Is it scientifically plausible for the Earth to only be thousands of years old? Or is a billions of years old Earth more likely?
Six thousand years is scientifically plausible.
I've already checked out websites like these
No sir, creationists believe that a panther like creature can turn into a cat and a lion (each respectively) in a matter of only 90 years. That's scientifically impossible lmfao
Who ever said 90 years?
We literally have proof it’s billions of years old to deny that is dumb
I'm on the younger side. I don't believe the billions of years crap
Really, do you believe in fairies and angels too?
"It's absurd to think that a world that looks to be billions of years old is actually billions of years old"
Angels are real, not sure about fairies.
Don’t be messing with Santa Claus
Oh Santa is real, I still get a stocking
The old earth theory is merely the latest example of science disproving some claims of the religious, but does nothing to disprove the religion itself. Extremely old books understandably contain extremely old worldviews, even while explaining great truths.
This is the best explanation I’ve ever seen.
You have no idea how much I covet †hat response. (There's that unplanned cross again. Someone help me out.)
Emojis have been acting up, what are you seeing exactly?
MCW, can you see the cross that forms the first "t" in the word "that"?
I can see it. check your settings in your keyboard
I see it as well.
Thanks mmm. I will right now.
I've turned "predictive" off. Let's see how that does.
I turned mine off last week. It is hard on the iPad when it’s enabled.
Haven't seen it since. Thanks.
Oh and a new update is out
Your poll has 2 questions. The answer for both are "yes".
From what I gather from the Qur'an and the Earth is that is an old Earth about billions of years old, that is also based on scientific data and history that does not conflict to my knowledge.
and Ahadeeth (Hadith in plural form)*
Besides fossils...we have physical ARTIFACTS from civilizations that can be dated in numerous ways ARE *OLDER* THAN WHAT CREATIONISTS CLAIM TO BE THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE!
Yes, this shit gets under my skin. I'm an Anthropology major going into Archaeology. UGH.
I mean, for fuck's sake, the oldest sex toy ever discovered...a dildo found in a cave near Ulm by Paleo Researchers...is 28,000 years old!
That sounds like the devils work.
It sounds kinky
Evidence points to an old Earth and universe.
The only way for creationists to get out of this is to claim Earth was created mature, geological strata to starlight from far away already implemented.
That looks like deception. So God deceives us?
The geological strata are only evidence for an old earth if you look at it from a tinted atheist lense. Why can God not stack different types of rock on each other? Likewise, why would he leave large swaths of the night sky empty to human sight?
The geological strata and fossils are excellent evidence of a great flood. Fossils and sedimentary layering are typically formed only from a flooding event, and since they are found everywhere in earth, it fits nicely within the great flood account.
No offense but this is ridiculous. If scientists saw what you're claiming is legitimate to be true, they would say there was a great flood and young earth. Most scientists are professing Christians. Also note that there'd be fossil evidence supporting your side
I could say I'm a butterfly but that wouldn't be true, is it? There are geologists and anthropologists that support what I said but don't necessarily make people public assertions as to avoid professional interference (losing their job, ridicule, or prevention of promotion).
Here's a website setup by many of them:
Less than 1%. Less than 1% of the scientific community agrees with you. And from seeing your other posts, less than 1% of that 1% fully agree with you lmfao.
Also, I don't count people who are theistic evolutionists to be creationists. If a theistic evolutionist got fired from their spot at a university, that's likely due to them invoking an unproven god into a class on science. You can't do that. If a creationist got fired, it's because a majority of scientists in academia support evolution. Academia is based on what the experts of a certain field think and can agree on. A vast majority agree with evolution, therefore it's taught. Easy as pie.
The vast majority once believed that creationism was true, but the Supreme Court still allowed evolution to be taught.
Evolutionists can only appeal to authority while providing no actual rebuttal to the facts presented by creationists.
Thankfully truth and facts don't rely on consensus, which is the only thing evolutionists have. The facts don't support the theory.
I'm perfectly fine being in the minority as long as I'm in the side of truth, which I know that I am. Did you know that evolution became the dominant theory taught in schools soon after the Scopes' trial? Did you also know that they used fraudulent fossils (Piltdown and Nebraska Man) in that trial to prove evolution?
Sounds quite familiar. Just like how opposition to homosexuality has become a fringe opinion after Obergefell.
It is not an appeal to authority to say that Evolution should be taught because a majority of the experts in relevant fields believe it to be scientifically proven. It's an appeal to authority to say "evolution is true because scientists say so". Evolution is true because the evidence says so.
Even Christians believe in evolution. You must if you believe in Noah's Ark
As I said before, the majority believed in creationism as well, but that didn't stop evolution from being taught. To forbid something from being taught because it goes against the majority opinion is completely totalitarian.
Creationists believe in microevolution, aka dogs to dogs, cats to cats, birds to birds. The idea of natural selection is quite logical. We just don't believe in macroevolution, aka bacteria to humans. Such massive transformations over however large a timescale are quite impossible.
No sir, you believe or creationists teach that a panther like creature can turn into a lion and a cat (each respectively) in 90 year! You don't fucking believe in only "short leaps" lmao you believe in big leaps in short time. That's macro evolution lmao.
And like I said before, a majority of the scientists (in relevant fields) EVEN BACK THEN believed evolution to some degree. And that's why it was taught to the people and that's why the case was likely ruled in favor of the evolutionists.
A lion and a cat both have the same number of chromosomes (38), just as all manner of canines have 39. What you consider macroevoluion is just variation within a population. Look at all the dog breeds for example. They can be small like Yorkies or large like Great Danes. Size, color, hair type, etc are all perfectly possible for a type of animal with the same number of chromosomes. What's impossible is a type of organism permanently gaining/losing a marker chromosome and evolving into an entirely different type of organism. An animal with scales can never evolve to have feathers. This has never been observed and is thus not scientific, but a belief.
the creationist theory consist of everything being created in a week by a invisible deity in space. that is not science there for not scientifically plausible. But if you believe that's what happen, scientific plausibility doesn't really matter
starlight alone disproves the young earth theory, so there is no science in it at all
This is a rather loaded question I'll admit, but I'm more trying to see if anyone can think of any logical or scientific ideas as to why the Earth may not be billions of years old. It is essentially a hypothetical question.
The evidence is certainly stacked against the young Earth claim.
"starlight alone disproves the young earth theory, so there is no science in it at all"
Not true. That is only if you believe the stars are as far away as you're told. God placed the stars in the firmament which may only be a few thousand miles away. Problem solved.
So, they’re closer than our neighboring planets, which we’ve flown satellites to (millions of miles away)???
Either Kscott is a troll or he's a flat earther or geocentrist
Satellites, lol. There are no satellites in space. Every picture of one is CGI animation, green screen tech, or ORAD virtual set technology. Go to the NASA website and find one pic in space that's real.
Oh honey . .
Unable to, I see
We can see planets and stars through telescopes on Earth. We don't even need satellites
You see lights in the sky and call them planets and stars. They're luminaries moving in the firmament.
With a telescope you can see they are not the same things. I have looked through a telescope and seen the sun and several other planets. They do not look the same.
This is what you actually see when looking at the planets and stars through a telescope, not the CGI creations shown to you by the NASA frauds.
I never said they were the same thing
if satellites aren't in space how you explain GPS, satellite TV, or even our weather forcasts?
"Magic made by the devil to fool mankind"
also if stars were only a few thousands miles away we'd all be dead... the sun alone is 93 million miles away
This theory is just proving my point if you want to believe in creationism you have to suspend scientific plausibility
"Magic. The Jesus protects us from the sun rays with the Firmament"