How old is the earth?

[Delirious]

"And what about ancient chinese civilizations dating back to almost 10,000 years ago with scripture leading up from then until now?"

ive never heard of such a thing, care to expand on that?

 

[Mark T]

=Sicbeing Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old

Sea water is actually filtered by the earths crust, and then returned from underground sea vents. The process takes around 10,000,000 years.

 

[Nscale4]

Why do we even bother? Whenever it was it was still a long time ago! Let's forget the past and focus on the future.

 

[Evolution.]

Actually, they're not. They're pseudoscience based on assumptions and misrepresentations.

I couldn't agree with Duke more.

All of those so called points are ridiculous.

 

[PS]

"And what about ancient chinese civilizations dating back to almost 10,000 years ago with scripture leading up from then until now?"

ive never heard of such a thing, care to expand on that?

Not really.

And you dodged my point, again.

But here it is: my point was that they had recorded documents and times all the way up until now, along with the evolution of their language (chinese I guess), as all languages gradually change over time, the chinese had those changes well documented from then, to this day.

What does that prove? That there's documented evidence of the Earth being over 6000 years old, by having events, stories, and written language before that and by having it not only exist to this day, but also having the same civilization around to this day.

[edit]

Archeologists have even found a 9000 year old playable flute from China.

 

[cardude2004]

I believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old. About 2,000 years since Jesus was born, and the earth was around for about 4,000 years before that. The reason for scientists getting numbers that say something is older than that is because God created mature creatures when the earth was created.

 

[PS]

I believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old. About 2,000 years since Jesus was born, and the earth was around for about 4,000 years before that. The reason for scientists getting numbers that say something is older than that is because God created mature creatures when the earth was created.

And where did you pull that out of?

[edit]

Famine and Duke are going to have a fit. Heck, I think I'm in shock because I'm not having a fit. I can't even fathom how...what...where did....huh?!

 

[JacktheHat]

I believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old. About 2,000 years since Jesus was born, and the earth was around for about 4,000 years before that. The reason for scientists getting numbers that say something is older than that is because God created mature creatures when the earth was created.

Ok, so considering the majority of scientists place the age of the earth at somewhere around four and a half billion years, how mature exactly were these creatures?

 

[Duke]

Famine and Duke are going to have a fit. Heck, I think I'm in shock because I'm not having a fit. I can't even fathom how...what...where did....huh?!

Actually, I'm not going to have a fit at all, much as I would normally. He's impervious to reason so he's thrown the only real method of relating to him right out the window. There's no point in even trying any more.

 

[Danoff]

I believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old. About 2,000 years since Jesus was born, and the earth was around for about 4,000 years before that. The reason for scientists getting numbers that say something is older than that is because God created mature creatures when the earth was created.

...right. So God created a 4 billion year old rock 6000 years ago.


Got it.


What's interesting to me about the whole pseudoscience discussion is that religious people are so quick to use pseudoscience results as being factual when they bolster their own claims - but will denounce hard science - science that is used by virtually all scientists in the field, science that that has been observed by literally thousands of other researchers, science that has been USED successfully to predict the outcome of procedures that have never been tried... science like evolution.

Joe schmoe nobody comes up with an untested theory for why carbon dating is flawed, doesn't test it, the theory doesn't get accepted by the science community (who are always looking for ways to improve their techniques), and religious people jump on it like its a gift from... above. But darwin came out with a revolutionary theory that nobody wanted to accept but everyone was FORCED to accept given the evidence, a theory which is now the underpinnings of much of what we know about biology and has been validated probably millions of times through the validation of new theories which stand on it as a base - a theory that when you think about the species that we have encountered and see what happens to localized groups of species really even just MAKES SENSE, and religious people don't want to have anything to do with it.

It's amazingly selective.

Yet their opposition is not so selective. My criteria for science is based on logic, validation, peer review, and usefulness in practice. That isn't to say that I undertsand the logic of subatomic particles, but I understand that what I know about them does not contradict itself - unlike pseudoscience where the conclusions so often do not follow from the arguments or the argument do not follow from the premises.

Religious people who are adamantly against science (like evolution or carbon dating), who refuse to admit that genesis is just plain false in spite of the overwhelming evidence, are showing their willingness to believe anything that bolsters their preconceived notions about reality while dimissing anything that does not.

To latch on to such pathetic arguments in an attempt to cling to an ABSURD view of reality is one of the most pathetic states of man - to deny his own mind. The very thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the kingdom animalia - our ability to reason and understand. Our ability to leverage our superior brain to objevtively and skeptically test our reality to gain understanding is exactly the thing that these (not all) religious people would deny themselves. To do that is to reduce them to an emotional state - a state in which arguments that rely on emotions or feelings take place over those that rely upon logic and evidence.

To accept Genesis as fact is pure stubborn self-imposed ignorance.

 

[Touring Mars]

The article on the answersingenesis.org website (a blatantly creationist website) is pure pseudoscientific junk. A quick trawl through the reference list should ring a few alarm bells for a kick-off... a few big names, yes... like Science, Nature and New Scientist. Must be real science, eh? But what about the rest... most are from either Creation or TJ (Both are answersingenesis.org own publications... ), the Proceedings of the 1st and 4th International Conference on Creationism, Carl Wieland (a creationist ...), A.A. Snelling (and another...) and last but not least, the Institute for Creation Research. Forgive me for being a tad underwhelmed by the quality of the sources...

It's really worrying (not to mention irritating) that Creationists are (dare I say it) evolving. They have changed their approach more often than there are species of higher animals on this (ancient) planet, and yet, people seem prepared to believe their nonsense because, well, why do people believe them again?? Because they exploit the fact that people believe the Bible, therefore you should believe them. I couldn't disagree with them more. Why should you believe their patent falsehoods just because you believe in the Bible? Why should you swallow their tripe that the Earth is a young Earth, just because their interpretation of the Bible says it is? Why not trust your own faith and trust your own common sense? Believing in the Bible and being a real and objective scientist need not be mutually exclusive. But Creationists will have you accept their beliefs, whether they are right or wrong. And it is not up for question. In true science, nothing is "not up for question". We used to be believe the Earth was young. We now know better. Why? Objective science and reasoning, many years of careful observation, and reportage in the real scientific literature lead us to draw this reliable and robust scientific conclusion. Creation, TJ, answersingenesis etc. have none of that. They are self-referential rubbish that have no scientific merit whatsoever, distort the facts to suit their own message, and are based upon subjective opinion and not objective reason. For a slightly more balanced approach, try looking at www.talkorigins.org, or click some of the smileys in my sig...

 

[Touring Mars]

Quick question to anyone who believes the young Earth theory... do you also think that the whole (known) Universe is only 6000 years old too? Or is it just our Earth? Just wondering... I'd be interested to hear any of your thoughts about that.

The way I see it, it would stand to reason that if you think the Earth was created (by intelligent design) about 6000 years ago, then you would also think that the rest of the solar system was also created at that time? Or is it just Earth?

 

[vladimir]

Quick question to anyone who believes the young Earth theory... do you also think that the whole (known) Universe is only 6000 years old too? Or is it just our Earth? Just wondering... I'd be interested to hear any of your thoughts about that.

The way I see it, it would stand to reason that if you think the Earth was created (by intelligent design) about 6000 years ago, then you would also think that the rest of the solar system was also created at that time? Or is it just Earth?

which universe? its all just painted on the ceiling!

 

[James2097]

Quick question to anyone who believes the young Earth theory... do you also think that the whole (known) Universe is only 6000 years old too? Or is it just our Earth? Just wondering... I'd be interested to hear any of your thoughts about that.

The way I see it, it would stand to reason that if you think the Earth was created (by intelligent design) about 6000 years ago, then you would also think that the rest of the solar system was also created at that time? Or is it just Earth?

Its a worry. At Melbourne University, a poll of all the 1st year science students revealed that a large percentage (30% or something? Its similar to in the states...)
said they believed in creationism, coupled with those who said they weren't sure and that creationism could have some merit. Its completely AGAINST all objective reasoning, which is the basis of science! That this many science students think this way is a true sign the world has gone nuts and the sky will fall on our heads!
Are they on crack?

 

[Touring Mars]

1st year science students

Are they on crack?

probably