Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The earth is young like the Bible tells us, not old. [Spirituality & Religion]

I listened to a Christian program this morning when they mentioned that scientists had the dating of some rocks off by millions of years and the rocks had actually formed very recently after a volcano. Carbon dating accuracy is called into question after major flaw discovery,



The Bible and the Young Age of the Earth


Creation or Evolution:



Why don't we hear of people challenging these dates?

It is a rare thing for someone to publicly dispute the alleged "millions of years" age of the earth. When someone does they are often attacked or accused of being ignorant.

We can use critical thinking skills to rule out a millions or billions of years date for the earth.



We can not look at current rates of rock formation, erosion, etc to determine the age of the earth because there may have been factors in the past that are not happening in the present. In fact the Bible tells us just that. A flood covered the entire earth this would alter, shift and mix up the entire face of the earth. This flood also altered the rate of sediments laid down, the formation of sedimentary rock and also the rate of erosion.

Something that may take many years to form today (the Grand Canyon for instance) could have formed quite quickly during the flood.

The Bible even predicted that in the "last days" there would be those who scoff at the bible, and claim that "all things continue as they were from the beginning" (II Peter 3:3). This seems to say that there would be a predominance of uniformitarianism thinking. Mountains form slowly today, so they assume that they must have formed slowly in the past. The Creation model tells us that mountains formed quickly as the result of the flood.

No matter how old the earth is, Evolution is impossible

Everything we know of Science (entropy etc..) tells us that even if the world was millions or even billions of years old, evolution would still be impossible (the chapter on mutations will explain this).(opens new window)

In the popular press we are led to believe that the antiquity of the earth is a proven fact. We are told that all Scientists believe the world is old, and that all of our dating methods confirm this.

The truth is, many well qualified Scientists, and lay people alike are well justified in their belief that the earth, and universe is quite young.

A secret they have learned is one that you may never have been told. It is this: Though a few assorted dating methods give the age of the earth in millions of years, there are far more that limit the age of the earth to a mere few thousand years.

- Why are we not told of these?
It is because they go against the politically correct notion of Evolution.


Evolutionists believe that the universe slowly began to form 20 billion years ago. They believe the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. (references)

While many Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was Created instantaneously about 6 thousand years ago.

Both of these are [b]belief systems.[/b] Neither one can be proven because no one was there to witness the event, and it can not be repeated. But we can examine the evidence and decide which one is more plausible.



The Rocks

There are many layers of rock all over the world. These rock are separated into layers one on top of the other in what is called "rock strata".


We can tell how old the earth is by looking at the strata?

The layers of rock on the bottom would have to have been laid down before the layers on top. But how long before? This is one area that Creationists and Evolutionists disagree on.

Evolutionists believe that each layer represents a period of time.. or an era. Some references.
1. "Field Studies in Catastrophic Geology" by Carl R. Froede Jr.

2. "Sea Floor Sediments and the Age of the Earth" by Dr. Larry Vardiman

3. "Studies in Flood Geology" by John Woodmorappe

There are also some excellent videos:

1. "Biblical Geology: Properly Understanding the Rocks" by Dr Tas Walker

2. "Geologic Evidences for Very Rapid Strata Deposition in the Grand Canyon (DVD)" by Dr Steven Austin

3. "The Geology Book" by Dr John D Morris




The Grand Canyon

If you look at the Grand Canyon you will see thousands of layers of sedimentary rock. The Creationist and the Evolutionist can both look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions.

The evolutionist who believes in an ancient earth will look at these layers of rock and determine that these layers formed slowly over millions of years.

The Creationist who believes the Bible looks at the same evidence but comes to a different conclusion as to how these layers were formed. The Creationist knows that these layers could not have formed over millions of years. As there is little or no erosion between the layers. This is consistent with all the layers being laid down at the same time (the flood).

The Creationist interpretation is that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the flood. The receding flood waters would cut through the soft sediments, leaving the canyon. These soft sediments later hardened into their present form.

The canyon may have formed while it was solidifying, as the waters receded (possibly very quickly) it would cut through these layers like butter. Some people claim that it took a little bit of water (the small river) a lot of time (millions of years) to form the canyon. But it could have been the opposite.

A lot of water (the flood) and a little bit of time.

For more information read:

1)"Grand Canyon: A Different View" Compiled by Tom Vail

2) "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe" by Dr Steven Austin

Videos:

"The Grand Canyon Catastrophe: New Evidence of the Genesis Flood" by Keziah & American Portrait Films

"The Grand Canyon: Monument to the Flood" (VHS)

"Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe" (VHS) Dr Steve Austin

"The Grand Canyon: A Biblical View by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling

"Geologic Evidences for Very Rapid Strata Deposition in the Grand Canyon (DVD)" by Dr Steven Austin


Polystrate fossils

There are many fossils that go through several layers of rock, these are called polystrate fossils (the name polystrate means "many strata", pg 101 "The Young Earth" by John D. Morris, Ph.D.).
Polystrate fossils are a problem for those who believe rock layers take millions of years to form. Look at the picture at the right for example. If each of these layers of rock formed over millions of years, then why are there trees standing straight up through several different layers?

A tree would have died, fallen over and rotted in just a short time. It is clear that the layers were laid down and hardened in a short period of time


Here is one little example and I'll post those volcano rock mistakes they made too shortly.
by Colm Gorey

6 JUN 2018

[b] Here is a Another article[/b]

Though one of the most essential tools for determining an ancient object’s age, carbon dating might not be as accurate as we once thought.

When news is announced on the discovery of an archaeological find, we often hear about how the age of the sample was determined using radiocarbon dating, otherwise simply known as carbon dating.

Deemed the gold standard of archaeology, the method was developed in the late 1940s and is based on the idea that radiocarbon (carbon 14) is being constantly created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays which then combine with atmospheric oxygen to form CO2, which is then incorporated into plants during photosynthesis.

When the plant or animal that consumed the foliage dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the environment and from there on in it is simply a case of measuring how much carbon 14 has been emitted, giving its age.

But new research conducted by Cornell University could be about to throw the field of archaeology on its head with the claim that there could be a number of inaccuracies in commonly accepted carbon dating standards.

If this is true, then many of our established historical timelines are thrown into question, potentially needing a re-write of the history books.

In a paper published to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team led by archaeologist Stuart Manning identified variations in the carbon 14 cycle at certain periods of time throwing off timelines by as much as 20 years.

Support Silicon Republic
The possible reason for this, the team believes, could be due to climatic conditions in our distant past.

Standards too simplified
This is because pre-modern carbon 14 chronologies rely on standardised northern and southern hemisphere calibration curves to determine specific dates and are based on the assumption that carbon 14 levels are similar and stable across both hemispheres.

However, atmospheric measurements from the last 50 years show varying carbon 14 levels throughout. Additionally, we know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the northern hemisphere.

To test this oversight, the researchers measured a series of carbon 14 ages in southern Jordan tree rings calculated as being from between 1610 and 1940.

Sure enough, it showed that plant material in the southern Levant showed an average carbon offset of about 19 years compared with the current northern hemisphere standard calibration curve.

“There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart, each with major historical implications. And yet these studies […] may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information,” Manning said.

“Our work should prompt a round of revisions and rethinking for the timeline of the archaeology and early history of the southern Levant through the early Biblical period.”



siliconrepublic.com
RedFlower · F
such an effort for such a long post and nothing but utterly ridiculous nonsense
Sharon · F
@Carazaa So you say but that doesn't prove anything as others have testified how their gods have helped them.
Carazaa · F
@Sharon right, so please stop asking if you don't believe my answers.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Carazaa You make general claims about the universe, then offer ‘evidence‘ that applies solely to you personally.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
I ask you as one who likes proselytising on here if you can explain [b][i]why[/i][/b] those who push Creationism are so desperate to want everyone to share their view, and equally desperate to suppress any attempt to explain what actually happened?


By "explain" I do not expect merely something like "because it's in the Bible" - that merely repeats what they would say. There are some SW would-be evangelists who would do that but I think you are above their level wilful obtuseness. It is their motives I ask after, not what we all know they believe.

You and I know that there are glaring idiocies in what you quote is patently absurd. For example, the idea that the rocks were formed by volcanoes - a volcanic eruption is simply rock being moved in molten form from below the Crust to the surface. Or that the mountains were formed in the Noah flood - floods erode hills not build them, the myth pre-dates the Hebrews who adapted what may have been folklore about a singular but purely-regional flood; and anyway there is not enough water on the Earth!

In doing so they achieve two things they do not intend:

- They cheapen the Hebrew society and its scribes who wrote the OT legends, they insult our intelligence and ultimately they demean their own God. This lays not only themselves, but the ancient Hebrew faith and its Bible open to ridicule, by giving equal weight to believing old human myths of unknown origin, as to believing in God.

- They cheapen and demean science which seeks to understand what actually happened and when, [i]not[/i] why or by whom (that's religion's problem). In seeking to distort and crush science they miss the supreme irony in that m nay of them use the Internet to spread their belief.

'
They also ignore the fact that many scientists are also religious without trying to distort science to fit religion. That there are Christian priests who accept scientific knowledge without prostituting that to serve the other. Equally there are many religious people who are not clerics or scientists but still accept geology and palaeontology rather than Creationism. These people, scientists, clerics and lay people equally, basically say, "God created it, let's try to understand how and when He did it."

That approach show us their Gods' works are far, far greater and more majestic than even the brightest of the Hebrew prophets could genuinely have imagined. Hence my charge that the "Young Creationists" and literalists demean science, human intellect and God alike.

[i]
So what are the Creationists' motives?[/i]

I divide them into two camps:

1) Those who are simply individuals terrified of both questioning the Bible (not God, the book) and accepting the natural and genuine uncertainty that drives science; so find a comforting although spurious, debate-stopping "certainty" in scriptural literalism. Provided they don't try to force on others, that's only their own loss, but I feel sorry for poor old God!

2) Far more serious, the organised campaigners wanting to enforce a Creationist view on society generally. Their tools include warping of science, so-called "Creationist Museums" of Palaeontology-by-[i]The Flintstones[/i] level, and dangerously, demands it be taught instead of the natural sciences and as an absolute in schools. (I don't know if some States in the "Land of the Free" still do compel that by law.) I assume that they ignore the fact of not owning anyone's mind so cannot stop anyone choosing to learn whatever they like! It would be very wrong to try to enforce any religious belief anyway, at family, school, regional or national level; for that would be mere bullying, and a religious belief stated merely to obey a bully is empty and insincere.

So... Why? I use "dangerously" by the possible motive I have suspected for a long time, but I want to know the motives directly or from someone like you, an ardent amateur evangelist who probably understands those people more closely than I.


+++

My own views, as background? From a nominally Anglican country, upbringing and education, I :-
Am neither believer nor atheist but an agnostic;
I understand and respect that Christianity is only one of many religions, each coming in different versions each important to its own followers, but I oppose enforcing any religious belief;
I have a broad interest in the sciences;
and most pertinent here, I see and appreciate that Science (How and When?) can co-exist with religion (Why and For Whom?), and appreciate that difference between them.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Laurasmodest That is a good point, and obviously there were no human witnesses to anything more than perhaps half a million years ago, but there is a fundamental difference of approach and historical context at heart here.

Religion and Science can co-exist peacefully. Though is good and bad on both sides, the fight is entirely artificial and based more on fear and ego than logic and theology. When it descends to personal insults I think that shows a fear of being doubted personally, more than a fear of concepts being doubted.

'

The unknown Hebrew author and his source (possibly, existing fables) can be credited with guessing a logical approximation of events from no prior knowledge of the natural world beyond the obviously seen, like day and night or seeds becoming plants.

We cannot say if his chronology shows genuine lack of accumulated study and knowledge; or if he was enough the philosopher to consider the possibility of long though then-unknowable times, but for the sake of his own followers, wrote metaphorically.

Also, he lived when almost all other religions were pantheons with very strange creation myths of their own and no clear link to humans other than continual appeasement demands. A time when the Hebrew preachers were trying to unify their tribes and replace their older beliefs with a direct and more relevant monotheism. (An aside - that may be why they made God a rather nasty character: "Behave or else!")


On the other hand - the difference - is that science attempts to understand [i]how [/i]the Universe works, the Earth was formed, life developed, etc., and[i]when[/i]. It knows no-one was around to record it, so uses masses of painstaking observations, measurements, calculations, experiments and reviews to arrive at the most convincing possible explanations.

Crucially, also science does[b]not[/b] ask [i]by whom[/i] nor [i]why[/i] it all happened. It leaves that to religion. And vice-versa of course.


Hence there is no philosophical reason why one cannot be a devout Christian, Muslim or Jew - all following the much same God in their own ways - whilst also accepting the accumulating wealth of study and knowledge of what God really did, how and when. To me, that understanding can only[i]enhance[/i]God; although I realise that for many it can also make religious belief more difficult by raising questions beyond both science and theology.

This is why I find the Creationist's rejection or warping of scientific learning to be an insult, not only as intended to science and scientists, but also unintentionally, to both the Genesis author - and indeed to poor God!

One can believe in the creative God, but that does not demand axiomatic, non-discerning, non-questioning, literal belief in the Bible.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@ArishMell You've presented some excellent points.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Bushranger Thank you!
SammyJo · 51-55, F
Errhhhh! As quite a religious person myself, may I just say.....what a bunch of CRAP!

The universe wasn't built a week last Wednesday! That's stupid, and dangerous, talk!

Evolution exists....evolution works......we see it all around us, to this day....we grow and [i]adapt[/i]!

I believe that we were created...and that the world, and universes, were created....and that god exists....and that, from that little seed, everything has grown and evolved over BILLIONS of years....

Pretty simple really....

SJD xx
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Bushranger In Aussie I heard that a dag is a socially inept, gauche sort of person, whereas here it’s someone who’s amusing and fun to be around
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 It also has a more ovine, scatological meaning.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Bushranger Yes indeed... as both a noun and a transitive verb.

Mind you, I feel the younger generations no longer use the word. It has possibly gone the way of so many of my favourite slang terms
The bible never mentions how old the Earth is. Don't pretend it does.
Carazaa · F
@Qwerty14 You didn't even read my answers once! Otherwise you wouldn't keep asking! Unless of course you don't understand. I can't explain it better!
@Carazaa Just do me a favour... When you die and go up to heaven, ask God to explain to you how he didn't write the Bible. Coz I think that's the only way you'll accept it haha
Carazaa · F
@Qwerty14 God will show you the truth, like he did me.
reflectingmonkey · 51-55, M
there are many other ways to know how old something is and by comparing the data from each method you get a pretty good idea if your method is good. first of all, there are historical records dating thousands of years. we can carbon date things that we already know how old they are. we also have dendrochronology, paleobotany, potassium-argon dating which goes back much further. and if you compare them you find that they all say the same thing. Problem is, if you start with the idea that "what is in this book must be the truth " then its impossible to be objective, you've already decided what reality is so if you were wrong you would find some way to justify the new data and make it fit with the unchangeable premise.
Carazaa · F
@reflectingmonkey But scientists evaluate their data wrong at times.
jackieash · 26-30
@Carazaa Yes. IT's called research. New discoveries very often do succeed prevuious ones. It doesn't mean the old ones were wrong, just that the new information has better or new, unthought of possibilities, then research goes on...:)
Carazaa · F
@jackieash 👍
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
If you're going to teach your kids the earth is only 6,000 yrs old.
Fine.
But my kid's probably won't hire them!
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@ninalanyon I'm aware, it's bad enough. Education shouldn't be there to enforce annyones bias though. That last bit might be difficult to achieve, but we should try to reach for as much unbiassed stuff in our classrooms as possible. And learning people how to use their brains and learn them where the dangers are in how they are wired, should be at the center of education in my opinion.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@Kwek00 By the way leeches are actually used in modern medicine. But of course we know why the work and what to use them for (well, the doctors do, not me personally).
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@ninalanyon Yeah, for a verry specific thing in specific circumstances. And people do it now, because we learned and banned out the quacks.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
It's more than just rocks, people have found the oldest human remains which is 300,000 years old.
@Carazaa [quote]Adam and Eve were a minute old when created and looked 30 years old. [/quote]
and
[quote]Adam looked 20 when created, [/quote]

I suppose that's not a contradiction.
Carazaa · F
@NortiusMaximus I meant that whatever age God created Adam. Probably around 20, he was created instantly by God speaking him into being and he looked older than a minute but he wasn't a minute but older. the same goes for the world.
@Carazaa You said he look 30 before. You ought to try to get your story straight first. Silly contradictions like that are what prove the bible isn't the work of a supreme being.
religious people pretending to sound scientific... thats the same level of nonsense like people trying to find the meaning of life in a spongebob cartoon
Carazaa · F
@Emosaur Yes, he had a salvation plan "before the creation of the world" he said.
@Carazaa [quote]That's not what the Bible says.[/quote]
What isn't what the bible says?

[quote]when was the last time you fell on your knees and repented all your sins, and told God you will not sin anymore?[/quote]
LOL! Do you seriously think I'm going to bow down to your imaginary friend? There is less than zero chance I'll ever do that. You, on the other hand, will bow to Odin when you meet Him at the Doors to Valhalla.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Lichocolati · 31-35, F
People can speculate all they want but only God knows how old this earth is. For all we know bones dated before the ones found (which no one can really prove how old they are) dissolved and mixed with the soil
Carazaa · F
@Emosaur You just don't know the Bible and how sinful men dig their own graves.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Lichocolati Nothing wrong with thinking there exists a supernatural force making and knowing it all, whether you call it "God", "Allah", "Shiva" or anything else. Fine. That is merely personal choice, but does not help understand "it all".

So, nothing wrong with believing in God as long as you accept the corollary.

I appreciate some use that corollary against themselves by refusing any such understanding. Very deliberately self-limiting and unwittingly insulting to God, but their choice so fine - provided they do not try to stop others wanting to understand your God's work.

So what then, is wrong with what you seem to dismiss as "speculating", people attempting to learn what was made, how and when, whatever their spiritual beliefs?

'

Bones do indeed break down eventually, depending on the burial conditions or the actions of scavengers, and that does make studying past terrestrial life, including our own, difficult. In the sea they dissolve even more rapidly and completely, as we saw with Dr. Ballard's haunting photographs of pairs of shoes lying by the sunken 'Titanic'. Most fossils are replacement-mineral casts of bones, shells, etc. that became rapidly buried in lake or sea-bed sediments.

Those studying ancient bones and lithified fossils properly are perfectly well aware of these limitations, so rightly so.

They work with what they can see, measure, test. They "speculate" only to make a hypothesis credible enough, from evidence, worth investigating. Nothing wrong with this either.

They are also perfectly well aware of the difference between an absolute measurement and an estimate, and it is right that they allow for and quote, sensible measurement-error ranges in their reports. Certainly nothing wrong there. After all, Nature does not work to superfine limits of precision and accuracy in geology and biology!

How big an error? If something is measured at 1 000 000 years old with a realistic tolerance of +/- 10 000 years, that 20 000 year error-band looks huge but is only +/- 1%.

It looks huge because ten millennia is huge in human history. Humans ([i]Homo Sapiensis[/i]) have been around for perhaps 250 000 years so far known. Human and Neanderthal bone fragments, cave-art, funerary traces and stone tools: from tens of thousands of years ago. [i]Recorded[/i] society: the last 5000 to 6000 years; with the Bible spanning maybe 2000 years (or less) in the middle of that. Our "Common Era" started with Jesus' assumed birth: only 2020 years ago (+4 / -0 years!); the Industrial Revolution started <3 Centuries ago. World War One ended one century and two years ago from the Armistice.

Huge times to us, yet miniscule in astronomy and geology and not much more significant in palaeontology.
kodiac · 22-25, M
It would take the patience of Job to read all that!🙂
Carazaa · F
@suzie1960 It is the most read book in the world and it makes countries and people successful! But its your choice. God forgives all sins no matter what you have done and I care about your life.💛
Sharon · F
@Carazaa [quote]it makes countries and people successfu[/quote]
Prove it. It can be used to justify war or just about anything else you can think of.
@Sharon We can see how christianity destroyed the Roman Empire.
butterflybaby75 · 46-50, F
The earth may well be 'young' compared to the rest of the universe if the age of our solar system relative to other stellar communities is older, but we're talking millions of years vs tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years. Humans have been around for a very tiny bit of that. ie. we are the 'new' thing - not the planet. And religion (the human construct as we know it today) is even newer.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
"Evolutionists" wouldn't bother dating the Grand Canyon. They'd leave it for the geologists. Canyons created by floods are typically straight, not meandering like the Grand Canyon. It's typical of long-term erosion by a relatively slow moving water course.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
Having a bit of free time, I decided to take a look at some of the claims made in the article you posted. Firstly, let's look at the carbon dating claim. Going to what I believe is the source for the claims, it turns out the error is around 20 years on dating in the southern Levant.

[quote]Applying their results to previously published chronologies, the researchers show how even the relatively small offsets they observe can shift calendar dates by enough to alter ongoing archaeological, historical and paleoclimate debates.[/quote]

[quote]"Our work," he added, "should prompt a round of revisions and rethinking for the timeline of the archaeology and early history of the southern Levant through the early Biblical period."[/quote]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180605112057.htm

It would seem that the time frames are minimal, and relevant to research in a specific area. Also, carbon dating is totally irrelevant when discussing the age of anything over about 50,000 years. Any error in carbon dating has no impact on the other methods that are used to date the earth.

Lastly (for now), the geology of the Grand Canyon contains lithified sand dunes. While some apologists have claimed that they would have formed underwater (eg., Dr Leonard Brand), it would appear the majority of geologists are convinced they formed on dry land (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area, https://nau.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/coconino-sandstone, https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr47Coconino.pdf). It needs to be asked how an Aeolian deposit can be found sandwiched between water born sediments if the geology of the Grand Canyon was formed by the Biblical flood?

I'm not trying to make fun of the Bible, just trying to make people look critically at what they are reading.
Carazaa · F
smileylovesgaming · 31-35, F
They have found the earliest human bones and tools in Africa going back 300,000 year's. Sure humans is kind of new. But the earth is like 4 billion year's old. It has changed a lot since then
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Carazaa Then you've also studied a broad range of extra biblical sources to confirm your assessment?
Carazaa · F
@Bushranger Yes, I watch, read, and listen to many news sources every day.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Carazaa Not news sources, they only give accounts for current issues. Have you also studied extra biblical sources that deal with events contemporaneous with biblical times?
[quote]Carbon dating accuracy is called into question after major flaw discovery,[/quote]
Carbon dating isn't used to date rocks and scientists know (and admit) it's only good for up to about 20 000 years or so.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2
[quote]I wonder how that somehow translates into a '1st-class' degree[/quote]

It's a miracle 🐣
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 These people are just super inventive when it comes to academic titles. It's the oldest trick in the book. Here are two other outrageous examples of Christians and their inventive title use.

Meet Stephen H. Turley, that functions under the name "Dr. Steven Turley" online. He does political and social commentary. The man is a far-right wing fruitbasket of ideas. He loves traditionalism and Christianity. And if you don't like his ideas, you are the enemy. He publishes books about his favourite toppics under the name: Stephen R. Turley, PhD. But Steven, is actually a PhD in the classical arts department. So why put "PhD" on a book that has nothing to do with your field? Well... He's a hussler of course. A Hussler with a tremendous ego.



Another one of my favourites is Bill Warner, PhD. Bill can't open his mouth, make a youtube video or write a book without putting his PhD. degree in the middle of the attention. Bill Warners' favourite toppic is raving about muslims. He has delved deep into the muslim history and produced pamphlet after pamphlet after pamhlet about this toppic. But Bill Warner is a Physicist, his PhD. Has nothing to do with politics or history or muslisms. But he puts it on everything he trademarks annyway.

@Carazaa It's not possible to have an MA in mathematics.

An MA is a master of arts.

A Master of Mathematics (or MMath) degree is a specific integrated master's degree for courses in the field of mathematics.

Honours are awarded only for the fourth year of a bachelor's degree. A first or a high second degree is required as a prerequisite for entry to a master's course. However, at the top universities like Oxford only the highest firsts are accepted.
SW-User
Right but if God created the earth 6000 years ago why are there other planets? Was God up there like "8th times the charm"? (Sorry Pluto)
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SW-User
@Emosaur being blinded by it isn't good
Carazaa · F
@SW-User 🙏👍
chairde · 31-35, M
The big difference between creationism and evolution is that evolution is based on demonstrable fact.

It can also be seen in action today. Most changes take thousands or even millions of years to occur. But we can see evolution in bacteria and viruses that constantly evolve, which is why we need new vaccines on a regular basis.

Also, you can see evolution at work among us. More and more people are now being born without wisdom teeth for example.
Carazaa · F
@chairde Science has to be interpreted! All science is based on facts, but how you interpret the results is not! It is influenced by what you look for, and a thesis.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
chairde · 31-35, M
@Emosaur @Carazaa I have to agree. In addition, creationism is entirely based around one book (the Bible) which can [i]only[/i] be interpreted as none of it is based upon verifiable scientific fact (apart from historical figures and places)
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
Rudy Giuliani's got more "evidence"!
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
@Carazaa Like a celestial North Korea, where you spend all day praising the leader.
NO THANKS, sounds the exact opposite of "paradise"!
+ that awful music.... 🤦‍♀️
Carazaa · F
@Harriet03 Hymns and spiritual songs are so beautiful! You'll like it once you're saved. Ill find a nice tune for you!
Carazaa · F
@Harriet03 This is a nice song to inspire you when you help the sick and the dying.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lunFIc-8r8o]
Okay this is ridiculous. A discrepancy in calibration that resulted in a 19 year difference in results is being used to invent a discrepancy that would be a difference of millions of years. That is absurd.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow [quote]If you understand carbon 14 dating and how it works I don't see how you could get a discrepancy that large without violating the laws of physics[/quote]

Apparently it was to do with seasonal variations in carbon 14 production in that particular area. It's been a few days since I read the article and I didn't save it. Damn short-term memory loss, lol.
@Bushranger Makes sense. But that discrepency in seasonal variation doesn't justify scraping the entire process.


Mark 16:9-20 was added hundreds of years later by Monks. Even biblical scholars acknowledge this but interestingly they don't think the same drastic standard should apply to their source. Funny that.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow You're right, it doesn't justify scrapping the process, just change the metrics for that particular area. Science at work.
Zeusdelight · 61-69, M
You make this look like Evolutionist v Creationists, whereas it is Scientists (some Christian some not) v Creationists.

With Science, it is not a belief that different rock strata have different ages. It is a replicable provable fact. You indicate some scientists disagree. Please indicate who these scientists are so we can read them. There are many publications evidencing the scientific view that rock strata have different ages.
Zeusdelight · 61-69, M
@Carazaa I thought you had, not to worry. The Smithsonian says: "Advancing technology has allowed radiocarbon dating to become accurate to within just a few decades in many cases." We are not looking at great inaccuracy here. You can't rely on an inaccurate statement about inaccuracies to talk about a young world.
Carazaa · F
@Zeusdelight THEY ARE WRONG!
Zeusdelight · 61-69, M
@Carazaa No, I am sorry, your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
Pfuzylogic · M
I agree that there are two stories.
I believe the one in Genesis.
I don’t need creationism to justify it.
I just find big bang and evolution to be ridiculous and many people that forward science as truth to be over their heads.
chairde · 31-35, M
@Pfuzylogic You think Darwin is responsible for eugenics? Oh please! You might as well say Trump is responsible for COVID (he isn’t).

Stop changing the subject.
Pfuzylogic · M
@chairde
You are responding to my comment.
Don’t direct me and I’ll respect you.
chairde · 31-35, M
@Pfuzylogic I responded regarding evolution and you flipped the subject to Darwin and racism.

I didn’t; you did
How’s cult life? You still ok?
@Carazaa that’s nice. One day perhaps you’ll convince me that you aren’t in a cult, hey if it makes you happy and you aren’t harming anyone, I say go for it.
Carazaa · F
@Invocations 🌷
I swear I'm not very easily convinced by even my own pastor when he speaks about this or that, but I trust my Bible. I know we Christians are a peculiar people who are very different and dorky. I am highly analytical and critical but I do trust God and he has been good so far. When you become a Christian then you are a part of "the family of God" and I hope you will be part of that family one day.💖
@Carazaa that’s better Carazaa.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
[quote]I listened to a Christian program this morning[/quote]

This is where everything went wrong that morning.
LoveTriumphsOverHate · 36-40, M
Where in the Bible does it say the earth is young?
Carazaa · F
@NortiusMaximus

You are wrong! There are no contradictions!

God blinds the understanding of people who don't want the truth he says. Atheists are deceived, blinded by their own sin, and not understanding Gods word and flippantly jump to conclusions without comparing each verse with every other verse for a complete understanding. God tells every story at least 3 times in his word. If I tell you that at a particular party that I attended I didn't see someone there. To jump to conclusions that the person in mind never showed is stupid! It is stupid to say there are contradictions. God blinds people to the truth! There are no contradictions!

Mention one that appears to contradict and I will tell you that it is a story that left out a detail that God explains at a different story to blind men who don't want the truth.

[b]"He has blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts- So their eyes can not see, nor their hearts understand, and so they cannot turn to me and have me heal them." John 12:40[/b]
@Carazaa [quote]You are wrong! There are no contradictions![/quote]
LOL! Sorry, it is you who are wrong. I've list given you links to lists of clear contradictions in the bible.

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand them as they're in English and, as you said earlier, it isn't your first language. I suggest you check the references in a Swedish translation of the bible. The contradictions should become clear to you then.

[quote]Mention one that appears to contradict and I will tell you that it is a story that left out a detail that God explains at a different story to blind men who don't want the truth.[/quote]
OK, here's one I picked at random from the many in the lists I linked to.
[b]LE 3:17 God himself prohibits forever the eating of blood and fat.
MT 15:11, CN 2:20-22 Jesus and Paul say that such rules don't matter--they are only human injunctions.[/b]
Remember, before you try to fudge the issue, Jesus is supposed to be god and, in any case, god would have known Jesus was going to say such rules didn't matter before he said the prohibition would last forever.
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. Everyone else can easily see the contradictions in the bible for themselves so it's pointless for christians to say there aren't any.
butterflybaby75 · 46-50, F
Remember there is one very big problem with the bible as it stands - the New Testament appears to follow a 'standard' timeline of gregorianised calenderisation but the Old Testament does not. If the Bible has a specific space/time reference for the origins of the universe then you have to ask (a) what is society that created the Bible above/beyond us mere humans [ie. humans are animals btw] and (b) if this is the case why hasn't conventional science been able to confirm (or deny) the basis for such a premise/reference?
Carazaa · F
@butterflybaby75 we know the Bible is true in everything for many reasons, here are a few..
1. Jesus proved he is God when he rose Lazarus after he had been dead for 4 days and was rotting and stinking, he healed the lame, the blind, walked on water, and rose from the grave and went up in a cloud in front of 500 people who testified to it and put their lives at stake and were even killed for testifying what they saw.

2. God proved himself with all the prophesies coming true. Only God knows the future. Jesus said before he was killed that the Jews will in 70 yrs be disbursed all over the world and be persecuted in those countries and many would be killed and tortured and will in the last generation get their land back. God said to Syria that you Damascus will be a heap of rubble and your people will flee. So we see that Syrian people are refugees now all over Europe and even in the USA. There are about 7000 prophesies like this.

3. Jesus said in the last days generation there would be signs that we know it is the last generation
a. Increased pestilence all over
b. Mocking the Bible.
c. Increased false religions
d. Increase hatred and violence all over.
e. Jews getting their land back
f. Greater and greater earthquakes.
g. Increased terrors.
h. Increased knowledge.
i. the gospel reaching every nation and language.
j. Increase sinful behaviors.
k. increased people "going back and forth" like never before.

4. God saved me. The Holy Spirit changed my heart from an "atheist" to Christian in one day I was changed I remember it and since then I have followed Jesus.
butterflybaby75 · 46-50, F
@Carazaa Again it's all unproven. Nobody alive today was alive then to verify the accounts as accurate and true. so you have to take it on face value as being true. God is a man-made construct just like religion in general is a man-made belief system designed to encapsulate something we as humans cannot understand.
Carazaa · F
@butterflybaby75

Unproven that the Jews were scattered into all the world and hated and tortured by various countries like God warned them over 3000 years ago over and over if they didn't turn back to him, that's unproven?

Its unproven that in the last days the Jews would get their land back? Unproven? That happened in 1948 You are not a Bible scholar are you?

Its unproven that Syrias population would flee and Damascus would be a pile of rubble as God put it?

How are these things unproven?
You seem like a nice person. But I’m not ever going to think what you want me to think. So you’re wasting your time.
Carazaa · F
@SirenCalledLuce I am never wasting my time witnessing that the Bible is true and what God has done for me. When someone is saved the heavenly angels sing in heaven with joy!
Entwistle · 56-60, M
@Carazaa What do the saved get saved from exactly?
Carazaa · F
@Entwistle Sin! The human race is under a curse from God because of Adam and Eve genetically. But God has provided a lamb, Jesus, and if we trust in him he will take us out of the curse and make us part of the family of God to heaven, truth, forgiveness, and blessings. So I want you to be part of the family of God too?
Midnightoker1 · 61-69, M
I have witnessed some of the greatest friendships forged over a blunt and I have also witnessed some of the fakest friendships forged over a bible.....
Carazaa · F
@Midnightoker1

Good to hear from you 🙂

Good friends are great, but not greater than God's friendship in my opinion. I care more what God thinks of me than any person's opinion of me, but that's just me. But I respect your choices. I don't live for friendships but to try to make a difference in the world and helping people. In the long run honesty, loyalty, integrity, and Faith is what I look for in friends not drugs of any kind. I'm just here to share that I trust in the Bible with my life because what God has done for me. He helps me soo much. I hope you trust in him too, because having fun listening to music with friends even though it's fun can't save you in a fire, or really help in a major disaster or accident, or afterlife.
Frank52 · 70-79, M
Perhaps we should also teach that there are different views of the Bible. Many Christians who believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, do not believe the Creation stories to be literal, scientific explanations of what happened. They tell of the Creator, the belief in the primacy of mankind in creation, the nature of sin and the possibility of reconciliation.

Bad science has no more place in the classroom than bad theology.
Carazaa · F
@Frank52 I just did!
Frank52 · 70-79, M
@Carazaa In school, I meant.
yeronlyman · 51-55, M
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w556vrpsy4w]
Carazaa · F
@yeronlyman Thanks!
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Carazaa · F
@SW-User this is not an article by Gorey. But many articles and many references.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Carazaa · F
@SW-User It is truth!
Abstraction · 61-69, M
I've looked into this over many years and I take the bible very seriously, and Genesis very seriously. But I don't subscribe to young earth. What can happen is, we put faith in our interpretation of the bible and then have to bend everything to fit it. The Jews did something similar in Jesus's time - his reality didn't fit their reading. So he had to explain the 'new' reality to his followers and show how it really did fit scripture. Scripture didn't change, just their comprehension of it.

The recalibration of carbon-14 dating is not suggesting changes of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years that I'm aware of, unless I've missed something.

But it's fine - we may differ on our readings of the age of the earth, but not at all on what matters.
Carazaa · F
@Abstraction Either you believe in Gods word or you think it is poetry. I personally think God used those words because they are important to the timeline of the earth and end times. God said that he will tell us the ending from the beginning. And I think we are the last generation because we are going into the last day now the 7000 yr. He says a thousand years is a day to God. He made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Adam sinned when he was about 20 years old. God made him on day 6. So the fall of man happened soon after. So now we have year 2020 and now 6000 years later we will go into the 7000 day soon. Jesus God's Son, came after 4000 years or on the "4th day" when the sun was made in Genesis. He told us the signs of his coming and they are here, and so is the "7th day" od rest. Some believe we will be raptured before he comes but I am not sure about that but because of all the signs Jesus told us he is coming soon at the latest end of 2026 or 2027. God also told us that for the elects sake he will shorten those days. I think we have at the most 6 or 7 more years until Jesus comes to judge the living and the dead. Then its the day of rest for the Godly.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@Carazaa [quote]Either you believe in Gods word or you think it is poetry.[/quote]
That doesn't make any sense at all. You don't think the bible contains poetry, metaphor, symbolism, apocaplyptic imagery and hyperbole? Interpreting literally means that you recognise the type of literature it was written in and interpret it accordingly. Interpreting literalistically is just unintelligent misreading of language.

[i]The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like lambs. ps 114. [/i]
[i]and all the trees of the field will clap their hands. Is[/i]
You don't think these are poetic imagery?

[i]How beautiful you are, my darling!...Your eyes are doves. Songs[/i].
Really! Her eyes are literally doves. Or does the Bible contain poetry?
I mean seriously.
[quote]Either you believe in Gods word or you think it is poetry.[/quote]
That's just a false dichotomy.

I think what you're saying is that if I don't interpret it exactly as you do I must be wrong. So your faith isn't just in the word of God, it's in your own interpretation of it. Whereas proverbs kind of instructs us about the humility of being teachable, don't you think?
Carazaa · F
@Abstraction Yep, the Holy Spirit and a lot of study will give us truth!
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Nobody00 · F
I'm told the Earth is flat...don't know what to think of it. Need it to be on the News to believe it
Carazaa · F
@Nobody00 Try to think more about Gods word than mans words 🙂
Nobody00 · F
@Carazaa thats true 👍
Carazaa · F
@Nobody00 🙂 👍
Bigbrandy · 31-35, F
intresting read
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
Carazaa · F
@dubkebab I delete abusive comments about God!
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment