Dating sites are worthless nubian links dating agency
I've discussed some of this in the newsgroup, but here I'll leave it for the rebuttal phase of the debate.The arguments I use are of the same basic type as those of the old-earth proponents: extrapolation of present-day trends into the past to determine how long something could have been going on.Also, the arguments I use here deal with the solar system, the earth, and man.They do not deal with the age of the universe as a whole.Also, since there has been controversy on the net, unless otherwise indicated, all references and quotes are taken from works which I have personally examined.Any conclusions not specifically quoted are my own and may not agree with those who supply the facts on which I base them.Second, the distribution of meteors resulting from comets is highly non-uniform around the earth's orbit, while the particles which cause the zodical light must be uniformly distributed.
("On the Origin of Short-Period Comets," Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1-273, June, 1973).
This is the first of two postings generated by the debate.
It contains Bob Bales's opening statement, Chris Stassen's rebuttal, and Bob Bales's closing remarks.
Bales Opening Statement In this argument, I'll stick to the evidence which indicates the earth has a young age.
Any young-earth theory must also explain evidence that seems to indicate that the earth is millions of years old.