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.

 

The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

page: 11
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
yep, the Earth is a lot older than 6K years. Plus, I will never believe something came from nothing. Not one day ago or 1 trillion years ago.

We will never understand how we came into existence. Religion can't prove it and science can't prove it. Religion just stops at faith in the evidence process. Science keeps disproving their own theories. Every decade or so there is a new theory by scientists on how we came to be. The only way for science to prove it is to go through the singularity. Even then, once through, where did all that stuff come from? We're talking infinite singularities that we must go through to get to the very first singularity. Even then, how did that happen to begin with?

This is an infinite onion with infinite layers. We will NEVER figure it out.




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by simonsayz
 


>two words for you

>Casimir Effect

It is ALWAYS good to hear from a QP disciple.



I'm pretty sure I was asking for 'proof'.

QP is the antithesis of 'proof'.

Which sect of QP are you a member?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Strype
 


That small minority still represents millions of people. And they are a very vocal group and they actively pursue converts. I'm here trying to give out an informative post and address the people on this very forum that actually still believe it.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Logman
 


...why would they bother covering up the age of the Earth? Hell, the scientific community is probably the worst place to foster a conspiracy because it's so damn competitive and relies so much on public publication.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Le Colonel
 


Are you calling myself a troll or are you referring to the thread itself?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 



Originally posted by kellynap43
Fact. Carbon dating is flawed, and scientist have manipulated test results to get the answers they desire.


False. Carbon dating has been tested against tree ring dates and in double blinded trials. It's been so rigorously tested the only issue now is narrowing the margin of error. If you can provide some scientific evidence rather than an angelfire site (I didn't even know those were still up!) I'll listen.

Also, Carbon-14 doesn't have a long enough half life to use as a gauge for the age of the Earth, they use an entirely different radiometric dating system.




So in my opinion, its more of a leap in faith to believe that the world just happened, then opposed to it just being created.


Well, no. It doesn't. Because radiometric dating works.



www.angelfire.com...


The link goes to /dinosaurs/carbondating.html

...dinosaurs are found as fossils....
Fossils are minerals which have replaced bone matter.
Minerals that aren't carbon.
You can't date dinosaur fossils with carbon dating because there isn't any fornicating carbon in them!

Please, actually educate yourself on radiometric dating.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


When you feel ill, do you go to the hospital or do you seek religious council?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 



Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
I am sorry to inform you that when you or I start with a presupposition and look for evidence to fit or need we will find only what we are looking for and turn a blind eye to what is truth.

This is what happens when ever men try to discern the age of the earth through their so called wisdom.


No, it's not. You clearly don't understand the scientific method...ok, nevermind. I'm going through with this.



Yet the biggest evidence for creation is fossils; which are formed by rapid burial, like a world wide flood. In which this evidence fits much better into a flood then any geological column.


Then why isn't there any geologic evidence and why have you been so silent in the thread about the flood that I started? Where is the evidence of a single, massive flood plain? Where's the evidence that there could have been enough water in the first place?

And fossils are formed by rapid burial...sure. But we'd have a hell of a lot more fossils if they were all formed in a global flood. I'd also like to point out that we'd also find all of the fossils jumbled together rather than sorted chronologically. To use a tired point, where are the pre-Cambrian bunnies?



For if the flood happened which it did they the earth can not be billions of years old.


...what? There's no evidence for the flood.



The oldest tree happens to be around 4500 years putting it at the flood.


Um...that doesn't actually matter.



The world war II bombed the great coral reef, after the war tax payers funded people to study it and they were able to determine the growth rate. They determined it to be around 4500 years old.


Citation needed.



The Sahara grows at a rate that puts it around 4500 years.


And nobody is claiming that the Sahara, or any other desert, is as old as the Earth. You seem to be unfamiliar with climatology, ecology, and geology.



The water from the Colorado had to flow up hill for millions of years to cut the canyon.


No, it didn't. Please, provide evidence that it had to. Seriously, this is like a 'greatest hits' of all the worst creationist arguments.



Though you believe you can not prove with faulty science and if you do not do the experiments yourself


I do not have to do the experiments myself because I cannot possibly do the work of thousands of specialized individuals, I read their papers. I look at the evidence they provide. I'm actually bothering to read primary sources that run similar experiments.



you are speaking from faith in a belief that God does not exist.


I'm not of that opinion. I do not believe in any deity, but one may exist for all I know.



Your religion as is mine is based upon the words of others Mine is man Inspired by God,


A god that you have a circular argument for.



Yours is man inspired by his own desire to be a god.


I think you hit over a dozen of the most common creationist and apologist points in one post, good job making an entirely content free post that was so damn long.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


what the hell is QP?

you're talking about nothing to something and i gave you it



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by v0ice0freas0n
 


Huh?

Help a brother out...

Need MORE input.

>When you feel ill, do you go to the hospital or do you seek religious council?

AHA? Tsk. Tsk.

I understand you would rather use that approach than talk about the facts... present any 'proof'...

Deal with the sad little reality of

0 = 1

I feel for you brother.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


We measure time relative to a reference point. You don't think that radiometric dating methods take this into account? Also, we don't need to assume Einstein is correct, we've actually tested his ideas experimentally. You don't get anything else because you're really just ignorant of the science and arguing that because you don't understand the subject properly your poor explanations make it wrong.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by oaf21
 


Well, I like to help people learn. If we let people be wrong about science then we'd have an even harder problem to tackle with education.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


People commonly make the mistake of interchanging 'carbon' for 'radiometric'...typically because creationists use them interchangeably.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


We measure time relative to a reference point.


There is no reference point to the center of the universe correct? So how can we know for sure the universe is 15 billion years old? Are we saying our reference point is 15 billion years ago but we don't know exactly how much further it goes?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n


When you feel ill, do you go to the hospital or do you seek religious council?


When I get ill I pray that my health insurance will cover it.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by simonsayz
 


>what the hell is QP?

You're kidding right?

>you're talking about nothing to something and i gave you it

Do explain the mechanics of your claim.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LosLobos
 


Well, I'm not talking about the age of the universe...but....

We can measure the rate of expansion of the universe. We can make a fairly good estimate at the mass of the universe. We can figure out the interactions of mass, speed, gravity, etc in all of that.

You know, there's a really good reason why there are actually so few astrophysicists, it's a lot of math.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


See, in your haste to point out that I had responded in a laughable manner, you failed to see that I was actually replying to this statement:

"Psst! 'Science' is really all just smoke and mirrors... And is actually just an inside joke.

(Everything that (you know) 'Science' knows is just pure nonsense. And I would be more happy to go into that, since it's essentially OT, just PM your objections and the link and I'll met you there. ) "

By calling "Science" as a whole into question, I think it is reasonable for me to assume that you reject the validity of the findings and applications of such a game of smoke an mirrors. Any advancement in medicine in the past hundred years is directly attributable to our scientific understanding of the world around us. If science is nothing but smoke and mirrors, why has life expectancy for those in the developed world doubled?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


People commonly make the mistake of interchanging 'carbon' for 'radiometric'...typically because creationists use them interchangeably.


Why be a hater?

You started a thread only to demean those who may not buy your ideas.

If you believe something else, so be it, but why degrade others?

Have you no better thing to do with your time than start conflicts?

If you have time on your hands why not volunteer to help the poor?

Others have a right to believe what they will, without you offering your "education", which they did not ask for..

Lighten up!



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LosLobos
 



Originally posted by LosLobos
yep, the Earth is a lot older than 6K years. Plus, I will never believe something came from nothing. Not one day ago or 1 trillion years ago.


Well...I'm not proposing that nor is anyone in the scientific community.



We will never understand how we came into existence.


I guess nobody gave you the birds and the bees talk...



Religion can't prove it and science can't prove it. Religion just stops at faith in the evidence process. Science keeps disproving their own theories.


Really? I didn't know we'd overturned germ theory. Might as well stop taking antibiotics now.



Every decade or so there is a new theory by scientists on how we came to be.


No, every decade or so there is a modification to the incredibly speculative theories relating to the increasingly complex matters that we're uncovering. Certain theories have changed but remain fundamentally the same, like evolution.



The only way for science to prove it is to go through the singularity. Even then, once through, where did all that stuff come from? We're talking infinite singularities that we must go through to get to the very first singularity. Even then, how did that happen to begin with?

This is an infinite onion with infinite layers. We will NEVER figure it out.


Why did it have to have a beginning?



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join