Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[downtownparks]

I tend to think that faith and science are not mutually exclusive. I think that the Christian who negates the value of science has blinders on. The same is true of a scientist negating someone who believes there is a god behind it all.

I guess I just have a very hard time with biblical literalism.

[second_pancake]

And before there are a million posts on here pointing out the contradictions in my post by referencing that because it is written in a book, it must be so, or because everyone else "believes" it, it must be so, or that I made the statement that a negative can not be proven and yet I challenged one to "prove it isn't [6000 years old]", that was the point.  If I have to explain the similarities between that post and all of the ones in favor of their belief, then I truly am dealing with a case of idiocy and not just a passionate Christian.

[Social Conservative]

You know what, you're right.  I concede.  I CAN'T prove the earth is older than 6,000 years because I am not, nor have I ever been, a scientist.  I don't own or know how to build the equiptment that would allow me to do the research to prove this.  I don't know how to take a core sample, analyze fossils, or extract DNA from dinasaur bones.  Alas, all I can do is read books written by people who have done all of the above and have documented every step taken to come to the conclusion they have drawn.  Thousands of books that all have the same thing written in them, over and over again in various languages and are known to be true by hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world because they have duplicated the tests and come to the same conclusion.  The burden is not on me to prove the world is over 6,000 years old, my friend.  It is for you to prove it is not. 

Then you have put your faith in those people who write the books you're buying.  How is that any different than my faith?  You haven't taken into account (or at least addressed) the flaws in the systems and methods they use to arrive at their theories; yet you believe.  You haven't seen first hand the things you believe; yet you believe.  You haven't been presented with any silver bullet that makes fact the things you believe; yet you believe.  You are believing, really, on blind faith that those folks who make a living, career and legacy on carbon dating, evolution and other scientific methods not proven to be fact aren't selling you a bottle of snake oil.

The burden is not on me to prove the world is over 6,000 years old as I have never stated or insinuated that I could.  I very clearly stated that my belief in the age of the earth derives from the Bible.  Science however, has for years stated the age of the earth as being much older than 6,000 years without ever qualifying their statements.  People in turn, assume it is fact what the scientists tell them, never once knowing who they are putting their faith in.  And that has been my point all along.  We each believe in something that we can not prove.  The scientist who actually performs carbon dating, has faith that the many assumptions he makes when arriving at his conclusion are correct. 

[Lunican]

It's a good thing that the various laws of physics and scientific principles that are used in carbon dating and other types of research and technology are the same principles that allow things like large scale integrated circuits and LCD displays to have become realities, even though the movement of atoms and electrons within these devices cannot be seen, and are not observable nor intuitively obvious, or else you would be carving your moronic new earth missives with a chisel onto a piece of stone.

[Social Conservative]

It's a good thing that the various laws of physics and scientific principles that are used in carbon dating and other types of research and technology are the same principles that allow things like large scale integrated circuits and LCD displays to have become realities, even though the movement of atoms and electrons within these devices cannot be seen, and are not observable nor intuitively obvious,

Because I'm dense, I need further clarification as to what you are saying here.  Are you saying that carbon dating has been proven as factual as the LCD screen I have in my home?  Better stated, do they make as many assumptions when creating those LCD screens as they do when using carbon dating?  Or are you comparing apples and oranges like your counterpart was doing earlier when referencing the Polio vaccine?

or else you would be carving your moronic new earth missives with a chisel onto a piece of stone.

Ouch!  Is this how you folks treat newcomers?  So, I'm not only close minded and of lesser intelligence but I'm a full fledged MORON.  Tell me, are you as hateful in person as you are being on this blog?

[Lunican]

To be clear, the word moronic is an adjective that was used to describe your new earth ideas, not yourself.

Back to my original question: Where did you get 6,000 years from? For everyone's edutainment, can you explain what makes it a more compelling number than 200, or 10,000, or 5 million?

[Social Conservative]

To be clear, the word moronic is an adjective that was used to describe your new earth ideas, not yourself.

So I am not a moron, just the beliefs that I frame my life around and try to live by every day?  I don't buy it and am not going to let you off that easily.  If you are going to engage in a civilized discussion you should know better than to insult those you disagree with.  It only makes you look bad and discredits your argument.

Back to my original question: Where did you get 6,000 years from?

I've already answered this.  Perhaps, you should try reading the entire discussion.  But while we're on the topic of unanswered questions, maybe you can answer a few I've asked and have not received a response for:

1)   How can you prove the earth is older than 6,000 years?  If science is based on fact, then it’s only logical that it can be proven.
2)   How can you state that a method such as carbon dating is fool proof if it’s based on so many assumptions?  (i.e. the level of carbon-14 in the earth’s atmosphere remaining constant)
3)   If carbon dating is not fool proof, then how can anyone so emphatically state how old the earth is if faith does not play a role?
4)   If you only believe what you can see, feel and understand then why do you believe something you know very little about?
5)   How do:
“Specimens, cosmic rays, ratios, precise measurements, magnetic fields, radiocarbons... geez, this all sounds so scientific”
PROVE the earth is older than 6,000 years?
6)          Are you saying that carbon dating is equal to LCD screens in the sense that they both have been proven to be fact beyond question?
7)   Why are believers in science so afraid of saying they have faith in something?  Just admit that your beliefs are based on faith as much as any religious person’s.  Is it intellectualism?
   Why are you so angry?

For everyone's edutainment, can you explain what makes it a more compelling number than 200, or 10,000, or 5 million?

Why do you insist on taking back handed jabs at me and my beliefs?  Based on some of the other things you've posted I would have thought you were more mature than this. 

[Lunican]

How can you verify the level of accuracy of events stated in the Bible?

[downtownparks]

I think that number is based on 7 days of creation, and certain check points built into the bible. We know certain people lived a certain amount of time (800 years here and there) and we know when Christ was born (dec 25th....hahahaha) so the calculation isnt hard to nail down. The problem with me is the concept that the earth was literally created in 7 days, rather than millions of years.

[Social Conservative]

How can you verify the level of accuracy of events stated in the Bible?

I can't.  That is the whole point.  My beliefs are based on faith.  If I can't verify it then it wouldn't be faith would it?  My point has been that your beliefs in science are based on faith just as mine are.  Why bother being a part of the discussion if your not going to follow along?

[Lunican]

Science has a much better track record at explaining the world around us. In ancient greek mythology lightning was explained as occurring when Zues was angry. Science provides a better answer because the scientific explanation is repeatable and observable by anyone, not just Zues believers. The list of proven scientific principles goes on and on, yet the list of proven religious beliefs remains short.

[downtownparks]

In fairness Lunican, the point, at least for me, isn't to disprove religion. Faith is very near and dear for a lot of people. I just feel believing in God, doesn't mean you should negate science.

[Lunican]

I wouldn't want my religion being used to answer scientific questions, because it would then run the risk of eventually being disproven.

[Midway ®]

Social Conservative, it might be better to leave the promotion of new earth creationism to the experts in the field. You are doing a poor job of representing this cause and as such are tarnishing the entire movement.

There are numerous websites devoted to this subject that have in depth discussions of all the important and pertinent advances in this field, as well as a museum in Kentucky. I am deeply offended that you are representing this important cause in such an inadequate fashion.

If your arguments were more reasoned and compelling, I am certain that all who read them would understand the  basic underlying truth in this interpretation of the creation of Earth, and would also understand that the Earth's age cannot possibly exceed 8,000 years.

Please avail yourself of the myriad resources on this subject for the purposes of self education and return when you are equipped to adequately represent this advancement of human knowledge and awareness in a way that permits all people to follow your teachings.

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and ye shall find; knock and the door will be opened unto you. For everyone who asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Matthew 7:7-8

[jaxnative]

Perhaps you could guide us to one or two of those websites that you believe explains the underlying truths on the matter............Thanks