-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If Christians are not allergic to science then why do the majority cling to the same tired arguments against proven scientific methods to date the earth instead of finding out the facts for themselves? Why trust science when it suits them eg medical doctors , they say "God gave us doctors", referring to doctors of all religion even atheists..but reject science when it comes to geology and other things which are challenging to the way in which they have always been taught?
I have read about polystrate fossils but have learned a) polystrate is not a standard geological term, but a term invented by creation scientists, and b) that non-creationist scientists accept and also believe that these fossils can form in a short period of time but are unperturbed about what this actually means to the creationist cause. I guess that non-christian scientists can get on with doing real science, that is not fueled or biased by an agenda. You still have the problem of the thousands of soil and rock samples which are dated to be far beyond a 6000 year figure, it's hard to arrive at such a figure even taking assumptions into account.
To say that "God gave us doctors" but not to say that "God gave us geologists" is nothing but hypocrisy. Is medical science God's gift to man, but other sciences in biology and geology are not? They all come from the same place. Non-christian scientists are often people who love their jobs and are interested in finding out the facts and truth. They are not the sort of people who are focussed on disproving religion or God, and have little reason to do so. In contrast, it is the creation scientists who have an agenda and are more likely to twist the figures and facts to suit their claims.
G
you have swallowed a huge lie
SOME scientists say one thing
SOME scientist say another thing
SOME geologists interpret things according to an atheistic evolutional world view
SOME geologists interpret things according to a biblical creationist world view
one thing for sure
being a theistic evolutionist does not hold water
when I studied logic we learned about proof by cases
if I make the statement ALL SHEEP ARE WHITE
you only have to show me one black sheep to demolish my assertion
these guys say ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO A YOUNG EARTH - simply not true
now either you are up to weighing the evidence for yourself or else you gotta choose who you are going to rely on
SOME scientists say one thing
SOME scientist say another thing
SOME geologists interpret things according to an atheistic evolutional world view
SOME geologists interpret things according to a biblical creationist world view
one thing for sure
being a theistic evolutionist does not hold water
when I studied logic we learned about proof by cases
if I make the statement ALL SHEEP ARE WHITE
you only have to show me one black sheep to demolish my assertion
these guys say ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO A YOUNG EARTH - simply not true
now either you are up to weighing the evidence for yourself or else you gotta choose who you are going to rely on
G
you havent seriously looked at all the evidence there is a young earth?
and whats this old dirt theory you are talking about?
I take it you mean you have absolute faith in the various dating methods?
they take observation over decades or centuries and then extrapolate backwards billions of years? there is no kind of sense in that
and ultimately it depends on who makes the interpretation
the observable facts and evolution are incompatibel too
you must have read the other threads; it has all been covered
and whats this old dirt theory you are talking about?
I take it you mean you have absolute faith in the various dating methods?
they take observation over decades or centuries and then extrapolate backwards billions of years? there is no kind of sense in that
and ultimately it depends on who makes the interpretation
the observable facts and evolution are incompatibel too
you must have read the other threads; it has all been covered
The thing is the creation scientists don't really have any radiometric dating that proves their point.
Noah's flood and other catastrophe comes up as one reason why they can't extrapolate backwards and would make dating inaccurate.
The problem for creation science is they've also dated lunar rock samples to similar ages and there was no noah's flood on the moon as far as we know.
When you date the earth, and get a figure of millions of years...and then date the moon and get the same figure..that says something pretty clear about the age of the earth and accuracy of the dating methods.
Scientists don't only use radiometric dating they have other methods too of course. Radiometric dating wasn't the first technique to give old earth ages. In the 1700's rate of cooling experiments gave figures of 75000 years. In the same period studying layers of rock etc gave figures of millions of years. Studies in the 1800's of the rate of change of cooling assuming the earth was molten, gave millions of years, as did time calculations on the affect of tidal friction. But it's pretty hard to argue against radiometric dating which uses known half lives of different elements. But I always consider this type of science 'pseudo-science' because we can't go back into the past. I attribute the age of the earth as calculated by dating methods to old dirt, and still believe in a literal 7 day 6000 year ago creation. In other words, science is correct when they date the earth's substance to be billions of years old, but they don't accept that it was created 6000 years ago.
Noah's flood and other catastrophe comes up as one reason why they can't extrapolate backwards and would make dating inaccurate.
The problem for creation science is they've also dated lunar rock samples to similar ages and there was no noah's flood on the moon as far as we know.
When you date the earth, and get a figure of millions of years...and then date the moon and get the same figure..that says something pretty clear about the age of the earth and accuracy of the dating methods.
Scientists don't only use radiometric dating they have other methods too of course. Radiometric dating wasn't the first technique to give old earth ages. In the 1700's rate of cooling experiments gave figures of 75000 years. In the same period studying layers of rock etc gave figures of millions of years. Studies in the 1800's of the rate of change of cooling assuming the earth was molten, gave millions of years, as did time calculations on the affect of tidal friction. But it's pretty hard to argue against radiometric dating which uses known half lives of different elements. But I always consider this type of science 'pseudo-science' because we can't go back into the past. I attribute the age of the earth as calculated by dating methods to old dirt, and still believe in a literal 7 day 6000 year ago creation. In other words, science is correct when they date the earth's substance to be billions of years old, but they don't accept that it was created 6000 years ago.
Last edited: