Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[Massimo2002]

Nothing can be absolutely trusted, because there is always the possibility that new observations will give different results. However, if, for example, radiometric dating of the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary by different methods and in different continents consistently yields ages of about 65 million years, it is more reasonable to accept those ages, at least provisionally, than to reject them and say that the true age is less than 10,000 years.

Are you able to accept that the Earth's average distance from the Sun (one astronomical unit) is 149.6 million kilometres and that the distance of the Sun from the Pleiades star cluster is about 28 million astronomical units? If you are, why do you have difficulty is accepting geological and astronomical ages of millions or billions of years?

I suppose I accept the earth's distance from the sun because it's a trivial thing but I have trouble with the age of the earth because if the earth is really old then that would invalidate the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you be clearer? What do you have problems with?

I could ask you to figure out what problems scientists have with the dating procedures. But we've been through this before.

 

[McBell]

... would invalidate the Bible.

How?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I notice is you reprimand someone without giving the so-called correct information.

That is the correct information.

 

[Esteban X]

Then we always have that chaotic soup some talk about... right?

Mmmmmm, Soup

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suppose I accept the earth's distance from the sun because it's a trivial thing but I have trouble with the age of the earth because if the earth is really old then that would invalidate the Bible.

I don't know that it would. Just a literal interpretation.

 

[Massimo2002]

I don't know that it would. Just a literal interpretation.

How would you interpret it non literally ?

 

[Massimo2002]

How?

I'm really not sure I just hear that A lot of Christians say that so I assume that it must be true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But abiogenesis is impossible without God even if the universe were a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years old.

The evidence doesn't indicate that and you certainly haven't provided anything that says differently. Repeating rejections and meaningless questions doesn't work.

I've seen kids spin in circles until they are dizzy and stagger around. That may fun as a kid, but it isn't a good way to respond to valid positions based on the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How would you interpret it non literally ?

Genesis for instance. You can get the lessons and meaning those stories convey without having to literally believe that a flood covered the entire Earth or that everything was created in 6 real days for instance. Books like Revelations aren't possible to interpret literally.

 

[Esteban X]

There evidence shows it did as the C-14 data from this sire refutes long ages but it consistent with the flood.
here is just one example of that evidence

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least 20 times 1960 levels.
Also the amount of C-14 would have been less.
So the c-14 to c -12 would have been about 1/30th of 1960 level.
That is about 2^5 times less which is 5 half lives.
The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years
5x that is 28,650 years of extra age,
4500 + 28,650 = 33,150 years
The average of the dates in the link above is about 30,000 years.
Bingo.
They are from the flood

Welcome to the science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm really not sure I just hear that A lot of Christians say that so I assume that it must be true.

A literal interpretation became a thing among some Christian groups in the 19th Century. It is people telling other people that they must interpret the Bible literally in order to be a "true" Christian. The Bible actually says that works will not get you into Heaven, only accepting Christ as your Savior is the way to Salvation. In my view, these Christians are demanding works from believers in defiance of what the Bible actually says.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is the correct information.

My! I finally got something right...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose I accept the earth's distance from the sun because it's a trivial thing but I have trouble with the age of the earth because if the earth is really old then that would invalidate the Bible.

The Bible is wrong quite often if you start to study it closely enough. That Genesis is just a book of myths s only the start. If your beliefs are only from a literal interpretation of the Bible that is a very shallow form of Christianity.

 

[Valjean]

While there are limitations to dating systems, it's not the process that I particularly hold in question. It's the material used to substantiate the scientists' viewpoint and conclusion.

The fossils themselves and surrounding strata? What else would you test?

 

[ratiocinator]

and all the evidence shows that the world wide flood occurred.

False.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Welcome to the science.

And of course he is using a false assumption.
So that is why he has a false conclusion.
He said that he determined it to be impossible because of the laws of physics.
While he is probably wrong in that too, it does not matter.
But God is Almighty so the laws of physics can be broken.
His theory is refuted.

 

[Esteban X]

And of course he is using a false assumption.
So that is why he has a false conclusion.
He said that he determined it to be impossible because of the laws of physics.
While he is probably wrong in that too, it does not matter.
But God is Almighty so the laws of physics can be broken.
His theory is refuted.

Just saying "Nuh uh" is not a refutation.

 

[Valjean]

I suppose I accept the earth's distance from the sun because it's a trivial thing but I have trouble with the age of the earth because if the earth is really old then that would invalidate the Bible.

Why are you so wedded to the Bible as the true and final authority in all matters? Have its claims been tested and validated, or are they based on hearsay and folklore? Are it's claims even clear, or do they depend on interpretation? Do you still believe in a flat Earth, or an Earth centered solar system? If not, why not? These were once biblically supported doctrine.

 

[Massimo2002]

Why are you so wedded to the Bible as the true and final authority in all matters? Have its claims been tested and validated, or are they based on hearsay and folklore? Are it's claims even clear, or do they depend on interpretation? Do you still believe in a flat Earth, or an Earth centered solar system? If not, why not? These were once biblically supported doctrine.

I suppose I believe in parts of the Bible and other parts such as flat earth amoung others I definitely doubt.