Godless atheist claims that 'Scientists have proved that the earth is billions of years old'. But we as christians know that it is just atheist propaganda. They want us to belive them so they can keep on conducting all manner of unethical, immoral, and evil research to 'prove' there is no god.
The Holy Bible proved that the Earth can only be 6000 years old. Now, who should we believe? The design of the universe: Almight god or atheist scientists that don't even believe in god?
Scientists have never developed a technique to test whether anything is billions of years old! In fact, the oldest fossils are only about 6000 years old!
The Holy Bible is and always will be 100% true. When what science shows is againts the Bible that means science is wrong, no the Bible.
I think the Holy Bible should be use in science class in schools to be teach as facts and books about atheism and Darwinism should be ban because they are all just godless lies.
God bless you.
2007-05-27 02:26:15 · 12 answers · asked by The Lord's Mercy 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
We have tree ring sequences that go back farther than 6000 years. We have ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years. The search for the truth occasionally shows religious dogma to be wrong.
2007-05-27 02:33:51 · answer #1 · answered by mathematician 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Back in the early 17th century or thereabouts, some religious scholars (remember, this was before archeology and modern science had come into being) tracked the life of the universe through the Bible. They began with the the lists of biblical personalities (all the "begats") and calculated that the earth was formed sometime in October of 4004 B.C. or so. Many believe the literal words of the Bible. Others take many of the time frames (40 days and 40 nights, six days of creation, etc.) as symbolic, and the way of the ancients to explain the natural world. Modern science has estimated the age of the earth at several billion years, based on rates of erosion, salinity of the ocean, and a number of other factors. Incidentally, the Byzantine calendar puts the number at closer to 7,000 years old.
2016-04-01 10:32:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, "The Lord's Mercy", I hope you are sincere and not just trolling, because I am a devout Christian and the Mercy of the One Lord is far too important to be used to create conflict.
The problem with using "the Bible as proof" is you invite (or necessitate!) the challenge "Prove the Bible is true, then!" And it is really a matter of faith. God gives the gift of faith, or temporarily withholds the gift of faith, or doesn't give it ... it is up to God. One can't "prove" the Bible is true, just like one can't "prove" God does not exist.
Some Muslims have a wonderful "proof" that the Koran is true .. they assert that, if one reads the Koran in the original Arabic, the beauty of the language is so striking that it *must* be the Word of God. To refute them, you would have to learn Arabic, then, in good faith and with an open mind, recite the Koran to yourself until you appreciate its beauty.
Until one can "prove" the Bible is 100% true, the answer to "Why do we still teach our kids the lie that Earth is Millions of years old?" will be "Outside of faith and religions, the only facts we will teach children will be objectively verified."
2007-05-28 02:03:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
AS a Christian, may I point somethings out to you here presently. Creation; sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4, not day 1. Especially during days 1,2,3 a night and a day may not have been 24 hours. Hypothetically, 12,000,000 hours of night followed by 12,000,000 hours of light, could still be defined as 1 day by the Genesis 1 (scriptural) definition.
One can test that 'definition' anothre way too. The time from Christ death on the cross until his resurrection is omly 39 hours;assuming 6:00 PM sunset, 6:00 AM sunrise). Yet, by scriptural definitions it was 3 nights and 3 days. (It was dark when Christ died on the cross about 3:00 PM).
Does that help you understand better?
2007-05-27 03:07:49 · answer #4 · answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
''against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.''
in other words, you're just to stupid to understand the proof.
i don't even see what's so hard about accepting that (and this is only if you still insist on believing this crap) maybe, after being re-written dozens, even hundreds, of times maybe some one mistranslated something, like, say, a number.
oh, and while we're gonna just teach stuff from books without evidence, why don't we teach magic using the ''harry potter'' series as a handbook?.
sheesh. hey, it's posible to go to h*l.l for ''bearing false witness'', aka teaching kids stuff that's been proved wrong.
2007-05-27 04:05:53 · answer #5 · answered by alpha mutt 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why would you assume that all scientist don't believe in God? Sure they might not have the same understanding of him as you do but that's not to say that they don't believe in a higher power.
2007-05-27 03:14:08 · answer #6 · answered by erin.savage 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Christian, but I disagree with you. Why can't science AND the Bible be compatible? There are many scientists who are Christians.
2007-05-27 02:35:57 · answer #7 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You listen too much to what they tell you in church. Go and find out for yourself about those pseudo-scientific stories they tell you. If you still have your beliefs after that then they will be stronger.
Having an open mind is not a sin.
2007-05-27 02:39:22 · answer #8 · answered by Douglas G 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Reality Loves You!
2007-05-27 02:37:45 · answer #9 · answered by Miltant_Agnostic 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why don't you go back to living in the Paleolithic Age, you deluded bigot.
2007-05-27 02:45:38 · answer #10 · answered by The Happy Atheist 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋