How old is earth

[reikotaka]

Why would you ask us?  It can be searched through google or as Mr. Wikipedia about it.  All I can say is that we are on the near end of life on earth because of its look today compared before.

[KFCBTC]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

Are you interesting in religious or scientific answer?
If you literally believe Bible, answer is about 6 000 years.
If you believe science, answer is about 7 billion years.
You can research about it much more on Internet, specially on Wikipedia.

firstly "Interested" secondly Earth is approximately 4.543 billion years old according to science not 7 lol

you sound like you have knowledge , so I'm curious what is the exact science behind dating the earth?

[BADecker]

While the first verse in the Bible covers a period that is unknown, because things like the electromagnetic spectrum had not been settled into place before there was light, the KEY biblical understanding of this is that "the earth was formless and void." In other words, there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between.

And you've just shot down your own belief that the bible proves the Earth's age is 6000 years by saying that any time period between Earth's creation and there being an electromagnetic spectrum could have been billions or trillions of years, or a nano-second or less. Nice work!!!  

Quite the contrary. The time before time was not time. It wasn't even before time. So, using time, the thing that the year is made up of, the earth is a little over 6,000 years old. Just because it has some other things that look a little like time but aren't time, doesn't change the time.

To use your own argument against you, if the time before time was not time, then the period between the Earth being "created" and the "time" before man was "made" could be either an instant or any number of years - hence you shoot down your own argument of 6000 years.

Wrong! You don't even provide any reason for your thinking.

The so-called time before the day that light was created is a mixture of long-time, short-time, no-time, and maybe even "all-time." It is outside anything we know.

Once time was created at the beginning of the first day, since light was created the first day along with the whole electromagnetic spectrum, then the first day became a 24-hour day.

Earth is a little more than 6,000 years old... perhaps as much as 6,200 years.

[Tyrantt]

While the first verse in the Bible covers a period that is unknown, because things like the electromagnetic spectrum had not been settled into place before there was light, the KEY biblical understanding of this is that "the earth was formless and void." In other words, there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between.

And you've just shot down your own belief that the bible proves the Earth's age is 6000 years by saying that any time period between Earth's creation and there being an electromagnetic spectrum could have been billions or trillions of years, or a nano-second or less. Nice work!!!  

Quite the contrary. The time before time was not time. It wasn't even before time. So, using time, the thing that the year is made up of, the earth is a little over 6,000 years old. Just because it has some other things that look a little like time but aren't time, doesn't change the time.

To use your own argument against you, if the time before time was not time, then the period between the Earth being "created" and the "time" before man was "made" could be either an instant or any number of years - hence you shoot down your own argument of 6000 years.

Wrong! You don't even provide any reason for your thinking.

The so-called time before the day that light was created is a mixture of long-time, short-time, no-time, and maybe even "all-time." It is outside anything we know.

Once time was created at the beginning of the first day, since light was created the first day along with the whole electromagnetic spectrum, then the first day became a 24-hour day.

Earth is a little more than 6,000 years old... perhaps as much as 6,200 years.

Sometimes you really surprise me how dense you are (assuming you're not a troll). Time doesn't exist, therefore cannot be created. 24h day was created to simplify the counting of ones. There could be 2 months for every season and day could be lasting more or less hours. Your whole theory is not that good.

[BADecker]

While the first verse in the Bible covers a period that is unknown, because things like the electromagnetic spectrum had not been settled into place before there was light, the KEY biblical understanding of this is that "the earth was formless and void." In other words, there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between.

And you've just shot down your own belief that the bible proves the Earth's age is 6000 years by saying that any time period between Earth's creation and there being an electromagnetic spectrum could have been billions or trillions of years, or a nano-second or less. Nice work!!!  

Quite the contrary. The time before time was not time. It wasn't even before time. So, using time, the thing that the year is made up of, the earth is a little over 6,000 years old. Just because it has some other things that look a little like time but aren't time, doesn't change the time.

To use your own argument against you, if the time before time was not time, then the period between the Earth being "created" and the "time" before man was "made" could be either an instant or any number of years - hence you shoot down your own argument of 6000 years.

Wrong! You don't even provide any reason for your thinking.

The so-called time before the day that light was created is a mixture of long-time, short-time, no-time, and maybe even "all-time." It is outside anything we know.

Once time was created at the beginning of the first day, since light was created the first day along with the whole electromagnetic spectrum, then the first day became a 24-hour day.

Earth is a little more than 6,000 years old... perhaps as much as 6,200 years.

Sometimes you really surprise me how dense you are (assuming you're not a troll). Time doesn't exist, therefore cannot be created. 24h day was created to simplify the counting of ones. There could be 2 months for every season and day could be lasting more or less hours. Your whole theory is not that good.

Okay, okay. Since time doesn't exist for you, why are you even posting in this thread? I mean, if you were going to post here, why are you talking about the time as it is listed in the Bible? Shouldn't your points be around the idea of no time at all? So, if time doesn't exist for you, the earth doesn't have any age at all... in your belief, that is.

How in the world goofy are you trying to be? And then you talk about the idea that I have a theory? I don't have a theory. I have faith in the things that God has told all of us through His prophets.

What in the world is your point, anyway? Are you another of those flat earth people?

[Spendulus]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

Are you interesting in religious or scientific answer?
If you literally believe Bible, answer is about 6 000 years.
If you believe science, answer is about 7 billion years.
You can research about it much more on Internet, specially on Wikipedia.

firstly "Interested" secondly Earth is approximately 4.543 billion years old according to science not 7 lol

I think it is 4.544 billion years old.  I'm throwing in another 0.001 billions years, also known as one million years, for you to debate Badecker and convince him the earth is not 6000 years old.

[TooQik]

While the first verse in the Bible covers a period that is unknown, because things like the electromagnetic spectrum had not been settled into place before there was light, the KEY biblical understanding of this is that "the earth was formless and void." In other words, there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between.

And you've just shot down your own belief that the bible proves the Earth's age is 6000 years by saying that any time period between Earth's creation and there being an electromagnetic spectrum could have been billions or trillions of years, or a nano-second or less. Nice work!!!  

Quite the contrary. The time before time was not time. It wasn't even before time. So, using time, the thing that the year is made up of, the earth is a little over 6,000 years old. Just because it has some other things that look a little like time but aren't time, doesn't change the time.

To use your own argument against you, if the time before time was not time, then the period between the Earth being "created" and the "time" before man was "made" could be either an instant or any number of years - hence you shoot down your own argument of 6000 years.

Wrong! You don't even provide any reason for your thinking.

The so-called time before the day that light was created is a mixture of long-time, short-time, no-time, and maybe even "all-time." It is outside anything we know.

Once time was created at the beginning of the first day, since light was created the first day along with the whole electromagnetic spectrum, then the first day became a 24-hour day.

Earth is a little more than 6,000 years old... perhaps as much as 6,200 years.

Okay, let me break down my reasoning for you.

Let me assume that your calculation of 6000 / 6200 years for the age of Earth is correct.

The Bible states that light was made on the first day after the Earth itself was created. Your argument above states that "there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between."

So you have a gap between when the Earth was created and when light was made. This period of time could be, in your own words, billions or trillions of years, or a nano-second or less. If this period was an instant, then your calculation of 6000 / 6200 years would be correct. If this period was trillions of years, then your calculation is trillions of years out.

[BADecker]

While the first verse in the Bible covers a period that is unknown, because things like the electromagnetic spectrum had not been settled into place before there was light, the KEY biblical understanding of this is that "the earth was formless and void." In other words, there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between.

And you've just shot down your own belief that the bible proves the Earth's age is 6000 years by saying that any time period between Earth's creation and there being an electromagnetic spectrum could have been billions or trillions of years, or a nano-second or less. Nice work!!!  

Quite the contrary. The time before time was not time. It wasn't even before time. So, using time, the thing that the year is made up of, the earth is a little over 6,000 years old. Just because it has some other things that look a little like time but aren't time, doesn't change the time.

To use your own argument against you, if the time before time was not time, then the period between the Earth being "created" and the "time" before man was "made" could be either an instant or any number of years - hence you shoot down your own argument of 6000 years.

Wrong! You don't even provide any reason for your thinking.

The so-called time before the day that light was created is a mixture of long-time, short-time, no-time, and maybe even "all-time." It is outside anything we know.

Once time was created at the beginning of the first day, since light was created the first day along with the whole electromagnetic spectrum, then the first day became a 24-hour day.

Earth is a little more than 6,000 years old... perhaps as much as 6,200 years.

Okay, let me break down my reasoning for you.

Let me assume that your calculation of 6000 / 6200 years for the age of Earth is correct.

The Bible states that light was made on the first day after the Earth itself was created. Your argument above states that "there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between."

So you have a gap between when the Earth was created and when light was made. This period of time could be, in your own words, billions or trillions of years, or a nano-second or less. If this period was an instant, then your calculation of 6000 / 6200 years would be correct. If this period was trillions of years, then your calculation is trillions of years out.

Okay. Let me break your mistaken understanding down for you. Your mistake lies in the fact that you are not believing of the Bible.

As for what I have to say, the non-time "before" light was created is a mixture of things that looked and acted (to some extent) like, "... there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between."

But here is the important part of what I said, "... there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made."  Did you catch that? I'll repeat it a little shorter: "... no knowledge ..."

The closest thing that we have to understanding about the "time" before light comes in 3 parts:
1. The earth was "formless and void;"
2. There was apparently some cohesion in whatever existed because there was a "surface of the waters;"
3. How do we know that there was this cohesion and a surface of the waters? Because the "Spirit of God moved over the surface of the waters."

The New International Version translators of the ancient Hebrew write it this way, Genesis 1:1,2:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So, now you can see your misunderstanding. It is contained in the fact that you want to believe silly science fairy tails rather than the absolute best record we have of the beginning of the earth "times," the Bible.

[Spendulus]

.....Your mistake lies in the fact that you are not believing of the Bible......

Says everything and nothing.

[TooQik]

While the first verse in the Bible covers a period that is unknown, because things like the electromagnetic spectrum had not been settled into place before there was light, the KEY biblical understanding of this is that "the earth was formless and void." In other words, there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between.

And you've just shot down your own belief that the bible proves the Earth's age is 6000 years by saying that any time period between Earth's creation and there being an electromagnetic spectrum could have been billions or trillions of years, or a nano-second or less. Nice work!!!  

Quite the contrary. The time before time was not time. It wasn't even before time. So, using time, the thing that the year is made up of, the earth is a little over 6,000 years old. Just because it has some other things that look a little like time but aren't time, doesn't change the time.

To use your own argument against you, if the time before time was not time, then the period between the Earth being "created" and the "time" before man was "made" could be either an instant or any number of years - hence you shoot down your own argument of 6000 years.

Wrong! You don't even provide any reason for your thinking.

The so-called time before the day that light was created is a mixture of long-time, short-time, no-time, and maybe even "all-time." It is outside anything we know.

Once time was created at the beginning of the first day, since light was created the first day along with the whole electromagnetic spectrum, then the first day became a 24-hour day.

Earth is a little more than 6,000 years old... perhaps as much as 6,200 years.

Okay, let me break down my reasoning for you.

Let me assume that your calculation of 6000 / 6200 years for the age of Earth is correct.

The Bible states that light was made on the first day after the Earth itself was created. Your argument above states that "there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between."

So you have a gap between when the Earth was created and when light was made. This period of time could be, in your own words, billions or trillions of years, or a nano-second or less. If this period was an instant, then your calculation of 6000 / 6200 years would be correct. If this period was trillions of years, then your calculation is trillions of years out.

Okay. Let me break your mistaken understanding down for you. Your mistake lies in the fact that you are not believing of the Bible.

As for what I have to say, the non-time "before" light was created is a mixture of things that looked and acted (to some extent) like, "... there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between."

But here is the important part of what I said, "... there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made."  Did you catch that? I'll repeat it a little shorter: "... no knowledge ..."

The closest thing that we have to understanding about the "time" before light comes in 3 parts:
1. The earth was "formless and void;"
2. There was apparently some cohesion in whatever existed because there was a "surface of the waters;"
3. How do we know that there was this cohesion and a surface of the waters? Because the "Spirit of God moved over the surface of the waters."

The New International Version translators of the ancient Hebrew write it this way, Genesis 1:1,2:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So, now you can see your misunderstanding. It is contained in the fact that you want to believe silly science fairy tails rather than the absolute best record we have of the beginning of the earth "times," the Bible.

Before I wrote my first post in this thread I knew what type of person I was attempting to converse with, so your latest reply comes as no surprise.

The fact that I do not believe in the Bible is irrelevant to the point I raised about your argument to the Earth's age. My point was, and continues to be, that you are unable to accept that your explanation of 6000 / 6200 years relies on period of time for which there is no knowledge, again I'm using your own words here. Another way to describe "no knowledge" is unknown.

So in simple maths terms....

Earth's creation + unknown period + 6000 (or 6200 years) = Unknown

The difference between a scientific explanation and your explanation is that the scientific one recognizes and allows for a margin of error, as you yourself have pointed out, while you are unable to accept that your own also has a margin of error, although your margin is an unknown quantity rather than a margin born out of reproducible physical testing.

I know that the above will mean nothing to you and that you will attempt to teach me the error of my ways by making self referencing or circular arguments as to the legitimacy of the Bible, so knock yourself out - figuratively speaking of course.  

And for the record, I agree with Spendulus's post above and like Tyrantt I also believe that time does not exist other than as a construct of man, so when I say years above I'm referring to the passage of the Earth around the Sun.

[Spendulus]

....

So in simple maths terms....

Earth's creation + unknown period + 6000 (or 6200 years) = Unknown

The difference between a scientific explanation and your explanation is that the scientific one recognizes and allows for a margin of error, as you yourself have pointed out, while you are unable to accept that your own also has a margin of error, although your margin is an unknown quantity rather than a margin born out of reproducible physical testing.

I know that the above will mean nothing to you and that you will attempt to teach me the error of my ways by making self referencing or circular arguments as to the legitimacy of the Bible, so knock yourself out - figuratively speaking of course.  

And for the record, I agree with Spendulus's post above and like Tyrantt I also believe that time does not exist other than as a construct of man, so when I say years above I'm referring to the passage of the Earth around the Sun.

A reasonable hypocrite of a Christian would agree with you, of course.

Personally I think the understanding of stellar evolution is well established.  Stars burn until they are rich in heavier elements, and when iron predominates, fusion starts to end and they implode and supernova.  A couple cycles of that is what results in planets with "elements" and that's why the universe is 13+ billion years, while the Earth and it's moon are about 4 billion.

As for time, there would clearly be a a lower limit based on quantum theory, a smallest possible and fixed unit of time.   

Anyone who wants to argue these issues should reject their computers and their cell phones, because those could not exist without man's understanding of these issues. 

But they want it both ways. They want to be free to babble mindless puke from past ages, while using the benefits of quantum theory to do so.  Such as posting on this forum.

Fuck 'em.

[BADecker]

Okay. Let me break your mistaken understanding down for you. Your mistake lies in the fact that you are not believing of the Bible.

As for what I have to say, the non-time "before" light was created is a mixture of things that looked and acted (to some extent) like, "... there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made. Some of it might correspond to billions of years, or trillions. Other of it would correspond to only an instant, like a nano-second or less. And some might correspond to any amount of time in between."

But here is the important part of what I said, "... there is no knowledge of what went before the day that light was made."  Did you catch that? I'll repeat it a little shorter: "... no knowledge ..."

The closest thing that we have to understanding about the "time" before light comes in 3 parts:
1. The earth was "formless and void;"
2. There was apparently some cohesion in whatever existed because there was a "surface of the waters;"
3. How do we know that there was this cohesion and a surface of the waters? Because the "Spirit of God moved over the surface of the waters."

The New International Version translators of the ancient Hebrew write it this way, Genesis 1:1,2:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So, now you can see your misunderstanding. It is contained in the fact that you want to believe silly science fairy tails rather than the absolute best record we have of the beginning of the earth "times," the Bible.

Before I wrote my first post in this thread I knew what type of person I was attempting to converse with, so your latest reply comes as no surprise.

Thank you for this. As you finally start to understand the flaws in your thinking, you start to pick on me, because you are running out of facts. So you move into twisting, which includes picking on me.

The fact that I do not believe in the Bible is irrelevant to the point I raised about your argument to the Earth's age. My point was, and continues to be, that you are unable to accept that your explanation of 6000 / 6200 years relies on period of time for which there is no knowledge, again I'm using your own words here. Another way to describe "no knowledge" is unknown.

You neglect to state in what way you believe that my thinking relies on no knowledge. But it doesn't matter, because...

Up until the beginning of the electromagnetic spectrum (light), we have knowledge that something existed, but it was void or empty. This means that it doesn't match our understanding of physics and physical laws.

Then God spoke light into existence, and we have the beginning of the first day. Certainly there were other things that God did to make the day - "separated the light from the darkness." But because most of it is beyond our understanding, and certainly is beyond the understanding of simple people, God chose to talk about the light, something that almost all of us understand in one way or another.

Day 1, day 2, day 3, etc., - time - down to the present; some amount of time a little over 6,000 years.

So in simple maths terms....

Earth's creation + unknown period + 6000 (or 6200 years) = Unknown

Wrong! In simple terms, nothing that we know about. "Then" 6,000+ years. I have "then" in quotes, because "then" denotes time even though there was no time. Possibly there is no correct word to use when talking about "movement" from no time into time.

The difference between a scientific explanation and your explanation is that the scientific one recognizes and allows for a margin of error, as you yourself have pointed out, while you are unable to accept that your own also has a margin of error, although your margin is an unknown quantity rather than a margin born out of reproducible physical testing.

What does a margin of error have to do with it? Does anybody know the exact number of days that have existed, other than God? However, way less of a margin of error than secular science. Why? Because even if Big Bang had been a reality, nobody knows what things were like before the BANG. But the secular margin of error is, like, 2 billion years following the BB. And that is all based on a theory that has absolutely no way to be proven. Big Bang should not even be relegated into theory it is so flawed as such.

I know that the above will mean nothing to you and that you will attempt to teach me the error of my ways by making self referencing or circular arguments as to the legitimacy of the Bible, so knock yourself out - figuratively speaking of course.  

Huh! You have no answer. So you start to pick on me again.

And for the record, I agree with Spendulus's post above and like Tyrantt I also believe that time does not exist other than as a construct of man, so when I say years above I'm referring to the passage of the Earth around the Sun.

Since the sun was made on the 4th day, time existed 3 days longer than the passage of the earth around the sun. Whoopty doo. Now you really want to get picky by 3 days, all the while modern science suggests billions of years difference, and all that with a theory that shows itself to be doubtful (BBT), all the while there could be any number of things that invalidate the BB Theory entirely. Science really needs to get back to the Bible, the best record we have.

[BADecker]

....

So in simple maths terms....

Earth's creation + unknown period + 6000 (or 6200 years) = Unknown

The difference between a scientific explanation and your explanation is that the scientific one recognizes and allows for a margin of error, as you yourself have pointed out, while you are unable to accept that your own also has a margin of error, although your margin is an unknown quantity rather than a margin born out of reproducible physical testing.

I know that the above will mean nothing to you and that you will attempt to teach me the error of my ways by making self referencing or circular arguments as to the legitimacy of the Bible, so knock yourself out - figuratively speaking of course.  

And for the record, I agree with Spendulus's post above and like Tyrantt I also believe that time does not exist other than as a construct of man, so when I say years above I'm referring to the passage of the Earth around the Sun.

A reasonable hypocrite of a Christian would agree with you, of course.

Personally I think the understanding of stellar evolution is well established.  Stars burn until they are rich in heavier elements, and when iron predominates, fusion starts to end and they implode and supernova.  A couple cycles of that is what results in planets with "elements" and that's why the universe is 13+ billion years, while the Earth and it's moon are about 4 billion.

Of course, this that you seem to believe is way more improbable than the Bible explanation.

As for time, there would clearly be a a lower limit based on quantum theory, a smallest possible and fixed unit of time.   

Science could build a theory of no time, or no electromagnetic spectrum if they wanted.

Anyone who wants to argue these issues should reject their computers and their cell phones, because those could not exist without man's understanding of these issues. 

But they want it both ways. They want to be free to babble mindless puke from past ages, while using the benefits of quantum theory to do so.  Such as posting on this forum.

Fuck 'em.

Poor baby. Hurt your itty bitty feewings, did I?

The tools we use are engineered into existence, not theorized into existence. Most of the time the theories need to change to match the reality of the engineering. Much of this theory change has to do with semantics.

The theories of how stars work? Fun things. But totally laughable as something practical. They don't even deserve theory status, because there will never be a practical way that these theories can be tested.

Because of this, it is the scientists who have a religion of hypocrisy.

[TooQik]

Before I wrote my first post in this thread I knew what type of person I was attempting to converse with, so your latest reply comes as no surprise.

Thank you for this. As you finally start to understand the flaws in your thinking, you start to pick on me, because you are running out of facts. So you move into twisting, which includes picking on me.

Not sure why you think I was picking on you as I was simply stating that I'm more than aware of the kind of answer you'll post in reply to anything I write. And you certainly didn't disappoint this time around. 

The fact that I do not believe in the Bible is irrelevant to the point I raised about your argument to the Earth's age. My point was, and continues to be, that you are unable to accept that your explanation of 6000 / 6200 years relies on period of time for which there is no knowledge, again I'm using your own words here. Another way to describe "no knowledge" is unknown.

You neglect to state in what way you believe that my thinking relies on no knowledge. But it doesn't matter, because...[snip]

Actually I've stated it quite clearly - you wrote that there is a period for which there is no knowledge.

[CroSany]

Scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years or only 6000 years old as the Bible teaches

i think Scientists answer are more relevant
This can be true

[TooQik]

....

So in simple maths terms....

Earth's creation + unknown period + 6000 (or 6200 years) = Unknown

The difference between a scientific explanation and your explanation is that the scientific one recognizes and allows for a margin of error, as you yourself have pointed out, while you are unable to accept that your own also has a margin of error, although your margin is an unknown quantity rather than a margin born out of reproducible physical testing.

I know that the above will mean nothing to you and that you will attempt to teach me the error of my ways by making self referencing or circular arguments as to the legitimacy of the Bible, so knock yourself out - figuratively speaking of course.  

And for the record, I agree with Spendulus's post above and like Tyrantt I also believe that time does not exist other than as a construct of man, so when I say years above I'm referring to the passage of the Earth around the Sun.

A reasonable hypocrite of a Christian would agree with you, of course.

Personally I think the understanding of stellar evolution is well established.  Stars burn until they are rich in heavier elements, and when iron predominates, fusion starts to end and they implode and supernova.  A couple cycles of that is what results in planets with "elements" and that's why the universe is 13+ billion years, while the Earth and it's moon are about 4 billion.

As for time, there would clearly be a a lower limit based on quantum theory, a smallest possible and fixed unit of time.   

Anyone who wants to argue these issues should reject their computers and their cell phones, because those could not exist without man's understanding of these issues. 

But they want it both ways. They want to be free to babble mindless puke from past ages, while using the benefits of quantum theory to do so.  Such as posting on this forum.

Fuck 'em.

Couldn't agree with you more on all points with the only exception being your comment regarding time.

The difference between me and BADecker though, is I'm open to discussion about other possibilities and if offered up enough reproducible evidence will change my stance and admit when I'm wrong. 

[BADecker]

Scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years or only 6000 years old as the Bible teaches

i think Scientists answer are more relevant
This can be true

Science teachings are based in guesswork that can never be proven.

Bible teachings are based in eye witness reports, and in the things God tells people. While these won't be proven until we meet God in the judgment, there is way stronger evidence in Bible teaching than in science guesswork.

[BADecker]

....

So in simple maths terms....

Earth's creation + unknown period + 6000 (or 6200 years) = Unknown

The difference between a scientific explanation and your explanation is that the scientific one recognizes and allows for a margin of error, as you yourself have pointed out, while you are unable to accept that your own also has a margin of error, although your margin is an unknown quantity rather than a margin born out of reproducible physical testing.

I know that the above will mean nothing to you and that you will attempt to teach me the error of my ways by making self referencing or circular arguments as to the legitimacy of the Bible, so knock yourself out - figuratively speaking of course.  

And for the record, I agree with Spendulus's post above and like Tyrantt I also believe that time does not exist other than as a construct of man, so when I say years above I'm referring to the passage of the Earth around the Sun.

A reasonable hypocrite of a Christian would agree with you, of course.

Personally I think the understanding of stellar evolution is well established.  Stars burn until they are rich in heavier elements, and when iron predominates, fusion starts to end and they implode and supernova.  A couple cycles of that is what results in planets with "elements" and that's why the universe is 13+ billion years, while the Earth and it's moon are about 4 billion.

As for time, there would clearly be a a lower limit based on quantum theory, a smallest possible and fixed unit of time.   

Anyone who wants to argue these issues should reject their computers and their cell phones, because those could not exist without man's understanding of these issues. 

But they want it both ways. They want to be free to babble mindless puke from past ages, while using the benefits of quantum theory to do so.  Such as posting on this forum.

Fuck 'em.

Couldn't agree with you more on all points with the only exception being your comment regarding time.

The difference between me and BADecker though, is I'm open to discussion about other possibilities and if offered up enough reproducible evidence will change my stance and admit when I'm wrong. 

Reproducible evidence? Science doesn't have a start towards reproducible evidence regarding a factual Big Bang. When are you going to start to be open to other possibilities as you said?

[Buffer Overflow]

There are 4 major Black Hole Theories. None of these theories are compatible with each other. But the important thing is, none of the Black Hole theories could work inside any of the Big Bang universes.

God works in mysterious ways.

There are 3 major Big Bang Theories that are all different. None of these Big Bang Theories are compatible with each other.

God works in mysterious ways.

[TooQik]

....

So in simple maths terms....

Earth's creation + unknown period + 6000 (or 6200 years) = Unknown

The difference between a scientific explanation and your explanation is that the scientific one recognizes and allows for a margin of error, as you yourself have pointed out, while you are unable to accept that your own also has a margin of error, although your margin is an unknown quantity rather than a margin born out of reproducible physical testing.

I know that the above will mean nothing to you and that you will attempt to teach me the error of my ways by making self referencing or circular arguments as to the legitimacy of the Bible, so knock yourself out - figuratively speaking of course.  

And for the record, I agree with Spendulus's post above and like Tyrantt I also believe that time does not exist other than as a construct of man, so when I say years above I'm referring to the passage of the Earth around the Sun.

A reasonable hypocrite of a Christian would agree with you, of course.

Personally I think the understanding of stellar evolution is well established.  Stars burn until they are rich in heavier elements, and when iron predominates, fusion starts to end and they implode and supernova.  A couple cycles of that is what results in planets with "elements" and that's why the universe is 13+ billion years, while the Earth and it's moon are about 4 billion.

As for time, there would clearly be a a lower limit based on quantum theory, a smallest possible and fixed unit of time.   

Anyone who wants to argue these issues should reject their computers and their cell phones, because those could not exist without man's understanding of these issues. 

But they want it both ways. They want to be free to babble mindless puke from past ages, while using the benefits of quantum theory to do so.  Such as posting on this forum.

Fuck 'em.

Couldn't agree with you more on all points with the only exception being your comment regarding time.

The difference between me and BADecker though, is I'm open to discussion about other possibilities and if offered up enough reproducible evidence will change my stance and admit when I'm wrong. 

Reproducible evidence? Science doesn't have a start towards reproducible evidence regarding a factual Big Bang. When are you going to start to be open to other possibilities as you said?

Just because I don't agree with your specific version of events does not mean I'm closed to other ideas or possibilities. The difference is that I don't choose to believe something simply because someone says it to be true.

You have your faith and that's great, but you're a blind believer and that makes you blind to anything but your own opinion and no number of presented facts, arguments or proof can sway you from you belief. The irony is that in your eyes anyone who doesn't agree with you is the one who isn't open.

If someone were able to produce enough evidence to demonstrate the existence of a Supreme Being then yes I would change my stance, but I'm yet to see any actual evidence that supports one.