Support or refute the following statement using 2-5 sentences:
The earth formed 4.6 billion years ago.
Also, reply to at least one of your classmates (you can use the "quote" feature to show their original response). The goal is to start some discussions. Be appropriate.
I do not believe the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Since I am a devote congregationalist and I was like that since I was young, I have been taught by the Genesis that the both the Earth and the Universe ages 6,000 +-2,000 years old. Because of what I believe in, I refute against the statement that the Earth was formed billions of years ago.
I do believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Since I do not have a strong faith in any one religion, I trust science. Scientists have proven that the Earth was formed billions of years ago due to the evidence they found to back this up with all of this new technology that we have today.
I do not believe the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Since I am a devote congregationalist and I was like that since I was young, I have been taught by the Genesis that the both the Earth and the Universe ages 6,000 +-2,000 years old. Because of what I believe in, I refute against the statement that the Earth was formed billions of years ago. __________________________________________________________________________________________
I have to disagree with my friend, Walt Disney. I respect your beliefs, but I believe this statement to be true because scientists have proven it with fossils and technology.
I agree with this statement that earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Although I have a catholic background, I feel that technology is accurate enough to show the correct age of the earth. Also, there is a ton of evidence that proves this statement correct, such as the fossils, which are dated back to over a million years old.
I do not believe the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Since I am a devote congregationalist and I was like that since I was young, I have been taught by the Genesis that the both the Earth and the Universe ages 6,000 +-2,000 years old. Because of what I believe in, I refute against the statement that the Earth was formed billions of years ago.
Although I understand your reasoning, i have to disagree with your statement. Technology has proven that the earth is indeed 4.6 billion years old. Also, many fossils have been dated back to more than a million years old. Many ancient civilizations are as old as you say the earth is.
I do not believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. As a proud Roman Catholic, I believe that the Earth was formed 2000-6000 years ago as stated by the book of Genesis.
In my personal opinion, I do believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Growing up, I was raised as a Southern Baptist. I was taught to believe that God created the heavens and the Earth a little more than 6,000 years ago, but I never completely supported and honored the beliefs of my religion because the discoveries made by science always seemed more reasonable with its thorough evidence. I still believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, but in a much earlier time period than 6,000 years ago.
As a Christian, I believe the Earth was formed around 6,000 years ago by God (Divine Origin). Evolution is false and is widely believed by many people, even though it obviously isn't true. Overall, my beliefs cause me to believe that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, not 4.6 billion years ago.
Britney, I agree with your thinking. Although the technology may seem convincing, the true creator was God, not from the gradual evolution of organisms. The book of Genesis clearly states all the generations starting with Adam and Eve, and you can add up the years to total about 6,000 years.
-- Edited by george_washington on Monday 23rd of March 2015 09:07:25 PM
I disagree with the statement that earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Due to the time period from which I am, we did not have the technology to figure out our planet's age. I believe it formed about a couple thousand years ago, around 6,000. That is why I disagree with the statement.
As a Christian, I believe the Earth was formed around 6,000 years ago by God (Divine Origin). Evolution is false and is widely believed by many people, even though it obviously isn't true. Overall, my beliefs cause me to believe that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, not 4.6 billion years ago.
George Washington sir, I understand your views and how they originate from your religion, but you have to think about the science and all that it has proved. The evidence that supports that earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago is overwhelming.
In my personal opinion, I do believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Growing up, I was raised as a Southern Baptist. I was taught to believe that God created the heavens and the Earth a little more than 6,000 years ago, but I never completely supported and honored the beliefs of my religion because the discoveries made by science always seemed more reasonable with its thorough evidence. I still believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, but in a much earlier time period than 6,000 years ago.
I agree with you on the fact that God created heaven and Earth. But see, if you start with at the book of Genesis, you will find that the total is about 6000 years. Technology may seem right but God will tell you everything you need to know about what actually happened and how long ago it was.
I agree with this statement that earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Although I have a catholic background, I feel that technology is accurate enough to show the correct age of the earth. Also, there is a ton of evidence that proves this statement correct, such as the fossils, which are dated back to over a million years old.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. Although I value your opinion Mr. Schwarzenegger, I don't believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. I believe it was formed about 6,000 years ago due to the way I was bought up.
As a staunch follower of Christ, I do not believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Growing up, I was taught to read and trust the word of God/the Bible. According to the dates in the Bible, it is clearly stated that Earth was formed just about 6000 years ago by God. Although scientists claim the Earth to be 4.6 billion years old, I have to disagree and stick with my faith.
I do not believe the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Since I am a devote congregationalist and I was like that since I was young, I have been taught by the Genesis that the both the Earth and the Universe ages 6,000 +-2,000 years old. Because of what I believe in, I refute against the statement that the Earth was formed billions of years ago.
Amen, brother, amen. I completely agree with how you disagree about the date of Earth's formation. We Christians must stay strong to our faith no matter what science tries to tell us.
I do believe that this world was formed 4.6 billion years ago, as I do not support any religion. There is also an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that Earth was not created by some divine being. However, I do find the creation of Earth by a Divine entity a very interesting topic.
I do not believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. As a proud Roman Catholic, I believe that the Earth was formed 2000-6000 years ago as stated by the book of Genesis.
I would have to disagree with your reasoning because scientific technology has advanced, and many discoveries have been made by scientists that support the statement that the Earth was indeed formed 4.6 billion years ago. For example, scientists have used methods of radiometric dating to date back to the time that certain rocks were formed, and the oldest rocks that were found dated back 3.7 or 3.8 billion years ago. There is also a theory that relates to the book of Genesis which suggests that millions of years may have passed between Genesis 1:2, which describes the Earth as being "void and without form," and Genesis 1:3 where the beginning of the creation narrative is.
As a Christian man, I have been taught by the Genesis that the both the Earth and the Universe ages 6,000 +-2,000 years old. I trust that there is a divine Creator who made the Universe and the book of Genesis.
-- Edited by Kanye West on Monday 23rd of March 2015 09:59:47 PM
In my personal opinion, I do believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Growing up, I was raised as a Southern Baptist. I was taught to believe that God created the heavens and the Earth a little more than 6,000 years ago, but I never completely supported and honored the beliefs of my religion because the discoveries made by science always seemed more reasonable with its thorough evidence. I still believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, but in a much earlier time period than 6,000 years ago.
How Britney, how? How do you know that the Earth was formed 4.6 Billion years ago? Highly respected scientists have been wrong in the past. They can be incorrect now too.
I agree with this statement that earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Although I have a catholic background, I feel that technology is accurate enough to show the correct age of the earth. Also, there is a ton of evidence that proves this statement correct, such as the fossils, which are dated back to over a million years old.
I do respect what you believe, but I would have to disagree. From the way I have always believed since my youth, the Genesis contains the evidence to when the Earth started, which was around 6,000 years ago. I could understand how you believe fossils are the answer due to recent discoveries, but the Genesis would also explain a lot.
Current evidence supports that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, so I believe this current number. I am an atheist and believer in the scientific method. Why anyone would adamantly believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old when there are a range of experiments and observations made across multiple branches of science such as astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, chemistry, geomorphology, and physics is completely beyond me. I strongly recommend everyone have a look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation for enormous amounts of organized evidence supporting the 4.54 billions years ago time stamp. I also strongly urge you to check out this human prehistoric timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_prehistory to learn about how many years ago humans appeared and Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. If you are truly a developed human, then please take the time to learn about modern day science and keep an open mind on your religion and beliefs that were instilled into you at a very young age, before you had a chance to make unbiased, knowledgeable decisions for yourself. Thank you.
I agree with this statement that earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Although I have a catholic background, I feel that technology is accurate enough to show the correct age of the earth. Also, there is a ton of evidence that proves this statement correct, such as the fossils, which are dated back to over a million years old.
I do respect what you believe, but I would have to disagree. From the way I have always believed since my youth, the Genesis contains the evidence to when the Earth started, which was around 6,000 years ago. I could understand how you believe fossils are the answer due to recent discoveries, but the Genesis would also explain a lot.
I beg your pardon, Mr. Disney, but just what does Genesis explain? You said "...Genesis would also explain a lot", but did not specify what. There are overwhelming amounts of empirical evidence (a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation, if you did not know) to disprove the Young Earth Creationism theory. You can view the links I posted in my original reply: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_prehistory for much more information than any Young Earth Creationists have provided on this forum. Thank you.
Current evidence supports that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, so I believe this current number. I am an atheist and believer in the scientific method. Why anyone would adamantly believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old when there are a range of experiments and observations made across multiple branches of science such as astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, chemistry, geomorphology, and physics is completely beyond me. I strongly recommend everyone have a look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation for enormous amounts of organized evidence supporting the 4.54 billions years ago time stamp. I also strongly urge you to check out this human prehistoric timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_prehistory to learn about how many years ago humans appeared and Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. If you are truly a developed human, then please take the time to learn about modern day science and keep an open mind on your religion and beliefs that were instilled into you at a very young age, before you had a chance to make unbiased, knowledgeable decisions for yourself. Thank you.
I'm going to finish reading your post, but Wikipedia is not a credible source. You're welcome.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but at the very end of the article, there are 47 citations on the Rational Wiki page, and 30 citations of the Wikipedia page. Please check for sources before posting about an article's accuracy. Meanwhile, I have not seen any informational links from the creationists disputing their belief yet.
Current evidence supports that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, so I believe this current number. I am an atheist and believer in the scientific method. Why anyone would adamantly believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old when there are a range of experiments and observations made across multiple branches of science such as astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, chemistry, geomorphology, and physics is completely beyond me. I strongly recommend everyone have a look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation for enormous amounts of organized evidence supporting the 4.54 billions years ago time stamp. I also strongly urge you to check out this human prehistoric timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_prehistory to learn about how many years ago humans appeared and Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. If you are truly a developed human, then please take the time to learn about modern day science and keep an open mind on your religion and beliefs that were instilled into you at a very young age, before you had a chance to make unbiased, knowledgeable decisions for yourself. Thank you.
I'm going to finish reading your post, but Wikipedia is not a credible source. You're welcome.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but at the very end of the article, there are 47 citations on the Rational Wiki page, and 30 citations of the Wikipedia page. Please check for sources before posting about an article's accuracy. Meanwhile, I have not seen any informational links from the creationists disputing their belief yet.
I was very aware of these facts. Even a 7 year old who has no knowledge(on these matters) could go online to edit these Wiki pages. They could also just put in random citations. Therefore your Wikipedia pages are not credible sources. There is no reason for creationists to dispute their beliefs. It's their opinion.
-- Edited by Kanye West on Monday 23rd of March 2015 11:09:32 PM
Then you're probably not aware that articles are fact checked and researched on before being posted, especially highly important scientific articles like these. Quoted directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia, "An early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia's scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica 's main objections.[4]Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5]toxicology,[6]oncology,[7]pharmaceuticals,[8] and psychiatry[9]comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology[10] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012),[9] while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised concerns about reliability.[11]". Read the whole article if you would really rather argue the accurateness of the source than the topic at hand, a 6000 year old Earth. I know Wikipedia may not always be a reliable source for certain topics, but for quick reference and facts, it is acceptable anywhere.
Being a Catholic, I was raised to believe in God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago becuse evidence from the Bible proves that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago. Since I strongly believe in God, this leads me to believe in what the Bible says, which means I believe that Earth was created 6,000 years ago, not 4.6 billion years ago.
As a Christian, I believe the Earth was formed around 6,000 years ago by God (Divine Origin). Evolution is false and is widely believed by many people, even though it obviously isn't true. Overall, my beliefs cause me to believe that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, not 4.6 billion years ago.
George, I strongly agree with what you have said. As believers in God, we read the Bible which states the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. I do not believe Earth was created 4.6 billion years ago.
I agree with this. I believe that there is no god, and that science can answer all phenomena. Scientists have evidence that supports this fact, and I agree with these people who have dedicated their life to this topic.
"I was very aware of these facts. Even a 7 year old who has no knowledge(on these matters) could go online to edit these Wiki pages. They could also just put in random citations. Therefore your Wikipedia pages are not credible sources. There is no reason for creationists to dispute their beliefs. It's their opinion." - Kanye West
I agree with Kanye. People are always saying that they can change what Wikipedia says, so think of how many people are always doing that. Even if Wikipedia is sometimes credible, you could use the sources on the Wikipedia page to make your post. They would be much more credible.
-- Edited by Sigmund Freud on Tuesday 24th of March 2015 05:40:35 PM
I could literally fact check everything written in the article. Would it be reliable then? Just because something is posted on a site that is not 100% accurate (but 90% accurate) does not mean that the article is definitely inaccurate.
For example, this very forum is much like Wikipedia. Anybody can change the content, add stuff, and no administrative measures prevent people writing random posts. In addition, none of the posters on this forum have ever cited anything in their posts! Even Wikipedia has numerous citations and sources. So why do we take the facts found in Kanye West's introduction post, for example, to be self-evident truth? Kanye West has zero citations in his post. Yet you and I and everyone on this blog (including Mrs. Paes!) widely accept that his autobiography on himself is 100% true! This autobiography is written by a student no less! Even the Wikipedia articles have adult writers and experts who create the content. The authors of articles on Wikipedia are not a bunch of mindless, uneducated, mischievous typing monkeys as you seem to imagine.
As you can see, our open-source website forum (much like Wikipedia) contains facts and posts that we all agree are entirely true. No one is questioning the accuracy of Kanye West's autobiography, even though this whole forum has a 0% accuracy guarantee (because there are no citations required on any posts). Wikipedia actually requires citations for their articles. A little notification box will appear at the top of the screen reading "this post lacks citations" if an article is questionable! Wikipedia specifically warns you when there is an article lacking citations. None of the facts on this forum have ever been checked by anyone except the author, a student who could have easily fabricated facts themselves. Therefore, you cannot reasonably suspect that someone has sabotaged a scientific Wikipedia article that even has 47 citations and has been proofread by many others before. Errors in the article would have been detected long, long ago by the editors and proofreaders. If you could find a single error in the article, then we would finally have something worthy to argue on.
I could literally fact check everything written in the article. Would it be reliable then? Just because something is posted on a site that is not 100% accurate (but 90% accurate) does not mean that the article is definitely inaccurate.
For example, this very forum is much like Wikipedia. Anybody can change the content, add stuff, and no administrative measures prevent people writing random posts. In addition, none of the posters on this forum have ever cited anything in their posts! Even Wikipedia has numerous citations and sources. So why do we take the facts found in Kanye West's introduction post, for example, to be self-evident truth? Kanye West has zero citations in his post. Yet you and I and everyone on this blog (including Mrs. Paes!) widely accept that his autobiography on himself is 100% true! This autobiography is written by a student no less! Even the Wikipedia articles have adult writers and experts who create the content. The authors of articles on Wikipedia are not a bunch of mindless, uneducated, mischievous typing monkeys as you seem to imagine.
As you can see, our open-source website forum (much like Wikipedia) contains facts and posts that we all agree are entirely true. No one is questioning the accuracy of Kanye West's autobiography, even though this whole forum has a 0% accuracy guarantee (because there are no citations required on any posts). Wikipedia actually requires citations for their articles. A little notification box will appear at the top of the screen reading "this post lacks citations" if an article is questionable! Wikipedia specifically warns you when there is an article lacking citations. None of the facts on this forum have ever been checked by anyone except the author, a student who could have easily fabricated facts themselves. Therefore, you cannot reasonably suspect that someone has sabotaged a scientific Wikipedia article that even has 47 citations and has been proofread by many others before. Errors in the article would have been detected long, long ago by the editors and proofreaders. If you could find a single error in the article, then we would finally have something worthy to argue on.
" The authors of articles on Wikipedia are not a bunch of mindless, uneducated, mischievous typing monkeys as you seem to imagine."
Even though I am a visionary, you are the one seeing and imagining things. I never said the Wikipedia is written by monkeys that are mindless and uneducated. Please do not spread propaganda like you did during the Cultural Revolution Chinese Communist Chairman Mao. Also as a sidenote, the Earth formed much earlier than 4 Billion years ago. That is stated in the Book of Genesis.
-- Edited by Kanye West on Tuesday 24th of March 2015 06:43:38 PM
I refute this statement, because i have been a devout Christian since I was born. Being a Presbyterian is how I was raised. My religion does not agree with this statement, therefore neither do I. I believe in a Divine Origin, which was God. He made the Earth around 6,000 years ago (4,000 B.C.). Then, he made Adam and Eve, who we all have descended from.
I see where you are coming from Mr.Freud. However, I cannot wrap my head around how everything in this world fits together so perfectly without a divine being. Even if you are not a Christian man(like myself), I think you should believe in something other than science.
That is crazy. Why would you believe that an omnipotent being made a world? There is overwHelming evidence that The Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago.
As a Christian, I believe the Earth was formed around 6,000 years ago by God (Divine Origin). Evolution is false and is widely believed by many people, even though it obviously isn't true. Overall, my beliefs cause me to believe that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, not 4.6 billion years ago.
I have to disagree with dear old JFK. That is crazy. Why would you believe that an omnipotent being made a world? There is overwhelming evidence that The Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago.
-- Edited by Jack Ma on Tuesday 24th of March 2015 09:14:51 PM
"I was very aware of these facts. Even a 7 year old who has no knowledge(on these matters) could go online to edit these Wiki pages. They could also just put in random citations. Therefore your Wikipedia pages are not credible sources. There is no reason for creationists to dispute their beliefs. It's their opinion." - Kanye West
I agree with Kanye. People are always saying that they can change what Wikipedia says, so think of how many people are always doing that. Even if Wikipedia is sometimes credible, you could use the sources on the Wikipedia page to make your post. They would be much more credible.
-- Edited by Sigmund Freud on Tuesday 24th of March 2015 05:40:35 PM
I like your explanation Mr.Freud. Hopefully this explanation will make Chinese Communist Leader Mao see the truth about using Wikipedia.
-- Edited by Kanye West on Tuesday 24th of March 2015 06:33:38 PM
I've given so many more examples and facts than you have, it would be an act of insanity to come around to your thinking. Until you've backed up your claims with an iota of real facts and examples, please refrain from making pointless comments about my nationality and ideologies. It is an act of cowardice to avoid the fact that my examples based off of the posts on this forum are convincing reasons hitherto. Don't bother replying if it you don't have a backing argument or counterexample.
I could literally fact check everything written in the article. Would it be reliable then? Just because something is posted on a site that is not 100% accurate (but 90% accurate) does not mean that the article is definitely inaccurate.
For example, this very forum is much like Wikipedia. Anybody can change the content, add stuff, and no administrative measures prevent people writing random posts. In addition, none of the posters on this forum have ever cited anything in their posts! Even Wikipedia has numerous citations and sources. So why do we take the facts found in Kanye West's introduction post, for example, to be self-evident truth? Kanye West has zero citations in his post. Yet you and I and everyone on this blog (including Mrs. Paes!) widely accept that his autobiography on himself is 100% true! This autobiography is written by a student no less! Even the Wikipedia articles have adult writers and experts who create the content. The authors of articles on Wikipedia are not a bunch of mindless, uneducated, mischievous typing monkeys as you seem to imagine.
As you can see, our open-source website forum (much like Wikipedia) contains facts and posts that we all agree are entirely true. No one is questioning the accuracy of Kanye West's autobiography, even though this whole forum has a 0% accuracy guarantee (because there are no citations required on any posts). Wikipedia actually requires citations for their articles. A little notification box will appear at the top of the screen reading "this post lacks citations" if an article is questionable! Wikipedia specifically warns you when there is an article lacking citations. None of the facts on this forum have ever been checked by anyone except the author, a student who could have easily fabricated facts themselves. Therefore, you cannot reasonably suspect that someone has sabotaged a scientific Wikipedia article that even has 47 citations and has been proofread by many others before. Errors in the article would have been detected long, long ago by the editors and proofreaders. If you could find a single error in the article, then we would finally have something worthy to argue on.
" The authors of articles on Wikipedia are not a bunch of mindless, uneducated, mischievous typing monkeys as you seem to imagine."
Even though I am a visionary, you are the one seeing and imagining things. I never said the Wikipedia is written by monkeys that are mindless and uneducated. Please do not spread propaganda like you did during the Cultural Revolution Chinese Communist Chairman Mao. Also as a sidenote, the Earth formed much earlier than 4 Billion years ago. That is stated in the Book of Genesis.
-- Edited by Kanye West on Tuesday 24th of March 2015 06:43:38 PM
Your usage of rhetoric is very poor. Instead of acknowledging one sentence of the entire post, you should actually read the rest of my argument. Clearly, the monkey description was a metaphor. I'm trying to communicate to you that Wikipedia authors are not ordinary laymen who don't know much about a topic but still write random information for the pure fun of sabotage. And even if they do write something incorrect in an article, it will be proofread by editors and other users who will remove the extraneous information. Why don't you come back with a more developed counter? Then we can actually discuss the premise of the topic: the Earth's age.
As a firm supporter of science and the environment I believe the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. There is suitable enough information to support my theory, however I am willing to listen to any judgement. As I have no clear religion, theories including God and Earth being made 6,000 years do not apply to me. As I am a fan of nature and science, including evolution, means I do think Earth was created very slowly 4.6 billion years ago.
I disagree with this statement. As an admirer of Buddhism, I believe that there was no beginning. We Buddhists believe that the world was not created once upon a time, but instead it has been created a bunch of times every second. It will continue to do so.
As a staunch follower of Christ, I do not believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Growing up, I was taught to read and trust the word of God/the Bible. According to the dates in the Bible, it is clearly stated that Earth was formed just about 6000 years ago by God. Although scientists claim the Earth to be 4.6 billion years old, I have to disagree and stick with my faith.
While I respect your views, I'd like to argue that my Buddhist way of thinking makes more sense. It's crazy to put a date of sorts on the creation of this grand Earth! Crikey! It's forming every second, over and over again.
I do not believe that the world is 4.5 Billion years old because, after growing up in the church, I have learned that God created the world about 6,000 years ago. Take the story of Genesis in the bible for example. God is said to have created the Heavens and the Earth in seven days. It was not science that made this planet, but God.
I refute this statement, because i have been a devout Christian since I was born. Being a Presbyterian is how I was raised. My religion does not agree with this statement, therefore neither do I. I believe in a Divine Origin, which was God. He made the Earth around 6,000 years ago (4,000 B.C.). Then, he made Adam and Eve, who we all have descended from.
I support this Ronald. I can see that we have both come from the same background and share the same beliefs. I am glad to know that there is someone that I can relate to on the ship when it comes to the beliefs on Genesis.
I do believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Since I do not have a strong faith in any one religion, I trust science. Scientists have proven that the Earth was formed billions of years ago due to the evidence they found to back this up with all of this new technology that we have today.
I would like to agree with your statement. I too do not seem to have a certain religion, meaning I believe science and the environment more than I believe Divine interaction. I also agree that there is sufficient enough information to support your theory, and mine, that Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago.
I do not believe the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. I am a member of the Church of Scotland, and so I have very strong faith that God created our earth about 6,000 years ago. I believe earth was created by divine origins.
As a staunch follower of Christ, I do not believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Growing up, I was taught to read and trust the word of God/the Bible. According to the dates in the Bible, it is clearly stated that Earth was formed just about 6000 years ago by God. Although scientists claim the Earth to be 4.6 billion years old, I have to disagree and stick with my faith.
I completely agree with you. Science is incorrect and God created the earth about 6,000 years ago.
I believe that the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. even though I have a philosophy that is similar to Buddhism, I believe the evidence that is provided by science that shows that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years old. My philosophy is only related to the fact that all are equal. I am a firm believer in the methods of science. therefore, how can I not believe all of the present evidence?
I do not believe Earth is 4.6 billion years old. I believe it is much younger than that because I was raised in as a Catholic. The Bible dates the Earth as much younger than 4.6 billion years old.
I do not believe that the earth was created 4.6 billion years ago. As a Baptist minister, I strongly believe that the world was created around 6,000 years ago by God. I also do not believe in the theory of evolution.
.png)
