True Age of the Universe - Biblical Fact - From Age 0 to Jesus

[Kenshiro]

---

@kenshiro

O sige tagaan ta nag weight imo argument. unsa man 6000 years sa Genesis,unsang calendar system ana ang gigamit?

There are a lot.
Aside from your calendar there are lot of ways to tell the age of the earth.
So if your basing it in your statement does that mean that the earth was made when the first roman calendar was printed?

[afro.samurai10]

Lahi pana silag kalendaryo sauna mao tag-as kaau ug edad... basin sa usa ka tuig kalima sila mag birthday

[Grammaton]

People like to simplify things. Thus from your argument, people who have read your post will just conclude that anything that "saves human beings" is a "good" thing and everything that kills human beings (esp. things brought about by science) as a bad thing. The reality is, you cannot simplify things like that, but you are correct that you can fool simple people into thinking that what you just posted is 'right', that science does more harm than good. However, I'm confident that most people are smart enough and have capability to see beyond what you're trying to imply.

-RODION

i agree that people are smart enough not to become an atheist. Scientific discoveries only proves the reality of God. The more we discover the mysteries of the universe the more it leads atheists to accept God's existence.

[biano]

A Rat Poison Contains 99% Good Food..

Only 1% Poison.

This is what we have in Science Textbooks in our Educational System.

Our Filipino young students unknowingly take in the poisonous "evolution theory" ideas and when they grow up, we wonder why they are acting like animals.

[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RHRJDm1_7Mc/TWL9KEjxQMI/AAAAAAAAAHM/i2es5hCkD4Q*******PUNK+1.jpg[/IMG]

[ketllac]

There are a lot.

Unsa man? tagai kuno ko..

Aside from your calendar there are lot of ways to tell the age of the earth.

unsang pamaagi?

So if your basing it in your statement does that mean that the earth was made when the first roman calendar was printed?

dili . nilampas na kaayo ka.. ako pangutana unsang calendar system or other ways to tell the age of the earth nga atong gamiton or reference diha sa Genesis nganong makaingon ka bata para sa imoha ang kalibutan ug tiguwang para sa akoa?

[rodsky]

As I have said before, my participation in this thread is mostly in part due to the fact that I am a science educator, specifically in matters pertaining to astronomy. And thus it is part of my job to teach kids the scientific process and the scientific method. Whenever I see words typed in this thead such as "evolution is poison", I see such posts as a direct assault against MY methods of teaching. In other words, you are saying that people like me are injecting poison into the minds of kids. Please do tell me that is what you're trying to say.

-RODION

[biano]

Sir rodsky, that's what we believe in. I'm just passing the message.

Religiously speaking, evolution is really a dumb idea, and is poison in our school system.

Sorry but that's what we believe. We don't hate anyone here. We don't force anyone.

We are just passing on the message. The message of our True King.

Sorry sir rodsky, if we can not make you happy and please our King at the same time.

[rodsky]

Sir rodsky, that's what we believe in. I'm just passing the message.

Religiously speaking, evolution is really a dumb idea, and is poison in our school system.

Sorry but that's what we believe. We don't hate anyone here. We don't force anyone.

We are just passing on the message. The message of our True King.

Sorry sir rodsky, if we can not make you happy and please our King at the same time.

Thank you for answering in this manner--this is precisely what the readers of this thread should read, for them to make clear and concise, logical, rational conclusions on your views. You basically did the work for me.














-RODION

[Kenshiro]

Unsa man? tagai kuno ko..



unsang pamaagi?




dili . nilampas na kaayo ka.. ako pangutana unsang calendar system or other ways to tell the age of the earth nga atong gamiton or reference diha sa Genesis nganong makaingon ka bata para sa imoha ang kalibutan ug tiguwang para sa akoa?

The evidences basically is showing that old earth assumption can be disputed and is therefore stands that the earth was young.

One of the many examples:
Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(3) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.(4)

The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.(4) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

Unfortunately in your case science has found other ways in measuring time and the roman calendar was not a viable option.
I would suggest if you really are interested in young earth creationism try to watch this otherwise its your prerogative to listen to the creationist explanation or not.

102 - A Universal Flood - Amazing Discoveries TV

[ketllac]

The evidences basically is showing that old earth assumption can be disputed and is therefore stands that the earth was young.

dire palang daan error naka..basta diay disputed will automatically lead to a conclusion...asa man imo logic dong?

disputed gani is to question the truth or validity or doubt..nganong conclusion man nga " therefore stands that the earth was young. " mao ni non sequitor nga reasoning bai..sama ra na nga gi dudahan ta ka nga bayot ka , there it stands that you are bayot gyud.hehehehe.. pag sure oi..

Unfortunately in your case science has found other ways in measuring time and the roman calendar was not a viable option.
I would suggest if you really are interested in young earth creationism try to watch this otherwise its your prerogative to listen to the creationist explanation or not.

see.. dili nimo na ma apply ang spiritual concept sa genesis sa unit of measuremet to measure time sa panabot sa bag ong panahon nga atong gisunod..are you sure nga kanang 7 days pag create sa universe pareha na sa imo calendar method nga imong gigamit karon..kung sure ka tagai kog verse sa bible.

whats funny here is kung ang creationists mangitag explanation sa young earth theory mo consult ug science pero mismo ang system sa radiocarbon dating nga part sa science ilang i dismiss ang reliability to zero..how about giving verses lang kaha tanan to explain your claim without consulting science makaya kaha na?