Vote
22 Total Votes
1

Scientific View: Approx. 4.5 Billion Years

17 votes
3 comments
2

Creationist View: Approx. 6000 Years

3 votes
1 comment
3

Other View: Approx. (Comment)

2 votes
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
LogicPrevails says2014-04-27T21:21:45.4152410-05:00
I messed up the title! *Facepalm*
donald.keller says2014-04-27T21:28:17.5348934-05:00
My view is that no one is going to burst into flames or cause the political and economic end of the end by believing either or. If there was an actual effect from believing one or the other, I might care more.
guntherstauffenberg says2014-04-28T19:21:39.1247428-05:00
It is old.
xxWesxx says2014-05-04T20:30:30.0729919-05:00
Giraffelover saysMay 1 2014 08:53 PM Report Post Even though scientists INSIST the Earth is old, the reality is that no one was there to see it happen (not counting God, since belief in God isn't a given for obvious reasons). http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm However, I believe all evidence is examined based on preconceived notions on both sides, and therefore, any evidence that's in existence is prone to prejudice. ---Your beliefs on how evidence is gathered are meaningless and fallacious..As well as downright wrong. The age of the Earth has been calculated BY collecting the evidence, not guessing or believing, then looking backwards to prove it. That may be how you conclude things religiously, but it is the exact opposite of how science operates. The "were you there" argument holds zero weight. By your own logic, you cannot possibly know that god did it, or that Jesus even lived...Or that the bible is true, as you were not there. Unfortunately for you, science has the tools to take us there. And it doesn't require belief, but acceptance of reality. Tree rings grow per season. The change is the result of varying growth in warm and cold, sunny and dark seasons...And yes, we were there to see this. There are trees in California older than your YEC website alleges the Earth is. By observing these rings, and the growth rates, we can cross-date trees by aligning the rings perfectly. The oldest records from cross dating and counting tree rings date back further than your YEC site claims the entire universe is. But that alone isn't all we can see using science. Ice core samples from polar caps have been drilled. Their composition is dependant upon seasonal changes as well. Some ice core samples show over 800,000 full seasonal years (all four seasons). In order for the Earth to be 6000 years old would mean that there had to be, on average, over 133 winter, spring, summer and fall seasons per year. So who is working backwards from a preconceived notion? The fact is that we all piece things together all the time from events we were not there to see. From history, to archaeology, to forensic crime investigations. Even medical practices can involve the use of evidence to calculate events....And I somehow doubt that you reject all of these, unless you truly believe our legal systems have zero concern for the truth, and no power to detect it. And again, it doesn't stop there. We can in fact see the big bang. In 1989, COBE, the Cosmic Background Explorer was launched to photograph the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which resulted from the inflation of the universe some 14.6 billion years ago, and only about 200,000 years after the big bang began. This number is determined by the speed of light, and the existence of gravity. Since we can measure both, and we know that light is a constant, it means the universe is at least 14.7 billion years old. The only way this can change is if the speed of light were not constant. This however just amplifies the issue, since mathematical calculations state if the speed of light were faster in the past, then the universe would be even older still. So in summary, no, it is not two opposing views or beliefs, based on preconceived ideas that look to fit evidence. It is one view that takes in evidence, calculates the results, then determines the accuracy based on the variation between results, ever fine tuning it as more accurate measuring tools become available - and the other side blindly following what some person tells them, based on a grossly erroneous text from an era that had no understanding or tools to measure these things,refusing to accept new evidence that conflicts with the blindly accepted idiocy for which ALL available evidence disproves. One view accepts information, the other seeks to destroy it.
giraffelover says2014-05-04T21:29:41.8653919-05:00
BUT it's based on certain assumptions that CAN'T be known with 100% accuracy. The oldest known tree is approx. 10 K Years old,but it cheats because it clones itself. Therefore, it's not technically 10,000 years old. As for ice cores, how do you KNOW that they're annual? As for the speed of light being constant, that's not necessarily set in stone. The truth is, both Christians AND scientists can be as stubborn as mules, if not more so. And I must point out that insulting people the way you are is giving science and learning a bad name. REAL science doesn't insult people who disagree with them. Http://news.Nationalgeographic.Com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.Html http://www.Icr.Org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/ http://www.Cbsnews.Com/news/has-speed-of-light-slowed-down/
giraffelover says2014-05-04T21:34:42.1149033-05:00
Try THIS on for size: http://www.Earthage.Org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.Htm
SNP1 says2014-05-04T21:44:11.3001919-05:00
Giraffelover: How pathetic. Can't find any peer reviewed evidence? Only biased speculation.
giraffelover says2014-05-05T08:57:07.4552551-05:00
In other words, you have no rebuttal. Believe what you want, and I'll believe what I think fits the evidence best.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.