Based on the layers in the crust, how old is the Earth?

[AndyDufresne]

Your interpreting it in a different way. My mom, who is a huge believer and cannot be turned away from her faith, says that the bible isn't written by God. I think this last statement will be looked at as common sense by 99% of the users here. I'm not saying that makes it true, because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But even my mom will never say God wrote Exodus 31 or Exodus 20, because she's quite certain those words were written by men, as am I.

It's even more interesting you bring the word theological into the conversation, because my mom (oh, she'll be delighted to have been discussed about on a risk-forum, lol) actually studied theology on the university of Amsterdam and delivered a masterpiece of a thesis for which she got a 9.8 from her professors. My mom is aware of the beautiful aspects all religions have, but also aware of the nasty side effects it can have on society, something she's still voluntary trying to put a stop on, using a motto like: "everyone can believe, everyone can live, everyone can enjoy, together."

Long story short, just because the Bible implicates that 1 day is 1 rotation around the earth, doesn't necesarrily mean that God sees it way, just that humans put it in words like that, because it makes it simpler for us to understand.

+100 saxbucks to jblombier.


--Andy

[GoranZ]

dominator you don't post evidence or bring logic, all you bring is faithful dogma of evolution. This is a repeated theme of yours: no evidence, no logic, just a "yes man" mentality for evolution. Unless you bring evidence or show quality, you're on ignore list of trolls.

Still no answer from evolutionist. They've all searched the Internet but can't find an answer.

There is one simple answer for you... It applies for evolutionists and for creationists, basically for all humans.
If one person has IQ of 120 for example, he shouldn't have problems understanding almost all ideas that originate from people that have IQ as his or less then his. However he should have problems understanding ideas originating from people that have higher IQ then him. Reason is simple... intellectual capacity of the person.

According to the previous scientific fact, since you haven't manage to understand anyone that previously posted on the thread then it turns out that everyone is smarter then you.

Why your believes of the flood myth and Noah's Ark dont have any significant evidence for ordinary people...
1. Were there any Dinosaurs in the Noah's Ark... or Kangaroos or Lamas?
2. If all earth was flooded why majority of the lakes in the world are not salty?
3. Why there are endemic species on most of the islands in the world? Did Noah with his ark traveled to all islands to deliver the endemic species to all islands?
4. Why there are endemic species on most land lakes in the world? And if Noah delivered them how did he do it?
5. What happen to the fish from non salty waters before the big flood? If they died(presumably as most of modern fish that live in no salty waters would) from where did current fish from non salty waters originate? If they originate from sea fish, and they somehow manage to adapt, why they cant live in the sea now(considering there is no evolution).

There are many other questions that can be asked but these 5 are enough. Will you answering few of them or you will still while like a little boy that no one wants to play with?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

If one person has IQ of 120 for example, he shouldn't have problems understanding almost all ideas that originate from people that have IQ as his or less then his. However he should have problems understanding ideas originating from people that have higher IQ then him. Reason is simple... intellectual capacity of the person.

lolwut. Feynman had an IQ of 125.

-TG

[Jmac1026]

jmac, how do you know you are a Christian and why are you a Christian?

I think its probably the commingling of his spirit with the spirit of the lord. I'll look for more evidence with an electronic scanning microscope later, if Jmac would be so kind as to provide me with soulular samples.


--Andy

Its in the mail. Let me know when your tests are done. I too am curious about the results.

Thanks for sending it Rush via courier, so we can get to the bottom of Jmac's spiritual connection with the spirit of the lord.

Based upon my investigation using an electronic scanning microscope of Jmac's soulular material, you can clearly see that the lord's spirit (identified in a blue box) is commingling with the spirit elements that make up Jmac's spirit (identified as green stars). The remaining elements of the image are harmless bacterium though, Jmac, you might want to get the item in the lower left (identified by a purple right triangle) looked at more closely by other medical professionals.



CONCLUSION: JMAC'S SPIRIT INDEED IS COMMINGLING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD. JMAC ALSO SEEMS INFESTED WITH HARMLESS BACTERIUM, SAVE ONE SPOT THAT WARRANTS CLOSER INSPECTION.


--Andy

Thanks for the help Andy! I was so worried that I had no idea what I was talking about at all. Thanks for all the help! And the purple outlined thingy is just my herps. No need to worry.

[Jmac1026]

If one person has IQ of 120 for example, he shouldn't have problems understanding almost all ideas that originate from people that have IQ as his or less then his. However he should have problems understanding ideas originating from people that have higher IQ then him. Reason is simple... intellectual capacity of the person.

[universalchiro]

Still no answer from evolutionist. They've all searched the Internet but can't find an answer.

According to the previous scientific fact, since you haven't manage to understand anyone that previously posted on the thread then it turns out that everyone is smarter then you.Your logic is flawed and rejected.

Why your believes(-fs) of the flood myth and Noah's Ark don't have any significant evidence for ordinary people...first off, the global flood is not a myth. Evidence of this global flood are seashells at the tops of every mountain, the actual Ark has been found in the mountains of Ararat, the layers of soil of the crust are smooth layers without commingling that billions of years of deposit require, 25+ cultures around the globe have cultures of a flood, Mammoths frozen in the arctic circle with tropical food undigested in their mouth and belly which indicate a fast freeze which would occur from a global flood of no sun for 40 days, massive salt mines from fresh water freezing out of a salty brine of the flood waters, tectonic plate that moved quickly apart from Pangaea that prevent rivers from leaving sediment trail as they moved, the list keeps going
1. Were there any Dinosaurs in the Noah's Ark... or Kangaroos or Lamas?Yes, Genesis records two of every kind, one male and one female, they would be new born or very young. Evidence they survived the flood, the book of Job 10 generations after the flood has two dinosaurs in chapters 39-41 and temple at Ankorat has stegasaurus carved into the wall, probably from seeing an eyewitness account.
2. If all earth was flooded why majority of the lakes in the world are not salty? Immediately following the flood, lead to the glacial age, salt water wasn't frozen, only fresh water, this caused saturation effect and when fresh water was taken out of the flood left behind was massive salt mines. After the fresh water melted, left behind was fresh water lakes.
3. Why there are endemic species on most of the islands in the world? Did Noah with his ark traveled to all islands to deliver the endemic species to all islands?With the advent of the glacial age, the continents were still connected because the ocean level was below the continental shelf for 4 generations until Genesis 10:25 at the birth of Peleg, for his name means when the earth was divided. At Peleg's birth the Tower of Babel occurred with the changes of languages and people crossed continental shelf to other continents and so too did the animals.
4. Why there are endemic species on most land lakes in the world? And if Noah delivered them how did he do it?Speciation/adaptation is observed and accepted for species to adapt to their environment, yet they are still the same kind.
5. What happen to the fish from (non?) salty waters before the big flood? If they died(presumably as most of modern fish that live in no salty waters would) from where did current fish from non salty waters originate? If they originate from sea fish, and they somehow manage to adapt, why they cant live in the sea now(considering there is no evolution).The seas on the earth may not have been as salty as the ocean currently is, this caused some fish to become extinct from a flood. There existed a Canopy of Salt water spherically around our atmosphere before the flood, this salty brine rained down upon the earth, some fish adapted, some became extinct. Adaptation is accepted, evolutionist mix the two together and use adaptation to authenticate evolution.

There are many other questions that can be asked but these 5 are enough. Will you answering few of them or you will still while like a little boy that no one wants to play with?

What other questions do you have? And you can refrain from teenage name calling.

[Metsfanmax]

universalchiro, what do you think a species is? What does it mean for two animals to be of the "same kind?"

[notyou2]

Still no answer from evolutionist. They've all searched the Internet but can't find an answer.

According to the previous scientific fact, since you haven't manage to understand anyone that previously posted on the thread then it turns out that everyone is smarter then you.Your logic is flawed and rejected.

Why your believes(-fs) of the flood myth and Noah's Ark don't have any significant evidence for ordinary people...first off, the global flood is not a myth. Evidence of this global flood are seashells at the tops of every mountain, the actual Ark has been found in the mountains of Ararat, the layers of soil of the crust are smooth layers without commingling that billions of years of deposit require, 25+ cultures around the globe have cultures of a flood, Mammoths frozen in the arctic circle with tropical food undigested in their mouth and belly which indicate a fast freeze which would occur from a global flood of no sun for 40 days, massive salt mines from fresh water freezing out of a salty brine of the flood waters, tectonic plate that moved quickly apart from Pangaea that prevent rivers from leaving sediment trail as they moved, the list keeps going
1. Were there any Dinosaurs in the Noah's Ark... or Kangaroos or Lamas?Yes, Genesis records two of every kind, one male and one female, they would be new born or very young. Evidence they survived the flood, the book of Job 10 generations after the flood has two dinosaurs in chapters 39-41 and temple at Ankorat has stegasaurus carved into the wall, probably from seeing an eyewitness account.
2. If all earth was flooded why majority of the lakes in the world are not salty? Immediately following the flood, lead to the glacial age, salt water wasn't frozen, only fresh water, this caused saturation effect and when fresh water was taken out of the flood left behind was massive salt mines. After the fresh water melted, left behind was fresh water lakes.
3. Why there are endemic species on most of the islands in the world? Did Noah with his ark traveled to all islands to deliver the endemic species to all islands?With the advent of the glacial age, the continents were still connected because the ocean level was below the continental shelf for 4 generations until Genesis 10:25 at the birth of Peleg, for his name means when the earth was divided. At Peleg's birth the Tower of Babel occurred with the changes of languages and people crossed continental shelf to other continents and so too did the animals.
4. Why there are endemic species on most land lakes in the world? And if Noah delivered them how did he do it?Speciation/adaptation is observed and accepted for species to adapt to their environment, yet they are still the same kind.
5. What happen to the fish from (non?) salty waters before the big flood? If they died(presumably as most of modern fish that live in no salty waters would) from where did current fish from non salty waters originate? If they originate from sea fish, and they somehow manage to adapt, why they cant live in the sea now(considering there is no evolution).The seas on the earth may not have been as salty as the ocean currently is, this caused some fish to become extinct from a flood. There existed a Canopy of Salt water spherically around our atmosphere before the flood, this salty brine rained down upon the earth, some fish adapted, some became extinct. Adaptation is accepted, evolutionist mix the two together and use adaptation to authenticate evolution.

There are many other questions that can be asked but these 5 are enough. Will you answering few of them or you will still while like a little boy that no one wants to play with?

What other questions do you have? And you can refrain from teenage name calling.

Bwahahahah!!!!!

[universalchiro]

universalchiro, what do you think a species is? What does it mean for two animals to be of the "same kind?"

I don't have a hard definition, so go with similar image and similar likeness (characteristics).

[universalchiro]

Is there anyone that was shocked to learned that the layers of the crust are smooth and are having trouble seeing how billions of years of soil deposit occurred without erosion and subsequent commingling of the soil?

[Metsfanmax]

universalchiro, what do you think a species is? What does it mean for two animals to be of the "same kind?"

I don't have a hard definition, so go with similar image and similar likeness (characteristics).

A human baby looks very different and acts very different from an adult human -- are they different species?

[JBlombier]

I'd like to intervene and tell all of the posters involved to refrain from turning this into another pointless religious debate. Unfortunately I think this thread will go on and on with religious and non-religious posts about how the world evolved in the manner that it did.

As for the last post: no, I'm not shocked. But my opinion is irrelevant, it's only relevant to me. This forum is great for discussing useless things with each other, but the matter we're talking about goes quite deep into one's belief/theory of life. Who do we think we are to judge how another human gives meaning to his life? I hate these threads (as it has evolved, it started out quite good) and I'm sad they're inevitable on an open forum like this.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

[Metsfanmax]

I'd like to intervene and tell all of the posters involved to refrain from turning this into another pointless religious debate. Unfortunately I think this thread will go on and on with religious and non-religious posts about how the world evolved in the manner that it did.

How the world "evolved" in the manner that it did is not a religious debate. It's not our fault that religious fanatics inject themselves into the realm of science. Seriously, your point of view is way too soft. Imagine if a philosophy professor came in here and started talking about his grand new theory of thermodynamics and perpetual motion machines. We'd tell him to shove off and go back to reading Kant. Yet when a "religious" person inserts their views on science, suddenly we should respect that just because they're very serious about it? No, screw that. I don't go into churches telling them that the Bible was mistranslated in 330 AD so we cannot trust it, because I don't know much about the Bible. UC doesn't know much about geology, physics, biology, or chemistry, so he should shut the f*ck up about it.

[universalchiro]

universalchiro, what do you think a species is? What does it mean for two animals to be of the "same kind?"

I don't have a hard definition, so go with similar image and similar likeness (characteristics).

A human baby looks very different and acts very different from an adult human -- are they different species?

really? I don't know what babies you have been looking at, but I assure you that human babies look human. They don't look like any other creature or thing on earth. This now seems like you are arguing just to argue
"Kinds" is closer to Phylums than species.

JBlombier, I like your post.


Still no answer from evolutionist for the smooth layers without commingling, you've all searched vigorously over the Internet and have no answer. Why? Evolution believes the layers formed slowly over 100s millions of years, creationist believe they formed quickly. One is correct & one is wrong ignoring observable evidence.

[Metsfanmax]

universalchiro, what do you think a species is? What does it mean for two animals to be of the "same kind?"

I don't have a hard definition, so go with similar image and similar likeness (characteristics).

A human baby looks very different and acts very different from an adult human -- are they different species?

I assure you that human babies look human.

Tautologies are tautologies.

[JBlombier]

Oh, this is quite an interesting point you come up with, Metsfanmax. It's interesting, because we obviously have the same view of the history of the world and all the scientific stuff around it.

Our only difference is this: why would we want to shove our belief (Darwin, Big Bang, Einstein, etc.) into the throats of other people, when they are perfectly happy with their religion? Of course there are groups op Christians and Muslims who spend day and night to convert us, but the same goes for people who share our view. Perhaps the group of Darwin (etc.) even tries a lot harder to make everyone believe the evolution theory and everything around it, because we are so damn certain.

Let there be no mistake, I'm damn certain as well, but I feel no need discussing it with someone who wishes to believe something else.

[Metsfanmax]

Our only difference is this: why would we want to shove our belief (Darwin, Big Bang, Einstein, etc.) into the throats of other people, when they are perfectly happy with their religion?

Well first, contextually this is a false premise -- UC is the one who started a thread telling us we were wrong. But I'll grant that there is also a thread in this forum titled "Post Any Evidence for God Here." So I'll give one possible answer to this question, but not the only one. If you like, we can continue, I have more thoughts on this.

I disagree with the presumption of your question, which is that evolution is simply one way of understanding the world, and there are plenty of equally valid ways of understanding the world. The specific problem I have is that "evolutionism" is not a worldview, as much as UC might like us to think. It is the scientific method that is the worldview. We are led inexorably to the conclusion that evolution happened by following the tenets of the scientific method. UC's problem is that he's cherrypicking the method -- he doesn't seem to have any problem with the way that the scientific method led to the discovery of quantum mechanics, the invention of the transistor, and eventually the computer he is using to yell at people on the internet. So it's not that I'm shoving my belief down anyone's throat -- it's that UC already believes my method, he just doesn't accept all the consequences of it. If there is any belief at all, it is that when we ask questions the right way, and then test the predictions of those questions, that we can learn cool new things about the world. I believe that, because it's repeatedly shown to be true.

[GoranZ]

Still no answer from evolutionist. They've all searched the Internet but can't find an answer.

Why your believes(-fs) of the flood myth and Noah's Ark don't have any significant evidence for ordinary people...first off, the global flood is not a myth. Evidence of this global flood are seashells at the tops of every mountain, the actual Ark has been found in the mountains of Ararat, the layers of soil of the crust are smooth layers without commingling that billions of years of deposit require, 25+ cultures around the globe have cultures of a flood, Mammoths frozen in the arctic circle with tropical food undigested in their mouth and belly which indicate a fast freeze which would occur from a global flood of no sun for 40 days, massive salt mines from fresh water freezing out of a salty brine of the flood waters, tectonic plate that moved quickly apart from Pangaea that prevent rivers from leaving sediment trail as they moved, the list keeps going

Noah's Ark hasn't been found... Wikipedia article - Searches for Noah's Ark
There is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood... Wikipedia article - Noah's Ark, footnotes 3 to 10

1. Were there any Dinosaurs in the Noah's Ark... or Kangaroos or Lamas?Yes, Genesis records two of every kind, one male and one female, they would be new born or very young. Evidence they survived the flood, the book of Job 10 generations after the flood has two dinosaurs in chapters 39-41 and temple at Ankorat has stegasaurus carved into the wall, probably from seeing an eyewitness account.

Then what color was the skin of the stegasaurus?

2. If all earth was flooded why majority of the lakes in the world are not salty? Immediately following the flood, lead to the glacial age, salt water wasn't frozen, only fresh water, this caused saturation effect and when fresh water was taken out of the flood left behind was massive salt mines. After the fresh water melted, left behind was fresh water lakes.

In this case retreating weather would have been trapped in deep lakes like Baikal, Tanganyika etc... yet there is only salt in very few lakes on the planet. And there is no chance Glacial age to expanded up to Tanganyika or other equatorial lakes... So if there was salt in them and they lost the water due to the drought what would have remained would have been something like Nevada's salt territories... But once glacial period would ended the new salty lake would form, which isn't the case.

3. Why there are endemic species on most of the islands in the world? Did Noah with his ark traveled to all islands to deliver the endemic species to all islands?With the advent of the glacial age, the continents were still connected because the ocean level was below the continental shelf for 4 generations until Genesis 10:25 at the birth of Peleg, for his name means when the earth was divided. At Peleg's birth the Tower of Babel occurred with the changes of languages and people crossed continental shelf to other continents and so too did the animals.

In that case why there are endemic species only in the Australian coast and not for nearby Asian coast, not even bones... And same thing from Madagascar and nearby Africa. How can those living animals dont have dead remains in nearby lands?

4. Why there are endemic species on most land lakes in the world? And if Noah delivered them how did he do it?Speciation/adaptation is observed and accepted for species to adapt to their environment, yet they are still the same kind.

Adaptation is one thing... finding evidence of remains from the same specie is another... And there are plenty of species which are unique only for the lakes they live in... They have no remains in nearby lakes(for example 50 miles radius). Something doesn't add up as it should with the theory of "adaptation".

5. What happen to the fish from (non?) salty waters before the big flood? If they died(presumably as most of modern fish that live in no salty waters would) from where did current fish from non salty waters originate? If they originate from sea fish, and they somehow manage to adapt, why they cant live in the sea now(considering there is no evolution).The seas on the earth may not have been as salty as the ocean currently is, this caused some fish to become extinct from a flood. There existed a Canopy of Salt water spherically around our atmosphere before the flood, this salty brine rained down upon the earth, some fish adapted, some became extinct. Adaptation is accepted, evolutionist mix the two together and use adaptation to authenticate evolution.

If I understand you correctly... Before the big flood we had some oceans/seas but after the flood the level of salt reduced considerably since the volume of needed weather to cover the earth surface with water is enormous. I can presume down to only 1/3 of current saltines(current average depth is ~3.5 km, mountain of Ararat is over 5 km + something extra, should be around the figure I presume). Some fish adapted to that new non salty environment, some didn't... After which there was glacial period which increased the saltiness of the remaining oceans to record high values. In contrast in inland lakes the concentration of salt was equal to 0. So in general most of the fish that survived since then should have physiological adaptations that would allow them to store(Freshwater fish) or excess(Seawater fish) salt in their bodies. But majority of Seawater and Freshwater fish dont have dual ability... how can that be when it was obvious necessity?

[JBlombier]

I think I've made my opinion very clear about attempting to trap religious people into a debate supported by science (which is by definition extremely worth- and pointless), so I'll let the last post go. Feel free to react on it, because obviously GoranZ wishes to continue to prove that UC's words cannot be true.
As someone who supports your opinion, I can only say: let him be, live your own life, as do I.

UC doesn't know much about geology, physics, biology, or chemistry, so he should shut the f*ck up about it.

Eventhough this is not the point you are trying to make in this post, this sentence ruins your entire point. Telling someone to stfu is no way of debating, it's a sign of weakness. We both agree that there is enough evidence to show UC, so that sentence makes no sense to me.

What I am also trying to discuss is that UC (and at least a billion other humans) is just making this thread to share his opinion. I don't agree with it, but I doubt that he cares. There have been numerous threads in this forum that have far more dubious content, some almost bannable. If he wishes to express his beliefs here, I really don't care.

Now that I think about it, I'm trying to debate that we shouldn't debate about these matters, as it will have no effect whatsoever on whosoever. I think I just touched the definition of Off-Topics, damn it. Please continue.

PS. Continue... just like the 5848 posts in the Logic dictates that there's a God thread.
PPS. As long as no one calls me, Im out of here. Good luck with this.

[Metsfanmax]

Eventhough this is not the point you are trying to make in this post, this sentence ruins your entire point. Telling someone to stfu is no way of debating, it's a sign of weakness.

That would be true, if this were a "debate." It is not a debate, or an argument. That is because UC is not actually arguing, he is telling us we are wrong. But he is basing that on his 7th grade understanding of science, which makes his statements meaningless. Again, consider this in any other context. If someone who just completed his high school algebra course came in and said that all of the world's top mathematicians are wrong, that indeed the squares of the legs of a right triangle do not sum to the square of the hypotenuse, we would first patiently explain why he is wrong. If he continued to insist that the Pythagorean theorem is "just a theory," we would then tell him to stfu. I don't agree that just because he really strongly believes in invisible pink unicorns that he gets special dispensation to talk about things he doesn't know about. So actually yeah, that sentence was the point I was trying to make in that post.

Now that I think about it, I'm trying to debate that we shouldn't debate about these matters, as it will have no effect whatsoever on whosoever.

I completely agree -- see my post in another thread:

If you really want to have impact and teach people good scientific and critical thinking skills, go teach middle school science. By the time people make it to an internet forum, they've already formed their religious worldview and as you say, it's very unlikely that we can change it. I agree that in the limit of infinite time, BS claims should be called for their BS. But we should spend our time wisely.

(Please understand that I don't mean it's always a waste of time to argue with creationists. I do it when I think there is something useful I can learn on a subject, because it provokes me to think about something in new ways. For example, I'm curious as to what UC thinks "information" content means when considering evolution, because I've never considered that as an aspect of evolution, even though I imagine there's lots of cool things to consider in that area.)

The only times I actually engage UC's claims seriously are 1) when he talks about something I don't know about, so I can find out why he's wrong and thereby enrich my own knowledge or 2) when he attacks something personally important to me (i.e. astrophysics) -- if you want to know why I do that, see below. But that's not because I think there's something wrong about "shoving" my views down someone else's throat -- it's just because as a practical matter, he's not going to be convinced.

UC may not bother acknowledging anything, but thanks for posting this. I learned something from an expert (at least, you claim to be an expert and sound like an expert) and am all the smarter from having read it.

[JBlombier]

I agree, mate. Actually, we did the entire time (which you realized as well, I know). Still I think that as much science as we have, we always have to take a leap of faith to trust on the theories that pervious (wo)men provided for us.

Now this leap-of-faith thing gives me a huge déjà-vu. It has something to do with nietzsche in a thread, but I don't remember which. In my memory that thread has some connection with this one, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Metsfanmax]

Still I think that as much science as we have, we always have to take a leap of faith to trust on the theories that pervious (wo)men provided for us.

Yes, of course. I don't believe Newtonian gravity is true because it is necessarily true -- I believe it is true because lots of smart people did lots of rigorous tests and found it to be correct. It is possible that tomorrow I will fly up into space, and my last thought will be "Damn, I was wrong." Similarly, I don't believe evolution with descent from a common ancestor through natural selection is true because it is necessarily true -- I believe it is true because lots of smart people did lots of rigorous tests and found it to be the only explanation of all the data we have, and a brilliantly simple one at that. It is possible that tomorrow someone will find a fossilized rabbit in the Precambrian, and I would be shocked, but it's not impossible.

But UC believes evolution is wrong because it has to be wrong, and then tries to come up with slick-sounding reasons why the rigorous tests weren't so rigorous. That's why I think comparing the two approaches is disingenuous. When I say that evolution is a "fact," that doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Things we measure and observe can be wrong, just as when we found that Newtonian gravity didn't exactly explain all our observations of gravity. The point is to set it in the realm of things which can be objectively determined to be true or false, and outside of the realm of things which are merely useful in helping our small brains understand the world.

[universalchiro]

Ha finally you crack and reveal you have faith in what other people have claimed.

However, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old for several reasons:
1. Radioactive dating is based on a false assumption that the rate of decay has always been constant.
2. There are primordial Polonium halos in granite rock with no descendant anscestral halos.
3. The layers of the crust of earth is smooth without commingling proving that the rate of deposit occurred quickly not over billions of years.
4. Lack of sedimentary river deltas leading back to Mid-Atlantic ridge, indicating that when Pangaea broke apart it did so quickly and recently not slowly over 220 million years.
5. The Bible has too many fulfilled prophecies of people writing 500 years before the event,
6. The Bible is accurate with physics, archeology, history, medical sciences, cosmology, etc 1,000s of years before human knew what we know today.
7-1,000 etc.

[Metsfanmax]

Ha finally you crack and reveal you have faith in what other people have claimed.

Your use of the word "faith" is very different from anything I just said. When you say "faith," you mean belief without any evidence. What I am talking about is belief or knowledge based on evidence. To equate them both as "faith" is merely to play semantical word games rather than to say something interesting.

However, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old for several reasons:
1. Radioactive dating is based on a false assumption that the rate of decay has always been constant.
2. There are primordial Polonium halos in granite rock with no descendant anscestral halos.
3. The layers of the crust of earth is smooth without commingling proving that the rate of deposit occurred quickly not over billions of years.
4. Lack of sedimentary river deltas leading back to Mid-Atlantic ridge, indicating that when Pangaea broke apart it did so quickly and recently not slowly over 220 million years.
5. The Bible has too many fulfilled prophecies of people writing 500 years before the event,
6. The Bible is accurate with physics, archeology, history, medical sciences, cosmology, etc 1,000s of years before human knew what we know today.
7-1,000 etc.

The reason you don't believe the Earth is billions of years old is that you were brainwashed into thinking that way at a very young age. Please stop lying by pretending that these are the causal reasons for your beliefs. They're not.