the Universe Is Not "Billions of Years"Old (Imnotdutch)

[big_bad_buff]

So the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Am I to assume you believe continental drift is not a fact? There was no Pangaea after all?

Don't get me wrong. I believe in God, but people who stick with the literal 7 days creation drive me nuts. I think the 7 day, 1 day = 1000 years theory is simply a way to explain we're in the end times. (of all the clues, i believe this is the weakest)

So all of this happened in 6000 years? Creation of the universe (as somebody pointed out, different from creation of the earth), formation of the earth, skipping a lot..., Pangaea separates into the continents, dinosaurs, numerous 'creations' of Homo erectus (hominid) type species and the subsequent extinctions of all except Homo sapiens.

I don't see the difficulty (even creationists) in believing this timeline is generally accurate:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/nature/9901/earth.history/frameset.html

CNN? geat man, nice time line. now where are your supporting facts?

 

[the nature boy]

you're busting on cnn when you're pulling shit from an angelfire website. uh ok.

 

[big_bad_buff]

you're busting on cnn when you're pulling shit from an angelfire website. uh ok.

so what was his point? a cool looking time line that changed when you clicked on different icons! great, and this is suposed to prove what? i'm not busting on anyone, people can believe whatever they want. this is my point, i'm not pushing creation on anyone, i simply got attacked in a different thread, because i don't believe in the big bang theory.

 

[CanadianCripple]

My point? Damn, thought you were brighter than that.

I just searched for any timeline... they're generally all the same. To hit on my post simply on a CNN link is damn weak. No, it's lame.

Supporting facts?! Answer my question! IDIOT!



Oh, I didn't read the other thread. Noah's Ark... give me a break.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Your all wrong! Creationists and Evolutionists equally! It's sad to see people so misguided, but still mean well! Poor Sheeple! If they only new the truth!

 

[big_bad_buff]

My point? Damn, thought you were brighter than that.

I just searched for any timeline... they're generally all the same. To hit on my post simply on a CNN link is damn weak. No, it's lame.

Supporting facts?! Answer my question! IDIOT!

Oh, I didn't read the other thread. Noah's Ark... give me a break.

i'm sorry newbie, i'm not that great at speaking Canadian, I'm not too sure what your question was, all I read was you calling me an Idiot.

 

[notoriousQQ]

Mike Tyson said that the tatoo on his face was no big deal because billions of people have tatoos.

 

[Imnotdutch]

Let me say that over the past few days my respect for BBB has grown.........although I dont share his views he has been quite polite about discussing them.

BBB,

I put a reply on the other thread before I came across this one. Bottom line is the 'evidence' that is given in your article is nothing more than pseudo-science. It sounds good but when you look into it the opinions are flawed somewhat........my arguments would be similar to some of the politer ones posted here.

As for the Carbon-dating. BBB is perfectly correct to point out that Carbon-dating is not accurate when used over time periods of more than a few thousand years. However, there are other isotopes available (of other elements) that are accurate over longer time periods. When finding fault, people pick on carbon-dating.........they try to forget about the other isotopes.

I dont see this as a creation vs evolution debate.........to make it clear, the two can co-exist. However, this cant happen if people insist on sticking to the young-Earth ideas. Incidentally, the most outspoken young Earth proponents seem to always justify their ideas by saying that it woudl be good for religion if it proved science wrong on something.......hardly a good argument. This is why they try to justify their beliefs using pseudo-science.

 

[CanadianCripple]

i'm sorry newbie, i'm not that great at speaking Canadian, I'm not too sure what your question was, all I read was you calling me an Idiot.

OK. My apologise... you're not bright at all.

Gooo Baaaack toooo myyyy preeevviioousss poosst, looook carefuuullly foorrr thheesssse things '?'. Theey're caaallled Q U E S T I O N M A R K S. Arrrre weee understanding each other now? <--- that's a question.

Newbie? <---- another one. LMAO!

 

[***]

where are your facts? let's see them. I want to see a pre-human, you know a monkey a few million years before it decided to turn into a human.

there are hundreds of these fossils, but none as convincing as lucy. she was found not too long ago in africa providing the clearest missing link as the common ancestor between humans and monkeys.