3 ms·

Do folks who think that the world is only 6000 years old have anything for human-made artifacts 9000 years old?

by lallysingh 12y ago

thrownaway2424 12y ago
Satan put them there to trick us.
- lostlogin 12y ago
  I thought you were right and did some searching. It seems you are wrong though. It turns out that the method of dating is flawed and old stuff like fossils have just been dated wrong and are less than 6000 years old. It's so depressing flicking though these sites. http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/200/How-Does-Bible-Explain-Fossil-Ages-Over-6000-Years-Genesis-12.htm http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/... http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.h...
learc83 12y ago
They would say that our methods for dating are wrong. (I don't believe the earth is 6k years old in case you're wondering.)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
KMag 12y ago
It's probably incorrect to assume there's a single group with a single explanation on the subject. There are groups that will argue that dating methods assume that we know initial conditions and assume that certain parameters are constants when they may just be drifting more slowly that we can notice over the 100 years or so that we've been able to measure them. On the other hand, one of my fraternity brothers got religious his senior year, moved into a kosher living space, finished his Physics degree from MIT, and then went to a yeshiva in Israel. Last I heard, he was a rabbi in the Boston suburbs. I think he believed the Universe is billions of years old, but he did tell me that there are some rabbis that will tell you that when God created the first trees that first week, if you drilled into trees, you would find hundreds of rings as if they had been hundreds of years old, and likewise for isotope distributions in rocks, etc. This is much harder to argue against because it makes not falsifiable claims, but fortunately, it's also much less dangerous... it doesn't deny science's ability to forecast the future or contradict our best understanding of how the world currently works.

Do folks who think that the world is only 6000 years old have anything for human-made artifacts 9000 years old?

thrownaway2424 12y ago

Satan put them there to trick us.

lostlogin 12y ago
I thought you were right and did some searching. It seems you are wrong though. It turns out that the method of dating is flawed and old stuff like fossils have just been dated wrong and are less than 6000 years old. It's so depressing flicking though these sites. http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/200/How-Does-Bible-Explain-Fossil-Ages-Over-6000-Years-Genesis-12.htm http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/... http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.h...

learc83 12y ago

They would say that our methods for dating are wrong. (I don't believe the earth is 6k years old in case you're wondering.)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

KMag 12y ago

It's probably incorrect to assume there's a single group with a single explanation on the subject. There are groups that will argue that dating methods assume that we know initial conditions and assume that certain parameters are constants when they may just be drifting more slowly that we can notice over the 100 years or so that we've been able to measure them. On the other hand, one of my fraternity brothers got religious his senior year, moved into a kosher living space, finished his Physics degree from MIT, and then went to a yeshiva in Israel. Last I heard, he was a rabbi in the Boston suburbs. I think he believed the Universe is billions of years old, but he did tell me that there are some rabbis that will tell you that when God created the first trees that first week, if you drilled into trees, you would find hundreds of rings as if they had been hundreds of years old, and likewise for isotope distributions in rocks, etc. This is much harder to argue against because it makes not falsifiable claims, but fortunately, it's also much less dangerous... it doesn't deny science's ability to forecast the future or contradict our best understanding of how the world currently works.