How Old Do You The Earth Is?

[amrchaos]

Just thought of something interesting.....


Even if Genesis was not actual truth, it does not undermine the viability of the original religion.

It only undermine the claim that the Bible is an accounting of literal truth.

I think the real problem arises when there are believers of the Bible as literal truth wishing others not to question its accuracy or authority. But that should be an automatic response to anyone introduced to the Bible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh I don't have to rely on Wiki, there are thousands of sites on the web that reference asteroids hitting the Earth. If I wasn't so bored with your weaseling ways I would go grab a NASA page that describes an asteroid collision with Earth. Your link's mention "Asteroids are generally larger chunks of rock that come from the asteroid belt located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter." says nothing about them striking the Earth or not." Again, do you even read your own submissions? I'm not even call you an idiot, Windbag.

There are thousands of sites that say asteroids hit the Earth? Did you know that there are also thousands of sites that say the Moon landings were fake? Does that somehow prove that no one ever walked on the moon?

Like I said, feel free to tell NASA they are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, now I'm BEGGING YOU, read up on evolution, PUUULLLLEEEAAASSSEEEEE!

Sigh.

I suggest you take your own advice.

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

All Species Evolved From Single Cell Study Finds

 

[Quantum Windbag]

????....are you another who has never considered the ramifications of what you claim to believe?....

Seriously though, nobody would ever claim that we have a common ancestor with a tree... except you. It's called a strawman argument and makes you look like you have no clue what evolution proposes. So PLEASE, get a clue.

I say it, so does just about every single scientist that studies evolution. If you don't believe me Google common descent and last universal ancestor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Um as a matter of fact, yes we do share at least some common ancestry with pine trees. As well as every other living thing on this planet. Personally I don't see why people like you find that notion ridiculous. I find it wondrous but it doesn't matter how I feel about it because there is evidence for it.

I have a question, if you are as unbiased as you claim why aren't you pointing out the the anti God crowd that they don't understand evolution when they argue that we do not share a common ancestor with every form of life on Earth?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the claim there is evidence for it is why I find it ridiculous......

There is evidence for it. It is not 100% conclusive because no one has charted the DNA of every single life form on the planet yet, but it does exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As usual, you announce your appalling lack of a science vocabulary.

Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

Damn, another idiot falling into the trap of thinking that natural selection is a guided process.

If you take the time to study math and random numbers you will discover something fascinating, if one part of your equation is random the result itself is always random. Natural selection is not a process that eliminates the random factor of evolution, it is simply a name for the result of that process. Basically, all it means is that some things live, and other things die.

Everything comes from something... a tree comes from a nut, a chicken comes from an egg, the universe came from the matter that was formed before the big bang, where did that matter come from? Obviously, this is a question that science endeavors to answer.

You must know something that no one else in the universe does.

FYI, no scientist believes that there was matter that formed before the Big Bang, but I do like to laugh at idiots that think they understand science when they try to explain it.

It's a question that terrifies fundamentalists because it's a direct challenge their creation myths. Even assuming that the evolutionary mechanism itself was designed by a formidable union of gawds, how do the fundies explain the sloppy, inefficient "designs" of their gawds. Why is it not perfect, i.e it must inevitably be as flawed and amateurish as the Gawds wanted it to be without the need for further intervention, and any 'chance' factors that might be involved. The gawds would have had perfect knowledge of their incompetent "design "

You mocking of my beliefs would work better if you understood science. It would work even better if you actually asked me what I believe.

If the mechanism itself is perfect, no subsequent tinkering in the form of 'intelligent design' would be necessary. Any occurance of that must demonstrate that the original design was not perfect, i.e that the gawds did not create it.

Because the only gawds that can possibly exist are the ones you insist do not, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Every so often science discovers a previously unknown organism. What they don't answer is whether the organism was always there and just discovered, or whether it evolved. A thousand years isn't nearly enough time for the evolution of anything. However it's not a thousand years, but the millions of years before that too.

Actually, new species can evolve in a very short period of time. In fact, science has actually documented it happening in much less than 1000 years.

 

[PostmodernProph]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

Of course, the issue you cannot reconcile is that evolutionary processes act on biological organisms over periods of billions of years, not less than 6,000 years.

150,000 year old AGW you say?....

Babbling?

How sad for you.

sorry.....first thing that comes to mind whenever you start babbling about 6000 year old earths......

 

[PostmodernProph]

the claim there is evidence for it is why I find it ridiculous......

There is evidence for it. It is not 100% conclusive because no one has charted the DNA of every single life form on the planet yet, but it does exist.

the fact all of creation shares common DNA would be proof of evolution of all creatures from a single life form ONLY if that were the only possible way they could share common DNA.......from my perspective it is evidence that all life forms were created by the same deity.....

 

[Hollie]

As usual, you announce your appalling lack of a science vocabulary.

Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

Damn, another idiot falling into the trap of thinking that natural selection is a guided process.

If you take the time to study math and random numbers you will discover something fascinating, if one part of your equation is random the result itself is always random. Natural selection is not a process that eliminates the random factor of evolution, it is simply a name for the result of that process. Basically, all it means is that some things live, and other things die.

Everything comes from something... a tree comes from a nut, a chicken comes from an egg, the universe came from the matter that was formed before the big bang, where did that matter come from? Obviously, this is a question that science endeavors to answer.

You must know something that no one else in the universe does.

FYI, no scientist believes that there was matter that formed before the Big Bang, but I do like to laugh at idiots that think they understand science when they try to explain it.

It's a question that terrifies fundamentalists because it's a direct challenge their creation myths. Even assuming that the evolutionary mechanism itself was designed by a formidable union of gawds, how do the fundies explain the sloppy, inefficient "designs" of their gawds. Why is it not perfect, i.e it must inevitably be as flawed and amateurish as the Gawds wanted it to be without the need for further intervention, and any 'chance' factors that might be involved. The gawds would have had perfect knowledge of their incompetent "design "

You mocking of my beliefs would work better if you understood science. It would work even better if you actually asked me what I believe.

If the mechanism itself is perfect, no subsequent tinkering in the form of 'intelligent design' would be necessary. Any occurance of that must demonstrate that the original design was not perfect, i.e that the gawds did not create it.

Because the only gawds that can possibly exist are the ones you insist do not, right?

My comments do not suggest that natural selection is a guided process. I argued against such a claim. You feel like an idiot now, right?

Secondly, you're babbling incoherently, Get it together.

Thirdly, You're obviously having difficulty with some very basic reading comprehension. You obviously don't speak on behalf of all scientists.

Lastly, I leave it to those who promote their versions of gawds to offer support for them.

If you need help with any of the above, raise your hand.

 

[Hollie]

the claim there is evidence for it is why I find it ridiculous......

There is evidence for it. It is not 100% conclusive because no one has charted the DNA of every single life form on the planet yet, but it does exist.

the fact all of creation shares common DNA would be proof of evolution of all creatures from a single life form ONLY if that were the only possible way they could share common DNA.......from my perspective it is evidence that all life forms were created by the same deity.....

Your supernatural deities should be fired for such incompetence and neglect in their "design".

 

[koshergrl]

Just thought of something interesting.....


Even if Genesis was not actual truth, it does not undermine the viability of the original religion.

It only undermine the claim that the Bible is an accounting of literal truth.

I think the real problem arises when there are believers of the Bible as literal truth wishing others not to question its accuracy or authority. But that should be an automatic response to anyone introduced to the Bible.

I have no problem at all with people questioning the veracity of the Bible as literal truth. MY irritation comes to the fore when they spout absolute NONSENSE and pretend it's "scientific fact". Hollie wouldn't know her eyeball from a scientific "fact". It's the overweening hubris despite the EXCESSIVE ignorance of the things they spout that annoys me. Not the fact that they question the bible. It's the fact that they assign stances to those of us who believe in the God of the bible, and then sneeringly argue against those stances and declare victory..when in fact, the stance they think they disproved is a complete fabrication on their part. It's the fact that they call the millions of Christians in the world who DO believe the bible, and who come from all walks of life and degrees of education, "ignorant" and "fundamentalist" and "extremist" when in fact they are none of those things. The ignorant, extremist zealots are the ones who jeer and lie about and at Christians, in an attempt to marginalize them, intimidate them, and injure them..with the ultimate goal of making it uncomfortable, unprofitable, and ultimately illegal for them to practice their religion. That's what I object to. I object to the fact that they will lie in order to demonize people who want nothing more than to be able to worship God in their own way...which way, incidentally, is not damaging or dangerous or illegal in this country for them to do.

 

[Hollie]

second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....

Of course, the issue you cannot reconcile is that evolutionary processes act on biological organisms over periods of billions of years, not less than 6,000 years.

150,000 year old AGW you say?....

Babbling?

How sad for you.

sorry.....first thing that comes to mind whenever you start babbling about 6000 year old earths......

Sorry..... You need to separate your views from the YEC'ist groupies. Even on those rare occasions when you can string words into more than one sentence, your views are not just similar to the Flat Earth crowd, they are identical.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Oh I don't have to rely on Wiki, there are thousands of sites on the web that reference asteroids hitting the Earth. If I wasn't so bored with your weaseling ways I would go grab a NASA page that describes an asteroid collision with Earth. Your link's mention "Asteroids are generally larger chunks of rock that come from the asteroid belt located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter." says nothing about them striking the Earth or not." Again, do you even read your own submissions? I'm not even call you an idiot, Windbag.

There are thousands of sites that say asteroids hit the Earth? Did you know that there are also thousands of sites that say the Moon landings were fake? Does that somehow prove that no one ever walked on the moon?

Like I said, feel free to tell NASA they are wrong.

Okay, let's stop fucking around, show me what Nasa says that disagrees with the OP or me, you haven't yet. Are you still on that "asteroids never hit the Earth" nonsense? Anyway put up or shut up about your NASA bullshit.

 

[amrchaos]

OK-- so the term "fundamentalists" or fundie is an insult to all Christians?

I thought fundamentalists was the label for Christians that took the Bible as literal truth. Of course, not all Christians do this. Many interpret parts of the Bible as allegory and not literal.

It seems that this produce similar moral personae, although the approach to the Biblical text is different.

Even so, if the term fundamentalists is insulting, then how about the term literalists?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My comments do not suggest that natural selection is a guided process. I argued against such a claim. You feel like an idiot now, right?

Secondly, you're babbling incoherently, Get it together.

Thirdly, You're obviously having difficulty with some very basic reading comprehension. You obviously don't speak on behalf of all scientists.

Lastly, I leave it to those who promote their versions of gawds to offer support for them.

If you need help with any of the above, raise your hand.

I think you should go back and reread what you posted. In fact let me help by pointing out exactly what I was addressing.

Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

In other words, despite your attempt to pretend you did not say something, you actually did. The entire process of evolution, from mutation to adaptation, is random.The only way to make any random process non random is if some sort of external intelligence steps in and makes a choice. In other words, you actually did say natural selection is guided, even if you don't know you did because your ignorance is so abundant that you refuse to understand the words you are saying.

The rest of your attempt to show you are more ignorant that the average moron is noted with the contempt it deserves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, let's stop fucking around, show me what Nasa says that disagrees with the OP or me, you haven't yet. Are you still on that "asteroids never hit the Earth" nonsense? Anyway put up or shut up about your NASA bullshit.

You should be aware that we aren't talking about the OP, oh he who can't think. I suggest you go back and reread this sub conversation before you make a complete idiot of yourself.

 

[Hollie]

My comments do not suggest that natural selection is a guided process. I argued against such a claim. You feel like an idiot now, right?

Secondly, you're babbling incoherently, Get it together.

Thirdly, You're obviously having difficulty with some very basic reading comprehension. You obviously don't speak on behalf of all scientists.

Lastly, I leave it to those who promote their versions of gawds to offer support for them.

If you need help with any of the above, raise your hand.

I think you should go back and reread what you posted. In fact let me help by pointing out exactly what I was addressing.

Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

In other words, despite your attempt to pretend you did not say something, you actually did. The entire process of evolution, from mutation to adaptation, is random.The only way to make any random process non random is if some sort of external intelligence steps in and makes a choice. In other words, you actually did say natural selection is guided, even if you don't know you did because your ignorance is so abundant that you refuse to understand the words you are saying.

The rest of your attempt to show you are more ignorant that the average moron is noted with the contempt it deserves.

In other words, you're having difficulty understanding what I wrote. I would have thought it was clear enough even for the dense, such as you.

You're so desperate to find a gap to squeegee your gawds into, you're reduced to inventing some silly hidden meaning in my clearly delineated comments.

Find someone else to thump with your gawds. You and your pretentious "contempt" are a laughable joke.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Okay, let's stop fucking around, show me what Nasa says that disagrees with the OP or me, you haven't yet. Are you still on that "asteroids never hit the Earth" nonsense? Anyway put up or shut up about your NASA bullshit.

You should be aware that we aren't talking about the OP, oh he who can't think. I suggest you go back and reread this sub conversation before you make a complete idiot of yourself.

All that reply tells me is you can't come up with anything to back-up your NASA name-dropping. As you seem to be in the running for "Digitally Deprived Dimwit of the Month" award I did some work for you. Here's a few bits from NASA sites re:Asteroids (And I assure you these sites do not claim Man never landed on the moon!)
LINK: NASA's "Asteroid Overview" site;

What do we do if we discover an Asteroid that may hit the Earth?

Although Hollywood has created some colorful methods for stopping an object that is on a collision path with Earth, no government agency, national or international, has been tasked or accepted the responsibility to stop such an asteroid, should one be discovered. But there have been a number of academic and some technical studies, not to mention numerous movies, on how a devastating asteroid impact might be avoided. Since asteroids outnumber comets 100 to 1 in the inner solar system, the asteroids, rather than comets, represent the majority of the nearer-term threat to our planet.
For the far more numerous asteroids that are smaller than a few hundred meters in diameter, if we have adequate early warning of several years to a decade, a weighted robotic spacecraft could be targeted to collide with the object, thereby modifying its velocity to nudge the trajectory just enough that the Earth impact would be avoided. The spacecraft navigation technology for impacting a small body was successfully demonstrated when the Deep Impact spacecraft purposely rammed comet Tempel 1 on July 4, 2005, to scientifically examine its composition.

LINK: Top 10 NASA Asteroid Factoids


1. Thanks to Asteroids ...
After the solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago, comets and asteroids hitting Earth probably carried water and carbon-based materials -- the building blocks of life - to our young planet. Once life formed, later collisions, like the asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, altered the evolution process. This created an environment where only the most adaptable species, such as mammals, evolved further. We humans likely owe our existence and current position atop the animal food chain to these space rocks.
8. A Diverse Population
Asteroids were once thought to be whirling rocks in space but they are actually diverse in structure and composition. At one end of the spectrum are weak asteroids, ones that were once comets. These asteroids have either run out of ices to vaporize -- and lost their comet-like activity -- or have entered a dormant period where none of their ices are exposed to sunlight. These space rocks are highly porous and relatively fragile. Then we have asteroids that appear to be piles of rubble in terms of their structure. The Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft's flyby of asteroid Mathilde in 1997 found this type of structure and so did Japan's Hayabusa spacecraft when it visited asteroid Itokawa in 2005. The NEAR spacecraft's rendezvous with asteroid Eros in 1999 to 2000 found a shattered rock structure, while the iron meteorites found around Arizona's Meteor Crater suggest that the impacting asteroid was solid nickel-iron. Talk about diversity!