Attenton Creationists... more PROOF your idealogy is wrong.

[deansayso]

The carbon dating thing is fake and those rotten scientists planted the dinosaur bones too...

[Wickabee]

The carbon dating thing is fake and those rotten scientists planted the dinosaur bones too...

No. God put them there to confuse us.

All this disproves is the earth being 6000 years old. It doesn't mean it wasn't created, it doesn't mean there's no God. It means somewhere, someone took something to mean Jesus came 4000 years after God created the earth.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will use something like this, which disproves one man-thought part of the theory, and throw out the idea of a God completely because of it. I will never understand how people so hellbent on calling themselves reasonable and logical can't wrap their heads around the idea that God exists and every religion is wrong.

[duane1969]

I would like to hear a defense of this.. an explanation of somehow this rock only being 6000 years old instead of the reality here. If anyone says "but the bible is the word of god".. I will simply ignore your post... please use science not superstition.

So you demand that people use science to prove religion? Religion-based creation is a theory founded in historical documents. That makes it a valid theory. Evolution, Big Bang and a plethora of other terms that are accepted as fact by people like yourself are also theories. Saying that proof that a rock is billions of years old is proof that religion is false is just as off-base as saying the rock proves that the theory of evolution is fact. What that article proves is that they found a really old rock, nothing else.

And for the record, I am not a religious person, I just can grasp the logic that an old rock does not disprove religion.

[centrehice]

So you demand that people use science to prove religion? Religion-based creation is a theory founded in historical documents. That makes it a valid theory. Evolution, Big Bang and a plethora of other terms that are accepted as fact by people like yourself are also theories. Saying that proof that a rock is billions of years old is proof that religion is false is just as off-base as saying the rock proves that the theory of evolution is fact. What that article proves is that they found a really old rock, nothing else.

And for the record, I am not a religious person, I just can grasp the logic that an old rock does not disprove religion.

Says Who?
Please feel free to reveal the accepted Historical Documents that provide Creation as the true and tested positive conclusion of the very hypotheses that it professes based on historical fact. I will give you 3 weeks, that should be ample time for you to steer me to the correct Historical Documents that prove Creation a valid theory.

I will even give you a leg up. The Bible, new or Old Testament is not an accurate document of Historical evidence or proof, so it's out. That should make your search even easier.

[habsheaven]

So you demand that people use science to prove religion? Religion-based creation is a theory founded in historical documents. That makes it a valid theory. Evolution, Big Bang and a plethora of other terms that are accepted as fact by people like yourself are also theories. Saying that proof that a rock is billions of years old is proof that religion is false is just as off-base as saying the rock proves that the theory of evolution is fact. What that article proves is that they found a really old rock, nothing else.

And for the record, I am not a religious person, I just can grasp the logic that an old rock does not disprove religion.

Religion based creation is NOT a theory. It's a fable. You do not validate a theory based on "historical documents".

And no one here has said the bolded part. They are saying as you put it; "they found a really old rock". Which calls into question the Genesis story as it is written in the Bible.

[duane1969]

Says Who?
Please feel free to reveal the accepted Historical Documents that provide Creation as the true and tested positive conclusion of the very hypotheses that it professes based on historical fact. I will give you 3 weeks, that should be ample time for you to steer me to the correct Historical Documents that prove Creation a valid theory.

I will even give you a leg up. The Bible, new or Old Testament is not an accurate document of Historical evidence or proof, so it's out. That should make your search even easier.

I feel no need to prove anything about the Bible. Some people accept it as fact just like some people accept evolution as fact. You call the Bible a fable, I call a few random bones found thousands of miles apart lacking as a means of proving evolution. Everyone believes what they want. Everything does not have to be unequivocally proven as factual in a theory (that's why it's called a theory).

Religion based creation is NOT a theory. It's a fable. You do not validate a theory based on "historical documents".

And no one here has said the bolded part. They are saying as you put it; "they found a really old rock". Which calls into question the Genesis story as it is written in the Bible.

How does it call Genesis into question? I have read the book of genesis and nowhere in there does it date when God created the heavens and earth.

[centrehice]

You completely played Dodge-ball there. The bible is not an accepted, accurate historical document that proves anything. Evolution has nothing to do with your argument text that I bolded, so again, goal-post shifting.

You said exactly this: "Religion-based creation is a theory founded in historical documents. That makes it a valid theory". Just look 4 posts above. You said it.

The fact that you cannot back this up with those said Historical Documents only proves that your blanket statement is full of holes.

[duane1969]

You completely played Dodge-ball there. The bible is not an accepted, accurate historical document that proves anything. Evolution has nothing to do with your argument text that I bolded, so again, goal-post shifting.

You said exactly this: "Religion-based creation is a theory founded in historical documents. That makes it a valid theory". Just look 4 posts above. You said it.

The fact that you cannot back this up with those said Historical Documents only proves that your blanket statement is full of holes.

It is not accepted by who? You? I have known many, many people in my life who do. Just because you do not does not make it that way for everyone.

[centrehice]

Dodge, dodge, dodge. You made what you thought was a factual statement, yet you refuse to provide it's very facts?

I am wasting my time with a person that cannot back-up what they profess.

[Wickabee]

Religion based creation is NOT a theory. It's a fable. You do not validate a theory based on "historical documents".

And no one here has said the bolded part. They are saying as you put it; "they found a really old rock". Which calls into question the Genesis story as it is written in the Bible.

I would really like to know how this disproves anything written in Genesis. Again, I can't find the 6000 years everyone is talking about.