Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Creation Museum
wyvex
Member UncommonPosts: 346
has any one heard about or been to this museum? http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html
does any one else think this world is barely 6,000 years old??. ..
Comments
Hahahahaha omfg this comes up here at work all the time. A guy across hall from me made me read some of their website, www.answersingenesis.org. He literally believes there is no solid proof that the world is over 6,000 years old. According to him, no form of dating is accurate enough for him to believe. He also says they potassium-k/carbon dated new rocks from a volcano and they come out as millions of years old when they knew the actual date they were made (i.e. last week). If anyone could prove him wrong it would be amazing to pwn him in another debate
I personally believe that God created the big bang, knowing how it would all end up, thereby creating us. I just don't believe it happened in 7 days and Houdini'd out of no where. 7 days from Genesis could easily be 7,000,000 of our years today. There's nothing to prove or disprove it.
Well.....I guess if its true for them, its true for them!
Just like L. Ron Hubbard said, if it's true for you, it's true for you, and if it's not, it's not.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Whenever someone comes by and says the earth is 6,000 years old and says therre is no real good proof otherwise i just point them in the direction of Ice cores.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
well i guess starting a cult that made him so much money was an ok idea from a business standpoint, but it lead to his murder so maybe it wasn't a good idea after all.
well i guess starting a cult that made him so much money was an ok idea from a business standpoint, but it lead to his murder so maybe it wasn't a good idea after all.
Yeah I guess if he didn't think he was crazy, he must not have been crazy!!! CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Well I told the creationist about ice core samples, and he hits me with this:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355
I need more ammo
Actually, radiocarbon dating is extremely accurate as long as the source materials are handled with care. The half-lives of the materials involved are clearly established, and as long as you don't use nuclides that are unaffected by electron density, there's little reason anyone should doubt their findings unless they insistently wanted to believe that they just weren't true.
If you're actually curious about this, though, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
And for direct refutations of the arguments he's likely to use:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
Honestly, though, as with most zealots, any argument you use is likely to be ignored. This guy has persisted in his belief in the face of lots of evidence to the contrary probably before he met you. So I wouldn't be too excited about trying to change his mind: he's made it up already, and all he's looking for is evidence to back up his beliefs. He's not actually interested in the age of the Earth. He's interested in being right.
Yes I do.
I believe God put Dinosaur remains, just to confuse us.
The Bible omitted that in later editions, but in the original Bible on the 8th day, after a day of rest, God was bored and decided to spread few Dinosaur skeletons around the world for fun, in order to confuse us.
And in order to make it more challenging, he casted a carbon dating spell which gave the remains a few million years old age.
On the 9th day, God was still bored and created the Grand Canyon.
By causing a huge flooding, the waters were able to erode granite rocks in just 2 days.
Therefore God made rain.....It rained and it rained and it rained (about 2 hours) but it rained diamond dust instead of water, possibly the only material that could erode rocks and create Canyons so fast.
(It wasn't real water of course, silly you to think otherwise, not even God could do such a miracle c'mon).
The 10th day.........well add whatever your fantasy suggest, you cannot disprove anything so go on indulge yourself ...........
Well the mere fact they found planes under ice means nothing when you talk about Glacial ice as it moves about 1 metre a year.In the end tho i wouldnt even bother arguing wit a religious Nut as any reasonable argument [such as ice cores] has a countrer argument by a so called scientist thats taken as fact by the Bible nuts. Hell i bet halph of these creation scientists dont even have real qualifications just made up ones that sound sciency.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
It says that the author of that article is some guy named Dr. Larry Vardiman. If you do a search on this guy you find that no other scientist takes his work seriously. He is not quoted in any scientific journals or documentation other than his own and those of other creationists citing his work as "fact". Part of being taken seriously by the scientific community is being able to prove your work and present evidence that others can work with. His work does neither. He's a fringe scientist in other words. Someone who went to school, got a Dr. in front of his name and then tried to make a name for himself through confusion. Just because someone has Dr. in front of their name does not make them just as credible as every other scientist out there.
Also, check the other sources of his article (they're down towards the bottom of that link you put up). You will notice that the latest article he cites is from 1989 and the articles go back as early as the mid 60's. This is another trick the creationists tend to use. They go back through old old old documentation searching for something somewhere to prove their case. When in reality, the scientific community has moved on and has found even more evidence to substantiate their statements. They use this a lot with evolution when they hark back to Darwin. Darwinism and current evolution are two totally different things. As science evolves in it's knowledge, it has found even more evidence that evolution is true, yet creationists still point back to old Darwinian evidence that has been discredited. Of course that theory has changed, but pulling out old things that science has already disregarded doesn't make someones whole case factual. Especially when you point it out to a scientist and they look at you and go "Duh, that was decades ago, why are you still bringing that up?"
It's enough though that the guy who wrote that article is either just an opportunistic person, or a person trying to hang on to his religion, or just a nut job. Either way, he's not taken seriously in the scientific community at all.
Oh, and one other thing. Your friend is saying that the ice core samples are off by hundreds of thousands of years. The chance of that happening are soooo slim. If they find they go back 160,000 years ago and your friend says that they Earth is 6,000 years old, does he realize that he is saying there is an error of 154,000 years!!!! I can see there being a slight error, or even maybe a more than slight error, but to be off by 154,000 years causes even the greatest imagination to burn out in defeat. But, I guess that's what creationist faith requires. Putting aside all rational thought.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
awesomeeeee
those were solid arguments that just lead him to go "whatever..." a.k.a. admitting defeat
So lava can't be millions of years old because it solidified 2 days ago?
Ok.
Wish Darkfall would release.
HeH yea thats what i thought.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
Do you all have fun putting down catholics, you know that catholics outnumber atheists and all other religions in this country.
damn, science is really starting to become a cult. God made all kinds.
Do you all have fun putting down catholics, you know that catholics outnumber atheists and all other religions in this country.
ZOMG! LOTS OF PEOPLE DO IT SO I SHOULD DO IT TOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
Of course, that goes for any idiots who convert to Athiesim to be non-conformists. But that doesn't happen as often.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
I'm missing the emphasis your statement was supposed to make.Do you all have fun putting down catholics, you know that catholics outnumber atheists and all other religions in this country.
"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
two roads diverged in a wood, and I --
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
===============================
You miss the point of the argument...the dating technique is accurate to the point that the lava hardens...therefore any attempt to date the lava with those methods would be useless to determine how old the liquid magma was.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You think it's bad reading about it? Try having to live within the area. My house is probably 10 miles away from that damn museum. It's the shame of the city.
Secondly Forza, might doesn't make right, just because a lot of people do something, doesn't mean it's any good, you know what I mean- McDonalds, WoW, Latter Day Saints, etc..
Do you all have fun putting down catholics, you know that catholics outnumber atheists and all other religions in this country.
Yes but the trend is reverting, Atheists are growing in number while religious people are shrinking.
But.............. If it is so easy to put down catholics, there must be a reason.
Maybe promoting something like the "Creation Museum" got something to do with it?
Why religious people feel the need to justify their religion by using science?
Isn't it faith good enough anymore?
One of the problems with this is that a lot of people just don't grasp that the Bible can very well be viewed as allegory, and insist on taking it literally.
The Catholic Church doesn't buy into the 6000 year old thing, they're smart enough to realize that the Bible was written as allegory, not literal truth.
But I'm afraid there are a lot of stupid people inthe US who can't grasp this.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Catholics are lolable IMO. In fact, most organized churches are. I'm a Christian, but so many churches (see: even catholic churches) are in it for profit, leading me to stay far away from them . On top of that, mostly all of them have been scewed up by governments and societies throughout the time. Who are they to decide that some original books from the bible should be left out? They were in there for a reason, but all of a sudden one church leader decides he doesn't want it and cuts it out. Deny all you want, but this has happened more than once.
/rant
Thats one reason the bible shouldnt be taken that seriously its been through so many edits and alterations and re-interpretations over the centurys that the current book is probably of little resembelence to the origonal text.
Also the origonal Bible was origonally made up of parts/fragments from various other Bibles from other versions of the christian faith with differnt ideas concerning christianity. And those different versions were based on storys told over severall generations that most likely went through subtle changes over the generations. Which were based on origonal gospels from both Jesus and the various disiples varying views on what they thought Jesus meant [each view being different].
So as you can see the current Bible means very little in a literall sence.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
You miss the point of the argument...the dating technique is accurate to the point that the lava hardens...therefore any attempt to date the lava with those methods would be useless to determine how old the liquid magma was.
Actually that's not right.
And I'm assuming you didn't read this part: He also says they potassium-k/carbon dated new rocks from a volcano and they come out as millions of years old when they knew the actual date they were made (i.e. last week).
Implying that because the lava hardend (formed) at what ever time, that it can't be older then when it was formed. Even common sence would tell you that that is just silly.
Molecular half lives are very well understood, and the dating methods used by scientists are quite accurate.
i honestly feel bad for the people who are falling for these creationist lies. LIES. If you people would take the time to actually learn were the information you are so quick to accept actually came from you might be a little more excepting of what is truth.
The earth is not 6k years old. The bible doesn't tell you it was 6k years old. No religious text ever discovered have said that the earth is 6k years old. No bible, or religious text ever discovered even indicates how long ago god made the planet.
68 national and international science academies states that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, that life appeared on Earth approximately 3.5 billion years ago, and that scientific evidence has never contradicted this,
Read were this young earth idea comes from. Some things to look up. Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), George McCready Price author of The New Geology partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets, Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr, James Ussher (1581–1656).
Not a single one of those people used science to determine the age of the earth. They used thier religious belief and thier own interpretation of the bible. Not a single fact. Creationists today still don't use any scientific method of backing up thier claim.
Science is not based in faith. Religion is. Faith can be misguided. Facts can not.
Edit: We know that Egypt was a nation in 10k bce, along with the Sumarians and a group in what is now Pakistan and India. These three groups are the oldest civilizations in the world. They were the first civilizations, and not one of them was jewish!
Edit again: With the exception of the Sumarians, who's religion actually parallels the jews. This would be because the Jews came from the same area and had the same beliefs. As they moved out of Suma, thier religion EVOLVED into what is now Judia.
Edit once more: Much like the Jews did, the christians took from the most popular religions of thier time and made it thier own. Neither of these two religions are unique or original and there is historical evidence to support it.
Wish Darkfall would release.
There's a lot that's great about the bible, it's a remarkable collections of books, and I believe we can learn a lot about God from it. For me, taking it as the inerrant word of God, is a leap of faith beyond reason, and a potentially dangerous one at that.
In regards to this thread, it is interesting to note, that Genesis actually presents two different creation stories within the first two chapters.