According to the bible, the earth is only about 6000 years
- Locked due to inactivity on Mar 18, '19 3:54am
Thread Topic: According to the bible, the earth is only about 6000 years
-
Doesn't respond if they actually read my link all the way through. Ok.
You realize, if radiometric dating is true, then there should be no inaccuracies at all, right? The way to prove then if it is true is to search specifically for inaccuracies. If the dating is inaccurate, then the results are inaccurate. I mean I'm not saying radiometric dating is a complete flop, but I did say it only works to a certain point. Biblically, that point is the Flood. The Flood wasn't just a bunch of rain. It was that cataclysmic event that shifted sedimentary rocks, changed the surface of the earth, changed the atmosphere, all that. The Flood explains a lot of reasons why secular scientists believe it took millions of years for rocks to settle into the way that they are.
You want me to find links for the Flood, I will. For radiometric dating though:
-
To be fair there are also inaccuracies in the Bible and all religions too
-
For the record, I did read that link, which is why I posted others.
It may not be able to pinpoint the exact date of how old something is, but it's able to put it in a range that's like "hey, this rock is about 4.4million years old, give or take a couple thousand years." It's not an "it's exactly ___ years old."
Also, no one's saying anything about the great flood being false? There's scientific evidence to back up that there was a flood, and also, other religions have stories of the flood (such as Hinduism which is the oldest religion in the world and I suggest reading the story because I'm sure you'll find many similarities between the Hinduism story and Noah's Ark (and it's also a really nice story)
And what I'm confused at is why you said that the flood is the reason why scientists believe that the earth is millions of years old because that kind of just proves that the earth is more than 6,000/7,000 years old.
-
What inaccuracies, John?
And what if that range isnt even true? Most of what is portrayed about radiometric dating is only any info that matches up with their theory of an old earth. The results are only accepted if they portray info--that may not even be true--with what old earth scientists already believe. There have already been examples where radiometric dating has calculated some rocks to be millions of years old, where we already know the age of the rock is no where near that. Which is controversial, because it's telling an age that isnt correct.
I'm glad you believe the Flood is real. A lot of scientists do not believe that a Flood happened, as described in the Bible. I was talking about the scientists who dont believe in there ever being a Flood. For those scientists, the earth has to be millions of years old for rocks to have settled into the way that they are, because they do not believe in the Flood. I believe though that the Flood happened, and since it did, it erases the need for millions of years to have changed rock formations. I'm sorry if I did not explain myself very well there ^^ -
as29383 NewbieAccording to science, which is a lot more accurate, the Warth is 4.6 billion years old.
-
as29383 NewbieEarth*
-
you should never say "According to science" science is almost never definitive because science is a process not just some book of facts. it's always changing as we get more advanced. in 30 years we might say the earth is 5Byo, or maybe 3Byo. you need to say what theory says your point, not just science in general
Pages:
- 1
- 2
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
