How long has the earth been in existence?
-
this is what a lot of Xtians tell me. From earth's beginning to Adam is a loooong time. He then goes on to talk about the arrogance of those who believe the 6000 figure by assuming they(humans) must have been around from day 1 of earth's existance.Originally posted by Icemoon:.. and it is another million of years from the beginning of Earth to Adam.
Actually, even the 6000 yr history of man is wrong. 250,000 yr old human remains have been found b4. -
only not proven to people who refuse to believe in the truth and facts of science.Originally posted by sgFish:and this is based on a presumption that the evidence which you, or the secular world uses is correct, which isn't exactly proven yet
it's certainly more proven than the calculations of some people who also said the earth was flat. I think they should just take care of real religion and leave science and historical fact alone. Xtians cannot be trusted with history. Leave it to them and they will distort and erase it just to suit themselves. It's been done before, it will be done again. -
hmm. do you have evidence that what the secular world tells you is true? Because as far as I know, almost everything that tells us that we live in a billion year or older earth is all postulating...Originally posted by HENG@:only not proven to people who refuse to believe in the truth and facts of science.
it's certainly more proven than the calculations of some people who also said the earth was flat. I think they should just take care of real religion and leave science and historical fact alone. Xtians cannot be trusted with history. Leave it to them and they will distort and erase it just to suit themselves. It's been done before, it will be done again.
If you'd bother to read, here are some evidences for a young earth...
The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creaturesÂ’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.
please understand i'm not trying to be antagonistic here...i'm just stating my points =) -
"But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" - Mark 10:6 (NKJV)Originally posted by Icemoon:.. and it is another million of years from the beginning of Earth to Adam. -
i bother to read. and i laugh at your 'evidence' because it demonstrates a fairly serious assumption of geographical processes.Originally posted by sgFish:hmm. do you have evidence that what the secular world tells you is true? Because as far as I know, almost everything that tells us that we live in a billion year or older earth is all postulating...
If you'd bother to read, here are some evidences for a young earth...
The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creaturesÂ’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.
please understand i'm not trying to be antagonistic here...i'm just stating my points =)
thing like assuming the existance of thin layers in a certain place is evidence of a young earth is ridiculous.
creatures who have been buried rapidly are also not evidence for a young earth. instead, they speak of the turbulet geological hazards of earth during their time.
the overall supporting evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of earth being young.
if a few piece of evidences which can be attributed to other normal geological processess, and the misguided calculations of some people from long ago are solid evidence of earth being 6000 yrs old, u better believe its flat, and in the center of the universe too!
-
yet another proof of the inaccuracies and metaphoric nature of the bible.Originally posted by sgFish:"But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" - Mark 10:6 (NKJV)
the bible is meant to make a better person of an individual. how can u take it as a 100% factual book? Thats misusing it.
anyways believe what u want. earth center of the universe, earth young, whatever. I don't care. you have the right to be silly -
And here yet again, you put forth another presumption, that "the bible is meant to make a better person of an individual." and not taking it to be factual.Originally posted by HENG@:yet another proof of the inaccuracies and metaphoric nature of the bible.
the bible is meant to make a better person of an individual. how can u take it as a 100% factual book? Thats misusing it.
anyways believe what u want. earth center of the universe, earth young, whatever. I don't care. you have the right to be silly
It appears that your presumption is not based on anything solid. If you would just take a step back, and put forth your points rationally, i'm sure your argument would have been more effective. -
and why may I ask, that the existance of thin layers in a certain place being evidence of a young earth is ridiculous?Originally posted by HENG@:i bother to read. and i laugh at your 'evidence' because it demonstrates a fairly serious assumption of geographical processes.
thing like assuming the existance of thin layers in a certain place is evidence of a young earth is ridiculous.
creatures who have been buried rapidly are also not evidence for a young earth. instead, they speak of the turbulet geological hazards of earth during their time.
the overall supporting evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of earth being young.
if a few piece of evidences which can be attributed to other normal geological processess, and the misguided calculations of some people from long ago are solid evidence of earth being 6000 yrs old, u better believe its flat, and in the center of the universe too!
in response to "creatures who have been buried rapidly are also not evidence for a young earth. instead, they speak of the turbulet geological hazards of earth during their time.", Great flood may i say?
Of course my supporting evidence would be in favour of that. Would it be in favour of anything else?
What other normal geological process might the evidences which I provided be attributed to? Oh, and the calculations are neither misguided nor from people from long ago. People from long ago don't talk about fossilization or sedimentary depositation and deformation. The rest of that para doesn't really say much about your point, so I shall ignore it. -
How would you know they are 250,000 years old? By radiometric dating? Looky looky. I'm assuming you know the processes of carbon dating.Originally posted by HENG@:Actually, even the 6000 yr history of man is wrong. 250,000 yr old human remains have been found b4.
the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.
14 and 12 are supposed to be superscripted, but due to technical limitations of this forum it isn't. 14C and 12C here represent isotopes of carbon.
EDIT:
Furthermore, the rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old. -
sibei qim!!!
-
its to show people that the Bible and science do not contradict each otherOriginally posted by babyys:sibei qim!!! -
edited by vince69 , cause not useful....
cheers -
Originally posted by vince69:[quote]Originally posted by HENG@:
[b]
edited by vince69 , cause not useful....
cheers
Type so much le then delete... -
wah leow .. i was reading the long replies above .. forgot to refresh!Originally posted by M©+square:
Type so much le then delete... -
Looky looky .. I'm assuming you know other radiometric dating techniques exist.Originally posted by sgFish:How would you know they are 250,000 years old? By radiometric dating? Looky looky. I'm assuming you know the processes of carbon dating. -
Originally posted by M©+square:
Type so much le then delete...
-
All your fault .. for not quoting fast enuff.Originally posted by M©+square:
Type so much le then delete... -
because both of you slower than meOriginally posted by Icemoon:All your fault .. for not quoting fast enuff. -
hmm. i read up a bit on other methods...it appears that there is a flaw in me using just one technique for my evidence, forgive me.Originally posted by Icemoon:Looky looky .. I'm assuming you know other radiometric dating techniques exist.