth is a gravitationally bound object. By that I mean that on the largest scales it is NOT a solid rock, but is in fact well approximated as a free dust. In fact, the "solid" parts of the earth rise and fall just as far as the oceans do. The increases of ocean level which we refer to as "tides" are in fact not due directly to the gravitational pull of the moon, but instead only to the fact that the viscosity in the oceans induces a phase difference between the high points in the land's tide and the sea's tide.

So even if the tidal deformations were dramatically increased, that would not necessarily lead to an increase in the oscillation of sea levels relative to land. This oscillation is due more to the viscosity of the water than to the pull of the moon.

But again, it doesn't even matter. The moon has not been moving away monotonically. There is no reason to believe that it was ever close enough to cause significantly greater tides than we see today.

>1.2
>billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been
>touching the Earth.

And of course that is hardly a troubling claim (again, even if it were justified). One of the more compelling current hypotheses regarding the origin of our moon is that it collected from dust knocked into the atmosphere after an asteroid collision. So in a sense, many scientists already argue that the moon was touching the earth in the distant past.

>Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable

Umm, yes it is.

>There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding
>the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more
>and more frequent basis.

Oh, okay. Then why don't you mention some of them? Why is it that you happened to mention only these two utterly laughable arguments? Are these the best you've got?

but this was the funniest shit out of the whole thing

"If this dude actually thinks the existence of leap seconds is an indication that the earth is slowing down, I shudder to think of how he might explain daylight-savings time."

That shit actually made me laugh out load

------
Baddest Motherfucker in the OkaySports Hall of Fame

Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation
Radiometric dating is the primary dating scheme employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. Radiometric dating techniques take advantage of the natural decay of radioisotopes. An isotope is one of two or more atoms which have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but a different number of neutrons. Radioisotopes are unstable isotopes: they spontaneously decay (emitting radiation in the process -- thus making them radioactive). They continue to decay going through various transitional states until they finally reach stability. For example, Uranium-238 (U238) is a radioisotope. It will spontaneously decay until it transitions into Lead-206 (Pb206). The numbers 238 and 206 represent these isotopes' atomic mass. The Uranium-238 radioisotope goes through 13 transitional stages before stabilizing into Lead-206 (U238 > Th234 > Pa234 > U234 > Th230 > Ra226 > Rn222 > Po218 > Pb214 > Bi214 > Po214 > Pb210 > Bi210 > Po210 > Pb206). In this instance, Uranium-238 is called the "parent" and Lead-206 is called the "daughter". By measuring how long it takes for an unstable element to decay into a stable element and by measuring how much daughter element has been produced by the parent element within a specimen of rock, scientists believe they are able to determine the age of the rock. This belief is based upon three significant assumptions.

Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions
Many of the ages derived by radiometric dating techniques are highly publicized. Nevertheless, the fundamental assumptions employed are not. Here are the three major assumptions for your consideration:

1. The rate of decay remains constant.
2. There has been no contamination (that is, no daughter or intermediate elements have been introduced or leeched from the specimen of rock).
3. We can determine how much daughter there was to begin with (if we assume there was no daughter to begin with, yet there was daughter at the formation of the rock, the rock would have a superficial appearance of age).
Are these foundational assumptions reasonable? Recent findings seem to indicate that though we ourselves have not been able to vary the decay rates by much in the laboratory, the decay rates may have been accelerated in the unobservable past . If this were the case, the first assumption would be deemed unreasonable. This would completely upset our current standardized view of earth's history. Dr Carl Wieland summarizes the recent findings: "When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and 'radiogenic lead' in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic 'age' assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that '1.5 billion years of decay' still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should hardly be any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the recent RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent… to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years."

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

and you posted a book. Besides that fact, the shit you posted is so full of holes it's funny. I grew up in the church so I know these arguments well. The problem is, they never hold up when confronted head on by experts with real science behind their argument. I would ask you how you explain the Dinosaurs, Wooly Mammoths or human remains that easily dates beyond 14,000 years, but that would be pointless. You are coming from a place of faith. Nothing I or anyone else can say that will change your mind.

"they never hold up when confronted head on by experts with real science behind their argument."

men are not experts but mere men with opinions

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

>men are not experts but mere men with opinions

But really doesn't mean anything. If you equate the ability of man to reason and come to the most "logical" conclusions with that of myth and mere faith, we would still be living in a world much like the one we had 2,000 years ago. The difference with science and faith is, many theories can and are proven. With faith this is never the case. It's always about, well just faith.

"With faith this is never the case. It's always about, well just faith."

when was the last time you been to church? i smell a rebellious spirit on you..j/k


"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

If you're saying that faith is faith, and logic is logic, and the two are seperate.

My faith is grounded in reason. I found my faith through reason. Faith is not unreasonable.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

>
>
>If you're saying that faith is faith, and logic is logic, and
>the two are seperate.
>
>My faith is grounded in reason. I found my faith through
>reason. Faith is not unreasonable.

Not necessarily so. But when a particular faith comes in direct conflict with a vast majority of evidence, and one then chooses to disregard the majority of evidence in favor of accepted faith, that's when it becomes unreasonable.

I cannot disprove God's existence, believe me, I would if I could. But I most certainly can disprove (up to any of the usual scientific standards) any young earth hypothesis. The key is to look seriously at the totality of the evidence. Not to presume the answer at the very beginning, and then to search out evidence to support my hypothesis, while disregarding that evidence which contradicts it.

You don't make much progress by simply assuming an enormous anti-christian conspiracy in the scientific community.

>You don't make much progress by simply assuming an enormous
>anti-christian conspiracy in the scientific community



What I pressupose is actually more than that. I pressupose an enormous, congenital anti-God conspiracy in the heart of every man that has ever walked the earth, including myself. The only man I exclude from this group is Jesus.

It's important also that you not equivocate my "Faith in God" with faith in a young earth hypothesis. I am only raising the point that there is suppressed evidence and a suppressed debate.

Presently, at this point in my thinking, I see no reason why a creative God might just as well have done things slowly as quickly. Evolution, logically, does not negate the need for a creator. The Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate is based on a false dichotomy. People swallow it and pick a side because they don't think rationally.

However, the more I explore this "young earth camp" (EXTREMELY CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS INCLUDED) the more I am inclined to acknowledge that there is SERIOUS MISINFORMATION going on in our schools and in the media.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

"The Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate is based on a false dichotomy. People swallow it and pick a side because they don't think rationally"

>
>>You don't make much progress by simply assuming an enormous
>>anti-christian conspiracy in the scientific community
>
>
>What I pressupose is actually more than that. I pressupose an
>enormous, congenital anti-God conspiracy in the heart of every
>man that has ever walked the earth, including myself. The
>only man I exclude from this group is Jesus.
>
>It's important also that you not equivocate my "Faith in God"
>with faith in a young earth hypothesis. I am only raising the
>point that there is suppressed evidence and a suppressed
>debate.
>
>Presently, at this point in my thinking, I see no reason why a
>creative God might just as well have done things slowly as
>quickly. Evolution, logically, does not negate the need for a
>creator. The Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate is based on
>a false dichotomy. People swallow it and pick a side because
>they don't think rationally.

Okay, marcus3xmas. But what does this "anti-God conspiracy" have to do with science? You say yourself that a 4-billion-year-old earth in no way contradicts the influence of God. So how could this anti-God conspiracy be the cause of this OVERWHELMING majority opinion in the scientific community? Perhaps that viewpoint became an overwhelming majority view not through the anti-God conspiracy, but instead through the same rational thought process that brought us air conditioners, computers, microwave calzones and a justice system that doesn't involve public stoning.

>However, the more I explore this "young earth camp" (EXTREMELY
>CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS INCLUDED)

There is no position so absurd that a handful of PhD scientists cannot be found to support it! One of the great physicists of the twentieth century, Julian Schwinger, devoted the last decade of his life to cold fusion. But he was not smart enough to make it work, no matter how badly he wanted it.

What matters is not the view of a small camp (however "extremely credible"), but rather the agreement of a wide, deep, educated majority, when such agreement exists. With regard to the "age" of the earth, such agreement definitely exists, and it does not fall on your side.

>the more I am inclined to
>acknowledge that there is SERIOUS MISINFORMATION going on in
>our schools and in the media.

Yeah, those stickers in the Biology textbooks bother the hell out of me, too.

If I can just say, you made my night.

S.ean | President of the 'Ban Chris Defendorf' club. We have meetings.

"With faith this is never the case. It's always about, well just faith."

when was the last time you been to church? i smell a rebellious spirit on you..j/k


"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

A person that asked questions for which those that claimed to have all the answers had none. It's not a matter of rebellion (although I don't view rebellion as a bad thing when they is something unjust being forced upon others). It's a matter of challenging those that lead others by fear and false hope for the sake of profit. My fight isn't with you the believer. It's with those that taught you. You are the victim.

"You are the victim"

*shakes head*

remember me when you see for yourself what will happen in the future.peace

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

I'd pray for you. Don't live your life looking over your shoulder. Good luck 2 you. I mean that.

sweet heart

i know who my God is, I have no need to look over my shoulder, and prayer/belief does work. i work in the medical field (nurse) and i've also seen the power of God.I seen people get up by prayer and faith who were told by doctors that they couldn't walk again (based on facts). but im sure that's just an odd too. Be blessed. peac

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

to believe in something bigger than themselves. But that doesn't prove the existence of a higher power, any moreso than the movie "The 10 Commandments" does.

My sentiments exactly

...you just made.


A theory is never proven, only disproven.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

>A theory is never proven, only disproven.

and the young earth "theory" has been disproven.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

i theorise that the TRUE god is allah - go disprove.

And about all this science, go check google (i can't be bothered to do it for you) but u'll soon learn radiometric dating is highly reliable and every one of those arguments u put forward are can be totally refuted by credible science. Go figure.

Oh and the dragons - thank you for putting a smile on my face.

------------------------------------------------------------

Check my man Lao at www.myspace.com/lazzriel

>and you posted a book. Besides that fact, the shit you posted
>is so full of holes it's funny.

cite please.

>I grew up in the church so I
>know these arguments well.

then you should have no problem refuting them.

>The problem is, they never hold up
>when confronted head on by experts with real science behind
>their argument. I would ask you how you explain the Dinosaurs,
>Wooly Mammoths or human remains that easily dates beyond
>14,000 years, but that would be pointless. You are coming from
>a place of faith. Nothing I or anyone else can say that will
>change your mind.


Change my mind from what? Havn't I simply said "this is interesting"?


You are coming from a place of faith as well. Everyone is. Everyone lives by faith. You make the mistake of thinking that I substitute it for reason. Do you believe that a God created you and your world? Curious.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

"Do you believe that a God created you and your world? Curious."

But what I'm not is naive enough to believe life comes with instructions.

Can I ask then what "reasoning" undergirds your belief that the existence of a creatiing God is unknowable? What line of reasoning led you to the conclusion?


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

The Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing in intensity for the last century, but it doesn't disappear altogether, it just periodically reverses its polarity.

------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

Uniformitarianism - "The Present is the Key to the Past"
Uniformitarianism is a geological doctrine. It states that current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, in the same manner, account for all of Earth's geological features. Thus, it assumes that geological processes are essentially unchanged today from those of the unobservable past, and that there have been no cataclysmic events in earth's history. As present processes are thought to explain all past events, the Uniformitarian slogan is, "the present is the key to the past."

Uniformitarianism - Glossary of Geology
Uniformitarianism is defined in the authoritative Glossary of Geology as "the fundamental principle or doctrine that geologic processes and natural laws now operating to modify the Earth's crust have acted in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classical concept that 'the present is the key to the past'." (Robert Bates and Julia Jackson, Glossary of Geology, 2nd edition, American Geological Institute, 1980, pg. 677).

Uniformitarianism - James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell
The doctrine of Uniformitarianism was significantly advanced by James Hutton (1726-1797) in his publication, Theory of the Earth (1785). Hutton influenced Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), who is acclaimed as the father of modern geology with his work, Principles of Geology (1830-1833, a three volume work). Lyell, in turn, influenced Charles Darwin, who later wrote The Origin of Species (1859). Lyell is responsible for the general acceptance of Uniformitarianism among geologists for the past 150 years.

Uniformitarianism - Post Gradualism
In regards to Uniformitarianism, Warren D. Allmon writes, "As is now increasingly acknowledged, however, Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that because physical laws are constant in time and space and current processes should be consulted before resorting to unseen processes, it necessarily follows that all past processes acted at essentially their current rates (that is, those observed in historical time). This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual." ("Post Gradualism", Science, vol. 262, October 1, 1993, pg. 122).

Uniformitarianism - Catastrophism
Uniformitarianism, together with the Geologic Column presupposed by Lyell based on uniformity, have been disproved by geologic features such as poly-strata fossils, misplaced fossils, missing layers and misplaced layers (including layers in reverse order or "ancient" layers found above "modern" layers). Furthermore, observed cataclysmic events such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 have validated Catastrophism, which is contrary to Uniformitarianism. We now know that catastrophe has had a significant role in forming Earth's currently observable features.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

Catastrophism -- Past Cataclysmic Activity
Catastrophism is the idea that many of Earth’s crustal features (strata layers, erosion, polystrate fossils, etc) formed as a result of past cataclysmic activity. In other words, the Earth’s surface has been scarred by catastrophic natural disasters.

Catastrophism -- Uniformitarianism
Catastrophism is contrary to Uniformitarianism, the accepted geological doctrine for over 150 years. Uniformitarianism states that current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, in the same manner, account for all of earth's geological features. As present processes are thought to explain all past events, the Uniformitarianism slogan is "the present is the key to the past." Uniformitarianism ignores the possibility of past cataclysmic activity upon the surface of the earth. James Hutton first purposed the doctrine of uniformity in his publication, Theory of the Earth (1785). Sir Charles Lyell endorsed Uniformitarianism in his work, Principles of Geology (1830). Uniformitarianism is fundamental to Lyell's geologic column. Uniformitarianism and the geologic column, both of which assume uniformity, have been disproved in recent years by geologic features such as poly-strata fossils, misplaced fossils, missing layers and misplaced layers (including layers in reverse order or "ancient" layers found above "modern" layers). Furthermore, observed cataclysmic events such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 have validated Catastrophism. Prior to the introduction of Uniformitarianism, Catastrophism was the accepted geological doctrine. Once again, Catastrophism is becoming accepted as an accurate interpretation of earth's geologic history.

Catastrophism -- Empirical Evidence
Catastrophism is supported by actual, recorded history. Nearly 300 ancient flood legends have survived the ravishment of time. Legends of a worldwide deluge, commonly known as the "Noachian Flood," are found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North American and South America. Furthermore, earth's sedimentary layers with the fossil record seem to suggest a past marine cataclysm. Sedimentary rock (sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, etc) is the result of moving water, laid down layer upon layer by hydrologic sorting. Animals whose fossil remains are found within those layers must have been caught in this running water to have been buried and preserved. The remains, as well as the rocks, would be sorted according to density. Otherwise, the carcasses would rot or be scavenged. Approximately 95% of all earth's fossil remains discovered thus far are marine invertebrates. Of the remainder, approximately 4.74% are plant fossils, 0.25% are land invertebrates (including insects), and 0.0125% are vertebrates (the majority of which are fish). Roughly 95% of all land vertebrates discovered and recorded to date consist of less than one bone.

Catastrophism -- The Noachian Flood
Catastrophism is supported by the evidential data. Catastrophism supports the Noachian Flood. Dramatic evidence is everywhere except in the popular press. For instance, who is aware that fossil remains of clams (found in the closed position, indicating they were buried alive) have been found atop Mt. Everest? What about whale fossils and petrified trees that stand upright through multiple sedimentary layers supposedly separated by millions of years? It is a remarkable time to reinvestigate the facts and determine your own position.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

EVERY SINGLE CREDIBLE SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD AGREES ON IT.





...end of argument. now go play with some dragons

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

'nuff said.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

a university site, or a CREDIBLE scientific body which backs up your claims.

the key word here: credible. as in, actual scientists. you know, the dudes who wear lab coats and actually test things to see if they're true, instead of thinking that by using the term 'zircon' nobody will dispute what they say.

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

I believe you keep mistaking me. I get the impression that you think "I'm" trying to prove a young earth theory here. Look closer. I'm not. I'm trying to address the fact that contrary to what is being taught to us, both through the media and through formal education, there IS a debate raging about this. "Old Earth" is being taught as fact when in fact it is a theory with many holes.

You asked for some names....

Dr Raymond V. Damadian - Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)

Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. See http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_MRI.asp .

 

Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)

U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory. Also see Scientists Who Believe: An Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner , and Probing the Earth's Deep Places.

 
 

 
Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)

Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie .

 
 

 
Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)

This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones .

 
 

 
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)

The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
 

Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)

Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist. 

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

keep trying.

you DO know what an 'academic link' means, don't you?

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

I take your comment to mean that those names and credentials mean abtolutely nothing to you? Is that fair to say?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

I suspect any source/link information supplied to you will be dismissed by you as "non-academic".

After all, you have ignored the list of credible (to say the LEAST) scientists just provided for you.

Interesting, this seems right in line with my suspicion that there is a suppression of this debate/evidence in adedamia itself.

You DO know what an unfalsifiable position is don't you?


Do you need my help in going to google and looking up organizations of scientists questioning the "old earth theory"?

I think you can handle that right?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

it's up to you to show me their work where it is published on ACADEMIC SITES.

otherwise how else am i to know how reputable they are?
you can buy degrees on the net these days, you know.

here, this might help:
".ac is also a second level domain for academic establishments, such as Universities, in the a number of countries, such as the United Kingdom (.ac.uk), Japan (.ac.jp), Belgium (.ac.be), and many many more. Many countries use .edu for the same purpose, for example .edu.au in Australia, .edu.my in Malaysia. Still other countries (examples include France and Switzerland), do not maintain a second level domain specifically for academic institutions. Rather, each institution will have its own second-level domain (such as sorbonne.fr for the Sorbonne, or tum.de for the Technical University of Munich)"

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

The only link he gives us here is to "answers in genesis."

And that was in regard to Raymond Damadian, the guy who bought ad space in the NY times a few years ago to protest the fact that he was never awarded a Nobel Prize.

Hardly a credible scientist.

now you're defense is "not true"

Haha...classic

That sounds sarcastic... it's not meant to be. What I mean is I think you're bright enought to recognize an "unfalsifiable postition" when you see one. Right?

Unless of course the person who takes it happens to appeal to your beliefs, pressupositions and prejudices and you dont' want to discredit them. Think about it.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

>EVERY SINGLE CREDIBLE SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD AGREES ON IT.
>
>
>
>
>
>...end of argument. now go play with some dragons


------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

1. Human & Dinosaur Fossils. Human bones and tools coexist in the same fossil layers as dinosaur bones in Texas and the Dakotas.
2. Human & Dinosaur Footprints. Footprints of dinosaurs, humans and other mammals coexist in the same fossil layers in Texas and New Mexico.
3. Native American Petroglyphs. Cave and cliff drawings in Utah and Colorado crudely depict certain dinosaur species (dated from 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.).
4. Ica Stones. Ceremonial burial stones discovered in Ica, Peru depict numerous species of dinosaurs, some in activities with man (dated from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.).
5. Acambaro Figurines. Ceramic and stone figurines discovered in Acambaro, Mexico represent many species of dinosaurs (dated from 800 B.C. to 200 A.D.).
6. Dragon Accounts. China, Europe and the Middle East share similar accounts of “dragons” and other beasts. Some cultures revered these creatures. For instance, records of Marco Polo in China show that the royal house kept dragons for ceremonies. In other cultures, it was a great honor to kill these beasts. There are numerous records of warriors killing great beasts in order to establish credibility in a village.
7. Behemoth, Leviathan and the Dragons of the Bible. Job writes of great creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan, nearly 4000 years ago. Although more recent Bible translations use elephant, hippo or crocodile instead, the original Hebrew does not allow for these interpretations. The word “dragon” (Hebrew: tannin) is used numerous times in the Old Testament, and most directly translates as “sea or land monsters.”
8. Gilgamesh, Fafnir, Beowulf and other Legends. Many famous legends, including the mythology of Egypt, Greece and Rome, include specific descriptions of dragons and other dinosaur-like creatures.
9. Dragons in Ancient Art. Dinosaur-like creatures are featured on Babylonian landmarks, Roman mosaics, Egyptian burial shrouds, and many other pieces of art throughout the ancient world.
10. Current Legends & Discoveries. There is a huge and credible legacy of sea, lake and swamp “monsters,” even to this day.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

>1. Human & Dinosaur Fossils. Human bones and tools coexist in
>the same fossil layers as dinosaur bones in Texas and the
>Dakotas.

No they don't.

>2. Human & Dinosaur Footprints. Footprints of dinosaurs,
>humans and other mammals coexist in the same fossil layers in
>Texas and New Mexico.

No they don't.

>3. Native American Petroglyphs. Cave and cliff drawings in
>Utah and Colorado crudely depict certain dinosaur species
>(dated from 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.).

No they don't.

>4. Ica Stones. Ceremonial burial stones discovered in Ica,
>Peru depict numerous species of dinosaurs, some in activities
>with man (dated from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.).

No they don't.

>5. Acambaro Figurines. Ceramic and stone figurines discovered
>in Acambaro, Mexico represent many species of dinosaurs (dated
>from 800 B.C. to 200 A.D.).

No they don't.

>6. Dragon Accounts. China, Europe and the Middle East share
>similar accounts of “dragons” and other beasts.

Actually dragons in Asian and European myths are very different.

>Some cultures
>revered these creatures. For instance, records of Marco Polo
>in China show that the royal house kept dragons for
>ceremonies. In other cultures, it was a great honor to kill
>these beasts. There are numerous records of warriors killing
>great beasts in order to establish credibility in a village.

There's tons of legends of heroes killing all kinds of great beasts and monsters - the hydra, the minotaur, the kraken, etc... that doesn't make any of them based in fact.

>7. Behemoth, Leviathan and the Dragons of the Bible. Job
>writes of great creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan, nearly 4000
>years ago.

No he didn't, because the Bible is not 4,000 years old.

>Although more recent Bible translations use
>elephant, hippo or crocodile instead, the original Hebrew does
>not allow for these interpretations. The word “dragon”
>(Hebrew: tannin) is used numerous times in the Old Testament,
>and most directly translates as “sea or land monsters.”

So they could be talking about crocodiles.


>8. Gilgamesh, Fafnir, Beowulf and other Legends. Many famous
>legends, including the mythology of Egypt, Greece and Rome,
>include specific descriptions of dragons and other
>dinosaur-like creatures.
>9. Dragons in Ancient Art. Dinosaur-like creatures are
>featured on Babylonian landmarks, Roman mosaics, Egyptian
>burial shrouds, and many other pieces of art throughout the
>ancient world.
>10. Current Legends & Discoveries. There is a huge and
>credible legacy of sea, lake and swamp “monsters,” even to
>this day.

No, because... eh, this is getting tedious. I can't believe I'm actually trying to convince an adult that dragons aren't real.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!

Is the source he's pulling from. Don't just copy and paste, show us the source. That in and of itself will be very telling.

>Is the source he's pulling from. Don't just copy and paste,
>show us the source. That in and of itself will be very
>telling.


Of COURSE it will!

Because you'll, out-of-hand, dismiss any source that begins from a christian and/or supernaturalist perspective as automatically incredible and untenable.

Your presupposition is betraying the integrity of your search, rendering it not really a "search".

All who seek, find.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

"Because you'll, out-of-hand, dismiss any source that begins from a christian and/or supernaturalist perspective "

You say that like its a bad thing. Any so-called scientist that BEGINS, as you say, from that point has already played his hand. It shows he is starting from a point of faith and not science. It's perfectly fine for a man of science to also have his own spiritual belief system. But he can not BEGIN from that point when evaluating data

>You say that like its a bad thing. Any so-called scientist
>that BEGINS, as you say, from that point has already played
>his hand. It shows he is starting from a point of faith and
>not science.


You're failing to recognize that a scientist starts from a point of faith as well.
Science begins with unprovable pressupositions just as ANY investigation/argument does.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

Are pretty easy to explain actually. It's a combination of people that had no idea what a dinosaur was, unearthing bones that defied anything they had ever seen. The second part of this, is the fact that the average person never traveled more than 50 miles from his place of birth. Add those two together and you get dragon legends. How so? Well once people saw those bones, they knew something like a dragon really did/does exists. Now it just takes one exception to the "50 mile rule" to return home after traveling someplace far away. When he comes back, he spreads the story about how he saw dragons much like the bones in his village. While I'm typing this I just realized I'm explaining why dragons ARE myth. 40th St you're right. Why are we wasting our time with this?

May not be the exact age of the earth, however, it is a number that was arrived at by years and years of study, as opposed to your 10,000 yrs which were simply an idea created by a man with a pen.i will not conceded that it is a "theory"..and I will most certainly not conceded it to anyone who believes that the earth is but a mere 10,000 years old and cannot even explain something so simple as the existence of dinosaur fossils..