Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,333 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,443,994
Pageviews Today: 2,174,603Threads Today: 621Posts Today: 12,873
10:05 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The earth is NOT 6000 years old.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5164756
United States
11/30/2012 08:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
ye, it's prob older than 6000 years. Unless this tree came from space:

[link to news.nationalgeographic.co.uk]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22699475


Yes, but you are just relying on people telling you that tree is a certain age. You have no way of directly proving it is.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28765529


The irony in your post is quite frightening.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2045712


Oh wow Hahahaha I love this.
The guy comments and says "how exactly?'!!!
That's what we are dealing with here. Fools I tell you.

Cough* religion *cough.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24488287
United States
11/30/2012 08:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
My question would be, what else are Christians wrong about?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22256187
You're the morons that think this.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5164756
United States
11/30/2012 08:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
I feel bad for the guy who was banging rocks apart hundreds of thousands of years ago, just to have people in the 21st century try to have us believe his achievements were rubbish. :(
In a few hundred years, when Christianity dies, like all religions have, we will look back on this moment and laugh. Unless of course we are flying through space, and happen to see a man with flowing white hair just chillin' on a throne like "oh you caught me". Haha!
Go tell those astronauts out in space that science is all wrong, and god allowed them to leave earth. Because if the science doesn't work, they must be just, what, on a magic god rainbow that goes into space?
You can't say the dating methods are incorrect and say that all other science fact is rubbish. If you're a creationist in the US, I encourage to take some advice from the men who created this country, and find a different place to live. Because the real, raw truth, is that we didn't want you here then, and we definitely don't want you here now.
I hear England is going through a major denial of religion altogether, so maybe you guys can migrate to the holy land? It's probably just your kind of place, I hear they have people there that kill each other over their version of which god is real, you guys have a solid argument (Lo fucking l)
I'm sure you'll have them convinced within days of your arrival. :)
From the sun god to the son of god, you've been wrong since forever, and as you become more violent in your lifestyles, we on the side of logic are going to let you destroy yourselves. I see you guys, buying guns, and hiding underground FOR THE RETURN OF HORUS.. I'm sure he will be here any day. Perhaps you guys can pool your money and collect one of every species alive, and put it on a big mythical boat. You know, lions next to the animals it eats, peacefully on a boat with your cult leader in the front as captain with his replica European Jesus hair flowing in the wind. Ah, makes for Roland emmerich movie. Well, say hello to Horus for me. What? What's that? It's not the Horus that is in the bible? Could have fooled me, hmm. Check again, perhaps they just changed the name Horus to Jesus. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what they did there. Clever, now Horusejus can survive from Egypt to Ohio, on the boat next to the zebra and frogs. How's your haladol? Is it strong enough this morning?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26125917
United States
11/30/2012 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
When it comes to science, I don't trust anything put forth by Ken Ham, Kent Hovind or Dr. Walt Brown. They're wrong, and they've been debunked countless times, as has YEC. The Grand Canyon was not the result of some 'global' flood, nor is the fossil record.
Mordier L'eft

User ID: 28308154
Canada
11/30/2012 10:12 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
im slipping here a secret, im high degree mason, and i can tell you that earth is 6000 years old, but what nobody know is human histoy is much shorter, its only 900 years old
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1475421


funchrist
--"In this era of great big brains anything that can happen will. So hunker down." -- Kurt Vonnegut, JR. -- Galapagos.
Sword of mercy

User ID: 10523005
United Kingdom
11/30/2012 11:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Anyone who honestly believes the bible is literal truth is seriously mislead. The similarities between the Jesus story in the new testament and the stories of a number of supposed deities that came before should be enough for you to question that. Chances are, Jesus didn't even an exist and he is yet another allegorical reference to the sun.

But if you want to believe that the bible is true, and that Jesus did exist on this planet 2000 years ago and that he died for our sins and was the son of god, that's fine. That is your choice.

But to reason that the earth is only 6000 years old by extrapolating dates and peoples ages in the bible and so on is ludicrous. You'd have to believe that ALL science, geology, astronomy, and so on is 100% wrong. all the technology we have today, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of brilliant people and their research is wrong, carbon dating and fossil records are wrong (which is impossible). Really? I once heard on a religious radio show that God put the ancient carbon and fossils on this planet to test our faith. He placed organic material that can easily be tested with today's technology to be 100s of thousands of years old to test us. There isn't really anything else I can say regarding how absurd that is.

Everything about this "6000 year old" claim is such incredible fallacy and every intelligent christian I know, even those that are fundamentalists, are embarrassed that people who preach to them encourage this nonsense. I can't even imagine the life-long brainwashing that it must take for an adult to truly believe this to be true.
 Quoting: HarryHood


It's the people who use the tools not the tools themselves. Go figure.
We will pass through the Seven Years or serve God's Will as martyrs.
God Loves ALL

User ID: 24314824
United States
11/30/2012 11:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Sorry to break it to you, but it is.


Choose to believe what you will. I promise you that one day the truth will be revealed to you and to everyone. Whether you choose to see it before it's too late for you will be your decision.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21288231


really, the earth is 6000 years old and god just plopped it here? You are in serious need of cosmology. your bible is not a resource on cosmology. the reason records go back that far and not much further, is mankind was destroyed pretty much in the last trip thru the photon belt and had to start over. Let the mind grow, otherwise you are in for a lot of shock which will either destroy you or grow you.
The actual Lord's Prayer Given by Jesus 2000 years ago.

"MY SPIRIT, YOU ARE OMNIPOTENT. YOUR NAME IS HOLY. MAY YOUR REALM BE INCARNATE IN ME. MAY YOUR POWER REVEAL ITSELF WITHIN ME, ON EARTH AND IN THE HEAVEN. GIVE ME TODAY MY DAILY BREAD, AND THUS, LET ME RECOGNIZE MY TRANSGRESSIONS AND ERRORS, AND I SHALL RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH. AND DO NOT LEAD ME INTO TEMPTATION AND CONFUSION, BUT DELIVER ME FROM ERROR. FOR YOURS IS THE REALM WITHIN ME AND THE POWER AND THE KNOWLEDGE FOREVER,
AMEN.

Nice video: [link to www.youtube.com] Make this World a Better One

Thread: Walter Russell Quotes Walter Russell thread
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5164756
United States
11/30/2012 12:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
There not in for any shock, because as I stated and is common knowledge people who are in such a cult, would refuse truth no matter how damaging to their character or psyche. They're pretty cemented in their belief, not so much because they believe it really, Moreso because they feel a sense of belonging to like minded individuals in the cult. You can see the ring leaders, as easilly as you can turn on a television and watch a money hungry televangelist sell his latest dvds and book series. The charasmatic television personalities, no so different than a Jim Jones.
With their degrees from online schools, and limited knowledge of anything that takes place in the normal world. Also why they seek to seperate themselves into large constructs or confines, because they've lost touch with reality, and with people in general. Yet, as history tells us, even in the face of extreem let down, and deceit Ted haggard doing methodone and solicitating young male prostitutes, they refuse to step away from the cult, citing some true purpose, but what is really just the quintessential human need to belong. After becoming outcasts, they latch into the idea of a god that accepts them for who they are, mostly because they themselves are the immoral, scum of society, who are certified insane, yet claim the non believer is everything they themselves embody. The more that these 'faithful' resort to sad namecalling, and accusations that the heretic is what is wrong with civilization, the easier it is to see the truth. They are frightened people, who internally keep feelings about themselves in, and instead of dealing with these inadequacies, they cast the light on anyone who hasn't accepted them. These are dangerous people. And they get all the more dangerous when they begin to influence those who create law, or serve the people. There is a real danger in how far they will go extend the cult into your everyday lives. We must be careful. When one starts to speak of a young world, or schools teaching creationism, we must weed these people from society. They hold us back. They want to keep us in an age of scientific stagnantion where the bible is the only answer, and the leaders of their cult profit from these ideas, while the members are merely their means to an end. Very scary stuff here folks. Don't take it lightly.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5164756
United States
11/30/2012 04:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Radioactive clocks tell us the world is 100% older than 4 billion years.
DNA from fossils shows us directly the family tree of evolution.
There is zero arguments to be had about this. These are not false dating methods as someone pointed out. We have mapped the genome, but I'm sure that you're well aware.who is this person who said our dating methods are incorrect. Where's your evidence? What source?
Creationism has zero credibility.
There is no evidence.
Science has nothing but evidence.

There was no great flood. It's a metaphor, one that was never to be taken literally.

The bible does not state the age of the earth.
Your god has never penned anything as far as I know.
A council of men who remembered the stories they were told did however. It was a lovely peice of fiction. And that's all it is.
I'm moving to England, where we actually don't allow these types to talk.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7254491
United States
11/30/2012 04:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
My question would be, what else are Christians wrong about?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22256187

'Christians' can be wrong about many things, which is why God says to live by God's every word (Matt. 4:4).

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? (1 John 2:22)

all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death. (Rev. 21:8)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28711488
United States
11/30/2012 04:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
1. Radioactive clocks tell us the world is 100% older than 4 billion years.

2. DNA from fossils shows us directly the family tree of evolution.

3. There is zero arguments to be had about this. These are not false dating methods as someone pointed out.

4. We have mapped the genome, but I'm sure that you're well aware.

who is this person who said our dating methods are incorrect. Where's your evidence? What source?

5. Creationism has zero credibility.
There is no evidence.

6. Science has nothing but evidence.

7. There was no great flood. It's a metaphor, one that was never to be taken literally.

8. The bible does not state the age of the earth.

9. Your god has never penned anything as far as I know.
A council of men who remembered the stories they were told did however. It was a lovely peice of fiction. And that's all it is.

10. I'm moving to England, where we actually don't allow these types to talk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5164756



sigh Wrong about many counts:

1) radioactive dating failures are numerous when dating rock of known age resulting in an erroneous age. It is not an accurate method at all largely due to weather and erosion.

2) Genetics remain constant according to Mendel's Laws on Genetics. This was in contrast to the claims made by Lamarck and Darwin who claimed one creature would become another. DNA itself does not last longer than 10kyears. Any found would be younger than that.

3) better dating methods are the observed erosion rates.

4) the genome of what exactly?

5) true - the one with no evidence has zero credibility. Obviously there is a conspiracy.

6) Science and evolution theories are two different things.

7) Jesus spoke about the flood of Noah "taking them all away" as not metaphorically. Everyone was killed in a global flood, and all the animals giving us the resulting fossil record and sedimentary geocolumn.

8) Now you are an expert on the Bible too? The Bible specifically counts geneologies from Jesus back to Adam.

9) Prophets receive word directly from God who then came to earth that we may know him, recorded by all the historians of the day.

10) They dont allow Freedom in England? You must be mistaken.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2045712
United Kingdom
11/30/2012 04:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
1. Radioactive clocks tell us the world is 100% older than 4 billion years.

2. DNA from fossils shows us directly the family tree of evolution.

3. There is zero arguments to be had about this. These are not false dating methods as someone pointed out.

4. We have mapped the genome, but I'm sure that you're well aware.

who is this person who said our dating methods are incorrect. Where's your evidence? What source?

5. Creationism has zero credibility.
There is no evidence.

6. Science has nothing but evidence.

7. There was no great flood. It's a metaphor, one that was never to be taken literally.

8. The bible does not state the age of the earth.

9. Your god has never penned anything as far as I know.
A council of men who remembered the stories they were told did however. It was a lovely peice of fiction. And that's all it is.

10. I'm moving to England, where we actually don't allow these types to talk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5164756



sigh Wrong about many counts:

1) radioactive dating failures are numerous when dating rock of known age resulting in an erroneous age. It is not an accurate method at all largely due to weather and erosion.

2) Genetics remain constant according to Mendel's Laws on Genetics. This was in contrast to the claims made by Lamarck and Darwin who claimed one creature would become another. DNA itself does not last longer than 10kyears. Any found would be younger than that.

3) better dating methods are the observed erosion rates.

4) the genome of what exactly?

5) true - the one with no evidence has zero credibility. Obviously there is a conspiracy.

6) Science and evolution theories are two different things.

7) Jesus spoke about the flood of Noah "taking them all away" as not metaphorically. Everyone was killed in a global flood, and all the animals giving us the resulting fossil record and sedimentary geocolumn.

8) Now you are an expert on the Bible too? The Bible specifically counts geneologies from Jesus back to Adam.

9) Prophets receive word directly from God who then came to earth that we may know him, recorded by all the historians of the day.

10) They dont allow Freedom in England? You must be mistaken.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28711488


Did you get those generic creationist responses from a creationist cracker?
The only one that isn't bullshit is no. 10.
The UK does allow freedom however we don't take any notice of the likes of you and encourage you to move to Texas where you are are your natural habitat.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9266723
United States
11/30/2012 05:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
1. The inaccuracies of Radiocarbon dating don't explain how the carbon ends up decayed more then it should have. They still decay at set amounts, and for them to have decayed as much as they have, they have to be that old. The fact that any carbon can be dated to over 6000 years old means the world existed longer then that.

2. Genetics do not remain constant, it changes over time. You've seen how dogs have changed form looking wolf like to going from great Danes to tiny Chihuahua. It's true that they aren't separate species, but it show how genetics can change to create creatures who look nothing like what they used to. Also some DNA has been found that is much older then that. It all depends on how something is preserved. When you store something in something completely solid where nothing can get inside to break it down, it will last longer then 10k years. They've found nearly 500my old Bactria in solid salt deposits.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5164756
United States
11/30/2012 05:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
1. Radioactive clocks tell us the world is 100% older than 4 billion years.

2. DNA from fossils shows us directly the family tree of evolution.

3. There is zero arguments to be had about this. These are not false dating methods as someone pointed out.

4. We have mapped the genome, but I'm sure that you're well aware.

who is this person who said our dating methods are incorrect. Where's your evidence? What source?

5. Creationism has zero credibility.
There is no evidence.

6. Science has nothing but evidence.

7. There was no great flood. It's a metaphor, one that was never to be taken literally.

8. The bible does not state the age of the earth.

9. Your god has never penned anything as far as I know.
A council of men who remembered the stories they were told did however. It was a lovely peice of fiction. And that's all it is.

10. I'm moving to England, where we actually don't allow these types to talk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5164756



sigh Wrong about many counts:

1) radioactive dating failures are numerous when dating rock of known age resulting in an erroneous age. It is not an accurate method at all largely due to weather and erosion.

2) Genetics remain constant according to Mendel's Laws on Genetics. This was in contrast to the claims made by Lamarck and Darwin who claimed one creature would become another. DNA itself does not last longer than 10kyears. Any found would be younger than that.

3) better dating methods are the observed erosion rates.

4) the genome of what exactly?

5) true - the one with no evidence has zero credibility. Obviously there is a conspiracy.

6) Science and evolution theories are two different things.

7) Jesus spoke about the flood of Noah "taking them all away" as not metaphorically. Everyone was killed in a global flood, and all the animals giving us the resulting fossil record and sedimentary geocolumn.

8) Now you are an expert on the Bible too? The Bible specifically counts geneologies from Jesus back to Adam.

9) Prophets receive word directly from God who then came to earth that we may know him, recorded by all the historians of the day.

10) They dont allow Freedom in England? You must be mistaken.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28711488


. Rock dating failures are numerous? Based on what evidence? Show me some evidence that we are off by millions of years. Numerous huh? Don't think so.

. You obviously know nothing about genetics outside of this one creationist argument, that they all cling to, which is more than incorrect. In on an iPhone at the moment. I'll post some links. This argument has been made by all of you so many times, its been proved wrong yet again with it. You need the evidence crammed down your throat apparently.

Erosion dates.. that isn't also not the general scientific opinion, its laughed out the room by all science academics. Another one you guys cling to that nobody outside of creationists believe. But, wrong again.

Jesus spoke? That is obvious empirical evidence. Haha wow.
Did you hear him speak, watch him being birthed of a virgin or any of it?
Had the men who selected the stories for the bible met Jesus?
Your logic directly says that because lord of the rings has a map in the book that those places must exist, seriously think about that logic for a minute. That's your 'proof' of a flood. That's the saddest thing I've ever heard.

Not sure If that's sarcasm or you reached an epiphany that most of the intelligent people in the world have already reached.
.
The genomes of many different animals. Would you like some links? They're not creation based you might not like them.

The story of the ark is an allegory. Ask any well respected, intelligent catholic. It's really frustrating that you treat this as historical fact. Again though no evidence whatsoever. None.

Yes I'm an avid reader of the bible. I use it to make fun of, and wipe my ass with.


What other bullshit fell from your mouth
Check out some surveys on religion..
Obviously I've given you no evidence here, I will if you can use a computer. Brought to you by science. I encourage you to check out some science unbiased.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27499577
United States
11/30/2012 06:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
1. Radioactive clocks tell us the world is 100% older than 4 billion years.

2. DNA from fossils shows us directly the family tree of evolution.

3. There is zero arguments to be had about this. These are not false dating methods as someone pointed out.

4. We have mapped the genome, but I'm sure that you're well aware.

who is this person who said our dating methods are incorrect. Where's your evidence? What source?

5. Creationism has zero credibility.
There is no evidence.

6. Science has nothing but evidence.

7. There was no great flood. It's a metaphor, one that was never to be taken literally.

8. The bible does not state the age of the earth.

9. Your god has never penned anything as far as I know.
A council of men who remembered the stories they were told did however. It was a lovely peice of fiction. And that's all it is.

10. I'm moving to England, where we actually don't allow these types to talk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5164756



sigh Wrong about many counts:

1) radioactive dating failures are numerous when dating rock of known age resulting in an erroneous age. It is not an accurate method at all largely due to weather and erosion.

2) Genetics remain constant according to Mendel's Laws on Genetics. This was in contrast to the claims made by Lamarck and Darwin who claimed one creature would become another. DNA itself does not last longer than 10kyears. Any found would be younger than that.

3) better dating methods are the observed erosion rates.

4) the genome of what exactly?

5) true - the one with no evidence has zero credibility. Obviously there is a conspiracy.

6) Science and evolution theories are two different things.

7) Jesus spoke about the flood of Noah "taking them all away" as not metaphorically. Everyone was killed in a global flood, and all the animals giving us the resulting fossil record and sedimentary geocolumn.

8) Now you are an expert on the Bible too? The Bible specifically counts geneologies from Jesus back to Adam.

9) Prophets receive word directly from God who then came to earth that we may know him, recorded by all the historians of the day.

10) They dont allow Freedom in England? You must be mistaken.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28711488


I made my way to the lab, where I could actually use a computer and respond in a much more complete fashion. My Iphone has the tendency to autocorrect a lot of my posts, and completely scroll down whilst trying to write the next paragraph.
alright so.

1.fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity. Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages.geologists then began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time — Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so. then again I get my science from scientists with actual accomplishments, and academic prowess, while you get your science by mother fucking Patrick Mead...applause2

2. [link to news.discovery.com] what, not Patrick Mead enough for you?
nonetheless, explain mutations to me. DNA does, and is changing. this DNA is 800,000 years old, but I guess that doesn't move you, because real scientists we cannot trust.. I can come to your home with my satanist science gear to prove it...

3. I'm not going to touch this one, because there is no scientist in the world outside the handful you listen to that believe this. This is less than unpopular with any respectable scientist. I feel like you shat this one out without finding any evidence of it. again.. no evidence in your response.. go figure..

4. [link to www.genomenewsnetwork.org] plenty, not including the human genome - [link to www.ornl.gov] how is this relevant? well, don't hurt your brain figuring this out. should be obvious. you ask what, like you weren't aware, that's what happens when you stay out of the loop too long..

5. You've give zero evidence yet again.
Nor has any religion in history ever produced any evidence whatsoever. That in itself should encourage you to stop
believing, but I guess this is going to be a bit harder..

6. science and evolution theories are two different things?
you might want to reword that.. Or perhaps redact it entirely..


7. Please explain then, why all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together or why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood? The Great Pyramid of Cheops was built about 2589-2566 BC, about 230 years before the flood, yet it has no water marks on it. The Djoser Step Pyramid at Saqqara, Egypt, built about 2630 BC doesn't show any signs of having been under water. Likewise for many other ancient structures. But even more importantly, the Egyptians have continuous historical records for hundreds of years before and after the time of the flood that make no mention of a great flood. This shows that they were not only not aware of a global flood, they certainly were not greatly affected by one. Outside of the Bible, there is no historical or physical evidence that would place a worldwide flood during the time period specified by the Bible for the great flood.

Where did the water needed for the flood come from? Where did it go? The atmosphere only holds enough moisture to account for about an inch of water worldwide. To cover even Mount Ararat, where Noah's Ark supposedly landed after the flood, in 40 days would require over 400 feet of water per day. That's not 400 inches, but 400 feet a day. And Everest would require 725 feet per day - that's 30 feet of water per hour! Some claim that the mountains didn't exist before the flood. But even Bible speaks of great mountains in the time before the flood. Were these great mountains mentioned in the Bible only a few feet high?

Some propose a massive vapor canopy existed in the times before the flood. But, the pressure at the base of such a canopy would be so high that it would need to have a temperature of over 500 degrees Fahrenheit. Any cooler and it would come down as rain.



How much water would it take?
The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers www.space.com, USGS.gov

Volume of a sphere = 4/3 r3 where r=radius

Radius of Earth = 6,378.15 Kilometers

Height of Mt. Everest = 8.85 Kilometers

The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of Mt. Everest is approximately the difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.

Volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level
= 4/3 (6,378.15 KM)3 = 1,086,825,918,019 KM3

Volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest
= 4/3 (6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)3 = 1,091,388,460,971 KM3

The Difference = 4,530,488,766 KM3

Notice that this is more than 3 TIMES the amount of water presently on Earth.
perplexing I know. easily explained if you are a critical thinker, or perhaps took third grade science..

8. Again, I won't touch this, because of the singular reason the bible is work of fiction, set against the backdrop of it's predecessors. which, if you've ever taken the time to check out, would realize parallel the exact story of Jesus, yet predate the bible by hundreds if not thousands of years. perhaps god put these books here, much like he did dinosaur fossils to test our faith? do you see where i'm going with this?

9. Again, You're showing your cracks. Perhaps you'd care to explain why then, not one single author during the time of Jesus chose to write about him? not a single one. I'll repeat that in case you missed it. THERE ARE NO RECORDS OR JESUS DURING HIS LIFE. and yet during his many miracles performed, and people raised from the dead did not one single author care to mention it anywhere? This is my opinion is direct proof that Jesus had not been a living person to begin with. That little incontrovertible fact, is evidence in my opinion, whereas you've yet to post a shred of anything resembling evidence.

10. have you not read any recent polls on religious statistics in England, or even the US for that matter?
there is a huge shift in beliefs. secularism is on the rise. and someday Christianity will die, like all that came before it.


So, what's your next argument? will you post some of Pat's quotes? refer me to a youtube video on creationism? perhaps try to tell me your proof is in the pudding? or the fictional best seller that is the bible, in this case.
it's obvious who is using logic here. case closed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27499577
United States
11/30/2012 06:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
bumppost above crushed it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16229202
United States
11/30/2012 06:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
1. Radioactive clocks tell us the world is 100% older than 4 billion years.

2. DNA from fossils shows us directly the family tree of evolution.

3. There is zero arguments to be had about this. These are not false dating methods as someone pointed out.

4. We have mapped the genome, but I'm sure that you're well aware.

who is this person who said our dating methods are incorrect. Where's your evidence? What source?

5. Creationism has zero credibility.
There is no evidence.

6. Science has nothing but evidence.

7. There was no great flood. It's a metaphor, one that was never to be taken literally.

8. The bible does not state the age of the earth.

9. Your god has never penned anything as far as I know.
A council of men who remembered the stories they were told did however. It was a lovely peice of fiction. And that's all it is.

10. I'm moving to England, where we actually don't allow these types to talk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5164756



sigh Wrong about many counts:

1) radioactive dating failures are numerous when dating rock of known age resulting in an erroneous age. It is not an accurate method at all largely due to weather and erosion.

2) Genetics remain constant according to Mendel's Laws on Genetics. This was in contrast to the claims made by Lamarck and Darwin who claimed one creature would become another. DNA itself does not last longer than 10kyears. Any found would be younger than that.

3) better dating methods are the observed erosion rates.

4) the genome of what exactly?

5) true - the one with no evidence has zero credibility. Obviously there is a conspiracy.

6) Science and evolution theories are two different things.

7) Jesus spoke about the flood of Noah "taking them all away" as not metaphorically. Everyone was killed in a global flood, and all the animals giving us the resulting fossil record and sedimentary geocolumn.

8) Now you are an expert on the Bible too? The Bible specifically counts geneologies from Jesus back to Adam.

9) Prophets receive word directly from God who then came to earth that we may know him, recorded by all the historians of the day.

10) They dont allow Freedom in England? You must be mistaken.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28711488


I made my way to the lab, where I could actually use a computer and respond in a much more complete fashion. My Iphone has the tendency to autocorrect a lot of my posts, and completely scroll down whilst trying to write the next paragraph.
alright so.

1.fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity. Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages.geologists then began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time — Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so. then again I get my science from scientists with actual accomplishments, and academic prowess, while you get your science by mother fucking Patrick Mead...applause2

2. [link to news.discovery.com] what, not Patrick Mead enough for you?
nonetheless, explain mutations to me. DNA does, and is changing. this DNA is 800,000 years old, but I guess that doesn't move you, because real scientists we cannot trust.. I can come to your home with my satanist science gear to prove it...

3. I'm not going to touch this one, because there is no scientist in the world outside the handful you listen to that believe this. This is less than unpopular with any respectable scientist. I feel like you shat this one out without finding any evidence of it. again.. no evidence in your response.. go figure..

4. [link to www.genomenewsnetwork.org] plenty, not including the human genome - [link to www.ornl.gov] how is this relevant? well, don't hurt your brain figuring this out. should be obvious. you ask what, like you weren't aware, that's what happens when you stay out of the loop too long..

5. You've give zero evidence yet again.
Nor has any religion in history ever produced any evidence whatsoever. That in itself should encourage you to stop
believing, but I guess this is going to be a bit harder..

6. science and evolution theories are two different things?
you might want to reword that.. Or perhaps redact it entirely..


7. Please explain then, why all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together or why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood? The Great Pyramid of Cheops was built about 2589-2566 BC, about 230 years before the flood, yet it has no water marks on it. The Djoser Step Pyramid at Saqqara, Egypt, built about 2630 BC doesn't show any signs of having been under water. Likewise for many other ancient structures. But even more importantly, the Egyptians have continuous historical records for hundreds of years before and after the time of the flood that make no mention of a great flood. This shows that they were not only not aware of a global flood, they certainly were not greatly affected by one. Outside of the Bible, there is no historical or physical evidence that would place a worldwide flood during the time period specified by the Bible for the great flood.

Where did the water needed for the flood come from? Where did it go? The atmosphere only holds enough moisture to account for about an inch of water worldwide. To cover even Mount Ararat, where Noah's Ark supposedly landed after the flood, in 40 days would require over 400 feet of water per day. That's not 400 inches, but 400 feet a day. And Everest would require 725 feet per day - that's 30 feet of water per hour! Some claim that the mountains didn't exist before the flood. But even Bible speaks of great mountains in the time before the flood. Were these great mountains mentioned in the Bible only a few feet high?

Some propose a massive vapor canopy existed in the times before the flood. But, the pressure at the base of such a canopy would be so high that it would need to have a temperature of over 500 degrees Fahrenheit. Any cooler and it would come down as rain.



How much water would it take?
The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers www.space.com, USGS.gov

Volume of a sphere = 4/3 r3 where r=radius

Radius of Earth = 6,378.15 Kilometers

Height of Mt. Everest = 8.85 Kilometers

The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of Mt. Everest is approximately the difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.

Volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level
= 4/3 (6,378.15 KM)3 = 1,086,825,918,019 KM3

Volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest
= 4/3 (6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)3 = 1,091,388,460,971 KM3

The Difference = 4,530,488,766 KM3

Notice that this is more than 3 TIMES the amount of water presently on Earth.
perplexing I know. easily explained if you are a critical thinker, or perhaps took third grade science..

8. Again, I won't touch this, because of the singular reason the bible is work of fiction, set against the backdrop of it's predecessors. which, if you've ever taken the time to check out, would realize parallel the exact story of Jesus, yet predate the bible by hundreds if not thousands of years. perhaps god put these books here, much like he did dinosaur fossils to test our faith? do you see where i'm going with this?

9. Again, You're showing your cracks. Perhaps you'd care to explain why then, not one single author during the time of Jesus chose to write about him? not a single one. I'll repeat that in case you missed it. THERE ARE NO RECORDS OR JESUS DURING HIS LIFE. and yet during his many miracles performed, and people raised from the dead did not one single author care to mention it anywhere? This is my opinion is direct proof that Jesus had not been a living person to begin with. That little incontrovertible fact, is evidence in my opinion, whereas you've yet to post a shred of anything resembling evidence.

10. have you not read any recent polls on religious statistics in England, or even the US for that matter?
there is a huge shift in beliefs. secularism is on the rise. and someday Christianity will die, like all that came before it.


So, what's your next argument? will you post some of Pat's quotes? refer me to a youtube video on creationism? perhaps try to tell me your proof is in the pudding? or the fictional best seller that is the bible, in this case.
it's obvious who is using logic here. case closed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577

clappa
MHz

User ID: 25505891
Canada
11/30/2012 09:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
sigh Wrong about many counts:

1) radioactive dating failures are numerous when dating rock of known age resulting in an erroneous age. It is not an accurate method at all largely due to weather and erosion.

2) Genetics remain constant according to Mendel's Laws on Genetics. This was in contrast to the claims made by Lamarck and Darwin who claimed one creature would become another. DNA itself does not last longer than 10kyears. Any found would be younger than that.

3) better dating methods are the observed erosion rates.

4) the genome of what exactly?

5) true - the one with no evidence has zero credibility. Obviously there is a conspiracy.

6) Science and evolution theories are two different things.

7) Jesus spoke about the flood of Noah "taking them all away" as not metaphorically. Everyone was killed in a global flood, and all the animals giving us the resulting fossil record and sedimentary geocolumn.

8) Now you are an expert on the Bible too? The Bible specifically counts geneologies from Jesus back to Adam.

9) Prophets receive word directly from God who then came to earth that we may know him, recorded by all the historians of the day.

10) They dont allow Freedom in England? You must be mistaken.

I made my way to the lab, where I could actually use a computer and respond in a much more complete fashion. My Iphone has the tendency to autocorrect a lot of my posts, and completely scroll down whilst trying to write the next paragraph.
alright so.


How much water would it take?

or the fictional best seller that is the bible, in this case.
it's obvious who is using logic here. case closed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577


Obviously such complex problems have plagued man for eons. Since you have a calculator all revved up a few bible questions to help it achieve overdrive. The old earth creation fits quite nicely with what science promotes only if there is a factor of 10 as part of the difference in each day. If God determines that we will count days based on the sun and the moon and the seasons the that was changing from 4 BYA and 40K BC. Plants in forest form some 400MYA and no oceans at all. The slow cooling process would have had liquid water at the mountain tops before it collected in the deepest ravines. Then birds, then the sea and finally the land saw life develop on a planet wide scale, except for the garden.

10)Didn't Australia begin as a prison colony, one many times larger than the place voters reside, ... any of those old laws still on the books . The docs I have only go as far as Alberta and the other Provinces being made sovereign nations, it got fucked up after that.

Nor really a Bible topic so here is a freebie, the water originally came in the form of comets that 'floated' down rather than impacting at high velocity. the whole amount of water came from the end of day 3 (forests didn't drink all the water so ponds, then lakes, then oceans from 40MYA to 400,000YA which is when they would have been at the fullest, The weight of water was the last factor in establishing our rotation relation to how we measure time.

9)If a disciple of John the Baptist wrote the Gospel of John would that testimony be as truthful as if John witnessed it himself?

8)In Matthew for Joseph and in Luke for Mary's fathers. That is so you do not lose track of who is involved in the prophecies and events related to the bruises determined in Ge:3:15.By right the Gospel of John should be part of the OT database as John was called to preach by God and his disciples followed all the OT laws to the letter. Revelation also has to be included as the same person wrote both. Any idea what that does to the opinions of the experts that 'had it all figured out' after reading a flawless set of books, one little verse and it all goes to shit.

Joh:1:6:
There was a man sent from God,
whose name was John.


That's the bad news, the good news is the new information help you put all the verses back into a 'reasonable doctrine' that has more verses in it and none can be found that do not add to the house of verses. Then we can wait until it becomes real before we worship anything.

7) As stated before no new water after the seas were full so to get 22ft of rain on all the land areas which is 25% of the whole area the water level would drop 5ft. If the rain clouds picked up the moisture from the ice caps and the oceans were 5 ft higher at the end of the full year. To get water to stand on the high hills and mountain tops God would have had it fall as freezing rain and that is why it was 5 months after rain stopped and the rocks were showing.
Full yer it was back to normal, so to speak.

6)Old earth fits pretty close, using that same sort of formula the time of the verse below is about 3.6BY from now.

Isa:51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
and look upon the earth beneath:
for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke,
and the earth shall wax old like a garment,
and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner:
but my salvation shall be for ever,
and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

3)God keeps track of everything that was ever called flesh, when the new earth starts all that same flesh is made alive again for an eternal life in the new earth.

2)God allows for adaptation, what the world was like at the end of day 6 is how it we have always known it. Since this earth id made good and not perfect God is using it as a seed bank for what life begins the period called the new earth.

1)In the longer version the beasts around the throne and in the OT are the seed that all that other life is based on.

Last Edited by MHz on 11/30/2012 10:40 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5164756
United States
11/30/2012 10:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
The main problem in your reply to my well crafted, and almost irrefutable, evidence filled post. Is that you've found yourself backed into a conceptual wall, being able to only use broad terms, which are the basis of stories that are again, not original to the bible. Terms like
'Great flood', 'the garden', men with only first names, with no historical record outside of this one source, ect. These terms confine you to create a timeline not based on the principles of discovery, inquiry, or logic, but a timeline that one can only fill in using extraordinary events that no man has seen or measured. Basically, magic. Having to make sense of a biblical timeline and the series of events therein, causes one to grasp at straws and completely make things up, such as what you've done here with "water filled comets", which I expect what your answer albeit very unsophisticated, to the mathematical paradox that is the biblical flood.
I was sincerely hoping for an educated reply, that would have me at least respecting your character if not your beliefs or logic. None of which you've accomplished with your reply. You've only enforced my concern that those who believe in creationism are, at their core, lost, brainwashed, and in dire need of a science lesson. There are no such things as water filled comets, or men who walk on water. Yet, because forcible men have wanted this true at any cost, we have whole new generations whom signs like the broken record recollection of their elders. Nothing has changed, except the fact that we have more scientific data to prove you wrong, and you've got even an even crazier imagination than ever before.
When you've done your homework, and are ready to admit you cannot best the facts I have presented, nor the sound evidence, we will place you appropriately where your education of science left off. Which I'm guessing is about 4th grade. That's being generous. The math you're doing with fictional dates in your book, they're purely self masturbatory.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5164756
United States
11/30/2012 10:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
And if you think that if you can present biblical quotes and passages as empirical evidence, you are dead wrong. I regard that book as a pure work of fiction. If you'd like evidence, I wish you well. You'll be hard pressed to find any. I presented evidence, and all I get in return is snippets from a fictional book. Show me you people have at least a shred of intelligence.
UnmannedAerialPilot
I put ~UAP on karma I give, good or bad

User ID: 27573455
United States
12/01/2012 12:40 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
And if you think that if you can present biblical quotes and passages as empirical evidence, you are dead wrong. I regard that book as a pure work of fiction. If you'd like evidence, I wish you well. You'll be hard pressed to find any. I presented evidence, and all I get in return is snippets from a fictional book. Show me you people have at least a shred of intelligence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5164756


First of all, let me say I was just going to continue to ignore your trite. It is obvious that you are thoroughly convinced in your own brainwashed little mind, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would or could ever convince you otherwise. I know this, because I used to be just like you. You love to deny God, the Bible, and Creation, because it appeals to your lusts, not to your scientific endeavor. You have a very basic need to deny the Holy One that created you because you find the very thought of an omnipotent being that holds you accountable for your actions and that you must answer to quite despicable. Due to that basic need you are therefore willing to accept fallacy in place of science, theory in place of fact, and the mind of man in place of the mind of God.
However, on the other hand, your arrogance and pride have proven to be beyond appalling and I cannot, in good conscience, any longer let your drivel continue unanswered. I, like many readers on this thread I am sure, find myself in a "catch 22" if you will. The Bible explains it like this:
"4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
-Proverbs 26
I know full well that no manner of logical argument, scientific discovery, empirical evidence, or demonstrable proof will sway your opinion. You are in a state of willful ignorance, and that is a condition that can only be cured by the Holy Ghost. It is a spiritual matter, not a scientific or logically-based one. You believe the lie of evolution because you want to deny God, and any evidence that contradicts your desire will be quickly discarded.
With that being said, instead of refuting your arguments (which any fifth grader can easily do, utilizing a Google search); I will simply quote evolutionary-minded, atheistic, Bible-denying scientists to refute your arguments.

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution.”
(Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now, p. 140, Professor at Harvard University in Boston).
-This problem will continue to nag, and will never go away, because there are no intermediary stages, because macro-evolution is an impossibility.
“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found – yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks.” (David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record”, Science, Vol. 213, July 17, 1981, p. 289).
-The only place intermediary fossils, or the Geologic Column exist, are in the minds of men.
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil.” (Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma 1988, p. 89).
-This quote was in answer to being asked why Dr. Paterson failed to provide any intermediary examples in his book on evolution. Mind you that the British Museum of Natural History is home to the largest fossil collection in the world.
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10 to the power of 40,000…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fredrick Hoyle, professor of astronomy, Cambridge University).
-Ahh yes, the great Sir Fredrick Hoyle, considered by many to be the greatest astronomer ever to live, realized the idiocy of rocks springing forth life and mutating into the world around us.
“To suppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. 1859, p. 217).
-Astute observation, Charlie.
“I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!” (Charles Darwin on this Theory of Evolution).
-This is a very important quote, especially the last part of it. He was absolutely right. Evolutionary science is simply a religion, repackaged. The evidence is no different, it is the interpretation of the evidence that holds the opposition. Make no mistake about it, believing the Bible's description of Creation and believing trillions of years, molecules-to-man evolution are BOTH religions, the only real difference being that one of them is tax payer funded.
“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” their observations to fit in with it.” (H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK).
-Dr. Lipson is killing it! The data collected from radio-metric dating that doesn't fit into a presupposed "range" of dates is immediately thrown out. Your 99% is not only a bald-faced lie, but even if it was 99%, it is only because all the data that doesn't mesh is thrown out and not counted. The presupposed "date" range is produced by the Geologic Column. The Column is circular reasoning. They use the fossils found in a certain "layer" to determine the age of the layer of rock, then turn around and use the "date" of the layer to determine the age of the fossils found therein! It is a scientific abomination. It is voodoo science.
Just look:
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.", American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.53
-Hahaha it is this kind of idiocy that proves that this fiasco called junk science is nothing more than willful ignorance. Want more?
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply." - J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.
-You see, it is not a matter of empirical evidence that drives the Theory of Evolution, just a matter of willful ignorance. The bottom line is this: Man is a sinful and rebellious creature that does not want to have to answer for our choices. The thought of a Being that would deny us our lusts is repugnant to our nature. We loathe the thought of being accountable for sin, so we hire prophets in white lab coats to give credence to an illogical theory, then appeal to their authority when challenged with evidence to the contrary. Make no bones about it: Your willful ignorance will not be good enough on the day of judgment. The evidence is all around you, you just refuse to accept it because you hate the thought of having to answer to God. Instead of humbly bowing down to the One that made you, you allow yourself to be deceived into believing that nothing exploded trillions of years ago, laws were created without a Legislature, lifeless matter spontaneously quickened, and random mutations facilitated the turning of one kind of creature into another. The Bible puts it a different way:
"18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
-Romans 1
The words of UAP are finished.

Last Edited by UnmannedAerialPilot on 12/01/2012 12:46 AM
There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it.
-Ron Paul

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
-Pslam 14
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2902812
United States
12/01/2012 10:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Trust me, you were never 'like me'.

Trusting quantified data under the scrutiny of meticulous trial and error is one thing. But to base an entire philosophy on the mere opinions of the handful of scientists that support creationsism is another thing entirely. You can find these men, just as you have that don't trust their peers, and attack Darwin easily, because of the simple fact that there are a handful. You'll find it difficult to find a similar number of men who are against it. Why? Because it stands up to the scientific method, is rigorously tested, and therefore becomes respected. Whereas those who cannot reconcile their career with their faith, will find it hard to latch onto both reality and superstition. That is the real difference here, data vs. Superstition. I trust not in something you have to simply believe in to be true, but true physical data I can scrutinize under a microscope where I attend school, working on a doctorate. To summarize, I can SEE these results, while your results are either based on comments, opinions, or superstition based belief systems.
To look for the math in a biblical flood, you'll find it anywhere, having created it, from a personal need to. But to reject the entire scientific community as a whole, for the comments of a handful of those who can't put ancient tradition and superstition behind them. The logic of rejecting the data is a refusal of science altogether. Which, is why I feel the need to post a Dawkins quote "Science works, planes fly. Broomsticks and magic carperts do not. If you doubt gravity, jump from a tenth story window". The data is not wrong here. It stand up time and time again. On the other hand, the only data you'll find to the contrary is a paragraph of thoughts. Which, in my opinion is not evidence of anything. You claim that I would not listen to evidence when it is presented, that nothing would change my mind. On the contrary, I would love to be proved wrong, I look for god! I am doing actual research daily because that is the point. We want to find the answer. The difference between us is that you are contempt with the escapism of the superstition, which is to say "the bible tells us". The bible does not however claim to be fact, that was inferred by men. Men who no longer look for answers outside of the bible. Some scientists are in that corner too and you've found them of course, and latched onto this handful, but they are not well respected. So again dear sir, I ask you to bring me some evidence. A singular paper that proves a flood, a young earth. An article that describes god by an author who lived during his lifespan. Bring me Anything at all that would convince me. I unlike all atheists hope to be proved wrong. But you instead tell me, I do not want to listen to reason, while denying me any form of it? This is curious. It tells me there is none. Which I've known for quite some time. I await your response.

-Chris.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2902812
United States
12/01/2012 10:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
To further your exhaustive outlook, I am not an evolutionary biologist. Darwin in not my god, and it was never my 'religion' to support Darwin in light of better more accurate and modern theories. I, in fact believe in the idea that we will close in. We aren't 'bending' evolutionary theory to fit our purpose for it, because it is our religion. Apparently you do not understand the basics of science. Theories are progressive until the point where they are proved or disproved entirely. This is not the only argument. This is not an evolution vs intelligent design argument. It is a science vs. Intelligent design argument. And as far as I'm concerned you've yet to present any evidence to support intelligent design. I do wait although. I'm on campus today, with little do but, but watch over the lab. I'll be here all day.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2902812
United States
12/01/2012 10:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
And if you think that if you can present biblical quotes and passages as empirical evidence, you are dead wrong. I regard that book as a pure work of fiction. If you'd like evidence, I wish you well. You'll be hard pressed to find any. I presented evidence, and all I get in return is snippets from a fictional book. Show me you people have at least a shred of intelligence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5164756


First of all, let me say I was just going to continue to ignore your trite. It is obvious that you are thoroughly convinced in your own brainwashed little mind, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would or could ever convince you otherwise. I know this, because I used to be just like you. You love to deny God, the Bible, and Creation, because it appeals to your lusts, not to your scientific endeavor. You have a very basic need to deny the Holy One that created you because you find the very thought of an omnipotent being that holds you accountable for your actions and that you must answer to quite despicable. Due to that basic need you are therefore willing to accept fallacy in place of science, theory in place of fact, and the mind of man in place of the mind of God.
However, on the other hand, your arrogance and pride have proven to be beyond appalling and I cannot, in good conscience, any longer let your drivel continue unanswered. I, like many readers on this thread I am sure, find myself in a "catch 22" if you will. The Bible explains it like this:
"4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
-Proverbs 26
I know full well that no manner of logical argument, scientific discovery, empirical evidence, or demonstrable proof will sway your opinion. You are in a state of willful ignorance, and that is a condition that can only be cured by the Holy Ghost. It is a spiritual matter, not a scientific or logically-based one. You believe the lie of evolution because you want to deny God, and any evidence that contradicts your desire will be quickly discarded.
With that being said, instead of refuting your arguments (which any fifth grader can easily do, utilizing a Google search); I will simply quote evolutionary-minded, atheistic, Bible-denying scientists to refute your arguments.

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution.”
(Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now, p. 140, Professor at Harvard University in Boston).
-This problem will continue to nag, and will never go away, because there are no intermediary stages, because macro-evolution is an impossibility.
“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found – yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks.” (David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record”, Science, Vol. 213, July 17, 1981, p. 289).
-The only place intermediary fossils, or the Geologic Column exist, are in the minds of men.
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil.” (Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma 1988, p. 89).
-This quote was in answer to being asked why Dr. Paterson failed to provide any intermediary examples in his book on evolution. Mind you that the British Museum of Natural History is home to the largest fossil collection in the world.
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10 to the power of 40,000…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fredrick Hoyle, professor of astronomy, Cambridge University).
-Ahh yes, the great Sir Fredrick Hoyle, considered by many to be the greatest astronomer ever to live, realized the idiocy of rocks springing forth life and mutating into the world around us.
“To suppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. 1859, p. 217).
-Astute observation, Charlie.
“I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!” (Charles Darwin on this Theory of Evolution).
-This is a very important quote, especially the last part of it. He was absolutely right. Evolutionary science is simply a religion, repackaged. The evidence is no different, it is the interpretation of the evidence that holds the opposition. Make no mistake about it, believing the Bible's description of Creation and believing trillions of years, molecules-to-man evolution are BOTH religions, the only real difference being that one of them is tax payer funded.
“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” their observations to fit in with it.” (H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK).
-Dr. Lipson is killing it! The data collected from radio-metric dating that doesn't fit into a presupposed "range" of dates is immediately thrown out. Your 99% is not only a bald-faced lie, but even if it was 99%, it is only because all the data that doesn't mesh is thrown out and not counted. The presupposed "date" range is produced by the Geologic Column. The Column is circular reasoning. They use the fossils found in a certain "layer" to determine the age of the layer of rock, then turn around and use the "date" of the layer to determine the age of the fossils found therein! It is a scientific abomination. It is voodoo science.
Just look:
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.", American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.53
-Hahaha it is this kind of idiocy that proves that this fiasco called junk science is nothing more than willful ignorance. Want more?
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply." - J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.
-You see, it is not a matter of empirical evidence that drives the Theory of Evolution, just a matter of willful ignorance. The bottom line is this: Man is a sinful and rebellious creature that does not want to have to answer for our choices. The thought of a Being that would deny us our lusts is repugnant to our nature. We loathe the thought of being accountable for sin, so we hire prophets in white lab coats to give credence to an illogical theory, then appeal to their authority when challenged with evidence to the contrary. Make no bones about it: Your willful ignorance will not be good enough on the day of judgment. The evidence is all around you, you just refuse to accept it because you hate the thought of having to answer to God. Instead of humbly bowing down to the One that made you, you allow yourself to be deceived into believing that nothing exploded trillions of years ago, laws were created without a Legislature, lifeless matter spontaneously quickened, and random mutations facilitated the turning of one kind of creature into another. The Bible puts it a different way:
"18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
-Romans 1
The words of UAP are finished.
 Quoting: UnmannedAerialPilot


[link to lesswrong.com]

Stephen j. Gould was an idiot. He was wrong about everything.
Nobody respected him, not because we hate fools, but because he was wrong wrong wrong.

I could say the same about all these quotes, but again, they aren't evidence. These are opinions that have been proved wrong. It is also curious why you quoted my second reply and not my first, that disproved your statements entiry. Your move Dr.

.-Chris.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1615583
Germany
12/01/2012 11:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Doubters don't bother to read the fact that the secular world all through out time has said the bible is the most accurate historical document ever written. It was also considered the best book for education for several thousand years. So...there was not enough arrogance to deny the bible for 5,800 years and then suddenly sin explodes in the world. Evolution gets pushed through. And then...suddenly...the attacks on the bible HAVE to come to justify the false beliefs being presented by a very small amount of people. The idea of NOT being held accountable for their sins attracts lots of people and they embraced a lie.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2902812
United States
12/01/2012 11:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
"A small ammount of people"? Are you completely ignorant to modern science, or just somewhat ignorant to it?

Secularists have never said the bible is a historical record of any kind. You simply have to read it, and you'll be amazed how much it reads like a fictional tale rather than a complete picture of the history of the world.
The bible isn't just not a source a knowledge, it is the antithesis to it.
It presents its case with no questioning, no science whatsoever. I hate to keep repeating myself, but refer yourself to earlier holy books and you'll find the bible's stories paralleled almost precisely. So how can the bible possibly attempt to silence all religion before it, to do that you'd have to just pretend it is the first of its kind or that its stories are original.
I suggest you research other religions, there you will find jesus' story not only the basis for it, but the exact story. That tells us that the bible is based on traditional fiction. Am I speaking to a wall? Does this not alarm you? Under your logic, we can parallel these stories today, create perhaps the seventh reincarnation of the Jesus story, and claim this one to be the true one. What would make this one less true?
So again, these are exhausted arguments that make zero sense. But I await the time when Christians will simply pick up an earlier written holy book.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2902812
United States
12/01/2012 11:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Must be sin. But again I ask you how can I be influenced by man made term that I do not believe in? Sin, is man's invention. It is a control mechanism, much like the threat of hell, which just like sin, has no basis in reality. Anyone can make up imaginary places, and boogeymen. Nothing makes these ideas more real to me than those presented by earlier generations. In fact, i would be more inclined to believe the fictional. Of an earlier religion, because under your own logic, the older it is the more it must be true! So there's that...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4767491
Czech Republic
12/01/2012 11:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
I'm surprised the Silmarillion hasn't taken over from the bible.
It's far more believable, certainly from an historical perspective.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9852275
United States
12/01/2012 11:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
My question would be, what else are Christians wrong about?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22256187


You are assuming every Christian believes the earth is only 6,000 years old. We do not all necessarily believe that. I, for example, tend to agree with some other Christians that Angels inhabited the planets in our solar system prior to the rebellion and fall of Lucifer. The atmosphere of earth was destroyed in the confrontation (so the theory goes) and God began anew with human beings.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27855584
United States
12/01/2012 12:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Sorry to break it to you, but it is.


Choose to believe what you will. I promise you that one day the truth will be revealed to you and to everyone. Whether you choose to see it before it's too late for you will be your decision.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21288231


I'm not trying to be rude here at all. How can in possibly only be 6000 years old? Do you think dinosaurs were a hoax? What about the scientific proof that earths millions of years old?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28573056


Not rude at all, I used to be there too. The dinosaurs were created on Day 6, and most were killed off in the Flood. You have been lied to most of your life...until now:

[link to www.answersingenesis.org]


 Quoting: UnmannedAerialPilot


laugh

Kent Hovind? SERIOUSLY?
You do realize that he's a convicted felon, right?
Not to mention a fucking nutjob...

News