Roll over from "Does God Exist" - How old is the Earth?

[-Cp]

Some state the "earth is billions of years old" as if it was somehow fact... I find that notion a bit silly....

If you believe it's that old, why so when so much of the evidence we have points to a young Earth?

[Gaffer]

All the evidence points to 4 billion years. Only pseudo-science points to a young earth.

Genesis was an attempt by an ancient culture to explain the unexplainable. Like so many other cultures did.

[-Cp]

All the evidence points to 4 billion years. Only pseudo-science points to a young earth.

Genesis was an attempt by an ancient culture to explain the unexplainable. Like so many other cultures did.

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

- Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.

- The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.

- Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.

- A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.

- The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).

- Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

[Missileman]

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

- Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.

- The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.

- Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.

- A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.

- The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).

- Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

How about some links for this stuff please?

[Gaffer]

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

90% of the psuedo-science methods is what you should say.

- Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.

So exactly when did these dinosaurs live? An where did these "unfolsilzed" dinosaur bones come from?

- The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.

The magnetic field doesn't decay. It flucuates, can even change polarity but does not decay.

- Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.

Who said there was an atomsphere for billions of years?

- A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.

The distance of the galaxy is measured in LIGHT years. A lot of the light we see now started this way millions of our years ago. A supernova doesn't light up the area unless its really really close. And we have only begun to scratch the surface of interstellar exploration.

- The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).

The moon has always been receding from the earth. Where do you thing the moon came from? It was the result of a large collision of a big object with the earth that formed the moon.

- Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

And salt is pouring into the sea from where? And who said the seas have been here for billions of years.



This is all psuedo-science I have heard before. It's a bunch of fundimentalists making up bullshit to try to prove their own beliefs concerning the bible and creationism. It has no real scientific basis.

Your own statements here say things have been going on for millions of years. That's a long way from 6000.

And by your own statement you say the moon has been moving away from the earth for 1.37 billion years. That too is a long ways from 6000.

There are a number of psuedo-scientist out there that are always publishing thier theories to try to support their fundimentalist goals but they are always proved wrong by real science.

[-Cp]

How about some links for this stuff please?

Sorry bro...

My source is www.answersingenesis.com - here's the link to these particular things that Gaffer can't answer - the only thing he can do is call PHD-holders "psuedo-scientists"....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

[darin]

-Cp,

It doesn't matter, really, HOW Much evidence you post. The folks here don't WANT it to be true so they say "Oh...right...that bit of evidence doesn't agree with my preconceptions - PLUS if that evidence is to be counted, it'd shatter my precious ego about myself and God...therefore, I will pronounce your evidence as psuedo-science."

[Gaffer]

Sorry bro...

My source is www.answersingenesis.com - here's the link to these particular things that Gaffer can't answer - the only thing he can do is call PHD-holders "psuedo-scientists"....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

A phd does not make a scientist. Looking at something from a fundimentalist view point is having a bias. None of what you posted has any scientific fact in the REAL scientific community.

[darin]

A phd does not make a scientist. Looking at something from a fundimentalist view point is having a bias. None of what you posted has any scientific fact in the REAL scientific community.


Why do you claim somebody with religious beliefs is somehow 'biased'. I think ALL scientists start out 'guessing' how something works...they have a point of view about a particular thing. Then, using the scientific method, they attempt to prove or prove it more-than-likely.

Perhaps YOUR scientific community is biased against God being real, and what He says being Real. Don't berate other scientists for not agreeing with that close-minded POV. :)

[Missileman]

Sorry bro...

My source is www.answersingenesis.com - here's the link to these particular things that Gaffer can't answer - the only thing he can do is call PHD-holders "psuedo-scientists"....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

What I don't see in your link is any information about what studies were done, by whom, to come up with some of the claims presented. For instance, the thing about the non-fossilized dinosaur bone. I believe what is being referred to is scientists finding some yet unfossilized material in the middle of a mostly fossilized bone. The bones in question date millions of years old and it is prudent to assume that the middle hadn't fully fossilized yet in these. Prudent unless you can figure out a way for thousand-year-old material to spontaneously generate within millions-of-years-old bones.

I did see one humorous thing in your link though. I saw it claim that scientists are biased because they attempt to explain things without the use of the supernatural. The statement still has me chuckling. It's like saying that auto-mechanics are biased because they explain car repair without the use of unicorns. Those kinds of statements make it impossible to take creationists or their claims seriously.

[Gaffer]

Why do you claim somebody with religious beliefs is somehow 'biased'. I think ALL scientists start out 'guessing' how something works...they have a point of view about a particular thing. Then, using the scientific method, they attempt to prove or prove it more-than-likely.

Perhaps YOUR scientific community is biased against God being real, and what He says being Real. Don't berate other scientists for not agreeing with that close-minded POV. :)

I claim somebody using their status as a so called scientist to make fundimentalist points are bias. All these reports cp made have been made for years as a way to mislead people into believing they are legitimate scientific studies and they are not.

God doesn't enter into scientific research. Only facts. The genesis site tries to spin science.

[-Cp]

What I don't see in your link is any information about what studies were done, by whom, to come up with some of the claims presented. For instance, the thing about the non-fossilized dinosaur bone. I believe what is being referred to is scientists finding some yet unfossilized material in the middle of a mostly fossilized bone. The bones in question date millions of years old and it is prudent to assume that the middle hadn't fully fossilized yet in these. Prudent unless you can figure out a way for thousand-year-old material to spontaneously generate within millions-of-years-old bones.

I did see one humorous thing in your link though. I saw it claim that scientists are biased because they attempt to explain things without the use of the supernatural. The statement still has me chuckling. It's like saying that auto-mechanics are biased because they explain car repair without the use of unicorns. Those kinds of statements make it impossible to take creationists or their claims seriously.


All of their references are listed below the article.. for the one in question about the Bone it is:

C. Wieland, Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57.

[Gaffer]

All of their references are listed below the article.. for the one in question about the Bone it is:

C. Wieland, Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57.

Let the cloning begin.

[Mr. P]

What I don't see in your link is any information about what studies were done, by whom, to come up with some of the claims presented. ....

Bible studies, man. That's the meat of their case. One book, no science just "I believe cuz, it says it right here". Thump, thump.

[darin]

I claim somebody using their status as a so called scientist to make fundimentalist points are bias. All these reports cp made have been made for years as a way to mislead people into believing they are legitimate scientific studies and they are not.

God doesn't enter into scientific research. Only facts. The genesis site tries to spin science.


But you've made NO scientific rebuttal - only dismissal because you're not open-minded enough to consider the points may be valid. You're jaded against ANY conclusion which differes from your specific POV.

[darin]

Bible studies, man. That's the meat of their case. One book, no science just "I believe cuz, it says it right here". Thump, thump.

That is the most intellectually dishonest thing I've heard you say. You haven't even LOOKED at the opposing point of view (from answersingenesis) - your dismissal of the fact points to your insecurities.

[Grumplestillskin]

That is the most intellectually dishonest thing I've heard you say. You haven't even LOOKED at the opposing point of view (from answersingenesis) - your dismissal of the fact points to your insecurities.

Thing is, it's not facts. It's fundie Christians who are trying to make science look like creationism. There are barely any facts involved. Just personal opinions. Nothing wrong with that either, but call it was it is, not what you would like it to be. Their idea of evidence falls well short of peer reviewed theories, let alone thesises. Hell, Senior's link to Sartari's piece was bordering on idiocy. They guy gave us footnotes/citations to where he got his info. One such citation was to one of his own books. How bizarre is that?

[Insein]

Going at the facts of the matter, the radioactive isotope Uranium-235 has a very large, constant half life of about 700 million years. A half life is the amount of time an atom takes to decay. Using the method of radioisotope dating, we can test the rocks that dinosaur bones were found in to see the approximate date that they were buried there by finding uranium-235 molecules and seeing at what point of decay they are at.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossildating.html

This is by no means an exact science as all science is subject to new evidence and new methods. Until other methods are found to disprove this sound theory, i'm going to trust these methods.

I feel that the human race is very young. If i had to guess, i'd say humans are roughly 9000 to 10000 years old. Thats homo-sapien not neanderthal, cromagden or the other human like races around that time. So i understand the creationist view of existence begining when humans began. Its a completely arogant view of the universe. Its also akin to believing the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around it. A basic theory of early man but it was disproven once better theories and evidence were presented.

Creationism is fine for religion and beliefs. ITs a good story and it gets people interested in the religion. It is not provable though. Not that any science is but Creationism has no basic theories based in the current laws of physics we grasp. To follow the views as absolute truth is a "leap of faith." Ultimately, thats what they are selling.

[Gaffer]

But you've made NO scientific rebuttal - only dismissal because you're not open-minded enough to consider the points may be valid. You're jaded against ANY conclusion which differes from your specific POV.

What scientific rebutal is there to make if you believe there weren't any dinosaurs and the world is only a few thousand years old, and all the species in the world were on Noah's ark. There's a lot more real scientific facts out there than what is on that genesis site. That's a bunch of fundimentalist trying to make a case for something that doesn't exist. ie: That the world is younger than has been proven and man has only been around 6000 years or so.

I'm always open minded to things that differ from my point of view. But I want them backed up by actual facts and the stuff I read in that site I have read before and its pseudo-science masquerading as real science. It ranks right up there with the "scientists" and "engineers" that claim the world trade center was taken down by preplaced explosives.

[darin]

What scientific rebutal is there to make if you believe there weren't any dinosaurs and the world is only a few thousand years old, and all the species in the world were on Noah's ark. There's a lot more real scientific facts out there than what is on that genesis site. That's a bunch of fundimentalist trying to make a case for something that doesn't exist. ie: That the world is younger than has been proven and man has only been around 6000 years or so.

I'm always open minded to things that differ from my point of view. But I want them backed up by actual facts and the stuff I read in that site I have read before and its pseudo-science masquerading as real science. It ranks right up there with the "scientists" and "engineers" that claim the world trade center was taken down by preplaced explosives.


Whoe believes dinosours didn't exist? There are not more 'real' scientific opions, but I'll grant there are numerically more.

Are you this adament about denouncing Evolution due it it's lack of scientific evidence?

[darin]

Creationism has no basic theories based in the current laws of physics we grasp. To follow the views as absolute truth is a "leap of faith." Ultimately, thats what they are selling.


The answers in genesis guys present MANY scientific facts; facts which explain our laws of physics/biology, etc.. :)

[Mr. P]

That is the most intellectually dishonest thing I've heard you say. You haven't even LOOKED at the opposing point of view (from answersingenesis) - your dismissal of the fact points to your insecurities.

Sure I looked and all Parrots, parrot.

As for my insecurities in my beliefs, none, tis why I have no need to test them on a chat site. :D

[Gaffer]

The answers in genesis guys present MANY scientific facts; facts which explain our laws of physics/biology, etc.. :)

There are no scientific facts in genesis. Can you give me a verse with any scientific facts? There's a lot of mythology IMO but no scientific facts.

[darin]

There are no scientific facts in genesis. Can you give me a verse with any scientific facts? There's a lot of mythology IMO but no scientific facts.

"Answers in Genesis"...the organization/website referenced. :)

[Gaffer]

"Answers in Genesis"...the organization/website referenced. :)

I thought you meant the bibles genesis. Well that doesn't help because that site is not real science I have read it. Or should I say reread it as it has been out in other forms for about 20 years.

What's wrong with creation being done through evolution?

[darin]

I thought you meant the bibles genesis. Well that doesn't help because that site is not real science I have read it. Or should I say reread it as it has been out in other forms for about 20 years.

What's wrong with creation being done through evolution?

A few things, namely, 'evolution' doesn't make sense. It's not scientific - or if it IS, it's much more speculation than anything else. Creationism 'makes sense' - it's logical and IMO, there exists MUCH more 'proof' of Intelligent Design than the 'Random dumb luck' Evolutionists preach.

[Missileman]

A few things, namely, 'evolution' doesn't make sense. It's not scientific - or if it IS, it's much more speculation than anything else. Creationism 'makes sense' - it's logical and IMO, there exists MUCH more 'proof' of Intelligent Design than the 'Random dumb luck' Evolutionists preach.

If there were more evidence to support Christian creationism than there is in support of evolution, then science would abandon evolution and go with creationism. That's the difference between real scientists and the snake-oil salesmen who tout creation. A real scientist doesn't ignore evidence even if it hurts his theory. Real scientists are willing to modify their beliefs when confronted with new or contradictory evidence. Any statements that there is a preponderance of evidence in support of creation are pure fiction.

[Insein]

Evolution has some evidence to prove that its possible. IT doesnt make it true. It just makes it possible. Creationism doesn't have any evidence that its more then just a good story.

[darin]

Creationism doesn't have any evidence that its more then just a good story.


That is simply untrue...You haven't read-up on Creationism, or your biases prevent you.

[-Cp]

Going at the facts of the matter, the radioactive isotope Uranium-235 has a very large, constant half life of about 700 million years. A half life is the amount of time an atom takes to decay. Using the method of radioisotope dating, we can test the rocks that dinosaur bones were found in to see the approximate date that they were buried there by finding uranium-235 molecules and seeing at what point of decay they are at.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossildating.html

This is by no means an exact science as all science is subject to new evidence and new methods. Until other methods are found to disprove this sound theory, i'm going to trust these methods.

I feel that the human race is very young. If i had to guess, i'd say humans are roughly 9000 to 10000 years old. Thats homo-sapien not neanderthal, cromagden or the other human like races around that time. So i understand the creationist view of existence begining when humans began. Its a completely arogant view of the universe. Its also akin to believing the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around it. A basic theory of early man but it was disproven once better theories and evidence were presented.

Creationism is fine for religion and beliefs. ITs a good story and it gets people interested in the religion. It is not provable though. Not that any science is but Creationism has no basic theories based in the current laws of physics we grasp. To follow the views as absolute truth is a "leap of faith." Ultimately, thats what they are selling.

You may want to read this (not that you will) but..... The Isotope system is highly debatable....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/radioactive.asp

[-Cp]

Evolution has some evidence to prove that its possible. IT doesnt make it true. It just makes it possible. Creationism doesn't have any evidence that its more then just a good story.


That is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in a long time...

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

What your problem is - and others duped into thinking we came from apes, yet still cannot explain who or what Created the Universe - is that when present a different interpetation of the facts, you immediately go on the attack and don't even look at an opposing view..

[Mr. P]

...

What your problem is - and others duped into thinking we were Created, yet still cannot explain who or what Created the Universe - is that when presented a different interpetation of the facts, you immediately go on the Defensive and don't even look at an opposing view..

Fixed it for ya, CP. :D

[Missileman]

You may want to read this (not that you will) but..... The Isotope system is highly debatable....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/radioactive.asp

Perhaps you can point out exactly where Zheng concludes that based on his findings isochronic dating is totally unreliable or that the world is only 6000 years old.

[Grumplestillskin]

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions..


Uh-uh. A fact is a fact. Either the Earth revolves around the sun or it doesn't.

[Grumplestillskin]

A few things, namely, 'evolution' doesn't make sense. It's not scientific - or if it IS, it's much more speculation than anything else. Creationism 'makes sense' - it's logical and IMO, there exists MUCH more 'proof' of Intelligent Design than the 'Random dumb luck' Evolutionists preach.

Of course evolution is a science. It is proven - at least at a micro level - that mutation/evolution occurs. There is absolutely no evidence of ID - only faith, just like god. There is nothing random about evolution. It is thought to happen over a long period time. If anything is random "luck" it's the creationist version of the world...

[Gaffer]

You may want to read this (not that you will) but..... The Isotope system is highly debatable....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/radioactive.asp

I was waiting for the isotope part to be brought up. More junk science.

One thing I do not understand is the insessive need of the creationist to prove their belief's through junk science rather than just say they believe something and let it go at that. You either believe in Santa Claus or you don't. Is it necessary to prove his existance through twisting facts?

The isotope story is another example of twisting real facts to suit the goal.

[Gaffer]

Of course evolution is a science. It is proven - at least at a micro level - that mutation/evolution occurs. There is absolutely no evidence of ID - only faith, just like god. There is nothing random about evolution. It is thought to happen over a long period time. If anything is random "luck" it's the creationist version of the world...

Evolutions occurs everytime a germ or virus developes a new immunity to a vacine. Everytime a flu bug changes to be deadly to more than one species. It goes on at a micro level all the time. It can't be observed on the higher levels because of the time involved. Thousands and millions of years. We don't live long enough to measure these changes.

Civilization has evolved. From tribes to monarchies, from monarchies to democracies. Everything changes and evolves. Even christianity has evolved. From one man preachings to world wide churches. Evolution is the slow process of change.

[Gunny]

Some state the "earth is billions of years old" as if it was somehow fact... I find that notion a bit silly....

If you believe it's that old, why so when so much of the evidence we have points to a young Earth?

The Earth is 47 years and 30 days old. Anything before that is irrelevant.:wink2:

[Mr. P]

The Earth is 47 years and 30 days old. Anything before that is irrelevant.:wink2:

You're not calling your parents which you evolved from irrelevant, are you? :D

[Gunny]

You're not calling your parents which you evolved from irrelevant, are you? :D

Well, since you ask, they came from another planet ..... we're the ones RWA has been looking for!!!:D

[Insein]

You may want to read this (not that you will) but..... The Isotope system is highly debatable....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/radioactive.asp

Who's the one with the bias here? I read it. So what the article is telling me is that i should believe their assumptions over the other guys assumptions and that therefore proves that creationism is correct? I'm sorry but thats a flimsy base to start a science on. Religion maybe, but science I'm sorry no.

Creationism's argument is that all human science that has been tested and retested and will go on being tested is 100% wrong. That there isnt a sun 8.5 light minutes away from our planet. That this planet doesn't revolve around it. That everything revolves around this insignificant rock. That the theory of light speed is all wrong. That the universe is merely a painted backdrop to our blessed existence. There is nothing out there then. We are supposed to believe, Without ANY scientific reasoning that the universe was created 6000 years ago for us and us alone. How arogant and IGNORANT is that?

As others have stated, the Chinese civilization has been documented to be around for 5000 years. So god simply made the universe 1000 years before the chinese' oldest KNOWN writing? Did China not exist before this writing that we found or are we to limit ourselves in science to only what is written down? 10,000 years from now, if the only known writings were of ramblings by liberal idiots like Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton and other tools, would they find that civilization began in the year 2000 and that the savior is 350lbs and wheres a baseball hat and never shaves?

You can have your religious theory, you can have your beliefs but don't tell me the sky is purple when i can plainly see that its blue. I may not know how its blue exactly but i have a pretty good idea that it is indeed blue and not purple.

[Insein]

That is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in a long time...

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

What your problem is - and others duped into thinking we came from apes, yet still cannot explain who or what Created the Universe - is that when present a different interpetation of the facts, you immediately go on the attack and don't even look at an opposing view..


And for the record, i dont believe we came from apes. We are homo-sapiens. We are a race that came forth about 10,000 years ago. We are different from cromagden and neanderthal. Just like many races of birds exist and then die out but are not directly related to one another, we to came from somewhere. If you were smart, you'd try to explain that as god and not try to shove this ridiculous notion that the universe is only 6000 years old.

I believe there is a god. But he's not this all loving being everyone makes him out to be. He is more of a scientist running an experiment in my eyes. Kind of like the Q from star trek. My opinion on the matter is that god flicked a switch (big bang) trillions of years ago and wanted to see what would happen. So he's still gathering data.

The true mark of ignorance is discrediting someone elses views and opinions and calling that discrediting the proof that their view is right.

[-Cp]

Perhaps you can point out exactly where Zheng concludes that based on his findings isochronic dating is totally unreliable or that the world is only 6000 years old.

Zheng, Y.-F., 1986. Crust-mantle Rb-Sr mixing isochron and its geological significance. Terra Cognita, vol. 6, p. 151 (abstract).

[Missileman]

Zheng, Y.-F., 1986. Crust-mantle Rb-Sr mixing isochron and its geological significance. Terra Cognita, vol. 6, p. 151 (abstract).

He wrote this:
‘As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system.’9

I'll ask again, where does he state that isochronic dating is totally unreliable and the earth is only 6000 years old?

[Mr. P]

He wrote this:
‘As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system.’9

I'll ask again, where does he state that isochronic dating is totally unreliable and the earth is only 6000 years old?

Would you please just get with the damn program, open yer ears! Listen for the ‘THUMP”, that’s the PROOF, all the proof and nothing but the PROOF! Damn you NON-sheeples!

[Grumplestillskin]

He wrote this:
‘As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system.’9

I'll ask again, where does he state that isochronic dating is totally unreliable and the earth is only 6000 years old?

You forgot the golden rule of Fundie Religion 101: When presented with opinions, facts, evidence, we only accept that which fits our preconceived ideas. Everything else is irrelevent!

[Mr. P]

I’d just like to say thanks to Jim for the new-way, new board and all that.

Some of you old time folks know very well this thread would have been locked pages ago in a far away place.

It’s nice things have changed.

That’s all. :2up:

[darin]

You forgot the golden rule of Fundie Religion 101: When presented with opinions, facts, evidence, we only accept that which fits our preconceived ideas. Everything else is irrelevent!


And YOU folk are forgetting golden rule of Ignorant-but-blissful Secularists and Evolutionists who fear the idea of God, because conviction hurts: When presented with opinions, facts, evidence, we only accept that which fits our preconceived ideas. Everything else is irrelevent!

I think MOST (not all) of the anti-creationism folk here in this thread are so biased and committed to their opinion that NO amount of Truth would convince them of the err of their ways. You folk blindly follow HUGE stretches and leaps of logic, and denounce evidence which makes MUCH more logical sense.

[Mr. P]

And YOU folk are forgetting golden rule of Ignorant-but-blissful Secularists and Evolutionists who fear the idea of God, because conviction hurts: When presented with opinions, facts, evidence, we only accept that which fits our preconceived ideas. Everything else is irrelevent!

I think MOST (not all) of the anti-creationism folk here in this thread are so biased and committed to their opinion that NO amount of Truth would convince them of the err of their ways. You folk blindly follow HUGE stretches and leaps of logic, and denounce evidence which makes MUCH more logical sense.

And what you don't understand is Evolution does not deny a God. :)

[darin]

And what you don't understand is Evolution does not deny a God. :)

Yes. It does. Macro Evolution is completely contrary to God. Nevermind the fact Macro Evolution doesn't make sense, it goes against what we know of God. Intelligent Design of this universe, whether you want to call that God, or whatever, makes MUCH more sense; and is MUCH MORE compelling a theory than Macro Evolution. At least it is to people with open minds. :)

[Missileman]

And YOU folk are forgetting golden rule of Ignorant-but-blissful Secularists and Evolutionists who fear the idea of God, because conviction hurts: When presented with opinions, facts, evidence, we only accept that which fits our preconceived ideas. Everything else is irrelevent!

I think MOST (not all) of the anti-creationism folk here in this thread are so biased and committed to their opinion that NO amount of Truth would convince them of the err of their ways. You folk blindly follow HUGE stretches and leaps of logic, and denounce evidence which makes MUCH more logical sense.

It makes sense to you that 3000 years ago, a few human beings gathered a pair of every species on the planet, built a boat big enough to house them all, rode out a flood that covered the entire planet and killed every living thing that wasn't on the boat, then this handful of middle-eastern Jews multiplied to the extent of world repopulation, spread to the four corners of the globe, morphed into different races, devised different languages and alphabets, invented new gods and religions, etc, etc, within a few generations? That notion is as far away from logical sense as you can get. This same ancient tome that brings us this tale of nonsense is to be trusted to accurately depict the beginning of the earth? Gimme a break.

[Mr. P]

Yes. It does. Macro Evolution is completely contrary to God. Nevermind the fact Macro Evolution doesn't make sense, it goes against what we know of God. Intelligent Design of this universe, whether you want to call that God, or whatever, makes MUCH more sense; and is MUCH MORE compelling a theory than Macro Evolution. At least it is to people with open minds. :)

OMG...enough said, you'll never get it. :eek2:

[Grumplestillskin]

Ignorant-but-blissful Secularists and Evolutionists who fear the idea of God, because conviction hurts

What a load of tripe. Actually, if everything said about God was true (and I'm talking normal Christian beliefs here, not born-again Fundie beliefs), then I would be a fool NOT to believe in a god. The fact I don't is more in keeping with logic after taking all things into consideration. I find the idea of a god about as believable as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, however to those that do believe, good luck to them. To those that want to belittle others, pfffftttt...

I think MOST (not all) of the Fundie Christians here in this thread are so biased and committed to their opinion that NO amount of Truth would convince them of the err of their ways. You folk blindly follow HUGE stretches and leaps of logic, and denounce evidence which makes MUCH more logical sense.

[Grumplestillskin]

Yes. It does. Macro Evolution is completely contrary to God. Nevermind the fact Macro Evolution doesn't make sense, it goes against what we know of God. Intelligent Design of this universe, whether you want to call that God, or whatever, makes MUCH more sense; and is MUCH MORE compelling a theory than Macro Evolution. At least it is to people with open minds. :)

Of course macro evolution is contrary to creationists. You guys have a different set of beliefs. ID of the universe makes no sense, and is severely limited in its theory. That last sentence - there you go belittling again.

[5stringJeff]

This thread has, unfortunately, ignored the fact that their are more than two theories. I myself happen to believe in what is called Old Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_earth_creationism), which states that the universe was indeed created by God, but that the universe is indeed 13.7 billion years old (the latest estimate I've heard). More specifially (since OEC is a broad belief):

1. I believe in progressive creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Creationism), which says that God actively intervened in creating new parts of creation in different times in history. This is very different from evolution, which states that different life forms evolved; I believe that God created each individual species as a unique work. (One will note that in Genesis 1, God is doing a lot of stuff. He didn't just clap his hands and sit back and watch it unfold).

2. I believe in Day-Age Creationism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-Age_Creationism) This simply states that the "days" in Genesis are actually eons/eras. The Hebrew word "yom" used in Genesis 1 is accurately translated with either 'day' or 'age.'
3. I believe that God's general revelation (in nature) and His specific revelation (in Scripture) will not contradict. If His general revelation shows the universe to be billions of years old, it makes more sense to interpret the Scriptures in such a way that agree with that knowledge.

[Insein]

This thread has, unfortunately, ignored the fact that their are more than two theories. I myself happen to believe in what is called Old Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_earth_creationism), which states that the universe was indeed created by God, but that the universe is indeed 13.7 billion years old (the latest estimate I've heard). More specifially (since OEC is a broad belief):

1. I believe in progressive creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Creationism), which says that God actively intervened in creating new parts of creation in different times in history. This is very different from evolution, which states that different life forms evolved; I believe that God created each individual species as a unique work. (One will note that in Genesis 1, God is doing a lot of stuff. He didn't just clap his hands and sit back and watch it unfold).

2. I believe in Day-Age Creationism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-Age_Creationism) This simply states that the "days" in Genesis are actually eons/eras. The Hebrew word "yom" used in Genesis 1 is accurately translated with either 'day' or 'age.'
3. I believe that God's general revelation (in nature) and His specific revelation (in Scripture) will not contradict. If His general revelation shows the universe to be billions of years old, it makes more sense to interpret the Scriptures in such a way that agree with that knowledge.

Thank you. Some freakin sanity in the matter. This is about where i stand on the issue. God created it all but he didn't do it 6000 years ago. The bible is a bunch of stories to help guide your life by much like the parables that Jesus told. It is not a historical recollection of exact events that occurred at an exact time.

[jillian]

Thank you. Some freakin sanity in the matter. This is about where i stand on the issue. God created it all but he didn't do it 6000 years ago. The bible is a bunch of stories to help guide your life by much like the parables that Jesus told. It is not a historical recollection of exact events that occurred at an exact time.

About where I am on the subject, too, though I think evolution was one of the means through which G-d acted. Science and bible aren't mutually exclusive unless you view every word of the bible from a literal perspective.

[darin]

OMG...enough said, you'll never get it. :eek2:

Never get what? the closed-minded means you folk look at the world around us? I suppose I won't get it. You guys are ABSOLUTELY opposed to ANYTHING which may be from a different point of view.

[Mr. P]

Never get what? the closed-minded means you folk look at the world around us? I suppose I won't get it. You guys are ABSOLUTELY opposed to ANYTHING which may be from a different point of view.

Pot-kettle-black :D

[The ClayTaurus]

Yes. It does. Macro Evolution is completely contrary to God. Nevermind the fact Macro Evolution doesn't make sense, it goes against what we know of God. Intelligent Design of this universe, whether you want to call that God, or whatever, makes MUCH more sense; and is MUCH MORE compelling a theory than Macro Evolution. At least it is to people with open minds. :)How does the theory of evolution deny the existance of a God or supernatural?

[5stringJeff]

How does the theory of evolution deny the existance of a God or supernatural?

It denies that God is the author of life.

[Mr. P]

How does the theory of evolution deny the existance of a God or supernatural?

It doesn’t, but from a Fundies point of view, if it ain’t in ‘The Book’, it ain’t, end of story.

So much for that ‘open’ mindedness or ‘ANYTHING which may be from a different point of view’, position D spouts, huh?

[Mr. P]

It denies that God is the author of life.

Show me, Jeff.

[The ClayTaurus]

It denies that God is the author of life.No it doesn't. Evolution is NOT a creation theory.

[darin]

It doesn’t, but from a Fundies point of view, if it ain’t in ‘The Book’, it ain’t, end of story.

So much for that ‘open’ mindedness or ‘ANYTHING which may be from a different point of view’, position D spouts, huh?



You absolute have NOTHING to debate in this thread; you are simply using it as a way to insult those who don't agree with you. It's petty and a bit pathetic. :(

[5stringJeff]

Show me, Jeff.

Evolution theory teaches that life was produced by non-life. The Bible (Genesis 2:7) says that "the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Both cannot be true.

[Mr. P]

You absolute have NOTHING to debate in this thread; you are simply using it as a way to insult those who don't agree with you. It's petty and a bit pathetic. :(

So, you can successfully debate that your beliefs are correct and prove that everyone else is wrong?

The problem here is belief is not debatable, only facts are. So toss the facts out there that ‘prove’ you’re right.

BTW, evolution does exist. So, who do you think created it? :)

Let me get my popcorn this will be good.

[The ClayTaurus]

Evolution theory teaches that life was produced by non-life. The Bible (Genesis 2:7) says that "the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Both cannot be true.What is your response to the idea of Theistic Evolution?

[5stringJeff]

What is your response to the idea of Theistic Evolution?

I believe it would be a logical extension of Deism, but I don't believe the Bible supports it.

[Mr. P]

Evolution theory teaches that life was produced by non-life. The Bible (Genesis 2:7) says that "the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Both cannot be true.

It does not say there is no God. non-life was created it just didn't happen.
And God has 'always' been, right? These are things the human mind just can not comprehend, an so, we turn to a coping mechanism, faith a book and religion. It works for Billions of people.
The problems occur when one ‘group’ claims they, and only they, have the way the answers and want the rest to follow. It’s all about belief.

[5stringJeff]

It does not say there is no God. non-life was created it just didn't happen.

So if non-life was created, by whom was it created? And if that person/thing/force could create non-life, why could it not create life?


And God has 'always' been, right? These are things the human mind just can not comprehend, an so, we turn to a coping mechanism, faith a book and religion. It works for Billions of people.
The problems occur when one ‘group’ claims they, and only they, have the way the answers and want the rest to follow. It’s all about belief.

Actually, it's all about truth - finding the truth and then understanding the consequences of the truth.

[The ClayTaurus]

I believe it would be a logical extension of Deism, but I don't believe the Bible supports it.So evolution does not deny the existance of a God or other supernatural.

Evolution also does not deny that a God or supernatural may be responsible for it's (evolution's) creation/existance.

What evolution does deny is the idea that species have been, are, and will be vaccuum packaged - they may not have all been created the same day, but they were all each uniquely created.

So, basically, depending on your interpretation of the Bible, evolution only disagrees with how each individual specie came to be, as opposed to how life in general came to be. Correct?

[Mr. P]

So if non-life was created, by whom was it created? And if that person/thing/force could create non-life, why could it not create life?



Actually, it's all about truth - finding the truth and then understanding the consequences of the truth.

I don't know who created it and never would claim to without solid proof, no one else knows either.

The truth in a case like this is a belief based on faith alone, not facts.

It's a non arguable subject. My main objective is to point out these 'I'm right' claims cannot be proven by anyone that claim to have the answers, because there is no proof. Like I said it's all belief.

[Gunny]

I believe it would be a logical extension of Deism, but I don't believe the Bible supports it.

Everything that lives is evolving. Anything not evolving is dead. Evolution is life's continual attempt to alter itself in order to survive its ever-changing environment.

The Bible supports evolution. The Bible is in and of itself the evolution of Judaism and Christianity. Christianity itself evolved from Judaism.

The Bible does not support scientific theories of origin. Neither do any real facts. However, there are also no facts to support Creationism.

It's all about faith. You either have it or you don't. If you do, you aren't going to argue it into anyone who is not receptive to the message Christ brings.

[-Cp]

Everything that lives is evolving. Anything not evolving is dead. Evolution is life's continual attempt to alter itself in order to survive its ever-changing environment.

The Bible supports evolution. The Bible is in and of itself the evolution of Judaism and Christianity. Christianity itself evolved from Judaism.

The Bible does not support scientific theories of origin. Neither do any real facts. However, there are also no facts to support Creationism.

It's all about faith. You either have it or you don't. If you do, you aren't going to argue it into anyone who is not receptive to the message Christ brings.

I think you're confusing facts w/ evidence.....

Neither side has any "facts" - both sides are, however, supported by the interpetation of the same evidence as both sides have the same evidence...

[Gunny]

I think you're confusing facts w/ evidence.....

Neither side has any "facts" - both sides are, however, supported by the interpetation of the same evidence as both sides have the same evidence...

Evidence is fact. It cannot be anything else. If it is not verifiable fact, it cannot be used as evidence.

[Missileman]

I think you're confusing facts w/ evidence.....

Neither side has any "facts" - both sides are, however, supported by the interpetation of the same evidence as both sides have the same evidence...

With the exception, of course, of all of the evidence that creationists pretend doesn't exist because it doesn't fit their theory. A trait that renders creationism totally unscientific.

[manu1959]

With the exception, of course, of all of the evidence that creationists pretend doesn't exist because it doesn't fit their theory. A trait that renders creationism totally unscientific.

i can argue creationism caused evolution and you have no evidence or facts that can dispute the theory....and i don't have to prove it because it is only a therory

[Mr. P]

i can argue creationism caused evolution and you have no evidence or facts that can dispute the theory....and i don't have to prove it because it is only a therory

But does that make both true? Time will tell as facts evolve. :D

[manu1959]

But does that make both true? Time will tell as facts evolve. :D

yes my therory would allow everyone to be right.......

[Mr. P]

yes my therory would allow everyone to be right.......

I said it first..somewhere in this mess. :p :D

[-Cp]

Evidence is fact. It cannot be anything else. If it is not verifiable fact, it cannot be used as evidence.

Umm.. no... one uses Evidence to try and determine fact....

ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

[Insein]

Bottomline is, the world is not 6000 years old and don't call me closed-minded for saying it.

[manu1959]

Bottomline is, the world is not 6000 years old and don't call me closed-minded for saying it.

how old is the world?

[Insein]

how old is the world?

25 years, 7 months, 15 days as far as I'm concerned. ;)

[Mr. P]

how old is the world?

I know but I won’t tell you. I like watching you guys try to figure this crap out, it gives me something to do all day, I don’t just float around you know and my days drag on forever.

You’re not doing so well though. You have other stuff that’s more important than how old the earth is. Like Hillary, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, taxes and that damn Global warming crap, I knew I should have installed a larger capacity cooler but I just didn’t have the bucks, that boat was expensive to build you know?…Geeeeezzz, and the animals! They had to be fed! I sent all the poop to New Jersey as a joke, and they kept it! I sent the whiners that hugged the ships railing every day moaning about the smell to California, where they seem to have thrived. Talk about a place of sin, when did you see a good movie last? I gotta do something about that. I’m thinking a quake to cut it off and just float em all out to sea. Hey, it’ll be like the old days!

Look people, get over this petty BS, you’ll have your answers soon enough, life is short you know, that’s what I hear anyway. Live, be happy and stop this I’m right your wrong stuff, I’ll set you all straight when then time COMES, if I'm here.

Good Night :)

[Missileman]

i can argue creationism caused evolution and you have no evidence or facts that can dispute the theory....and i don't have to prove it because it is only a therory

True enough...but that particular theory isn't being touted by most creationists.

[darin]

T
2. I believe in Day-Age Creationism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-Age_Creationism) This simply states that the "days" in Genesis are actually eons/eras. The Hebrew word "yom" used in Genesis 1 is accurately translated with either 'day' or 'age.'


And what tells the reader which definition is right? Context.


The Day-Age hypothesis insisted with at least a semblance of textual plausibility that the days of creation were long periods of time of indeterminate length, although the immediate context implies that the term yôm for “day” really means “day”. Having devised a means for allowing Genesis 1 to be in harmony with an ancient planet, Day-Age advocates needed to demonstrate that the sequence of creative activities of Genesis chapter 1 matched the sequence of events deciphered by the astronomers and geologists. Well, Day-Agers outdid themselves in constructing impressive correlations. Of course, these correlations … all differed from each other. While a fairly convincing case could be made for a general concord, … specifics of these correlations were a bit more murky.

There were some textual obstacles the Day-Agers developed an amazing agility in surmounting. The biblical text, for example, has vegetation appearing on the third day and animals on the fifth day. Geology, however, had long realized that invertebrate animals were swarming in the seas long before vegetation gained a foothold on the land. This obvious point of conflict, however, failed to dissuade well-intentioned Christians, my earlier self included, from nudging the text to mean something different from what it says. In my case, I suggested that the days were overlapping days. Having publicly repented of that textual mutilation a few years ago, I will move on without further embarrassing myself.

Worse yet, the text states that on the fourth day God made the heavenly bodies after the earth was already in existence. Here is a blatant confrontation with science. Astronomy insists that the sun is older than the earth. How do Day-Agers worm out of this? The usual subterfuge involves the suggestion that the light originally visible on earth was sunlight that was obscured and diffused by the thick atmosphere that began to dissipate with the separation of the waters on the second day. Not until the fourth day, however, had the mists thinned to the point where the sun became visible from the earth. …

Genius as all these schemes may be, one is struck by the forced nature of them all. While the exegetical gymnastic manoeuvres have displayed remarkable flexibility, I suspect that they have resulted in temporary damage to the theological musculature.’

Reference

Young, D., The harmonization of Scripture and science, science symposium at Wheaton College, 23 March 1990.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/davis_young.asp

[Gunny]

Umm.. no... one uses Evidence to try and determine fact....

ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

If evidence can prove or disprove something, then it is in fact "fact."

[5stringJeff]

So evolution does not deny the existance of a God or other supernatural.

Evolution also does not deny that a God or supernatural may be responsible for it's (evolution's) creation/existance.

What evolution does deny is the idea that species have been, are, and will be vaccuum packaged - they may not have all been created the same day, but they were all each uniquely created.

So, basically, depending on your interpretation of the Bible, evolution only disagrees with how each individual specie came to be, as opposed to how life in general came to be. Correct?

You are correct as far as theistic evolution goes.

[The ClayTaurus]

You are correct as far as theistic evolution goes.Does evolution deny the existance of a God? Does it specifically deny the existance of YOUR God?