Is genesis history? Move event tonight in the us. What say you

[whirlingmerc]

When encased in stone, which is what a fossil is, soft tissue can and has lasted for millions of years under ideal conditions. Dating techniques do show what we call "dinosaurs" going back millions of years ago, and scientists know how these dating techniques work and can adjust them for "margin of error".

Also, if we go back millions or billions of years prior to the emergence of dinosaurs, there's nothing like them ever being found, nor any mammals or humans. So, how did they get here if they were there at "creation"? Would be sorta hard to miss them.

Sounds circular how do you know it's not thousands of years

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You would have to be excessively gullible to think that genesis was based on anything other than myth.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Not to mention that there are trees currently alive that debunk the "young earth" theory.

 

[1AOA1]

It's like Gilgamesh. The guy with a cube shape ark that would roll all over the ocean like a volleyball? Noah had a boring boat shape that well would float

Who translated the Epic of Gilgamesh from an unspoken language?

No, that one defines a different manner of myth. Oxford has a better one, though the one you gave is the secondary definition. The first is what I mean:

myth n
1. a story from ancient times, especially one that was told to explain natural events or to describe the early history of a people; this type of story - synonym: legend

Under that definition the author is not listed, although "from ancient times" is used to highlight a property.

 

[metis]

Sounds circular how do you know it's not thousands of years

When it comes to dating things that go back millions to billions of years, the most commonly used techniques are various forms of radioactive dating, and we well know how radioactivity works or nuclear reactors couldn't be built. Since there are various isotopes that can be used, one can help cross-check another, much like we were taught to do in math. None of it is left to guess-work, and there are teams of specialists that are proficient in this matter.

So, why would you assume that dinosaurs only lived thousands of year ago?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sounds circular how do you know it's not thousands of years

yes 'multiple lines of evidence' is often another term for circular reasoning.

I consider myself an 'old earth' creationist, but I am open to evidence to the contrary. Evidence is evidence, but our interpretation of it is subjective. I can't argue with Dr Ben Carson's point- that God can make a young universe if he wants to.. and he's probably quite a bit smarter than I am!

I don't think anyone's belief is 'crazy' if it reflects how they logically interpret the evidence for themselves. The only truly crazy belief is the one that goes; whatever is currently popular in academia, that must be the truth.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I can't argue with Dr Ben Carson's point- that God can make a young universe if he wants to.. and he's probably quite a bit smarter than I am!

Even smart people can have dumb ideas. Appeal to authority is never a good way to prove a point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Even smart people can have dumb ideas.

Very smart people can have very wrong ideas, Hawking is often considered one of the greatest living scientists, yet with his belief in the 'Big Crunch', he was arguably 'wronger' about the nature of reality than any human in history.

Appeal to authority is never a good way to prove a point.

That would be the point yes

 

[metis]

Even though we know that the universe is expanding at an increasingly rapid rate, the "Big Crunch" is still in the running but is losing some popularity amongst cosmologists.