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

[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/sub...sildating.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.

[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/sub...sildating.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/crea...adioactive.asp