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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Byrd

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.

Are you actually Saying there are no such things as Dinosaurs? Please say it so. Even a creationist can't doubt the BONES!!!! , Please let me know if I am misunderstanding you.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:18 PM

Thank you for explaining the supposed dates of all of those wonderful things that you pulled up. However they are that old why? Why, because someone says they are that old. There is no accurate way to date something even though scientists want you to beleive that there is. The dates are choosen to make the data fit into the theories.

I will not explain it all again but you can look here for inaccuracy's in dating methods.:


posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:39 PM
Forgive me for going back to a rather petty side of this thread, but why is there such a mutual intollerance between those who arrogantly believe they fully understand God and those who arrogantly believe they fully understand science?

For those of us like myself who are a little intimidated by the extensive knowledge flying around on this subject between the recent authors of recent posts, try to read with a more open mind.

If you are inclined to search for a religious answer, realize that there is always room for compromise. (I personally believe that one or two "source religions" based on a series of historical truths gave birth to all religions, which have become much more mystical and historically confused as time went on.) Religion was probably born of observation though, much like science, and even may have included primitive science.

If you insist that there could never be a God, not even one who works through the scientific medium you believe in, then root your beliefs in fact so that your dealings with religious people aren't adversarial, owing to your own insecurity. I've noticed a tendency for younger or less mature professing atheists to attack God through his believers, apparently hoping to destroy religion because they want to destroy the unanswered questions in their own minds.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:42 PM
The Vagabond,

All I have to say is well done!! I wish everyone had that kind of understanding of life, It would make everything so much easier.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:43 PM

Originally posted by The Vagabond
why is there such a mutual intollerance between those who arrogantly believe they fully understand God and those who arrogantly believe they fully understand science?

Because we are an arrogent race that desperatly needs to believe that we are correct in our beliefs in order to validate our self worth. Any challenge to those beliefs is a challenge to our worth and is meet with hostile emotions.

We are such an intelligent race.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:51 PM
this is a VERY interesting thread, thankyou for some book references, they were highly informative

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Thank you for explaining the supposed dates of all of those wonderful things that you pulled up. However they are that old why? Why, because someone says they are that old. There is no accurate way to date something even though scientists want you to beleive that there is.


I was attempting too concentrate on another aspect of earths geology, rather than concentrating on modern scientific tests and their validity in dating an object. I was showing that the type of erosion that carved out the Grand Cannon by fast moving water could not have been done in less than five million years. It has nothing to do with the dating of rocks rather the speed of erosion which can be used to age the formation.

It’s the same thing with Pangia and the continental drift. We know Continents are moving at 1 inch per year. Creationists say the earth is less than ten thousand years old, moving at 1 inch per year for ten thousand years would only equal 833.33 feet of continental separation. Europe is roughly 4000 miles away from America, the Creationists theory doesn’t measure up.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:27 PM

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?

read up on the red shift theory, it goes into this quite simply, without being too deep

suits you

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by Icatel]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:28 PM
Allow me to put it this way, as a biologist.

Let's assume that a bacteria divides every 20 minutes. This is true for E. coli under ideal conditions. OK, so we start off with one bacteria. Let's give it an hour. That's just exactly three division times, so now we have 2^3 bacteria, or 8 bacteria. Let's give it, instead, a day. We have now 2^(24*3) = 2^72 bacteria, or 4722366482869645213696 bacteria (4.7 sextillion bacteria). Now, let's give it a week. That's 2^(7 days * 24 hours / day * 3 divisions / hour) which is 2^504. That's 5.2 * 10^151 bacteria, or more than a gogol of bacteria. Let's assume that each bacteria occupies about 2 microns * 1 micron * 1 micron, which is 2 cubic microns. There are 1 billion cubic microns in a cubic millimeter, 1 billion cubic millimeters in one cubic meter. For reference, 1 cubic meter is about the size of half a refrigerator.
One billion is 10^9, so one billion times one billion is 10^18. So 10^18 bacteria make up half a fridge's worth. Remember we had 5.2 * 10^151 bacteria. Divide it out and we get 5.2 * 10^133 half-refrigerators-worth of E. coli (eeew). The Universe seems to have a value of less than 10^80 cubic meters (my own calculations based on web sites consulted).

So, the upshot is this... if we go by the theory that organisms will always double their population in the "doubling time," the universe should have been full of bacteria one week after the first bacteria developed.

The upshot of the upshot is this... if the world is more than one week old, where are all the bacteria?

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by AlexKennedy]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
if the world is more than one week old, where are all the bacteria?

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by AlexKennedy]

You don't really want me to answer that, now do you?

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 05:02 PM
Bacteria is all over. You got yogurt in your fridge? Open your mouth and check in there. Check on all the food in your house. Check on the table in front of you. Cough. Hey look, there's some rstuck on your monitor now! You can try and see it with your eyes, but it sure ain't gonna work. Get a microscope and some snot, you'll be getting new ( and cultured as well ) friends all day long!

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 12:29 AM
Seems like I didn't get my point across to some people here properly. When I said "If the universe is more than a week old, where are all the bacteria," I was referring to the calculation I had just done to show that in a week, a single bacteria could divide enough times to fill the known universe.

Now, of course, we all know this is codswallop... but I was trying to illustrate the fallacy in thinking that organisms always breed at their optimum rate and that breeding can always occur.

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 10:31 AM
here are some good sites on this debate. makes you think.

[Edited on 22-5-2004 by 2699HB]

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 11:46 AM
I don't think anybody has mentioned safe sex yet
That is a very important part of it all. *Most* people stopped having large families of 9-12 kids, since they can have sex whenever they want to and not have children (most of the time).

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 12:47 PM
The best explanation I've seen concerning integrating religious beliefs with solid science came from (Bible Code, Science, Travels to Ancient Civilizations, and more - website). This is from one fo the website's newsletters:

Genesis and The Bible Code

No one knows precisely the manner used by the Creator to craft the universe. In our three-dimensional realm, it is doubtful that any mortal will ever fully comprehend this feat.

But we know a lot. At the moment of the Big Bang, the whole of the universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal.

Tiny bits, like the nugget that seeded all that we know in the universe, still exist. Entire star systems are sucked into the central depths of a black hole and crushed to minuscule size, never again to be seen outside that baffling realm.

But the Genesis of another universe would again require the intervention of a Creator. No one has offered any believable explanation for the cause of the original eruption other than its being triggered by God's hand..

From this incomprehensible released energy, life was likely to form on at least one planet and perhaps many. Earth was perfectly developed for our species. Perhaps more such planets exist that will support life as well.

The Masonic Order has long believed and taught to its members that the Creator has processes which are, at the most basic levels of science, beyond human understanding. In other words, what the Creator has done was not magic. It was science at the ultimate level.

The Bible Code has uncovered hidden messages that give us a clue that the Creator fashioned his development by a method that is vaguely understood by science. The Big Bang is theorized to be the original process for our three-dimensional world. All life on this planet came from a code, imprinted in a single DNA molecule. But no one knows where the code of life came from.

Encoded within each of the five Books of the Torah are these words: “I am the Encoder. I am God.”

Further within the Torah is found the hidden message, “DNA was brought in a vehicle. Your seed. In a vehicle, your seed.” This message is hidden within the plain text of Genesis, where God tells Abraham, “I will bless thee greatly, and I will greatly multiply thy seed as the stars of Heaven, and the sand that is upon the seashore; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the world be blessed.”

On the Bible Code’s computer matrix the words, “Your seed” crosses “DNA was brought in a vehicle.”

The world’s most eminent authority on DNA is Francis Crick of the Salk Institute in San Diego. This Nobel laureate biologist discovered the double helix, the DNA spiral structure. He wrote 25 years ago that he believed DNA was indeed brought in a vehicle, a space ship. His theory was published as “Directed Paspermia.”

Crick argues that the Code of Life could not have arrived in a comet or embedded in a meteor as some have suggested. “Anything living would have died in such an accidental journey through space.” The only possibility, he stated, “A primitive form of life was planted … deliberately” (emphasis mine.)

Now, 25 years after his Theory of Directed Paspermia was published, he says, “We know very little about the origins of life but all of the new scientific discoveries support my theory, and none disprove it.”

The Bible Code states, “DNA was brought in a vehicle.” The Creator had a process, planned in greater detail than possible for mortals, from the beginning to the End of Days.

RWO May 14, 2004

(A synopsis of commentaries by the Webmaster and supplemented with writings in The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene and The Bible Code II by Michael Drosnin.)

Copy and paste to visit webpage, “Theory of Relativity and

The Bible Code.” Time is an illusion.

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Warhappy
look, i know y you dont like the idea of the earth being millions of years old..... it screws with your religion and the lame theory of creation!!!!!!!!

Thanks a million for saying it. I was trying to think of a polite way of saying the same thing.

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 06:44 PM

However they are that old why? Why, because someone says they are that old. There is no accurate way to date something even though scientists want you to beleive that there is

Exactly!!! There is no proof that they are millions of years old!!

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:14 PM

Originally posted by AD5673

However they are that old why? Why, because someone says they are that old. There is no accurate way to date something even though scientists want you to beleive that there is

Exactly!!! There is no proof that they are millions of years old!!

Sigh...the evidance is all around you if you would just choose to get your head out of revelations and look at the world with a critical eye you will know that alot of smart people have dedicated their lives using methods that have been proven over and over again, sure they aren't perfect but they are the best we have without having to rely on some mythological book whose accuracy is in seroius doubt considering how many times its been translated and rewriten to corrispond to the politics of the time.

And just for the record if there was no Evolution, then there would be no need to innoculate millions against the flu every year since if there was no evolution virus's wouldn't evolve year in and year out. The fact that molecular biology exists proves evolution. Scientist have even seen it in action under a special microscopes.

Of course you're probably gonna disregard everything that I say so believe what you want to believe. Maybe life will give you the experiance to accuretly judge what is and what is not good science.

Contrary to popular belief one can believe in God and still believe in Evolution. The bible is a good book, but it should't be taken literally in alot of cases(i'm not gonna go quotin verses to prove my case since it is a well know fact that the bible contradicts itself in a number of places as well as any holy book for that matter). Well I'm out and flame on

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:51 PM
First let me say that I am a Christian and I believe in god. I just don’t believe the “creationists” literal interpretation of the bible and their twisting of science to fit their beliefs.

In the Middle East between Jordan and Israel there is a body of water called the Dead Sea. It is some of the saltiest water found anywhere in the world. Millions of years ago it was connected to the salty ocean, now it is cut off and the salt has been concentrated by means of evaporation. This process with out a doubt would take millions upon millions of years. This fact doesn’t allow for the religious creationist claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

This body of water would resemble the Bonneville Salt Flats if it wasn’t being fed by rivers and streams.

No rivers drain out of the Dead Sea. The only way water gets out of the Sea is through evaporation. And boy does it evaporate! This part of the world get plenty hot. When the water evaporates, it leaves behind all the dissolved minerals in the Sea, just making it saltier. In fact, it's through the dual action of; 1) continuing evaporation and 2) minerals salts carried into the Sea from the local rivers, that makes the Sea so salty. The fact that the water doesn't escape the Sea just traps the salts within its shores.

If that doesn’t convince you lets look at stalactites and stalagmites. Their formation takes millions of years as well. They form by small drops of water dripping into caves and leaving behind a small deposit of dissolved limestone.

These unique stone formations grow at an unbelievably slow rate: only about one cubic inch (about the size of a small ring box) will form in 100 years. When rainwater seeps down through the soil above, it picks up a very, very small amount of limestone as it travels. In fact, there is only about a teaspoon of limestone dissolved in every gallon of rainwater that filters through the surface above the caverns. As this rainwater drips slowly through the cave's roof, the droplets of water evaporate, leaving behind tiny amounts of limestone on the cavern ceiling. In this way, stalactites grow downward from the vaulted cavern roof, particle by particle, over the course of millions of years.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 07:51 PM
I didnt even finish reading all this because I was getting rather annoyed. I am not religious, so my views have nothing to do with any dogma, on the side of religion, or of science. First thing to point out to many here...go research how dating is done currently. Research geology. Its not a concrete fact at all. Many theories about geology have been admitted as wrong, yet as still kept around because all of our earth science is based on evolution, and thus has to conform to evolution. The earth is not billions of years old, and the only thing given as proof is a dating system that uses itself for proof. Educate yourself on the matter objectively, and learn!

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in