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: 16
37
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
alright madness, thanks for letting me threadjack for a bit...out to do some stuff...you can come back and be reasonable with these nuts


Enjoy the fish




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Most of the most renowned scientists were christian, so it was the hierarchy of the the church that closed off people to truth, not believers. It was the huddled masses who accepted whatever the church told them that perpetuated B.S.

I have hardly devolved or ever stated any nonsense, I have only stated logically founded beliefs and interpretations of the truly available evidences. So your statement that one side issues logic and rational and the other devolves into name calling and rant is laughable at best.

The scientific establishment of modern times does as much to hide scientific truth as the church of the past and for the same reasons, to control the masses and to increase their power base.

The fact that you seem to be swallowing it whole, doesn't take away from that, it only makes you look a fool. While I will dismiss most bible thumpers who don't seem to do anything but regurgitate what is told to them or a straight literal reading of the bible without any inherent understanding of context, they atleast purport to be relying on faith, where as your crap sandwich of ideas is purported to be based on logic, which is quite far from the truth.

Jaden



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

If I remember my research correctly, the Earth is approximately 10 billion+ years old. Its older than the numbers, which you have stumbled upon.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by joshnichols189

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by joshnichols189

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by joshnichols189
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You act as if Creationism is something that someone thought of five minutes ago.


So, a 3 minute old idea, and a 3 thousand year old idea are different? do stupid lies somehow gain truth through fermentation or something?


Where did I state or imply that? If people can believe thousands of years of scientific work, why can't they believe thousands of years of religious faith if they so choose?


They can believe what they want to believe frankly...its when they try and indoctrinate our children into the belief, stamp it on our currency, shove it in our pledges to country, create giant networks of tax exempt mansions in the best real estate, blow up clinics providing medical services for women, blow up towers, kill people, etc...ya, thats when it goes from their harmless little delusions to a big problem.


Creationists blow up towers and clinics, and even KILL people on a regular basis? Are you saying people who believe in evolution theory can't or don't blow things up and/or kill people?


Not saying they can't
but as a rule, they don't. in any group, there are exceptions, however, as a whole...
well
tell you what...google this: Secular countries and crime rate

let me know what you find


I see an article from almost six years ago.. and about four or so questions on answers.yahoo.com

If I were to go off of data from six years ago.. I would concede defeat.. even though I'm not sure how we got to this point in our debate considering the first thing I ever said was pretty much that there was no need for name calling or insults.. oh well.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 

If we look at gamma ray frequencies and fading rates from multiple supernovae that we’ve observed at distances ranging from the hundreds of thousands of light-years to billions of light-years, they are accurately predicted by our current terrestrial decay rates. (Citation 1, Citation 2, Citation 3)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by joshnichols189

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by joshnichols189

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by joshnichols189

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by joshnichols189
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You act as if Creationism is something that someone thought of five minutes ago.


So, a 3 minute old idea, and a 3 thousand year old idea are different? do stupid lies somehow gain truth through fermentation or something?


Where did I state or imply that? If people can believe thousands of years of scientific work, why can't they believe thousands of years of religious faith if they so choose?


They can believe what they want to believe frankly...its when they try and indoctrinate our children into the belief, stamp it on our currency, shove it in our pledges to country, create giant networks of tax exempt mansions in the best real estate, blow up clinics providing medical services for women, blow up towers, kill people, etc...ya, thats when it goes from their harmless little delusions to a big problem.


Creationists blow up towers and clinics, and even KILL people on a regular basis? Are you saying people who believe in evolution theory can't or don't blow things up and/or kill people?


Not saying they can't
but as a rule, they don't. in any group, there are exceptions, however, as a whole...
well
tell you what...google this: Secular countries and crime rate

let me know what you find


I see an article from almost six years ago.. and about four or so questions on answers.yahoo.com

If I were to go off of data from six years ago.. I would concede defeat.. even though I'm not sure how we got to this point in our debate considering the first thing I ever said was pretty much that there was no need for name calling or insults.. oh well.


I think if we keep this quoting going back and forth, we can all disappear into the black hole it is creating...



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

If I remember my research correctly, the Earth is approximately 10 billion+ years old. Its older than the numbers, which you have stumbled upon.


Please present a link to a paper or scientific journal stating this . . .

Here is are links corroborating the 4.5bil timeline . . .
Wiki entry
USGS entry
Chris Stassen's paper taken from Talk Origins



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Because I actually bothered to study philosophy.

I know things.


Philosophers told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. Then they said the Earth was flat. Those old times guys were philosophers first and scientist second. Science evolved from basic beliefs in philosophy. In other words, if you feel strongly about something then just fill in the blanks with nonsense no one can figure out. Then call it a theory. Its not until a decade or so do people figure out it was bunk and come up with another theory.

Point being this. We don't even know if the Sun will shine in 8 minutes or so. WHY, because it takes 8 minutes for sunlight to reach us. SOHO may give us a second or two but other than that there is no way to know. We have a pretty good idea it will. But no one can state with 100% certainty it will shine in 8 minutes or so.
edit on 16-5-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
One cannot rely totally on carbon dating. It has been shown to be flawed recently and caught many people off guard. This is still being hashed out but you must consider that what we once thought we knew, maybe, has to be re calculated.

Science is such though, science is a great working model of how things are until we gain more knowledge. When we inevitably do, we change our science to describe how our new knowledge works with the old. This process has been going on for quite some time, it is the way of things.

While the people who are saying that the world is 6-10k years old have your opinions and beliefs, what the others are saying is very simply, at this time, that is not what our evidence theories and facts provide to be true. Could it possibly be wrong....... Sure. Is that what the factual evidence points too at this time...... No.

I believe in God but I do not believe the earth is 6-10k years old, I just don't see how that can be, my common sense tells me regardless of what I read in the bible that this is just not right. Then, I remember that not everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally and that some of it because of manipulation throughout the years may be wrong.

While I do believe in god with all of my heart, I also believe in my own common sense and the things I choose to believe most of the time do not come from blind devotion because I think that is naive and slightly reckless. You must choose to think for yourself, beyond the book and in some instances beyond science.

Do I believe in the Big Bang? No, of course not, I understand the science behind it but at this point in our journey, we honestly do not know what it means, to assume we do, is to put ourselves on a pedestal we do not belong on and in a allot of ways is dangerous. That being said, do I believe everything I read in the Bible? No, of course not, to think we could understand everything we read there and apply it as a literal truth is just as naive.

Evolution in species is very hard to argue with, in fact, I don't think you can. Ask yourself if you want to argue the entire scenario or just as it applies to what matters, the only beings on earth said to be created in Gods own image.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Masterjaden
 

If we look at gamma ray frequencies and fading rates from multiple supernovae that we’ve observed at distances ranging from the hundreds of thousands of light-years to billions of light-years, they are accurately predicted by our current terrestrial decay rates.


Isn't that the key though. Do we really know decay rates are universal?

I get what you are saying. I really do. What we know to be true is what we know to be true. However, what we don't know CAN'T be considered true for the entire universe. What we know gets us off OUR planet and into interstellar space. What we don't know makes us ants in the universe.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CharterZZ
 


Its definitly not BS. They can actually tell how old things are with scientific methods. Believing in a magic fairy tale takes more faith than something based on concrete evidence.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks

OP's link

I haven't gotten past the first link, but the opening statement says enough.
I have yet to see any scientists state the origin of the Earth besides possibilities.
I haven't seen science tell me how the dinosaurs perished either? Another hypothesis, but better guess than most.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How about you provide some evidence that confirms it? How about you demonstrate that a global flood actually happened or is physically possible?

Well it's not impossible. At one point the entire world was probably encased in ice and snow. There's no other logical way to explain the 1.2 billion years of missing sediment layers on the Earth. (The Great Unconformity) Unless you have a better theory as to why the Earth is missing 1/4 (one-fourth) of it's geological history.



Perhaps you don't fully understand "unconformities" and what they really mean or how there could be a "snowball earth", yet not enough water for a global flood that would rise above it's highest peaks . . .

First . . . Snowball Earth is still a contested hypothesis and, while certainly probable, is not accepted by all geologists. However, let's say it is undisputed fact . . . the amount of water needed to cover the earth in ice (or a slush, as the prevailing SE hypothesis states), is many magnitudes less than a total earth flood or water earth would require. When water becomes ice, regardless that it's now a solid, the molecules spread out and form in a lattice or "crystaline" structure . . . You know what snow flakes look like? So, as water, the molecules are extremely more dense and thus have a smaller volume than the ice formed from the same amount of molecules.

Links to brush up on snowball earth and what happens when ice is formed.
SE wiki
Water and Ice density

Second . . . unconformities are called such because they "don't conform" with geological timelines. "The Great Unconformity" is in reference to the Grand Canyon, but other unconformities are noticable throughout the world. These are caused by erosion . . . while the presentation you referenced mentions snowball earth, it's speculation. You want other ways that rock and soil can be eroded?. . . flood, wind, uplift or subduction of plates, etc. You seem to be claiming by your "what happened to the history" comment that this missing geologic record is noticed everywhere on earth and somehow proof of a global flood or snowball earth . . . problem is it's not found everywhere on earth. In fact, this missing history is only witnessed in a few places on earth . . . and why they're called unconformities.

Links for you to brush up on unconformities.
GC unconformity
metamorphic and igneous basement

So . . . we still have NO evidence, geological or otherwise, for a global catastrophic flood . . . nor the amount of water to produce the flood . . .
Link to talkorigins on why the flood is not possible . . .
Problems with a global flood



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by johngrissom
 


I think that this is the single best summation of my personal attitude on this particular subject that I have ever seen. Kudos to you.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
Then, I remember that not everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally and that some of it because of manipulation throughout the years may be wrong....

Do I believe in the Big Bang? No, of course not,


Could you not compromise and consider that the big bang could be exactly what gods creation of the universe manifested as? (Note, not saying I believe one way or the other, simply suggesting that there could be a possibility of overlap).
edit on 16-5-2011 by Blazer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
FFS

I can't stand when people who study science at a university start spewing the word "science/scientific/science*" in their argument so much that if you replaced it with the word God you would sound like a cultist.

Militant Atheists that feel compelled to force the "You're wrong on all accounts" with the blindfold on drives me up the tree. I think they're just trolls hijacking science like the terrorists hijack islam.

Technically I guess I'm a scientist based on this thread since I finished a science degree at university.
I'll tell you that I'd say I'm almost 100% sure that the world is 4.6 billion years old, give or take some due to carbon dating...etc. Do you see me going around telling other people "you're flat out wrong"? Never. I keep an open mind. I see the bible as a tool that may have been tampered by men for nefarious reasons. Maybe it was originally something else and got lost in the translation? Who knows.

A real scientist is someone who has a PhD, or at least that's the consensus among the 'scientists' I know. So I'd say almost no one here meets that criteria. Regardless, science is about knowledge. It's not about shutting down with militant posts how wrong someone is. Sure, some posts are absolutely ridiculous from our own subjective point at times, and there are really wacky posts on here that make me go "what...?", but never will I ever in a snarky attitude tell someone that they are wrong unless it's something that violates ethics or something like that (ex: someone believing that they have the right to do some life threatening thing to someone).


As a scientist, I promise each and every one of you that I do take what you say and will try and find reasons for your point, and against your point. I never shut an argument down (unless it meets the stuff I said above) ever. Objectivity is the key. Sometimes it's tempting if someone says "I believe in a 50 km flying cheese saucer that created the Earth", but with things like that I just get a good laugh out of [in a good way] and see what the person has to say. Who knows, maybe he does have some food for thought? Etc




Thus, on topic: I believe based on what I've seen that Earth dates back 4.6 billion years. The notion of Earth from a bible standpoint being 6-10k years old may be when humans were seeded with intelligence? Who knows once again.
If someone can debunk carbon dating or isotope dating then we have a whole new ballpark to play in.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FatedAxion
 

We may not have a geological proof of a flood but we do have many different people groups who have flood stories in their oral history everywhere from South America to Alaska to Africa and so on. Either this started from one group and was told all over the world or groups all over the world experienced it.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blazer

Originally posted by Helious
Then, I remember that not everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally and that some of it because of manipulation throughout the years may be wrong....

Do I believe in the Big Bang? No, of course not,


Could you not compromise and consider that the big bang could be exactly what gods creation of the universe manifested as? (Note, not saying I believe one way or the other, simply suggesting that there could be a possibility of overlap).
edit on 16-5-2011 by Blazer because: (no reason given)


I absolutely would concede that the big bang could be Gods creation. It was said in Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth, perhaps this is how he did it.

That being said, If I concede that, I must also concede that it could of happened another way and the reason being is that our minds can not comprehend the forces at work when we discuss things like the creation of the universe. Be it God or science that created it, we are not yet masters of the information and we must resort to a best guess.
edit on 16-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I must first apologize for even posting in this thread, but this is seriously insane! Anyone that would pay attention to a so called "article or two", listed somewhere on the internet about the age of the Earth being 6,000 years old has a lot of time to waste.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know, I didn't have to add to this discussion, but this is crazy IMHO.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria
6-10k years old may be when humans were seeded with intelligence? Who knows once again.


Yes, who knows..it could be just a metaphore of days to galactic cycles or as you suggest, when humans were seeded with intelligence, or...

wait...what...seeded with intelligence? 0o
whats that all about? You say you got a PhD...oh, let me go get some popcorn as you try to discuss what you meant by that...



new topics




 
37
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join