12285 cr points
Send Message:   19 / M / Nashville, TN
 Online
|
redfinger1 wrote:
digs wrote:
It's easy to dismantle evolution, it's not factual. I am a biology student and in my courses my teachers have discussed how things evolved and where we get certain processes from. What they teach isn't factual and it rely's on blind faith in scientific anomalies in order to have a desired outcome. Literally, when it comes to ambiogenesis there is no reputable argument for a naturalistic world view. I have heard things such as all life came from aliens, or that amino acids on a meteorite are responsible for the first life. If you study biology you'll see that even at the most basic levels there is grand organization and none of that is random. Things function orderly and were designed as such. Yesterday in my cell biology class we were studying DNA and the intricacies of it. It couldn't have evolved or randomly set up. The first living thing could not have naturally spawned. Biology screams and declares that there was a designer, scientists can try to explain how something may have happened my random chance, but it fails and frankly is highly illogical when considered the facts. In the US, NASA has scientists listening for radio signals out in space, they are hoping to hear an organized repetitive signal in hopes of believing that it came from intelligent life. Biology screams this, we have a designed form of life yet naturalists dismiss it because it would be belief in a designer. Science is probably one of the most corrupt communities. Throughout history we find science pushing things that aren't scientific purely because of pride or a hidden agenda. The Catholic church wanted complete power over Europe, they said the world was flat, and scientist who disagreed was imprisoned or killed (fun fact, the Bible actually states that the earth is round and is suspended in space by nothing, breaking the past belief that the earth is flat and it supported by something). Even now we see a hijack in science in order to push the view of global warming. Global warming through anthropogenic climate change is proven to be wrong and isn't even happening! Yet scientists still push for it even though the facts are against them. Instead they find some way of explaining a way and cling to their belief and refuse to be refuted. The same thing is happening with evolution. The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science, and we see blatant hatred and disrespect for anyone who challenges evolution. They are branded as ignorant theists or unscientific morons and have no right in any scientific discussion. They already hold dogmatically that evolution is fact and ignore all contradictory evidence and blatantly flame and bash anyone who opposes the theory. Within the evolutionary community there is little consensus regarding the finer things, they one thing the agree on is that evolution must have happened. The solar system is unique, and these scientists can't rationally explain how it was created. The hold to vague things in order to explain away issues brought against them. The planet Mercury is too dense for the evolutionary model to work, therefore scientists say that something had to hit Mercury and throw off all it's less dense mass. They say Uranus was hit by an object and that is why it tilts. Things are explained through guesses and stated as "we are already right, therefore these things must have happened." The argument against religion is almost always "man wrote the Bible, man is flawed, therefore the Bible is flawed.(which can be refuted)" Why not apply the same logic to science? "Man is flawed, science is a product of man, past history proves that contradictory evidence is ignored for political and prideful goals, therefore science is flawed." Science is flawed, naturalism has hijacked it and the world's governments manipulate what is pushed. There are scientific reasons for believing in Biblical creationism, and honestly it displays ignorance when people walk in here and flame away with comments and stereotyping young earth creationists. Man doesn't know everything, and evolution is proven to be false. Scientists place blind faith in this theory because it explains why their may not be a deity. I mean absolutely no disrespect in my post and I respect all people of all views. Some of my closest friends are atheists who believe strongly in naturalistic evolution and Christians who believe in theological evolution. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I sincerely believe that young earth creationists are unfairly descriminated against and treated with disrespect. There are proofs for YEC, there is some supporting evidence for the theory of evolution, but it isn't right that science clings to evolution and pushes away everything else and flames/discriminates against anyone who holds an opposing view. The same mistakes are being made that were made hundreds of years ago within the scientific community.
actually the bible states the earth was flat, and it is supported with a supporting pillars, with the sun revolving around the earth, and the earth being in the center of the universe...ooops, there is no mention of the universe, nor another planets, must not exist, if it is not in the bible's creation, no moon mentioned in the bible, so it doesnt exist, stars must be fake, and not exist, because it is not in the bible...
The Bible never says that, in fact here are the verses from it that state otherwise. Isaiah 40:22He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
The Bible never says the earth is flat, or that pillars support it. Contrary it says the earth is a circle and that it is suspended in nothing (space). The Bible never says the earth is the center of the universe either... The Bible does mention the planets, but they are called the heavens, it doesn't list all eight and say "then God made Jupiter..." And the moon is mentioned in the Bible, it is called the lesser light that will rule by night when God created the sun and the moon. Again, God also says that He set them in the "Expanses of the sky," meaning in space. Gen 1:16 God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. Gen 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
@JJT2- Actually, the Bible is very accurate and hasn't been revised. The translation process isn't by taking already existing translations and retranslating those. All the translation go back to the original copies that we have and do their best to academically translate what is there. Before Jesus the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek and there wasn't a problem with that either. (the Septuagint). The Bible may be old, but because it contains the word's of God it can stand the test of time. Maybe some of the translated words aren't to the best of what they could be, but the message is still the same. The Bible isn't God, the text isn't God, rather it contains the Mind of God and is the Word's of God.
My personal opinion is that science and religion can go together. I view science as the study of God's creation (everything we can see and observe). This is also how many of the world's greatest scientists viewed science. Newton is a good example.
And you are right, most Christians are hypocrites and act just as the pharisees did. Christians shouldn't live based on "Christian" traditions, rather we should live according to God's Word and in relationship with Him.
|
8728 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Online
|
digs wrote:
redfinger1 wrote:
digs wrote:
It's easy to dismantle evolution, it's not factual. I am a biology student and in my courses my teachers have discussed how things evolved and where we get certain processes from. What they teach isn't factual and it rely's on blind faith in scientific anomalies in order to have a desired outcome. Literally, when it comes to ambiogenesis there is no reputable argument for a naturalistic world view. I have heard things such as all life came from aliens, or that amino acids on a meteorite are responsible for the first life. If you study biology you'll see that even at the most basic levels there is grand organization and none of that is random. Things function orderly and were designed as such. Yesterday in my cell biology class we were studying DNA and the intricacies of it. It couldn't have evolved or randomly set up. The first living thing could not have naturally spawned. Biology screams and declares that there was a designer, scientists can try to explain how something may have happened my random chance, but it fails and frankly is highly illogical when considered the facts. In the US, NASA has scientists listening for radio signals out in space, they are hoping to hear an organized repetitive signal in hopes of believing that it came from intelligent life. Biology screams this, we have a designed form of life yet naturalists dismiss it because it would be belief in a designer. Science is probably one of the most corrupt communities. Throughout history we find science pushing things that aren't scientific purely because of pride or a hidden agenda. The Catholic church wanted complete power over Europe, they said the world was flat, and scientist who disagreed was imprisoned or killed (fun fact, the Bible actually states that the earth is round and is suspended in space by nothing, breaking the past belief that the earth is flat and it supported by something). Even now we see a hijack in science in order to push the view of global warming. Global warming through anthropogenic climate change is proven to be wrong and isn't even happening! Yet scientists still push for it even though the facts are against them. Instead they find some way of explaining a way and cling to their belief and refuse to be refuted. The same thing is happening with evolution. The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science, and we see blatant hatred and disrespect for anyone who challenges evolution. They are branded as ignorant theists or unscientific morons and have no right in any scientific discussion. They already hold dogmatically that evolution is fact and ignore all contradictory evidence and blatantly flame and bash anyone who opposes the theory. Within the evolutionary community there is little consensus regarding the finer things, they one thing the agree on is that evolution must have happened. The solar system is unique, and these scientists can't rationally explain how it was created. The hold to vague things in order to explain away issues brought against them. The planet Mercury is too dense for the evolutionary model to work, therefore scientists say that something had to hit Mercury and throw off all it's less dense mass. They say Uranus was hit by an object and that is why it tilts. Things are explained through guesses and stated as "we are already right, therefore these things must have happened." The argument against religion is almost always "man wrote the Bible, man is flawed, therefore the Bible is flawed.(which can be refuted)" Why not apply the same logic to science? "Man is flawed, science is a product of man, past history proves that contradictory evidence is ignored for political and prideful goals, therefore science is flawed." Science is flawed, naturalism has hijacked it and the world's governments manipulate what is pushed. There are scientific reasons for believing in Biblical creationism, and honestly it displays ignorance when people walk in here and flame away with comments and stereotyping young earth creationists. Man doesn't know everything, and evolution is proven to be false. Scientists place blind faith in this theory because it explains why their may not be a deity. I mean absolutely no disrespect in my post and I respect all people of all views. Some of my closest friends are atheists who believe strongly in naturalistic evolution and Christians who believe in theological evolution. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I sincerely believe that young earth creationists are unfairly descriminated against and treated with disrespect. There are proofs for YEC, there is some supporting evidence for the theory of evolution, but it isn't right that science clings to evolution and pushes away everything else and flames/discriminates against anyone who holds an opposing view. The same mistakes are being made that were made hundreds of years ago within the scientific community.
actually the bible states the earth was flat, and it is supported with a supporting pillars, with the sun revolving around the earth, and the earth being in the center of the universe...ooops, there is no mention of the universe, nor another planets, must not exist, if it is not in the bible's creation, no moon mentioned in the bible, so it doesnt exist, stars must be fake, and not exist, because it is not in the bible...
The Bible never says that, in fact here are the verses from it that state otherwise. Isaiah 40:22He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
The Bible never says the earth is flat, or that pillars support it. Contrary it says the earth is a circle and that it is suspended in nothing (space). The Bible never says the earth is the center of the universe either... The Bible does mention the planets, but they are called the heavens, it doesn't list all eight and say "then God made Jupiter..." And the moon is mentioned in the Bible, it is called the lesser light that will rule by night when God created the sun and the moon. Again, God also says that He set them in the "Expanses of the sky," meaning in space. Gen 1:16 God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. Gen 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
@JJT2- Actually, the Bible is very accurate and hasn't been revised. The translation process isn't by taking already existing translations and retranslating those. All the translation go back to the original copies that we have and do their best to academically translate what is there. Before Jesus the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek and there wasn't a problem with that either. (the Septuagint). The Bible may be old, but because it contains the word's of God it can stand the test of time. Maybe some of the translated words aren't to the best of what they could be, but the message is still the same. The Bible isn't God, the text isn't God, rather it contains the Mind of God and is the Word's of God.
My personal opinion is that science and religion can go together. I view science as the study of God's creation (everything we can see and observe). This is also how many of the world's greatest scientists viewed science. Newton is a good example.
And you are right, most Christians are hypocrites and act just as the pharisees did. Christians shouldn't live based on "Christian" traditions, rather we should live according to God's Word and in relationship with Him.
Circle of earth was meant like a plate flat but its a circle.
There was pillars that held heaven above earth.
So he is right wen he said the bible said earth was flat.
What happens wen you stand on a mountain and look around you. You see the earth and it looks like a circle that goes out so far than drops off. That is what there talking about wen they say circle.
Is the moon a light now? Last time I looked it does not give off light, but light reflects off it from the sun.
|
11065 cr points
Send Message: 26 / M / Tennessee
 Offline
|
Bashing fundamentalists is fun and all but it won't get you anywhere. People are going to believe whatever they are going to believe and if they are over 20 then they've heard all the logic on the matter they are going to hear and if they haven't changed their minds then they are not going to. Bottom line is regardless of how old the Earth is doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a God. Most things written in the bible or any older religious texts are little more then people explaining things with the knowledge they had at the time which pre-dates nearly all forms of modern science.
|
5695 cr points
Send Message: 52 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
|
( I can't figure out which Bible these people are reading ! ! ............... is it because I happen to know the earth is a sphere that I blocked out of my mind the book, chapt., & vs. saying it's a plate shape on columns? wwwwhhhaaaa? Gotta get my concordance later and figure this out. Wait! maybe they don't know about the "poetic" secrets of scripture! that's it ! they haven't studied much from the translations of ancient greek or aramaic languages in relationship to other non-Biblical writings of the same time period to know how the languages were used in the literature of their day..... it's not so much the literal message as it is the literary style! just where are these people getting their Bible lessons anyway? some of those "questioners" aren't even professing to believe in the Bible, so I can't be sure if they've even truly read it-- some of them, but not all........ m00nsh1ne is right, one must consider the original readers of the religious texts in connection with the knowledge available in their day....... but then when viewed with an open mind for the wider truths of an infinite God, today ! -- the Bible CAN be a pretty cool science book, too.............. hmmmm..........)
The SCIENCE of GOD The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom , by Gerald L. Schroeder
(here's another viewpoint for any open minded Christians & non-religious persons out there, suggested reading only & will accept the recommendations of others. Please read the above parenthetical musings as somewhat tongue-in-cheek, no LITERAL offense intended toward anyone, honest!)
|
2544 cr points
Send Message: 18 / M / Holland
Offline
|
Its based on personal believe.
Its ether you believe the proof SCIENCE has given, or you believe a over hundred times translated, 2000 year old book.
It is what works best for you.
|
|
|
i don't think most people realize these known facts are still just considered theories
carbon dating isn't really accurate.. even so, i don't think the world is just 6000 years old XD
i'd accept the theory that it may be younger but it being just that young though would be pure bogus..
|
325 cr points
Send Message: 19 / F / Florida
Offline
|
Now, saying that Earth is only 6000 years old is silly. I belive it to be much older.
ThroneRoomGuardian wrote:
Its based on personal believe.
Its ether you believe the proof SCIENCE has given, or you believe a over hundred times translated, 2000 year old book.
It is what works best for you.
Only the New Testament is around 2000 years old. The oldest text in the Bible is from the 12th century before Christ.
Also, I don't know how it is in english volumes, but in my Polish edition of the Bible, there are many notes on the bottom of the text, explaining what does a word or a sentence exactly means in the original Hebrew, or Greek (depends wheather it is Old or New Testament). |
8728 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Online
|
theOzymandias wrote:
It took hundreds of millions of years for the Earth to cool down enough to even begin the development of a biosphere. Those who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old can be offended all they want by what the leading scientific minds of the world know, the truth does not discriminate. They are just upset that an unbiased, logic-driven examination of the facts, has yielded a contradiction to the "Adam & Eve" story.
'I agree...'
|
746 cr points
Send Message: 19 / F / Canada
Offline
|
"The Earth is only 6000 years old."
No...no. It isn't. And explaining the science behind why it isn't would be a waste of time on these people because they clearly do not have the brain capacity to understand it. ...I won't even get started on my disdain for religion.
|
12285 cr points
Send Message: 19 / M / Nashville, TN
Online
|
So much disrespect and offensive speech towards those who believe the earth is several thousand years old... Sound science proves it, there is a case for it, but humanity refuses to acknowledge faults or the fact that there is a God. Evolution, the age of the universe, and most of science dealing with the origins is spun and corrupted to comply with the secular philosophy of naturalism. There are so many problems if the universe was billions of years old or if the earth evolved. With such blatant and severe censorship and offensive speech towards believers in a young world or creation just shows how desperate the "scientific" community fears being contradicted.
|
8728 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Online
|
digs wrote:
So much disrespect and offensive speech towards those who believe the earth is several thousand years old... Sound science proves it, there is a case for it, but humanity refuses to acknowledge faults or the fact that there is a God. Evolution, the age of the universe, and most of science dealing with the origins is spun and corrupted to comply with the secular philosophy of naturalism. There are so many problems if the universe was billions of years old or if the earth evolved. With such blatant and severe censorship and offensive speech towards believers in a young world or creation just shows how desperate the "scientific" community fears being contradicted.
There are civilizations older than your saying earth is. That alone shows your scientific so could evidence can not be true.
The oldest known civilization been around since 8000 BC. There has been Cave panting over 15000 BC.
3000 BC is wen the Bronze age started... The Bronze Age is regarded as the second part of a three-age system for prehistoric societies.
Bronze Age
(3300–1200 BC)
Early Bronze Age
(3300–2200 BC)
Early Bronze Age I 3300–3000 BC
Early Bronze Age II 3000–2700 BC
Early Bronze Age III 2700–2200 BC
Middle Bronze Age
(2200–1550 BC)
Middle Bronze Age I 2200–2000 BC
Middle Bronze Age II A 2000–1750 BC
Middle Bronze Age II B 1750–1650 BC
Middle Bronze Age II C 1650–1550 BC
Late Bronze Age
(1550–1200 BC)
Late Bronze Age I 1550–1400 BC
Late Bronze Age II A 1400–1300 BC
Late Bronze Age II B 1300–1200 BC
How far back do you think we can go back for the Stone Age!
super-volcano and Known super eruptions!
Estimates of the volume of ejected material are given in parentheses.
* Lake Taupo, North Island, New Zealand - Oruanui eruption ~26,500 years ago (~1,170 km³)
* Lake Toba, Sumatra, Indonesia - ~75,000 years ago (~2,800 km³)
* Whakamaru North Island, New Zealand - Whakamaru Ignimbrite/Mount Curl Tephra ~254,000 years ago (1,200-2,000 km³)[7]
* Yellowstone Caldera, Wyoming, United States - 640,000 years ago (1,000 km³)
* Island Park Caldera, Idaho/Wyoming, United States - 2.1 million years ago(2,500 km³)
* Kilgore Tuff, Idaho, United States - 4.5 million years ago (1,800 km³)
* Blacktail Creek, Idaho, United States - 6.6 million years ago (1,500 km³)
* La Garita Caldera, Colorado, United States - Source of the truly enormous eruption of the Fish Canyon Tuff ~27.8 million years ago (~5,000 km³)
oldest known zoomorphic statuette, Aurignacian era, 30000 BC-26000 BC
all this information is reliable and is backed up..
|
12285 cr points
Send Message: 19 / M / Nashville, TN
Online
|
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
digs wrote:
So much disrespect and offensive speech towards those who believe the earth is several thousand years old... Sound science proves it, there is a case for it, but humanity refuses to acknowledge faults or the fact that there is a God. Evolution, the age of the universe, and most of science dealing with the origins is spun and corrupted to comply with the secular philosophy of naturalism. There are so many problems if the universe was billions of years old or if the earth evolved. With such blatant and severe censorship and offensive speech towards believers in a young world or creation just shows how desperate the "scientific" community fears being contradicted.
There are civilizations older than your saying earth is. That alone shows your scientific so could evidence can not be true.
The oldest known civilization been around since 8000 BC. There has been Cave panting over 15000 BC.
3000 BC is wen the Bronze age started... The Bronze Age is regarded as the second part of a three-age system for prehistoric societies.
Bronze Age
(3300–1200 BC)
Early Bronze Age
(3300–2200 BC)
Early Bronze Age I 3300–3000 BC
Early Bronze Age II 3000–2700 BC
Early Bronze Age III 2700–2200 BC
Middle Bronze Age
(2200–1550 BC)
Middle Bronze Age I 2200–2000 BC
Middle Bronze Age II A 2000–1750 BC
Middle Bronze Age II B 1750–1650 BC
Middle Bronze Age II C 1650–1550 BC
Late Bronze Age
(1550–1200 BC)
Late Bronze Age I 1550–1400 BC
Late Bronze Age II A 1400–1300 BC
Late Bronze Age II B 1300–1200 BC
How far back do you think we can go back for the Stone Age!
super-volcano and Known super eruptions!
Estimates of the volume of ejected material are given in parentheses.
* Lake Taupo, North Island, New Zealand - Oruanui eruption ~26,500 years ago (~1,170 km³)
* Lake Toba, Sumatra, Indonesia - ~75,000 years ago (~2,800 km³)
* Whakamaru North Island, New Zealand - Whakamaru Ignimbrite/Mount Curl Tephra ~254,000 years ago (1,200-2,000 km³)[7]
* Yellowstone Caldera, Wyoming, United States - 640,000 years ago (1,000 km³)
* Island Park Caldera, Idaho/Wyoming, United States - 2.1 million years ago(2,500 km³)
* Kilgore Tuff, Idaho, United States - 4.5 million years ago (1,800 km³)
* Blacktail Creek, Idaho, United States - 6.6 million years ago (1,500 km³)
* La Garita Caldera, Colorado, United States - Source of the truly enormous eruption of the Fish Canyon Tuff ~27.8 million years ago (~5,000 km³)
oldest known zoomorphic statuette, Aurignacian era, 30000 BC-26000 BC
all this information is reliable and is backed up..
I would like to see the source and how they dated these things. Here is scientific evidence that is also backed up. We know as fact that the earliest written records of humanity are roughly 4,000-5,000 years old... Why would mankind make things and paint things but not right until 10,000 years later?
http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look. Besides, we have proofs that show the earth can't be billions or millions of years old.
|
8728 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Online
|
digs wrote:
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
digs wrote:
So much disrespect and offensive speech towards those who believe the earth is several thousand years old... Sound science proves it, there is a case for it, but humanity refuses to acknowledge faults or the fact that there is a God. Evolution, the age of the universe, and most of science dealing with the origins is spun and corrupted to comply with the secular philosophy of naturalism. There are so many problems if the universe was billions of years old or if the earth evolved. With such blatant and severe censorship and offensive speech towards believers in a young world or creation just shows how desperate the "scientific" community fears being contradicted.
There are civilizations older than your saying earth is. That alone shows your scientific so could evidence can not be true.
The oldest known civilization been around since 8000 BC. There has been Cave panting over 15000 BC.
3000 BC is wen the Bronze age started... The Bronze Age is regarded as the second part of a three-age system for prehistoric societies.
Bronze Age
(3300–1200 BC)
Early Bronze Age
(3300–2200 BC)
Early Bronze Age I 3300–3000 BC
Early Bronze Age II 3000–2700 BC
Early Bronze Age III 2700–2200 BC
Middle Bronze Age
(2200–1550 BC)
Middle Bronze Age I 2200–2000 BC
Middle Bronze Age II A 2000–1750 BC
Middle Bronze Age II B 1750–1650 BC
Middle Bronze Age II C 1650–1550 BC
Late Bronze Age
(1550–1200 BC)
Late Bronze Age I 1550–1400 BC
Late Bronze Age II A 1400–1300 BC
Late Bronze Age II B 1300–1200 BC
How far back do you think we can go back for the Stone Age!
super-volcano and Known super eruptions!
Estimates of the volume of ejected material are given in parentheses.
* Lake Taupo, North Island, New Zealand - Oruanui eruption ~26,500 years ago (~1,170 km³)
* Lake Toba, Sumatra, Indonesia - ~75,000 years ago (~2,800 km³)
* Whakamaru North Island, New Zealand - Whakamaru Ignimbrite/Mount Curl Tephra ~254,000 years ago (1,200-2,000 km³)[7]
* Yellowstone Caldera, Wyoming, United States - 640,000 years ago (1,000 km³)
* Island Park Caldera, Idaho/Wyoming, United States - 2.1 million years ago(2,500 km³)
* Kilgore Tuff, Idaho, United States - 4.5 million years ago (1,800 km³)
* Blacktail Creek, Idaho, United States - 6.6 million years ago (1,500 km³)
* La Garita Caldera, Colorado, United States - Source of the truly enormous eruption of the Fish Canyon Tuff ~27.8 million years ago (~5,000 km³)
oldest known zoomorphic statuette, Aurignacian era, 30000 BC-26000 BC
all this information is reliable and is backed up..
I would like to see the source and how they dated these things. Here is scientific evidence that is also backed up. We know as fact that the earliest written records of humanity are roughly 4,000-5,000 years old... Why would mankind make things and paint things but not right until 10,000 years later?
http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look. Besides, we have proofs that show the earth can't be billions or millions of years old.
I got a challenge for you Digs. Find a resource / evidence that is not on a creationist web site do that will you. (can you find evidence for your claims without having to go to a creationist website for them. You think you be able to find them else where if there facts. )
|
12285 cr points
Send Message: 19 / M / Nashville, TN
Online
|
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
digs wrote:
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
digs wrote:
So much disrespect and offensive speech towards those who believe the earth is several thousand years old... Sound science proves it, there is a case for it, but humanity refuses to acknowledge faults or the fact that there is a God. Evolution, the age of the universe, and most of science dealing with the origins is spun and corrupted to comply with the secular philosophy of naturalism. There are so many problems if the universe was billions of years old or if the earth evolved. With such blatant and severe censorship and offensive speech towards believers in a young world or creation just shows how desperate the "scientific" community fears being contradicted.
There are civilizations older than your saying earth is. That alone shows your scientific so could evidence can not be true.
The oldest known civilization been around since 8000 BC. There has been Cave panting over 15000 BC.
3000 BC is wen the Bronze age started... The Bronze Age is regarded as the second part of a three-age system for prehistoric societies.
Bronze Age
(3300–1200 BC)
Early Bronze Age
(3300–2200 BC)
Early Bronze Age I 3300–3000 BC
Early Bronze Age II 3000–2700 BC
Early Bronze Age III 2700–2200 BC
Middle Bronze Age
(2200–1550 BC)
Middle Bronze Age I 2200–2000 BC
Middle Bronze Age II A 2000–1750 BC
Middle Bronze Age II B 1750–1650 BC
Middle Bronze Age II C 1650–1550 BC
Late Bronze Age
(1550–1200 BC)
Late Bronze Age I 1550–1400 BC
Late Bronze Age II A 1400–1300 BC
Late Bronze Age II B 1300–1200 BC
How far back do you think we can go back for the Stone Age!
super-volcano and Known super eruptions!
Estimates of the volume of ejected material are given in parentheses.
* Lake Taupo, North Island, New Zealand - Oruanui eruption ~26,500 years ago (~1,170 km³)
* Lake Toba, Sumatra, Indonesia - ~75,000 years ago (~2,800 km³)
* Whakamaru North Island, New Zealand - Whakamaru Ignimbrite/Mount Curl Tephra ~254,000 years ago (1,200-2,000 km³)[7]
* Yellowstone Caldera, Wyoming, United States - 640,000 years ago (1,000 km³)
* Island Park Caldera, Idaho/Wyoming, United States - 2.1 million years ago(2,500 km³)
* Kilgore Tuff, Idaho, United States - 4.5 million years ago (1,800 km³)
* Blacktail Creek, Idaho, United States - 6.6 million years ago (1,500 km³)
* La Garita Caldera, Colorado, United States - Source of the truly enormous eruption of the Fish Canyon Tuff ~27.8 million years ago (~5,000 km³)
oldest known zoomorphic statuette, Aurignacian era, 30000 BC-26000 BC
all this information is reliable and is backed up..
I would like to see the source and how they dated these things. Here is scientific evidence that is also backed up. We know as fact that the earliest written records of humanity are roughly 4,000-5,000 years old... Why would mankind make things and paint things but not right until 10,000 years later?
http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look. Besides, we have proofs that show the earth can't be billions or millions of years old.
I got a challenge for you Digs. Find a resource / evidence that is not on a creationist web site do that will you. (can you find evidence for your claims without having to go to a creationist website for them. You think you be able to find them else where if there facts. )
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm Here is one with more information then most creationist sites. It isn't religiously backed and is discussing why science does not support the evolutionary theory. They are called Science Against Evolution.
|
8728 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Online
|
digs wrote:
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
digs wrote:
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
digs wrote:
So much disrespect and offensive speech towards those who believe the earth is several thousand years old... Sound science proves it, there is a case for it, but humanity refuses to acknowledge faults or the fact that there is a God. Evolution, the age of the universe, and most of science dealing with the origins is spun and corrupted to comply with the secular philosophy of naturalism. There are so many problems if the universe was billions of years old or if the earth evolved. With such blatant and severe censorship and offensive speech towards believers in a young world or creation just shows how desperate the "scientific" community fears being contradicted.
There are civilizations older than your saying earth is. That alone shows your scientific so could evidence can not be true.
The oldest known civilization been around since 8000 BC. There has been Cave panting over 15000 BC.
3000 BC is wen the Bronze age started... The Bronze Age is regarded as the second part of a three-age system for prehistoric societies.
Bronze Age
(3300–1200 BC)
Early Bronze Age
(3300–2200 BC)
Early Bronze Age I 3300–3000 BC
Early Bronze Age II 3000–2700 BC
Early Bronze Age III 2700–2200 BC
Middle Bronze Age
(2200–1550 BC)
Middle Bronze Age I 2200–2000 BC
Middle Bronze Age II A 2000–1750 BC
Middle Bronze Age II B 1750–1650 BC
Middle Bronze Age II C 1650–1550 BC
Late Bronze Age
(1550–1200 BC)
Late Bronze Age I 1550–1400 BC
Late Bronze Age II A 1400–1300 BC
Late Bronze Age II B 1300–1200 BC
How far back do you think we can go back for the Stone Age!
super-volcano and Known super eruptions!
Estimates of the volume of ejected material are given in parentheses.
* Lake Taupo, North Island, New Zealand - Oruanui eruption ~26,500 years ago (~1,170 km³)
* Lake Toba, Sumatra, Indonesia - ~75,000 years ago (~2,800 km³)
* Whakamaru North Island, New Zealand - Whakamaru Ignimbrite/Mount Curl Tephra ~254,000 years ago (1,200-2,000 km³)[7]
* Yellowstone Caldera, Wyoming, United States - 640,000 years ago (1,000 km³)
* Island Park Caldera, Idaho/Wyoming, United States - 2.1 million years ago(2,500 km³)
* Kilgore Tuff, Idaho, United States - 4.5 million years ago (1,800 km³)
* Blacktail Creek, Idaho, United States - 6.6 million years ago (1,500 km³)
* La Garita Caldera, Colorado, United States - Source of the truly enormous eruption of the Fish Canyon Tuff ~27.8 million years ago (~5,000 km³)
oldest known zoomorphic statuette, Aurignacian era, 30000 BC-26000 BC
all this information is reliable and is backed up..
I would like to see the source and how they dated these things. Here is scientific evidence that is also backed up. We know as fact that the earliest written records of humanity are roughly 4,000-5,000 years old... Why would mankind make things and paint things but not right until 10,000 years later?
http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look. Besides, we have proofs that show the earth can't be billions or millions of years old.
I got a challenge for you Digs. Find a resource / evidence that is not on a creationist web site do that will you. (can you find evidence for your claims without having to go to a creationist website for them. You think you be able to find them else where if there facts. )
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm Here is one with more information then most creationist sites. It isn't religiously backed and is discussing why science does not support the evolutionary theory. They are called Science Against Evolution.
I am looking at it right now.. but just so you know for the age of dinosaur it used this sight as a reference. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm (Cr+)
once I read every bit of it I will get back to you with a long winded points. But for now just on age of the planets they gave no real evidence for there claims other than second hand accounts of people claiming 1000 years ago about seeing a Dragon.
So far for your none creationist forum this sight uses a lot of the bible as proclamations for facts. Odd hmm.
I get back to you after I see some real scientific evidence for what there claiming in it. If any at all. I love to see the evidence for there claims after all. (I like to learn new things..)
|
Post Reply
Favorite
The Earth is only 6,000 years old! 
