• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Age of the Earth

Roughly 4.6 billion years or so.
 
That's your end all argument to support old earth? The great flood could be a reason for some differences on dating fossils etc. I'm just saying there is not enough evidence to completely rule out either way. It is inconclusive at this point. I just gave my opinion that it seems genesis reads more literally, that's all.

There is no credible evidence for a "great flood" unless you care to share it.
 
There is no credible evidence for a "great flood" unless you care to share it.

Rapid burial of plants,animals
Fossilized sea creatures found high above sea level
Rapidly deposited sediment layers across vast areas
Either rapid or no erosion between rock layers
Plate tectonics
Studies of sediment formations in grand canyon
 
Rapid burial of plants,animals
Fossilized sea creatures found high above sea level
Rapidly deposited sediment layers across vast areas
Either rapid or no erosion between rock layers
Plate tectonics
Studies of sediment formations in grand canyon

If it was a world flood the evidence for flood would be world wide. Sure floods occur locally and there us evidence of local flooding.

As for sea fossils above sea level that is evidence if an old earth and plate movement.
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Distance of stars and time it would take for light to reach us.

Speed of plate movement and the evidence continents were together.

Hawaii and the speed they form and time it would take to grow lush forests.

Plus many other things.

The star argument assumes a big bang theory to which there are many holes. There are galaxies identified distances beyond the timetable under that theory as well. Big bang assumes creation occurred under natural processes which may not even be the case. Strangely enough, big bangers that dispute the bible give a blank stare when asked the origin of the bang. Plate tectonics is interesting because there is evidence of change in speed which could be evidence for the flood. So there is debate about all these arguments with no conclusive evidence. Debate will continue until we can ask someone who was there when this all happened.
 
The star argument assumes a big bang theory to which there are many holes. There are galaxies identified distances beyond the timetable under that theory as well. Big bang assumes creation occurred under natural processes which may not even be the case. Strangely enough, big bangers that dispute the bible give a blank stare when asked the origin of the bang. Plate tectonics is interesting because there is evidence of change in speed which could be evidence for the flood. So there is debate about all these arguments with no conclusive evidence. Debate will continue until we can ask someone who was there when this all happened.

The distance of stars greater than 6000 lightyears away predates the big bang theory. The only thing it assumes is that geometry works.
 
Correct, and no talking snake or giant boat. Genesis is not a history or science book.

Cool, let's just be honest about it and admit that the whole Bible is not a history or science book, but a book of mythology.
 
Rapid burial of plants,animals
Fossilized sea creatures found high above sea level
Rapidly deposited sediment layers across vast areas
Either rapid or no erosion between rock layers
Plate tectonics
Studies of sediment formations in grand canyon

So no credible evidence. When was the flood?
 
Rapid burial of plants,animals
Fossilized sea creatures found high above sea level
Rapidly deposited sediment layers across vast areas
Either rapid or no erosion between rock layers
Plate tectonics
Studies of sediment formations in grand canyon

If you believe in plate tectonics and understand everything about our earth's lithospheric layer and how it interacts with itself you'd know why the rapidly deposited sediment laerys, rapid / no erosion between rock layes, sediment formations in the grand canyon, rapid burial of plants and animals and fossilized sea creatures high above sea level GO there to begin with.

Science didn't accept this massive, shocking theory right away: it required extensive layers of proof before it was open to it at all.

On scientific level of thought: there isn't enough H>20 to cover the whole of the earth no matter how you puzzle up the continents.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This is the Religious Discussion Forum. I remind everyone that civility is REQUIRED, and that terms like "delusional" and "taliban" applied to religious beliefs are not acceptible here and cause Goshin's Silver Hammer to come swinging down. This forum is for civil discussion within a theistic context, not "do you have scientific proof of your faith?" arguments. If you want to do the latter, take it to Philosophy. Oh yes and... Thank you for your Cooperation....


klingonprvb.jpg
 
Cool, let's just be honest about it and admit that the whole Bible is not a history or science book, but a book of mythology.

The Bible is indeed not given as a 'history' or 'science' book. It is a book of redeemption. It is given us by God to show what He has done and will do in the areas of redeemption for man.

It touches on 'history' and 'science' at times. And when it does, it is completely accurate. But it is not given for that reason. It is for redeemption and to provide the people of God, which we believe are the Christians at this time, what they need to walk with God in this life.

So, as a Christian, I believe the creation story given in Genesis. I believe the flood of Noah's day was real as was Noah, and the ark, etc. etc.

Concerning the creation story, the 6000 years may be the time of mans existance on earth, but not the age of the earth, I believe. I hold to the six days of creation really being 'restoration' of the earth, and not the 'original' creation. That original creation would be Gen. 1:1. Gen. 1:2 describes the earth in a chaotic judemental form which is not part of God's creative ways. When he creates, it is perfect and good and complete.

Concerning the flood, the whole thing was from God and miraculous in its working out. For those who are not Christians then there is problems with that because they don't believe in God. We who are Christian, most anyway, have no problems with it because its of God. And God can accomplish His will however He wants to.

Quantrill
 
The Bible is indeed not given as a 'history' or 'science' book. It is a book of redeemption. It is given us by God to show what He has done and will do in the areas of redeemption for man.

It touches on 'history' and 'science' at times. And when it does, it is completely accurate. But it is not given for that reason. It is for redeemption and to provide the people of God, which we believe are the Christians at this time, what they need to walk with God in this life.

So, as a Christian, I believe the creation story given in Genesis. I believe the flood of Noah's day was real as was Noah, and the ark, etc. etc.

Concerning the creation story, the 6000 years may be the time of mans existance on earth, but not the age of the earth, I believe. I hold to the six days of creation really being 'restoration' of the earth, and not the 'original' creation. That original creation would be Gen. 1:1. Gen. 1:2 describes the earth in a chaotic judemental form which is not part of God's creative ways. When he creates, it is perfect and good and complete.

Concerning the flood, the whole thing was from God and miraculous in its working out. For those who are not Christians then there is problems with that because they don't believe in God. We who are Christian, most anyway, have no problems with it because its of God. And God can accomplish His will however He wants to.

Quantrill

And naturally, He sometimes wants to accomplish His will by ordering folks to murder children. The apologetic I often hear for 1 Samuel 15:3 is that massacering the babies and infants Of the Amalekites was the ONLY way to protect the Messianic line. After all the millions of miractulous time-space bending shennanigans that went into the flood, and the massive divine cover-up conspiracy that immediately followed, God couldn't come up with a single way to create a Messiah that didn't involve slaughtering infants?
 
And naturally, He sometimes wants to accomplish His will by ordering folks to murder children. The apologetic I often hear for 1 Samuel 15:3 is that massacering the babies and infants Of the Amalekites was the ONLY way to protect the Messianic line. After all the millions of miractulous time-space bending shennanigans that went into the flood, and the massive divine cover-up conspiracy that immediately followed, God couldn't come up with a single way to create a Messiah that didn't involve slaughtering infants?

Whether God could have or would have done it another way is immaterial to the Christian. That is the way He did it. And He is just and right in doing so. If God saves thousands, He is just. If He slays thousands He is just.

Quantrill
 
He caused the flood to happen in such a way as to give the appearance that it never occurred and that the planet is 4.6 billion years old. OK.
 
He caused the flood to happen in such a way as to give the appearance that it never occurred and that the planet is 4.6 billion years old. OK.

Someone already said there are fossils of sea creatures all over the earth.

Quantrill
 
There are. Someone in the post before it gave the reason. Tectonic drift.
 
That's your end all argument to support old earth? The great flood could be a reason for some differences on dating fossils etc. I'm just saying there is not enough evidence to completely rule out either way. It is inconclusive at this point. I just gave my opinion that it seems genesis reads more literally, that's all.

There's not enough water on the planet to have caused a world flood the likes detailed in the Bible.
 
There's not enough water on the planet to have caused a world flood the likes detailed in the Bible.


Omnipotence > matter.
 
There are. Someone in the post before it gave the reason. Tectonic drift.

'Tectonic drift' if you want to believe it. But marine fossils all over the world are also proof of a global flood. You simply choose not to believe it.

Quantrill
 
There's not enough water on the planet to have caused a world flood the likes detailed in the Bible.

The water didn't just come from the planet. It came from above.

Quantrill
 
'Tectonic drift' if you want to believe it. But marine fossils all over the world are also proof of a global flood. You simply choose not to believe it.

Quantrill

Marine fossils are evidence that the land they are embedded in was once at the bottom of a sea. They are neatly stratified, only certain fossils are found at certain strata. A flood would leave a jumble with the heaviest on the bottom and lighter ones above. This is not the case.
 
Back
Top Bottom