The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 37 times

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 12:51 PM by johngrissom

Originally posted by pplrnuts

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by pplrnuts

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by pplrnuts

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by pplrnuts

Originally posted by CharterZZ
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

You shouldnt bother arguing with really stupid and crazy people.
You will only get really stupid and crazy answers.

I guess we are referring to the member "johngrissom" here with this one, eh?

edit on 15-5-2011 by pplrnuts because: (no reason given)

Clearly you have no clue and dont read.
Good job

You're quite the comedian.

Good job for the laughs

So what did type then?
Since I clearly praised God in every post

You still rambling on? So the worlds how old mr comedy-hour??!!

Funny stuff!
edit on 15-5-2011 by pplrnuts because: More 's

I think its funny how you cant contribute to the thread let alone the topic when its something you believe in but good try I guess.

I prefer to "contribute" with folks with brains. Folks who believe the world is only a few thousand years old are brainless. But again, you are very comical!! I do appreciate the laughs. Wasnt the earlier post about not playing along with the "crazy and stupid people" referring to you? Hmm, I do believe so, eh?

edit on 15-5-2011 by pplrnuts because: MORE 's again!!!

Did I ever mention that I believe this planet is thousand years old?

You can't contribute...it isnt that hard to see. Sorry bro.

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 12:52 PM by johngrissom

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by johngrissom

Because it is based on actual science, it's based on evidence, it's testable, it's observable, it isn't just based on adding up the mythologized ages of people in a book written in the bronze through iron ages.

So you have the long lost book of life? Where was it hidden? Was it in Egypt like they said?

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 12:55 PM by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

I won't call you names, I'll merely say that you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, we've all been wrong about something before. You can't learn something without being wrong previously.

My God! Your kindness is so amazing ^_^

Tell me, how do I get right?

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 12:57 PM by johngrissom

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

I won't call you names, I'll merely say that you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, we've all been wrong about something before. You can't learn something without being wrong previously.

You can't prove me wrong when I dont have a view point. How come your science and your english crap haven't figured that out yet?

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 12:57 PM by BenReclused

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by johngrissom

If you don't believe in anything, why are you even pissing in this contest?

See ya, Milt

Im the 3rd wind pisser and like pointing out stupidity...is that a problem?

No problem at all, though instead of pointing out stupidity, you seem to be proving it's existence.

Yeah, I know, I was stupid too. I knew better than to respond to you, but I had to do it anyway. It's been fun though!

By the way: What is a "3rd wind pisser"?

See ya, Milt

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 12:59 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by johngrissom

No, I just happen to have access to scientific journals. It's not that hard to gain access to them. You could just bother getting a membership to a few. I happen to get access to all sorts of journals through my University.

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:01 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

Examine the actual scientific research into the subject with an unbiased eye. Realize that it's better for your beliefs to conform with reality rather than trying to conform reality to your predisposed belief.

It might take time. It might be hard to understand at some points (I know I find geology a bit tough some times), but there are plenty of resources out there for you to find.

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:02 PM by nolabel

reply to post by johngrissom

If you haven't got a viewpoint then why are you spamming this thread with your inane ramblings?

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:02 PM by pplrnuts

johngrissom you are acting like a brain-dead troll.

edit on 15-5-2011 by pplrnuts because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:03 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by johngrissom

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

I won't call you names, I'll merely say that you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, we've all been wrong about something before. You can't learn something without being wrong previously.

You can't prove me wrong when I dont have a view point.

Was I addressing you? Is "Rockdisjoint" your account as well? I doubt that it is...
Of course, you also did put forth a view point, that I'm exercising an equal leap of faith in claiming that the Earth is roughly 4 billion years old as those who are claiming that it's less than 10,000.

How come your science and your english crap haven't figured that out yet?

Well, I've clearly figured out how to make my points without being crass.

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:09 PM by johngrissom

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

OKAY....since no one has figure this out yet and I have to point out the OBVIOUS.
I do not believe this plant is 6-8,000 or 4 some odd billions years old. Why??????????????????
Because there IS NO PROOF.

Now time to get off topic a little bit. A lot of you on this website bash the doomsayers for putting a day and time for the end of world, with them saying they have "proof."

You putting an age on the planet is the same exact thing. Your gonna argue it isnt and that because your logic can't see past your wall of judgement. They only proof that we will EVER get is the Book of Life!
Now its only a myth supposedly but if they do find it that will be all the written accounts of life itself.

Do some research into the Book of Life and the underground cavers(tomb of the birds) under Egypt...if you care do learn more.

As of right now there is no proof to either side. Its only a belief or theory.

My fault for posting to the wrong comment.

edit on 15-5-2011 by johngrissom because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:14 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by johngrissom

Originally posted by johngrissom
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

OKAY....since no one has figure this out yet and I have to point out the OBVIOUS.
I do not believe this plant is 6-8,000 or 4 some odd billions years old. Why??????????????????

Because you're ignorant.

Because there IS NO PROOF.

Except that there is, I even provided two sources from scientific literature.

Now time to get off topic a little bit. A lot of you on this website bash the doomsayers for putting a day and time for the end of world, with them saying they have "proof."

Well, they're using odd interpretations of a bronze-iron age text that are incredibly odd and always, without exception, fail to deliver.

You putting an age on the planet is the same exact thing.

Except that we're using scientific dating methods....

Your gonna argue it isnt and that because your logic can't see past your wall of judgement. They only proof that we will EVER get is the Book of Life!

...no. The only proof we will ever get is through scientific inquiry. Or do we also need the "Book of Life" to back up the rest of our scientific ideas? You know, like the ones that went into making the computer you're using.

Now its only a myth supposedly but if they do find it that will be all the written accounts of life itself.

And the world is older than life...

Do some research into the Book of Life and the underground cavers(tomb of the birds) under Egypt...if you care do learn more.

How about you do some...because they've used plenty of ground penetrating radar on the supposed sites and found diddly.

As of right now there is no proof to either side. Its only a belief or theory.

You've already demonstrated a lack of understanding of what the word 'theory' is. Gravity? That's a theory. Circuits? Only a theory.

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:23 PM by pccat

I believe that the gap theory reconciles this..

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

the word WAS should be the word BECAME, then it all fits..

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

they were to REPLENISH the earth..

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:27 PM by topherman420

reply to post by pccat

This again is belief without the same processes used for determining the older age of the earth. It proves the point that there is no scientific thought behind creationist version of the age of the earth. You took a pseudo-scientific theory, found a word, changed it and made a correlation to another pseudo-scientific theory.

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:29 PM by solomons path

Originally posted by johngrissom
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

OKAY....since no one has figure this out yet and I have to point out the OBVIOUS.
I do not believe this plant is 6-8,000 or 4 some odd billions years old. Why??????????????????
Because there IS NO PROOF.

Now time to get off topic a little bit. A lot of you on this website bash the doomsayers for putting a day and time for the end of world, with them saying they have "proof."

You putting an age on the planet is the same exact thing. Your gonna argue it isnt and that because your logic can't see past your wall of judgement. They only proof that we will EVER get is the Book of Life!
Now its only a myth supposedly but if they do find it that will be all the written accounts of life itself.

Do some research into the Book of Life and the underground cavers(tomb of the birds) under Egypt...if you care do learn more.

As of right now there is no proof to either side. Its only a belief or theory.

My fault for posting to the wrong comment.
edit on 15-5-2011 by johngrissom because: (no reason given)

Yes . . . I can certainly see your point. Believing in scientific theory that explains, predicts, and has millions of data points backing it up IS B.S.! Why do you think these silly mortals don't subscibe to the overlying truth of the mighty "Book of Life".

I do have one issue with the "book" that I haven't seen answered by doing a google search . . . how does the book date the various levels of strata in the earth's crust . . . And does it account for the layer of Iridium-enriched soil known as the "KT" boundary?

Maybe you can direct me to the chapter on this . . . Is it buried amongst the data on formation of the earth's crust or maybe described within Thoth's riddle of the underworld?

BTW - someone has found it . . . and you can pick it up for $150 on buy.com . . . follow the link and turn that frown upside down!
Book of Life - official translation

edit on 5/15/11 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:34 PM by Dendro

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by iksose7
I 100% agree with you. Try telling main-stream scientists that though. They will chase you into the hills...

Are you sure about that? Most scientist believe that it is older than 8,000 years old BECAUSE most scientist believe in the evolution THEORY or the big bang THEORY.
edit on 15-5-2011 by johngrissom because: (no reason given)

You attack the OP for lack of paying attention in English class but I caught you in the same predicament. Grab your dictionary and look up theory and I can guarantee you that the definition you are thinking it is, is NOT, the same one listed first as the meaning of the word.

There also exists a 100% accurate dating system that proves the Earth is most definitely older than the 6,000 - 10,000 that is almost all observation of natural processes.

DENDROCHRONOLOGY Dating by tree rings. Rings are paired one light to one dark to equal 1 year. The light almost spongy ring is the growing part of the year and by how thick it grows can determine if it was a good year or a bad year. The dark ring consists of when the year turned to winter and a tree stopped growing. If the dark ring is thicker than usual it is because that year the winter was longer.

What makes this method even more amazing is if you sample trees from the same area the rings will be identical demonstrating they all lived in the same region with the exact same conditions. If something happened on the 50th ring of one tree you would be able to see it present in all trees in the area.

We have pieces of wood that date back as far as 11,000 years killing the 6,000 - 10,000 argument by at least 1,000 years.

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:40 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by pccat

Originally posted by pccat
I believe that the gap theory reconciles this..

I disagree, but I'll hear you out.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Okay...except that you have to have a huge gap in that 'and the' period...

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

the word WAS should be the word BECAME, then it all fits..

Okay...why would it be 'became'? The Hebrew grammar is quite clear there...

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

they were to REPLENISH the earth..

Yes, but you also have to toss out everything between Genesis 1:1-2 and 1:26-31, because all of that is still entirely false.

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:44 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Dendro

Nice one.

And that's just a factor of at least 10%...but they're off by over 99.99%. And that's even though they already have an 8000 year old date with a 2000 year error margin...which is a 25% margin of error right there.

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:44 PM by ZeroKnowledge

Hello. To make things little more interesting:
Nobody can prove that Universe/Earth were not created "aged". I mean, according to religions - people are reason for creation,the part which is of interesting to God. So imagine this - there is loooooooooooooooong boring movie. You are interested only in its part between 1999999919919399289839829839 years and 1999999919919399289839836839 years. So this is the part you are going to watch and what is before that you are going to rewind. And when you would like to describe how long you are watching this you will not say 1999999919919399289839836839 years but 7000 years and 1msec for rewinding.
And yes, i know that it is demagogy but i just want to show you that you will not be able to prove anything to anyone who really believes -there could always bee excuses and similar mind games so i personally fail to see why would one try and constantly poke other ideas as long as it does not concern himself - and it is both to religious preachers or atheistic ones.
World is not simple. Science is constantly in its diapers since the more we discover the more we do not know,and it is good. Making people angry/annoyed is counterproductive.

edit on 15-5-2011 by ZeroKnowledge because: forgot to add

edit on 15-5-2011 by ZeroKnowledge because: what i really forgot to add

reply posted on 15-5-2011 @ 01:48 PM by pccat

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I think it explains how the earth could be very old and yet still have a newer mankind..
perhaps they replenished the loss of the neanderthals.. its just a theory