Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

[Guest guest]

The fossils of the oldest modern human skulls found

to date are 160,000 years old. These are homo sapiens

skulls, a little larger than ours but the same as us.

, while there are numberless statements in the

Torah and First Testament that have truth in them, I

always remember that they were written by men many,

many years after the events described within. Also, there

were Popes and Leaders that decided they didn't like all

the things that were in these books and either had them

changed or great parts of them removed. If we were privy

to the actual writings, and not the altered ones, we would

have a better conception of what took place. Even then,

there would still be the time and the myriad of people it

took to write these books, and so there are bound to be

inaccuracies. I believe in G-d, I believe in science. I think

we don't know enough about either to have closed minds.

Roni

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624

Roni

<res075oh@...> wrote:

No need. I've already studied the revelations of the Rev. ph

... [ggg]

>

> Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33854;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWU0ZGJ\

mBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4NTQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODkyMzIyMw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " and Irwin " familyirwin@...

>

<mailto:familyirwin@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20\

just%20saw>

> fritzalseth <fritzalseth>

>

>

> Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:11 pm (PST)

>

> Definately, creation supports science, and science supports creation.

> The torah, new testament are proof. Creation account is very

> accurate... noahs ark was found, sodom and gomorrah found, flood

> happened...life on earth...6,000 years. Earth may be older, but life

> as we know it...6,000 years. There's a storm coming, and we are

> heading for big shaking... Ask away, I would love to share how I know

> this is true.

> Blessings,

>

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Aw; I thought it was the " creation myth " list! [ggg]

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> >

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33829;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamF\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw--

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33829;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamF\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw-->>

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>?Subject=%20Re%

> 3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:21 pm (PST)

> >

> > Jesus did say he has other things to take care of, which may suggest

> other

> > life elsewhere???

> > ? This is the thyroid group right:)?

> > crystal

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

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

cw

-- Re: Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

The fossils of the oldest modern human skulls found

to date are 160,000 years old. These are homo sapiens

skulls, a little larger than ours but the same as us.

, while there are numberless statements in the

Torah and First Testament that have truth in them, I

always remember that they were written by men many,

many years after the events described within. Also, there

were Popes and Leaders that decided they didn't like all

the things that were in these books and either had them

changed or great parts of them removed. If we were privy

to the actual writings, and not the altered ones, we would

have a better conception of what took place. Even then,

there would still be the time and the myriad of people it

took to write these books, and so there are bound to be

inaccuracies. I believe in G-d, I believe in science. I think

We don't know enough about either to have closed minds.

Roni

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624

Roni

<res075oh@...> wrote:

No need. I've already studied the revelations of the Rev. ph

... [ggg]

>

> Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> <hypothyroidism/message/33854

_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWU0ZGJmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

DIEbXNnSWQDMzM4NTQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODkyMzIyMw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " and Irwin " familyirwin@...

> <mailto:familyirwin@sbcglobal

net?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> fritzalseth <fritzalseth>

>

>

> Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:11 pm (PST)

>

> Definately, creation supports science, and science supports creation.

> The torah, new testament are proof. Creation account is very

> accurate... noahs ark was found, sodom and gomorrah found, flood

> happened...life on earth...6,000 years. Earth may be older, but life

> as we know it...6,000 years. There's a storm coming, and we are

> heading for big shaking... Ask away, I would love to share how I know

> this is true.

> Blessings,

>

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Aw; I thought it was the " creation myth " list! [ggg]

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> >

> <hypothyroidism/message/33829

_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamFtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

DIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw--

> <hypothyroidism/message/33829

_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamFtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

DIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw-->>

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>?Subject=%20Re%

> 3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:21 pm (PST)

> >

> > Jesus did say he has other things to take care of, which may suggest

> other

> > life elsewhere???

> > ? This is the thyroid group right:)?

> > crystal

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

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

Carbon dating info. http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

They tried to take the notion that carbon dating was wrong to court, and

lost.

Roni

Crystal <sweetnwright@...> wrote:

Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

cw

-- Re: Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

The fossils of the oldest modern human skulls found

to date are 160,000 years old. These are homo sapiens

skulls, a little larger than ours but the same as us.

, while there are numberless statements in the

Torah and First Testament that have truth in them, I

always remember that they were written by men many,

many years after the events described within. Also, there

were Popes and Leaders that decided they didn't like all

the things that were in these books and either had them

changed or great parts of them removed. If we were privy

to the actual writings, and not the altered ones, we would

have a better conception of what took place. Even then,

there would still be the time and the myriad of people it

took to write these books, and so there are bound to be

inaccuracies. I believe in G-d, I believe in science. I think

We don't know enough about either to have closed minds.

Roni

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624

Roni

<res075oh@...> wrote:

No need. I've already studied the revelations of the Rev. ph

... [ggg]

>

> Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> <hypothyroidism/message/33854

_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWU0ZGJmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

DIEbXNnSWQDMzM4NTQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODkyMzIyMw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " and Irwin " familyirwin@...

> <mailto:familyirwin@sbcglobal

net?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> fritzalseth <fritzalseth>

>

>

> Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:11 pm (PST)

>

> Definately, creation supports science, and science supports creation.

> The torah, new testament are proof. Creation account is very

> accurate... noahs ark was found, sodom and gomorrah found, flood

> happened...life on earth...6,000 years. Earth may be older, but life

> as we know it...6,000 years. There's a storm coming, and we are

> heading for big shaking... Ask away, I would love to share how I know

> this is true.

> Blessings,

>

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Aw; I thought it was the " creation myth " list! [ggg]

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> >

> <hypothyroidism/message/33829

_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamFtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

DIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw--

> <hypothyroidism/message/33829

_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamFtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

DIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw-->>

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>?Subject=%20Re%

> 3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:21 pm (PST)

> >

> > Jesus did say he has other things to take care of, which may suggest

> other

> > life elsewhere???

> > ? This is the thyroid group right:)?

> > crystal

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

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

Crystal wrote:

>

> Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

Not among reputable scientists.

There are potential sources of contamination, which must be eliminated,

and there are limits to the precision which mostly depend on sample

size, but this is on a very different scale.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

This is a whole other topic, but thought I would at least show the other side.

I don't have a closed mind, quite the opposite. I have spent a great deal of

time, and life on this planet is only about 6,000 years old.

Blessings,

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

Crystal wrote:

>

> Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

Not among reputable scientists.

There are potential sources of contamination, which must be eliminated,

and there are limits to the precision which mostly depend on sample

size, but this is on a very different scale.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Roni,

While I agree it was written by men, I believe it was inspired by YHWH. And,

yes, I have questioned " who had the authority to admit certain books into the

Bible, and leave some out " I have faith that YHWH ultimately protected the

truth. Yes, the TORAH was found in the dead sea scrolls, and other books too,

and they match word for word from ancient texts. So, I believe the TORAH that

says man is only about 6,000 years old...and the flood did happen, the exodus

did happen, the red sea did part (they have found the horses hoofs and bones,

and chariot wheels all preserved by coral in the red sea. If you want me to

send you the proof, I'll be happy to show you. All of this is truth. Earth may

be older, but life on this planet, 6,000 years old. Guess you can call it " old

fashioned faith "

Passionate follower of YHWH,

Blessings,

Roni Molin <matchermaam@...> wrote:

The fossils of the oldest modern human skulls found

to date are 160,000 years old. These are homo sapiens

skulls, a little larger than ours but the same as us.

, while there are numberless statements in the

Torah and First Testament that have truth in them, I

always remember that they were written by men many,

many years after the events described within. Also, there

were Popes and Leaders that decided they didn't like all

the things that were in these books and either had them

changed or great parts of them removed. If we were privy

to the actual writings, and not the altered ones, we would

have a better conception of what took place. Even then,

there would still be the time and the myriad of people it

took to write these books, and so there are bound to be

inaccuracies. I believe in G-d, I believe in science. I think

we don't know enough about either to have closed minds.

Roni

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624

Roni

<res075oh@...> wrote:

No need. I've already studied the revelations of the Rev. ph

... [ggg]

>

> Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33854;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWU0ZGJ\

mBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4NTQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODkyMzIyMw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " and Irwin " familyirwin@...

>

<mailto:familyirwin@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20\

just%20saw>

> fritzalseth <fritzalseth>

>

>

> Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:11 pm (PST)

>

> Definately, creation supports science, and science supports creation.

> The torah, new testament are proof. Creation account is very

> accurate... noahs ark was found, sodom and gomorrah found, flood

> happened...life on earth...6,000 years. Earth may be older, but life

> as we know it...6,000 years. There's a storm coming, and we are

> heading for big shaking... Ask away, I would love to share how I know

> this is true.

> Blessings,

>

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Aw; I thought it was the " creation myth " list! [ggg]

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> >

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33829;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamF\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw--

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33829;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamF\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw-->>

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>?Subject=%20Re%

> 3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:21 pm (PST)

> >

> > Jesus did say he has other things to take care of, which may suggest

> other

> > life elsewhere???

> > ? This is the thyroid group right:)?

> > crystal

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

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

From what did you determine that, ?

Roni

and Irwin <familyirwin@...> wrote:

This is a whole other topic, but thought I would at least show the

other side. I don't have a closed mind, quite the opposite. I have spent a great

deal of time, and life on this planet is only about 6,000 years old.

Blessings,

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

Crystal wrote:

>

> Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

Not among reputable scientists.

There are potential sources of contamination, which must be eliminated,

and there are limits to the precision which mostly depend on sample

size, but this is on a very different scale.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Thanks . This is a subject that I am very interested in. One day I

d like to teach my kids both sides of this coin when they are ready of

course.

Cw

p.S. Any other links or sources will be appreciated!

-- Re: Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

This is a whole other topic, but thought I would at least show the other

side. I don't have a closed mind, quite the opposite. I have spent a great

deal of time, and life on this planet is only about 6,000 years old.

Blessings,

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

Crystal wrote:

>

> Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

Not among reputable scientists.

There are potential sources of contamination, which must be eliminated,

and there are limits to the precision which mostly depend on sample

size, but this is on a very different scale.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Didn't post...

and Irwin <familyirwin@...> wrote:

Roni,

While I agree it was written by men, I believe it was inspired by YHWH. And,

yes, I have questioned " who had the authority to admit certain books into the

Bible, and leave some out " I have faith that YHWH ultimately protected the

truth. Yes, the TORAH was found in the dead sea scrolls, and other books too,

and they match word for word from ancient texts. So, I believe the TORAH that

says man is only about 6,000 years old...and the flood did happen, the exodus

did happen, the red sea did part (they have found the horses hoofs and bones,

and chariot wheels all preserved by coral in the red sea. If you want me to

send you the proof, I'll be happy to show you. All of this is truth. Earth may

be older, but life on this planet, 6,000 years old. Guess you can call it " old

fashioned faith "

Passionate follower of YHWH,

Blessings,

Roni Molin <matchermaam@...> wrote:

The fossils of the oldest modern human skulls found

to date are 160,000 years old. These are homo sapiens

skulls, a little larger than ours but the same as us.

, while there are numberless statements in the

Torah and First Testament that have truth in them, I

always remember that they were written by men many,

many years after the events described within. Also, there

were Popes and Leaders that decided they didn't like all

the things that were in these books and either had them

changed or great parts of them removed. If we were privy

to the actual writings, and not the altered ones, we would

have a better conception of what took place. Even then,

there would still be the time and the myriad of people it

took to write these books, and so there are bound to be

inaccuracies. I believe in G-d, I believe in science. I think

we don't know enough about either to have closed minds.

Roni

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624

Roni

<res075oh@...> wrote:

No need. I've already studied the revelations of the Rev. ph

... [ggg]

>

> Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33854;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWU0ZGJ\

mBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4NTQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODkyMzIyMw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " and Irwin " familyirwin@...

>

<mailto:familyirwin@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20\

just%20saw>

> fritzalseth <fritzalseth>

>

>

> Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:11 pm (PST)

>

> Definately, creation supports science, and science supports creation.

> The torah, new testament are proof. Creation account is very

> accurate... noahs ark was found, sodom and gomorrah found, flood

> happened...life on earth...6,000 years. Earth may be older, but life

> as we know it...6,000 years. There's a storm coming, and we are

> heading for big shaking... Ask away, I would love to share how I know

> this is true.

> Blessings,

>

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Aw; I thought it was the " creation myth " list! [ggg]

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> >

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33829;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamF\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw--

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33829;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamF\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw-->>

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>?Subject=%20Re%

> 3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:21 pm (PST)

> >

> > Jesus did say he has other things to take care of, which may suggest

> other

> > life elsewhere???

> > ? This is the thyroid group right:)?

> > crystal

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

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

Blessings,

Evidence for a young world

See this page in: Chinese

Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the

evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list

below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by

each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required

by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible

ages are always much less that the required evolutionary ages, while the

biblical age (6,000-10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum

possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary

time-scale and for the biblical time-scale.

Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for

brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an

old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions;

others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant

astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday

facts.

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly. According to evolutionary theory, comets

are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years.

Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material

that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have

typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(1)

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from

an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (

improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often

knock comets into the solar system, and © other improbable interactions with

planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds

of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated

either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed

comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of

Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really

solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the

Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply

it.

2. 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.

3. Not enough sodium in the sea. Every year, rivers(5) and other sources dump

over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages

to get back out of the sea each year.(6,7) As far as anyone knows, the remainder

simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it

would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at

today's input and output rates.(7) This is much less than the evolutionary age

of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that

past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However,

calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still

give a maximum age of only 62 million years.(7) Calculations(8) for many other

sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast. The total energy stored in

the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the

past 1,000 years.(9) Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as

well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of

years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists.

It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the

field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity

decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since

then.(10) This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.(11) The

main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always

decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than

10,000 years old.(12)

5. Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata

thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The

conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and

solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the

folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation

had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies

that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.(13)

6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'. Strong geologic evidence(14)

exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone—formed an alleged 500 million years

ago—of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still unsolidified when

it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains,

allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not

solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it

is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart,

thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.

7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years. Radiohalos

are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in

rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.(15) 'Squashed'

Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations

in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not

hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional

time-scale.(16) 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their

mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in

radioactivity decay rates.(17,18)

8. Helium in the wrong places. All naturally occurring families of

radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for

billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found

its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the

atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account,

the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have

accumulated in five billion years.(19) This means the atmosphere is much younger

than the alleged evolutionary age.

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium

produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape.

Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large

helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.(20)

9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons. Evolutionary anthropologists say that the

Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world

population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one

and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts.(21)

By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies.(22) If

the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for

much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age

skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only

a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter

than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

10. Agriculture is too recent. The usual evolutionary picture has men

existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before

discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.(21) Yet the archaeological

evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very

improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should

discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without

agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.(22)

11. History is too short. According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed

for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000

years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave

paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.(23) Why would he wait a thousand

centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical

time-scale is much more likely.(22)

References

Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in

Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093

port Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.

Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September

1976), p. 15.

Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the

world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl.

Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.

Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the

ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research,

93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.

Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et

apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p.

215.

Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of

Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et

Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.

Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for

evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation

Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.

Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October

1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.

Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic

Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.

Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis

flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh),

Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228,

Vol. II, pp. 113-126.

Coe, R.S., Prvot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change

of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp.

687-92.

Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic

field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II,

Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.

Austin, S.A. and , J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for

rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences',

Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship

(1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.

ibid, pp. 11-12.

Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973)

pp. 347-362.

Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to

time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October 1976)

pp. 315-318.

Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological

perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.

Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O.

Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.

Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux

through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667,

El Cajon, CA 92021.

Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications

for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130.

See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.

Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September

1960), pp. 194-204.

Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147

(January 1975), pp. 64-89.

Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary

timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science

Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12.

Roni Molin <matchermaam@...> wrote: From what did you determine

that, ?

Roni

and Irwin <familyirwin@...> wrote:

This is a whole other topic, but thought I would at least show the other side. I

don't have a closed mind, quite the opposite. I have spent a great deal of time,

and life on this planet is only about 6,000 years old.

Blessings,

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

Crystal wrote:

>

> Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

Not among reputable scientists.

There are potential sources of contamination, which must be eliminated,

and there are limits to the precision which mostly depend on sample

size, but this is on a very different scale.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Certainly; among the creationists! [ggg].

Seriously, though; if you want to believe humans have only been around

for 6000 years you will just have to reject ALL of the evidence; not

just carbon dating. There's at least as much evidence to refute that

position as there is to refute the flat earth society.

>

> Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33984;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGpuMGM\

5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM5ODQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5OTA1NjU2OQ-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

>

<mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%\

20saw>

> sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1>

>

>

> Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:44 pm (PST)

>

> Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

> cw

>

> -- Re: Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

> The fossils of the oldest modern human skulls found

> to date are 160,000 years old. These are homo sapiens

> skulls, a little larger than ours but the same as us.

[Guest guest]

So , Just how do you think we got here?

cw

-- Re: Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

> The fossils of the oldest modern human skulls found

> to date are 160,000 years old. These are homo sapiens

> skulls, a little larger than ours but the same as us.

[Guest guest]

and Irwin <familyirwin@...> wrote: Didn't post...

and Irwin <familyirwin@...> wrote:

Roni,

While I agree it was written by men, I believe it was inspired by YHWH. And,

yes, I have questioned " who had the authority to admit certain books into the

Bible, and leave some out " I have faith that YHWH ultimately protected the

truth. Yes, the TORAH was found in the dead sea scrolls, and other books too,

and they match word for word from ancient texts. So, I believe the TORAH that

says man is only about 6,000 years old...and the flood did happen, the exodus

did happen, the red sea did part (they have found the horses hoofs and bones,

and chariot wheels all preserved by coral in the red sea. If you want me to

send you the proof, I'll be happy to show you. All of this is truth. Earth may

be older, but life on this planet, 6,000 years old. Guess you can call it " old

fashioned faith "

Passionate follower of YHWH,

Blessings,

Roni Molin <matchermaam@...> wrote:

The fossils of the oldest modern human skulls found

to date are 160,000 years old. These are homo sapiens

skulls, a little larger than ours but the same as us.

, while there are numberless statements in the

Torah and First Testament that have truth in them, I

always remember that they were written by men many,

many years after the events described within. Also, there

were Popes and Leaders that decided they didn't like all

the things that were in these books and either had them

changed or great parts of them removed. If we were privy

to the actual writings, and not the altered ones, we would

have a better conception of what took place. Even then,

there would still be the time and the myriad of people it

took to write these books, and so there are bound to be

inaccuracies. I believe in G-d, I believe in science. I think

we don't know enough about either to have closed minds.

Roni

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624

Roni

<res075oh@...> wrote:

No need. I've already studied the revelations of the Rev. ph

... [ggg]

>

> Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33854;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWU0ZGJ\

mBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4NTQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODkyMzIyMw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " and Irwin " familyirwin@...

>

<mailto:familyirwin@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20\

just%20saw>

> fritzalseth <fritzalseth>

>

>

> Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:11 pm (PST)

>

> Definately, creation supports science, and science supports creation.

> The torah, new testament are proof. Creation account is very

> accurate... noahs ark was found, sodom and gomorrah found, flood

> happened...life on earth...6,000 years. Earth may be older, but life

> as we know it...6,000 years. There's a storm coming, and we are

> heading for big shaking... Ask away, I would love to share how I know

> this is true.

> Blessings,

>

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> Aw; I thought it was the " creation myth " list! [ggg]

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> >

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33829;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamF\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw--

>

<hypothyroidism/message/33829;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdnJmamF\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzM4MjkEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5ODgzNjc3Mw-->>

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>?Subject=%20Re%

> 3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:21 pm (PST)

> >

> > Jesus did say he has other things to take care of, which may suggest

> other

> > life elsewhere???

> > ? This is the thyroid group right:)?

> > crystal

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

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

Every answer to that question fails if you base it upon causality and

logic. Including " God made us... " [if you say " God made us " then the

question becomes, " Who or what made God? " .]

You cannot get from an accausal, none logical existence to a casual,

logical existence by causal means IMHO. The movement from the former

" condition " to the latter requires one or more accausal steps.

Therefore [in that light, and accepting it] the question becomes

nonsensical.

So the answer is, " I don't know " . I know there are a number of

propositions, but I know of none consistent throughout.

>

> Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

<hypothyroidism/message/34032;_ylc=X3oDMTJxOHAyMDV\

nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzQwMzIEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5OTA3NzIzMw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

>

<mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%\

20saw>

> sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1>

>

>

> Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:21 pm (PST)

>

> So , Just how do you think we got here?

> cw

>

> -- Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

> Certainly; among the creationists! [ggg].

>

> Seriously, though; if you want to believe humans have only been around

> for 6000 years you will just have to reject ALL of the evidence; not

> just carbon dating. There's at least as much evidence to refute that

> position as there is to refute the flat earth society.

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> > <hypothyroidism/message/33984

> <hypothyroidism/message/33984>

> _ylc=X3oDMTJxaGpuMGM5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

> DIEbXNnSWQDMzM5ODQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5OTA1NjU2OQ-->

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@cox

> net?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:44 pm (PST)

> >

> > Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

> > cw

[Guest guest]

Roni Molin wrote:

>

>

> Carbon dating info. http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

> <http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm>

>

> They tried to take the notion that carbon dating was wrong to court, and

> lost.

Where's the part about taking a notion to court? The judicial and

legislative systems are not proper arbiters of scientific techniques,

although both have been known to occasionally attempt to change the laws

of physics.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

I saw it on a documentary on television about creationists trying to prove that

the science

was wrong. They lost.

Roni

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

Roni Molin wrote:

>

>

> Carbon dating info. http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

> <http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm>

>

> They tried to take the notion that carbon dating was wrong to court, and

> lost.

Where's the part about taking a notion to court? The judicial and

legislative systems are not proper arbiters of scientific techniques,

although both have been known to occasionally attempt to change the laws

of physics.

Chuck

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

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

I found this " movie " about evolution. You can watch for free. http://www

christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

cw

-- Re: Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

Blessings,

Evidence for a young world

See this page in: Chinese

Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the

evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I

list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages

set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the

ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the

maximum possible ages are always much less that the required evolutionary

ages, while the biblical age (6,000-10,000 years) always fits comfortably

within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence

against the evolutionary time-scale and for the biblical time-scale.

Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for

brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled

with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven

assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts

with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending

with everyday facts.

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly. According to evolutionary theory, comets

are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion

years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of

its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years.

Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(1)

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from

an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (

improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often

knock comets into the solar system, and © other improbable interactions

with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the

hundreds of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been

substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed

comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit

of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not

really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary

theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort

cloud to supply it.

2. 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.

3. Not enough sodium in the sea. Every year, rivers(5) and other sources

dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium

manages to get back out of the sea each year.(6,7) As far as anyone knows,

the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to

start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42

million years at today's input and output rates.(7) This is much less than

the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to

this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs

greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to

evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.(7)

Calculations(8) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for

the ocean.

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast. The total energy stored in

the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over

the past 1,000 years.(9) Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid

decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field

for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better

creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics,

and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals

during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until

the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.(10) This theory matches

paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.(11) The main result is that the

field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as

fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old

(12)

5. Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata

thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The

conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried

and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet

the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire

formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred.

This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after

deposition.(13)

6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'. Strong geologic evidence(14)

exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone—formed an alleged 500 million

years ago—of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still

unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the

Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that

the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it

was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were

less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic

time-scale.

7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years. Radiohalos

are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in

rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.(15) 'Squashed'

Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene

formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one

another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the

conventional time-scale.(16) 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no

evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic

changes in radioactivity decay rates.(17,18)

8. Helium in the wrong places. All naturally occurring families of

radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place

for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have

found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from

the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into

account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it

would have accumulated in five billion years.(19) This means the atmosphere

is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium

produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape.

Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large

helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.(20)

9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons. Evolutionary anthropologists say that the

Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world

population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between

one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with

artifacts.(21) By this scenario, they would have buried at least four

billion bodies.(22) If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones

should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the

supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and

certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found.

This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a

few hundred years in many areas.

10. Agriculture is too recent. The usual evolutionary picture has men

existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age

before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.(21) Yet the

archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we

are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in

item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that

men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood,

if at all.(22)

11. History is too short. According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed

for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000

years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave

paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.(23) Why would he wait a

thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The

biblical time-scale is much more likely.(22)

References

Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in

Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093

port Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.

Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September

1976), p. 15.

Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in

the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams',

Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.

Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the

ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical

Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.

Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et

apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979),

p. 215.

Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of

Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica

et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.

Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for

evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation

Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.

Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October

1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.

Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic

Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.

Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis

flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh),

Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228,

Vol. II, pp. 113-126.

Coe, R.S., Prvot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change

of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp.

687-92.

Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic

field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II,

Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.

Austin, S.A. and , J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence

for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic

sequences', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation

Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.

ibid, pp. 11-12.

Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23

(1973) pp. 347-362.

Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating

to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October

1976) pp. 315-318.

Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological

perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.

Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O.

Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.

Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux

through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box

2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.

Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications

for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982),

1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.

Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September

1960), pp. 194-204.

Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147

(January 1975), pp. 64-89.

Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary

timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation

Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12.

Roni Molin <matchermaam@...> wrote: From what did you determine that,

?

Roni

and Irwin <familyirwin@...> wrote:

This is a whole other topic, but thought I would at least show the other

side. I don't have a closed mind, quite the opposite. I have spent a great

deal of time, and life on this planet is only about 6,000 years old.

Blessings,

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote:

Crystal wrote:

>

> Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

Not among reputable scientists.

There are potential sources of contamination, which must be eliminated,

and there are limits to the precision which mostly depend on sample

size, but this is on a very different scale.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question

Who created God? Is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?

-- Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

> Certainly; among the creationists! [ggg].

>

> Seriously, though; if you want to believe humans have only been around

> for 6000 years you will just have to reject ALL of the evidence; not

> just carbon dating. There's at least as much evidence to refute that

> position as there is to refute the flat earth society.

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> > <hypothyroidism/message/33984

> <hypothyroidism/message/33984>

>

_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGpuMGM5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

> DIEbXNnSWQDMzM5ODQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5OTA1NjU2OQ-->

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@cox

> net?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:44 pm (PST)

> >

> > Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

> > cw

[Guest guest]

I have just always thought that He was always here. We are in His presence

all the time. I am not saying Who created God is in-valid, but it is

IL-logical to think that we can understand how He became ,if indeed He did

become. I was giving a quote that I agreed with. I think it is all about

energy.

cw

-- Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

> Certainly; among the creationists! [ggg].

>

> Seriously, though; if you want to believe humans have only been around

> for 6000 years you will just have to reject ALL of the evidence; not

> just carbon dating. There's at least as much evidence to refute that

> position as there is to refute the flat earth society.

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> > <hypothyroidism/message/33984

> <hypothyroidism/message/33984>

>

_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGpuMGM5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

> DIEbXNnSWQDMzM5ODQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5OTA1NjU2OQ-->

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@cox

> net?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:44 pm (PST)

> >

> > Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

> > cw

[Guest guest]

I don't think worship is logical, rather it seems to be a deep emotional,

spiritual need.

The teachings of most religions are basically the same, i.e., the ten

commandments

in one form or another. These are what I believe are logical and necessary in

order

to have well functioning peaceful societies. Whereever these commandments are

broken, we can see the devestating effects. In my religion there is a whole

other

set of books that break everything down into what to do on an everyday living

basis,

but I'm sure the other religions have things like this too, although I have

not delved

into them. I have found that basically people are the same in that they have

the same

needs and desires, and the differences mostly cultural, except for a few types

of

circumstances.

I know you were not being mean in any way.

Roni

Crystal <sweetnwright@...> wrote:

I have just always thought that He was always here. We are in His

presence

all the time. I am not saying Who created God is in-valid, but it is

IL-logical to think that we can understand how He became ,if indeed He did

become. I was giving a quote that I agreed with. I think it is all about

energy.

cw

-- Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

> Certainly; among the creationists! [ggg].

>

> Seriously, though; if you want to believe humans have only been around

> for 6000 years you will just have to reject ALL of the evidence; not

> just carbon dating. There's at least as much evidence to refute that

> position as there is to refute the flat earth society.

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> > <hypothyroidism/message/33984

> <hypothyroidism/message/33984>

>

_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGpuMGM5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

> DIEbXNnSWQDMzM5ODQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5OTA1NjU2OQ-->

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@cox

> net?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:44 pm (PST)

> >

> > Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

> > cw

[Guest guest]

Crystal, I just noticed that you Capitalize He and Him when referring to the

deity. Maybe

you would understand my position better if someone said it was ridiculous for

you to do

that and you might as well substitute Hairy for He.

Roni

Crystal <sweetnwright@...> wrote:

I have just always thought that He was always here. We are in His

presence

all the time. I am not saying Who created God is in-valid, but it is

IL-logical to think that we can understand how He became ,if indeed He did

become. I was giving a quote that I agreed with. I think it is all about

energy.

cw

-- Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

> Certainly; among the creationists! [ggg].

>

> Seriously, though; if you want to believe humans have only been around

> for 6000 years you will just have to reject ALL of the evidence; not

> just carbon dating. There's at least as much evidence to refute that

> position as there is to refute the flat earth society.

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

> > <hypothyroidism/message/33984

> <hypothyroidism/message/33984>

>

_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGpuMGM5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEw

> DIEbXNnSWQDMzM5ODQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5OTA1NjU2OQ-->

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

> <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:sweetnwright@cox

> net?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20just%20saw>

> > sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1

> <sweetenloe1>>

> >

> >

> > Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:44 pm (PST)

> >

> > Isn't there a theory that carbon dating is inaccurate?

> > cw

[Guest guest]

And there you see one of the many differences between science and

dogma. When science looks for the " origin of everything " it seeks to do

the same that it will do with any other search: eliminate as many

assumptions as possible. The assumption that there is a god is, of

course, not a given in itself. But if one starts with the assumption

that there is or may be a god there is no automatic evidence that that

god was not in turn created.

Since science does not accept our existence [the entire universe] as

" proof " that god exists then science generally does not address the

issue; as there is no other available evidence. At the same time

scientists, who, after all are human may or may not have a personal

belief in god or the spiritual realm. But you will find only a tiny

percentage of even those who are spiritual persons who believe life has

existed for only about 6000 years. While NO THEORY IS EVER PROVED in

science the evidence for life back millions of years is utterly

overwhelming.

I'll repeat again: If your faith is so weak that it depends solely upon

a " life on earth " time span of only 6000 years then your faith rests

upon a straw in a hurricane. None of the lies and spin of the

creationists will ever even make it to the published peer review

literature; and if it did then whoever published it would have just

committed professional suicide, forever branded as a nut case.

I'll repeat something else again: I suggest you let god create the

universe however he/she/it chooses; whether Big Bang or whatever. It

does not have to destroy your faith should you ever find out that some

tenant of your dogma is wrong. After all, the most devout believers of

dogma are those willing to blow themselves to bits [and murder countless

innocents] in support of that belief. Are you that devout? I hope not...

> Crystal <sweetnwright@... <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>>

> wrote:

> God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the

> question

> Who created God? Is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?

>

> -- Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

> Every answer to that question fails if you base it upon causality and

> logic. Including " God made us... " [if you say " God made us " then the

> question becomes, " Who or what made God? " .]

>

> You cannot get from an accausal, none logical existence to a casual,

> logical existence by causal means IMHO. The movement from the former

> " condition " to the latter requires one or more accausal steps.

> Therefore [in that light, and accepting it] the question becomes

> nonsensical.

>

> So the answer is, " I don't know " . I know there are a number of

> propositions, but I know of none consistent throughout.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Straw? Then I'll huff and puff and blow your house down, . The 6,000 year

theory is not ridiculous . Don't forget, scientists are men too. Okay,

fine, then I'll agree that science is a religion and so is what I believe.

Blessings,

<res075oh@...> wrote:

And there you see one of the many differences between science and

dogma. When science looks for the " origin of everything " it seeks to do

the same that it will do with any other search: eliminate as many

assumptions as possible. The assumption that there is a god is, of

course, not a given in itself. But if one starts with the assumption

that there is or may be a god there is no automatic evidence that that

god was not in turn created.

Since science does not accept our existence [the entire universe] as

" proof " that god exists then science generally does not address the

issue; as there is no other available evidence. At the same time

scientists, who, after all are human may or may not have a personal

belief in god or the spiritual realm. But you will find only a tiny

percentage of even those who are spiritual persons who believe life has

existed for only about 6000 years. While NO THEORY IS EVER PROVED in

science the evidence for life back millions of years is utterly

overwhelming.

I'll repeat again: If your faith is so weak that it depends solely upon

a " life on earth " time span of only 6000 years then your faith rests

upon a straw in a hurricane. None of the lies and spin of the

creationists will ever even make it to the published peer review

literature; and if it did then whoever published it would have just

committed professional suicide, forever branded as a nut case.

I'll repeat something else again: I suggest you let god create the

universe however he/she/it chooses; whether Big Bang or whatever. It

does not have to destroy your faith should you ever find out that some

tenant of your dogma is wrong. After all, the most devout believers of

dogma are those willing to blow themselves to bits [and murder countless

innocents] in support of that belief. Are you that devout? I hope not...

> Crystal <sweetnwright@... <mailto:sweetnwright%40cox.net>>

> wrote:

> God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the

> question

> Who created God? Is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?

>

> -- Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

> Every answer to that question fails if you base it upon causality and

> logic. Including " God made us... " [if you say " God made us " then the

> question becomes, " Who or what made God? " .]

>

> You cannot get from an accausal, none logical existence to a casual,

> logical existence by causal means IMHO. The movement from the former

> " condition " to the latter requires one or more accausal steps.

> Therefore [in that light, and accepting it] the question becomes

> nonsensical.

>

> So the answer is, " I don't know " . I know there are a number of

> propositions, but I know of none consistent throughout.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with this! this is not toxic religion--it is natural to us.

Gracia

I have just always thought that He was always here. We are in His presence

all the time. I am not saying Who created God is in-valid, but it is

IL-logical to think that we can understand how He became ,if indeed He did

become. I was giving a quote that I agreed with. I think it is all about

energy.

cw

Recent Activity

a.. 10New Members

Visit Your Group

Cancer Resources

on

Find answers,

help and support.

Healthy Cooking

on

A place for parents

to share their ideas.

Health

Fit for Life

Getting fit is now

easier than ever.

.

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008

11:29 AM

[Guest guest]

The " 6000 year theory " is not even a theory; it's a myth. Huffing and

puffing won't change anything.

Scientists are men AND WOMEN. And not one worth a toot supports a 6000

year life span on earth.

>

> Re: Iodine Book that I just saw

>

<hypothyroidism/message/34200;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYmVxN3Z\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzQyMDAEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE5OTMyNzkxOA-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " and Irwin " familyirwin@...

>

<mailto:familyirwin@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Iodine%20Book%20that%20I%20\

just%20saw>

> fritzalseth <fritzalseth>

>

>

> Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:58 am (PST)

>

> Straw? Then I'll huff and puff and blow your house down, . The

> 6,000 year theory is not ridiculous . Don't forget, scientists

> are men too. Okay, fine, then I'll agree that science is a religion

> and so is what I believe.

> Blessings,

>

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> And there you see one of the many differences between science and

> dogma. When science looks for the " origin of everything " it seeks to do

> the same that it will do with any other search: eliminate as many

> assumptions as possible. The assumption that there is a god is, of

> course, not a given in itself. But if one starts with the assumption

> that there is or may be a god there is no automatic evidence that that

> god was not in turn created.

>

> Since science does not accept our existence [the entire universe] as

> " proof " that god exists then science generally does not address the

> issue; as there is no other available evidence. At the same time

> scientists, who, after all are human may or may not have a personal

> belief in god or the spiritual realm. But you will find only a tiny

> percentage of even those who are spiritual persons who believe life has

> existed for only about 6000 years. While NO THEORY IS EVER PROVED in

> science the evidence for life back millions of years is utterly

> overwhelming.

>

> I'll repeat again: If your faith is so weak that it depends solely upon

> a " life on earth " time span of only 6000 years then your faith rests

> upon a straw in a hurricane. None of the lies and spin of the

> creationists will ever even make it to the published peer review

> literature; and if it did then whoever published it would have just

> committed professional suicide, forever branded as a nut case.

>

> I'll repeat something else again: I suggest you let god create the

> universe however he/she/it chooses; whether Big Bang or whatever. It

> does not have to destroy your faith should you ever find out that some

> tenant of your dogma is wrong. After all, the most devout believers of

> dogma are those willing to blow themselves to bits [and murder countless

> innocents] in support of that belief. Are you that devout? I hope not...

>

>