Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Good thing you have a Bible which has numbers in it to tell you the age of the earth.I don't see anything that is proof of age.
So some numbers are on a page in a report... not proof of anything in my book.
He might have never created anything and still have been God, too bad He didn’t so choose and now we’re here fighting over things that we might not be able to definitively answer.The Father Elohim and Yahshua, Yeshua, Jesus
both shared eternal glory without beginning long (forever without measure)
before the world, the universe, sun, moon, stars
or man
was created.
Indeed, or imbue them with “free-will” that they are not allowed to “use”.Why would an omniscient, omnipotent God create a world full of irrational people, and then ask those very same people to make a rational choice to believe in Him?
If you want people to make a rational choice then don't make them irrational... duh
So you prefer non-existence to serving God.He might have never created anything and still have been God, too bad He didn’t so choose and now we’re here fighting over things that we might not be able to definitively answer.
Enjoy being “right”, I’m sure that that is very important to you.I was applying a set of ethics that my opposite does not necessarily subscribe to.
Different motivations require different tactics.
To use your own terminology prove it.Every one of those is verifiable with experimtation and disproves some aspect of old Earth theory.
From my post #13.If your side can not provide an experimentaly verifiable age of exactly some old age then your side is in error.
Ok... should not being correct be important to everyone?
And as I don't have the qualifications to argue the scientific details... I won't.To use your own terminology prove it.
AIG use circular arguments by assuming from the start the earth is 6,000 years old which is the conclusion then working backwards to dishonestly fit the examples to reach the conclusion which they have already assumed to be true!!
Let’s look at one of the examples given, the earth’s decaying magnetic field which YEC use as proof the earth is 6000 years old.
A decaying magnetic field indicates a magnetic field reversal is in process.
Zircons containing inclusions of magnetite when molten orientate to the magnetic field and when solidified provide a record of the orientation of the field at the time.
In areas such as the Atlantic mid ocean ridge where magma is continuously upwelling resulting in sea floor spreading, a symmetrical record of stripes of magnetic field reversals on either side of the ridge is recorded.
Scientists have calculated there have been 183 reversals in the last 83 million years.
So much for AIG honesty by conveniently ignoring the evidence.
From my post #13.
“Chondrules are commonly dated using ²⁰⁷Pb-²⁰⁶Pb radiometric dating have been confirmed with ¹⁸²Hf-¹⁸²W dating giving consistent results for the age range.”
Verification or confirmation comes in the form of using different dating techniques on meteorites to verify each other’s results.
When it comes to dating earth rocks billions of years old there are a variety of techniques available and it would be an extraordinary coincidence they would all be unreliable to the same degree.
I’m sorry to disappoint you but measurements have disproven a creation age of 6000 years as the oldest earth rocks found have been dated to 4.3 billion years old and meteorites at around 4.54 billion years old.
I don't know about that.Sometimes people prefer the appearance of being correct, more than the indignity of being honest.
They seem to forget the overwhelming value of the words... "I don't know".
I'm calling your bluff point out the faults in the experiments and the interpretation of the data.And as I don't have the qualifications to argue the scientific details... I won't.
But I can point out so many faults in the experiments and interpretation of the data... I will stick with my position.
Now you are not making sense.Well show me one.
I would have to have something to work with.Now you are not making sense.
You made the bold claim you can find many faults in the experiments and interpretation of the data, its called the burden of proof and it's squarely on your shoulders to support your assertions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?