Do you believe in millions of years????

[SRA]

???

[Mathews XT Man]

No I do not..the Bible comes up with about 5,000 years old, since man has been here, how long was the earth here before that..?? ask the maker, HE knows!!

[slugshooter]

Yes

[Andrea]

Only God knows how long this universe has been in existence. Man has not been here that long though. Not as long as scientists want you to think.

My question is..................where do the dinosaurs fit in with the Bible? Were they present at the same time as man? If so, were they only on one continent ( without humans) and then killed by the Great Flood? ( and that's how their bones were distributed all over the world?)


Okay, I'm getting too deep.............but that's what I wonder sometimes.

[buckee]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe in millions of years????

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[SRA]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes

[/ QUOTE ]

could you explain why you do???

[Strut10]

No, I do not.

It's more like a few billion...........around 4.5.

[stevebeilgard]

carbon dating says yes.

[huntingbabe82]

[ QUOTE ]
carbon dating says yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

how long has carbon dating been around? no..i do not believe in millions of years.

[OJR]

I believe in billions of years! Millions are easy to trace back with carbon dating!

[Mathews XT Man]

Carbon dating has been proven wrong...an artfact at a 40 year old construction site was unearthed, carbon dated, and was said to be "millions" of years old...LOL

[wtnhunt]

I believe that is a question that only the creator knows the answer to.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

I have no trouble at all reconciling the scientifically provable age of the Earth and the amount of time referenced in the Bible. The Bible is universally accepted as being written by men. Certainly it was inspired by the word of God, but none the less the actual recording was done by men. That fact alone leaves some areas open for error, misinterpretation, or editorializing by the writer. I think the message contained in the Bible is an accurate interpretation of what God wants us to know in the realm of spirituality, but when we start using the Bible to try and prove or disprove science, we're using it for a purpose that God never intended. It's just the wrong tool for the job.

[slugshooter]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no trouble at all reconciling the scientifically provable age of the Earth and the amount of time referenced in the Bible. The Bible is universally accepted as being written by men. Certainly it was inspired by the word of God, but none the less the actual recording was done by men. That fact alone leaves some areas open for error, misinterpretation, or editorializing by the writer. I think the message contained in the Bible is an accurate interpretation of what God wants us to know in the realm of spirituality, but when we start using the Bible to try and prove or disprove science, we're using it for a purpose that God never intended. It's just the wrong tool for the job.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the answer I was searching for.

Most everybody on here knows what I believe. That's why I gave a one word answer. I do not like debating these sorts of things in here because all it leads to is name calling and finger pointing. And I would rather keep what friends I have on here rather than lose them over something that is in essence, trivial.

[ParrotHead]

Interesting article today from the AP -

Skeleton sheds light on ape-man species

POSTED: 1:13 p.m. EDT, September 20, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) -- Scientists have discovered a remarkably complete skeleton of a 3-year-old female from the ape-man species represented by "Lucy."

The discovery should fuel a contentious debate about whether this species, which walked upright, also climbed and moved through trees easily like an ape.

The remains are 3.3 million years old, making them the oldest known skeleton of such a youthful human ancestor.

"It's pretty unbelievable" to find such a complete fossil from that long ago, said scientist Fred Spoor. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime find."

Spoor, professor of evolutionary anatomy at University College London, describes the fossil in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature with Zeresenay Alemseged of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and other scientists.

The skeleton was discovered in 2000 in northeastern Ethiopia. Scientists have spent five painstaking years removing the bones from sandstone, and the job will take years more to complete.

Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said.

The creature was a member of Australopithecus afarensis, which lived in Africa between about 4 million and 3 million years ago. The most famous afarensis is Lucy, discovered in Ethiopia in 1974, which lived about 100,000 years after the newfound specimen.

Most scientists believe afarensis stood upright and walked on two feet, but they argue about whether it had ape-like agility in trees.

That climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and afarensis had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. The question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or just evolutionary baggage.

Spoor said so far, analysis of the new fossil hasn't settled the argument but does seem to indicate some climbing ability.

While the lower body is very human-like, he said, the upper body is ape-like:


The shoulder blades resemble those of a gorilla rather than a modern human.


The neck seems short and thick like a great ape's, rather than the more slender version humans have to keep the head stable while running.


The organ of balance in the inner ear is more ape-like than human.


The fingers are very curved, which could indicate climbing ability, "but I'm cautious about that," Spoor said. Curved fingers have been noted for afarensis before, but their significance is in dispute.

A big question is what the foot bones will show when their sandstone casing is removed, he said. Will there be a grasping big toe like the opposable thumb of a human hand? Such a chimp-like feature would argue for climbing ability, he said.

Yet, to resolve the debate, scientists may have to find a way to inspect vanishingly small details of such old bones, to get clues to how those bones were used in life, he said.

Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who didn't participate in the discovery, said in an interview that the fossil provides strong evidence of climbing ability. But he also agreed that it won't settle the debate among scientists, which he said "makes the Middle East look like a picnic."

Overall, he wrote in a Nature commentary, the discovery provides "a veritable mine of information about a crucial stage in human evolutionary history."

The fossil revealed just the second hyoid bone to be recovered from any human ancestor. This tiny bone, which attaches to the tongue muscles, is very chimp-like in the new specimen, Spoor said.

While that doesn't directly reveal anything about language, it does suggest that whatever sounds the creature made "would appeal more to a chimpanzee mother than a human mother," Spoor said.

The fossil find includes the complete skull, including an impression of the brain and the lower jaw, all the vertebrae from the neck to just below the torso, all the ribs, both shoulder blades and both collarbones, the right elbow and part of a hand, both knees and much of both shin and thigh bones.

One foot is almost complete, providing the first time scientists have found an afarensis foot with the bones still positioned as they were in life, Spoor said.

The work was funded by the National Geographic Society, the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, the Leakey Foundation and the Planck institute.