The Earth is 157 years old

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

It seems obvious to me that they did. So many very similar dinosaurs wouldn't have just appeared like that. I can understand just one type of dinosaur, or several distinct types of dinosaurs, being created or appearing or whatever, but the differences between Camasaurus, Diplodocus, Brontosaurus, for example, are trivial. It makes sense that they were all part of the same branch of genes.

Ahh, variations within a kind, sure, it happens. Look at dogs, there are a bunch of different types of dogs with huge differences in apperance. It doesn't take milions of years to get a new type of dog, only takes several generations. Why do you think dinos would be any different.

Well besides the small differences there are also big differences (compare plesiosaurus and deinonychus for example). Why would there be such a wide range of difference ranges?

One is a sea creature, another is not. Sea creatures were created separate from land animals.

hmm both creation and evolution is correct.


god created life, but he did it within the confines of the laws of physics - and did it via evolution.


least thats what i think.


Jesus taught his followers through parables, who's to say god does not do the same - and what would Moses have understood about nuclear fusion, big bang, and evolution of proteins (considering today, about 5000 years later we are still struggling to understand them)

Again I concur with everything googleSearch has said and nothing that the quack has stated with the sole exception of his assertion that the earth is flat.

  I was very interested to know the genuineness of Dr.Quak's sincerity in reguards to this, reguardless of whether he believes in evolution or not.

  Just to clarify that the subject of this post is the age of the earth, and since some persons unfortunately believe in uniformitariamism (evolution's geological twin developed by Charles Lyell, Darwin's counterpart in the field of geology), a parallel controversy has also been discussed here in relation to biology.

  That being the case, I wanted to refer googleSearch back to the old post on racial differences where we have each had controversies with others and we defended the same position (i.e. the relationship of evolution to racism).  I do not know if googleSearch noticed the post or not, but I was in Nairobi, Kenya last week when I went into a muslim bookstore.  I was actually looking for a swahili edition of the 'Protocols of Zion' and the manager smiled and said they only carry it in english (which I already have anyway) but it was presently sold out.  Thinking of what else they might have in the way of decent literature, I inquired about the turkish author Harun Yahya, and like any decent muslim bookstore, they had several books by him.  I picked up one that was a critique of "romanticism" which I had not seen before.  After looking through it for five minutes, Yahya's emphasis on the scholarship of a certain western historian caught my eye.

  Daniel Gasman has written two very able books exposing one of the most regrettable aspects of national socialism and its root in the social darwinism of Ernst Haeckel.

  I repeat here the reference to the two aforementioned volumes in the event googleSearch missed the earlier mention.  However, it would be preferable that any controversy concerning race and evolution continue in the aforementioned thread as this one is primarily about the age of the earth, and perhaps it has "evolved" into one on biology as well (so there is an appropriate us for the word "evolution" after all!!!):

1) The Scientific Origins of National Socialism:  Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League
by Daniel Gasman

2) Haeckel's Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology
by Daniel Gasman

  I do have a question for googleSearch.  The fact you do not believe in the moon landings raised an eyebrow.  I have not reviewed your posts,  but are you by any chance a spherical geocentrist or even a flat earther?  

- Dionysios

Again I concur with everything googleSearch has said and nothing that the quack has stated with the sole exception of his assertion that the earth is flat.

  I was very interested to know the genuineness of Dr.Quak's sincerity in reguards to this, reguardless of whether he believes in evolution or not.

  Just to clarify that the subject of this post is the age of the earth, and since some persons unfortunately believe in uniformitariamism (evolution's geological twin developed by Charles Lyell, Darwin's counterpart in the field of geology), a parallel controversy has also been discussed here in relation to biology.

  That being the case, I wanted to refer googleSearch back to the old post on racial differences where we have each had controversies with others and we defended the same position (i.e. the relationship of evolution to racism).  I do not know if googleSearch noticed the post or not, but I was in Nairobi, Kenya last week when I went into a muslim bookstore.  I was actually looking for a swahili edition of the 'Protocols of Zion' and the manager smiled and said they only carry it in english (which I already have anyway) but it was presently sold out.  Thinking of what else they might have in the way of decent literature, I inquired about the turkish author Harun Yahya, and like any decent muslim bookstore, they had several books by him.  I picked up one that was a critique of "romanticism" which I had not seen before.  After looking through it for five minutes, Yahya's emphasis on the scholarship of a certain western historian caught my eye.

  Daniel Gasman has written two very able books exposing one of the most regrettable aspects of national socialism and its root in the social darwinism of Ernst Haeckel.

  I repeat here the reference to the two aforementioned volumes in the event googleSearch missed the earlier mention.  However, it would be preferable that any controversy concerning race and evolution continue in the aforementioned thread as this one is primarily about the age of the earth, and perhaps it has "evolved" into one on biology as well (so there is an appropriate us for the word "evolution" after all!!!):

1) The Scientific Origins of National Socialism:  Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League
by Daniel Gasman

2) Haeckel's Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology
by Daniel Gasman

  I do have a question for googleSearch.  The fact you do not believe in the moon landings raised an eyebrow.  I have not reviewed your posts,  but are you by any chance a spherical geocentrist or even a flat earther?  

- Dionysios

I looked and scanned at all your links, very interesting readings, but since I am limited in time by other things (work, school, family) couldn't finish them.

I am not a geocentrist or FE I'm RE, BUT I still think moon landings didn't happen. There are several reasons why. You can research it on the net for more details.

Also I read your post on four Eden rivers in FE section, interesting theory, but aren't you forgetting about the flood? It considerably rearranged real estate, so I don't think those rivers exist anymore, and the fact that one of them is still named Euthratis is a coincidence.

...back to the topic of the thread

hmm both creation and evolution is correct.


god created life, but he did it within the confines of the laws of physics - and did it via evolution.


least thats what i think.


Jesus taught his followers through parables, who's to say god does not do the same - and what would Moses have understood about nuclear fusion, big bang, and evolution of proteins (considering today, about 5000 years later we are still struggling to understand them)

Common misconseption. They cannot be both correct because they are opposites of each other.

As the original topic of this post is the GEOLOGICAL age of the earth, what is your basis for claiming the flood reaaranged real estate?  I am asking this as I am convinced that this belief is novel and is influenced by modern and Lyellian influenced notions about geology like continental drift.  All continents and land masses that existed befoe the deluge were still in their same place after the deluge.

  Their is a vague and not so well reasoned belief among some evangelicals that the flood changed everything such as doing away with dinosaurs, et cetera.  They use the flood of Noah as a cubby hole to stuff with all those old testament miracles and dragons and things (in this case the 'terrestrial paradise') which they find themselves unable to believe as really existing today.  They simply believe flood did away with them.  However, it is not so difficult for them to believe that these things perhaps existed ages ago.  In that sense, a great deal (but not quite all) of evangelical fundamentalists are not really that far removed from the belief of agnostics concerning these things.  

  As a case in point, I have seen an illustrated advertisement in completely secular magazines displaying Noah's Ark with animals such as unicorns unable to board.  I could just as well have seen this expressed in a publication of Henry Morris's Institute For Creation Research.

- Dionysios

Check out Dr. Walt Brown work, specifically his hydroplate theory. You can find it here. It also contains work of Dr. Robert Gentry on granite and Po halos in it.

Any evolutionist will tell you that the amount of coal and oil deposits is so great that if all living things we have now on the planet were to be converted into oil and coal; it would constitute only a fraction of those deposits. While evolutionist will tell you that organic matter accumulated during all the millions of years, I will explain this by completely different environment that existed on pre-flood Earth. Land mass made up about 70-80% of the planet, and the rest was surface water.

Check out those videos, it is explained a lot better there.

The Earth is only 157 years old, and its age never changes. Once you accept this you will be let into heaven.

Yeah, and one marmot wraps up the chocolate in tin-foil...

God could as well have made everything old to begin with. We find a mountain, study it, and concludes that it is 5 billion years old. But God really made it yesterday, along with all the memories of our life. It's a possibillity.

God could as well have made everything old to begin with. We find a mountain, study it, and concludes that it is 5 billion years old. But God really made it yesterday, along with all the memories of our life. It's a possibillity. :)

Sure, it's a possibility.  But to some extent, nobody really cares.  If God's "fake history" is so realistic that all the experiments that can every be performed will result in confirmation that history is "real", and if the science that results from those experiments has good predictive value for the future, then in essence it's equivalent to history actually being real.  It's real in all the senses which are relevant to humans.

e.g. suppose the universe was created a few microseconds after some terrorist bombing.  No bomb ever "actually" exploded; instead, God just placed some shrapnel in the air and in some people's bodies and made them expand extremely rapidly outward.  Somehow I doubt that it's in any way interesting to the people who get cut up by the blast that there was, in fact, no explosion.

In other news, on the age of the Earth, there's more stuff in this thread[/i].