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.
This is the popular answer I keep seeing, the Bible is wrong, even tho the predicted age of the earth is a prediction and not a fact. Nobody has ever proven how old the earth actually is and the predictions of scientists on this subject are based on what we can observe today and assumptions about what we can’t observe in the past.
Except that they aren't predictions.
They're results that have come about through meticulous and rigorous study.
They are calculations, based on simple arithmetic.
And changed how many times?
Yeah why is carbon dating dead today? 10 years ago it was claimed to be proving that certain materials were tens of thousands of years old, now they’ve finally come out and admitted that it is not as reliable as they were originally claiming. All of the dating methods have a calibration method and that is where the assumptions take place. So many people don’t know this they just believe whatever they’re told regardless of the fact that scientists have changed their predicted age of the earth countless times.They are calculations, based on simple arithmetic.
And changed how many times?
Do you know anything about the dating methods?Except that they aren't predictions. They're results that have come about through meticulous and rigorous study. If you call that a prediction, it makes me question what a prediction actually is to you.
Do you know anything about the dating methods?
How old is the earth?Except that they aren't predictions. They're results that have come about through meticulous and rigorous study. If you call that a prediction, it makes me question what a prediction actually is to you.
How old is the earth?
The age of Earth is estimated to be 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years
Why is the word “estimated” in this statement?
I never said I can prove them wrong on their dating methods. If I could do that I probably wouldn’t have to because they would’ve discovered that on their own. I’m not one of those people who say that scientists are intentionally lying to people. Instead of typing this long explanation of why I believe they’re wrong again I’ll just post where I explained this yesterday and you can read that and comment on my reasoning.Nowhere near enough to call myself an expert but enough of a grasp to know that it's not 'predictions'.
So why are you on here and not in the wider scientific community proving them all wrong on their dating methods?
Ok why the condescending attitude? Can we just have a polite discussion about the topic without condescending remarks. I’ve not said anything derogatory towards anyone here.Because it could be younger or older than 4.54 billion years old. It's a benchmark figure. Duh.
Please read this and comment on it if you like.Nowhere near enough to call myself an expert but enough of a grasp to know that it's not 'predictions'.
So why are you on here and not in the wider scientific community proving them all wrong on their dating methods?
In thermoluminescent dating and radiometric dating scientists have to assume that at some point there was no isotope decay present in the material when it was first created. That’s where their calculations are thrown off. They’re expecting that at some point there was no decay present in the material and my position is that they must be wrong because we don’t know how much decay was present when it was created 6,000 years ago. We don’t know what these materials were exposed to during the creation process or how it would’ve affected them. Adam & Eve were created as adults, I think we can all agree with that. Their bodies showed signs of age even tho they were created in one day. I won’t even go into carbon dating because it’s dead, they’ve finally come to the realization that it’s not reliably accurate enough but they weren’t saying that 10 years ago were they? 10 years ago they had the best technology and carbon dating proved that the earth was old, now it’s considered obsolete and unreliable. The age of the earth has been changing according to scientists for over 150 years and every time they have another breakthrough anything other than their predicted age is considered absurd. Yet over and over they’ve managed to prove themselves wrong starting from 20 million years all the way up to 4.5 billion years. Look at how far they were off when they thought they knew it all 150 years ago. People need to realize that the age of the earth has not been proven to be over 6,000 years old, that’s just a prediction not a fact. They’re trying to look into the past according to what we see today. Let me give you an example. Let’s say we walk into a room and there’s a glass of water sitting under a dripping faucet and I ask you how long has that glass been there. You could calculate the amount of water that is dripping over time and conclude that it’s been there for 2 hours. Then in the corner of the room we see a camera pointed at the glass. We go and look at the video footage and see that someone came in, got a drink of water, then put the glass under the faucet half full just 5 minutes ago. Now before we had that information from the camera all the evidence suggested that the glass was there for two hours, it was a justifiable conclusion but the missing information revealed by the camera radically changed the conclusion despite the evidence we had before seeing it. So the evidence wasn’t wrong in the beginning only the conclusion we came to. In the same way the rate of decay we see in different isotopes might be correct but without knowing how much decay the material had 6,000 years ago it still doesn’t actually prove anything. I’m sure you hear about tree rings, the oldest tree we’ve found as of today is only 4,900 years old. I assume you’ve heard of ice layers. Ice layers aren’t formed by years they’re formed by freezing and melting temperatures which can happen several times per year. It all depends on how much snow fell between each melting period. Scientists say that the Big Bang took place 13.8 billion years ago, yet we can see light from stars 46 billion light years away. A light year is how far light can travel in one year. That’s a big discrepancy. The Bible says that God made the lights in the heavens to be signs of the seasons. Obviously these would be signs for man, not God. So naturally it wouldn’t make any sense to create stars that man couldn’t see if they were intended to be used by man as signs of the seasons. The Bible also says several times that God stretched out the heavens. So perhaps those stars weren’t as far away 6,000 years ago as they are today, not to mention that scientists do teach that the universe is expanding. They also say that 9 billion years ago the expansion decelerated and 4 billion years ago it accelerated again. That’s weird that objects traveling thru space would decelerate then accelerate again, very strange. I’ve looked into these things because I have to know if the creation account in Genesis has actually been proven wrong and it really hasn’t. The arguments I’ve encountered are, “you can’t assume that there was isotopic decay in materials from the beginning” which really isn’t a viable argument given the circumstances since we don’t know what these materials were exposed to and how it might affect the decay process. So I feel that my argument is just as viable as their’s. They’re saying the glass was empty when it was placed under the faucet and I’m saying you don’t know that for sure because I have a record from God Himself telling me when the glass was created and it wasn’t 4.5 billion years ago. So please understand that my reasoning is nothing like the flat earther’s reasoning because I’m not contradicting anything that is actual proof. My argument is actually a viable and plausible argument.
Ok why the condescending attitude? Can we just have a polite discussion about the topic without condescending remarks. I’ve not said anything derogatory towards anyone here.
I never said I can prove them wrong on their dating methods. If I could do that I probably wouldn’t have to because they would’ve discovered that on their own. I’m not one of those people who say that scientists are intentionally lying to people. Instead of typing this long explanation of why I believe they’re wrong again I’ll just post where I explained this yesterday and you can read that and comment on my reasoning.
I never said I can prove them wrong on their dating methods.
There's no such thing as a scientist being wrong, until another scientist proves him wrong.
That's why we have about seven different theories as to how we got our moon; and seven different genuses for only ten different species of the same kind of bird.
If a layman should happen to show a scientist he is wrong, it would have to be approved by that scientist's peers first.
I'll even go out on a limb and say Thalidomide wasn't shown to be wrong, until scientists ended their investigation of what was going on and made it official.
It's like someone getting hit by a car, taken to the hospital, and pronounced DEAD.
Even though he was dead at the scene.
You do know there are actually varying levels of dead and being paralysed or rendered unconscious can, to an untrained eye, appear as dead, right?
Right.
You didn’t comment on my explanation in post 31. What are your thoughts?Good.
So you get why the term 'professional opinion' is actually something that is sought after in many cases.
You didn’t comment on my explanation in post 31. What are your thoughts?
I apologize I didn’t see it. I mean all I can do is offer an explanation for why I believe what I believe. What more do you want from me? I just read that post in 4 minutes 30 seconds. I’m basically laying it all out for you to pick apart. I’ve got nothing to hide about my beliefs. If they are foolish it shouldn’t be hard to prove me wrong. One thing you shouldn’t do is criticize something someone says if your to lazy to actually discuss it and prove them wrong. So if you’ve got something to say put your money where your mouth is or shut it.I did, in post #32:
And I am not reading an absolute wall of text from you which, even just giving a simple parse over reads as you being incredulous towards dating of the Earth's age and also reads as you thinking it's a personal attack on your religious beliefs.
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?