 | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I'll point to the talk.origins clearinghouse site, which is one of the best catch-all refutations of the Creationist argument (and exploration of misconceptions about Evolution that cause otherwise intelligent people to subscribe to Creation (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) 1650 for Bishop Ussher (and some further expansion in 1654). 17th century. (...) The earth is slowing. Tidal forces are doing it, similiar to what the earth has already done to the moon, just a lot weaker. If one considers the 8 hour workday, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) And don't forget that earth is basically spinning within a vacuum! Of course a spinning ball in our atmosphere soon gets slower and will stop, but without friction a ball (even a big ball called earth) will spin for a VERY long time almost in (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Ack, you're right. I have no idea why I typed 18th. Do I have to give back my Secret Historian Decoder Ring and washroom key now? :( I should always remember to check my desiderata. But in any case, it just strengthens my point. And actually, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I'd just like to clarify that I never said that at all, but you rather assumed that's what I meant. I did say "interestingly enough". Just one response to this message (see my reply to Ross's message for why I didn't respond to the others) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
