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

[-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.

[Missileman]

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

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adioactive.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/crea...adioactive.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.

[Mr. P]

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

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

[Gunny]

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

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

[Insein]

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

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adioactive.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!