Duhhhhh the world is 2013 years old!
@Draven, no that's how old America is, Idiot!
@Draven, I'm praying that this is sarcasm.
@Draven, I really hope that was a joke or sarcasm.
@Sappho, you got it
@Draven, you would be wrong
@Houin Kyouma, mhmmm
@Draven, just double checking :) thumbs for you, then!
@Dragon101, Guys! America and the world were created at the same time! You're both right!
@Draven, negative, the earth is actually 4.54 billion years old
@Sappho, what's sarcasm
@Sappho, it was a pic posted before. Don't worry, you'll probably see it again soon enough.
@Dragon101, America isn't 6,000 years old as a country. Get your facts right
@Nathanohare, you know how this is funny pics? Sometimes people like to be funny.
@Dragon101, no no thats when the dinosaurs revolted.
@Dragon101, No, the USA is that old! Not america!
@Dragon101, now this time I think you are the idiot and not joking.
@Nathanohare, well America yea, USA in the other hand
@Dragon101, Earth, America, they're pretty much the same thing.
@freakazoid, 3.4 Billion Actually
@Draven, it's is said the one minute to god is 1000 years for us so that would make the world 3,141,720,000 or 3 billion years with the world having life
Any other intelligent design believers here?!
@Good Agg, I believe the Universe was created by a greater power. I don't know what that power is or when it did it, but I also believe after our universe and planet was created, evolution got us to the point we are now.
@Saul, Agnostics are the pu$sy version of atheists.
@Simon Tam, I believe there is Ann after life but idk about a higher power
@Simon Tam, or the realist versions
@Simon Tam, Atheism and theism address what one believes; agnosticism and gnosticism address what can be known. For example, I don't believe in any deities, so I'm an atheist. However, I also think that some deities could be possible, but sufficient evidence for them hasn't been presented. Thus, I'm an agnostic atheist. Some people do use the term to describe some middle ground, and although they are semantically incorrect, they aren't just pus$ies. They've just conflated their beliefs with the relevant epistemological debate.
@My mother, I like you. I was worried there were no more intellectuals here.
@Good Agg, I'm actually a Christian.
@Simon Tam, No, agnostics are those who are not sure what to believe in, such as the creationist theories or the evolutionist theories along with the Big Bang or some other way the earth came about. Atheists are those who absolutely do not believe in any religious beliefs. They are relate yes, but are each on a different scale.
@Saul, I completely agree with you. I am specifically a long day creationist. But in the scientific world we just call it intelligent design.
@Good Agg, I'm a Christian. I believe that God created the earth and all that was in it in 6 days
@Simon Tam, or the less bigoted
Respect peoples opinions. There's no reason to even start a fight about this. Aren't we supposed to be a community?
@ZomBro, Every community has that one asshole...
Why do people even put thia stuff out there? There is something called respect and common decency.
Thats not really being stupid. Thats having a different worldview than someone. Not a good upload and not a funny picture.
@VoluptuousBacon, it's actually being deliberately ignorant. There is more than sufficient evidence to prove that the earth is several billion years old. Ignoring this evidence to keep on supporting a "world view" is deliberate ignorance. There is no [factual] evidence support for the notion that the earth is a mere 6000 years old.
@Firmest Midget, honestly, i am a Christian, but the age of the Earth is not really clear in the Bible so i dont argue with people about it. Adam and Eve could have lived for millions or billions of years until death entered the world. Thats my view. You can have yours.
And whenever your feeling sad remember it took 20 years for a tree to grow up just to turn in to a justin beiber notebook
You know all Christians don't think the world is 6000 years old. I'm Presbyterian and we don't believe that. We also don't have a problem with gay marriage. I'm proud to be a liberal Christian.
I am a strong Christian and I believe that the earth is about that age!
@Dagmor7, Please tell me that you are joking.
@Dagmor7, I'm right there with you
@Dagmor7, I am a Christian as well and I believe God used evolution to create the world. At the end of the day though our faith in Jesus is what matters. Not how this hunk of rock got here.
@Dagmor7, yeah I hate pictures like this.
@Dagmor7, If this isn't a joke... I'm afraid that it's one of the top comments.
@Good Agg, I'm not a Christian, but what you said made sense and I respect you.
@The Shadow Broker, it's okay, all religious people are stupid.
@GratefulDead, Scary, isn't it?
@GratefulDead, it's not a joke.
@The Shadow Broker, I'm absolutely not joking. God created each and every one of us, along with the world, in 7 days time. And sent his Son to die for us, giving us the ability to live forever in peace in heaven at the right hand of God.
@Dagmor7, Science is an instrument of the devil meant deter you from your faith. Ignore the insurmountable evidence to the contrary and stay true. Your book, whilst written and compiled by man is the true word of god. People a thousand years from now will never look back at your beliefs and find them inconsequential because unlike the faithful thousands of years before you and many millions around now, your faith is the singular truth. Believe on my friend, believe on.
@Eat me, The evidence isn't insurmountable. Evolution is falling apart at the seems and all the theories that attempt to explain origins of the Earth and Universe are highly disputed.
@Good Agg, dude finally someone else agrees! I mean seriously, no need to go strangling eachother over it. Plus, i thought i was the only one who believed that. I mean, how infinitely small are the chances that all our cells just happen to work to creat a living breathing human being
@Dagmor7, I'm generally a tolerant guy but that statement is completely false.
@Dagmor7, Then how do you explain dinosaurs and the testing of the ages of rocks?
@Dagmor7, it's actually really difficult to tell time throughout the bible and tell how old the earth is. Because of the very nature of how time was recorded eventa overlap and time is lost or added. So it's not as simple as counting backwards uaing biblical events as a reference. Biblical scholars from the literal point of view would say the earth is about 10000 years old. Assuming that God created the world in 7 days that lasted the same period of time as our days, which I believe. Many people would say this is impossible because of carbon dating. Consider this though, when God created man He didn't make him.as a baby or child but a fully developed being. One that we would say is twenty or thirty years old. He could have done the same with the earth on a bigger scale. Sorry for the rant. Also Im preaching to the choir
@The Shadow Broker, faith does not require evidence or reason. Actually, by definition, it discourages both.
@Dagmor7, come on bro, being a Christian myself, in the Bible, it says one day in Heaven is a 1000 years on earth, meaning that the first 7 days, could have been years. 2nd the Bible is composed from many different people, many stories and other things are left out of it, so you can't just go by the book; and lastly the origin of science came from people studying the earth, trying to figure our how God works, so you can follow science in addition to Christianity.
@Dagmor7, I'm a strong atheist and I believe in logic and evidence.
@The Shadow Broker, People have a right to express their religion. You're just as horrible as the picture.
@bronze512, the Hebrew word for "day" used in the bible is literally translated to daytime, or daytime and nighttime. It was also used more than once. If Noah was on an ark for 40 days in "heaven days" I'm pretty sure he would have died. Within the first day. And if your a Christian, don't say "you can't go by the book." To follow the word you have to go by the book. That's why it was written. What you said about science, the bible says God is omniscient. We aren't supposed to try and figure out how he works. We aren't supposed to care. If we even had the mental capacity to figure Him out, we couldn't. It's impossible.
@CAC, please explain to me how evolution is falling apart at the "seems" (think you meant seams, genius). It's proven scientific fact. Even the Roman Catholic Church acepts revolution as absolute fact now. But you're probably right! You defintely know more than millions of scientists and the last two popes! :)
@Tommy Pickles, *accepts *evolution
@Dagmor7, I am too
@IT Technician, People do have a right to express their beliefs and I do to.
@The Shadow Broker, There's a difference between expressing your beliefs and pushing others down.
@IT Technician, Plus, I never insulted his religion. I simply questioned something that isn't true. I'm not even atheist.
@The Shadow Broker, Not sure what to think about this comment... You said you're not trying to insult him, but then you said it's not true... Meh. I guess you're right, but in a confusing way...
@Tommy Pickles, evolution doesn't have as much evidence or support as most think. If there really was all the evidence that some scientists claim to have then it would not be considered a theory any more. Plenty of scientists are against it because it simply doesn't have the backing that people say it does. The Roman Catholic church has a history of playing politics to maintain power rather than driving to what is biblical. Also next time you may want to spell check next time before insulting someone for misspelling a word. It really makes you look like a jerk and a moron. But hey, I'm sure you aren't! :)
@Tommy Pickles, actually the THEORY of Evolution is not proven scientific fact, "genius". There are plenty of scientists who believe both sides of the evolutionary argument and plenty of "evidence" for both. Even if a lot of evidence for the evolutionary standpoint can easily be debunked. Now before you go correcting people get your facts straight, especially one as simple as whether or not something is a theory.
@CAC, its a theory simply because no one can live long enough to observe it one lifetime. As someone who literally studies evolution in university, I challenge you to name one actual scientist who refutes evolution. Also, you said "next time" twice :)
@Hashashin, I have my facts straight. I have a degree on those facts. Do you? If so, I'm sure you can name one actual published scientist who refutes evolution, right? Surely, you can
@Hashashin, also I would love to hear your "simple debunking" of evolution. I've spent five years studying it, but I must've missed all the primary literature that simply debunks it. Actually, weirdly enough, I haven't found a single piece of credible science that does debunk it. I must have missed it! Silly me. Could you point me in the right direction?
@Tommy Pickles, do you honestly think that over more two hundred years nobody would build off of others work to try to prove evolution as fact? Something as big as macroevolution should have plenty of evidence that doesn't become reset when a scientist dies. There are so many gaps in evolution that it can't be proven. Such as the transition between single cell organisms and multiple, from spineless to creatures with vertebra, and more. Henry Morris. First guy that pops up on Google. I also know several very smart rational people who, while they arent evolutionary scientists, don't give any credit to evolution because they don't find any credibility in it. These are people with PhDs in different areas. I would like to know where and what degree you are studying. I'm willing to bet it's liberally biased. You forgot a preposition in your first sentence. *observe it in/throughout/etc one lifetime
@CAC, macroevolution has a lot of evidence. Have you never heard of a fossil? Or do those have a liberal agenda too? Vertebrates evolved through the development of notochord genes. Multicellular organisms arose from the phagocytosis of smaller single celled organisms and the subsequent joint reproduction of this super cell...What is this henry morris' (who you just now googled) degree in? And what areas are these PhDs in, in which they refute evolution. And my degree is an honors specialization in biology at Western University, one of the most accredited research universities on the globe. The researcher who developed the new aids vaccine was one of my profs. But yeah biology is TOTALLY liberally biased. (that was sarcasm, there are no bias in true science. If fact is the pursuit of bias-free knowledge). You forgot the word than in your first sentence :). Please only answer with credible sources this time though. No "people you know" or the first thing that pops up on Google ;) k thx.
@Tommy Pickles, please tell me more of these fossils. How many of them are truly transitional? If there is all this evidence then, again, why is it still considered a theory? I said nothing about biology being biased or that fossils have a liberal agenda. I said that most likely the university you studied at was liberally biased, most are. Scientists have speculated on how vertebra and multicellular organisms may have come about but there is no way to say how it actually happened. Henry Morris PhD in hydraulic engineering. Father of modern creation science. Sure these aren't great references but since I don't study this I don't have any. Anyone I name otherwise you wouldn't consider credible. Everything is biased. There are no exceptions to that. My first sentence doesn't require the word than. You used ellipses incorrectly and Henry Morris is a who not a what.
@CAC, to answer your first question, all of them. all fossils are transitional. And it's still a theory because the entire process cannot be observed in lifetime, as I said before. Gravity is also "just a theory" believe it or not. And no, no science universities are liberally biased. Not sure where you came up with that. And none of those things are speculation. They are observable even to this day at the fetal level (for the notochord) and through phagocytosis of bacteria. And you are quoting an engineer on evolutionary theory? Sorry to speculate on your intelligence, but are you aware what it is engineers study? You will need a stronger evidence-based argument than that. As you said, you don't study this. I do. And not sure how you think everything is biased? Are math equations biased to you?
@CAC, "over more two hundred years" does indeed require the addition of a than. Also you are correct, henry morris is a who. But his PhD is a what :)
@Tommy Pickles, There shoukd be a pretty clear path from ancient fossils to modern species remains for fossils to be transitional but there isnt. Gravitt is a theory only because no one agreea on how it works. Unless im mistaken then scientists pretty much agree on how evolution works. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that science universities in particular are liberally biased I did that moist universities in general are liberally biased. You can be an expert on more than one thing. This guy may have been an engineer but that doesn't mean he was clueless on evolution. Everything is biased. No exceptions. Have you seen the proof that makes 0=1? Everything is biased.
@CAC, there is a clear path from almost any fossil that didn't straight up go extinct. Thousands of clear path. Gravity is perfectly understood, actually. Again, not sure where you heard it wasn't. It's a theory because it's not directly observable. You are mistaken, evolutionary mechanisms are still being hammered out with scientists on either side of some mechanisms. But the theory as a whole is 100% accepted. And he is clearly not an expert on evolution since he does not have any degree relating to the subject. And maybe you should Google the proof that makes 0=1, and you will see its a calculation error and not actually bias. Anything else? I strongly suggest that you take some science classes at your local college or just go talk to a prof (most are friendly). You could learn a lot, and I don't mean that in a condescending way. seek out a christian professor if you want. Science and religion do not need to be mutually exclusive.
@Dagmor7, you do not know that for a fact.
@Eat me, that would be saying it is purely blind faith.
@The Purple Gorilla, Not exactly 6,000 years, no. I'm just saying it's not in the millions or billions.
@Dagmor7, except it is.
Let the flame war begin!
@Sappho, *grabs popcorn*
It is not disrespectful to question other's beliefs. You just have to do so with an open mind, and with a an attitude that does not come off as arrogant. Just be respectful; religion should not get a free pass from being criticized.
@Borat, That's like saying (sort of) that all features of someone should not loose their 'free pass' from questioning. According to your logic, someone should be able to ask a Mexican individual, "Why is your skin all red and ugly?" That's a rude thing to say. I know that was a bad example, and I'm probably going to get downvoted for this, but people have their own lifestyles. Mature people learn to respect people for this, while others still criticize.
@IT Technician, that example makes no sense. One's ethnicity is unchanging and isn't debatable. However, every person chooses what they believe. Questioning why someone chooses to think as they do is a perfectly fine topic for discussion. If all parties in the discussion have an open mind, they can all take from learning about the beliefs of others. It might even help them develop their own beliefs further.
@IT Technician, in your other post you were criticizing people for trying to "understand God's thinking". A wee bit hypocritical, aren't we there?
@IT Technician, So, by that logic others political views should not be questioned as well. So political debates are not respectfully, right? Think about the war on terror. Many terrorists believe that by killing others they are doing a great service to their god, and will be rewarded for it in the afterlife. Is this not open to questioning? Why not? This is my point. Why does religion get a free pass from debate? It is no different from political preference, and that is gladly questioned. So, we live in a world of double standards obviously, but many are afraid to admit it.
@Borat, Yeah. But then they murder other people, and that's the problem. Whether or not they were doing it because of religion, they'd still be questioning it. If they were killing bugs, no one would care at all.
Most people that believe this are some what religious so I don't think calling them stupid is mature. Not starting a rant just saying to respect others beliefs.
@Mario Kushtillo, would you respect an adult who believed in Santa Claus?
@Eat me, yea cuz santa has religion orogins duh
@Mario Kushtillo, @Mario Kushtillo, just saying a fairy tale is a fairy tale. Would you respect someone who worshipped Osiris? Zeus? Mythra? Eostre? No, you would think they are silly and misguided.
@Eat me, unless they had a logical explanation why they believe it I wouldn't
@Mario Kushtillo, How about a rod of steel. You meet someone who, since they were a young child, was told that this rod of steel was magical. They are convinced that this rod of steel answers their prayers and through their faith in it, they will live forever. Finally, they believe that you are doomed to eternal torment if you do not believe in the rod. Still respect?
@Eat me, respect is given where respect is due. And I'm not giving any to you!
@Eat me, why wouldn't you respect them? You can disagree with them without disrespecting them. You can even try to explain why you think they are wrong without disrespecting them. There is no reason to act so hatefully towards someone just because you disagree with them. Some of my best friends are atheists, while I am a Christian. We may disagree on certain things, but we have mutual respect for each other.
@EHollis12, Hateful is not the same as lack of respect. To respect something is to look at it with admiration and esteem or to find in it value and authority. I can wholeheartedly respect individuals, but not faith. The faithful have historically been very disrespectful to dissenters. Most faiths require the punishment of those who do not agree. I simply think that faith is silly, I don't believe that the faithful should eternally burn. Why would I respect that?
Actually I saw a documentary once that proved both theories correct about the age of the earth. Back in the beginning the earth was in a slightly different rotation around the sun, which caused a day to actually contain as many hours as several hundred years our time today. So seven days was indeed enough time to create the world because one day was not only 24 hours. If 365 rotations around the sun is a year, the earth is close to 6000 years old. And if your measuring a year by 8760 hours, then the earth is a few billion years old.
@britters, p.s. Meant that as a agreement thing, not an athiest coment, or a religeous comment
See the problem with the whole 6'000 year thing is the the civilization of catal huyuk in Palestine began ~7000BC making it almost 9000yrs old.
"Religion War is Imminent" posts are Imminent.
Its actually pretty refreshing to see everyone here downvoting argumentative people and respecting everyone's views (:
This is called Young Earth theory, a perfectly legitament view held by many Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists. There is actually a good amount of evidence to support it. This picture only points out that its creator is stupid and arrogant enough to believe that only his worldview is correct, by some imaginary evidence that he chooses not to disclose.
@TheDoctorDave, it is not a scientific theory, and has been disproved multiple times," look at the Dover case for reference". I have no issues at all with anyone's religious beliefs, people are free to believe and think what ever they would like, but when you try to pass a pseudoscience as a legitimate scientific theory that's where I draw a line.
@TheDoctorDave, define "legitimate". Please show me any shred of evidence for this theory and I will apologize. even the catholic church doesn't support these theories anymore. Of course, it would be ignorant of me to ask you for proof and not present any evidence for what the actual facts are. There are a variety of methods you could use to date the earth. I'll give you a simple one though, carbon dating. You can measure the age of most things by measuring the proportion of radioactive C14 left in them. There is no argument as to the legitimacy of such techniques. Carbon date an average fossil and you will see that vast majority of them are old enough yo disprove your theory.... Unless dinosaurs just floated in space before 6000 years ago :)
@Tommy Pickles, isn't radioactive decay highly unpredictable? I remember reading that it dated a freshly dead seal at around eight hundred years. Burnt bark from four hundred years ago was dated at numbers from 150k to 2.5 million. In actuality, scientists test multiple times and choose whatever date suites them best...not that I'm learning apologetics or anything...
@awkwarddingo, nope. They are quite accurate up to 50,000 years, at which point the C14 is virtually depleted. After that, you use potassium-argon dating which has a much longer half-life. And yes scientists do test multiple times, it increases accuracy and precision of the measurement. Where did you hear that scientists pick the "date that suits them best"... And why would one date suit better than another?
@Rattlesnake840, Well said. I agree. The definition of theory under the general sense is much different than that of the scientific.
@Rattlesnake840, It is, in fact, a theory, at least by the modern definition, as it is used to describe, say, evolutional theory, and it has never been disproved at all. The main support, however, I acknowledge is contained in the Bible, pertaining to the 7-day creation and dinosaurs and humans existing simultaneously. I understand if your worldview does not permit you to acknowledge such evidence as reasonable, but there little natural evidence that disproves it in its entirity.
@Tommy Pickles, I define the theory as 'legitimate' because it is held and used workably by a number of professionals and is supported by reasonable evidence. As I have mentioned above, a good portion if this evidence resides in scripture, which I acknowledge may not be a legitimate source for you, but I hold to be uncompromisingly accurate. A young earth is also supported by earth's rock and sediment layers, which Darwinists traditionally use as a kind of calendar for evolution, actually show a very rapid formation of layers, which could be caused by worldwide flood or volcanic eruption. As for carbon-dating, this method has proved inaccurate in the past, and is actually not trusted by many scientists.
@TheDoctorDave, well by your definition of theory
@TheDoctorDave, oops sent early. By your definition of theory, young earth theory is not one as it is not supported by any actual professional in sciene nor does it have any reasonable evidence. Young earth theory is absolutely NOT shown in sediment layer (which i will coincidently be studying this morning in a class). By any means of dating, any sediment layer below a few meters will be shown to be significantly older than 6000 years. Additionally, carbon dating is highly accurate and more than sufficient to disprove your theory, however potassium-argon dating is the method of choice for dating rocks and again, is highly accurate and of course, disproves your theory without any doubt. I'm curious as to who in their right mind told you the sediment layers were formed quickly. Do you really think humans and dinosaurs coexisted?! Unfortunately for you, The Flinstones is just a cartoon.
@TheDoctorDave, i recognize that you are religious, I would consider myself the same
@TheDoctorDave, stupid send button..... Anyway religion is not an excuse for complete scientific ignorance on your part. The Church itself (not just Catholic but almost any form of Christianity) has recognized evolutiona and the actual age of the earth as absolute scientific fact. It is not necessary to think that these or any other scientific facts disprove or weaken your faith. In fact, scholarly pursuits are often held in high praise by the Bible.... Ignorance is not.
@Tommy Pickles, Let me address each of your points individually. First of all, the various sedementary layers (jurassic, cretaceous, you know) can ABSOLUTELY have formed over a very swift period of time, layers JUST such as these have been known to be formed from volcanic eruption within a matter of days during modern times. I originally learned this basic premis in my old Apologia biology textbook, you can buy the book or do some quick research online to see that this is true. Also, these supposedly very distinct layers are found scattered all over the globe without more than two layers being found actually adjacent to each other, so their very order and relevance as such a perfectly factual system is questionable. And as for radio-carbon dating, any small amount of research on your part would show that it is in fact NOT a 'highly accurate' method of dating. The half-lives of elements, though in appearance very predictable, are actually known to be highly erratic... Next post!
@Tommy Pickles, the half life of uranium can be shortened dramatically with a simple laser pointer. Therefore, I reject carbon dating as a 100% reliable method. It is also naive of you to analogize my belief that dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time to a cartoon. To this I challenge you to show me the evidence which you seem so confident in that shows humans and dinosaurs did not coexist (besides carbon dating and the fossil layers which I have already proven untrustworthy). As for my religion excusing ignorance on my part, I see no ignorance in my thought process. I do not think that these evolutionary beliefs must necessarily challenge my faith, I simply hold to what I see revealed in scripture. Indeed I AM engaging in 'scholarly pursuit,' the fact that you imply that my pursuit of a young earth theory is not scholarly but ignorant is insulting, 'scholarly' is not synonymous with 'true.'
@Tommy Pickles, sorry, one more thing... The Catholic Church has issued no such statement acknowledging either evolution or an old earth as fact, please show me an official statement from an ordained representative of the aforesaid church which states this. I would also like to say that I appreciate your discussing this with me, and hope we can continue to do so and respect each other's opinions...
@TheDoctorDave, volcanic deposition cannot account for quick formation of sediment layers. Very little is actually deposited from an eruption and it is not a major force of layering. For example look at the grand canyons numerous layers and note the lack of a volcano. Layering mostly occurs through plate movement which can easily be measured at a yearly rate of about 1 cm. (Doing simple calculations on that is another way to disprove young earth theory)
@TheDoctorDave, as for adjacent layers, that occurs due to noncomformities such as angular discomformities; i.e. think of a new layer of rock being thrust through existing layers like a knife. This shifts already existing layers and can bring distant layers together along the inclusion.
@TheDoctorDave, as for the unreliability of half lives, I'd be interested to know where you heard that. They are extremely accurate and can be measured to far reaching decimal reaching. Atomic phenomena are known for their accuracy. Although I have never heard of your uranium example (which really doesn't matter since we are talking about C and K-Ar dating), the proposed mechanism for how a laser could change that is highly implausible since light can only excite electrons and does not influence proton emission which is necessary for radioactive decay. additionally such a powerful laser would NEVER occur naturally and solar radiation is not strong enough either. Finally, uranium has a very very short half life whereas carbon has a very long one and K-Ag even longer.
@TheDoctorDave, as i have already disproved your 'disprocing' of both fossil and sediment dating and sedimentary layer analysis, it follows that dinos and humans could not have coexisted but for the sake of argument, here's another reason why: phlyogenetics. As you seem to agree that evolution exists (thankfully) you must be aware of how species profession occurs. As such, we can trace dinosaur species to current ancestors through long long chains of intermediate organisms. These are very abundant since there had been a large time for speciation to occur multiple times in the 4.7 million years since the dinos bit the bullet. With all these discovered forms, if the earth were indeed only 6000 years old, speciation would be occurring every generation (if not every single day). I'm sure you know this is impossible. If it were, you and your father for example would be drastically different species than one another, which would make dinner conversations very awkward.
@TheDoctorDave, indeed, that phylogenetic approach through fossil record can be used for almost any species, not just dinos. Even tracing us relatively new primates a few species forms back will reveal more than 6000 years on this rock. Finally, about the Church, it was beloved Pope John Paul II who finally excepted evolution. A simple Google search will reveal that. Also our knew Pope has a master's degree in chemistry, so I think he too would agree on elemental dating methods being accurate among other things.
I'm not even sure who this is bashing but seriously come on don't be a jerk everyone is entitled to have their own opinions. Even if it seems illogical to you, just accept it and them and move on what's the point of arguing will it make you feel better in the end?
@Nigel uno, just to be clear I meant the don't be a jerk allow everyone to have their own opinion to both those in support of the view and those are against it. Don't call someone an idiot for calling you an idiot just let it go and move on.
So, I have a friend who happens to be a catholic priest and I've asked him about this very topic and he has told me that the old testament of the bible should not be taken as a historical source as many of the stories are modified versions of other stories such as how Genesis 1 was directly taken from the Persian creation story, Enuma Elish when the Jewish people were under the Persians in Assyria.
@Master Quan, interesting. I would think that someone in a higher standard of teaching would have a better answer for you. You see, while Israel was in exile to the Persians, they were allowed to keep their own religion. It was a political move to keep peace in their kingdom. The religion that Israel had was a hebraic judaism. This was a following of the Law -given to Moses by God, centuries before. Moses wrote the Torah long before the prophets prophesied the invasion of Persia, then Assyria to Judah.
@Leftovers, I understand where you are coming from; however, the stories in the old testament were not all written at the same time, some even as recent as 450 b.c. There were also many different sources and writers, as well as different forms of writing such as allegorical or epic poems. Another thing to consider is interpretation of each story as each has a purpose in the bible, otherwise, the stories would have been removed.
@Master Quan, Definitely, context it's key. The small I tried to convert was simply that the "idea" of a seven day creation within judaism predates the influence of the Persian empire. I agree with you that purpose is behind all stories, and as far as creation, I believe the Bible is true, God's Word. As far as how to interpret it, I go literal seven days - since Moses wrote the story down and also SAW God. If God needed to do some explaining, He could have. Lol.
So if you believe in creation rather than evolution that makes you an ignorant buffoon? Double standard much?
@Trust Me, no, just the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. Many people who believe in creationism do not believe this.
Believe me when i say i mean no disrespect. I will never deem a person stupid just because their beliefs differ from my own, but could one of the creationist commentors explain why exactly they accept creationism? How is this belief system not completely eradicated by the fact of objects more than a few thousand light years away, or of isotopes that can be measured to have originated a much longer time than this? I will not reply back if you reply to me; i don't want a debate, as debates on topics as inflammatory as this are unproductive. I'm just genuinely curious. Thanks in advance.
And remember that there is only 4 million people on earth
Honestly I am not on either side. I don't totally think god isn't real and I'm not completely convinced that he is. However I do believe That the earth is much older than 6,000 years old, but am I going to cuss an be rude to other people just because they believe in something different than me? No. And that goes for the other side too. All the other religions that do believe in god shouldn't be attacking the side that doesn't.
For the love of GOD, how did this get posted?! See what I did there???
Incoming coments about incoming butthurt christians
In the religion I take part in, the world is only 5774 so that how old
Evolution has no proof when it comes to origin or life. Boom.
@Whale penis, evolution is not the study of origin on life.
@Rattlesnake840, it states that all beings come from a common ancestor yet it can not explain where that common ancestor came from is what I'm saying exactly sir.
@Whale penis, that organism came from organic molecules which were formed in the "primordial soup" that was the prehistoric ocean. These conditions have been replicated in the lab experiments of Urey and Miller and organic molecules were formed. Next question.
@Tommy Pickles, ahah! But again where did the ocean and molecules come from? this argument will get down to atoms and such yet have no originstill, everything points towards a creator or all-being in a sense
@Whale penis, your argument has nothing to do with "oceans and molecules". You simply asked for the origin of life and the common ancestor and I gave it to you, with references. You are mistaken if you think your beliefs conflict with the certainty of evolution and of the origin of life on this planet (two separate things). Separate question: who created the "all-being", who always was and will be, you speak of?
@Tommy Pickles, God he was never born nor will ever die and has always been
@Whalotherwise, the concept of always is unattainable to humans, so your response makes no sense. Something (most likely many things) had to have come before. And otherwise, what proof do you have to the contrary?
Fvck this picture
It's funny going through the comments and seeing all the hateful comments get down voted, then you look at the picture and wonder why everyone is ok with that. The picture is still hateful to a group of people.
Attention atheists: the Babel Fish. Your argument is invalid.
@Cesare Borgia, what's that?
@Whale penis, it's from the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.
@Cesare Borgia, But remember, God disappears in a puff of logic after man discovers the babel fish
"x/post from /r/atheism"
Think the same ZomBro
The world is about 6581 years old (I'm a Christian)