michaelpi
New Member
do you bevle all the stuff they are saying that the earth is arond 4.2 billyin years old and we evaled from apes and arangatanes?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
michaelpi said:do you bevle all the stuff they are saying that the earth is arond 4.2 billyin years old and we evaled from apes and arangatanes?
Eon said:There is no, I repeat, NO credible scientific evidence for the world being 6,000 years old. We have identified living organisms that are older than that - some clonal colonies of Creosote bushes and some bacterium that were thrust into suspended animation when buried in the intestines of a mammoth that became preserved in a peat bog. There are fungi older than 6,000 years.
Didasko said:The difference between what I have been saying and your statements Eon is this:
I have admitted that my position cannot be proven with current science. I am not trying to prove it to you. It cannot be done. Your position has the same restraints on it. There is absolutely no way that you can prove to me that the earth is billions of years old. You stated your position as 'fact' in the way it was worded.
Now Eon and DV, you both posted links to sites that support your point. Eon your sight attempted to refute a few of the arguments for a young earth. DV yours was a support site for dating methods. So you found a website that supports your claims...I can post five that support mine. Then you could post five more that support yours. Then I could post five more that support mine. We could do this for a year and probably never run out.
My point from the beginning is this, neither of us can prove our belief on this topic. All three of us are biased as I admitted in my original post in this thread. You can admit your bias or try to drag me through the ringer for suggesting it. You do not beleive in God and that must effect how you view this topic.
To admit that the earth may be young would throw your whole world into a spin. Viewing dating methods as legit makes it easier to accept the old earth arguments.
Eon said:Actually Didasko, it would mess up my worldview a lot less to be proven wrong on this one, because belief in the Scientific Principle allows for errant ideas to be thrown onto the bonfire of history.
It's creationists that have the problem of having to hold this line or risk their entire worldview coming crashing down around their ears.
Now I would very like to see some proofs of a young earth that haven't been scientifically debunked about 20 years ago. If you have some then let's bring them out. For the purpose of comparison - if you can find a website that successfully debunks my debunks, then we'll disallow them.
Dark Virtue said:You said that neither of us can prove our belief...keep in mind that I don't have a belief to prove. Mine is the default stance, not being able to choose one way or the other because of a lack of proof.
Didasko said:DV I understand that you are a soft atheist. That has nothing to do with this argument. Are you saying that you do not believe in the old earth theory?
When you posted support for it (more than once) I assumed that you were an old earth advocate. Am I wrong?
As I have told Eon several times now. Neither theory is proveable using the scientific method. Can we all admit that and move on here?
If not then the burden of proof becomes yours.