How old is earth

[umairsaleem011]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

Consensus among scientists from different fields of studies says that the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years.
But it's not that I "think", you cannot "guess" the age of the world. You need evidence. it's the result of measures done by hundreds of scientists, with hundreds of experiments. And they are all consistent with each other (minus the margin of error stated before).

The scientific model is based on the idea that certain things in the universe have been going on throughout all time, similarly as they are going on today. Take carbon dating, for example.

Carbon dating is based on the idea that the C-14 content on earth, in the atmosphere, has been relatively the same for at least hundreds of thousands of years. But nobody knows that this is the fact. If the amount of C-14 forming, has been increasing very slowly over the years - so slowly that nobody could see or measure the increase -  there is the potential that there was little to no C-14 back beyond 5,000 years ago. This would mean that carbon dating numbers are extremely far off... by as much as millions or billions of years. And this kind of mistaken thinking is the same kind that permeates virtually all of the scientific thinking on the dating subject.

The furthest science can go back with any accuracy at all is about 4,500 years. And even this is shaky. It is based on dating pottery and buildings from the distant past. Comparing the writings of ancient peoples and nations from beyond 3,000 years ago shows discrepancies in the writings that indicate that we don't know how to read dead languages correctly, or else the people of those days wrote historical fiction like we write science fiction today.

On the other hand, Moses lived and wrote 3,500 to 3,600 years ago. He had been a prince of Egypt, with access to whatever writings this great nation had back then. We can trust his writings because of the stubbornness of ancient Israel. This stubbornness is born out in the writings of the scribes of Israel. Bible books from the Dead Sea scrolls of over 2,000 years ago, are essentially the same as they are in our modern Bibles.

This means that we can place faith in the things that Moses wrote for us in the first 5 books of the Bible, way more than we can place faith in the writings of today's scientists. In fact, today's scientists tell us right in their writings that they are actually guessing as to the age of things.

The point is, the earth and universe are less than 7,000 years old, and probably only 6,200 years old. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm for how this is calculated out in the Bible. If the universe is much older than 6,200 years, the age cannot be calculated, because time and the space-time continuum operated differently before that time.

Wow this is some good bullshit right here lol. So  if the Universe is 7000 years old how do you explain the fact that there is light that we see from other stars that took longer than 7, 000 years to reach us. (on that note your entire creationist blog that you just wrote for us has been debunked)

the point is science is more than just carbon dating alone, its carbon dating combined with multiple other sciences that we base our facts on. Science facts do not get formed from people inferring things after only viewing  one piece of scientific evidence, that is what you just did and accused scientists of doing. (pot calling the kettle black over here)

[Gutembergin]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

Consensus among scientists from different fields of studies says that the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years.
But it's not that I "think", you cannot "guess" the age of the world. You need evidence. it's the result of measures done by hundreds of scientists, with hundreds of experiments. And they are all consistent with each other (minus the margin of error stated before).

The scientific model is based on the idea that certain things in the universe have been going on throughout all time, similarly as they are going on today. Take carbon dating, for example.

Carbon dating is based on the idea that the C-14 content on earth, in the atmosphere, has been relatively the same for at least hundreds of thousands of years. But nobody knows that this is the fact. If the amount of C-14 forming, has been increasing very slowly over the years - so slowly that nobody could see or measure the increase -  there is the potential that there was little to no C-14 back beyond 5,000 years ago. This would mean that carbon dating numbers are extremely far off... by as much as millions or billions of years. And this kind of mistaken thinking is the same kind that permeates virtually all of the scientific thinking on the dating subject.

The furthest science can go back with any accuracy at all is about 4,500 years. And even this is shaky. It is based on dating pottery and buildings from the distant past. Comparing the writings of ancient peoples and nations from beyond 3,000 years ago shows discrepancies in the writings that indicate that we don't know how to read dead languages correctly, or else the people of those days wrote historical fiction like we write science fiction today.

On the other hand, Moses lived and wrote 3,500 to 3,600 years ago. He had been a prince of Egypt, with access to whatever writings this great nation had back then. We can trust his writings because of the stubbornness of ancient Israel. This stubbornness is born out in the writings of the scribes of Israel. Bible books from the Dead Sea scrolls of over 2,000 years ago, are essentially the same as they are in our modern Bibles.

This means that we can place faith in the things that Moses wrote for us in the first 5 books of the Bible, way more than we can place faith in the writings of today's scientists. In fact, today's scientists tell us right in their writings that they are actually guessing as to the age of things.

The point is, the earth and universe are less than 7,000 years old, and probably only 6,200 years old. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm for how this is calculated out in the Bible. If the universe is much older than 6,200 years, the age cannot be calculated, because time and the space-time continuum operated differently before that time.

Wow this is some good bullshit right here lol. So  if the Universe is 7000 years old how do you explain the fact that there is light that we see from other stars that took longer than 7, 000 years to reach us. (on that note your entire creationist blog that you just wrote for us has been debunked)

the point is science is more than just carbon dating alone, its carbon dating combined with multiple other sciences that we base our facts on. Science facts do not get formed from people inferring things after only viewing  one piece of scientific evidence, that is what you just did and accused scientists of doing. (pot calling the kettle black over here)

What about Snow ice?, which is yet another very accurate form of dating things or also Layers in sediment. Creationists use the same tricks over and over. They try and focus on one point and make it sound like the facts are derived from that point alone. Its nothing new here...

[Spendulus]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

Consensus among scientists from different fields of studies says that the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years.
But it's not that I "think", you cannot "guess" the age of the world. You need evidence. it's the result of measures done by hundreds of scientists, with hundreds of experiments. And they are all consistent with each other (minus the margin of error stated before).

The scientific model is based on the idea that certain things in the universe have been going on throughout all time, similarly as they are going on today. Take carbon dating, for example.

Carbon dating is based on the idea that the C-14 content on earth, in the atmosphere, has been relatively the same for at least hundreds of thousands of years. But nobody knows that this is the fact. If the amount of C-14 forming, has been increasing very slowly over the years - so slowly that nobody could see or measure the increase -  there is the potential that there was little to no C-14 back beyond 5,000 years ago. This would mean that carbon dating numbers are extremely far off... by as much as millions or billions of years. And this kind of mistaken thinking is the same kind that permeates virtually all of the scientific thinking on the dating subject.

The furthest science can go back with any accuracy at all is about 4,500 years. And even this is shaky. It is based on dating pottery and buildings from the distant past. Comparing the writings of ancient peoples and nations from beyond 3,000 years ago shows discrepancies in the writings that indicate that we don't know how to read dead languages correctly, or else the people of those days wrote historical fiction like we write science fiction today.

On the other hand, Moses lived and wrote 3,500 to 3,600 years ago. He had been a prince of Egypt, with access to whatever writings this great nation had back then. We can trust his writings because of the stubbornness of ancient Israel. This stubbornness is born out in the writings of the scribes of Israel. Bible books from the Dead Sea scrolls of over 2,000 years ago, are essentially the same as they are in our modern Bibles.

This means that we can place faith in the things that Moses wrote for us in the first 5 books of the Bible, way more than we can place faith in the writings of today's scientists. In fact, today's scientists tell us right in their writings that they are actually guessing as to the age of things.

The point is, the earth and universe are less than 7,000 years old, and probably only 6,200 years old. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm for how this is calculated out in the Bible. If the universe is much older than 6,200 years, the age cannot be calculated, because time and the space-time continuum operated differently before that time.

Wow this is some good bullshit right here lol. So  if the Universe is 7000 years old how do you explain the fact that there is light that we see from other stars that took longer than 7, 000 years to reach us. (on that note your entire creationist blog that you just wrote for us has been debunked)

the point is science is more than just carbon dating alone, its carbon dating combined with multiple other sciences that we base our facts on. Science facts do not get formed from people inferring things after only viewing  one piece of scientific evidence, that is what you just did and accused scientists of doing. (pot calling the kettle black over here)

What about Snow ice?, which is yet another very accurate form of dating things or also Layers in sediment. Creationists use the same tricks over and over. They try and focus on one point and make it sound like the facts are derived from that point alone. Its nothing new here...

There's sedimentary rock, as another example.  How does it form?  How long does it take?

Another is gold.  It takes millions of years to form veins of gold in rock.  How does that happen?

Geological processes are fascinating.

Then there are the processes on the moon.  They are very different than those on earth.  They are a simple, direct sort of proof of the age of the Earth/Moon system.

[notbatman]

... ...

Wow this is some good bullshit right here lol. So  if the Universe is 7000 years old how do you explain the fact that there is light that we see from other stars that took longer than 7, 000 years to reach us. (on that note your entire creationist blog that you just wrote for us has been debunked)

the point is science is more than just carbon dating alone, its carbon dating combined with multiple other sciences that we base our facts on. Science facts do not get formed from people inferring things after only viewing  one piece of scientific evidence, that is what you just did and accused scientists of doing. (pot calling the kettle black over here)

The Sun, Moon, Black-Sun, planets and stars are all small, close objects under an artificial steel dome with a 3,000 mile high ceiling. The Earth is flat and you've been brainwashed by the globalist elite.

... ...

There's sedimentary rock, as another example.  How does it form?  How long does it take?

Another is gold.  It takes millions of years to form veins of gold in rock.  How does that happen?

Geological processes are fascinating.

Then there are the processes on the moon.  They are very different than those on earth.  They are a simple, direct sort of proof of the age of the Earth/Moon system.

All rocks, metals and minerals started off as silicon life, giant trees, mushrooms, plants and animals. The Earth was built from a giant forest that was cut down.


Also I'm sure we gone over this before but, the Moon is made of cheese a 32 mile wide light, nobody goes there.

[BADecker]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

Consensus among scientists from different fields of studies says that the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years.
But it's not that I "think", you cannot "guess" the age of the world. You need evidence. it's the result of measures done by hundreds of scientists, with hundreds of experiments. And they are all consistent with each other (minus the margin of error stated before).

The scientific model is based on the idea that certain things in the universe have been going on throughout all time, similarly as they are going on today. Take carbon dating, for example.

Carbon dating is based on the idea that the C-14 content on earth, in the atmosphere, has been relatively the same for at least hundreds of thousands of years. But nobody knows that this is the fact. If the amount of C-14 forming, has been increasing very slowly over the years - so slowly that nobody could see or measure the increase -  there is the potential that there was little to no C-14 back beyond 5,000 years ago. This would mean that carbon dating numbers are extremely far off... by as much as millions or billions of years. And this kind of mistaken thinking is the same kind that permeates virtually all of the scientific thinking on the dating subject.

The furthest science can go back with any accuracy at all is about 4,500 years. And even this is shaky. It is based on dating pottery and buildings from the distant past. Comparing the writings of ancient peoples and nations from beyond 3,000 years ago shows discrepancies in the writings that indicate that we don't know how to read dead languages correctly, or else the people of those days wrote historical fiction like we write science fiction today.

On the other hand, Moses lived and wrote 3,500 to 3,600 years ago. He had been a prince of Egypt, with access to whatever writings this great nation had back then. We can trust his writings because of the stubbornness of ancient Israel. This stubbornness is born out in the writings of the scribes of Israel. Bible books from the Dead Sea scrolls of over 2,000 years ago, are essentially the same as they are in our modern Bibles.

This means that we can place faith in the things that Moses wrote for us in the first 5 books of the Bible, way more than we can place faith in the writings of today's scientists. In fact, today's scientists tell us right in their writings that they are actually guessing as to the age of things.

The point is, the earth and universe are less than 7,000 years old, and probably only 6,200 years old. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm for how this is calculated out in the Bible. If the universe is much older than 6,200 years, the age cannot be calculated, because time and the space-time continuum operated differently before that time.

Wow this is some good bullshit right here lol. So  if the Universe is 7000 years old how do you explain the fact that there is light that we see from other stars that took longer than 7, 000 years to reach us. (on that note your entire creationist blog that you just wrote for us has been debunked)

the point is science is more than just carbon dating alone, its carbon dating combined with multiple other sciences that we base our facts on. Science facts do not get formed from people inferring things after only viewing  one piece of scientific evidence, that is what you just did and accused scientists of doing. (pot calling the kettle black over here)

Parable: When a car manufacture builds a car, what does he do? He builds the parts and puts them together. It isn't a car until it is completely built. Until it is finished, it is just a compilation of parts.



As far as light from other stars...
When you examine standard understanding of fossilization, the standard minimum time that it takes to fossilize something is 10,000 years in the understanding of science. But, you will find all kinds of records of things and people that have fossilized in well under 100 years... if you look for them.

The point? Science doesn't know how fossilization works. And they definitely don't know how it worked in the past. So, why would they know how light worked in the past? Even now there is strong evidence - maybe even proof - that light isn't the constant that has long been thought. Research it.



Cause and effect probably is NOT the greatest law of nature. But it absolutely is a very penetrating one. It is seen all over the place, and there is no evidence of something that does not owe its existence to cause and effect. Yet, we have no evidence whatsoever of something that started cause and effect to begin.

Does there have to be a beginning to cause and effect? Yes! Entropy is a law that is possibly more penetrating than cause and effect. If there were no beginning, entropy would have dissipated all things into a massive, "equilibrium" of what?... long ago. There would be almost absolutely no complexity at all.

Big Bang? BB is theory that only suggests something. Such a thing as BB might have any number of things that could have effected the theory to make it nonsense... things which are not taken into account. After all, there are at least 3 BB Theories that are different from each other in subtle ways.

The point? Because we don't know what happened in the past scientifically, we don't know which things were true in the past and which weren't.



The Bible record is the best record of the past that we have. Why? It is conscientiously written and copied records of people who were there. Study it, and the nation of Israel, and see what sticklers for perfection the people of Israel are and were, especially for copying the Bible record perfectly.

[carlisle1]

As i wasn't there to see its birth i dunno. The odds of it being more than 6000 years old are really really high imo.

Isn't the 6.000 years old refers to how old is the bible ? I think if would calculate the age of earth scientifically it would be more than 6.000 years since the time that earth was made .

[BADecker]

As i wasn't there to see its birth i dunno. The odds of it being more than 6000 years old are really really high imo.

Isn't the 6.000 years old refers to how old is the bible ? I think if would calculate the age of earth scientifically it would be more than 6.000 years since the time that earth was made .

So-called scientific calculations about the age of the earth are science fiction.

[malikusama]

Earth is 6.1 billion years old according to numerical values in Quran. As a muslim i believe Quranic figure but according to science it is 4.54 billion years old. So its up to your belief.

[Leprikon]

It seems to me that the age of the Earth several billion years. 6000 years is very little to evolve from unicellular to man

[BADecker]

It seems to me that the age of the Earth several billion years. 6000 years is very little to evolve from unicellular to man

Evolution is probability math impossible - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0.

[TooQik]

It seems to me that the age of the Earth several billion years. 6000 years is very little to evolve from unicellular to man

Evolution is probability math impossible - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0.

If evolution is mathematically impossible how do you explain the mutation of flu viruses as detailed here: http://jvi.asm.org/content/80/7/3675.full ?

[BADecker]

It seems to me that the age of the Earth several billion years. 6000 years is very little to evolve from unicellular to man

Evolution is probability math impossible - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0.

If evolution is mathematically impossible how do you explain the mutation of flu viruses as detailed here: http://jvi.asm.org/content/80/7/3675.full ?

Part of the explanation is the definition of the word "evolution." Another part is that the so-called mutations are programmed in.

I have not clicked the link. I am not going to go into details of something without first looking at the basics. The basics of everything is cause and effect, as upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even so-called mutations are cause and effect brought into being.

Cause and effect acts like programming. Programming means a programmer. Because of the size and complexity of the universe (wherein we see nothing but cause and effect programming), the Programmer of the universe must be very great. Such a Programmer matches our definition of the word "God." In fact, our definition of "God" does not do Him nearly enough justice to honor Him correctly and properly. He is far greater than our definition of Him says or implies.

[TooQik]

It seems to me that the age of the Earth several billion years. 6000 years is very little to evolve from unicellular to man

Evolution is probability math impossible - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0.

If evolution is mathematically impossible how do you explain the mutation of flu viruses as detailed here: http://jvi.asm.org/content/80/7/3675.full ?

Part of the explanation is the definition of the word "evolution." Another part is that the so-called mutations are programmed in.

I have not clicked the link. I am not going to go into details of something without first looking at the basics. The basics of everything is cause and effect, as upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even so-called mutations are cause and effect brought into being.

Cause and effect acts like programming. Programming means a programmer. Because of the size and complexity of the universe (wherein we see nothing but cause and effect programming), the Programmer of the universe must be very great. Such a Programmer matches our definition of the word "God." In fact, our definition of "God" does not do Him nearly enough justice to honor Him correctly and properly. He is far greater than our definition of Him says or implies.

So in essence what you're saying is that everything in the universe has been programmed (by your God) to allow it to change and become something else ie evolve. I'm still missing the part where mathematics proves that evolution isn't possible.

The underlying message in all your posts is that humans don't contain the necessary intelligence to be able to explain the workings, what you call "God's machines", of the universe, yet you make references to human studies to back up your statements eg. Newton's third law. If everything is cause and effect, then what cause effected your God into existence? And if something effected your God into existence, isn't it possible that this same cause effected the universe into existence? Alternatively, if your God simply existed from the start, then isn't it also possible that the universe always existed from the start?

[BADecker]

It seems to me that the age of the Earth several billion years. 6000 years is very little to evolve from unicellular to man

Evolution is probability math impossible - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0.

If evolution is mathematically impossible how do you explain the mutation of flu viruses as detailed here: http://jvi.asm.org/content/80/7/3675.full ?

Part of the explanation is the definition of the word "evolution." Another part is that the so-called mutations are programmed in.

I have not clicked the link. I am not going to go into details of something without first looking at the basics. The basics of everything is cause and effect, as upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even so-called mutations are cause and effect brought into being.

Cause and effect acts like programming. Programming means a programmer. Because of the size and complexity of the universe (wherein we see nothing but cause and effect programming), the Programmer of the universe must be very great. Such a Programmer matches our definition of the word "God." In fact, our definition of "God" does not do Him nearly enough justice to honor Him correctly and properly. He is far greater than our definition of Him says or implies.

So in essence what you're saying is that everything in the universe has been programmed (by your God) to allow it to change and become something else ie evolve. I'm still missing the part where mathematics proves that evolution isn't possible.

Not exactly. Everything in the universe is programmed by God over all.

The definition of "evolve" includes various ideas. Mutations don't happen because of the programming. The only reason mutations appear to happen is because we don't understand the programming.

Roll the dice, toss the coin, look at the odds. The odds against non-programmed change in life are so extremely great that such change is impossible.

The underlying message in all your posts is that humans don't contain the necessary intelligence to be able to explain the workings, what you call "God's machines", of the universe, yet you make references to human studies to back up your statements eg. Newton's third law. If everything is cause and effect, then what cause effected your God into existence? And if something effected your God into existence, isn't it possible that this same cause effected the universe into existence? Alternatively, if your God simply existed from the start, then isn't it also possible that the universe always existed from the start?

Everything that we know in the universe comes about through cause and effect. Science has for years been looking for something that proves pure random (which is the opposite of cause and effect). They have not been able to find anything that is pure random. So they have twisted their theories into "odds-things," just so that they can say that probability strongly suggests that pure random is true, and therefore it is true. However, they don't quite say it directly, yet. They simply imply that their odds are the thing that is the reality when it is not.

Part of the point in all this is that science says that it is looking for the truth. Everything in nature that we understand points towards God via cause and effect. So, why is it that science wants to ignore the obvious, and instead try to twist it into something that it is not? Shouldn't the reverse be the thing that they would do? Shouldn't they state right out in the open that cause and effect points towards the existence of God, and that they have been testing it out for decades but haven't been able to find anything to refute it and God's existence? Do they really want truth and fact after all? Or are they simply liars?

The universe had a beginning as expressed by entropy and complexity. God made the beginning. In order to begin the universe, God must at least be outside of it in part. We can't even conceive what being outside of the universe must be like, since we are so attached to the universe. So, how in the world are we going to be able to calculate anything about God except if He tells us?

[TooQik]

Another part is that the so-called mutations are programmed in.

Mutations don't happen because of the programming. The only reason mutations appear to happen is because we don't understand the programming.

So which is it? Are mutations part of the programming or not? You're either arguing against yourself or lack the ability to convey your true meaning.

Everything that we know in the universe comes about through cause and effect. Science has for years been looking for something that proves pure random (which is the opposite of cause and effect). They have not been able to find anything that is pure random. So they have twisted their theories into "odds-things," just so that they can say that probability strongly suggests that pure random is true, and therefore it is true. However, they don't quite say it directly, yet. They simply imply that their odds are the thing that is the reality when it is not.

Part of the point in all this is that science says that it is looking for the truth. Everything in nature that we understand points towards God via cause and effect. So, why is it that science wants to ignore the obvious, and instead try to twist it into something that it is not? Shouldn't the reverse be the thing that they would do? Shouldn't they state right out in the open that cause and effect points towards the existence of God, and that they have been testing it out for decades but haven't been able to find anything to refute it and God's existence? Do they really want truth and fact after all? Or are they simply liars?

The universe had a beginning as expressed by entropy and complexity. God made the beginning. In order to begin the universe, God must at least be outside of it in part. We can't even conceive what being outside of the universe must be like, since we are so attached to the universe. So, how in the world are we going to be able to calculate anything about God except if He tells us?

You keep raising cause and effect as a reason a God must exist but yet you fail to recognize that the same argument can be used against the existence of a God.

[BADecker]

Another part is that the so-called mutations are programmed in.

Mutations don't happen because of the programming. The only reason mutations appear to happen is because we don't understand the programming.

So which is it? Are mutations part of the programming or not? You're either arguing against yourself or lack the ability to convey your true meaning.

Do you have eyes, but fail to see? Or can't you read? Or don't you have any reading comprehension at all?

Look at my statement that you quoted, below, right under this that I am saying right here: "Everything that we know in the universe comes about through cause and effect." Not just almost everything. Rather EVERYTHING... even the causes are effects of prior causes. This says PROGRAMMING.

Everything that we know in the universe comes about through cause and effect. Science has for years been looking for something that proves pure random (which is the opposite of cause and effect). They have not been able to find anything that is pure random. So they have twisted their theories into "odds-things," just so that they can say that probability strongly suggests that pure random is true, and therefore it is true. However, they don't quite say it directly, yet. They simply imply that their odds are the thing that is the reality when it is not.

Part of the point in all this is that science says that it is looking for the truth. Everything in nature that we understand points towards God via cause and effect. So, why is it that science wants to ignore the obvious, and instead try to twist it into something that it is not? Shouldn't the reverse be the thing that they would do? Shouldn't they state right out in the open that cause and effect points towards the existence of God, and that they have been testing it out for decades but haven't been able to find anything to refute it and God's existence? Do they really want truth and fact after all? Or are they simply liars?

The universe had a beginning as expressed by entropy and complexity. God made the beginning. In order to begin the universe, God must at least be outside of it in part. We can't even conceive what being outside of the universe must be like, since we are so attached to the universe. So, how in the world are we going to be able to calculate anything about God except if He tells us?

You keep raising cause and effect as a reason a God must exist but yet you fail to recognize that the same argument can be used against the existence of a God.

And you fail to show any reasoning why you think that cause and effect has to apply to a God that exists outside of this cause and effect universe, especially considering that there was no cause and effect in existence before God made it specifically for this universe.

[Nowl1935]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

My point of view was nobody knows how old earth is. We must remember that Earth was created without any human in that time. Human was created after the earth has been fully launch in the universe. That time there no any technology on earth. So there no exact information about the age of Earth, everything that we will heard or read is just an assumption.

[iqlimasyadiqa]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

My point of view was nobody knows how old earth is. We must remember that Earth was created without any human in that time. Human was created after the earth has been fully launch in the universe. That time there no any technology on earth. So there no exact information about the age of Earth, everything that we will heard or read is just an assumption.

strength and human intelligence will not be able to measure the exact age of the earth. the power of the human brain has not been able to do so. humans have limitations and age of the earth is not possible to predict.

[TooQik]

Another part is that the so-called mutations are programmed in.

Mutations don't happen because of the programming. The only reason mutations appear to happen is because we don't understand the programming.

So which is it? Are mutations part of the programming or not? You're either arguing against yourself or lack the ability to convey your true meaning.

Do you have eyes, but fail to see? Or can't you read? Or don't you have any reading comprehension at all?

Look at my statement that you quoted, below, right under this that I am saying right here: "Everything that we know in the universe comes about through cause and effect." Not just almost everything. Rather EVERYTHING... even the causes are effects of prior causes. This says PROGRAMMING.

Hahahaha!!!! I point out a contradiction you make to seek clarification and you launch into personal insults. 

If you can't see that your two above statements (highlighted and underlined for emphasis) contradict each other then continuing any conversation with you is pointless as you're not the type of person who can admit when they make a mistake.

You keep raising cause and effect as a reason a God must exist but yet you fail to recognize that the same argument can be used against the existence of a God.

And you fail to show any reasoning why you think that cause and effect has to apply to a God that exists outside of this cause and effect universe, especially considering that there was no cause and effect in existence before God made it specifically for this universe.

The reasoning is quite simple, for your God to have been able to have been the "cause" to "effect" the universe into existence means that cause and effect exist in the realm where your God exists.

[notbatman]

Another part is that the so-called mutations are programmed in.

Mutations don't happen because of the programming. The only reason mutations appear to happen is because we don't understand the programming.

So which is it? Are mutations part of the programming or not? You're either arguing against yourself or lack the ability to convey your true meaning.

Do you have eyes, but fail to see? Or can't you read? Or don't you have any reading comprehension at all?

Look at my statement that you quoted, below, right under this that I am saying right here: "Everything that we know in the universe comes about through cause and effect." Not just almost everything. Rather EVERYTHING... even the causes are effects of prior causes. This says PROGRAMMING.

Hahahaha!!!! I point out a contradiction you make to seek clarification and you launch into personal insults. 

If you can't see that your two above statements (highlighted and underlined for emphasis) contradict each other then continuing any conversation with you is pointless as you're not the type of person who can admit when they make a mistake.

You keep raising cause and effect as a reason a God must exist but yet you fail to recognize that the same argument can be used against the existence of a God.

And you fail to show any reasoning why you think that cause and effect has to apply to a God that exists outside of this cause and effect universe, especially considering that there was no cause and effect in existence before God made it specifically for this universe.

The reasoning is quite simple, for your God to have been able to have been the "cause" to "effect" the universe into existence means that cause and effect exist in the realm where your God exists.

I'm willing to bet this man believes he's a direct descendant of a monkey living in a tree in Africa billions of years ago.