Well, maybe the Earth isn't 4.5 billion years old
>stop questioning it christcuck
I actually have proof the Earth is only 6000 years old. I could share it if you'd like.
>stop fucking questioning it christcuck
First off, radio-carbon dating is very inaccurate. Even if the earth really was billions of years old it probably wouldn't be anywhere near 4.5 Billion.
>shut the fuck up christcuck stop fucking questioning it
Due to the inaccuracy of radio-carbon dating we can safely trust the Earth is 6000 years old as told in the Bible. After all, it told us about ancient civilizations hundreds of years before archaeologists found them.
>stop fucking questioning it christcuck *throws copy of "The God delusion" on the ground fuck off christcuck i don't have time for your drivel *shits pants* get the fuck out of here christcuck *farts* fucking christcuck stop fucking questioning it
Well, maybe the Earth isn't 4.5 billion years old
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>fedora fedora neckbeard fedora
excuse me. I don't speak creationist
>He actually tries to use radio-carbon to date the age of the earth, which is not actually organic.
No, this is why we make fun of you retarded Christposters, since you aren't even capable of understanding the opposition enough to offer a coherent rebuttal to it.
Questions are fine. Idiocy is not. Unfortunately, being an idiot is pretty much a requirement for being a Christian.
>you're wrong because you wear a hat
Brilliant logic. I will now totally accept Jewsus as my eternal master
I agree, radio-carbon dating is very fishy. You can only trust the comet sightings.
& Humanities was a mistake
That is usually what someone without God looks like.
Most dating tools are inaccurate
The Bible gives a very accurate timeline of history. Meanwhile evolution is full of inaccuracies and guesses.
> The Bible gives a very accurate timeline of history.
So is Lord of The Rings
The lord of the rings is a fictional universe. The Bible actually describes real history.
No, most dating tools are quite accurate, as long as you understand the methodology used in them.
The Bible, meanwhile isn't even linguistically consistent with its supposed date of composition for the OT, and the NT can't get names, places, or general cultural knowledge concerning 1st century Judea right. It makes one rather skeptical to its bona fides.
Not at all. LoTR describes the long lost past of our own universe. Tolkien himself said that the birth of Jesus marked the end of the 6th age.
Man, I forgot how polite and well reasoned Veeky Forums arguments are.
... I can't fucking find that comic with people shitting all over each other, so pretend it's there.
The bible talked about ancient civilizations not even known existed till the invention of archaeology.
Better than literally any argument made by an atheist "the earth is 4.5 million years old check out my atheist source as proof"
> ancient civilizations not even known existed
Homer done that too.
And that addresses my point how exactly?
Is this a false flag? Because you sound really fucking stupid.
You realize your only argument so far is to go back to one source the Bible. Which id assume for most atheist is not enough. Do you realize how the modern scientific world is made up? College campuses go through years of research and approvals from other schools asking lead scientist to review work, just to get realistic praposrels for Phd tier work. It doesn't satisfy many to credit one source op
False. Troy is proven fiction.
Because the Bible describes ancient times more accurately than any atheist source.
Human work is full of flaws and inaccuracies. The Bible was crafted by God and has no inaccuracies.
>scientists are atheists
>they refuse to see bible as real
Color me fucking suprised
> Troy
> proven fiction
This is board for people with historical knowledge, user.
> people finally redpilled and refuse to believe jewish stories
> y-y-y-y-e-a-h, color me surprised goyim
You're hopeless
I never said all scientists are atheist, but I'm pretty confident a large majority of atheist follow the scientific method. Mad?
This board is History AND Humanities which includes religion. I get my history from the Bible as it is proven to be the most accurate.
Racist atheist.
I'm not hopeless. I've been saved by God. You my friend, who has not accepted God into his heart, is hopeless.
>Because the Bible describes ancient times more accurately than any atheist source.
No it doesn't. It can't even get names and etymologies right, nor actual extant customs. John can't tell the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic, for crying out loud.
And finaly the /pol/ is here. Are you fucking happy, fedoras? This what your faggotry leads to.
if you want to argue about carbon dating go to Veeky Forums or read a book you dumb nigger
>I get my history from the Bible as it is proven to be the most accurate.
fucking Protestants
let me guess, and the dinosaurs died because after the flood there wasn't enough air to breath?
Dinosaurs aren't real you racist dipshit.
ah yes of course, those bones were either planted there or faked all together.
>racist
where do you think you are?
False. Pretty much every ancient civilization described in the Bible is 100% accurate. You can't even give me true example of what is wrong besides something dumb about language.
Evolution is a very racist theory hence why most of the people who subscribe to it are neo nazis.
There is much proof that dinosaurs survived the flood along with Noah. They died out after the flood probably due to starvation.
>where do you think you are?
Not on /pol/. Maybe you should take your fedora and go back there.
>Dinosaurs aren't real you racist dipshit.
>There is much proof that dinosaurs survived the flood along with Noah. They died out after the flood probably due to starvation.
>when Protestants can't decide on what ignorance to play
>when catholics don't even follow the bible and are basically LARPers
>radio-carbon dating
very interesting comments on radio-carbon dating, guys.
now on to something not totally irrelevant: please provide information concerning the accuracy of lead-lead dating, which was the method for dating the age of the earth. en.wikipedia.org
if you want, go one step further and compare lead-lead dating to the bible and show how the bible is measurably more accurate than lead-lead dating.
if you're trying to pass yourself off as aware of what your talking about, you're not off to a good start, but keep going.
didn't ancient jews write the old testament chronology anyway? why aren't christians more concerned with the new testament and just take the old testament as some old timey indegenous jew myth? you don't see jesus arguing with the pharisees about how old the earth is. why are christians so obsessed with ancient jewish scripture more than the teachings of jesus?
This thread is lazy, low quality bait and yet you fucks can't help but fall for it
>old timey indegenous jew myth
True christians are successors of nation of Israel. It's our history.
If I were Christian I would ask all the questions you stated in the bottom, take note Christians.
Jesus reaffirmed the Old Testament, as did the Apostles. Also, several of the prophetic texts directly describe Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
>if you want, go one step further and compare lead-lead dating to the bible and show how the bible is measurably more accurate than lead-lead dating.
You mean like how it claims the Earth is older than the Sun? Oh yeah, that's some great accuracy right there.
>now on to something not totally irrelevant: please provide information concerning the accuracy of lead-lead dating, which was the method for dating the age of the earth. en.wikipedia.org
It works on similar principles, you track radioactive decay from "heavier" lead isotopes to lighter lead isotopes. Meanwhile, the Bible has "six days" which aren't clear what is measured by a "day" since the Sun and Moon and the normal system by measuring a day don't exist until halfway through that period.
>didn't ancient jews write the old testament chronology anyway
Yes, and it has a shit-ton of problems, like how if you buy it, the Pyramids were built before the Noah flood, making you wonder why they weren't destroyed along with everything else.
> why aren't christians more concerned with the new testament and just take the old testament as some old timey indegenous jew myth?
Because they made the mistake of claiming that Jesus fulfills a lot of OT prophecy for legitimacy. Nevermind that he doesn't really, but remember, their faith started off as a Jewish splinter group, even if they mutated away from the Jewish concepts relatively rapidly.
That means they're stuck claiming that the OT is also the inspired word of God, and must be perfectly accurate in all things, which gives you more points to attack, especially since the NT and the OT rarely agree on stuff.
>you don't see jesus arguing with the pharisees about how old the earth is.
No, because he's too busy arguing with the "pharisees" about Sadducee positions which they all strangely seem to hold.
Id rather unknownngly waste my time feeding a troll, then have a conflicted Christian come on here and be like " well I guess everyone on the internet agrees that the Bible is wholesome truth"
&humanitiesposting
>Id rather unknownngly waste my time feeding a troll, then have a conflicted Christian come on here and be like " well I guess everyone on the internet agrees that the Bible is wholesome truth"
Very Christian of you
wikipedia says the age of the earth with uranium-lead dating, also called lead-lead dating, is estimated to be around 4 billion yo
With the same method the solar system (thus the Sun) is said to be around 4.5 billion yo,
tho
You wanna stop looking like that? Put down the junk science, get a life and go to church.
You still have time to be saved.
How can one man be so based.
That's a fair point desu
I'm an old earth creationist, don't make us look bad and just start the thread with shitposting, only post this in response to a atheist with cognitive dissonance
I hate these threads. The age of the Earth has no bearing on the actual theology of Christianity, nor is even a literal interpretation necessarily incompatible with the scientific theories proposed to explain the facts. That is to say, Genesis is an oral history of events that happened long before they were written down. Yes, I would say that they are historical events, but to say they must have happened exactly as described doesn't really affect theology. It just doesn't really matter whether humanity evolved or not, because the theology remains the same either way.
If God isn't real then why did he create darksided slychics and gargoyles?
Checkmate atheists
Yes, because larger objects coalesce under their own gravity faster, with relatively smaller objects like earth (as opposed to stars or gas giants) taking a bit longer.
What's the problem here?