I was just watching Richard Dawkins "The Root of All Evil?" and he stated that according to a poll a large percentage of Americans believe that the Earth is literally only 10,000 years old. I'm not sure of the exact percentage but it was close to 50%. Anyway I was just wondering if anyone on this board believes that the Earth is only 10,000 years old and what is your reasoning behind this belief. I will post my thoughts on this subject as a response to any replies to this thread. Also, not to be rude in advance but please attempt to have some intelligence in your replies not just the basic "Because the Bible say''s so" try to go a little deeper than that. Thank you in advance to those who respond to this I would greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this subject.
The earth, IIRC is about 4.55 billion years old. This is based on testing of some kinda quartz I believe.
Last I heard, the religious zealots, thought it was 6k years old. I havent found anyone that actaully believes that though.
I believe that the earth is exactly 25 years, 9 months, and 24 days old (# of days since I was born).
there is some guy around here that thats the earth was made in 6 days and the earth has only been around a VERY short time, even shorter than remains found of early civilizations. and evolution does not exist.
i dont remember his name.
but anyways yeah earth = 4.5+bill years
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
roughly 13 and a half hours.
the past 29 years and 355 days and some change was just a dream.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
I belive it to be around 6k years old. Then again I also believe in the Bible and that I was created and did not evolve from a monkey.
I get all my facts from the Bible, read it and you'll find out what I have.
Titus03 - I'll start by asking for your thoughts on the fossilized remains of extinct species such as dinosaurs.
Planted by the sinners and satan's followers, of course! /sarcasm
Titus03- As you have stated you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, these remains have been proven by scientists from around the world and in hundreds or thousands of experiments proven them to be much older than 6,000 years (about 65 million + years for dinosaur remains).
titus03 wrote:I belive it to be around 6k years old. Then again I also believe in the Bible and that I was created and did not evolve from a monkey.
I get all my facts from the Bible, read it and you'll find out what I have.
Oh, and technically you didn't evolve from a monkey. Monkeys and apes and humans are seperate evolutionary pathes, though all have a common ancestor/s.
Tristan- I would find that funny if it weren't that a large group of American citizens would agree with that statement.
titus03 wrote:I belive it to be around 6k years old. Then again I also believe in the Bible and that I was created and did not evolve from a monkey.
I get all my facts from the Bible, read it and you'll find out what I have.
I can go all day long debating this...
... but I won't. At least not yet.
Heh, yeah I know what you mean. I find ignorance amusing though, so I still laugh.
So can you please explain to me how the deposit of dinosaur bones on the north slope of Alaska have been found and they were not fossilized? If you believe that dinosaurs existed billions of years ago, how come these remains are not fossilized?
How about those red blood cells found in the T-rex bone in montana? I didn't know red blood cells lasted that long.
personally I think evolution is a joke and a freakin waste of time. If you want to believe that you evolved from a moneky thats fine, I choose not to.
Same reason they have found people frozen that are preserved quite well and not fossilized.
Quote:
So can you please explain to me how the deposit of dinosaur bones on the north slope of Alaska have been found and they were not fossilized?
You know that frozen mummy they found in Siberia I think? Same concept
titus03- First of all I would like to know where you heard that about the remains in Alaska as it sounds very interesting, anyway I'm not an expert on the fossilization process by any stretch of the imagination but I do know that the environment that the animal dies in and what types of materials are present can preserve remains in different ways, and judging by the location of Alaska the remains would most likely have been frozen in some way which would not have create the same stone-like remains which are more commonly thought of when refering to fossils as those undergo a chemical transition due to the pressure and material in the earth around them. Also as far as I know about the red blood cells thing, the cells were not alive but impressions were created in the fossilized materials that were able to be identified as red blood cells by the shape of these microscopic impressions Either way I don't know how either of those arguments show that these creatures were alive less than 6,000 years ago as I assume your implying.
Titus03 - Let's keep this debate centered on this topic not evolution as that is another long-winded argument in itself.
red blood cells in trex?
try reading about it other places with actual scientists talking about it:
Quote:
Eric Stokstad, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects" (Science, vol. 307:1852).
"Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived."
Quote:
Prof. Matthew Collins
"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK. "My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC."
i can go on and on. thats just a TIP of the iceberg on how the original report in 1997 about the dino blood cells have been HORRIBLY scewed and written about by completely non science oriented people further proliferating the distortion.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
I am a God fearing man. But literal translation=foolish
The Earth is old, effing old. And there is nothing in the Bible that sets out a time table of global creation. Evolution happens. Thats why we're taller than our ancestors, its evolution.
Smus - I agree with you that a literal interpretation in this day in age is pretty illogical, I have no problem with people having faith in their religion and a God although I myself do not, but I can't grasp a how a person can can believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old when there is so much proof against it.
Titus03- I am in no way saying that you are not intelligent but so far your argument has not been very strong, If you believe in this literal interpretation of the Bible that is your own choice, I would like to better understand your thoughts on the subject, so hopefully you will respond and not just think that I won't listen to what you have to say.
^^^
Thanks Ryan
Geez...intelligent debate in War Forum? VIKINGS ARE WINNING THE SUPERBOWL!!!
