[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by Dalzi

True, no scriptures say when earth was created and how old it is. We have to find that out via examination and science. I have no idea where people get these ideas from. Where on earth is there anything in the scriptures that even hints towards earth being a baby?

Precisely, this idea of a 7 thousand year old earth is purely a human invention.

Originally Posted by Ashlen

Could be... could be... could be... Ok, tell us how scientific those "could be" are. and then I'll change my mind.
The universe as it exists was not produced by some cosmic accident! Do you think a mere accident could create such a wonderful world? The conditions of creation were intricately planned and considered. It is clear to everyone that the world was an Intentional Creation.
A mindless uncontrolled "big bang" would result in destruction and chaos, not the life and order we now see.
Geophysicist John R. Baumgardner notes: "In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity."

Excellent observation. That is one of the best arguments for Creationism. What brought about the big bang? Did all these uncontrolled random events bring about life? The laws of probability tell us the Big Bang and the events that followed could not possibly have been accidental and random. The question that the atheistic scientific community cannot answer is, what caused the Primeval atom to come into existence? What is a world without space, time, gravity...? The only way an atom can come out of nothing is if it was caused by an uncaused cause, an Intelligent being who was not caused himself, but is of an eternal nature, always was and always will be. I'll quote my college Stellar Astronomy Professor; I asked him once, how did the Primeval atom come about, and what existed before? His answer was, "science begins after the big bang, we leave religion to explain the unexplainable on how a universe can rise out of nothing."

Originally Posted by chafic

I don't really see where my mistake is. You were talking about the wrongness of basing archaeological studies on carbon dating because it can't go back in time. I was just saying that there are different sorts of radiometric dating.

We can disagree on the carbon dating methods, but we agree that this earth is much older than 6,000 years. What you posted was directed at "Young Earth Creationists", which I think is ridicolous and contradicted by scripture.

As for the two ages thing, I would qualify it with anything but clear. Actually, there's nothing clear about it, it could be interpreted in a zillion ways. The whole idea of two ages separated by a gap is not scientific at all. One could say that there is a new age for earth since electricity was invented, another one when humans landed on the moon, and another when Britney Spears issued her album "Baby One More Time"....A new age, in the sense you're using, would mean a reset to 0 of all ages, because everything takes off from a beginning; Having dated fossils to way more than 14k years old is certain proof of the fallacy of the two ages story. I really wouldn't want to elaborate more on this idea.

Actually, science backs up what I am saying. Approx. 14,000 years ago, the earth underwent a "Katabole"; there is evidence of a massive global flood which coincided with the end of the last ice age causing mass extinctions. I will also suggest that the age of civilization (which was sparked by agriculture) coincided with the Creation of Adam, who was formed to "till the ground."

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

So essentially, based on this logic, its saying that you and your cousins are not really cousins but just have the 'same creator.'

My logic is if I share similar DNA sequences with a primate, a cat or my cousin; it's because we live under the same earthly conditions, not because I evolved from them.

Not really. Based on every study and examination, all indications point to the consensus that our 35,000 year old ancestors were anatomically modern humans.

Physical evidences: more vertical forehead, cranial capacity (slightly different from present humans).

Behavioral evidences: the ability to paint, invent deities, utilize tools for their habitat and well-being, etc.

I dont have the slightest clue as to how all of this converges to less-human and more animal-like behaviorisms.

Have you ever held a skull replica of Homo habilis or Neanderthal? They are very much apes. In regards to modern humans pre-dating 14,000 years, I believe based on flawed dating techniques coupled with the scientific and academic communities eagerness to discredit Intelligent Design thereby discrediting the idea of a Creator, as well as outright fraud, which I gave examples of, the notion that modern flesh man existed 35,000 years ago is questionable to say the least. Again, how do you explain the million year old fossils of "human ancestors" in South America? How did they get from Africa to South America? Something didn't fit, so in order to make it fit, Evolutionists came up with rafting. Is that explanation good enough for you?

Actually, no. The cranial capacity of our late ancestors was larger than ours and considered a great progressive leap in our evolutionary line. The frontal lobes have expanded and developed greater figure, per our transition into human evolution.

Take Neanderthal as an example, I realize according to Evolution he is not our ancestor; but you're right, he had a large cranial capacity, but he also had a larger and bulkier body than humans, and his frontal lobes were small severely limiting intelligence. Just look at a replica, and you can see how the forhead is sloped. Everything else we know about how they lived suggests that they were very much ape-like with ape-like intelligence.

But there are many calibration methods, to amend possible errors. One method involves measuring the results against the age of the rings in trees (which obviously is a good source of invariance).

Why rely so heavily on current carbon dating methods if there is an obvious flaw?