You're asking people to think through the implications of what they say.
If they did that they wouldn't say such things in the first place.
Upvote
0
Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
You're asking people to think through the implications of what they say.
If they did that they wouldn't say such things in the first place.
4.54 billion years +/- about 50 million years.
The best estimates for the age of the earth come from radiometric dating, specifically lead-uranium dating of zircons. However, there are multiple other types of radiometric dating that confirm this.
The estimates of the age of the earth have fluctuated wildly through the history of geology. However, none of the scientific estimates made in the last ~200 years have been less than 10s of millions of years, and none of the estimates in the last 100 years have been less than billions.
The age of the earth has been basically settled at 4.5 billion years (and some change) since the mid 1950s. All we're doing at the moment is refining the second or third significant digit up or down (a bit).
Oh, and the evidence.
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf
13.8 billion, +/- about 60 million years
Very, very simplified: We look at the expansion of the universe, then reverse it and we get to a point of time where there sort of stops being a universe (or at least, our local presentation of space-time).
To verify that, we look at the afterimages and microwaves generated by the very rapid initial expansion of the universe.
All those PhD Geologists will be kicking themselves. "Sedimentary layers!" they'll say, "Of course". They'll grumble: "If only I'd spent 5 minutes reading forum posts from 'Psalm 27' instead of those 10 years of my life actually studying and practicing geology. Gosh, what a waste against their crushing insight that its obvious to anyone without training".
Upvote
0
MIDutch
Well-Known Member
- Apr 3, 2020
- 2,421
- 3,383
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Really odd that you would say this. It was people from your country, often Christian clergy, who laid the foundations of the scientific discipline of geology, who discovered to their chagrin that the "proof" of the global flood they were looking for actually showed something completely different. Being from the UK, I thought your history books would have taught you about William Smith, Adam Sedgwick, Charles Lyle, etc..
Upvote
0
Psalm 27
Well-Known Member
- Aug 21, 2020
- 1,078
- 515
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Private
And the squid stuck on fossilised trees in Scotland 
Search Results for “how old is the earth” – Ask John Mackay | Creation Questions & Answers
Search Results for “how old is the earth” – Ask John Mackay | Creation Questions & Answers
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MIDutch
Well-Known Member
- Apr 3, 2020
- 2,421
- 3,383
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
I Where an ancient Cosmos, an old Earth and evolution are concerned (astronomy, geology, biology) belief is not required when there is evidence.I might start posting on an atheist forum, and disrespect their beliefs
But I'm sure there would be many atheists on those boards that would welcome your involvement.
Upvote
0
Whyayeman
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2018
- 3,889
- 2,519
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
McKay writes about Archbishop Ussher. It was a theologically suspect piece of work, the subject of mirth among natural scientists and churchmen at the time. (The story continues that the good cleric estimated that the great Work of Creation was completed by about tea-time on Saturday afternoon. This was, I am sure, added as mockery.)
Psalm27, nobody minds you holding these beliefs. They belong to a minority group of Christians and you are welcome to them. They simply don't correspond to any scientific thinking. That is why they are out of place in the science curriculum.
You will never get anywhere with us heathens. Our arguments are rigorous and are built on a wealth of empirical evidence, not on the Bible.
Psalm27, nobody minds you holding these beliefs. They belong to a minority group of Christians and you are welcome to them. They simply don't correspond to any scientific thinking. That is why they are out of place in the science curriculum.
You will never get anywhere with us heathens. Our arguments are rigorous and are built on a wealth of empirical evidence, not on the Bible.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MIDutch
Well-Known Member
- Apr 3, 2020
- 2,421
- 3,383
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Or any other religious scripture.
Creationists never seem to realize, or will completely ignore, that there are other "creation stories" out there and all of them have the EXACT SAME evidence for their validity that Biblical creationism has.
Which is none.
They want THEIR creationism taught as science, but they would probably be the first in line to loudly complain if Native American creation stories were presented as verifiable, evidence based fact in science classes.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
