• 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!

The Earth is ~6022 Years Old

VySky

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
33,432
Reaction score
12,156
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
As the book of Genesis details. There were 10 generations before and after the flood. As a result, the earth did not exist billions of years before Adam was created on the 6th day.

But...but.. what about radiometric dating you say? Sorry, it may be a popular belief that radiometric dating proves the earth is old. That's not true at all. The parent daughter relationship to determine rate of decay in a rock uses assumptions that are neither testable or provable. Using faulty assumptions yield faulty time periods.

Not only are flawed assumptions used but Radiometric testing has been proven unreliable.

Examples;

* Mt St Helen's crater in 1996 had so many daughter atoms it was determined to be 350,000 years old.
* Lava flows in New Zealand known to be only 50 years old yet radiometric testing concluded it was 3.5 million years
* Basalt flows atop the Grand Canyon were tested using 3 different dating techniques that calculated 916 million years, 1.143 billion years and 2.6 billion years.

Bottom line. God created the world in 6 days ~4000 years before the birth of Jesus.

The flawed anti-biblical assumptions used to interpret rocks age were the primer to start questioning God's word

Rely on scripture.
 
Last edited:
VySky said:
As the book of Genesis details. There were 10 generations before and after the flood. As a result, the earth did not exist billions of years before Adam was created on the 6th day.

But...but.. what about radiometric dating you say? Sorry, it may be a popular belief that radiometric dating proves the earth is old. That's not true at all. The parent daughter relationship to determine rate of decay in a rock uses assumptions that are neither testable or provable. Using faulty assumptions yield faulty time periods.

Not only are flawed assumptions used but Radiometric testing has been proven unreliable. Examples;

* Mt St Helen's crater in 1996 had so many daughter atoms it was determined to be 350,000 years old.
* Lava flows in New Zealand known to be only 50 years old yet radiometric testing concluded it was 3.5 million years
* Basalt flows atop the Grand Canyon were tested using 3 different dating techniques that calculated 916 million years, 1.143 billion years and 2.6 billion years.

Bottom line. God created the world in 6 days ~4000 years before the birth of Jesus.

The flawed anti-biblical assumptions used to interpret rocks age were the primer to start questioning God's word

Rely on scripture.
Click to expand...
 
VySky said:
As the book of Genesis details. There were 10 generations before and after the flood. As a result, the earth did not exist billions of years before Adam was created on the 6th day.

But...but.. what about radiometric dating you say? Sorry, it may be a popular belief that radiometric dating proves the earth is old. That's not true at all. The parent daughter relationship to determine rate of decay in a rock uses assumptions that are neither testable or provable. Using faulty assumptions yield faulty time periods.

Not only are flawed assumptions used but Radiometric testing has been proven unreliable.

Examples;

* Mt St Helen's crater in 1996 had so many daughter atoms it was determined to be 350,000 years old.
* Lava flows in New Zealand known to be only 50 years old yet radiometric testing concluded it was 3.5 million years
* Basalt flows atop the Grand Canyon were tested using 3 different dating techniques that calculated 916 million years, 1.143 billion years and 2.6 billion years.

Bottom line. God created the world in 6 days ~4000 years before the birth of Jesus.

The flawed anti-biblical assumptions used to interpret rocks age were the primer to start questioning God's word

Rely on scripture.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone care what your scripture says? It's not the only scripture in the world.
 
Some Hindu texts reference the earth to be 150 trillion years old. Some Christian texts suggest 6,000 years old. That is a gap of over 10 magnitudes. If we consider both religions to be equally incorrect (I realize this is a stretch given Hinduism’s much stronger religious awesomeness, bet let’s assume they’re at parity) then we can arrive at an estimated age somewhere in the middle… some 4 billion years old.

Thank you Christianity and Hinduism for the help here.
 
VySky said:
As the book of Genesis details. There were 10 generations before and after the flood. As a result, the earth did not exist billions of years before Adam was created on the 6th day.

But...but.. what about radiometric dating you say? Sorry, it may be a popular belief that radiometric dating proves the earth is old. That's not true at all. The parent daughter relationship to determine rate of decay in a rock uses assumptions that are neither testable or provable. Using faulty assumptions yield faulty time periods.

Not only are flawed assumptions used but Radiometric testing has been proven unreliable.

Examples;

* Mt St Helen's crater in 1996 had so many daughter atoms it was determined to be 350,000 years old.
* Lava flows in New Zealand known to be only 50 years old yet radiometric testing concluded it was 3.5 million years
* Basalt flows atop the Grand Canyon were tested using 3 different dating techniques that calculated 916 million years, 1.143 billion years and 2.6 billion years.

Bottom line. God created the world in 6 days ~4000 years before the birth of Jesus.

The flawed anti-biblical assumptions used to interpret rocks age were the primer to start questioning God's word

Rely on scripture.
Click to expand...
Wow, come out of the closet and display ignorance for all to see.

Your bible is a book of fables, not a science book. By all means, ignore science, what has it ever done for you?
 
VySky said:
But its not. It's ~6022 years old. That's why I posted the errors used in forming the assumption that its older.
Click to expand...
No, it's 6622 years old, because a hundred years was dropped off each of Shem's descendants in the source texts.

But really, that only means the flood came at 3000 BC which is closer to 2807 than 2350.

Face it and stop trying to make your fable something it's not.
 
beefheart said:
Wow, come out of the closet and display ignorance for all to see.

Your bible is a book of fables, not a science book. By all means, ignore science, what has it ever done for you?
Click to expand...
I bet you think it’s older. LMAO. It’s not. Assumptions used in dating rocks are flawed and unreliable as I’ve pointed out. Rely on scripture
 
beefheart said:
Wow, come out of the closet and display ignorance for all to see.

Your bible is a book of fables, not a science book. By all means, ignore science, what has it ever done for you?
Click to expand...
The Bible has science and true accounts, it says "rightly dividing the word of truth."

That goes for any planet you may find yourself on.
 
VySky said:
As the book of Genesis details. There were 10 generations before and after the flood. As a result, the earth did not exist billions of years before Adam was created on the 6th day.

But...but.. what about radiometric dating you say? Sorry, it may be a popular belief that radiometric dating proves the earth is old. That's not true at all. The parent daughter relationship to determine rate of decay in a rock uses assumptions that are neither testable or provable. Using faulty assumptions yield faulty time periods.

Not only are flawed assumptions used but Radiometric testing has been proven unreliable.

Examples;

* Mt St Helen's crater in 1996 had so many daughter atoms it was determined to be 350,000 years old.
* Lava flows in New Zealand known to be only 50 years old yet radiometric testing concluded it was 3.5 million years
* Basalt flows atop the Grand Canyon were tested using 3 different dating techniques that calculated 916 million years, 1.143 billion years and 2.6 billion years.

Bottom line. God created the world in 6 days ~4000 years before the birth of Jesus.

The flawed anti-biblical assumptions used to interpret rocks age were the primer to start questioning God's word

Rely on scripture.
Click to expand...

This explains a lot of your posts.
 
beefheart said:
I know it is, because I don't use a book of fables as a science book. Stay ignorant....
Click to expand...
You have an opinion not a fact. I’ve pointed out where you went wrong in your conclusions
 
VySky said:
You have an opinion not a fact. I’ve pointed out where you went wrong in your conclusions
Click to expand...

Your "facts" depend on us believing some text that someone apparently wrote a few thousand years ago, not long after written language became a thing. That's not really reliable evidence, but faith is a powerful thing, I guess.
 
VySky said:
As the book of Genesis details. There were 10 generations before and after the flood. As a result, the earth did not exist billions of years before Adam was created on the 6th day.

But...but.. what about radiometric dating you say? Sorry, it may be a popular belief that radiometric dating proves the earth is old. That's not true at all. The parent daughter relationship to determine rate of decay in a rock uses assumptions that are neither testable or provable. Using faulty assumptions yield faulty time periods.

Not only are flawed assumptions used but Radiometric testing has been proven unreliable.

Examples;

* Mt St Helen's crater in 1996 had so many daughter atoms it was determined to be 350,000 years old.
* Lava flows in New Zealand known to be only 50 years old yet radiometric testing concluded it was 3.5 million years
* Basalt flows atop the Grand Canyon were tested using 3 different dating techniques that calculated 916 million years, 1.143 billion years and 2.6 billion years.

Bottom line. God created the world in 6 days ~4000 years before the birth of Jesus.

The flawed anti-biblical assumptions used to interpret rocks age were the primer to start questioning God's word

Rely on scripture.
Click to expand...

Psalm 90:4 - "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."

2 Peter 3: 8 - "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

If a day can be as a thousand years, then why not a billion? Why not any amount of time? In God's eyes - as an infinite being - would not time itself be a meaningless concept?
 
VySky said:
As the book of Genesis details. There were 10 generations before and after the flood. As a result, the earth did not exist billions of years before Adam was created on the 6th day.

But...but.. what about radiometric dating you say? Sorry, it may be a popular belief that radiometric dating proves the earth is old. That's not true at all. The parent daughter relationship to determine rate of decay in a rock uses assumptions that are neither testable or provable. Using faulty assumptions yield faulty time periods.

Not only are flawed assumptions used but Radiometric testing has been proven unreliable.

Examples;

* Mt St Helen's crater in 1996 had so many daughter atoms it was determined to be 350,000 years old.
* Lava flows in New Zealand known to be only 50 years old yet radiometric testing concluded it was 3.5 million years
* Basalt flows atop the Grand Canyon were tested using 3 different dating techniques that calculated 916 million years, 1.143 billion years and 2.6 billion years.

Bottom line. God created the world in 6 days ~4000 years before the birth of Jesus.

The flawed anti-biblical assumptions used to interpret rocks age were the primer to start questioning God's word

Rely on scripture.
Click to expand...
But, rather than trying to precicify your slide rule that way, (6022 to 6622), try think how I want your rule when your slide rule says we only go back six thousand years?
 
VySky said:
As the book of Genesis details. There were 10 generations before and after the flood. As a result, the earth did not exist billions of years before Adam was created on the 6th day.

But...but.. what about radiometric dating you say? Sorry, it may be a popular belief that radiometric dating proves the earth is old. That's not true at all. The parent daughter relationship to determine rate of decay in a rock uses assumptions that are neither testable or provable. Using faulty assumptions yield faulty time periods.

Not only are flawed assumptions used but Radiometric testing has been proven unreliable.

Examples;

* Mt St Helen's crater in 1996 had so many daughter atoms it was determined to be 350,000 years old.
* Lava flows in New Zealand known to be only 50 years old yet radiometric testing concluded it was 3.5 million years
* Basalt flows atop the Grand Canyon were tested using 3 different dating techniques that calculated 916 million years, 1.143 billion years and 2.6 billion years.

Bottom line. God created the world in 6 days ~4000 years before the birth of Jesus.

The flawed anti-biblical assumptions used to interpret rocks age were the primer to start questioning God's word

Rely on scripture.
Click to expand...

Hmm… but only the parts deemed to be literally true, otherwise allow those words (terms?) to be ‘officially’ reinterpreted to better fit current times. Of course, we should heed the true word of God on how to treat our slaves and form our diets, unless and until that part of the true and precise word of God has been deemed to have been misstated, misinterpreted or superseded by later assumptions and/or ‘official’ edicts.

www.christianity.com

What Does 'An Eye for an Eye' Mean?

As Christians, we are to hold ourselves to a higher rule than the law. We must hold ourselves to the standard of love that Jesus gave us. However, Jesus’ command, “turn them the other cheek should not be used to excuse abuse, extortion, or...
www.christianity.com www.christianity.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom