Is the earth really 6,000 years old?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by dynasty, Sep 17, 2007.

  1. So I'm watching a show on the history channel last night called "How the Earth was made", and it actually presented solid evidence for the formation of the earth billions of years ago.

    They talked about plate tectonics and how the continents shifted. The theory of continental drift is pretty solid, as we see yearly continents and land masses drift a few centimeters.

    The Pacific Plate is moving away from North America at 4 cm/yr, and the Indian plate is approaching the pacific plate at 7 cm/yr.

    At such a rate, continents drift apart very slowly, and for them to reach their present distance would've taken millions of years. If we look on, we find this article:

    The main argument these young earth creationists have about plate tectonics is a theory called "catastrophic plate tectonics." A man named Baumgardner, a creation scientist, is "acknowledged as having developed the world's best 3-D super-computer model of plate tectonics."

    What does a computer animation mean? Well it could mean a lot if the information in the program is accurate, and can be proven to be accurate by other scientists. Here's the catch though: Baumgardner has not published his so called "findings" of catastrophic plate tectonics in any peer-reviewed science journal, other than creation science magazines.

    Baumgardner proposes the idea of runaway subduction. The following link explains what it is and all about Baumgardner's ideas:

    So, any young earth creationists out there, (I won't name names, you know who you are) what is your theory on plate tectonics? How did the continents drift apart?

    Also, thought this little bit at the end of the answers in genesis article was funny:
    "There may even be major modifications to the theory that increase its explanatory power, or future discoveries could cause the model to be abandoned. Such is the nature of scientific progress. Scientific models come and go, ‘But the word of the Lord endures forever'."
  2. In reference to the title of this thread:'s not.
  3. I'd love for Jonathan to reply to this, I'm curious as to what his thoughts are.
  4. No. People shouldn't believe books written in the past with no scientific evidence to support it.
  5. lol I can't wait !
  6. no its only 21 years old. i created everything on earth in these few years.
  7. Yes the earth is exactly 6,000 years old, if you don't count the first several billion...
  8. Wow. Just.. Wow. That is the most horribly uneducated and presumptous source I've ever seen. Good luck an having anyone take your seriously.

    As if they did before...
  9. It's sort of like watching The Office. It's not conventional comedy, but it still gets you laughing, right?
  10. [​IMG]

    this is even better than the map to hell drawing
  11. this time, i picked the salty seas dillema

    Some more digging led me to another reference:
    Salty Seas - Evidence for a Young Earth

    A pretty key figure has been brought into dispute:
    A rebuttal, entitled salt in the sea. By Glenn Morton, Glenn Morton has an interesting take on things:

    know an ID'er, apparently.
  12. Edit: I realized it was the wrong page.
  13. And now for the finale:
  14. I would like to reiterate a point made out above. This is a point I have been trying to get people to recognise:

    You see, dating methods rely on the assumptions of the geologic column. Where there is land that is wildly different than the geologic column, (as are many places) then they cannot date a place even with radiometric dating. It just gets left undated. They simply don't know.

    Here is an example:
  15. do you have any other sources, besides the obviously biased website, "answersingenesis"?
  16. :) Yet again Jonathon bites the dust with creationist evidence...better start checking the validity of all those things you're cutting and pasting dude, or even have a shot at trying to read them yourself so you know what you're posting...

  17. wow guys.

    i honestly dont undersatnd how any rational, semi-intellectual human being can possibly think the world is only 6,000 years old. floods happen ALL the time and have been happening for BILLIONS of years. floods are a quite neccessary event. they benefit nature by moving nutrients around.

    jonathon- where the fuck did u find scientific evidence that all mountains were under water?? thats just dumb. mountains were formed millions of years ago when the super-continent pangea came together and pulled apart. then after more millions of years, erosion created all the peaks we have today. there is no mother fuckin way any mountian was created in less than even 1 million years. unless formed by a giant impact... but that would be documented or mentioned somewhere during the long, 6000 year history of everything, right?

    i also dont think the people cutting and pasting this "scientific evidence" either read them or know who wrote them. 100% chance the author of everything like that is christian. or from a christian organization

    please...i beg u naysayers to read this thread below.... (you'll see it has these crazy things called REFERENCES!!!) the site point blank takes "young-earthers' arguements and tells why they are invalid/wrong/dumb/impossible
    can't wait to hear the garbage jonathon has to say about that site...... i bet he wont even read it, "bow out" of the thread and then rationalize that since he stopped posting he some how is right

    this thread is pretty much a duplicate of....

    where i already pointed out the all of jonathons "evidence' comes from an ridiculously bias website called, "answersingenesis". no shit that site is gonna say the world is 6000 years old. thats like trying to find out about the color blue from a website called "answers in red"

    also.... if the earth was only 6000 years old... it would still be molten. when our solar system formed out of the disk of material orbiting around the sun, it was a molten ball for a looooong time before the crust even hardened.

    so, you're saying that the explosion from our sun....the entire accretion process.....the cooling process....the forming of the crust.....the bombardment of impactors giving earth water....the forming of mountain ranges (including those under the ocean that dwarf those on land)....and the emergence of man from microbial life forms in the primordial soup all took place in 6000 years. you are nuts.

    if the earth was only 6000 years old the moon would fill up our entire night sky and the tides would be several x several times bigger. since the moon formed slightly after the earth.... then u have to throw the creation of the moon in that 6000 years too. certainly a proto-planet the size of mars smashing into a molten earth...thus creating earths own accrection disk and eventually the moon.....would have been noticed by someone, right?? since people were around at the beginning of everything, they surely would have noticed an event like that right??? or do u deny the existance of our moon?? or do u have another 'answeringenesis' the explains the creation of the moon.
  18. thank you!!!


Share This Page