posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:49 PM
Whatever the exact year is, it's agreed that it was written in the 30th century - it still suggests man was only capable of writing for about 6,000
years. You just think the Earth is billions of years older because of some book, I believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old because of evidence, and
a book that has proven to be historically accurate. Debate me on that, if you wish.
If I may step in here, I could say a couple of things to consider, assuming we are posting here to gain insight from one another.
I do not believe most of the population thinks that the Earth is older than 6k years because of some book. Most people understand this because they
understand the nature of radiocarbon dating, among other things. Actually, I just read an article that says radiocarbon dating is flawed and not to be
trusted, with organic material over 150 million years or older. Even if the math was still wrong by 100 million years, Earth would still be quite a
bit older than you suggest.
How does someone who still holds on the the belief of the biblical age for Earth reconcile with the remains of dinosaurs?
You speak of evidence that proves the Earth is 6k years old; what evidence is that? I find it interesting that you think this is a fact. I don't see
a lot of people trying to prove that water is wet, or fire is hot for a simple reason; there is no evidence in this world that would suggest
otherwise. As long as there is a topic anywhere, about anything with multiple explanations then the facts of the matter are in dispute and therefore
are classified as theories. Can you be humble enough to acknowledge that you prescribe to a theoretical belief system? To 'know' something when
there is evidence to the contrary present shows an absence of critical thinking.
There is also a stark contradiction in your argument when you suggest that someone shouldn't believe what they read from a book, and your source for
'proof' comes from the exact same thing.
Anyway, I am not throwing stones here, I am just curious as to how you come to your conclusions with such certainty. If your certainty stems from, or
around, a bible then just understand that the only real fact about the bible is that it is, in fact, a book. A book is a collection of words and
pictures with the intended purpose to share ideas, concepts, feelings, and information. The meaning from any of those words are subject to
interpretation by each individual who reads them. Anything that is subject to interpretation can not be a fact. The contents in that book may be true,
but that is not the same thing.
Would it blow your mind to think that you don't really 'know' anything?