Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse on the Cross Rhythms website.

Name
Email address
Article Title:	A Diamond Date
Author of reported comment:	Rick Starr
Comment Date:	00:11 on Oct 29 2009
Comment:	and certainly must be less than 57000 years old. This does not prove a biblical age of 6000 years, but it is certainly consistent with that position. Um, it's not vaguely consistent with that position. Even if it is "less" than 57,000 years old, it might be 51,000 years old, which is nowhere close to the 6,000 year figure Bible literalists claim. There is a lot more room for "Bzzt. WRONG" than "certainly consistent" there.

Tell us the details of your complaint:
	For verification, please type the word shown above in the box below [try a different word]