13Likes
March 3rd, 2013, 01:54 PM
..asteroid craters . If earth and humans are less then 10 000 years old then how did we survive those huge asteroids, they cant deny the asteroids impacts because we an see the impact craters, does anyone know any arguments from their side for this argument ?
God made it like that as a test of faith.
There weren't any asteroids.
Young Earth Creationists can ignore anything. It's a gift they have.
are there any young earthers here, can they give an explanation for this ?
The title of this thread could be "How do young Earth creationists explain anything?" The answer is always the same; they don't.
They have a belief based purely upon the denial of fact, not the acceptance of it.
This is a very simple process. It goes something like this.Originally Posted by laza
Evolutionists maintain, in an effort to support their foolish and unfounded idea that the Earth and the solar system are truly ancient, that the craters on the moon and on on some other planets and their satellites are the product of impacts by meteors. They have to make this claim to support their materialistic, atheist stance, even though there is plenty of contradictory evidence.
But when we examine this claim in detail it evaporates just like the insubstantial nonsense it is. For many years astronomers were perfectly happy to attribute the lunar craters to volcanoes, but then recognised that claiming they were produced by impact made a better story for their atheist dogma. Of course, even here they lack consistency, being perfectly happy to assign craters on Venus (a plannet) and on Io (a satellite) to volcanoes. It is difficult to tell if this is dishonesty or incompetence.
They have even tried to claim that there are impact craters on the Earth. And there might be one or two ones that are recent, but consider this. They claim a meteor or comet caused the devastation in Tunguska a hundred years ago, but there is no crater. And the meteor that did strike Russia a couple of weeks ago left absolutley no crater, even though hundreds of people photographed it.
So they try to explain the end of the dinosaurs, an event much more readily explained by Noah's flood, as being due to an impact. But what is their evidence? Supposedly their is a buried crater - they can't even see it or show it to us. And they also claim that iridium isotopes show that the Earth was struck. But how do they no that? We know they lie with Carbon 14 and other dating methods and this is just more of the same.
I think you get the general idea.
Yes, thank you. It is just sad that there are people who would believe in that.
I completely agree. Of course, with a little more time, some decent editing and a pile of references, I could have made it much more convincing - certainly enough to sway someone who lacks a science education, or critical thinking skills. The trick is to us a blend of emotion, distorted science and appeals to common sense.
Just to lighten the mood, what is the world's worst pub quiz team?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Anyone might not deny that asteroid craters exist, although s/he might not care about their age. Even science says that it's up to claimants to prove their claim that such craters are were made at a certain time in history.
Those aren't craters. They're giant traps created by giant ant lions that don't exist. Duh.
I am a student from Russia and we have shown how the universe is only 5,000 years old as was stated in the holy Bible. As for impact craters they were formed when the Earth was warm in the first few days of its' creation and then the Earth set and they were formed into God's artistic visions.
I have of course asked God why He allowed impacts to occur and He revealed to me how those impacts were to be seen a warning for future man as to the power of His holy hand upon the crust of the Earth.
Men have misinterpreted the signs and some men of no faith believe that the Earth is very old and that these impacts are from a very long time ago in the millions of years ago from today.
I have seen the light of the holy spirit and I have witnessed His holy blessing.
Amen.
Wow! I already said that!
But, in my defence, I'm not a total crank and I don't actually believe it.
The reason you said that the asteriods were a test of faith is because that is God's truth. You may not realise it but God has spoken through you with those words. When you hear these words behold the glory that hath been bestowed upon you, the good man of God. I will pray for you my brother of loving majestic glory. God preserves you.
Amen.
You must be a troll who is having us on, I can't believe anyone could be as brain washed as you are coming across.The reason you said that the asteriods were a test of faith is because that is God's truth. You may not realise it but God has spoken through you with those words. When you hear these words behold the glory that hath been bestowed upon you, the good man of God. I will pray for you my brother of loving majestic glory. God preserves you.
Amen.
He's posting the same woo on other sites.
A bored teenager, I assume. Obviously not Russian.
I've already proven, by formal methods involving mathematics and pasta, that you are Satan (see trashed thread you started). Go back to your infernal dominion, Demon!
Did you know that the full text of 1970's best seller, Jonathon Livingstone Seagull is an anagram of the full text of the Kings James version of The Book of Revelations.
It is almost all to clear that this planet of ours is far older than 5,000 years. Our own existence can be debatable, but on the scale of tens of thousands of years... not hundreds of years as some people argue. The editors of the Bible had very little evidence to go off to come to their conclusion that the earth is some 5,000 years old. They used dates from around their world such as the Roman calendar count system and the King's List from Egypt. But both of these sources are slightly flawed. The King's List especial. The King's List was not designed like a calendar where each month passes on to the next and keeps cycling infinitely. When one king took the throne the first day was 1 and when he died the last day was (for augmentative sake) lets say 34. However if his predecessor did not take up the throne right away this 'lame duck' period was not accounted for. In the case of Horemheb to Rameses I there is argumentatively a 5 to 6 year gap between the two kings. However, the King's List will show that Horemheb descended the throne and that very same year Rameses I took possession. Not to mention the King's List does not account for many King's who ruled during the Intermediate Periods and those who ruled long before the Pre-Dynastic era. As well, if the Earth was only so young, how do we explain finds such as Itzy? A man frozen in ice who dates from 7000+ BC... which would make him to date over 9000+ years old. Not to mention Itzy was not found naked nor without tools. This implies that his people had evolved enough to the state of civilization to be able to create things such as stone tools and leather clothing. This implies that his people were much older still; as the ability to create such crafts takes generations of specialization.
In regards to creators and impact sites around the world, people so often then not forget about the simple rules of relativity: how a bowling ball dropped from the roof of a 5 story building into a sandbox will leave a larger creator than a golf-ball dropped from the same height. The asteroid which stuck Russia recently was relatively very small, and it landed in a body of water. If this same asteroid had struck land it would have created a small depression, however nothing like one sees in the deserts of the American South West.
The reason why we can see so many more creators and depressions on the moon's surface than our own is due to primarily one leading factor which defines and separates our two bodies: The moon as no atmosphere. Without an atmosphere the tiniest of space particles can pass into the moon and make contact. If something the size of a bowling ball tries to pass into our atmosphere it will more then likely be burnt up before it even has the chase to make contact. Also, our planet is largely covered by water. Thus, mathematically speaking, the odds stack that the majority of impacts would occur in water; in our oceans: most notably the Pacific: thus we see no evidence of such impacts. One last thing, our planet has weather and a vivacious ecosystem; the moon does not. Perhaps if the Sahara Desert or The Steps had no wind, or in contrast if the Amazon and Yucatan did not seed so rapidly, we would still be able to find some impressive (yet small) creators and impacts sights.
What I don't get is how Young Earth Creationists claim to be taking a literal view of the Bible when they state the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but seem to ignore where the Bible claims ancient people lived to be hundreds of years old - that Adam lived for 930 years and Seth (who was born when Adam was 130) lived for 912 years etc. Noah was ten generations after Adam, and lived 350 years after the flood, to a ripe old age of 950.
When you work it all out, we have the flood happening thousands of years after Adam. How do they propose to fit this all in to 6000 years?
It's extrapolated by looking at the two blood lines of Jesus&David.
I'm actually impressed that they can do math.It's extrapolated by looking at the two blood lines of Jesus&David.
But a generation in the old days was about 20 years (now it's 30 or so, I believe). So 10 generations = 200 years. I have proved Gawd Jeebus! We can all go home now.
If Seth was the son of Adam, and was born when Adam was 130 years old, that means a generation is 130 years, so 10 generations is 1300 years. :P
Noah was born 950 years after Adam was "created", and the flood was around 600 years later, 350 years before Noah died.
Here's how they figure 6000 years
.
Ussher chronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's a lifetime. A generation is when people start a new generation (when they have kids). At least that's the way it usually works. A new generation doesn't start count when the old one dies, it starts count when the new one is born.If Seth was the son of Adam, and was born when Adam was 130 years old, that means a generation is 130 years, so 10 generations is 1300 years. :P
Noah was born 950 years after Adam was "created", and the flood was around 600 years later, 350 years before Noah died.
Generation (from the Latin generāre, meaning "to beget"),[1] also known as procreation in biological sciences, is the act of producingoffspring.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenerationUsually, a familial generation is defined as the number of years equivalent to the average age of a mother at the times she has her children, which for the sake of convenience is traditionally regarded as 25 years; in short, a generation is 25 years.
And since people generally had children (arguably) earlier in life than now, a generation would be less than 25 years.
Last edited by pyoko; April 5th, 2013 at 04:52 PM.
But Seth was the son of Adam, born when Adam was 130 years old. Are you saying Cain and Abel were born 100 years earlier?That's a lifetime. A generation is when people start a new generation (when they have kids). At least that's the way it usually works. A new generation doesn't start count when the old one dies, it starts count when the new one is born.If Seth was the son of Adam, and was born when Adam was 130 years old, that means a generation is 130 years, so 10 generations is 1300 years. :P
Noah was born 950 years after Adam was "created", and the flood was around 600 years later, 350 years before Noah died.
Noah was a tenth generation patriarch, born 950 years after Adam was "created". That's ten generations between Adam and Noah, crossing 950 years. That's 95 years a generation.
So, we are looking at something around 100 years per generation, aren't we?
Well, yes, but I thought this was the "scientific study of religion" forumBut Seth was the son of Adam, born when Adam was 130 years old. Are you saying Cain and Abel were born 100 years earlier?That's a lifetime. A generation is when people start a new generation (when they have kids). At least that's the way it usually works. A new generation doesn't start count when the old one dies, it starts count when the new one is born.If Seth was the son of Adam, and was born when Adam was 130 years old, that means a generation is 130 years, so 10 generations is 1300 years. :P
Noah was born 950 years after Adam was "created", and the flood was around 600 years later, 350 years before Noah died.
Noah was a tenth generation patriarch, born 950 years after Adam was "created". That's ten generations between Adam and Noah, crossing 950 years. That's 95 years a generation.
So, we are looking at something around 100 years per generation, aren't we?
as a youth, i had faith
in our government
and I was so spiritual, that i considered the priesthood
as time passed i evolved-or rather, my mind evolved and began to seek something aproximating reality
now, I could give a damn less about self deluded idiots, whether they be creationists, patriots, of young earth creationists, but it just ain't worth the effort.
god bless us, everyone
Linkin Park - The Catalyst (Official HD) - YouTube
Asteroid craters are merely large bathtubs excavated by dinosaurs 3,000 years ago, everybody knows that.
Indeed, but this is a "How do young earth creationists explain..." thread. I want to scientifically study their answer as to how we are meant to fit all the generations of people who lived on Earth into 6000 years, giving us a current population of 7 billion, seeing as the great flood wiped out pretty much the whole population only a few thousand years ago...Well, yes, but I thought this was the "scientific study of religion" forum
| « Is it true that the only legitimacy of God-religions is the ask for the proof of non-existence? | Is this function of writings common among all god-scripture-religions? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
