Millions of years ago ! ?

[SarahM777]

Nope, I said the order of the creation is wrong. see my earlier posts.

According to you or according to God? (I would think that God knows the order in which He created everything) Silly human beings trying to tell God He's wrong. (I don't really think that's going to work to well)

 

[JackH]

Never heard of Jerry Bergman until this thread frankly. Though your article says it was written by one hight Paul S. Braterman, not a man named Jerry Bergman. So I'm not quite sure your point on that one.

This article made me laugh.

So it is clear that the only way you can have the layers or the fossils is via massive worldwide cataclysm involving lots of water. This would be the Flood.

The next point of radiometric dating is the most dominant today. Yet radiometric dating is also the most flawed and depends on the assumption of constant and uniform earth.

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

 

[JackH]

Isn't it possible that the Old Testament is correct and these scientists that you believe are wrong? Look back into history....Wasn't there a time when everyone thought the earth was round? Why don't you think they are wrong this time also, just like many times in the past when the Bible was accurate?

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.

 

[ivanc0]

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

Great article.

 

[SarahM777]

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.

Again where are the CONTROL SAMPLES? Do you have any way to PROVE how much radioactive and in what quantities they started with? If not the TESTS ARE FLAWED and UNUSABLE to PROVE ANYTHING other then what amounts of radioactive material is LEFT IN THE SAMPLE.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

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.

And I guess you have evidence that earth is gazillion of years old? The human folly of believing fellow human theories.

 

[Tintin]

Jack, your beanstalk theory is old hat.

 

[kodiak]

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.

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?

 

[JackH]

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?

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.

 

[JackH]

Again where are the CONTROL SAMPLES? Do you have any way to PROVE how much radioactive and in what quantities they started with? If not the TESTS ARE FLAWED and UNUSABLE to PROVE ANYTHING other then what amounts of radioactive material is LEFT IN THE SAMPLE.

Please provide evidence from a reputable scientific source that what you said is anything other than nonsense.

 

[JackH]

Jack, your beanstalk theory is old hat.

Obviously older than that T.rex you tell people you ride to work.

 

[kodiak]

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.

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.....

 

[wincam]

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.

the reason why this cannot and will not happen = via google see [quick....lets discriminate] and [Academic Freedom under threat] besides [Slaughter of the Dissidents] etc - wincam

 

[SarahM777]

Please provide evidence from a reputable scientific source that what you said is anything other than nonsense.

If anyone tried to pull that type of NONSENSE with their tests in any other branch of science that paper would be rejected OUTRIGHT because the tests are flawed right from the beginning. Remember scientists are the same people who CLAIMED that thalidomide was safe.

 

[wincam]

Your fundamentalism and fanaticism is emerging out of your ears,
Your argument was exactly the Argument of the Catholic inquisition in the days the earth was flat, and the universe rotated around the earth.

I know the only scientific book you read is the bible.... good luck.

guess what ! the universe still rotates around the earth = via google see [The Principle] and [Galileo was wrong] and God was right for how could it be otherwise - wincam

 

[wincam]

the reason why this cannot and will not happen = via google see [quick....lets discriminate] and [Academic Freedom under threat] besides [Slaughter of the Dissidents] etc - wincam

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

 

[JackH]

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.....

No possibility they are wrong?

What fantasy world are you living in?

One that is 6,000 years old?

There are no absolutes in science. You have heard of falsifiability, right?

Why do you believe the earth is young?

And please don't say because God says so.

 

[JackH]

guess what ! the universe still rotates around the earth = via google see [The Principle] and [Galileo was wrong] and God was right for how could it be otherwise - wincam

Why doesn't kodiak get on your case for posting links?

You posted this one before.

Recommended by Ken Ham.

No doubt you have been to his Creation Museum in Kentucky and killed some brain cells.

 

[JackH]

If anyone tried to pull that type of NONSENSE with their tests in any other branch of science that paper would be rejected OUTRIGHT because the tests are flawed right from the beginning. Remember scientists are the same people who CLAIMED that thalidomide was safe.

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.

 

[kodiak]

No possibility they are wrong?

What fantasy world are you living in?

One that is 6,000 years old?

There are no absolutes in science. You have heard of falsifiability, right?

Why do you believe the earth is young?

And please don't say because God says so.

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.