It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Earth cant be billions of years old...

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2004 @ 04:22 PM

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by jhova
I guarantee that people will start dying at a young age, I believe it is starting already.Good health care huh, who can afford it?Science also omes up with more ways to kill then anything else, or make money, not solving the major issues of the world.

No no no no can I put this without offending....Up here in the Great White North we have something called Universal Health Care and its not perfect but it insures that everyone who need health care gets it. It doesn't work all the time and our health care system is underfunded but it isn't the scientist's fault its the gov't who signs the checks. Place blame where blame belongs, on a corrupt and flawed political system who would keep Universal Health Care from its people. And no science does not come up with more ways to kill than to help otherwise our overpopulation problem would be far worse. Its the Military and military scientists who have sold out who comes up with the ideas. Google Military-Industrial Complex its one of the only conspiracy theorys that I've heard of that was proven.

As for evolution being wrong... I agree that Darwinian Evolution has alot of holes in it but its an old theory and im sure there are newer ones out there that build and improve upon Darwin's model. I suggest all those who doubt Evolution to research the topic before debating its validity.

And don't read too much into the bible, I saw some documentary on the Hist chan(forget the name of show) and they pretty much said that the New Testament as it stands today is only the 1st volume in a 12 volume set. All the other holy books have also been translated and edited probably dozens of times so the original content is not there anymore. You don't even know for a fact that the bible you read today is the same one that was first written(Infact I would be really surprised if it even beared a resemblance). Im no Biblical Historian or nothing but I never put stock in anything as fragmented and contradictory as the current bible stands. And yes I have read it, I was forced to as a child....It took me a while to de-brainwash myself

Just me 2 cents worth...if its worth anything to anybody.....

Debate Darwinism with the best of them.Took a semester worth of human evolution, and still was not convinced.As a matter of fact, I am leaning towards other solutions.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 04:26 PM
A thorough look at this and readin gwhat Ed Conran has to say about human evolution, might open some minds

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 05:16 PM
So you're saying because one person says something that "we" must chage our opinions?

Okay, I am actually God in a high school junior's body. That change your opinions/beliefs?

I read a book that "disproved" evolution using creationism. It said "the Bible says this, so I'm gonna distort it to mean this, and then distort evolution to maybe mean this, and therefore Darwin is an idiot" .

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:45 AM

Originally posted by AD5673
The Earth cant be a billion years old because there would be billions of humans on Earth. In 1900 there were about 1 billion people on Earth. One hundred years later it is nearly 10 billion people on Earth. If humanity is eve maybe 40,000 years old there would be nearly 60-100 billion people on Earth. I dont have a link or anything i just thought this up in my head about the Earth's population. What do you people think?

what do I think? I think you're a #ing idiot. read a book for christ sakes. Science > religion, no matter how much you wish it was inverted.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 07:29 AM

what do I think? I think you're a #ing idiot. read a book for christ sakes. Science > religion, no matter how much you wish it was inverted.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 07:47 AM

Originally posted by jhova
Anyone ever heard of the Ica stones?Or artifacts from mexico depicting a civilization lost to us?How about ooparts?If someone took a long look a these things, one might start to question evolution, and our knowledge of history as a whole.

Actually, if you take a long look at these things, you'll start to recognize them as frauds.

You see, the first ones depicted dinosaurs as we thought they looked in the 1920's. There's no sophisitcated treatments and corrected stances there, and the details of the dinos are quite wrong.

Later on, you'll see that they suddenly start taking on a more modern appearance and the more recent ones to turn up look (gee whiz) a lot like the ones on the Discovery Channel and in museums.

This is a hallmark of a fraud.

If they were for real, the stones would have given us information that we didn't know (correct proportions of dinos, correct stances) and which we would have only later found to be correct.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 07:53 AM

Originally posted by jlc163
\They are not just qoting the bible, in fact, I don't remember a lot of scripture dripping from them. These men who write they often quote EVOLUTIONISTS in their arguments.

Actually, they often MISqoute scientists. They've been caught at it numerous times.

Many are scientists, with a DOCTORATE BEHIND THEIR NAME.

And a number of them have fraudulent degrees. No kidding. Many have PhDs in religion, which has very little to do with physics and biology and geology.

[quoteBut seriously, read before you bash.
Before you bash, I am going to point out that I argue Apologetics on a number of Christian boards. I don't have all my material at hand, but the links above have a good deal of misrepresentation and misstated facts. In order to make some of their "facts" work for a new age of earth, they have to basically suspend all the laws of physics and geology and then make their deity out to be a great liar.

Most of those things have long been addressed by TalkOrigins (, I believe). Have you read it?

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 09:03 AM
Alright, I have stayed on the sidelines and watched this thread but I think I shall throw in my 2 cents now. The earth based on today’s theories on physics can not be any older than around a few thousand years old. Lets exam the earths magnetic field for one.

The known decay in the earth's magnetic field and the inexorable depletion of its energy clearly point to an imminent and inevitable end of the earth's magnetic field. A Department of Commerce publication lists evaluations of the strength of the earth's dipole magnet (its main magnet) since Karl Gauss made the first evaluation in the 1830's. It states that the rate of decrease is about 5% per hundred years. It then states that if the decay continues the magnetic field will vanish in A.D. 3391.

This decay has some harmful environmental effects. The earth's magnetic field extends into the space around the earth. This provides a protective shield against cosmic rays and solar wind. The half-life of this decaying magnetic field is 1400 years (meaning that every 1400 years its strength is cut in half). The field strength is now only about one third as strong as it was at the time of Christ. More harmful radiation is penetrating down to the surface of the earth. This is an irreversible degradation of our environment.

Horace Lamb predicted this decay in an 1883 theoretical paper on the source of the earth's magnetic field. Looking backward in time, in the light of his theory and the present known decay rate, and assuming the maximum plausible initial strength, puts an age limit on the earth's magnet of only a few thousand years.

Evolutionary geologists assume that there 'is some type of dynamo mechanism sustaining the earth's magnet. No one has yet come up with an acceptable theory for such a dynamo. That mechanism is supposed to be able to reverse the direction of the earth's magnet. They assume that this magnet has not been decaying continually but has reversed back and forth many times for billions of years. They must hold to a long age or it is the death knell for the whole theory of evolution. Reversal phenomena are "read" into the magnetization of accessible rocks in the crust of the earth. The literature shows real problems and some self-contradictions with those interpretations.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 10:58 AM
if you could post a couple of links regarding any of the information you just stated, i'd love to see it.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 11:04 AM
The first and last one are the best. Knock yourself out.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by kinglizard
Again the people you are quoting have an agenda, which makes for bad science. They are religious CREATIONISTS attempting to prove their literal interpretation of the bible with bad science. I provided you with quotes from NASA, United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Energy and the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council regarding the age of the Earth. These groups are leading scientific organizations with no agenda. They pride themselves on sound science and study. If you are going to dismiss factual evidence from leading scientific organizations there is nothing more I can do for you. Continue to believe what you will. If you think you can provoke or anger me by calling me “sweetie”, “Sweetheart” and “luv” you’re wrong, I’m well above this type of immature name calling. Carry on….

First off, sweetie, sweetheat and luv was to keep myself in line, to remember to not particularly fry anyone, and to allow you to see that I'm not trying to do anything with the way I word the rest because I already have your attention, and have no need to gain more from you. If I wanted to insult you, I'd tell you to go and get your bottom ribs removed--not explaining that (It remains innocous, this way...)
This is FAITH AND REASON by Dick Sztanyo, M.A.
Actually read it before insulting:

This cover some reasons as to why people believe in Evolution, for those who are creationists, here:

Marshall and Sandra Hall have offered this summary.

In the first place, evolution is what is taught in the schools. At least two, and in some cases three and four generations, have used textbooks that presented it as proven fact. The teachers, who for the most part learned it as truth, pass it on as truth. Students are as thoroughly and surely indoctrinated with the concept of evolution as students have ever been indoctrinated with any unproven belief (1974, p. 10).
...As Henry Morris well stated the issue:

“[T]he main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution!” (Morris, 1963, p. 26).
Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote:

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73).
...For the person who stubbornly refuses to believe in God, belief in evolution becomes automatic. Similarly, opposition to God as the Creator, the Bible and His Word, and the system of origins the Bible describes become just as automatic.

Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist”:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption.... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom (1966, 3:19).

Now, here is some educated people who changed their belief from Evolution to Creationism, i.e., they workd in the firld as evolutionists, before they changed their minds:

Dr Alan Galbraith, whose Ph.D. in watershed science is from Colorado State University, ... an evolutionist for decades, since high school, before becoming convinced of Genesis creation. His scientific career with the U.S. Forest Service has involved applied areas like hydrology, watershed and stream restoration.

I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about? ...I came away from that meeting with my faith in evolution shaken enough to make me have to embark on what turned out to be a three or four year intensive study of all the available material on creation/evolution. At the end of that time, I was convinced that the creation point of view, from a scientific standpoint, was the only credible position that a thinking person with a scientific background could accept. [note that is shook his faith in Evolution, but he went to study facts afterwards:] ...I think it has to be the total geologic record of all those sedimentary, waterborne layers. Fossils, as we now know, generally have to be formed by fast catastrophic burial to preserve the details we see. And within the layers, there is much other evidence that they were laid down rapidly. Also, the stratigraphic column, the “stack” of all these layers, is essentially continuous throughout the world; there is no worldwide discontinuity or “time break”. So it shows to me that there was indeed a worldwide Flood, and not just localized floods as many believe. ... Geology is a very important part of my background. The Ph.D. program was in four areas — geology, hydrology, atmospheric physics to some extent, and plant ecology.

Dr James Allan, M.Sc.Agric. (Stellenbosch), Ph.D. (Edinburgh), retired as senior lecturer in the Department of Genetics, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, in 1992, ... researched the genetics of fruit flies, snails, chickens, dairy cattle, and fish, and taught students quantitative and population genetics, particularly in its application to the breeding of animals. ...Dr Allan told us that he accepted evolution as a young student at university ‘virtually from the word go. ... For about 40 years I believed in the theory of evolution.’ He thought that evolution explained the similarities that exist between living things—such as all living things sharing the system of coding genetic information on DNA—and never questioned the idea. ... I saw my weaknesses, my sin, my faults. I was converted and I began to read Scripture really meaningfully for the first time. ... However, he carried on believing in evolution, until one day his wife said, ‘Is there any reason why God should not have created all forms of life on the basis of a universal genetic code?’ ... We asked him how he now viewed the supposed evidence for evolution. ... ‘I began to look more critically at the assumptions underlying some of those things that seemed so logical. For example, I came to see that resemblances between taxonomic families, orders, classes, etc. are due to the work of a creator, not common ancestry.’ Previously, when people brought up creationist interpretations of the evidence he would say, ‘Why bring that nonsense to me?—it’s not science.’
But in the last decade or so, as he has considered a number of these, he has found that they are perfectly reasonable and intellectually acceptable. He now finds it sad that anyone should insist on evolutionary interpretations, which are ‘unproven and unprovable.’ ‘Science, becomes much more meaningful and satisfying in the light of Scripture, rather than in rejecting it. And I certainly believe it is only as we consider together with legitimate science, the truth learned from Scripture, that we can ever really understand and appreciate the physical universe in which we live.’ ...
Anoter, on video:
anoter doctor:
(no doctorate) claims he converted to cristianity based more off of reading Darwin's work...

I was first an atheistic evolutionist, then a theistic evolutionist, then I considered gap, day-age, long days, etc. and finally arrived at the "young Earth" position three years after my conversion and an extended study of both Scripture and science (perhaps a process of evolution in my life!!).


In 1972, the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins (a former cultural evolutionist turned skeptic of cultural evolutionism) dubbed hunter-gatherers "the original affluent society" on grounds that "all the people's material wants are easily satisfied."

The fifty-year head of a university science department in San Diego accepted Christ through the faithful witness of his wife and family. Several months after his conversion, this longtime Ph.D. exclaimed, "I can hardly believe I could be so dumb for so long! I thought I knew something before I was converted, but the greatest period of learning in my life has taken place these past few months."62
Darwin's mentor?

It is a subject that an atheist like Ivan Panin devoted a lifetime to study - resulting in his conversion to Christianity.

The author, a medical doctor, in this book recounts his conversion from a Darwinist to an Intelligent Design advocate.
the purpetuator of the piltdown man:

Not every bible thumper defends creation:

"Finally, I [Gary Parker], like many Christians, was honestly confused about the Biblical issues. As I told you, I first became a creationist while teaching at a Christian college. Believe it or not, I got into big trouble with the Bible Department. As soon as I started teaching creation instead of evolution, the Bible Department people challenged me to a debate. The Bible Department defended evolution, and two other scientists and I defended creation!"
See, some are theistic evolutionists, i.e., they believe in the bible, but evolution, to them, is true...Creationists are not always christians, some are buddhist, etc...come on, there are a lot of articles on the pope deciding to believe in evolution.

I distinctly remember being taught evolution in Sunday school.

THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN VERSES NON CHRISTIAN DEBATE! IT IS EVOLUTION VERSES CREATIONISM, that means that you will find people of MANY faiths arguing for both sides, and there are prabably a few lies on both sides, that' why I TOLD you to read...saying something is false and actually having proof that it is false are two different things.
Sweetheart, if you had any CLUE as to how much I WISH that CREATIONISM HAD NOT PROOF, you would pity me, but I have seen nothing truely contrary come out of you that has proof in the opposite direction.


And a number of them have fraudulent degrees. No kidding. Many have PhDs in religion, which has very little to do with physics and biology and geology.

go to the sites, some got their degrees in Chemestry, Geology, and from place like Edinborough...these are not always those types of doctorates...some, if you look at their doctoratein Theology, their Masters is a science related masters.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by jlc163]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 11:45 AM

Originally posted by BlackJackal
The first and last one are the best. Knock yourself out.
LMAO I love when people try and justify a scientific fact with a guy from 1883 hehe.

HELLO! How uneducated can people possibly be? Why do you people come here and even post when you are completely brainwashed to the point you cannot see night from day? NO were in the bible does it say how old the earth is. A human being wrote every single word in the bible a HUMAN BEING. Other than the 10 commandments no were did any holy angel, creature, alien, or god ever write one piece of the holy bible so please, please, please open your mind and eyes to the undeniable fact that you are being blindly mislead by a book written by barely educated people's of thousands of years ago. I do believe in god but you must stop denying the very dirt you walk on please...

It is entirely possible that god created evolution and Adam did not just drop out of thing air no? COuld not Evolution been the very power of god? Why do christians continue to fight an unwinnable fight. SOME HUMAN WROTE GENISIS NOT GOD. He may have wrote the facts as he saw them or heard of them but genesis cannot and should be taken as literal. If you continue to blindly follow the belief that the bible is literal then I am afraid in your life time you will find evidence that your beliefs are completely false. You must find ways to fit what you read in that bible with the evidence god has left us to discover him? See. the bible is all about knowing god and to know god we must learn about his creation the universe, our world and ourselves.

Soon blind christians will be the peoples on earth that know the least about god than anyone else because they fail to see that god is. IS all around you. IS in you and wants you to become more like him by learning about him not denying the very world and universe around you...

Im done think. think real hard who and what wrote the words you so blindly follow.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 11:58 AM

The scientific evidence is in front of your face yet you do not wish to look ( judging from your responce you failed to look at any one of the links that I provided you with). As for the misguided christian argument, I am not even a christian, I just choose to think for myself. I have studied Creationism, Abiogenesis, Evolution, theistic evolution, Intelligent Design, and Panspermia for well over 8 years now. After reasearching each theory I am left with the knowledge that currently the best theory is somewhere between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Please read a little before you jump the gun.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 01:09 PM

Thanks for quoting more Religious Creationists and their opinions. Now lets look at some real science.

Most followers of the Religious Creationist theory tell you that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old. Lets see if the theory holds up.

Let’s look at the age of the Grand Canyon.

Rock layers formed during the Paleozoic Era are the most conspicuous in the Grand Canyon’s walls. Coastal environments and several marine incursions from the west between 550 and 250 million years ago deposited sandstone, shale and limestone layers totaling 2,400 to 5,000 feet thick. Layers from the Cambrian, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian and Permian periods are present. The canyon was carved out in no less than five million years.

How about early evolution.

The earliest fossils (stromatolytes and spherical bacteria) are from 3.0 to 3.5 billion years old.

Photo of Fossilized Bacteria below.

Photo of Living Stromatolytes (Shark Bay, Australia) below.

Now lets look at some more geological evidence.

315 to 285 million years ago: During the Mississippian movement of the earth's crust resulted in the collision of continents to produce the super continent, Pangia. This is irrefutable proof that the creationist theory is wrong. We can see the shape of each continent and how they fit together in this geological formation. Continental drift slowly over millions and millions of years separated this “super continent”.

Representation of Pangia below.

200 to 250 million years ago: The Triassic period began with the impact of the largest object ever to hit the earth, along with several other major impacts. The Triassic is the first period of the Mesozoic era. During this time the super continent Pangia began to tear apart.

Photo of Manicouagan Lake Crater Impact (Quebec, 220 mya) below.

In any case the prevailing Creationist thought that the earth is less than 10,000 years old just doesn’t hold up.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by BlackJackal

The scientific evidence is in front of your face yet you do not wish to look ( judging from your responce you failed to look at any one of the links that I provided you with). As for the misguided christian argument, I am not even a christian, I just choose to think for myself. I have studied Creationism, Abiogenesis, Evolution, theistic evolution, Intelligent Design, and Panspermia for well over 8 years now. After reasearching each theory I am left with the knowledge that currently the best theory is somewhere between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Please read a little before you jump the gun.

Actually your right for the most part my answer was a responce to an accumulation of posts on this web site that I just picked this one to let it out on. My appologies.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 01:42 PM
You know, the creationists don't seem to accept scientific authorities that don't agree with their beliefs. The evolutionists don't seem to accept religious authorities that don't make use of modern scientific method. I don't see how anyone here is going to convince anyone else here of anything at all.

Are there any authorities the two sides can agree to accept?

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:01 PM
KL, I agree with everything you say, but I have to quibble with one inaccuracy.

Originally posted by kinglizard
The Triassic period began with the impact of the largest object ever to hit the earth, along with several other major impacts.

According to the latest theories, the largest object ever to hit the Earth was the Mars sized planetoid that hit about 4.5 billion years ago and resulted in the formation of the Earth’s moon.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:12 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
According to the latest theories, the largest object ever to hit the Earth was the Mars sized planetoid that hit about 4.5 billion years ago and resulted in the formation of the Earth’s moon.

Earlier theories say smaller earth orbiting debris coalesced into what we call the moon.

But I would agree with you. I remember reading about that theory and it seems plausible if not probable. To have such a large orbiting body so near the Earth seems to point in that direction.

The modern theory is that the Moon was created by a massive impact with the Earth nearly 4.5 billion years ago. During this early time the Earth was still growing, as were other smaller planetary bodies (called planetesimals).

One of these, probably about the size of Mars, struck a glancing blow on the Earth. The impact knocked a sizable chunk of material off the Earth and into orbit. The resulting orbiting debris of terrestrial and asteroid material ended up forming our moon.

This idea helps to explain a few strange things. First, why is Earth rather hefty for its size with a large iron core, while the Moon is made up of lighter materials. If the two worlds had formed near the same place at the same time, as one of the early theories suggested, then the moon would also have a big iron core, but it doesn't. With the modern theory, the heavy iron core of the impacting planetesimal would get trapped and incorporated into the Earth, while only lighter rocky materials would get blown off into orbit, creating the Moon.

This idea also explains why other planets don't have huge moons that are almost the same size as their central planets. Getting whacked by super-giant planetesimals would be a very rare, probably a unique event.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by kinglizard]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:34 PM
There is a book out there titled "The Big Splat" that goes into the theory in detail.

The theory is supported by data from the analysis of the moon rocks retrieved by the Apollo missions.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:37 PM
one more item:

"The Earth's Magnetic field is decaying at a rate of 1/2 of it's strength every 1400 years. This means that 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field was twice as stong as it is today. If we extrapolate backwards on this figure only 10,000 years, the earth's magnetic field would be greater than that of the sun!"
Henry Morris, in Scientific Creationism made this argument, based on a figure that isn't even true. The earth's magnetic field fluctuates. It has not been decaying at a steady rate at all. Thomas G. Barnes, who originated those figures, made his conclusions over 60 years ago, without enough data to make such an assertion. We now know, not only from current measurements, but from evidence left behind in rock layers (in the form of the alignment of magnetic minerals), that the Earth's magnetic field doesn't just get weaker and stronger over time, but the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field actually reverses itself periodically. Barnes' data is now outdated, and the argument is nonsensical.

more debunking

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in