Do you believe that the Earth's age is only several thousand years?

[24788]

Global warming has been proven to be real, but I don't think it's as drastic as many people believe it is to be. Climates will always change due to the suns effect on our planet. You could also say Global cooling is real at the same time as different things change, so will our planet.

I'm not a scientist and that doesn't really matter because I don't think anyone on the planet understands exactly how things work together to change our planet. They need to go back to the drawing board and figure it out day in and day out until they can provide facts that people can see and will believe. Theories help to ruin our perception of how things even begin to work at times.

 

[sporty_carr]

What's the point? A one sided debate is not a debate.

You'll continually "move the goal posts" on the facts put in front of you in some vein attempt to prop up your own belief system without putting forward any counter claim whatsoever which is completely useless in a scientific debate because it's not at all scientific.

If you would like to put forward any facts that you have found from credible sources that have been scientifically tested that determine the actual age of the planet that you agree with and meet your own personal specifications then I would be more than willing to read them. But as I believe it has been pointed out above you have yet to do so. :dunno:

I have to ask, are you an individual who believes that a “higher power” created the universe with all its galaxies, stars and planets including this one (first from what I can remember) in six days? Or does that sound as ridiculous to you as it does to the rest of us. If this isn’t your view then please enlighten the rest of us as to how it “actually” happened. I’m sure we’ll all be interested to hear it.

Well, this is getting pointless because neither one of us are going to concede our beliefs, but ok. Yes, I believe a "higher power" as you put it, did create the universe. It seems much more logical to me than many of the scientific "theories."

You refer to God creating the world in six days, but (as another poster already mentioned) what is six days to God? I'm sure you're a big believer in the Big Bang, right? Well, since this is a one sided debate as you stated, please explain to me how Big Bang started, because nobody has ever been able to give me a straight answer. I find it amusing that evolutionists think its funny that someone would believe in a "higher power" when they themselves believe the universe kick started itself from nothing....not to mention they also believe life kick started itself from nothing. I don't know.....but the last time I checked, when I didn't plant a seed it didn't start growing itself.

Also, you state above that I didn't use a credible source. How so? Because it lists the flaws of radiometric dating? I mean, if these aren't true flaws and radiometric dating is this perfect tool.......then please, explain.

My guess--sporty_carr is the world's first postmodern scientist?

No, I just have common sense. It's ok to question things that are supposedly set in stone. Many folks thought Einstein was a quack right before he put the science world on its head. I'm willing to bet within a hundred years or so we'll get another brilliant mind such as his that changes the way the world thinks about everything......again.

 

[sporty_carr]

I'm not a scientist and that doesn't really matter because I don't think anyone on the planet understands exactly how things work together to change our planet. They need to go back to the drawing board and figure it out day in and day out until they can provide facts that people can see and will believe. Theories help to ruin our perception of how things even begin to work at times.

Rep to you.

 

[BlueBalls]

You refer to God creating the world in six days, but (as another poster already mentioned) what is six days to God? I'm sure you're a big believer in the Big Bang, right? Well, since this is a one sided debate as you stated, please explain to me how Big Bang started, because nobody has ever been able to give me a straight answer. I find it amusing that evolutionists think its funny that someone would believe in a "higher power" when they themselves believe the universe kick started itself from nothing....not to mention they also believe life kick started itself from nothing. I don't know.....but the last time I checked, when I didn't plant a seed it didn't start growing itself.

No one has been able to tell you how it all started because no one knows what happened before or during the big bang but there is a significant amount of evidence to show that the big bang was how the universe began. But just because it's an unknown at the moment does not mean you can then promote absolutely useless "god of the gaps" arguments in an attempt to make your existence story fit better for you because then if you’re going to make that claim the burden of proof is on you to support it and I very much doubt you have proof of god existence or of the fact that he started the big bang.

I have to ask, what does Evolution have to do with the Big Bang? You do know Evolution deals with the growing complexity of life, right? Not how the universe began. Whilst cosmology and biology are both science they are completely different fields of study and they are in no way intertwined.

Also who states that the universe came from nothing? That's a completely asinine statement because if you really observe what is said about what is thought to have been the early stages of the universe you would know that the phrase "universe from nothing" is completely false. It is in fact the believer who believes the universe "came from nothing", snapped into existence by some celestial being devoid of space and time as it were - but then again the burdan of proof swings to you to support this claim. So please, don't attempt to substitute your own theories on how the universe started with those of the scientific community of who have a lot more data on the subject than you do. "Unknowns" haven't usually stayed unknowns for very long when you think about it. So there are people working on the answers in an attempt to get evidence, which of course your side of the argument cannon and will never be able to provide.

Also, you state above that I didn't use a credible source. How so? Because it lists the flaws of radiometric dating? I mean, if these aren't true flaws and radiometric dating is this perfect tool.......then please, explain.

If you believe a source that has no named author, has a pro religious bias and puts forward young Earth creationism and the fact that there was a worldwide flood you are well within your rights to do so. Just don't expect me to do so because it's that bias and the twisting of scientific facts that lead me to the conclusion that it's not credible and I would be surprised if there was anyone in the actual science community who would take on board its word without ripping in to shreds.

I really don’t have time to pick out every single flaw, but I believe my general overview of the issues I have with it should suffice.

No, I just have common sense. It's ok to question things that are supposedly set in stone. Many folks thought Einstein was a quack right before he put the science world on its head. I'm willing to bet within a hundred years or so we'll get another brilliant mind such as his that changes the way the world thinks about everything......again.

It's fine to question, carry on doing so. You're right there probably will be many changes in the coming decades - hopefully significant strides into the theory of Quantum Gravity. But if you're take your faith into the world of science then you are required to at least propose some evidence to the argument that can be read, discussed and criticised. Of which you have yet to do so. So your arguments cannot be taken seriously.

Keep the faith. But it's not science and it never will be.

 

[Smallville417]

No I don't.

 

[Will E Worm]

God didn't write the bible.

The Word had always been. It was given by God through inspiration so we would have it on the earth.

John 1:1-2 (KJV)
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Well, this is getting pointless because neither one of us are going to concede our beliefs, but ok. Yes, I believe a "higher power" as you put it, did create the universe. It seems much more logical to me than many of the scientific "theories."

Exactly, no one is going to change their minds. I don't know why these threads are allowed to go on so long, or at all.

I don't know.....but the last time I checked, when I didn't plant a seed it didn't start growing itself.

Someone needs to explain this.

If something as complex as the universe can start by itself, surely a tiny seed could learn to walk and plant itself.

 

[titsrock]

Well, this is getting pointless because neither one of us are going to concede our beliefs, but ok. Yes, I believe a "higher power" as you put it, did create the universe. It seems much more logical to me than many of the scientific "theories."

You refer to God creating the world in six days, but (as another poster already mentioned) what is six days to God? I'm sure you're a big believer in the Big Bang, right? Well, since this is a one sided debate as you stated, please explain to me how Big Bang started, because nobody has ever been able to give me a straight answer.

If "God" created everything in a timeframe that humans labeled "six days" than atleast you're getting around to a faith not based on the bible.

If time and matter came together at a moment, that coming together seems to me to have been either naturally or by accident but not by some invisible hand planting a seed arbitrarily somewhere, as part of some "master plan" :dunno:

 

[titsrock]

The Word had always been. It was given by God through inspiration so we would have it on the earth.

Than why did man write it down? Is it because man assumes that "God" was only speaking to him? Perhaps God views man as just another animal, no more different or special than the mouse.

 

[Will E Worm]

Than why did man write it down? Is it because man assumes that "God" was only speaking to him? Perhaps God views man as just another animal, no more different or special than the mouse.

Nope, God made mankind much different.

"Man is nothing more than an animal with a brain"
That is what the elite think of us. The so-called "elite".


Evidence for Creation

Darwin terrified

 

[StanScratch]

Someone needs to explain this.

If something as complex as the universe can start by itself, surely a tiny seed could learn to walk and plant itself.

Doesn't it happen all the time? Seeds fall off trees, seeds blow through the wind, seeds are carried by birds, seeds flow through the water, all without human intervention. And, without human interventions, they can grow just fine.

 

[Will E Worm]

Doesn't it happen all the time? Seeds fall off trees, seeds blow through the wind, seeds are carried by birds, seeds flow through the water, all without human intervention. And, without human interventions, they can grow just fine.

Seeds never palnt themselves. They are either dropped by birds or the air, and so on.

Seeds need an enabler.

 

[jayaprak]

whatever the age for earth may be, ours age is very small. so we couldn/t see beyond.

 

[sporty_carr]

I have to ask, what does Evolution have to do with the Big Bang? You do know Evolution deals with the growing complexity of life, right? Not how the universe began. Whilst cosmology and biology are both science they are completely different fields of study and they are in no way intertwined.

Yes, I realize that they are two different sciences. The reason I mentioned the theory of evolution is because evolutionists and big bang theorists usually go hand in hand. And yes, I believe they are intertwined in a way. That is where some of the bias from the scientists come into play. Scientists want the earth to be at least billions of years old so that their theory of evolution works. Without a time frame that long, creatures wouldn't have had enough time (by their standards) to have evolved.

Also who states that the universe came from nothing? That's a completely asinine statement because if you really observe what is said about what is thought to have been the early stages of the universe you would know that the phrase "universe from nothing" is completely false. It is in fact the believer who believes the universe "came from nothing", snapped into existence by some celestial being devoid of space and time as it were - but then again the burdan of proof swings to you to support this claim.

If there was already matter, gasses, or time before the existence of the universe, then what created it?

Keep the faith. But it's not science and it never will be.

You are right, faith is not science. But the belief of God brings many questions to the table that science will never be able to prove nor disprove.

You are obviously a very intelligent, well read individual (however much I disagree with most of your views) and respect your opinion. This discussion has given me a pretty good idea for a thread. I'll start it up in a few days because I have to go out of town and won't have access to the internet until I get back.

If time and matter came together at a moment, that coming together seems to me to have been either naturally or by accident but not by some invisible hand planting a seed arbitrarily somewhere, as part of some "master plan" :dunno:

Then ask yourself this question. Everything must have a cause and effect, right? How can something (The Big Bang or whatever was before the universe) cause itself? The belief in this theory basically says you believe in an effect without a cause. That's impossible, even by scientific standards.

 

[BlueBalls]

Sporty_carr whilst I have enjoyed this back and forth, I feel if we continue we'll just be covering old ground over and over (probably). So it's probably best to leave it there.

:hatsoff: