Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

Do people who believe in "young earth" have any basis other than "bible accounts"?

The claims that Earth is only around 6000 yrs old.

Faced with loads of evidences from fossils and other things that science has made progress in unearthing that proves that the earth has been way longer in existence that 6000 yrs old, do these people have any evidence to back up this claim?

Report as

I don't think there is any SOLID evidence, but hey...Faith is a crazy thing.

Helpful (8) Fun (2) Thanks for voting Comments (27)
Report as
crazy indeed
Report as
How sad.
Report as
What is "Sad" exactly?
Report as
You think faith is crazy. Not having faith in anything is sad. Needing constant proof of everything is sad.
Report as
Notbob is jumping to conclusions again. Bambino is a man of faith. "Crazy" was meant in a different context.
Report as
When I said "Faith is crazy" I didn't mean it in a bad way.
I also am Catholic, Meaning I have the "Faith".
Report as
To stop thinking for yourself and and rely all your life on a silly book full of contradictions and fallacies and is just basically a fairy tale and discounting all science facts is a SAD REALITY that you chose for yourself.
Report as
Oh ok, haha, sorry!! I'm so used to ^^^
that!
Report as
Punk there's no contradictions just people who don't understand it. Don't be so upset ok?
Report as
So? you claim you understand the word of God, don't you?
Report as
Yes
Report as
I rest my case....
Report as
Why? Is that a reason to be so upset?
Report as
Faith is okay but in this case it seems a little off. It could be right but I doubt it.
Report as
If God is real, and claims to have such omnipotence and all knowing ability over all that exists. To claim that you understand what He's saying. Don't you think anyone who'd claim likewise is pretty delusional. You can HOPE to understand it, but to claim you truly do to your heart of hearts is above arrogant and boastful.

I remember quite a character in your book who did claim as such as well, I believe he was Satan, later on wanting to be at the same place as God right after.
Report as
Well I'm glad you explained that punk....
And Dannie I'm glad you're ok with faith however off you feel it is.
Report as
Nice logic Punk.
Report as
FINALLY.. someone who gets me... uuhhhh... :P thanks haha
Report as
LOL!!! Logic is the bane of religious dogma, so I'm all about logic ;)
Report as
The thing is I also get you, and I find religious pointless to argue!
So, Let's all just be pals!
Report as
pals it is! :)
Report as
Ditto :)
Report as
Hmmm...
Report as
Hmm?
Report as
All of you shut up. Stop trolling Ask.com just to debate and get on with your lives.
Report as
I wasn't aware I was debating, but okay.
It seems as if you are trolling actually.
Report as
TROLLS! yes, you are all TROLLS! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Report as
Add a comment...

Nope.

Helpful (6) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Ummm okayyyyy......
Report as
Add a comment...
OSantos

The earth is is 4 &1/2 billion years old, and the bible doesn't say otherwise.

Helpful (3) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (16)
Report as
The Bible never said when is the Earth invented.
Report as
I've seen lots of religious claim as such... are they lying or ignorant? or unable to translate the word of god?
Report as
OSantos
Most religious zealots try to act like they just know it all. They really don't.
The bible states that in the beginning the heavens and the earth were created.
(no mention of the time). Then the earth was formless and void. (No mention of time)
Perhaps between these two sentences 4 & 1/2 billion years have
come and gone.
The bible does state that humankind, containing spirit, mind and body are in existence for around 13,000 years.
Pre-human beings are vaguely mentioned. So leave it for science to speculate upon.
Report as
Good points. Also, it says all this happened in seven days. God has a different sense of time as Solomon says and 7 days could be billions of years. 7 is a holy number. God is mysterious
Report as
you can persecute us Christians, but when you dis God, IT G
Report as
Sorry wasn't finished
Report as
Meant to say: IT GETS PERSONAL!!!
Report as
What?
Report as
No... We dont know it all. We just repeat what God says!
Report as
In the beginning God created the heavenS and THE earth!
When it speaks of DAY ONE!
It is translated from the Hebrew
Word "YOM". Which means DAY:
As in YOM KIPPUR : DAY OF ATONEMENT!
So the 6 days were literally 6 days!
Report as
God set time into mans hearts( eternaity) . But God had no time table like we do before he created the HeavenS and THE earth!!
He just always WAS!
Report as
OSantos
Day also stands for "A period of time" Four and a half billion years can be known as the period of creation. (day)
Report as
No one is persecuting anyone. Calling out incorrect claims like that of a young Earth is not persecution. Plus, it's pretty darn hard for the 78% of Americans who are Christian and hold most of the power in the government to be "persecuted" by the minority.
Report as
I'm pretty sure there are more atheists in America, if there weren't, then why would evolution be taught in school and not religion if there were more religious people in America.
Report as
Atheists only make up 6% of the American public, part of the 20% that claim no religious affiliation. Christians are 75-78%. Research by both the Pew Forum and Gallup showed atheists (followed by Muslims then gays) are the most hated minority group in the nation. If anyone can claim discrimination, it's us.

Evolution is taught in science class for the same reason gravity is- because it is established science based on mountains of factual evidence. It has nothing to do with religion.
Report as
Public schools, as a part of the government, are also subject to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution- they cannot endorse any religious belief.
Report as
Add a comment...

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
This explains a lot.

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (15)
Report as
Report as
No it doesn't. It's a collection of 101 lies, myths, and misrepresentations.
Report as
There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible's view of a young earth. However, the old-earth perspective has held a monopoly in the public schools, in the major academic centers, and in the popular media for generations. It is no wonder then that most scientists share the old-earth perspective. It's all they were taught growing up in school. It's all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It?s what most of their colleagues profess. But there are dissenters among the scientific community, and their numbers are growing. Why? Because more and more scientists are confronting a growing body of evidence which challenges the old-earth paradigm.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-evidence.html#ixzz2PXVvPLk9
Report as
Good link, Cal. Sad it won't be viewed by them.
Report as
I'm afraid you may be right Torn :(
Report as
Strawberry the reason for the "monopoly" you claim is due to the use of facts. Science uses facts, creationism uses faith, if we began teaching your YE myth we'd have to include all the creation myths from all the religions.
Report as
When I was in school, evolution was taught as a "theory" nothing more.
Creationism also uses facts. There are Christian scientists who study things too.
Report as
Creationism can be studied and taught in any of three basic forms, as follows:
(1) Scientific creationism (no reliance on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model).
(2) Biblical creationism (no reliance on scientific data, using only the Bible to expound and defend the creation model).
(3) Scientific Biblical creationism (full reliance on Biblical revelation but also using scientific data to support and develop the creation model).

Report as
Creationism by its very definition belongs solely in the realms of theology and philosophy, not the Earth sciences. There is no testable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence indicating the involvement of a supernatural being.
Science is the study of "How", theology is the study of "Why"
Report as
@Straw: We all grew up being taught that the Earth is spherical. It is no wonder then that most scientists share the spherical-earth perspective. It's all they were taught growing up in school. It's all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It's what most of their colleagues profess. But there are dissenters who maintain that the Earth is flat.
Report as
That article was written by a christian evangelist who's been christian for nearly his entire life so there is some clear bias right there. Just about every single point he made in there is absolutely NOT evidence. He just finds things that he thinks are inconsistent and wrongly claims them as evidence for chrsitian creationism and then cherry picks things that he thinks are consistent with christian creationism. He seems to not know much about radiometric dating and even if we didn't quite know the age of the earth we certainly know it's nowhere around 6000.
Report as
Yeah, Strawberry,
Don't you know that "creation" indicates a beginning point???
Don't you know that all knowledgable scientists believe in the Steady State Theory or the Oscillating Universe Theory (or something equivalent) so they can maintain that there was no beginning as those crazy Bible people have been maintaining for thousands of years!!
(Oh, wait! "All" the scientists now disbelieve what the scientists for hundreds or thousands of years believed and say it was a bunch of hooey! They now say that all the "facts" prove there WAS a beginning! Kinda scary to think what they could prove the Bible to be right about if they wanted to, since they proved that - not wanting to!)
Report as
Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the End.
See, the bible has a starting point, it's God.
Report as
The gigantic flaw with creationist thinking is that it always starts with the end result and then works backwards to fill in the blanks. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Report as
So if we don't know what caused the Big Bang, why should we simply assume God did it? Other religions say there were more than one god involved. For instance, why shouldn't we use the Hopi belief that the creation of the universe was caused by the Tawa God and Spider Woman Goddess? Or perhaps we should teach in our schools the Japanese creation story as the cause of the universe which states that the goddess Izanami and the god Izanagi stirred the universe into being with a jeweled spear. Or how about the Hindu creation story which says that there are many universes -- past, present, and future -- all created, or to be created, by Lord Brahma. The latter puts the age of the universe in the vicinity of more than a quintillion years. So which of these causes of the universe should we accept if science cannot answer that question?
Report as
Add a comment...

No, they have no further "evidence". When confronted with scientific fact, they're apt to fall back on the idea that the earth may be that old, but 'god' created man 6,000 years ago.

Helpful (5) Fun (2) Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Edit: . . .earth may be that (billions of years). .
Report as
Add a comment...

The fact of the matter is no one knows how old the earth truly is nor can they prove it. I don't care what tests they have, they have nothing to compare it to. And it changes constantly.
We also do not know how long one of Gods days were. God said He both shortened the lifespan as well as the days so.....
We won't know until we go!

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (59)
Report as
We can make very good estimates on how old the Earth is because of stars.
Report as
What do stars tell you about the earths age?
Report as
Can I get back to you? Very busy. :)
Report as
Sure
Report as
Some stars are seen from millions of light years away. A light year is how far light travels in one year. So how can that light reach us in 6000 years? Just one reason. Want more?
Report as
Nope. That's good thanks!
Report as
Dannie that's an excellent point but creationists are now starting to change their story due to that fact you point out, they are now claiming the universe was created long, long ago but that all life was created just 6,000 years ago.
It's a desperate tactic known as "moving the goalpost"
Report as
There is even evidence against that though in the Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report as
Does each star have the same power? I mean generate the same light. Excuse my ignorant phrasing of words please.
Report as
And I never made any claims of any sort Cal. Try to be logical and realize not everyone is alike.
Report as
No. Stars can Supersized and other mini.
Report as
Interesting
Report as
Oh I'm sure the goalpost will move several more times ;)
Report as
Notbob, of course different stars vary in their intensity. But with only one star, measurements can still be made. Even the weakest stars light is farther than the distance needed to debunk YE. And calling Caluvox illogical, is like calling you sane. There's that famous projectionism you're so fond of displaying, yet again.
Report as
Oh I feel I big boy high five coming on!
Report as
No, I was thinking more of a 'biff', headed in your direction, Suzie.
Report as
Are you upset Torn? Just cause a girl called you in your crap earlier?
Report as
What exactly did you call me on, Bob? That aside, weren't we talking about stars? Hhmmm, what was that Cal said about moving the goal post. .
Report as
You know puddin.
Report as
Thanks Torn :)
Notbob my comment was targeted at young earth creationist in general, not you personally.
Report as
It's also amusing how you didn't pop on here until Cal did haha!
Report as
Your perception is skewed as ever, Susan. Again, a testament to your delusional state. Like I've told you 6000 times;) you're more than welcome to comment under my answers if you need someone to pay you attention.
Report as
One thing I've noticed is that it seems they always follow each other and take pleasure insulting people.
Report as
That's cool Cal. I honestly don't know how old the earth is. I'm not ashamed nor feel the need to follow others beliefs. However I KNOW it's way older the 6 thousand.
Report as
Dannie who are you talking about? Torn follows me yes. I don't care what he's got to say.
Report as
Torngren and Cal. I seriously believe in debate but it is a problem in making it personal.
Report as
I don't deny finding joy in confrontation, Dannie. The horribly inaccurate, damaging crap that notbob preaches at every turn of opportunity, deserves to be addressed when I find it.
Report as
You're right, notbob. I follow you in return for trolling my answers. The month after you disappeared and took a new screen name was bliss. By the way, how did your theory on locusts in Egypt, and the new pope being the antichrist turn out? Is that why you changed profiles?
Report as
Dannie I didn't bring the insults. That's not my style. Torn is the one who started that. That's all he adds to any conversation with different ideas.
Report as
I believe that addressing crap is good but going ad hominem is not okay.
Report as
OK. You guys really need to settle down and address the arguments and not the person.
Report as
Torn torn torn, as usual you misunderstood what I said. The pope isn't the Antichrist haha! And if you said I said that you are lying!!
Report as
Sure, notbob. Anyone who searches the answers, questions, and comments under your profile knows otherwise. I don't like you. And refuse to pretend to.
Report as
Right, Dannie. Stars are awesome.
Report as
What?
Report as
Oooooo, perhaps I should pull up the one of you wanting my e mail eh??
Report as
And NO, I didn't say that. Someone here knows who I said the AC is. Quit your lying.
Report as
Dannie I agree. But I'm not backing down from this bully ever.
Report as
And Torn, don't take your frustrations out on Dannie. It's not his fault you're all frustrated.
Report as
Aahhh, there's your projectionism again, Suzie. Good times.
Report as
You wish. And any good times are in your head.
Report as
Sounds like you're losing steam again, notbob. The meds must be wearing off, no? Goodnight.
Report as
Ad Hominem.
Report as
Your meds are wearing off? Is that why you're going to bed?
Report as
Both of you should really give it up.
Report as
Ad hominem by him first!
Report as
You're right to say that, Dannie. But 'ad hominem' would only apply if it weren't for notbobs outstanding trail of ignorance I've dealt with on similar issues. I give up.
Report as
Great way to solve a problem is insulting each other.
Report as
@Torngren: Thanks for the Email. I may contact you. Nowadays, there aren't many thinkers.
Report as
Isn't he sweet? This is what I've dealt with from him. Sorry you got caught up in it Dannie. He's so brilliant he posted how we can rig guns into automatics, with children on here. And you can see the classy names he calls me. Another sign of his vast intelligence haha! Turd? What us this junior high?
Report as
Thinkers??? Now you're scaring me Dannie.
Report as
You're welcome to do so, Dannie. And notbob, my last vastly intelligent comment to you will be (in junior high tradition); you are what you eat. So fun:) 'Night now.
Report as
So you eat alot of crap then is what you're telling me. Sweet dreams.
Report as
TheHarem
Torngreen.......oh look, you're nasty "turd" comment you made to notbob disappeared as did your email address you posted. Naughty boy! Your welcome. Lol
Report as
TheHarem
Notbob.........it is SO VERY GOOD to see you. I saw your comment you left for me. I have really missed your "ha ha's. I am feeling much, much better now. The pain from my back surgery 2 months ago knocked me for a loop. That pretty much kept me off Ask. I saw your comments and truly appreciated them. Your funny answers or cute "Ha Ha's" always make me smile. You are a breath of fresh air.
I feel so much stronger now so I will be able to participate a little more on Ask and stop in to say Howdy to you. :)
Report as
Oh honey I'm so relieved to hear from you, been so worried!! So sorry you suffered so much. I really missed you around here! Thank you for those kind words. You're so sweet as always.
As you see it's the same ole same ole haha! Not much has changed! I really need to learn that turn the other cheek thing but it just keeps slipping my mind when dealing with... ANYWAY, glad you're back and never let anything knock you off your ask again! Sorry couldn't resist.
Report as
TheHarem
Lol........turn the other cheek??
Like I said, you're a breath of fresh air. I recognized you right away by your answers. Chuckle
I'm so glad you came back......I really am.
When I grow up, I wanna be just like you! TeeHee :)
Report as
TheHarem
PS........and furthermore young lady..... if you ever leave again, ya gotta take me with you! Now that's a scary thought!! Lol
Report as
Haha! I sure will! Grown up?? That's just crazy talk!
Report as
Add a comment...

There are no biblical accounts to support a young earth: that's a myth told by Christian fundamentalists who think they can make an unambiguous biblical chronology. They are wrong, it's only their opinion the bible says that. In fact it doesn't. Of course the evidence for a 4.5 gyr earth is overwhelming.

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (7)
Report as
What Christians claim they know the age of the earth?
Report as
Many Christians.
Report as
Put that in real years please.
Report as
Betty, gyr= GigaYears. Giga= 1 billion
Report as
@bettyeckles- what do you mean?
Report as
Torngreen told me ... Thank you
Report as
You bet.
Report as
Add a comment...

They dont even have solid biblical account. Someone just went thru and added all the life spans mentioned and came up with 6000 years. Very shaky and silly.

Helpful (4) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
agreed
Report as
You should see this series of debunking of it on youtube where this chemist discusses loads of stuff about it. Don't have the link but you can search "Hello I'm a Scientist, John Penddleton" and yeah.. it's interesting.
Report as
Add a comment...

I don't care how old the earth is. I love God and that is all that counts.

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (11)
Report as
How true
Report as
Excellent! Me too!
Report as
Amen!! I absolutely love this answer
Report as
Great!!! Convince the rest of the anti-science members of Christianity of that and many atheists will stop mocking your faith.
Report as
Even better, maybe they'll stop trying to push nonsense creationism into public school and further damage education in this country.
Report as
@Betty: Your answer is spot on. Leave science to the scientists, and leave spiritual guidance to the Bible.
Report as
Sounds good to me !!
Report as
OSantos
Bettyeckles, You are displaying true Christian behavior. God bless you dear sister.
Report as
You are so kind to say so.. Thanks
Report as
wow. you were just making a statement of your beliefs and the athiests start an arguement, as always
Report as
@Spiney: We don't start arguments. We challenge statements. Anyone, including us atheists, should not make statements on a public forum if they do not want to defend those statements. We wouldn't care what theists believe in their own personal lives, but ultimately those beliefs spill into our secular law making and public education. That is why we challenge such statements.
Report as
Add a comment...

No they don't, they merely twist what they can and "cherry-pick" facts to make creationism sound like real science. It's a sad statement of the US that 50% of religious people have actually been duped into believing this young earth nonsense, in other educated nations the number is around 10 to 20%.
The YE movement began in the 1950's and gained popularity during the 80's. If this continues we are going to be left behind by other nations in the field of science.

Helpful (4) Fun (2) Thanks for voting Comments (7)
Report as
Don't sweat, Cal. Not all of us were born 6000 yesterdays ago:)
Report as
It's not even that hard to see that it's full of baloney, their claims are. It's just sad....... sad truth they've chosen to accept and live with.
Report as
The tide is in our favor but the damage to the home schooled youth is sad. It's terrible that these parents are consigning their children to minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lifes due to a misguided belief that science is somehow evil :(
Report as
*lives
Report as
Totally agreed. Reality will *not* be kind to the homeschooled.
Report as
It is THAT as much as the government subtly, cleverly manipulates and runs society that "encourages" people to embrace being content with being sl@ves for most of their lives. Never reaching their full potential due to the belief that it is our duty as humans to serve. It is in a sense, don't get me wrong. In large part because society does run and needs to run with everyone playing their part. BUT, at the same time I believe people should aim for more.
Report as
Wow! When did minimum wage go up?!
I know a Christian physicist - salary well up into 6 digits.
Report as
Add a comment...

No I don't think so. The only argument I've heard (that relates to science) is that the way we find how old something is, Carbon dating, isn't a sure-thing. But that still can't really be proof on it's own, because *kind of* disproving one thing doesn't just automatically prove something else that's completely irrelevant. In other words, it's like saying: Carbon dating is a scham, therefore God exists and the Earth is 6000 years old. It doesn't make sense :T

Helpful (2) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
But that's the thing, science doesn't claim to be as all knowing as the bible does. It endlessly does try to falsify the claims they take to figure out and know the truths behind subject matters of life. THAT'S what make science so great too IN MY OPINION that it doesn't claim all knowingness over things. It investigates and as said earlier goes on and tries to FALSIFY their own theories and claims through rigorous experiments and tests. Unlike religious claimants of all knowing knowledge who just base their "facts" with one old rusty book and everything that contradicts their beliefs are treated as bullfrap. Which is just sad...
Report as
Good answer MsStina. The radiocarbon dating thing is a myth created by creationists in another attempt to debunk science, RCD is a proven tool of science.
Report as
Add a comment...

It might be a long shot But just think about it, according to historical records the human population doubles approximately every 35 years, if you break down that figure it represents an annual increase of 20,000 people per every million. Let's suppose mankind started with two just 2 people, and suppose they lived on the 1 million years ago, suppose further that the average generation consisted of only 42 years and each family had an average of just 2.4 children, they probity had more but this will leave room for some population growth, if a. Family unit had only 2 children there would be zero population growth, since each parent would only be replacing their self, providing no net increase. Allowing for wars, famine, disease, etc., there would be approximately 1x10 to the 5,000 power people on earth today (that is 1 with 5,000 zeros) But the entire universe ( being about 20 billion light years in diameter) would only hold 1x10 to the 100th power people. Using creationist figures, the current would the current world population would be about 4.34 billion people. Evolutionary figures thus would imply an earth population 10 to the 4,900th power times greater then would fit into the entire universe. so the population stats son fit as far as how long people have been on earth. just something to consider.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (42)
Report as
did you even consider the wars, famines, diseases and religious inquisitions that took millions of lives? Distorting and using math in such a way that you use a completely senseless computation that didn't take much consideration of things show how pathetic and how lacking your bible and belief to try and arrive at some "rational" attempt to explain yourselves.
Report as
Did you actually read what I wrote? It's simple math.
Report as
Plus I didn't say it was fact, but to take into consideration.
Report as
The math you demonstrated isn't AT ALL rational to use considering human factors and the things that can happen in between.

You just basically ran an equation and threw it up in the sky for it to fly and hope it reaches space. It doesn't have ANYTHING in it except a process to perform and that's simply ILLOGICAL.
Report as
Please show me my error. This is what the stats show from the census bureau, I didn't just didn't through it up in the sky. But I'd be glad to hear your logic.
Report as
Jho.. Pretty impressive
Report as
Ditto what Betty said.
(I think I was inputting my answer and comments the same time you were - It takes me quite a while on the phone : )
It is amazing how fast the population grows, despite all the wars, diseases, etc.
Report as
Oh show me an INDEPENDENT "census" that wasn't made by a creationist?

Your "evidence" even way before is "performed" is already compromised and biased due to the position that you hold even before it is done.

and you can't just go on and say "how amazing" things go and go "accept" your baseless and do divisions without considering MAJOR FACTORS that influences the people in your equations...

WOW.. you two would be impressed to see lasers go through a balloon.
Report as
All I'm saying, is do the research your self. This is some info I gathered when I was in college. I'm trying to think of a way to break it down in more simpler mathematics, but I believe it would take a long time. The math adds up, and I realize you have preconceived ideas, the numbers are even very modest. Show me form my original post where the error is, instead of wanting me to show you something different.
Report as
dude.. you're not taking into accounts LOTS OF THINGS.. way LOTS that your "MATH" isn't even a VALID "MATH" in itself enough to be considered an EVIDENCE.

*facepalm

You people are so stupid you'd believe anything that "attempts and fails pathetically to explain yourselves" even if it doesn't really explain ANYTHING.
Report as
Again, SHOW ME!! If you want to call us stupid at least be able to correct the issue in which you see the problem. So far all you have done is say no, but you can't show me where the error is. The modesty of the numbers gives it a little wiggle room. If you're gonna get ugly and disrespectful I'd rather just not have this discussion.
Report as
Plus why did you even ask the question, when you already had such a strong preconceived idea?
Report as
Because your evidence doesn't stand up with the most simple evidences...

The Black Plague killed 75-200 million people in the 14th century and there's no real census that follows your math with regards to population growth. and YOU yourself aren't even open to your "evidence" being dissected by me. You point your finger that I'm closed minded when I'm asking for more evidences to back up yours. You just presented a math of how populations grows and NOTHING ELSE. I can just whip up some math of the same claiming how god can't exist and you'd HAVE NOTHING on me.
Report as
Even some of you creationists have recently been "Accepting and integrating" to your "beliefs" the fact that evolution is true or have you not been hearing the sermons recently?

Discounting all the evidences such as carbon dated evidences of fossils and rocks and dug up evidences that humans must have at least existed 100,000 years ago doesn't even matter to you. Or haven't you done some research yourself and just accepted some convenient truth that aligns with your religion?
Report as
This kind of spurious use of statistics isn't used by actual scientists for a reason. Population growth rates have fluctuated wildly over the centuries, and those numbers don't come close to taking into account war, famine, and disease which not only kill huge numbers of the populace but also affect the fertility rates of the remainder. It also assumes falsely that the entire population stayed in one spot to interbreed, whereas humans spread apart widely across the globe, leaving smaller groups with fiercer competition for mates and resources and a slower growth rate.

Report as
Again, that's why the number are left modest. I find loop holes and a vast number of assumption in evolution study and research. Fact is, what does it matter if the earth is old or young? Why do you think it matters?
Report as
Plus if you honestly think that every person has had no more then 2.4 children, only a .4 growth per household then we are not gonna get very far anyways.
Report as
Guys (sorry if there are any females, I have no way of knowing) but after viewing dkks post, I check through most of what he (assumed he) was saying, and it shows to be pretty factual. Why you would want to continue with this is beyond me after all that. I am gonna bow out for now being dkks has much more info than I and evidently has more patients then I do. I wish you well and all the luck in the world, and as the old saying goes, instead of trying to speak louder, just improve your argument.
Report as
Dkks had a completely spurious and factually incorrect series of text wall nonsense.


And of course the age of the Earth matters- this is why American students have fallen behind every other developed nation, because our population denies science in favor of ancient mythology. We will soon be unable to compete in a world reliant on science and technology with our scientifically ignorant population.
Report as
Also- funny how you find all these "loopholes" in evolution yet those of is with actual training and authority in the field don't.

Honestly, having a layperson try to tell biologists that they know more about biology is like watching a plumber tell a surgeon he can perform a cardiac valve replacement better.
Report as
I'm sure you went to school, you probably have friends that are teachers. Today's generations are failing because of pure laziness. Among many other "self responsible" reason. Creation is not thought in schools, young earth is not thought in school. If you will take the time, instead of just saying "there are people who say this is true" and study it you can form your own opinion on the matter. But if you honestly think education is on a decline because of it, just go stand in a high school classroom, you'll see why, but you are right, the US is falling behind, but I think it's for a different reason.
Report as
I come from a family of educators. Education is a part of my position at the university, in addition to my research.

You are incorrect- we fall behind precisely because of this sort of pandering. The idea that we can't teach actual facts because it might hurt the opinions or beliefs of the special little snowflakes, the spurious notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid no matter what the topic. And the fact that our population is scientifically ignorant and clamor ing for our students to be made more so because science offends their religious notions is a huge problem.
Report as
I work in a heavenly science related field and science has a way of ridding one side with assumptions, I've heard people ignorantly state that theory is fact, when in fact theory is not fact. The harmful part when we start stating replacing theory trumps scientific law. And people buy into it because so "scientist" said it, when it will not apply in the scientific process. Such as the Big Bang, there are ONLY 3 way it could have come to be 1) it is eternal, science will admit the evidence will not support 2)it was made from nothing, knowing matter can't be made from nothing, which science shows that's not possible 3) it demands a creator. Being that the people that take your stand, will not even admit the possibility of creation, then many assumptions and violations of science law must be put in place. The assumptions are so common they are thought of as fact. So I will agree many are scientifically ignorant.
Report as
Too bad I can't like comments here. But totally agree with you skeptic kitten. and It wasn't us saying "there are people who say this is true" it was YOU pointing to dkks to try and backup your claims.
Report as
Heavily **
Report as
I call shenanigans. If you actually worked in a scientific field you'd be aware that theories EXPLAIN facts and a law is just a mathematical expression of a theory, not some higher level.

You also clearly have no idea what the Big Bang even states, or you wouldn't posit this "something from nothing" nonsense creationists ignorant of physics always try.

You would also be aware that science by definition must objective, verifiable, falsifiable, and natural- therefore the issue of supernatural, non-falsifiable, subjective, unverifiable claims like gods have nothing to do with science and are therefore not considered.

You have proved your own scientific ignorance while trying to claim it in others- irony. You might want to actually learn the definitions of basic science terms before trying this bunk out on an actual biologist.
Report as
Quick tips, pal-

The Big Bang just discusses the rapid expansion and cooling of this universe from the singularity. Since the singularity is not "nothing", you are making a straw man argument from the start.

Quantum mechanics actually shows that something can come from nothing, so that claim of yours is out.

There is all likelihood that the energy of the universe IS eternal. And since matter and energy are transmutable, that takes care of the last of your silly claims about the Big Bang.


A theory is a scientific idea that explains all available evidence and facts and is contradicted by none. Gravity is a theory, and so is the heliocentric model of the solar system. There is nothing above a theory in science.


I don't know what "scientific field" you work in, but I doubt you yourself have any training in the subject.


Report as
Punk do you actually read the comments, I said that the info he
put was what I was agreeing in in dkks post not what he put in mine. This is going past the point of being ridiculous. Really what's the point? To be honest I really don't care how old the earth is, and I'm sure you don't either, if I'm right I'm right and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I really don't care. If you want to hammer it into the ground be my guest. Punk, your true colors have been shown, so why would I take into consideration anything you have to say any longer. I'm gonna move on. Truth is, you asked a question just to argue your point, and when someone has an opposing view you feel the need to defend your point, on an open forum. when we all are entitled to what we believe. I am willing to hear anything anyone has to say, but when a person (you) looses their cool and can't hold their composure and becomes disrespectful they loose all credibility in my eyes, and most adults. Like I said what's the point.
Report as
Haha that was personal. but I'm just gonna laugh that off because you truly have nowhere to go now. So? Just let's hear each other out now. Right? haha... how was my comment disrespectful? I was pointing out a clear fact you made yourself and I lost credibility because you couldn't prove your point and NOW you're willing to hear out other people's opinions? Oh congrats Skeptickitten I think we have a "convert" here.
Report as
No punk, read your comment from 18 hours ago from this point. I believe that to be pretty disrespectful. Skept. Has at least held composure. No you have no "convert" here. I have a lot of places to go. All you have said is they have proved this and they have proved that. Who is they, and what have they PROVEN without a shadow of doubt? You have failed to even attempt to show your point only repeating something you have heard or read. Even secular science KNOWS there are assumptions, I work among many of those secular people with in the studies of science, I have witnesses it first hand, Hawkins and Darwin are at least honest to admit where assumptions are made and they take them as fact because they refuse to look at the other hand, not because of lack of proof or chance.
Report as
I've my proofs below.... and if you look good enough you'll know and see it for yourself. The one who's to show proof claiming such that the earth is young lies on you guys who believe as such. Faced with overwhelming evidence from Science you cling on to such backwards belief that the Earth is as young as you people claim it to be. With such silly computations discounting evidences and catastrophes that have plagued mankind. I urge you to research yourself the evidences too that earth is as old as ALMOST ALL scientists claim it to be. Which is 4.3 billion years ago and humans appearing at least 100,000 years ago. This is backed by fossil evidences that have been experimented on and tested and studied by scientists who've put their whole lives to try and study and debunk their own claims

This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.
The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the magnitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.
It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact amount of time this accretion process took is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of
Report as
the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages but certainly not 6000 years, not anywhere near that at all.
Report as
Well ok then. That's how you make a claim, well done. I tell you what. I will look into it. But still I don't see what it matters how old the earth is. My faith (religion) does nor does any to my knowledge prove or disprove its doctrine on the age of the earth. But I will most certainly look into your claims.
Report as
I'm too lazy to explain myself and you just made me.. ugh.. my brain's hungry......and it's your fault
Report as
Good grief- the fact that you think there is anything other than secular science proves my point that you are in fact ignorant of science.

And it's Hawking. Stephen Hawking.
Report as
I know. Evidently auto correct doesn't recognize is name in the iPhone and I can't delete it once its there. Oh well.
Report as
Skept. Science does not prove everything keep in mind. Science can't prove George Washing existed, history does, and those are two different things.
Report as
I never claimed it did. But since the topic at hand was indeed scientific your comment is a non sequitur.
Report as
I'm just saying.
Report as
jho, what difference does it make what the age of the earth is?
Because, without their Billions of years to convince people that the impossible can become possible (despite the meaning of the word impossible - look it up :), the "scientist" might be forced to look at an outside designer to understand how things could be. jho, even if you gave them 10,000 times the 6,000 years it wouldn't begin to be enough time for them!
If their great Darwin was right, they would definitely be in BIG trouble! No, I'm not talking of his study on the islands, but his knowing the "scientific facts" of his day - that the age of the earth is about 20 million years old!  Not NEAR enough time!  (Darwin's son later came up with an age of 56 million years.  Still not near enough time!).  I guess all those fabulous scientists - holdovers from the Stone Age were as ridiculous as the people from the Bronze Age!  - Oh wait, that was science from only about 100 years ago!  While the "Bronze Age" stuff was something that spouted the truth about there being a beginning - from thousands of years ago!  Wow!)
Report as
You have a point there dkks, it's just how can you get someone to acknowledge the flaws / assumptions in work when one has their mind made up with what they perceive as FACT and it couldn't be any other way. I guess I just loose the drive to convene someone to look at it themselves and form their own opinion on the matter. I don't know.
Report as
Yes, it's kind of humorous that they gave an accurate description of what you are talking about - punkhaz said above, "Your 'evidence' even way before is 'performed' is already compromised and biased due to the position that you hold even before it is done."
Report as
Add a comment...

One interesting one (if you like statistics) :"
POPULATION STATISTICS
One of the strongest arguments for a young Earth comes from the field of population kinetics. Without going into full detail here in the short space available, the argument from population statistics may be stated as follows. Using the formula
Pn = (2/Cn-1)(Cn-x+1) (Cx - 1)
it is possible to compute the world population (Pn = world population after n generations; n = number of generations; x = life span in terms of generations; 2C = number of children per family). If evolutionary figures were entered into this formula, with man having lived on the Earth only one million years (some evolutionists suggest that man, in one form or another, has been on the Earth 2-3 million years), there would be an Earth population of 1 x 105000! That number is a 1 followed by 5,000 zeroes. But the Universe (at an estimated size of 20 billion light years in diameter) would hold only 1 x 10100 people. Using creationist figures, however, the current world population would be approximately 4.34 billion people. Evolutionary figures thus would imply an Earth population 104900 times greater than would fit into the entire Universe! The question is?which of the two figures is almost exactly on target, and which could not possibly be correct? [NOTE: This discussion is highly abbreviated. For additional documentation, see: Lammerts, 1971, pp. 198-205; Wysong, 1976, pp. 168-169; Morris and Morris, 1996, pp. 317-320.]"

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (28)
Report as
Another one :

"DECAY OF THE EARTH?S MAGNETIC FIELD

There are three important force fields associated with planet Earth?gravitational, electric, and magnetic. The magnetic field is due to the huge electric current, billions of amperes worth, circulating in the core of the Earth. It now is known that the Earth?s magnetic field is decaying faster than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. Knowledgeable scientists do not debate the fact of the rapid decrease in the Earth?s magnetic field. A comprehensive government report estimated, in fact, that the magnetic field would be gone by the year A.D. 3991.

Using complex mathematical equations to try to calculate backwards (employing a known value for the half-life decay rate of the field) presents a very serious problem in relation to the time needed by evolutionists. The problem is that going backward for more than just a few thousand years produces an impossibly large value in the magnetic field, and of the electrically generated heat stored in the Earth?s core. In fact, Thomas G. Barnes, late professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, calculated the upper limit of this time span to be 10,000 years. Going back any further than this, Barnes concluded, would cause the field to be at such huge values that the Earth could not sustain itself and would rupture and crack. According to the facts associated with the magnetic field, the upper limit for the age of the Earth is 10,000 years (see: Wysong, 1976, p. 161; Barnes, n.d.; Barnes, 1973; Barnes, 1981; Slusher, 1975)."
Report as
did you even consider the wars, famines, diseases and religious inquisitions that took millions of lives? Distorting and using math in such a way that you use a completely senseless computation that didn't take much consideration of things show how pathetic and how lacking your bible and belief to try and arrive at some "rational" attempt to explain yourselves.

Applying Math when it comes to population growth is simply stupid. There are tons of factors that can influence the growth and decline in it.

The population has been stable recently because human kind has been in a sort of state of peace that it hasn't had in the past. Doesn't mean we've been this civilized all our lives. Our past is drenched in mistakes and misconceptions that came with deaths of countless people that population growth through math deduction that you're speculating is TOTALLY UNRELIABLE AND FALSE.
Report as
And another one (long enough to be spread over 2 comment sections) :
"POLYSTRATE FOSSILS
To the ?man on the street,? one of the most impressive arguments for an ancient Earth is the testimony of sedimentary-rock layers (many of which are thousands of feet thick) strewn around the planet. Scientists (and park rangers) subject us to examples like the Grand Canyon and present their spiel so effectively that?as we observe layer after layer of sedimentary rocks piled one on top of another?the only explanation seems to be that vast amounts of geologic time must have been involved. Each division of the rocks, we are told, represents a time long ago and an ancient world that long since has ceased to exist. Creationists, however, beg to differ, and suggest that a closer look at the ?record of the rocks? suggests youth, not antiquity, for our home planet.

Embedded in sedimentary rocks all over the globe are what are known as ?polystrate? fossils. Polystrate means ?many layers,? and refers to fossils that cut through at least two sedimentary-rock layers. Probably the most widely recognized of the polystrate fossils are tree trunks that extend vertically through two, three, or more sections of rock that supposedly were laid down in epochs covering millions of years. However, organic material (such as wood) that is exposed to the elements will rot, not fossilize. And, as Leonard Brand pointed out in his book, Faith, Reason, & Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design, even if the trees had been removed from oxygen, ?anaerobic bacteria cause decay unless the specimens are buried rapidly? (1997, p. 240). Thus, the entire length of these tree trunks must have been preserved quite quickly, which suggests, then, that the sedimentary layers surrounding them must have been deposited rapidly?possibly (and even likely) during a single catastrophe. As Paul Ackerman has suggested: ?They constitute a sort of frozen time clock from the past, indicating that terrible things occurred?not over millions of years but very quickly? (1986, p. 84; see also Morris, 1994, pp. 100-102; Wilson, 1997, 1:37-38).
Report as
Furthermore, tree trunks are not the only representatives of polystrate fossils. In the state of Oklahoma, geologist John Morris studied limestone layers that contained fossilized reed-like creatures, known as Calamites, which ranged from one inch to six inches in diameter. Dr. Morris noted: ?These segmented ?stems? were evidently quite fragile once dead, for they are usually found in tiny fragments. Obviously, the limestones couldn?t have accumulated slowly and gradually around a still-growing organism, but must have been quite rapidly deposited in a series of underwater events? (1994, p. 101). At times, even animals? bodies form polystrate fossils (like catfish in the Green River Formation in Wyoming?see Morris, 1994, p. 102).

N.A. Rupke was the scientist who first coined the term ?polystrate fossils.? After citing numerous examples of such fossils (1973, pp. 152-157), he wrote: ?Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth?s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts? (p. 157, emp. added). Contradicted by plain facts indeed! Truth be told, polystrate fossils testify loudly to a young Earth whose layers formed rapidly?and not very long ago! Trees, reeds, catfish, whales, and the many other organisms with which the fossil record abounds did not die and lie around for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years while slowly being turned into polystrate fossils. Such fossils provide clear and compelling evidence that the Earth is quite young, not ancient as evolutionists insist."
Report as
And another :
"HYDROGEN IN THE UNIVERSE

Hydrogen constantly is being converted into helium throughout the Universe. Significantly, however, hydrogen cannot be produced in any significant quantity through the conversion of other elements. If the Universe were vastly old, there should now be little hydrogen left in it?since hydrogen constantly is being converted into helium, and since this conversion is a one-way process.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the eminent British astronomer/cosmologist, has noted, however, that ?the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen.? Dr. Hoyle, therefore, was driven to conclude: ?How comes it then that the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. So we can see that the universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged? (1960, p. 125, emp. added).

Because of the evidence from the hydrogen in the Universe, Dr. Hoyle developed his ?continuous-creation? hypothesis. Even agnostic Bertrand Russell recognized the force of this kind of evidence (which indicated a contingent Universe), and admitted the implication was that matter could not be infinitely old because the Cosmos would had to have had a beginning (1931, p. 122). The conclusion?since the Universe consists chiefly of hydrogen, and since there is no evidence of any kind of current hydrogen genesis?is that the concentration of hydrogen speaks eloquently of a young Universe."
Report as
And another :
"ATMOSPHERIC HELIUM

Another type of geophysical chronometer indicating an anomalously youthful age of the Earth is the accumulation of radioactively derived gases in the atmosphere. The most important of these is helium, which is derived from the disintegration of uranium and thorium in the Earth?s crust. Some of this radiogenic helium escapes and finds its way to the Earth?s surface, where it is added to the atmosphere. It has been recognized for many years, however, that there is not enough helium in the atmosphere to correspond to: (a) the alleged age of the Earth; and (b) the rate of escape of helium into the atmosphere from rocks forming the crust of the Earth. Scientists have stated that the present atmosphere contains 3.5 x 1015 grams of helium, and that the rate of helium formation is 3 x 1011 grams/year. Given these figures, the Earth?s age turns out to be in the neighborhood of 10,000 years.

In order to explain this difficulty, evolutionary scientists assume that the excess helium generated in the past (which should be here, but is not) has ?somehow? attained escape velocity, overcome the Earth?s gravity, and completely escaped from the atmosphere. This requires that temperatures in the exosphere (the outermost portion of the atmosphere) must be extremely high?between 1800 and 2300 degrees Celsius (see Bates, 1957, p. 107). As one author commented in regard to these unbelievably (and totally undocumented) temperatures: ?Some theorists find the high temperatures mentioned difficult to accept? (Bates, 1957, p. 107). This is an understatement, since no independent evidence of such temperatures exists. In other words, instead of accepting the obvious conclusion from the helium content of the atmosphere that the Earth?s age must be relatively young, evolutionary scientists prefer to believe that the exosphere temperatures had to have been large enough to permit helium to escape?regardless of how extreme this requirement must be. [NOTE: For additional information on the argument from atmospheric helium, see: Wysong, 1976, pp. 162-163; Morris, 1974, pp. 150-151.]"
Report as
The fossilised remains of the oldest known lifeforms on Earth have been discovered in samples of rock collected near a remote watering hole in the middle of the Australian Outback.

Scientists said that the microscopic fossils belonged to primitive bacteria that lived more than 3.4 billion years ago, when the Earth had emerged from a period when it was probably too hostile for life. The primitive microbes used sulphur instead of oxygen to generate energy from food and, the scientists said, they may be the closest that science will ever get to the mysterious origin of life on Earth.

The fossils were found in rocks that were originally formed in shallow seas near a coastline and suggest that beaches may have been the key habitat where the Earth's first lifeforms thrived, said David Wacey, of the University of Western Australia.

"The environment in which the microfossils were found is important – it extends the record of life in shoreline or beach-like environments by about 200 million years. This suggests that beaches could have been the setting for the origin of life itself," he said.

"The discovery gives good solid evidence for life over 3.4 billion years ago. It confirms there were bacteria at this time, living without oxygen."

The Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old but the planet's hostile, meteorite-bombarded environment is thought to have been too inhospitable for life to get going until about 3.8 billion years ago. Previous studies have indicated the presence of similar microfossils in 3.5 billion-year-old rocks but these claims have been disputed. The latest microfossils have been subjected to an exhaustive series of tests which have confirmed that they were once living cells, not merely the product of non-living chemical reactions. They were discovered in rock that was sandwiched between layers from two well-dated volcanic eruptions, which narrowed the fossils' date of origin to within a few tens of millions of years.

"That's very accurate when the rocks are 3.4 billion years old," s
Report as
Evidence for the existence of Earth’s magnetic field has been pushed back about 250 million years, new research suggests. The field may therefore be old enough to have shielded some of the planet’s earliest life from the sun’s most harmful cosmic radiation.

Earth’s magnetic field was born by 3.45 billion years ago, a team including researchers from the University of Rochester in New York and the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa report in the March 5 issue of Science.

That date falls?during life’s earliest stages of development, between the period when the Earth was pummeled by interplanetary debris and when the atmosphere filled with oxygen. Several earlier studies had suggested that a magnetic field is a necessary shield against deadly solar radiation that can strip away a planet’s atmosphere, evaporate water and snuff out life on its surface.

“I think it’s a magnificent piece of work, a real landmark,” says geophysicist David Dunlop of the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research. “It pushes the boundary back about as far back as you could reasonably expect to measure on Earth.”


The researchers measured the magnetic strength of certain rocks found in the Kaapvaal craton of South Africa, a geologic region known to date back more than 3 billion years.

Just finding old rocks wasn’t enough, though. “It’s a Goldilocks theory of finding rocks,” says John Tarduno of the University of Rochester, a coauthor of the new study. Iron minerals record the strength and direction of the magnetic field that was present during their formation. But when rocks are heated in subsequent geological processes, they can lose or overwrite that record.

“We had to find a rock that had just enough iron to record a magnetic signature, but not so much that it would be affected by later chemical changes,” Tarduno says.

The Greenstone Belt in South Africa had rocks that were just right: crystals of quartz less than two millimeters long with nanometer-sized bits of iron-containing magnetite embedded in them.
Report as
Wow .. Dk... Just ... Wow
Report as
punkhaz,
Yes, I think those factors were figured in.
(I will freely admit that although I have had some statistics classes, I am not a statistician! I am also not one of those who take speculation and say it is a "fact". I just thought that it was something interesting.
Report as
punkhaz,
Here is another paragraph on the same topic (from Apologetics Press) that again I don't have all the background info on :
"Population
In 1810, about one billion people lived on earth. In less than 200 years, the population hit six billion. This fits the biblical chronology perfectly as the current population started about 4,400 years ago with Noah and his family after the Flood. An evolutionary time line would require not only a nearly non-existent growth rate but also three trillion deceased humans within the last million years."
But that figures of 1 billion in 1810 to 6 billion so fast ARE facts.

Population
Years Passed Year Billion
- 1800 1
127 1927 2
33 1960 3
14 1974 4
13 1987 5
12 1999 6
12 2011 7
Report as
Another interesting one :
"Salt in the Oceans
The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.
Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist?s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years."
Report as
Ah, look- a Gish Gallup of scientific absurdity. Belief in a young Earth is akin to belief in a flat one.
Report as
Dkks, I have done a lot of studying with Kyle Butt from AP, and have attended many of their debates. Just thought I mention that. Good Stuff!!
Report as
betty and jho, do you ever look up into the sky and notice the moon? You might think of this :
"The moon moves about an inch and a half further away from the earth every year due to this tidal interaction. Thus, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet (250 m) closer to the earth (which is not much of a change considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles, or 400,000 km, away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical timescale of six thousand years.
If, however, the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as big bang supporters teach), then we would have big problems. This is because the moon would have been so close, that it would actually have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests that the moon can't possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim."  
But, also note : "The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth's tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it."
Report as
The atheists on here are quick to pick things that are said and ridicule it by applying literal meaning when it obviously wasn't meant that way.
I won't ridicule, but I got a humorous reaction from thinking about the statement, "Earth’s magnetic field was born by 3.45 billion years ago".  I wonder about the "dad & mom", the gestation period, and several other things!  The scientists think that it was really born? LOL.  
It also reminded me, "Many of the planets of the solar system also have strong dipole magnetic fields. Jupiter's magnetic field, for example, is extremely powerful. The magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune are also quite strong. If these planets were really billions of years old (as secular astronomers believe) then their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet, they are not."
Report as
Your ignorance of science is ridiculous. Literally every single thing you've said is incorrect.
Report as
Something I've always wondered how come atheist can't explain the morality of man. Mans morality does not fit into evolution. The animal kingdom shows the stronger kill the weaker for the better of the species, yet man protects and cares for the sick and weak, so where is the standard in which we base our morality come from? From God.
Report as
since the others know that you are correct, they are just saying: no, your wrong, just because they can't stand being proved wrong
Report as
I'm pretty sure that even if not all of those are 100% correct, there would be most of it correct, it's not like its wrong anyway, they all just think that they know everything and that we are fools because we worship a God that nobody can see
Report as
Morality is evolutionary. That which let society cohesive and functioning increased the survival and reproduction rate of the group. It's why we see the same core morality in most advanced societal species. This kind of silliness is usually proposed by people with no knowledge of biology or the animal kingdom at large.


@spiney-

No, he pretty much spewed out a text wall of nonsense. That's why I didn't bother refuting it- it would take far more than the character limit to refute that many errors.
Report as
Instinct and morality are two different things.
Report as
Indeed. I wasn't talking about instincts. If you study the animal kingdom you will find that morality exists in a great many societally cooperative species. Not surprisingly, and illustrating my point on evolution, those with the closest correlatives to human morality are our nearest relatives, the other primates.

Report as
How would we know its morality in the animals. Granted animal behavior looks a lot like morality, but we KNOW as humans it's wrong to kill, we know its wrong to cheat or deceive one another etc., I don't believe we see to much with animals. My dogs learn, and remember that they get in trouble when they knock over the trash can, and I can see they link knocking over the trash with getting in trouble, but I think it would be hard to prove that they know it was wrong. Learned behavior is not morality. We all remember the woman who had her face ripped off by an ape, a ape she has been taking care of for quite some time, and she even said she couldn't blame the ape because after all it's still a wild animal. Most of the time the ape showed love, but it's wild instincts came out. Or the bear man that was killed in camera by his pet bear, experts said in the investigation that although it was a pet it was still wild, or Siegfried, they both stated they knew the lions were wild, and didn't perceive their actions as wrong, they were only acting as lions do. When we know its WRONG to rip someone's face off, or eat someone, or maul someone, unless you're on bath salts.
Report as
But with humans, you put two humans in a room, and chances are they will be fine, possibility become friends, but you put a lion in on the mix, the lion sees food or a toy, not thinking it would be wrong to take away someone's father, brother, or friend. I personally don't need some study to see that animals have morals or not, I believe that can be tested real quick.
Report as
Comparing apples to oranges here. Watch animal behavior within their own species. Humans don't treat other species the way we treat other humans and animals are the same. To them humans are "other" and a threat. By your logic a chimp could point to humans and say we clearly have no sense of morality- we make war, raise other animals just to slaughter and eat them, test chemicals on them. To claim other animals have no morality because of how they interact with humans, a foreign species, is spurious.

Bonobos, gorillas, and chimpanzees are the best examples. Studies in the wild (where the animals have been taught or trained nothing as you imply) shows these primates exhibit love, jealousy, remorse, grief. They have a complex social structure. They have taboos against theft and murder of another member of the troop, and even ostracize members who behave poorly.
Report as
Ok fair enough, but I don't think we can label that as morality, but I will agree the human race is the most cruelest.
Report as
You don't think we can label traits that in a human we would call morality as morality? How on Earth are you defining morality?
Report as
Add a comment...

Well, yes cause people study young earth without the bible sometimes.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (12)
Report as
No they don't- the belief in a young Earth is unique to religious fundamentalists and unsupported by any evidence.
Report as
yep, tots, even though we obviously have at least some evidence other than the Bible otherwise we wouldnt support this belief
Report as
No you don't. I'm a scientist by profession- there is not a single reputable scientist that thinks the Earth is young. There is zero evidence for that view- it is held only by religious fundamentalists.
Report as
Comets. they would be melted by now.
Report as
Plutonium halos and the sediment deposit rates. carbon dating system is heavily flawed
Report as
No, comets would not be melted. Do you understand his cold space is?

And no, carbon dating is not flawed. Nor do deposit rates or plutonium indicate young Earth.

I think you just read that on some creationist website but don't understand what they are.
Report as
In fact, carbon dating is irrelevant to this discussion since it is only used for objects 50,000 years old or younger, up to the Industrial Revolution.

Did you mean radio metric dating? And if so, which of the dozens of methods is flawed and how, and how do laypeople know but magically all the scientists don't?
Report as
Do you know anything about comets? They are constantly On FIRE! Obviously they would melt, they are melting right now
Report as
Misspelling:*ON
Report as
Comets are not on fire. There is no oxygen in space.

When a comet approaches the sun, it heats up. This transforms the ice therein directly to vapor, releasing dust particles trapped inside. Sunlight and solar wind then sweep this material back into a tail. However, a comet's tail is so thin that a comet loses only a tiny fraction of its mass at perihelion. Comets do melt away but it takes ages. Even a smallish comet like Halley's takes 13,000 years to melt away. That is how we get meteor showers like the Leonids, when the Earth passes through the remnants of comets.

A basic understanding of physics is needed to keep up here.
Report as
dont you think that they'd be melted in 4.6 billion years?
Report as
Some would some wouldn't. They all have completely different orbits. Some only pass near the sun once every ten thousand years- and passing near the sun is the only time they lose any mass.

The fact that you suggested comets are on fire shows you don't know enough about this topic to be attempting an argument on it.
Report as
Add a comment...

By God's standard the earth is 5774 years old.
By man's standards and beliefs they believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years. It takes more faith to believe the earth is that old, than the age from the Bible and Jewish calendar.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
OSantos
Close but no cigar Jeru, around 6k since the flood, and nearly 7k before.
That's the period of time which man was gifted with spirit, mind, and body.

God also had a period of time when other beings lived here. there are clues in our soil, as fossils and skeletal remains. God cast 1/3 of them to their doom due to disobedience.
The earth is 4&1/2 billion years old, and much went on before God breathed into mankind spirit soul and body.
Report as
Not when you have a reliable and accurate way of finding the age.
Report as
That has not happened yet.
Report as
Their method is neither accurate nor reliable.
Report as
Man and his methods are flawed.
Report as
Add a comment...

What better source than the Bible!
Its the oldest account of the beginning !

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (8)
Report as
The bible is actually not very old at all historically- the oldest sections of the Old Testament only date to 800BCE.
Report as
ever tried reading the Koran? or other people's with other religions sacred texts? Don't you think you're being narrow minded and blinded and boxed by just knowing this one particular book?
Report as
if you wanna start an arguement, than why do you start them online? why not go out in public and say: The Bible is a liar which knows nothing of the universe or when it came to be and whoever believes it is a complete idiot! because thats basically what you are claiming on this website.
Report as
that was at the other people not you lillypad5
Report as
I have no problems speaking of these issues in public and have in fact debated them.

The bible is rife with historical and scientific error. That is a fact. As for the "idiot" bit, you're projecting.

If you post comments on a public forum you should expect them to be challenged and be able to back them up with evidence.
Report as
and we are
Report as
I just don't understand why you have to gang up on people
Report as
No one is ganging up on anyone. Two of us commented on an incorrect statement.
Report as
Add a comment...

No- there is not a shred of evidence for a young Earth and a mountain of evidence for an old one; 4.54 billion years old.

Belief in a young Earth is a holdover from The Bronze Age, and even most Christians aren't silly enough to believe it.

Helpful (3) Fun (2) Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
but as you can see around here... just here ... bah.. I think I'M losing FAITH in humanity.. :P

Report as
hm, what faith?
Report as