It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

6000 year old earth

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yeah cool story bro.

Dude earned a doctorate from a secular university in that field.

Your references may also be neat but honestly I don't believe in caves older then Adam based on slowly growing existing speleothem, unless you have a rational argument?




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

citation required



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Sure thing: en.wikipedia.org...

I learned he studied biochemistry at Berkeley, so dude knows what calcite is probably.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

But he never wrote this, your infamous quote without an author:


In Sequoia Caverns, stalactites protected from tourists from 1977-1987 grew 10 inches or 1 inch / year. At this rate they could have grown 300 ft in just 3600 years.


If the above is true and you and creationwiki are not lying then show us the reference.
You haven't yet because it has been made up.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
Comparing calcium sulfate with calcium carbonate.... that's not real science, pal.


His argument is hilarious. It's like saying that rubber and plastic are the same thing and one of them melting faster in a fire proves that the other one can. Pure nonsense.

Even if the quote from creationwiki is true, it doesn't matter because he's not a professional in the field or an authority on the subject.
edit on 3 23 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
ROFLMAO

you have got to be taking the piss

gish is NOT a professional anything [ unless idiot is now a profession ] and certainly no geologist

if you want to give citations on cave morphology try john gunn or trevor ford


Yup. He keeps claiming that he's not lying yet he calls this guy a geological professional, which is a flat out lie.


Duane Tolbert Gish (February 17, 1921 – March 5, 2013[1]) was an American biochemist and a prominent member of the creationist movement.[2] A Young Earth creationist, Gish was a former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the author of numerous publications about creation science.


The fact that he's VP of ICR says all I need to know about him. He was the furthest thing from an expert on geology. LMAO. Biochemistry is not geology. He was a former biochemist (possibly) turned young earth creationist.
edit on 3 23 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Chemistry is not his strong point. I had to recluse myself from this discussion when I saw that level of ignorance.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Neighbour do you even chemistry? Do you understand the difference between the chemicals involved? Or do you you follow the duck analogy for every thing (if it looks like a duck, moves like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is thus a duck, not a goose, or any other water fowl) ?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Hey everyone! Just a thought on the 6000 year old earth. This isn't about creationism, deism, or arguing whether or not a creator exists, but rather about this specific topic alone. I realize this point has been debated over and over, but I do have something I'd like to say on the matter.

I was always taught, since I was a kid, that God's day and years are different than ours. He lives.. on, near, in.. Whatever a star/planet/place that one rotation, as in, a day, takes a thousand of our Earth years.

This would make the "6000 year old earth " theory close to..2190000000 years old.

That's 2.1 billion - Now, some say the 6000 number may be off, some say the 1000 number be off... Regardless, doesn't this make more sense? The earth is.. Billions of years old, even according to the bible...Over 2 billion years actually correlates with our own studies of how old life on earth is ( basic life, but still, the start of life. )

Why are we so high and mighty about ourselves that we think God needs to measure time and space based on our calculations? He probably doesn't care to use "light year" or deem a "year in time" as 365 rotations of the planet earth - Why the hell would he? As I was also taught, since a kid, that he is master of limitless earths, beings, etc... Why are we deeming ourselves so important that any information from God is bound to be in our language, measurements, etc?

Also why are we so determined our dating method is foolproof? Like we can pinpoint some 10-12 digit number to any degree of accuracy? I'm definitely not saying the earth is 6000 human years old, I am saying 6000 years - Adjusted to 2.1 billion human years, is not in any way a false representation of when things on this earth started happening, especially if the two are simply estimates, due to the unreliable nature of The Bible and it's thousands of translations, changes, etc.. and can be assumed to have a margin of error.

Anyways, food for thought! Thanks for reading!

-Deadlyhope

( For the record, I don't really believe in the 6000 year earth myself, in any way. Simply debating the topic for the heck of it. )



If you believe in divine creationism and follow the line of thought all the way through:

Did God create Adam as a newborn?
Did God create Eve as a newborn?
Did God create all the animals as newborns?
Did God create all the plants as "newborn" sprouts?

Why then would you believe God would create the earth, rocks, planets, universe etc. as if it were "newborn"? Everything was created in a mature, functioning, and perfect state.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

I can imagine how magically 'creating' newborn animals and plants wouldnt be too practical as their chances of survival (even in the hilarious 'pre-fall' garden) wouldn't be that great, whereas rocks?

What possible reason would there be for creating such matter with an artificial half-life?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

making ANY assumptions about gishs understandng of science is dammed dangerous

read and chuckle



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

as you have given us the credentials of your " expert " - who TBH i seriously lacking in his understanding of biochemistry

i shall me kind and give you the resumes of my experts :

john gunn

trevor ford

see the difference - mine are real experts - yours is a creationist wingnut



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: wisvol

making ANY assumptions about gishs understandng of science is dammed dangerous

read and chuckle


Don't forget this one.

Gish Gallop



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

The Persians used to believe that the creative force behind everything was not God but a concept they called "boundless time"

That means that everything created sprang forth from a limitless uncreated force, INCLUDING "God".

God is like the appointed master of the clock that is the world, but even God was created by this force. Infinite.

Infinite is God's GOD.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Congrats on naming scientists.

Also yes there are webpage devoted to mocking Dr Duane Gish

Yet the fact that we did go through the vetting process of secular schools proves he does, as I do, know what they teach.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Chemistry is chemistry, calcite stalactites are calcite stalactites, and joyful repetition of enslaving unproven concepts is science

I'll come check back on yous in 1985



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Chemistry of different elements is well DIFFERENT



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
His argument is hilarious. It's like saying that rubber and plastic are the same thing and one of them melting faster in a fire proves that the other one can. Pure nonsense.

Even if the quote from creationwiki is true, it doesn't matter because he's not a professional in the field or an authority on the subject.


Absolutely hilarious and proof that he doesn't understand science at all. He is just copying/pasting from creationist sites. And the quote is not true or he would have posted the original author just to shut me up. But I will never shut up to nonsense.




originally posted by: Noinden
Chemistry is not his strong point. I had to recluse myself from this discussion when I saw that level of ignorance.


I don't mind ignorance, I can have discussions with anybody, but what I can't stand are lies and the moment Wisvol tried to deceive me with a fake quote he said came from a 'Rumanian/Italian' book, that was the moment I knew he was not playing a clean game.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

The really difficult part is attempting to discern the trolls from the true believers. There is such a fine line in far too many posters of late.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

i got kicked out, cultural differences.. But any new and interesting findings?



new topics




 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join