Science at its worst

6days

New member
And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why?
Greg..... Jose has posted 3 definitions from creationists of "kinds". The definitions from 3 different people are all consistent with each other. Using those definitions, may help you come to a reasonable answer.

Meanwhile its amusing you are so interested in Biblical definitions of kind, when your definition of 'species' and other words is rubbery and maleable.
 

6days

New member
You said that a 30,000 year old fossil was evidence of a 6000 year old earth and a 5000 year old worldwide flood. You never connected the dots. Feel free to, or to have a friend explain your complicated creationist hypothesis
I said a C14 date of 30,000 years is consistent with the creation / flood model and explained... and gave you links.
With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood organisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"

Your comment about strata / different events and eras shows you don't understand what you are arguing against. The evidence is consistent with God's Word. Science is ALWAYS consistent with His Word.
 

Greg Jennings

New member
It doesnt. Because the 6000 year old Earth stance by Creationists A)Doesnt accord with the Bible and B)Is certainly not Scientific. In other words neither the Bible or current known scientific evidence support this theory.

The Bible describes creative 'days'. Essentially periods of time or creative epochs as it were which logically delinate each creative period. The Bible provides no guidance at all on how long each one of those epochs/days were which were likely for an indefinite period of time. So it is plausible using current dating methods that the earth is millions or possibly billions of years old. But Science cannot provide definitive guidance on the age of the Earth outside of radioactive dating assumptions and logical deduction. A million years depending on who you speak to is obviously a very large tolerance...

Interestingly Genesis 1:1-2 does actually support the scientifc theory that the Earth is possibly millions or billions of years old as the creative days only describe the creation on Earth and its preparation for mans habitation. Infact Genesis 1:1 tells us that the Earth was created before the first creative day. In essence by the time the first creative day begun the Earth had already existed for an indefinite period of time along with the Universe/Heavens.

To your lata question any contammination to a carbon organism can disturb the rate of decay. That could be literally be anything from water, to gas, magma, lava etc. Its illogical to presume that any carbon based organism has remained in the Earth in a completely undisturbed state, unaltered with respect to its content, biologic or otherwise or any other activity. And yet thats exactly what C14 dating presumes as the rate of decay of radio carbons is constant until all carbon is depleted.

Intertestingly experiments have proven that diamonds purported to be billions of years old contained significant levels of C14. But C14 only has a half life of just under 6000 years. So at best the diamonds could only be 45-50000 years old, or 70,000 year old depending on what method was used for dating, but regardless diamonds are supposed to be radio carbon dead. Thus its clear radio active dating is not and cannot be an empircal technique as fossils in the Earths crust can and will be subject to contamination which can invalidate dating.
The diamond is interesting, but I simply don't think that all scientists are lying about radiometric dating methods. Where are you getting your information from?

On the 6000 years stuff: I'm glad to see you are not blind to reality like some
 

Greg Jennings

New member
Greg..... Jose has posted 3 definitions from creationists of "kinds". The definitions from 3 different people are all consistent with each other. Using those definitions, may help you come to a reasonable answer.
You are the "kinds" expert here, not me. I can't figure out your crazy formula. Now will you be so kind as to answer my questions for me, as I can't find the answers myself? Here they are again for you. Thanks

There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why?

Where in the official "Biblical creation model" do they fit?

Meanwhile its amusing you are so interested in Biblical definitions of kind, when your definition of 'species' and other words is rubbery and maleable.
Ask me the same questions I'm asking you about bacteria, archaea, and protists. With "species" I can answer all of your questions. The fact that you can't do the same with "kinds" shows how utterly useless it is
 

Greg Jennings

New member
I said a C14 date of 30,000 years is consistent with the creation / flood model and explained... and gave you links.
With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood organisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"
There is literally no credible research supporting anything you claim. How many Christians here have told you the same thing? If there is, post it here so I can dissect it, then listen to you complain about how scientific scrutiny destroys your "argument"

Your comment about strata / different events and eras shows you don't understand what you are arguing against. The evidence is consistent with God's Word. Science is ALWAYS consistent with His Word.
:doh: Dude, you think that water can fold sedimentary and igneous rock layers. You seriously cannot get away with saying somebody else doesn't understand the material. It's like someone who failed algebra telling a calculus major "You have no understanding of math." What college courses on the subject did you take again? What degrees so you have in the field? You have yet to ever answer those questions

Isn't it exciting how fast YECism is being removed from the world? All because the science is very very inconsistent with a literal reading of God's word
 

6days

New member
GregJennings said:
6days said:
a C14 date of 30,000 years is consistent with the creation / flood model.
With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood organisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"
There is literally no credible research supporting anything you claim. How many Christians here have told you the same thing?
The veracity of a claim does not depend on your religion Greg, nor that of any other religion. You need do some basic research. Even secularists know C14 ratios vary with volcanic activity, solar rays etc. A global flood would absolutely effect C14 results.

GregJennings said:
6days said:
Your comment about strata / different events and eras shows you don't understand what you are arguing against. The evidence is consistent with God's Word. Science is ALWAYS consistent with His Word.
Dude, you think that water can fold sedimentary and igneous rock layers.
Again Greg..... You need do some research.

Rock layers often fold before they solidified. In the Rocky Mountains, I often see layers of rock that were uplifted and folded during the flood and immediate years after. Examination of these rocks confirm the sedimentary layers hardened into rock after it was folded. (Unfractured).

Also.... if you wish to understand folded rock layers within the Creation flood model, you can find many articles on the topic such as this by Michael Oard
"It is my opinion that another mechanism for folding also is valid, and that is differential vertical tectonics, as propounded by S. Warren Carey.1 For example, there are quite a number of anticlines in Montana and other areas of the Rocky Mountains of North America that are cored by granitic rocks.2 The sedimentary rocks form drapes over these plutonic cores. Although it is generally believed such basement-cored anticlines were produced by horizontal compression, it is easier to believe they were produced by upward vertical tectonics, especially since mid and upper crustal rocks are likely to fail upon compression and not produce folds." http://creation.com/mountains-rose

GregJennings said:
Isn't it exciting how fast YECism is being removed from the world? All because the science is very very inconsistent with a literal reading of God's word
Again...... You REALLY need to do research.

About 50 years ago, virtually every scientist had compromised adding billions of years into scripture. (At least two scientists had not compromised) Today there are thousands of scientists who reject Darwinism, and state that science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. We seeing scientists, and various creation societies not just in North America, but in Russia, S.Korea, Austrailia, Israel and more.

Again Greg..... Do a little research rather than making hostile and illogical arguments against something you don't understand. Reminds me of an article a few years back in the The Chronicle of Higher Education
"As it stands, scientists’ blundering hostility toward creationism actually encourages creationist belief. By offering a stark division between religious faith and scientific belief, evolutionary scientists have pushed creationists away from embracing evolutionary ideas. And, by assuming that only ignorance could explain creationist beliefs, scientists have unwittingly fostered bitter resentment among the creationists, the very people with whom they should be hoping to connect"
http://chronicle.com/article/To-Teach-Evolution-You-Have/135832/

And RE your claim that Biblical creation is being removed from the world...
It seems atheists feel threatened by Bible believing scientists... AND, even by secularists who aren't committed to Darwinism.

Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionist and science wtiter is concerned about the increasingly unmanageable problem of high-level academic defectors from evolutionary theory.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...ther-new-anti-evolution-book-by-thomas-nagel/

One of the " defecters" Coyne mentions is Thomas Nagel.
Nagel wrote:
I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement....


A funny line from Coyne is that the secular opposition to the ToE is coming from molecular biologists. He suggests they perhaps don't have a good enough education in evolution!
Perhaps these scientists have superior knowledge than Coyne does about life at the most elemental levels. Perhaps they understand the ToE is a house of cards about to tumble.
(watch for supernatural alternative explanations that exclude a Creator God. Aliens?)

The most logical and scientific explanation is "In the beginning, God created..."
 
Last edited:

Greg Jennings

New member
The veracity of a claim does not depend on your religion Greg, nor that of any other religion. You need do some basic research. Even secularists know C14 ratios vary with volcanic activity, solar rays etc. A global flood would absolutely effect C14 results.


Again Greg..... You need do some research.

Rock layers often fold before they solidified. In the Rocky Mountains, I often see layers of rock that were uplifted and folded during the flood and immediate years after. Examination of these rocks confirm the sedimentary layers hardened into rock after it was folded. (Unfractured).

Also.... if you wish to understand folded rock layers within the Creation flood model, you can find many articles on the topic such as this by Michael Oard
"It is my opinion that another mechanism for folding also is valid, and that is differential vertical tectonics, as propounded by S. Warren Carey.1 For example, there are quite a number of anticlines in Montana and other areas of the Rocky Mountains of North America that are cored by granitic rocks.2 The sedimentary rocks form drapes over these plutonic cores. Although it is generally believed such basement-cored anticlines were produced by horizontal compression, it is easier to believe they were produced by upward vertical tectonics, especially since mid and upper crustal rocks are likely to fail upon compression and not produce folds." http://creation.com/mountains-rose


Again...... You REALLY need to do research.

About 50 years ago, virtually every scientist had compromised adding billions of years into scripture. (At least two scientists had not compromised) Today there are thousands of scientists who reject Darwinism, and state that science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. We seeing scientists, and various creation societies not just in North America, but in Russia, S.Korea, Austrailia, Israel and more.

Again Greg..... Do a little research rather than making hostile and illogical arguments against something you don't understand. Reminds me of an article a few years back in the The Chronicle of Higher Education
"As it stands, scientists’ blundering hostility toward creationism actually encourages creationist belief. By offering a stark division between religious faith and scientific belief, evolutionary scientists have pushed creationists away from embracing evolutionary ideas. And, by assuming that only ignorance could explain creationist beliefs, scientists have unwittingly fostered bitter resentment among the creationists, the very people with whom they should be hoping to connect"
http://chronicle.com/article/To-Teach-Evolution-You-Have/135832/

And RE your claim that Biblical creation is being removed from the world...
It seems atheists feel threatened by Bible believing scientists... AND, even by secularists who aren't committed to Darwinism.

Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionist and science wtiter is concerned about the increasingly unmanageable problem of high-level academic defectors from evolutionary theory.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...ther-new-anti-evolution-book-by-thomas-nagel/

One of the " defecters" Coyne mentions is Thomas Nagel.
Nagel wrote:
I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement....


A funny line from Coyne is that the secular opposition to the ToE is coming from molecular biologists. He suggests they perhaps don't have a good enough education in evolution!
Perhaps these scientists have superior knowledge than Coyne does about life at the most elemental levels. Perhaps they understand the ToE is a house of cards about to tumble.
(watch for supernatural alternative explanations that exclude a Creator God. Aliens?)

The most logical and scientific explanation is "In the beginning, God created..."

Im just going to answer the while post at once rather than waste time breaking it down.

I never said that ratios cannot change under extreme circumstances, and I'll take your word for it that a global flood would change them. Now you have to answer the problem of where all of this extra water came from? I don't mean a vague answer like "goddidit" or "maybe everything was nothing like it was today, just a few thousand years later." I mean a legitimate, scientifically sound answer, preferably backed with some kind of evidence.

After that, it's on to "how did all of the aquatic animals live in the mixed salt and freshwater without dying?" You'll say to that "maybe every animal used to be able to live in all water," but that has no corroborating support from anything. There is NO evidence that previously most of all aquatic species could live in both salt and fresh water then lost this beneficial trait inexplicably.

Then it's on to, "how could all of the animal types from past and extinct species fit on the ark and where did their waste go?"

Then, "how do you explain the galaxies we see that are billions of light years away in the context if a 6000 year old universe?"

It's never-ending


It's not like there's just one or two issues with your "theory." It's one after the other.....after another.....after another.........and it just goes on forever. Science contradicts you at just about every single turn, yet you go on quoting the 1 dissenter in 100 experts and pretending like he's the only person who exists, pathetically trying to use such testimony (or one of your famous quote-mines of testimony) in order to try and dispute the obvious fact that belief in evolution is on the rise while YECism is a dying belief. Fundamentalist Christians can't shield their kids from reality forever. When they leave the nest and are exposed to alternative views to the ones held at their homes, they are able to compare them. And as polls show, when these kids get educated they become far more likely to accept evolution (theistic or atheistic), because they aren't all idiots.


When it comes to the folding rocks, find me one single geologist who doesn't identify as a YEC who says that water can bend rock layers. I'm not taking the, as he himself puts it, "opinion" of one person against the entirety of his field



And did you miss all of this? You dodged it....by accident I'm sure...

I asked you:
"There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why?

Where in the official "Biblical creation model" do they fit?"

6days said:
"Meanwhile its amusing you are so interested in Biblical definitions of kind, when your definition of 'species' and other words is rubbery and malleable."

Me again:
"Ask me the same questions I'm asking you about bacteria, archaea, and protists. With "species" I can answer all of your questions. The fact that you can't do the same with "kinds" shows how utterly useless it is."
 

6days

New member
Now you have to answer the problem of where all of this extra water came from?
I have to keep repeating..... GREG... Please do a wee bit of research. You remind me of a creationist who asks "Why do we have monkeys if humans evolved from them?". I guess it's not really a stupid question, if you don't have a clue what the other side believes.

Where did the water come from? Its amusing that evolutionists have no difficulty believing Mars once was covered with vast oceans... although there seems to be no liquid water now; and yet, those same evolutionists can't seem to imagine planet earth was covered when it currently is more than 2/3 water. There is enough water on earth to cover it to a depth of a couple kilometers if the earth was flat. The Bible tells us that the earth which existed before the flood was destroyed, and the highest point on earth was under about 15 ft. of water. Where did the water go? Again, the Bible provides an answer which is consistent with the world around us.

Psalm 104:7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.

After that, it's on to "how did all of the aquatic animals live in the mixed salt and freshwater without dying?" You'll say to that "maybe every animal used to be able to live in all water," but that has no corroborating support from anything.
Ok..... Do some research... But I will help you...

"How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood"

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf

or

"Noah’s Ark: A feasibility study" by John Woodmorappe, Institute for Creation Research


Then it's on to, "how could all of the animal types from past and extinct species fit on the ark and where did their waste go?"

Easy to fit all the various kinds including those extinct into the space of 500+ rail cars. Various scientists have done studies on it but you don't need a PhD.

John Woodmorappe,

Then, "how do you explain the galaxies we see that are billions of light years away in the context if a 6000 year old universe?"
Hmmmmm Do you understand a light year is a measurement of distance and not time?

A few different models have been proposed by astronomers and astrophysicists. But the answer may simply be found in the scripture telling us that God spreads the universe. How did He.... How fast?

Greg, you often ask questions that you seem to think are 'gotcha' questions, all the while ignoring your own hypothetical/ psuedoscientic assumptions in your model. For example....Big Bangers believe that once upon a time our universe seemed to come into existence without a cause. It was a really really really small hot dense ball that... Oh my goodness measured 3.9 x 10-34 inches. Then, almost like a miracle there was cold whoosh that happened VERY VERY VERY fast.... faster than the speed of light!! In fact this happened at 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000 of the first second. And..... it was HOT HOT HOT... Our universe was much hotter than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kelvin.

So, that teensy weensy itsy bitsy little super hot ball is now our universe which spans 18 billion years...yet we have a light horizon of 46 billion years... Go figure.

When it comes to the folding rocks, find me one single geologist who doesn't identify as a YEC who says that water can bend rock layers. I'm not taking the, as he himself puts it, "opinion" of one person against the entirety of his field

Again Greg,,,, Do a wee bit of research and stop creating strawmen. Nobody has suggested water bends rocks.

And did you miss all of this? You dodged it....by accident I'm sure...
I asked you:
"There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

It was answered Greg. I asked you to check with Jose who can give you 3 different definitions of the word kind... yet all definitions are consistent with each other. Now, apply that knowlege to what you know about Archaea, protists, and bacteria. How many kinds did God create? We don't know, but there are tens of thousands of different types of beneficial bacteria... perhaps hundreds of thousands of different kinds. If you truly want to determine various kinds and species..... you, and your crack team of scientists won't complete the task in this lifetime....Its an impossible task.
 

iouae

Well-known member
I asked you:
"There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why?

Where in the official "Biblical creation model" do they fit?"

6days said:
"Meanwhile its amusing you are so interested in Biblical definitions of kind, when your definition of 'species' and other words is rubbery and malleable."

Me again:
"Ask me the same questions I'm asking you about bacteria, archaea, and protists. With "species" I can answer all of your questions. The fact that you can't do the same with "kinds" shows how utterly useless it is."[/B]

I don't believe anyone can define what a "biblical kind" is.

Usual definitions go something like this...

A Biblical kind includes all those who can breed with each other, or came from those who can breed with each other.

So, if one kind turns into another, Christians will just say they were the same kind to begin with.
Evolutionists will say "See, we have a new kind".

I don't think God ever intended it to be a LAW that things bring forth according to their kind, as many assume.

There is a difference between a PRINCIPLE and a LAW. It is a PRINCIPLE that most organisms produce after their kind, but if, after isolation, they become a separate "kind" that's fine with God. I am thinking of chiclids or those thousands of "kinds" of fish found in African lakes.

To give another example of a PRINCIPLE vs a LAW. David said he had never seen the righteous forsaken or his seed begging for bread. Ps 37:25. This is a PRINCIPLE not a law. It is entirely possible that a Christian ends up begging bread. Look at the beggar Lazarus in Luke's parable.

Both Christians and evolutionists have been suckered into demanding a strict definition of a Biblical "kind". There is none.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
What difference does it make to salvation whether the Earth is a few thousand years old or a few billions of years old?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What difference does it make to salvation whether the Earth is a few thousand years old or a few billions of years old?

Nothing. What difference does your post make to the debate?

Answer: It derails it.

Conclusion: You're a troll. :troll:
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What difference does it make to salvation whether the Earth is a few thousand years old or a few billions of years old?

As if you don't know why you are twisting the words of the Holy Spirit...to discredit God. (his name is the Lord Jesus Christ) If he is wrong about Noah and the flood, then his wrong about everything. You know this.

Matthew 24

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Nothing. What difference does your post make to the debate?

Answer: It derails it.

Conclusion: You're a troll. :troll:
We, meaning the Christian community, spend a whole bunch of time debating this yet, by your own admission, it makes no difference to a persons salvation. So why do you spend so much time debating it?
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
As if you don't know why you are twisting the words of the Holy Spirit...to discredit God. (his name is the Lord Jesus Christ) If he is wrong about Noah and the flood, then his wrong about everything. You know this.

Matthew 24

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

I believe that the Earth and the rest of creation is very old. I also believe that God created everything and Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Believing in an old Earth does not discredit God nor does it mean that I don't believe in the flood. All it means is that I understand creation differently than you.

But you didn't answer the question: How does believing in a particular age of the Earth effect a persons salvation?
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Wiens seems to have a poor grasp of God's Word. For a christian perspective on Wiens and his paper ... http://creation.mobi/a-christian-response-to-radiometric-dating

In your attempt to discredit Wiens, a fellow Christian, you are only exposing your own dishonest heart 6days. If you can't face the truth you try to discredit the messenger. He lays all the facts out for the honest truth seeker to examine.

The Hebrews wrote a story for the consumption of the common scattered Israelite during the Babylonian captivity. That story is exaggerated and long outdated.

Within the link you provided is the explanation for the dishonesty based on false assumptions: "Their strategy, it seems, is that if they can convince Christians that the earth is billions of years old then they have discredited the other claims of the Bible." Therefore it's like politicians who cover up their crimes for the good of the people, but the cover-up is worse than the human failings they try to conceal. The people who sought to stop Jesus more or less knew the truth about the imperfection of the scripture but they were moral cowards, too proud to admit the truth. I have great faith in God, in Jesus Christ even though I can see the Bible has many factual flaws as should be expected. Christian pride, that's all's this is.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
How old? How long did he take to make it? Are animals, plants and people going through macro-evolution?

Life began in earnest roughly 550,000,000 years ago. Adam and Eve incarnate on a populated, fallen earth. They spent the first 6 days surveying their new garden home, on the 7th day they rested. Thousands of years later, when the Jews were writing their version of the many creation narratives in circulation, they assumed Adam and Eve were the first humans. They lived in an enchanted age faaaaar different than the age of science and enlightenment.
 
Top