vja4Him Posted December 22, 2005 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 85 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/04/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/18/1957 Share Posted December 22, 2005 What is the strongest evidence for a young earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hebrews_beauty Posted December 22, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 232 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/14/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2005 I don't know that there is any. Regardless, I don't believe in a "young Earth." I think this page is somewhat interesting. Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 22, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 19 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/20/1967 Share Posted December 22, 2005 In that regard, we can say that "hard science" (that which can be observed and repeated in the laboratory) has nothing to say about origins; that issue is beyond its scope. The various dating methods used on rocks are all subject to great inaccuracies due to assumptions that must be made in order to calibrate them. Fossils are of no help either. Only by first presuming the alleged slow progression of life from the simple to the complex can they date rocks by means of the fossils found in them. When a geologist is asked the age of a particular rock, he asks what fossils are found in it, then decides what epoch the rock must lie within. This is not science but tautology (circular reasoning). It's true that Dating by fossils is the most used method, because that's the most cheap method. But Rocks have been dated with normal dating methods. It's true that they are subject to inaccuracies, but a million years younger or older still proves an old eath. Look up the K-T boundary...It has been dated a lot of times because it exists the world over and it's very easy to see what it is. And it was dated 65 million years ago almost perfectly. All the time. So at the very least, we have no hard evidence that the earth is terribly old. Besides, who defines "old"? We can't argue for a "young" earth if we don't know what "old" is. The truth is that these are relative and highly-loaded terms. To me, anything older than me is "old". To the human race, anything before recorded history is "old". To science, nothing is either "old" or "young" outside of some other reference, such as recorded history. What you're saying is true, but I think it's safe to assume vja4him meant 6000-8000 years old or miljons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 22, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 19 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/20/1967 Share Posted December 22, 2005 How much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vja4Him Posted December 22, 2005 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 85 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/04/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/18/1957 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 How much? The 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens is good evidence of catastrophic events that some scientists claim must take millions of years to happen, but only took days/months to form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest charlie Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 What is the strongest evidence for a young earth? None; the earth is old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted December 22, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I'd say give up, there are no strong evidences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezekielsdreams Posted December 22, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/14/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2005 Moon property wow i always wanted to move there how much land do a get for a million dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest charlie Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Is it a lack of faith that drives some people to insist on a young earth? All the legitimate, scientific evidence points to a very old earth which shouldn't alarm people. After all, isn't God our Creator too old to comprehend? Even if it could be proven as fact that the earth is a billion years old isn't God even older? I think it's time to put the idea of a young earth behind us right along with the idea of a flat-earth. To continue to insist on a *young earth* only insults people's intelligence and could potentially undermine young people's faith in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 22, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 19 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/20/1967 Share Posted December 22, 2005 The 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens is good evidence of catastrophic events that some scientists claim must take millions of years to happen, but only took days/months to form. Aber...Nein. Du bist wong. Some things take a lot of time, while others take not as much. And scientists are wrong too. But no scientist claims an eruption takes millions of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts