Millions of years ago ! ?
- Thread starter wincam
- Start date
-
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.
Your lengthy rambling nonsensical post made me laugh. So I didn't quote the whole thing.
I didn't bring up Bergman or link to his video and say he knows his stuff, like someone else did. I disputed what was said about him and what he himself has said. The article I linked to was from the Scientific American, a credible source.
Here's another credible source linked to below. This is by Dr. Michael Benton, professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Bristol. This refutes the nonsense you spouted in your post I quoted from.
Actionbioscience | Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
I didn't bring up Bergman or link to his video and say he knows his stuff, like someone else did. I disputed what was said about him and what he himself has said. The article I linked to was from the Scientific American, a credible source.
Here's another credible source linked to below. This is by Dr. Michael Benton, professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Bristol. This refutes the nonsense you spouted in your post I quoted from.
Actionbioscience | Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
The Old Testament does not say that the earth is around 6,000 years old.
If you or anybody else posting in this thread says that it is, where exactly does it say that?
And please don't bore me with Ussher's chronology.
The overwhelming body of credible scientific evidence indicates that the earth is billions of years old.
Of course scientists could be wrong. The earth could be 3.88 billion years old instead of 4.55 billion years old.
But 6,000 years old?
C'mon man.
If you or anybody else posting in this thread says that it is, where exactly does it say that?
And please don't bore me with Ussher's chronology.
The overwhelming body of credible scientific evidence indicates that the earth is billions of years old.
Of course scientists could be wrong. The earth could be 3.88 billion years old instead of 4.55 billion years old.
But 6,000 years old?
C'mon man.
i was not saying it came right out and said the earth was6000 years old....i was saying it has been correct when science was wrong.....please read what we are saying and don't twist it to fit what you want to argue.
Please explain how they know that the earth is that old in easy to understand language....don't post a link.
Why does it have to be very old? Why can't it be young?
Please explain how they know that the earth is that old in easy to understand language....don't post a link.
Why does it have to be very old? Why can't it be young?
The debate here essentially is whether the earth (world et al) is around 6,000 years old or whether it is billions of years old.
Do you agree that is the principal issue as expressed in the first two posts by wincam and oldhermit? Who both continued posting in that vein.
I believe that the earth is most likely billions of years old because that is what the overwhelming body of credible scientific information indicates.
Do you agree that is what the overwhelming body of credible scientific evidence indicates?
Don't post links? Say what?
Why would you take my word for it? I'm not a scientist. Neither are you or anyone else posting on this thread.
I have only seen one actual scientist post in these forums on this subject. That is Dr. Gary Hurd. He put the Young Earthers in these forums to shame.
The earth could be young. That possibility exists.
I suggest that the Young Earthers here go to the Hell Creek Formation in Montana and find dinosaur fossils they can keep. Then prove that those fossils are 6,000 years old. If you can do that, you will be rich and famous and win the Nobel Prize.
Do you agree that is the principal issue as expressed in the first two posts by wincam and oldhermit? Who both continued posting in that vein.
I believe that the earth is most likely billions of years old because that is what the overwhelming body of credible scientific information indicates.
Do you agree that is what the overwhelming body of credible scientific evidence indicates?
Don't post links? Say what?
Why would you take my word for it? I'm not a scientist. Neither are you or anyone else posting on this thread.
I have only seen one actual scientist post in these forums on this subject. That is Dr. Gary Hurd. He put the Young Earthers in these forums to shame.
The earth could be young. That possibility exists.
I suggest that the Young Earthers here go to the Hell Creek Formation in Montana and find dinosaur fossils they can keep. Then prove that those fossils are 6,000 years old. If you can do that, you will be rich and famous and win the Nobel Prize.
I want to see if you can show that you understand what these scientists are saying....posting links is not telling us that you understand what that link says.....i believe the earth is young, they say the fossils are that old and they know their tests are correct, because their tests show the rocks in that layer are that old....they know those are correct because the fossils are that old.....until they can prove that their evidence is correct and how they know there is no possibility that they are wrong, I am sticking with Young earth.....
btw guess what some accept as credible scientists and what they teach and expect others to accept and sadly and alas many do accept = see www.EvolutionvsGod.com - wincam
Thalidomide causes birth defects so the world is 6,000 years old.
Brilliant.
Again, can you provide links to credible scientific journals that support your position?
Can you provide a link to a reputable scientific journal that indicates the earth is anything close to 6,000 years old?
No, you can't.
Brilliant.
Again, can you provide links to credible scientific journals that support your position?
Can you provide a link to a reputable scientific journal that indicates the earth is anything close to 6,000 years old?
No, you can't.
I am asking what you interpret what these scientists are saying...It is one thing to read something and another to understand it....
I believe in young earth because of the evidence....There are no absolutes in science, yet the earth has to be old like the science you believe in says? That sounds like an absolute.....I have looked into both sides of the argument and take a logical stance. Did you read the post and understand what I said about circular reasoning? Old earth theory is full of fallacies like circular reasoning......
I am stating facts that you seem to be avoiding and saying I live in a fantasy world.....Will you please stick to a debate and not attacking the person you are debating with.
I believe in young earth because of the evidence....There are no absolutes in science, yet the earth has to be old like the science you believe in says? That sounds like an absolute.....I have looked into both sides of the argument and take a logical stance. Did you read the post and understand what I said about circular reasoning? Old earth theory is full of fallacies like circular reasoning......
I am stating facts that you seem to be avoiding and saying I live in a fantasy world.....Will you please stick to a debate and not attacking the person you are debating with.