Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
[
Carbon dating has been proven to be accurate within a 1% time frame by multiple sources. thats a scientific fact! it doesnt rely on some random story written and embellished by man a few thousand years ago.
Carbon dating, like all radioactive dating, is flawed because it assumes that carbon decays the same rate today that it did 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, etc.
You can't rely on those assumptions. Circumstances in nature may be very different than t hey were 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago or even longer.
You can hypothesize. You can make educated guesses. You can even rely on those. But until you can prove your assumptions, which unless you've developed time travel, you can't. You are just making guesses.
The problem with people who try to use science to attack faith is they refuse to admit the very real limits science has and it's purpose as a tool to help us understand the world around us.
They also have a tendency to ignore all evidence they don't like. Funny how that works.
as for how old the earth is? I don't know. I haven't asked God about it. He hasnt told me. Frankly it's not one of my more pressing matters with Him.
I really wish people would look at reality instead of insisting that they know everything based on their own assumptions.
i can understand you assumption in thinking that god is responsible for everything. but more evidence points to the old earth theory than the young earth theory. can you point us to anything outside of the bible that leads people to believe that the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old? i dont believe there actually is any.
there are various forms of historical dating that help to support each others. i have listed radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. while these may not be able to pin point the exact year something was created, it is reliable for giving us a range. there are also multiple scientists working on this very same problem independently and their results are similar.
can you please list the so called evidence that scientists like to ignore as well?
Carbon dating, like all radioactive dating, is flawed because it assumes that carbon decays the same rate today that it did 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, etc.
You can't rely on those assumptions. Circumstances in nature may be very different than t hey were 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago or even longer.
You can hypothesize. You can make educated guesses. You can even rely on those. But until you can prove your assumptions, which unless you've developed time travel, you can't. You are just making guesses.
The problem with people who try to use science to attack faith is they refuse to admit the very real limits science has and it's purpose as a tool to help us understand the world around us.
They also have a tendency to ignore all evidence they don't like. Funny how that works.
as for how old the earth is? I don't know. I haven't asked God about it. He hasnt told me. Frankly it's not one of my more pressing matters with Him.
I really wish people would look at reality instead of insisting that they know everything based on their own assumptions.
i can understand you assumption in thinking that god is responsible for everything. but more evidence points to the old earth theory than the young earth theory. can you point us to anything outside of the bible that leads people to believe that the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old? i dont believe there actually is any.
there are various forms of historical dating that help to support each others. i have listed radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. while these may not be able to pin point the exact year something was created, it is reliable for giving us a range. there are also multiple scientists working on this very same problem independently and their results are similar.
can you please list the so called evidence that scientists like to ignore as well?
Hey stupid, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is.
Idiots like you take the "6 day creation" literally when the fact is no one knows how long a day is to God. It could be like a thousand years or the blink of an eye. Mankind thinks of a day in terms of the rising and setting of the sun. Time is a human concept.
I take it you're an athiest.
Carbon dating, like all radioactive dating, is flawed because it assumes that carbon decays the same rate today that it did 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, etc.
You can't rely on those assumptions. Circumstances in nature may be very different than t hey were 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago or even longer.
You can hypothesize. You can make educated guesses. You can even rely on those. But until you can prove your assumptions, which unless you've developed time travel, you can't. You are just making guesses.
The problem with people who try to use science to attack faith is they refuse to admit the very real limits science has and it's purpose as a tool to help us understand the world around us.
They also have a tendency to ignore all evidence they don't like. Funny how that works.
as for how old the earth is? I don't know. I haven't asked God about it. He hasnt told me. Frankly it's not one of my more pressing matters with Him.
I really wish people would look at reality instead of insisting that they know everything based on their own assumptions.
i can understand you assumption in thinking that god is responsible for everything. but more evidence points to the old earth theory than the young earth theory. can you point us to anything outside of the bible that leads people to believe that the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old? i dont believe there actually is any.
there are various forms of historical dating that help to support each others. i have listed radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. while these may not be able to pin point the exact year something was created, it is reliable for giving us a range. there are also multiple scientists working on this very same problem independently and their results are similar.
can you please list the so called evidence that scientists like to ignore as well?
Hey stupid, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is.
Idiots like you take the "6 day creation" literally when the fact is no one knows how long a day is to God. It could be like a thousand years or the blink of an eye. Mankind thinks of a day in terms of the rising and setting of the sun. Time is a human concept.
I take it you're an athiest.
A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.
The question then becomes: “Does the Bible address the age of the Earth?” Yes, it does.
i can understand you assumption in thinking that god is responsible for everything. but more evidence points to the old earth theory than the young earth theory. can you point us to anything outside of the bible that leads people to believe that the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old? i dont believe there actually is any.
there are various forms of historical dating that help to support each others. i have listed radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. while these may not be able to pin point the exact year something was created, it is reliable for giving us a range. there are also multiple scientists working on this very same problem independently and their results are similar.
can you please list the so called evidence that scientists like to ignore as well?
Hey stupid, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is.
Idiots like you take the "6 day creation" literally when the fact is no one knows how long a day is to God. It could be like a thousand years or the blink of an eye. Mankind thinks of a day in terms of the rising and setting of the sun. Time is a human concept.
I take it you're an athiest.
youve already stated that time is a human concept several times. a day is a day, there is no such thing as a "god day" or a "human day". this is just your sad attempt to deflect. if a day was meant to have a different length of time, then why didnt the bible simply used the words "god day" or "human day"? why not give a clear definition of what each is?
you keep saying that the bible doesnt state the world in 6,000 years old. i will concede that it does not use those exact words. although many bible scholars have interpreted the bible to show that the world is only 6,000 years old. you simply like to interpret the bible differently to support you own argument. people way smarter than you have made this argument, you should really educate yourself some more, otherwise you just look ignorant.
im also glad to see that you finally agree that the bible can not be taken literally. this lets us examine with a grain of salt and not believe anything it says without further evidence, for which there is really not any.
i can understand you assumption in thinking that god is responsible for everything. but more evidence points to the old earth theory than the young earth theory. can you point us to anything outside of the bible that leads people to believe that the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old? i dont believe there actually is any.
there are various forms of historical dating that help to support each others. i have listed radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. while these may not be able to pin point the exact year something was created, it is reliable for giving us a range. there are also multiple scientists working on this very same problem independently and their results are similar.
can you please list the so called evidence that scientists like to ignore as well?
Hey stupid, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is.
Idiots like you take the "6 day creation" literally when the fact is no one knows how long a day is to God. It could be like a thousand years or the blink of an eye. Mankind thinks of a day in terms of the rising and setting of the sun. Time is a human concept.
I take it you're an athiest.
More bullshit. There are more than a metric-shit ton of people walking around who say "real Christians believe the word of God literally" As in, a day is a day. The original post, that we're supposed to be at least giving lip service regards those people as uneducated.
Are you finally agreeing with that?
By the way...
Apologetics Press says your wrong about the Bee-eye-Bee-El-Eee.
A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.
The question then becomes: Does the Bible address the age of the Earth? Yes, it does.
Apologetics Press - The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part I]
Conservative biblical scholars who know more than you.
Hey stupid, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is.
Idiots like you take the "6 day creation" literally when the fact is no one knows how long a day is to God. It could be like a thousand years or the blink of an eye. Mankind thinks of a day in terms of the rising and setting of the sun. Time is a human concept.
I take it you're an athiest.
More bullshit. There are more than a metric-shit ton of people walking around who say "real Christians believe the word of God literally" As in, a day is a day. The original post, that we're supposed to be at least giving lip service regards those people as uneducated.
Are you finally agreeing with that?
I'll agree you're an ignorant fool and leave it at that.
The question then becomes: “Does the Bible address the age of the Earth?” Yes, it does.
I am not suggesting, of course, that one can settle on an exact date for the age of the Earth (as did John Lightfoot [1602-1675], the famed Hebraist and vice-chancellor of Cambridge University who contended that creation occurred the week of October 18 to 24, 4004 B.C., and that Adam and Eve were created on October 23 at 9:00 A.M., forty-fifth meridian time [see Ramm, 1954, p. 121]). I do contend, however, that the Bible gives a chronological framework that establishes a relative age for the Earth—an age confined to a span of only a few thousand years.
By the way...
Apologetics Press says your wrong about the Bee-eye-Bee-El-Eee.
A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.
The question then becomes: “Does the Bible address the age of the Earth?” Yes, it does.
Apologetics Press - The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part I]
Conservative biblical scholars who know more than you.
You should try reading the links you provide. It would make you look less stupid.
First, I acknowledge that some regard this as a question that simply cannot be answered at present. We are urged to “wait and see” or to “reserve judgment.” Jack Wood Sears, former chairman of the biology department at Harding University, wrote:
When conflicts do occur, the part of wisdom is to withhold judgment until the facts are all in. For example, there is difficulty with the age of life on the earth. Science, as I indicated earlier, has seemed to indicate that the life has been here much longer than we have generally interpreted the Bible to indicate. However, scientific determination of the ages of geological strata is not absolute and is subject to much difficulty and uncertainty. The Bible, as we have shown, does not date creation, and the intimations it seems to present may not be properly understood. Since I hold science to be a valid approach to reality, and since I have concluded upon much and sufficient evidence, that the Bible is inspired and therefore true, the only rational recourse, it seems to me, is to withhold judgment about a seeming contradiction. Wait and see (1969, p. 97, emp. added).
Four years later, J. Frank Cassel wrote in a similar vein.
The thoughtful person respects present knowledge in both areas (science and Biblical research) and keeps searching for new information and insight. In the meantime he must reserve judgment, saying simply “I don’t know where the proper synthesis lies.” The tension remains as the search continues (1973, pp. 251-252, emp. added).
However, nowhere does a Biblical writer give us an age for earth or an age for life on earth.... Inasmuch as Scripture does not state how old the earth is or how long life has existed on earth, one is free to accept, if he wishes, the conclusions of science (England, 1983, pp. 155-156).
Genesis 1:1 is an undated verse. No time element is given and no details of what the Earth looked like are included. It could have taken place in no time at all, or God may have used eons of time to accomplish his objectives (Clayton, 1976, pp. 147-148).
So that's a concession that you can't answer with anything logical. Perfect. Thanks for that.
More bullshit. There are more than a metric-shit ton of people walking around who say "real Christians believe the word of God literally" As in, a day is a day. The original post, that we're supposed to be at least giving lip service regards those people as uneducated.
Are you finally agreeing with that?
I'll agree you're an ignorant fool and leave it at that.
you call us ignorant, but youre the one believing in and putting all your faith in an imaginary person who lives in the sky.
and did you serious just say that bible scholars are wrong and youre right?
as much as i dont trust a word the bible says, im much more inclined to believe the opinion of an educated scholar than you. youve already proven you idiocy in this threat several times, mr well when god existed time actually wasnt real time, it was god time, and god time is different than human time because god says so.
I am not suggesting, of course, that one can settle on an exact date for the age of the Earth (as did John Lightfoot [1602-1675], the famed Hebraist and vice-chancellor of Cambridge University who contended that creation occurred the week of October 18 to 24, 4004 B.C., and that Adam and Eve were created on October 23 at 9:00 A.M., forty-fifth meridian time [see Ramm, 1954, p. 121]). I do contend, however, that the Bible gives a chronological framework that establishes a relative age for the Earthan age confined to a span of only a few thousand years.
So there you go. Boo-freakin-yah
By the way...
Apologetics Press says your wrong about the Bee-eye-Bee-El-Eee.
Apologetics Press - The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part I]
Conservative biblical scholars who know more than you.
You should try reading the links you provide. It would make you look less stupid.
First, I acknowledge that some regard this as a question that simply cannot be answered at present. We are urged to wait and see or to reserve judgment. Jack Wood Sears, former chairman of the biology department at Harding University, wrote:
When conflicts do occur, the part of wisdom is to withhold judgment until the facts are all in. For example, there is difficulty with the age of life on the earth. Science, as I indicated earlier, has seemed to indicate that the life has been here much longer than we have generally interpreted the Bible to indicate. However, scientific determination of the ages of geological strata is not absolute and is subject to much difficulty and uncertainty. The Bible, as we have shown, does not date creation, and the intimations it seems to present may not be properly understood. Since I hold science to be a valid approach to reality, and since I have concluded upon much and sufficient evidence, that the Bible is inspired and therefore true, the only rational recourse, it seems to me, is to withhold judgment about a seeming contradiction. Wait and see (1969, p. 97, emp. added).
Four years later, J. Frank Cassel wrote in a similar vein.
The thoughtful person respects present knowledge in both areas (science and Biblical research) and keeps searching for new information and insight. In the meantime he must reserve judgment, saying simply I dont know where the proper synthesis lies. The tension remains as the search continues (1973, pp. 251-252, emp. added).
However, nowhere does a Biblical writer give us an age for earth or an age for life on earth.... Inasmuch as Scripture does not state how old the earth is or how long life has existed on earth, one is free to accept, if he wishes, the conclusions of science (England, 1983, pp. 155-156).
Genesis 1:1 is an undated verse. No time element is given and no details of what the Earth looked like are included. It could have taken place in no time at all, or God may have used eons of time to accomplish his objectives (Clayton, 1976, pp. 147-148).
nice to see you quoting people from 1969, 1973, 1983 and 1976... basically 41, 37, 27 and 34 years ago. because obviously nothing has changed since then.
some regard this as a question that simply cannot be answered at present. We are urged to “wait and see” or to “reserve judgment.”
By the way...
Apologetics Press says your wrong about the Bee-eye-Bee-El-Eee.
Apologetics Press - The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part I]
Conservative biblical scholars who know more than you.
You should try reading the links you provide. It would make you look less stupid.
First, I acknowledge that some regard this as a question that simply cannot be answered at present. We are urged to wait and see or to reserve judgment. Jack Wood Sears, former chairman of the biology department at Harding University, wrote:
When conflicts do occur, the part of wisdom is to withhold judgment until the facts are all in. For example, there is difficulty with the age of life on the earth. Science, as I indicated earlier, has seemed to indicate that the life has been here much longer than we have generally interpreted the Bible to indicate. However, scientific determination of the ages of geological strata is not absolute and is subject to much difficulty and uncertainty. The Bible, as we have shown, does not date creation, and the intimations it seems to present may not be properly understood. Since I hold science to be a valid approach to reality, and since I have concluded upon much and sufficient evidence, that the Bible is inspired and therefore true, the only rational recourse, it seems to me, is to withhold judgment about a seeming contradiction. Wait and see (1969, p. 97, emp. added).
Four years later, J. Frank Cassel wrote in a similar vein.
The thoughtful person respects present knowledge in both areas (science and Biblical research) and keeps searching for new information and insight. In the meantime he must reserve judgment, saying simply I dont know where the proper synthesis lies. The tension remains as the search continues (1973, pp. 251-252, emp. added).
However, nowhere does a Biblical writer give us an age for earth or an age for life on earth.... Inasmuch as Scripture does not state how old the earth is or how long life has existed on earth, one is free to accept, if he wishes, the conclusions of science (England, 1983, pp. 155-156).
Genesis 1:1 is an undated verse. No time element is given and no details of what the Earth looked like are included. It could have taken place in no time at all, or God may have used eons of time to accomplish his objectives (Clayton, 1976, pp. 147-148).
nice to see you quoting people from 1969, 1973, 1983 and 1976... basically 41, 37, 27 and 34 years ago. because obviously nothing has changed since then.
