This is common sense right?

Question

The tissues of a animal can exist for 10,000 years according
to scientist they found a donasour that still had tiny pieces of muscle tissues on him, so they still say that the dinosaur was a million years old.
Liers is what they are. They can't admit that that life on earth
is only between 10,000 to 20,000 years old. One day someone is going to prove all these theories wrong.

My question is do people agree that
scientists are way off on how old the earth is, Don't say million years say
ten million years no say 30 million years.
Just say what you want.

Logic thinking

Answer 1

>"My question is do people agree that
scientists are way off on how old the earth is, Don't say million years say
ten million years no say 30 million years.
Just say what you want."

Look ... just because *you* are utterly confused about what timelines the scientists are talking about doesn't mean *they* are.

They are all pretty much in agreement ... the number is 4.6 *billion* years old. Some say *maybe* as young as 4.5 billion, and some say as much as 4.8 billion.

But 30 million years old? That's laughable.

6 *thousand* years old? That's beyond laughable. We have mummified *human* remains older than 9,000 years old. There are *cave paintings* older than 30,000 years old.

Don't mistake your own confusion for that of the scientists'.

{P.S.}

Read tzimmer's answer! Very good!

Answer 2

First of all, no non-mummified soft tissue has ever been found belonging to a dinosaur. Fossilized impressions, sure, but actual tissue? No. The dinosaur bones themselves are not actual bones. Fossilization means "turned to stone". The "bones" are actually mineral deposits filling the space bones once occupied. The oldest preserved soft tissue I believe comes from ice age animals preserved in ice (actually, there are also ancient insects preserved in amber). As for life on earth only being a few thousand years old? Fossilization says no. Radioactive decay says no. Geology says no. Biologic diversity says no. People who actually have credible knowledge of our planet say no. But never mind them. Don't listen to the experts who, throughout history, have sweated the effort to learn something. Forget them. Just read a compilation of ancient mythologies written by primitive people in an archaic language. According to their ancient wisdom, the earth isn't just young, it's flat too. Stick with the traditional woo, it requires less effort than actual enlightenment.

Oh yeah...many things called "common sense" are actually common ignorance. Your statements definitely fall under that heading.

Answer 3

So what is your question?

Your entire post aside from the heading is a statement, not a question. What is it you want to know?

EDIT - My take on it is: Don't read the bible's accounting of days & years literally. I firmly believe there is a God, the creator of our universe. I also believe that His creation of the universe was captured as the Big Bang theory.

The timeline of the evloution of plants, animals and man closely parallels that of the book Genisis - but in no way do I agree that this merely took 7 days. Nor do I think modern translation of the bible is the complete story.

But in the end, even with your added text, you have yet to pose a question that can be answered, as you go on to answer your own question. And so, I have but no choice to think you are closed minded and really don't want an answer, but only want to spout off on some tangent.

Answer 4

Let us pause for a minute to address a concern that may be on your heart at this point. The conclusion of an old earth will not be easy for many Christians to reach. You have a high regard for the findings of true scientific observation and reason, but you also trust the Bible. And your Bible seems to indicate that the universe is thousands of years old, not billions. And so you are faced with a conflict. One solution would be to just ignore the physical observations of the universe. Another solution would be to just ignore the Bible. Neither of those is satisfactory to you. There are some other options. Either you could modify your observations of starlight so that it is compatible with your interpretation of the Bible, or you could modify your interpretation of the Bible so that it is compatible with the physical observations. We have tried to modify our observations of the universe to match a 6000-year-old earth, and failed. So the natural question for many Christians to ask next is, "Can the Bible be interpreted to be compatible with an old universe."

Many Christians have found that the Bible can indeed be interpreted that way. For instance, Norman Geisler, one of the foremost Evangelical apologists, writes:

One of the biggest problems for the young earth view is in astronomy. We can see light from stars that took 15 billion years to get here. To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us. We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed because they would have died before Creation. Why would God deceive us with the evidence? The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible.[

Answer 5

Yeah...you're probably one of those squirrelly types who insist that humongous, giant people lived with the dinosaurs...

I guess you better go find a piece of jesus-meat if you think he really existed 2000 years ago...

Answer 6

wow haha there is no way there has been life in this planet for only 10000 to 20000 years. fossils can be preserved for many many thousands of years

Answer 7

???