Young earth vs old earth theory?

Science doesn’t prove anything. Anyone who knows anything about science, should know that. Science just attempts to develop a preponderance of evidence in areas that makes doubters seem pretty silly.

 

Oh, I see. When someone can show the old earth theories wrong then they are nuts. Well, we don't have continuous cultures through the period of the flood. The time periods you claim are not provable. The earth was flooded for a year at the maximum.

 

Ancient rock from Earth, asteroids, the Moon all are radiometrically dated to that age. This has to do with how our fundamental elements decay.

Scientists study how solar systems developed by examining the universe - which is chock full of solar systems.

There are other ways to find confirming evience as well.

I know you didn't actually mean "just one" - LOL!!

 

Then why are you so silly about the earth being young? Why do secularists, who are primarily global warming nuts, think there is "settled science?" Biden and Democrats run around spouting out that science has proven man-made global warming. If science doesn't prove anything then why believe them? Science doesn't develop any evidence for any particular theory. That isn't what scientists should be about unless they are political and money grabbing whores. Science comes up with theories and experiments. It's up to the interpreters to decide how to put the information together. And, that's based on your prejudice towards young earth or old earth. Faith...

 

If the evidence that has convinced the global scientific community and nearly every educated person on the planet has not convinced you, then it is time for you to reevaluate and find out where you went wrong. These trollish exercises of having all the same evidence spoonfed to you for the umpteenth time only serve the purpose of amusing you and getting you attention. Why anyone still does it, i have no idea.

 

I've brought facts or scientific studies and analysis. All you continue to bring are slurs and biased propaganda. When are you going to bring into the discussion actual studies and information?

 

No you haven't. If you deferred to science, you would not be at odds with the entire, global scientific community, nearly every educated person on Earth, and 5th grade textbooks.

 

I did defer to science. I gave you studies and scientific information with references available. You read none of it. As far as text books, since when are they facts? There are still college books that have the old every life actually started out as fish or frogs pictures and rationale. But, once again, you lower yourself to faking like you know anything about this and you fake like you have proof but you don't. You just type a few words without proof of anything you say. Why should anyone believe you?

 

False. If you deferred to the science, you would not be at odds with the science, the global scientific community, nearly every educated person on Earth, and 5th grade textbooks.

 

Never heard such a thing. Never. Scientists just present evidence then give a range under which the evidence leads to a particular usable conclusion. If anyone says anything is settled by science, it just means it’s settled for them because they accept that 97% assurance is enough for them to act accordingly.

You can’t be in the military or any-other form of science based endeavor and think anything is proven. You’re making up stuff to assume otherwise.. Still, people have to act on climate change because the chances it is all true, is way beyound the chance that it isn’t. Deal with it.

There are over 3000 accredited universities in the world that all accept the basic tenants of the evidence of climate change, enough to support a common action. 97% agreement is enough.

Where is your evidence ?

 

are you a teenager or are puerile trite schoolyard insults your idea of wit?

 

No idea what you mean by the time periods are not provable - but clearly you are not referring to the 2100-2300 BC because we know what was happening around this time period very accurately.

You make some claims - but give no detail or support for claim - no rational .. nothing.

Do you think that Christ was crucified roughly 2000 years ago - the Romans present at that time - or do you think these dates are way off as well.

 

Oh dear, for someone with such strong opinions about science the fact you dont know how we know the APPROXIMATE age of the earth

Just a bunch of clowns making crap up I guess

Here is a quick primer that doesnt use really big words Not that educating yourself will in anyway sway your opinion, but who knows,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

 

I'm not at odds with true science. Your science has come up with false theories and conclusions. I'm not impressed by your insistence of "Safety in Number" routine. I can prove your conclusions are false. I already did so with your claim that man has evolved from Chimps. Your information is incorrect. The DNA is not closely associated with Man anymore than a worm or banana is.

 

Of course you are. You would fail a 5th grade science quiz. You would get laughed out of any science class at any level of education for making these claims. You are embarrassing yourself in a debate you lost nearly 300 years ago.

 

No, if you can show a different age, science would be excited about that.

The catch is that you have absolutely NO evidence for a different age.

 

I haven't seen anything like that from you.

Maybe you could cite again OR give a post #.

 

As I read this, I just want to point out a few things. Here is a paragraph that really explains what I've been saying, "The second act of the drama sees a prolonged attempt by a new generation of geologists to estimate the age of the earth from observational evidence, to come up with an answer that would satisfy the demands of newly dominant evolutionary thinking, and to reconcile this answer with the constraints imposed by thermodynamics." Note how "geologists" are looking to satisfy their demand of the dominant (safety in numbers) evolutionary (Godless) THINKING. "Thinking cannot be used as fact. Geologists are looking to prove their hypothesis or current "belief." It's like I've said, it depends on where you are coming from when you look at the experimental and observational science. Think of this as fitting a square peg in a round hole.

Here's another thing to consider from the article, "The third act sees the entry of a newly discovered set of physical laws—those governing radioactivity. Radioactivity offered not only a resolution to the puzzle of the earth’s energy supply but also a chronology independent of questionable geologic assumptions and a depth of time more than adequate for the processes of evolution." This sort of dating rocks and things depends upon your belief in how old the earth is. And, it is extremely inconsistent and inaccurate. There are countless errors when you look at their carbon dating and other methods with historical evidence. I'm not talking about a couple of years off. I'm talking about thousand, tens of thousands and millions of year off. Here are some articles for you to read:
https://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric/
https://www.icr.org/article/doesnt-carbon-dating-prove-earth-old
https://www.icr.org/article/myths-dressed-science

I particularly like the last one because it has a statement in it that I've tried to convey here: "Since the interstellar radiation incident on the earth's atmosphere varies with the seasons, with weather, with solar activity, with galactic activity, and with variations in the earth's magnetic field, it is extremely unreasonable to expect constant production rates for any of these radioisotopes over the vast amounts of time claimed. To suggest that all five assumptions can be strictly maintained for over three million years is completely untenable.Why would any scientist publish something as fact when it rests on such a shaky foundation? There are probably many superficial reasons, but it appears the fundamental reason is that these "scientists" are attempting, whether consciously or unconsciously, to indoctrinate the public rather than educate them.

There are many, many studies published in other "scientific publications" that also bring out the errors. But, many scientists, politicians and secularists are interested in indoctrination of the Marxist Darwinist beliefs.

 

At some point when you continue deny the evidence, you have to concede that industries like Exxon and other fossil fuel companies are all freakn lucky in the search for oil deposits.

 

There have been no worldwide floods in the time of humans. We know this.

 

Seriously ? For a year ? How and where did all that water disappear to ?

 

Non science people have no evidence. They do have a life expectancy double what it would have been without medical science. Otherwise, we would not have to listen to them for twice as long as we do.

 

"There are many, many studies published in other "scientific publications" that also bring out the errors."

Link?

 

There aren't constraints imposed by thermodynamics that could possibly drive an incorrect answer to the age of the universe or of Earth or of evolution of life forms.

There ARE issues of thermodynamics that would have a GIGANTIC impact on ANY notion of flooding Earth.

Do you have ANY idea what the heat equations would look like if enough water vapor condensed to rain to drown life with rain?

 

This is 100% conspiracy theory.

And, the rest of your post demonstrates that clearly. All these guys are doing is claiming they know the reason that the world wide sciences involved are ALL colluding for some reason that has nothing to do with science.

As with all global conspiracy theories like that, it is just plain NUTTY. There is NO possibility of perpetrating such a world wide conspiracy of all related sciences. And, there is absolutely no reward for doing so.

Somehow, these nut cases think they are so important that there would be a whole world wide effort of deciet for no reason other than THEM!!!

Who the heck do they think they are that anyone would care about them AT ALL??