Comments on: Wavering: the beginning

By: Donnie Briggs

Donnie Briggs — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:31:57 +0000

Sorry. Where did you get your information? I can’t find the sources which give the arguments you mentioned.

By: none

none — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:06:45 +0000

Still waiting Donnie.

By: none

none — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:06:01 +0000

Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to dig into both sides. I looked at the website and found very little to contadict what I said about the “salt” theory and nothing about the “Carbon 14″ theory. You will have an interesting search, have fun.

By: Donnie Briggs

Donnie Briggs — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:18:39 +0000

Interesting. You remind me of me from 13 years ago. I promise to give a more complete answer later. In the meantime, I would direct you to this site which claims to refute multiple young earth arguments. This is not to say I automatically believe that site and reject what you have to say. I will take a close look at both sides of the argument.

By: none

none — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:33:44 +0000

There are two theories I would like to bring to your attention on the age of the earth. Both are scientific and support the Christian’s view.
1. The Carbon 14 test. Everything living has Carbon 14 in it. Scientists have discovered through fossiles, rocks, and tools that there is more Carbon today than ever. Scientists figured through several different aged fossils the rate at which Carbon 14 is increasing and figured how long ago there was none. Guess?

2. The salt test. Everything on earth has salt in it. As the Carbon 14 there is more salt today, in our oceans especially. They used different tools to figure out how much the salt has been increasing over the last several decades. Then they figured out how long ago all the bodies of water on earth were freshwater. Guess? (Hint: The rains wash the salts from the earth into the waters. So when was the first time it rained?)

By: Donnie Briggs

Donnie Briggs — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:58:38 +0000

I’m not afraid of the “e-word”. It’s just that discussing evolution vs. creation opens a can of worms that obscures the idea I was trying to get across.

Limiting the discussion to the Earth’s age simplifies the thought. Modern science says the Earth is billions of years old. The Bible indicates a far younger Earth. They can’t both be right.

By: none

none — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:27:01 +0000

Donnie: What is the “heart of the matter?” Whether to believe (or not believe) the contents of the Bible or you questioning the Bible? If the “e-word” and the “age of the earth” thing is the same, why are you afraid of the “e-word”?

By: Donnie Briggs

Donnie Briggs — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:54:19 +0000

I debated mentioning the “e-word”, and should never have done it. It takes away from the simpler “age of the earth” question which cuts much more quickly to the heart of the matter.

By: none

none — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:16:27 +0000

God’s servant: Some say that matter formed from bacteria, which formed after several million years, but I don’t think that makes any more sense.

By: God's servant

God's servant — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:05:50 +0000

I don’t know what you are talking about. I think it makes soooo much more sense to believe the Bible. God made you so he could certainly create the universe in six days. If God didn’t create us or the universe who or what did? Evolution is a theory. If matter did form and explod, where did that matter come from? etc. If you think you have something let me know.