• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Believe in Creationism?

Do You Belive In Creationsm?


  • Total voters
    54
Thats simply ridiculous. No one knows, and no one will probably ever know.. There are just to many unknown factors for a race that has been relatively intelligent for thousands of years, and somewhat intelligent for a few hundred years to predict how old the earth is, specially when those predictions amount to 910.000 times more than 5000 years, which is approximately when our intelligent civilizations started. If you divide 4.55 billion by 300 which is the time we have been intelligent compared to the 4700 years... Yeah you get it, its ridiculous to assume the age of the earth, just like its ridiculous to assume to creation of the universe from something you see in a telescope.

Too many unknown factors, too little knowledge, too simple intelligence.

So your argument is that because we were dumb a few thousand years ago we can't figure out stuff now? By this standard plasma tvs, space travel, instant telecommunications should not logically exist. I mean obviously these things were not achieved/created in part due to our own understanding of the technology that came for it but also technological advancements in every field related to it. Your argument is simply ludicrous. But here I'll let the science do the talking :

NASA - Earth

Scientists think that Earth probably formed at about the same time as the rest of the solar system. They have determined that some chondrite meteorites, the unaltered remains from the formation of the solar system, are up to 4.6 billion years old. Scientists believe that Earth and other planets are probably that old. They can determine the ages of rocks by measuring the amounts of natural radioactive materials, such as uranium, in them. Radioactive elements decay (change into other elements) at a known rate. For example, uranium gives off radiation and decays into lead. Scientists know the time it takes for uranium to change to lead. They can determine the age of a rock by comparing the amount of uranium to the amount of lead.

The known history of Earth is divided into four long stretches of time called eons. Starting with the earliest, the eons are Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic. The first three eons, which together lasted nearly 4 billion years, are grouped into a unit called the Precambrian. The Phanerozoic Eon, when life became abundant, is divided into three eras. They are, from the oldest to the youngest, the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras. Eras are divided into periods, and periods are divided into epochs. These divisions and subdivisions are named for places where rocks of each period were studied. Periods are mostly separated by important changes in the types of fossils found in the rocks. As a result, the lengths of eras, periods, and epochs are not equal.

A chart showing an outline of Earth's history is called a geological time scale. On such a chart, Earth's earliest history is at the bottom, and its recent history at the top. This arrangement resembles the way rock strata are formed, with the recent over the oldest.

Formation of Earth

Is this REALLY the way you want to go down?
 
Its the part which discredits scientific speculation around the age of the earth and universe , and calling those facts, as ridiculous.

You know that experiments and evidence are a part of the scientific method, right? Hatuey and I have posted ours. Your turn. Post a credible scientific study proving ours wrong.
 
First off, why do you think this? As the "Da Vinci" of this age, I assume you know what carbon dating, hell you probably invented it. That is how the age is determined. Simply because we haven't been around that long (a lot less time than your 4.55 by 300 (and where the hell did you get that number? It comes out to 1,516,666. People have only been around for about 500,000 years)).

And this:

Are you claiming that our intelligent civilizations started 4.55 billion years ago? Because that's just insane, even for you.

You just cant read correctly what I am writing. You turn it around when you misunderstand it.. Uninteresting.. I am not debating this with you because either my English is so poor that you cannot understand anything I write, or you simply do not want to understand what I write, which is soon a reason to put you on ignore it this continues.

No one is assuming the age of the Earth. They are using scientific techniques to get a relatively accurate estimate. I'd suggest you read up on radiometric dating before saying things like this.

I assume you take into consideration all the guesses or theories they use as base assumption to make the assumptions about the age of the earth.

How about the big bang in the first place? How did they "prove" that? By looking into a telescope and assuming the movements of lights and planets and assumed explosion and end result to "predict" the creation of the universe as seen in our own narrow perspectives?
 
Last edited:
You just cant read correctly what I am writing. You turn it around when you misunderstand it..
Re-post it then. You said "If you divide 4.55 billion by 300 which is the time we have been intelligent compared to the 4700 years..." That is ridiculous. Try again if you want people to actually understand it.

Uninteresting.. I am not debating this with you because either my English is so poor that you cannot understand anything I write, or you simply do not want to understand what I write, which is soon a reason to put you on ignore it this continues.

One more example of you putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
 
You know that experiments and evidence are a part of the scientific method, right? Hatuey and I have posted ours. Your turn. Post a credible scientific study proving ours wrong.

Who determines what is "credible"? No one knows for sure how old the earth is. Thre are scientists who can't agree on global warming so how can we determine what is credible? You're wasting your time.
 
Its the part which discredits scientific speculation around the age of the earth and universe , and calling those facts, as ridiculous.

Where exactly did you come up with those numbers?
 
You know that experiments and evidence are a part of the scientific method, right? Hatuey and I have posted ours. Your turn. Post a credible scientific study proving ours wrong.

Thats your whole problem in the first place. You take science and theories as definite facts, when its not.

You even think facts are definite, when they often are fluctuation and changing as our perspectives on things changes and our knowledge expands.
 
Who determines what is "credible"? No one knows for sure how old the earth is. Thre are scientists who can't agree on global warming so how can we determine what is credible? You're wasting your time.

This is because global warming has many affecting factors to equate...like predicting the weather when there are many factors to equate

Aging a rock is far more simple
 
Thats simply ridiculous. No one knows, and no one will probably ever know.. There are just to many unknown factors for a race that has been relatively intelligent for thousands of years, and somewhat intelligent for a few hundred years to predict how old the earth is,

Really? Into what categories to those "unknown factors" fall?
 
Who determines what is "credible"? No one knows for sure how old the earth is. Thre are scientists who can't agree on global warming so how can we determine what is credible? You're wasting your time.

Other scientists determine what is credible by using anonymous peer reviews. A scientist sends his study to a scientific magazine. The editor sends that study to other scientists with the name removed so as to ensure there is no bias. Once a number of scientists in the same field have reviewed the article and found its methodology to be correct it is considered peer-reviewed and credible.
 
Really? Into what categories to those "unknown factors" fall?
I just gotta ask:
What point in the earth's creation is it consiered 'created'?

When a blob appeared within the solar disk?
When it reached its current mass?
When its crust cooled?
When the first Taco Bell opened?

And, what does any of that have to do with ID v Evolution?
 
Thats your whole problem in the first place. You take science and theories as definite facts, when its not.


You even think facts are definite, when they often are fluctuation and changing as our perspectives on things changes and our knowledge expands.[/QUOTE]

I take them as facts only until they are proven wrong. Yes there are fluctuations and changes and I change my opinion with them.
 
I just gotta ask:
What point in the earth's creation is it consiered 'created'?

When a blob appeared within the solar disk?
When it reached its current mass?
When its crust cooled?
When the first Taco Bell opened?

And, what does any of that have to do with ID v Evolution?

When the ball of gases first solidified
 
Where exactly did you come up with those numbers?

I am saying approximately the human race has been civilized and somewhat intelligent for 5000 years. Even if its 10.000 years at best, it doesnt really matter. The height of our intelligence has been the last few hundred years, and the hight of that again perhaps the last 30 years.

And then we make predictions about what happened 4500000000 years ago, when we really have been what we assume based on our own past is a very intelligent species for around 30 years, and somewhat intelligent for several hundred years, and intelligent for thousands of years.. 10.000 compared with 4500000000 is a ridiculous small number. Try 300 or even 1000..

And WE want to start talking about how old the earth is and even the universe as if that was facts, thats ridiculous and the height of human idiocy, when really all we do is wildly speculate, based on a numbers of theories of factors that aren't even definite.

Have you ever thought about how wrong we could be on a number of things if just one of the things we base it on is completely flawed? Some people just go around thinking todays society is fine and all that, when really they do not compare it to what it ought to be or even could be, simply because their own view of the world is based around completely wrong factors, often selfishness.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I assume you take into consideration all the guesses or theories they use as base assumption to make the assumptions about the age of the earth.
Their assumptions are not guesses. They are observed scientific facts such as the nuclear half life of uranium used in radiometric dating. A scientist knows for a fact how long it will take uranium to become lead. He then compares the amount of lead to the amount of uranium in a sample and determines the age of the sample.

How about the big bang in the first place? How did they "prove" that? By looking into a telescope and assuming the movements of lights and planets and assumed explosion and end result to "predict" the creation of the universe as seen in our own narrow perspectives?

Yes, they do use the information they can observe, but they are not "assuming" the movements of lights and planets. They observed how fast they are moving and came to a logical conclusion on what caused them to move. The Big Bang is their best hypothesis so far on why the universe acts as it does.
 
I am saying approximately the human race has been civilized and somewhat intelligent for 5000 years. Even if its 10.000 years at best, it doesnt really matter. The height of our intelligence has been the last few hundred years, and the hight of that again perhaps the last 30 years.

You say that we cannot know how long ago the Earth formed, yet you presume to know how long human civilization has been around. How do you arrive at your numbers?
 
And WE want to start talking about how old the earth is and even the universe as if that was facts, thats ridiculous and the height of human idiocy, when really all we do is wildly speculate, based on a numbers of theories of factors that aren't even definite.

Nuclear half lifes are definite.
 
This is because global warming has many affecting factors to equate...like predicting the weather when there are many factors to equate

Thats exactly what I am trying to say.. We know nothing about the factors of the last 4.5 billion years. We only assume things and theories on factors of the past that we as a human species have lived, and can only manage to establish some of them as definite facts. Then how many factors are we blindly overlooking when we try to assume thing about billions or trillions of years?
 
Also assumption.

As the planets in our solarsystem cooled and solidified the solar winds from the sun which had drawn the gases to orbit in the first place had blown the atmospheres off the nearest planets and this is why the farther you get from the sun the thicker the atmospheres the planets have
 
Thats exactly what I am trying to say.. We know nothing about the factors of the last 4.5 billion years. We only assume things and theories on factors of the past that we as a human species have lived, and can only manage to establish some of them as definite facts. Then how many factors are we blindly overlooking when we try to assume thing about billions or trillions of years?

You completely left out the part of his post where he explains that "Dating a rock is much simpler
 
As the planets in our solarsystem cooled and solidified the solar winds from the sun which had drawn the gases to orbit in the first place had blown the atmospheres off the nearest planets and this is why the farther you get from the sun the thicker the atmospheres the planets have
:shock::shock:
 
You say that we cannot know how long ago the Earth formed, yet you presume to know how long human civilization has been around. How do you arrive at your numbers?

I just make assumptions based on the history of our civilization? I didnt say its how long we have been around, but approximately how long we have been intelligent and civilized.
 
Back
Top Bottom