How old is earth

[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.

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. 

I think that if light is well demonstrated to travel at a certain speed, then we have measurable amounts of time.  Similarly if there are minimum size movements of objects possible eg.  Plank's constant, then there should be a minimum unit of time, eg time is quantized.

But I could be wrong about that.

[BADecker]

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.

Now don't jump back and forth. You are confessing God here. So, don't jump back to suggesting that He doesn't exist. Why? God wants confession to His existence. He wants confession to faith in Him. He will not tolerate jumping back and forth.

[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?

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.

I understand how hard it can be to get down to the basics of what you know or believe, sometimes... and often when you are simply trying to express it. That's why you appear to be jumping around in the things you say rather than staying on topic.

As for blind believers with regard to the age of the earth, you will find enough unprovable theory and even "silly" theory, and enough contradiction among science and scientists, to show that accepting what they say is blind faith.

So, if you want to start to have knowledge, you can take the part of science that is fact, and see that God is proven to exist (in combining the laws of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy). God's existence is, also, shown in the machinery of nature. Since not much is shown about God in a simple look at nature, or in the science law that proves the existence of God, we need to seek God more fervently, if we want to find out things like how old the earth is.


Looking at this a little deeper, we can see that God appears to be love. How can we see this? We see it in the fact that the machinery of the body is so extremely complex that we cannot duplicate it. We can barely help it along a little in its operations of life. Yet it works quite well, and certainly in such a complex way that we don't understand it. And we have pleasure at times.

So, where does the body and life come from? Sure, scientists have their guesses in unproven, foolish evolution ideas. But the body is a gift from God. So, it seems, that even without God telling us directly through religion that He is love, we can see it simply through the nature He has made for us, and the body He has given us.

It isn't that God hasn't given us proof and evidence of Himself. It's simply that people don't want to believe the proof and evidence when it almost jumps right out at them.

[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.  

I think that if light is well demonstrated to travel at a certain speed, then we have measurable amounts of time.  Similarly if there are minimum size movements of objects possible eg.  Plank's constant, then there should be a minimum unit of time, eg time is quantized.

But I could be wrong about that.

In addition, when God "tossed" the universe into existence a little over 6,000 years ago, He also set the light in place between the planets and stars, so it looked like the light had been traveling a much longer time to get here. What it was, was, God simply, almost instantaneously, set everything in place, just as though it had always been this way.

Because of this, all looking at nature to understand the age of the earth won't work. Science that suggests otherwise is the religion.

[Buffer Overflow]

First, science proves God exists.

Science is guesswork.

 

[BADecker]

First, science proves God exists.

Science is guesswork.

 

Good work, Fluffer. Took you all day to take some things out of context just to prove how goofy you are, right?

Turn, now, while you still have a chance.

[awesome31312]

First, science proves God exists.

Science is guesswork.

 

Hahahahaha omg. Nice one, I'm saving this quote for a later date.

[notbatman]

Less than 10,000 years.

[groll]

Less than 10,000 years.

I am confused.  Science and Bible have different approach on telling how old are earth is.  But the only certain thing is we are alive right now.  Maybe we should focus on what we can do to help our mother Earth in keeping its reign by helping her to live more years.  We already become the mere reason why we keep her in danger.  The question of how old is the Earth would be good if it is gone already.  Let us leave that to the scientist to figure out how old it is.  But I want to believe on the simple explanation on the Bible. So yes, it is maybe less than 10,000 years.   

[notbatman]

Less than 10,000 years.

I am confused.  Science and Bible have different approach on telling how old are earth is.  But the only certain thing is we are alive right now.  Maybe we should focus on what we can do to help our mother Earth in keeping its reign by helping her to live more years.  We already become the mere reason why we keep her in danger.  The question of how old is the Earth would be good if it is gone already.  Let us leave that to the scientist to figure out how old it is.  But I want to believe on the simple explanation on the Bible. So yes, it is maybe less than 10,000 years.  

Free from the artificial limitations the yoke of establishment scientific dogma puts on the mind I look at the available facts and they tell a fantastic story not fit for the mind of a mind-controlled sex-slave/farm-animal. You must escape the black magic NASA has used on your mind if you're truly interested in the age of the Earth.

Be man not a lamb!


Bonus image:

[Gahs]

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.

Tyrantt, do not be a tyrant with your tongue.

It pays to always be polite... remember what mama said?

[Dahhi]

I have been following this thread and TooQik said something that caught my attention.

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.

TooQik, you are aware that 95% of the entire universe is made of something different from what we are made of, right?


Stars, Planets, asteroids, dust, animals, man etc. are made of visible matter... it can be seen, and touched.

95% of the remaining universe is made of black matter... matter that cannot be seen or touched, yet exists.


There is no vacuum in outer space, it is filled with dark matter and dark energy...

95% of the universe is not made of the same material we are made of.

Why do you think God must be of the same material that our body is made of?


Can anyone on this forum answer this question?

[yuiyuga]

The confrontation between science and religion is very stupid. Religious people call it God. For a man of science is a universe. But in reality, everything is much easier. All that has created us - it is not God, no universe.
It's just a coincidence.

[Dahhi]

You have not answered the question

[TooQik]

I have been following this thread and TooQik said something that caught my attention.

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.

TooQik, you are aware that 95% of the entire universe is made of something different from what we are made of, right?


Stars, Planets, asteroids, dust, animals, man etc. are made of visible matter... it can be seen, and touched.

95% of the remaining universe is made of black matter... matter that cannot be seen or touched, yet exists.


There is no vacuum in outer space, it is filled with dark matter and dark energy...

95% of the universe is not made of the same material we are made of.

Why do you think God must be of the same material that our body is made of?


Can anyone on this forum answer this question?

I personally believe that if we could break down everything in the universe, visible or not, into its smallest part we would find everything is made of the same basic element. Call this smallest element whatever you wish. Based on this, if a Supreme Being were to exist then he/she/it/they would be made from the same "stuff" as everything else, although I'm not sure where any of this fits in the discussion around the age of the Earth.

While I'm replying to this thread again, BADdecker's last reply to me is the same old "humans don't understand how nature works ergo this proves that a Supreme Being exists" argument. If mankind simply chose to believe this then we would not have much of the technology that has existed through out the ages, as we would have no curiosity to investigate how things work. So thank you free-will.

[Spendulus]

....

Stars, Planets, asteroids, dust, animals, man etc. are made of visible matter... it can be seen, and touched.

95% of the remaining universe is made of black matter... matter that cannot be seen or touched, yet exists.


There is no vacuum in outer space, it is filled with dark matter and dark energy...

95% of the universe is not made of the same material we are made of.

Why do you think God must be of the same material that our body is made of?


Can anyone on this forum answer this question?

Sure.   Dark matter and dark energy are not of interest in these respects.  And of course there is vacuum in outer space.  You show some misunderstandings, then try to make things even worse by bringing fictional constructs in such as "God."

Next, there is the question as to whether, if there were a "God" it would have to be constructed either of regular matter or dark matter.  This is a nonsensical question, since both are "part of this universe" and could not exist prior to it.

Pretty much without exception when people invoke physics and cosmology to prove a God, they get it all ridiculously wrong.

[BADecker]

I have been following this thread and TooQik said something that caught my attention.

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.

TooQik, you are aware that 95% of the entire universe is made of something different from what we are made of, right?


Stars, Planets, asteroids, dust, animals, man etc. are made of visible matter... it can be seen, and touched.

95% of the remaining universe is made of black matter... matter that cannot be seen or touched, yet exists.


There is no vacuum in outer space, it is filled with dark matter and dark energy...

95% of the universe is not made of the same material we are made of.

Why do you think God must be of the same material that our body is made of?


Can anyone on this forum answer this question?

I personally believe that if we could break down everything in the universe, visible or not, into its smallest part we would find everything is made of the same basic element. Call this smallest element whatever you wish. Based on this, if a Supreme Being were to exist then he/she/it/they would be made from the same "stuff" as everything else, although I'm not sure where any of this fits in the discussion around the age of the Earth.

While I'm replying to this thread again, BADdecker's last reply to me is the same old "humans don't understand how nature works ergo this proves that a Supreme Being exists" argument. If mankind simply chose to believe this then we would not have much of the technology that has existed through out the ages, as we would have no curiosity to investigate how things work. So thank you free-will.

Quite the opposite. The thing I am saying is, "humans know how enough laws of nature work to see that nature proves that God exists. Then they muddy the issue by making theories that are not laws, and treating them as laws, just to prove that God does not exist."

This isn't always the reason why humans make theories, of course. Often they make their theories to help them focus on finding things out. It is part of science.

The question is, why don't they even suggest that the laws of nature might prove that God exists? If they want theories, what better thing to do than make theories to attempt to prove God, since scientific laws, and the nature machine, both, at a bare minimum, suggest God exists?

[BADecker]

....

Stars, Planets, asteroids, dust, animals, man etc. are made of visible matter... it can be seen, and touched.

95% of the remaining universe is made of black matter... matter that cannot be seen or touched, yet exists.


There is no vacuum in outer space, it is filled with dark matter and dark energy...

95% of the universe is not made of the same material we are made of.

Why do you think God must be of the same material that our body is made of?


Can anyone on this forum answer this question?

Sure.   Dark matter and dark energy are not of interest in these respects.  And of course there is vacuum in outer space.  You show some misunderstandings, then try to make things even worse by bringing fictional constructs in such as "God."

Next, there is the question as to whether, if there were a "God" it would have to be constructed either of regular matter or dark matter.  This is a nonsensical question, since both are "part of this universe" and could not exist prior to it.

Pretty much without exception when people invoke physics and cosmology to prove a God, they get it all ridiculously wrong.

If there were a God, it would have to be constructed of things outside of anything we can understand. Why? Because we only understand things that obey laws in this universe. That is what we and our minds and "souls" are made of. Abstract thinking fails to be abstract enough to imagine outside of our universe.

God is at least partially from the outside. That's how He could create the universe. What thinking can imagine God reality-wise? That's part of the reason many people have such a difficult time accepting that He exists. Yet, the universe itself suggest nothing else, even though we don't really understand God at all.

[batousai23]

Cant you just google it instead of asking us how old the earth is?     Maybe more or less 10,000 years.  I guess.

[Xester]

Cant you just google it instead of asking us how old the earth is?     Maybe more or less 10,000 years.  I guess.

You asked him to just google it but still left a clever guess.  I agree with you about your estimate life of Earth.  That is according to theologians, people who studies about theology about God.  It is always contradict to scientist claims that it must be around million years old.