Age Does Matter
It was the Reverend James Ussher (1581-1656) who calculated the Earth’s age as only 6,000 years
old. This would make the Earth a veritable infant, as planets go.
However, science
puts Earth’s age as around 4.54 billion years; creationists, however, don’t let
anything as trivial as scientific facts get in the way of how they view the world around
them.
That’s why Pat Robertson’s admission that James Ussher was not “inspired” by the Lord when he
calculated the Earth’s age—in short, he does not believe that the Earth is only
6,000 years old—is surprising. This is contrary to most religious fundamentalist’s
views that Earth was created in 4000 BC (around the time urbanization
was starting in Mesopotamia).
Pat Robertson
also said that Christians should not “cover up” scientific evidence that Earth
is, in fact, billions of years old.
Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn’t. You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas.They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.
There you go, folks.
The Reverend James Ussher had put the Earth’s
creation on October 23, 4004 BC (using the Julian Calendar). His calculations
first appeared in 1650, when he published his work, Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi
origine deducti ("Annals of the
Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world").
Young Earth
Creationists, to this day, cite this as proof that Earth is only thousands of
years old, and not billions. They
also think that The Flintstones was a documentary (they think humans and dinosaurs
co-existed).
And Mightor was the prehistoric Caped Crusader |
But what effect Pat
Robertson’s announcement regarding Earth’s age would be to other
fundamentalists? Probably nothing. After all, it's not as if he renounced Biblical Creationism altogether.
In any case, there are
a lot of creationists out there, not just the Young Earth Creationists (or the onomatopoeic-sounding
YEC). There's the Old Earth Creationists, for one.
In the mean time, here are The Top 10 Claims
Made By Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories:
One of the most challenging tasks for the modern day creationist to is
reconcile the belief in a 6,000 year old Earth with the ever-growing mountain
of scientific evidence pointing to a vastly different conclusion — namely a
universe that's 13.5 billion years old and an Earth that formed 4.5 billion
years ago. So, given these astoundingly dramatic discrepancies, biblical
literalists and 'young Earth creationists' have had no choice but to get pretty
darned imaginative when brushing science aside. Here are 10 arguments
creationists have made to counter scientific theories.
1. Humans
and dinosaurs co-existed
Quite obviously, creationists aren't
able to gloss over the fact that dinosaurs existed. They are clearly a part of
the fossil record. But in accordance with the the Bible, creationists insist
that they lived contemporaneously to humans. And in fact, they say this
explains why dragons play a prominent role in our mythological record.
Moreover, creationists claim that human footprints have been found
alongside dinosaur tracks at Paluxy, that a petrified
hammer was found in Cretaceous rocks, and that some sandal footprints have been
found alongside trilobites. Other theories suggest that the Great
Flood shook up and redeposited the fossil record so that it appears that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans
arrived. Real evidence and proper interpretation
of the fossil record, however, supports the idea that humans first emerged
about 200,000 years ago — long after the demise of dinosaurs who went extinct
65 million years ago.
2. Biological
systems are too complex to have evolved
This is
what biochemist Michael Behe refers
to as irreducible complexity. He and other creationists complain
that a complex biological system, what is comprised of many interacting parts,
would cease to function properly in the event of any alteration. Proponents of
intelligent design use this argument to claim that anything less than the
complete form of a fully functional biological system (or organ) would not work
at all — what would be catastrophically detrimental to an organism. In other
words, all mutations have to be bad. The only
way for an organism to evolve, the ID defenders say, is for God to guide the
process every step of the way. This is silly, of course — organisms are not
that fragile. And in fact, evolvability is an indelible
aspect to life.
Continue reading here.
Tоԁay, I ωent to the beach front with mу chіldrеn.
ReplyDeleteI fοunԁ a sea ѕhell аnd gave it to
my 4 year old daughtеr and saiԁ "You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear." She placed the shеll to
her ear аnd screamed. Thеre ωas а
hermit crab іnsіԁe anԁ іt pіncheԁ heг ear.
Ѕhе never wants to go bacκ! LoL I knoω this is totally
οff topіc but I had to tell somеone!
http://www.dfw-taxicab.com/2011/07/taxі-servicе-in-eulеѕѕ-tx/
Also visit my homepage taxicab in irving