Y-you-you've...you've-*facepalm* you've never heard of dinosaurs?

Are you referring to relative dating? I'm going to take Hazzat's advice and go to the war room if need be.
And scypax I'm not joking.  But I'll be interested in hearing your side of the argument.

Last edited by bloogyo (May 15, 2010 (04:27pm))

*relative* dating.  If we're going to debate about this move it to the war room.

Please explain.

Na, I think we should end it right here if everybody's done.

OK, I'm tired of getting facepalmed. 

"What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.

Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions."

Ok, I will.

Saying things like that when at least 80% of active users on this site have a different view then you on this subject isn't a good idea because you will get automatically facepalm spammed throughout the entire thread.

I'm totally for speaking your mind on things, but sometimes you need to know when to keep your mouth shut on these matters.

bloogyo, what you're saying is essentially wrong. I did a ton of debating on the subject a few years ago and don't really feel like resuming it, but you are misinformed. I hope you'll realize that at some point. Go read about it.

Young-earth creationism isn't a "reexamination" of facts, it's a last-ditch attempt to justify a literal view of the Bible.

Well, the earth does have periods of great heat and of great cold, the reason for the more recent global warming can be put down to the industrial revolution from the 1700s onwards. Before then not much new Greenhouse Gases were added to the atmosphere, allowing a good balance between hot and cold to go on. From the 1700s onwards, the human race began to burn fuel such as coal on a industrial scale. This has continued to the present day, adding more and more gas.