Earth's Creation

[PricklyPoo]

6.17%] Undecided

:sleep2:

It would be interesting to know how the decision of the earth being created in one week vs billions of years is so baffling that you'd have to remain undecided.

[deletedxyz]

Earth is 6.5 billion years old... To say that all perfect, almighty "God" created it all, with the plan on unicellular organisms evolving into multicellular organisms a billion years later would be both astoundingly stupid and ignorant because it would just throw the fascinating, beautiful, complex process of life forming under a phrase of "God created it". It just promotes the idea that the common person, regardless of religious beliefs, does not need to know the few billion years needed to created his or her own species.

[megamanXplosion]

Masked, the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, not ~6.5.

[MrChainsaw]

Masked, the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, not ~6.5.

When god created things he already made it with age, same as with Adam and Eve. When God created Adam and Eve he didn't make them 1 day old babies.

[deletedxyz]

Masked, the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, not ~6.5.

My bad, I was multitasking while writing that post.

When god created things he already made it with age, same as with Adam and Eve. When God created Adam and Eve he didn't make them 1 day old babies.

If you are taking that portion of the Bible literally, then LOL!

[PricklyPoo]

When god created things he already made it with age, same as with Adam and Eve. When God created Adam and Eve he didn't make them 1 day old babies.

Kinda like how when he created the stars, he made sure the light was already almost finished on its journey to earth, so we as humans would get the privilege of seeing them?

[Guest ID2]

Interpretation of the Bible as a whole isn't 100% literal, so one day could be like a thousand.

Could be?

No, still way too small.

If Earth's approximately 4.5 billion years old, and four and a half thousand years ago it was figuratively created in seven days, then each figurative day would have to be like 16,425,000,000,000.

That makes your thousand about sixteen and a half billion times too small.

I don't know how to even say that number!?

[MrChainsaw]

Could be?

No, still way too small.

If Earth's approximately 4.5 billion years old, and four and a half thousand years ago it was figuratively created in seven days, then each figurative day would have to be like 16,425,000,000,000.

That makes your thousand about sixteen and a half billion times too small.

I don't know how to even say that number!?

I do not agree that its 4.5 billion years old. If you count up the ages and and all that, from earth's creation to Jesus' birth it ads up to 4000 years (roughly). So 4000 + 2000 = 6000.

[brentaal]

I do not agree that its 4.5 billion years old. If you count up the ages and and all that, from earth's creation to Jesus' birth it ads up to 4000 years (roughly). So 4000 + 2000 = 6000.

Care to explain how you "counted up the ages and all that" to come up with 4000years before Jesus' birth?

Which method did you use?

[MrChainsaw]

Care to explain how you "counted up the ages and all that" to come up with 4000years before Jesus' birth?

Which method did you use?

Well I can't explain that, but if you e-mail to amazingfacts.org they'll explain it with sources from the Bible.

[brentaal]

Well I can't explain that, but if you e-mail to amazingfacts.org they'll explain it with sources from the Bible.

What tools did the people who wrote the Bible have to find out the age of Earth?

[MrChainsaw]

What tools did the people who wrote the Bible have to find out the age of Earth?

I'm sorry, I didn't explain it clearly enough. I ment if you count up the ages of people. See what people died and what people were born at other's people ages, you'll be able to count up roughly the years from the start of the Adam and Eve to Jesus' birth.

[Mathachew Veteran]

Could be?

No, still way too small.

If Earth's approximately 4.5 billion years old, and four and a half thousand years ago it was figuratively created in seven days, then each figurative day would have to be like 16,425,000,000,000.

That makes your thousand about sixteen and a half billion times too small.

I don't know how to even say that number!?

That's if you believe Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It is, at its core, an estimated age and could be wrong, but it could also be right. I don't believe it's that old, but I'm not saying they're wrong and I'm right either.

[MrChainsaw]

If you are taking that portion of the Bible literally, then LOL!

The Bible does not say that its 1 day as to 1000 years everywhere in the Bible. That's just what it says in one part. In another part God said to Moses 1 day as to 1 year. It does not apply to all parts.

[megamanXplosion]

It could be wrong, but it wouldn't be significantly wrong.

[deletedxyz]

I do not agree that its 4.5 billion years old. If you count up the ages and and all that, from earth's creation to Jesus' birth it ads up to 4000 years (roughly). So 4000 + 2000 = 6000.

Epic fail.

[MrChainsaw]

It could be wrong, but it wouldn't be significantly wrong.

What post are you reffering to?

Epic fail.

Look, I am not an expert at this subject, so if you would like some descent proof I advise you to ask a question to amazingfacts.org

[deletedxyz]

Look, I am not an expert at this subject, so if you would like some descent proof I advise you to ask a question to amazingfacts.org

That's if you believe Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It is, at its core, an estimated age and could be wrong, but it could also be right. I don't believe it's that old, but I'm not saying they're wrong and I'm right either.

Those types of assumptions are now thrown away into the trash. In the late 20th and from then on, we have used the scientific method to understand our surroundings. There's no wrong or right. There's only fact. Using that basis to test phenomenon, we calculate the age of earth according to those results. The scientific method is not about observing and recording phenomenon and bending facts to make sure they fit into a nice, neat theory.

You can start educating yourself about why the scientific community and other professionals have concluded that Earth is a few billion years old by clicking on this government website link.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Do not seek comfort in ignorance.

Edited March 11, 2009 by maskedforever

[MrChainsaw]

There's no wrong or right. There's only fact.

Well, proove that sceince facts are right then.

And also:

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how?s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

[deletedxyz]

Well, proove that sceince facts are right then.

No, I'm not going to do that. Why? Because that's already taught in basic high school science classes, which are required.

Read what I gave you. It's only half a page long. Scientists do not rely solely on carbon dating to derive good estimates about an object's time period or even a planet itself.

[MrChainsaw]

Not just carbon dating:

The layers of rock on the bottom would have to have been laid down before the layers on top. But how long before? This is one area that Creationists and Evolutionists disagree on.

Evolutionists believe that each layer represents a period of time.. or an era. A layer may have been laid down over a hundred or even a few thousand years.

Though it seems reasonable at first to think that you can look at the numerous layers of rock to estimate the age of the earth (estimating that each strata is hundreds or thousands of years old), those who do so will run into many problems.

First, we don't know how long it took for those layers to form. We weren't there. We can't assume a steady rate of accumulation based on how long it takes today.

If there was a world wide flood (as described in Genesis) then many layers of soft sediments would stratify at one time. These soft sediments would later harden as the waters receded and form rock.

If there was a flood, then you could have what appeared to be "millions of years" of strata formed in a period of a few months.

[deletedxyz]

Not just carbon dating:

I'm done discussing this. Just educate yourself first before trying to disrepute the whole scientific community, especially the archaeological community. If you don't want to read a book discussing the fundamentals of scientific understanding, then please visit a natural history museum and/or talk with the curator. I'm sure they will be more than happy to help you understand what it means to be scientific.

First, we don't know how long it took for those layers to form. We weren't there. We can't assume a steady rate of accumulation based on how long it takes today.

That is the argument that elementary school children have. It's already been countered.

PS: There's no such thing as "Evolutionists". Evolution isn't a belief. It's a fundamental theory that is the backbone of modern science.

[vincent]

Well, proove that sceince facts are right then.

And also:

It's funny how creationist proponents attack Carbon Dating, yet can't put forth a rebuttal when Uranium dating is presented. We know that Carbon dating is insufficient for dinosaurs, due to a short half life of the carbon isotope, this is where U238-P208 dating comes in.

[MrChainsaw]

I'm done discussing this. Just educate yourself first before trying to disrepute the whole scientific community.

I know I will not disprove the whole scientific community because there are people that stick to their own thing and just don't even want to hear what others have to say.

If you don't want to read a book discussing the fundamentals of scientific understanding, then please visit a natural history museum and/or talk with the curator.

There are things that are called lies in this world. Read about that carbon dating quote again, if you want.

I'm sure they will be more than happy to help you understand what it means to be scientific.

I'll be more than happy to tell you more of what I believe.

PS: There's no such thing as "Evolutionists". Evolution isn't a belief.

Ok, its a theory, but I don't believe this theory.

It's funny how creationist proponents attack Carbon Dating, yet can't put forth a rebuttal when Uranium dating is presented. We know that Carbon dating is insufficient for dinosaurs, due to a short half life of the carbon isotope, this is where U238-P208 dating comes in.

Ok. To convince me that this is right. Get a dinasaour bone, examine it with Uranium-Lead dating and then proove to me that scientists don't pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be.

[brentaal]

Ok. To convince me that this is right. Get a dinasaour bone, examine it with Uranium-Lead dating and then proove to me that scientists don't pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be.

Theories don't say how old the fossils should be. The data does.