Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Earth May Have Been A Waterworld
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jamesbond007" data-source="post: 74797337" data-attributes="member: 408340"><p>I think I addressed the differences between young Earth and old Earth as differences in radiometric dating. It's not the methodology, but the assumptions made in doing it. One of my big criticisms of radioisotope dating is they only take those that fit a certain range of dates. If it is outside, then they do not invalidate the samples they are dating. They just toss the ones that are out of range out.</p><p></p><p>Thus, there is not millions of years, let alone billions, to debunk. I've already stated from the Bible theory that the global flood happened around 2458 BC. The Bible is a non-fiction and historical book, so I can base it on that. Furthermore, if you want to argue the evidence, which I see you do not have, then I just presented mine to you. It is observable. You should fall down on your knees and repent, but I think Satan's Antibible of evolution has smitten you in such a way that you cannot accept another's scientific argument. If your dates were true, then you would have the explanations. However, one can only make up different lies when their original lies do not hold water (pun intended) and they are caught. No one can have evidence from millions or billions or years ago. Even rocks decay and crumble over time. How can a fossil not decay? Decay is part of science. We also find soft tissue inside some of those fossils, too.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jamesbond007, post: 74797337, member: 408340"] I think I addressed the differences between young Earth and old Earth as differences in radiometric dating. It's not the methodology, but the assumptions made in doing it. One of my big criticisms of radioisotope dating is they only take those that fit a certain range of dates. If it is outside, then they do not invalidate the samples they are dating. They just toss the ones that are out of range out. Thus, there is not millions of years, let alone billions, to debunk. I've already stated from the Bible theory that the global flood happened around 2458 BC. The Bible is a non-fiction and historical book, so I can base it on that. Furthermore, if you want to argue the evidence, which I see you do not have, then I just presented mine to you. It is observable. You should fall down on your knees and repent, but I think Satan's Antibible of evolution has smitten you in such a way that you cannot accept another's scientific argument. If your dates were true, then you would have the explanations. However, one can only make up different lies when their original lies do not hold water (pun intended) and they are caught. No one can have evidence from millions or billions or years ago. Even rocks decay and crumble over time. How can a fossil not decay? Decay is part of science. We also find soft tissue inside some of those fossils, too. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Earth May Have Been A Waterworld
Top
Bottom