How Old Is The Earth?

[Boss]

The earth is 4,543 billion tears old until YOU can prove otherwise.

Even the scientists who estimate that number admit that it's an estimation.

Wow, that was TOO easy!

That's what you consider proof? No wonder you're not sure if you even exist.

Well, it's proof that the 4.543 billion number is not (and never was) an absolute value. It is an estimation based on our latest testing and evaluation. Prior to that, we had other testing and evaluation which predicted 110 million years and 20 million years. In the future, we could learn something we didn't previously know about radioactive decay testing, rendering the 4.543 billion number irrelevant and a new estimation will be made. Seems to be the natural progression of science all through history, no need to believe it suddenly changes with this one test.

I don't think I ever said I wasn't sure if I existed. I can't prove that I do but that doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs. Again, this seems to be your problem of conflating God with Science. You view me as someone standing up in your "church" and taking a big steaming dump on your dogma. This offends you so you attack me.

You see, I don't view Science the same way as you... it's not my God. I'm not compelled to have faith in it like you are. I can rationally accept that Science isn't always correct and we're always learning new things. You're a "religious fanatic" who clings to your belief and faith in Science. Time and time again, history has proven you to be a complete fool. ...Not that this was ever in any doubt.

 

[Mudda]

The earth is 4,543 billion tears old until YOU can prove otherwise.

Even the scientists who estimate that number admit that it's an estimation.

Wow, that was TOO easy!

That's what you consider proof? No wonder you're not sure if you even exist.

Well, it's proof that the 4.543 billion number is not (and never was) an absolute value. It is an estimation based on our latest testing and evaluation. Prior to that, we had other testing and evaluation which predicted 110 million years and 20 million years. In the future, we could learn something we didn't previously know about radioactive decay testing, rendering the 4.543 billion number irrelevant and a new estimation will be made. Seems to be the natural progression of science all through history, no need to believe it suddenly changes with this one test.

I don't think I ever said I wasn't sure if I existed. I can't prove that I do but that doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs. Again, this seems to be your problem of conflating God with Science. You view me as someone standing up in your "church" and taking a big steaming dump on your dogma. This offends you so you attack me.

You see, I don't view Science the same way as you... it's not my God. I'm not compelled to have faith in it like you are. I can rationally accept that Science isn't always correct and we're always learning new things. You're a "religious fanatic" who clings to your belief and faith in Science. Time and time again, history has proven you to be a complete fool. ...Not that this was ever in any doubt.

Just because some scientific theories evolve doesn't mean that the age of the earth is wrong. Your premise suffers an EPIC FAIL!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Considering the average life-span of the average Monkey, the earth is really fucking old and that's old enough.

Origins and after-life.

From where and from what do Monkeys come?

What happens to Monkey software when Monkey hardware inevitably dies?

​

The unanswerable questions on which ALL beliefs exist.





First generation to understand the right of every other Monkey to be wrong in what they believe about origins and after-life gets to watch their grand kids begin to explore the stars.

​

 

[Boss]

The earth is 4,543 billion tears old until YOU can prove otherwise.

Even the scientists who estimate that number admit that it's an estimation.

Wow, that was TOO easy!

That's what you consider proof? No wonder you're not sure if you even exist.

Well, it's proof that the 4.543 billion number is not (and never was) an absolute value. It is an estimation based on our latest testing and evaluation. Prior to that, we had other testing and evaluation which predicted 110 million years and 20 million years. In the future, we could learn something we didn't previously know about radioactive decay testing, rendering the 4.543 billion number irrelevant and a new estimation will be made. Seems to be the natural progression of science all through history, no need to believe it suddenly changes with this one test.

I don't think I ever said I wasn't sure if I existed. I can't prove that I do but that doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs. Again, this seems to be your problem of conflating God with Science. You view me as someone standing up in your "church" and taking a big steaming dump on your dogma. This offends you so you attack me.

You see, I don't view Science the same way as you... it's not my God. I'm not compelled to have faith in it like you are. I can rationally accept that Science isn't always correct and we're always learning new things. You're a "religious fanatic" who clings to your belief and faith in Science. Time and time again, history has proven you to be a complete fool. ...Not that this was ever in any doubt.

Just because some scientific theories evolve doesn't mean that the age of the earth is wrong. Your premise suffers an EPIC FAIL!

LMFAO... So your argument is, the age of earth has always been wrong until very recently when it was discovered to be precisely 4.539875 billion yrs old.... and it can therefore never be wrong again?

Oh... scientific theories evolve? LMFAO... that's a good one! Seriously, it is good to know you give your "fact" the ability to "evolve" into a completely different "fact" later on. I was afraid you weren't going to realize the conundrum you boxed yourself into there.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
4.539875 billion yrs old is simply a cyclical date - of a dubious origin.

how old is humanity, does that only include the birth date of one living individual or the date of those that preceded the present example ... the real origin of Earth is no different than that of an individuals ancestors.

.

 

[IsaacNewton]

For those who aren't sure about, just about everything, its ok. But don't project that out of your head. YOU aren't sure about anything. Facts don't penetrate your world. Your reality is unreality.

 

[BreezeWood]

For those who aren't sure about, just about everything, its ok. But don't project that out of your head. YOU aren't sure about anything. Facts don't penetrate your world. Your reality is unreality.

.


"sure", and drilling a hole in a rock is your answer for Earths origin ... science at its finest.

.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Considering the average life-span of the average Monkey, the earth is really fucking old and that's old enough.

Origins and after-life.

From where and from what do Monkeys come?

What happens to Monkey software when Monkey hardware inevitably dies?

​

The unanswerable questions on which ALL beliefs exist.





First generation to understand the right of every other Monkey to be wrong in what they believe about origins and after-life gets to watch their grand kids begin to explore the stars.

​

One cool thing... we know when Monkeys come from.


We come from then and exist in now. That's all there is.

`​

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Boss]

For those who aren't sure about, just about everything, its ok. But don't project that out of your head. YOU aren't sure about anything. Facts don't penetrate your world. Your reality is unreality.

It's not about assuredness. It's about what you and your Mudda are calling "facts" ...which he now admits can "evolve" with science. Those kind of "facts" are known as "facts of conventional wisdom" and science has been kicking their ass for 500 years. Oh, but you assumed you were on the side of science? Well, turns out, science can kick science's ass as well. When you exploit science to adopt a faith-based belief in a "fact" and stop practicing science, it doesn't stop doing what science does. Science continues to ponder, to ask questions, to examine the possibilities... all while you are busy believing in, and defending your fact. And one day you wake up to learn, science has discovered something that contradicts your "fact" and renders it obsolete.

Now... I can sit here like a brain dead idiot and pretend that Science already knows everything there is to know and won't ever learn anything new regarding the age of the planet... or I can choose to believe that science will continue to ponder questions and examine possibilities and perhaps discover something else.

It's interesting, and I think somewhat revealing that you indicate Science is supposed to give us something to be sure about. This can happen when people replace God with Science. You feel that Science has to fulfill your need to be certain. I don't have a problem with uncertainty. I understand that humans can't ever be certain. We can think we are but when it gets right down to it, faith is ultimately involved.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You are a troubled soul. You project out onto other people just mountains of your bizarre inner narrative.

Buh-bye.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

For those who aren't sure about, just about everything, its ok. But don't project that out of your head. YOU aren't sure about anything. Facts don't penetrate your world. Your reality is unreality.

It's not about assuredness. It's about what you and your Mudda are calling "facts" ...which he now admits can "evolve" with science. Those kind of "facts" are known as "facts of conventional wisdom" and science has been kicking their ass for 500 years. Oh, but you assumed you were on the side of science? Well, turns out, science can kick science's ass as well. When you exploit science to adopt a faith-based belief in a "fact" and stop practicing science, it doesn't stop doing what science does. Science continues to ponder, to ask questions, to examine the possibilities... all while you are busy believing in, and defending your fact. And one day you wake up to learn, science has discovered something that contradicts your "fact" and renders it obsolete.

Now... I can sit here like a brain dead idiot and pretend that Science already knows everything there is to know and won't ever learn anything new regarding the age of the planet... or I can choose to believe that science will continue to ponder questions and examine possibilities and perhaps discover something else.

It's interesting, and I think somewhat revealing that you indicate Science is supposed to give us something to be sure about. This can happen when people replace God with Science. You feel that Science has to fulfill your need to be certain. I don't have a problem with uncertainty. I understand that humans can't ever be certain. We can think we are but when it gets right down to it, faith is ultimately involved.

I haven't been able to figure out what your point is, if you have one.

My feeling, religious belief and scientific knowledge aren't mutually exclusive. You just have to be sufficiently open minded and knowledgeable enough to separate the real science from the mythology - things like evolution versus creationism. Sure, science can be imprecise - the age of the earth isn't known accurate to three decimal places. But it is safe to say the number is between 4.4 and 4.6, with near certainty.

And the fact that we can't explain things yet, like dark matter, doesn't make all of what we know wrong.

 

[Boss]

For those who aren't sure about, just about everything, its ok. But don't project that out of your head. YOU aren't sure about anything. Facts don't penetrate your world. Your reality is unreality.

It's not about assuredness. It's about what you and your Mudda are calling "facts" ...which he now admits can "evolve" with science. Those kind of "facts" are known as "facts of conventional wisdom" and science has been kicking their ass for 500 years. Oh, but you assumed you were on the side of science? Well, turns out, science can kick science's ass as well. When you exploit science to adopt a faith-based belief in a "fact" and stop practicing science, it doesn't stop doing what science does. Science continues to ponder, to ask questions, to examine the possibilities... all while you are busy believing in, and defending your fact. And one day you wake up to learn, science has discovered something that contradicts your "fact" and renders it obsolete.

Now... I can sit here like a brain dead idiot and pretend that Science already knows everything there is to know and won't ever learn anything new regarding the age of the planet... or I can choose to believe that science will continue to ponder questions and examine possibilities and perhaps discover something else.

It's interesting, and I think somewhat revealing that you indicate Science is supposed to give us something to be sure about. This can happen when people replace God with Science. You feel that Science has to fulfill your need to be certain. I don't have a problem with uncertainty. I understand that humans can't ever be certain. We can think we are but when it gets right down to it, faith is ultimately involved.

I haven't been able to figure out what your point is, if you have one.

My feeling, religious belief and scientific knowledge aren't mutually exclusive. You just have to be sufficiently open minded and knowledgeable enough to separate the real science from the mythology - things like evolution versus creationism. Sure, science can be imprecise - the age of the earth isn't known accurate to three decimal places. But it is safe to say the number is between 4.4 and 4.6, with near certainty.

And the fact that we can't explain things yet, like dark matter, doesn't make all of what we know wrong.

But the fact remains, before it was known with near certainty 4.4~4.6 billion, it was known to almost certainty 110~120 million. Before that, 20 million. Before that, 1 million. So on and so forth. Radiometric dating is relatively new... I don't dispute the validity but it's still relatively new science. I do know that these things have a way of turning out to be completely different than we once thought... how many times has that happened with science?

And while we're discussing the "4.4~4.6 billion" figure... it's interesting to note the samples used to come up with that age of Earth are... get this... not from the Earth! When we use the radiometric dating on Earth rocks we find they are nowhere near that old. The problem is, it's hard to find rocks still around from when the Earth began. So scientists reasoned, they could date a meteorite instead... because it is made of the same material as what their theory says formed the Earth.

No, the fact that we can't explain dark matter doesn't make all we know wrong, just some of what we thought we knew. And that is my whole point. We don't know all there is to know. We can never know truth, we can only have faith in it.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

No, the fact that we can't explain dark matter doesn't make all we know wrong, just some of what we thought we knew. And that is my whole point. We don't know all there is to know. We can never know truth, we can only have faith in it.

And that is my whole point. We don't know all there is to know.

On that we can agree

 

[Boss]

separate the real science from the mythology - things like evolution versus creationism.

Well, it seems obvious, if we are applying ages to things we must believe the universe began. If the universe began then something must have created it according to Newton's Law of Motion. Regardless of belief or disbelief in a deity, you still have to believe in creationism... the concept of initial creation.

Now, Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution from the late 1800s is mostly a fairy tale. The advent of gene technology and DNA pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for most of his work. But as spectacular as it was to spawn such a mass following of atheist scientists... it simply never was a valid explanation for origin of life. I've never understood why idiots say "Creation vs. Evolution" as if that's some valid argument. Creation deals with origin and Evolution deals with change.

But... I realize Darwin is like your Jesus in the Church of the Monkey. You believe his mythology of how everything living somehow defied the laws of thermodynamics (entropy) and managed to evolve into billions of forms, all inter-dependent on each other in a delicately balanced ecosystem.

The REAL science is discovering that we can change the properties of an atom by observing it.

 

[Mudda]

The earth is 4,543 billion tears old until YOU can prove otherwise.

Even the scientists who estimate that number admit that it's an estimation.

Wow, that was TOO easy!

That's what you consider proof? No wonder you're not sure if you even exist.

Well, it's proof that the 4.543 billion number is not (and never was) an absolute value. It is an estimation based on our latest testing and evaluation. Prior to that, we had other testing and evaluation which predicted 110 million years and 20 million years. In the future, we could learn something we didn't previously know about radioactive decay testing, rendering the 4.543 billion number irrelevant and a new estimation will be made. Seems to be the natural progression of science all through history, no need to believe it suddenly changes with this one test.

I don't think I ever said I wasn't sure if I existed. I can't prove that I do but that doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs. Again, this seems to be your problem of conflating God with Science. You view me as someone standing up in your "church" and taking a big steaming dump on your dogma. This offends you so you attack me.

You see, I don't view Science the same way as you... it's not my God. I'm not compelled to have faith in it like you are. I can rationally accept that Science isn't always correct and we're always learning new things. You're a "religious fanatic" who clings to your belief and faith in Science. Time and time again, history has proven you to be a complete fool. ...Not that this was ever in any doubt.

Just because some scientific theories evolve doesn't mean that the age of the earth is wrong. Your premise suffers an EPIC FAIL!

LMFAO... So your argument is, the age of earth has always been wrong until very recently when it was discovered to be precisely 4.539875 billion yrs old.... and it can therefore never be wrong again?

Oh... scientific theories evolve? LMFAO... that's a good one! Seriously, it is good to know you give your "fact" the ability to "evolve" into a completely different "fact" later on. I was afraid you weren't going to realize the conundrum you boxed yourself into there.

Evolve in the sense that descriptions change with new discoveries. But then again, I guess you are that dense not to have grasped the meaning of my phrase.
The age of the earth can be wrong, but only if you prove it to be wrong. Go for it.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

separate the real science from the mythology - things like evolution versus creationism.

Well, it seems obvious, if we are applying ages to things we must believe the universe began. If the universe began then something must have created it according to Newton's Law of Motion. Regardless of belief or disbelief in a deity, you still have to believe in creationism... the concept of initial creation.

Now, Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution from the late 1800s is mostly a fairy tale. The advent of gene technology and DNA pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for most of his work. But as spectacular as it was to spawn such a mass following of atheist scientists... it simply never was a valid explanation for origin of life. I've never understood why idiots say "Creation vs. Evolution" as if that's some valid argument. Creation deals with origin and Evolution deals with change.

But... I realize Darwin is like your Jesus in the Church of the Monkey. You believe his mythology of how everything living somehow defied the laws of thermodynamics (entropy) and managed to evolve into billions of forms, all inter-dependent on each other in a delicately balanced ecosystem.

The REAL science is discovering that we can change the properties of an atom by observing it.

You have now lapsed into fringe nonsense. I have no place with this kind of BS. You are now into babbling. See ya some other time. I'm outta here.

 

[Mudda]

You provide no substantive discussion and I've tried.

Well it's because you're a hard head who thinks he knows it all. If you had been around in Newton's day, you would have been the asshole who panned his theory of light and color because of your stubborn know-it-all attitude. White light was pure light... that's what Science said and you would have rejected anyone suggesting anything else.

We are all the time running into quandaries which challenge our conventional wisdom... things we thought were "scientific facts of physics" for centuries have to be revisited. It's not as correct as we thought. I haven't looked it up but I believe the current estimate of 4.563 billion years is a relatively new calculation. How do we know it is any more true than previous estimations? How do you know that the methods used are 100% reliable and there can be no chance of error? I mean... if you had a rock that was engraved with "I made this rock 4 billion years ago ~ Love God" And you tested that and sure enough, it turns out to be 4 billion years old... okay. But unless you have a known control variable, you are going to be estimating.

The tests done used radioactive decay methods... again, relatively new science within the last 70-80 years. Are you confident enough to think it's the best science humans will ever obtain?

Actually the opposite is true, you are the hardhead that clings to your beliefs. I have confidence that the smartest people on Earth for the last 150 years have figured a lot of this stuff out, have tested it by endless experimentation, and proven it sound. I rely on them.

You rely on 'who knows we'll never know anything for sure'. Which is bad for heart patients because all those heart surgeons are saving lives based on faulty conclusions.

We're done Newman, your thinking is a closed loop.

No, I am not the hardhead clinging to his beliefs. I admitted I am not certain about the age. You and your Mudda want to pound fists on the table like little Fascists and demand that I am wrong and you know precisely the age. But even the people you have so much FAITH in, admit that the number is an estimation.

Here's where I think our problem lies... You and your Mudda have replaced God with Science. You now worship at the alter of Science instead of God. This is why your faith in Science is so strong and it's difficult for you to accept your religion could be wrong. You get easily offended if someone challenges your doctrine.

You claim that we've tested it by endless experimentation, which is obviously untrue. If experimenting is endless it means it's still happening. No doubt there probably are some scientists still testing and experimenting with regard to the age of Earth... but why would they, if they knew for certain? You don't believe in endless testing... you believe testing ended the day someone proclaimed their estimate of 4.563 billion years, and now that is established fact.

I don't know what point you're getting at with the heart surgeon but it's a good thing you're not a heart surgeon. I would much rather have a heart surgeon who put his faith in God and not Science. I don't even want an atheist doctor of any kind. Especially not little self-important assholes who assume estimations are irrefutable gospel.

If you can prove that estimation wrong, you'd have a case. But aside from the margin of error that any dating method has, you have nothing. Agreed that is not an exact number down to the month, day, hour, and second, but nobody, to my knowledge claims that it is. I know I didn't. It's 4.543 billion years old within whatever margin of error their dating method has. Prove otherwise.

 

[Boss]

You provide no substantive discussion and I've tried.

Well it's because you're a hard head who thinks he knows it all. If you had been around in Newton's day, you would have been the asshole who panned his theory of light and color because of your stubborn know-it-all attitude. White light was pure light... that's what Science said and you would have rejected anyone suggesting anything else.

We are all the time running into quandaries which challenge our conventional wisdom... things we thought were "scientific facts of physics" for centuries have to be revisited. It's not as correct as we thought. I haven't looked it up but I believe the current estimate of 4.563 billion years is a relatively new calculation. How do we know it is any more true than previous estimations? How do you know that the methods used are 100% reliable and there can be no chance of error? I mean... if you had a rock that was engraved with "I made this rock 4 billion years ago ~ Love God" And you tested that and sure enough, it turns out to be 4 billion years old... okay. But unless you have a known control variable, you are going to be estimating.

The tests done used radioactive decay methods... again, relatively new science within the last 70-80 years. Are you confident enough to think it's the best science humans will ever obtain?

Actually the opposite is true, you are the hardhead that clings to your beliefs. I have confidence that the smartest people on Earth for the last 150 years have figured a lot of this stuff out, have tested it by endless experimentation, and proven it sound. I rely on them.

You rely on 'who knows we'll never know anything for sure'. Which is bad for heart patients because all those heart surgeons are saving lives based on faulty conclusions.

We're done Newman, your thinking is a closed loop.

No, I am not the hardhead clinging to his beliefs. I admitted I am not certain about the age. You and your Mudda want to pound fists on the table like little Fascists and demand that I am wrong and you know precisely the age. But even the people you have so much FAITH in, admit that the number is an estimation.

Here's where I think our problem lies... You and your Mudda have replaced God with Science. You now worship at the alter of Science instead of God. This is why your faith in Science is so strong and it's difficult for you to accept your religion could be wrong. You get easily offended if someone challenges your doctrine.

You claim that we've tested it by endless experimentation, which is obviously untrue. If experimenting is endless it means it's still happening. No doubt there probably are some scientists still testing and experimenting with regard to the age of Earth... but why would they, if they knew for certain? You don't believe in endless testing... you believe testing ended the day someone proclaimed their estimate of 4.563 billion years, and now that is established fact.

I don't know what point you're getting at with the heart surgeon but it's a good thing you're not a heart surgeon. I would much rather have a heart surgeon who put his faith in God and not Science. I don't even want an atheist doctor of any kind. Especially not little self-important assholes who assume estimations are irrefutable gospel.

If you can prove that estimation wrong, you'd have a case. But aside from the margin of error that any dating method has, you have nothing. Agreed that is not an exact number down to the month, day, hour, and second, but nobody, to my knowledge claims that it is. I know I didn't. It's 4.543 billion years old within whatever margin of error their dating method has. Prove otherwise.

Jeesh... I don't have to prove an estimate wrong to say it's possible that one day the estimate will prove to be wrong. You want to make the argument: Me claiming the Earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old and you claiming it is because of a test. But that is not the argument you and I are having. You are trying to say it is a "FACT" that the earth is X years old... even though you can't give us a precise time. I am saying something different than you... I am saying that we BELIEVE the earth is 4.5 billion years old, we don't KNOW it for certain and it is not a FACT. Our tests seem to indicate this but our tests can be wrong. Now... MY view is that of science and the scientific world. YOUR view is a faith-based view rooted in your religious dogma of science.

There is absolutely nothing in Science which states that Theory A must be disproved before Theory B can be considered. If this were a standard of Science, nothing would have ever been discovered by it. You see... Theories are very difficult to disprove since they haven't actually been proven in the first place.

Your first clue you were stepping of the reason train was when you said "if you can't prove the estimation wrong..." An estimation, by it's own definition, admits it is potentially wrong.

 

[Boss]

separate the real science from the mythology - things like evolution versus creationism.

Well, it seems obvious, if we are applying ages to things we must believe the universe began. If the universe began then something must have created it according to Newton's Law of Motion. Regardless of belief or disbelief in a deity, you still have to believe in creationism... the concept of initial creation.

Now, Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution from the late 1800s is mostly a fairy tale. The advent of gene technology and DNA pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for most of his work. But as spectacular as it was to spawn such a mass following of atheist scientists... it simply never was a valid explanation for origin of life. I've never understood why idiots say "Creation vs. Evolution" as if that's some valid argument. Creation deals with origin and Evolution deals with change.

But... I realize Darwin is like your Jesus in the Church of the Monkey. You believe his mythology of how everything living somehow defied the laws of thermodynamics (entropy) and managed to evolve into billions of forms, all inter-dependent on each other in a delicately balanced ecosystem.

The REAL science is discovering that we can change the properties of an atom by observing it.

You have now lapsed into fringe nonsense. I have no place with this kind of BS. You are now into babbling. See ya some other time. I'm outta here.

Sorry, but you are the one who believes in fringe nonsense. I believe in the laws of thermodynamics and entropy. That states, closed systems degrade and decline over time. The generational genetics of every living thing we've ever studied, demonstrates this law clearly. This is in direct contradiction with what supposedly happens in Darwinian evolution.

Back in Charlie's day, we thought... hmm... maybe "mutations" happen to turn monkeys into people? So we began to study these "mutations" in testing and we discovered that mutations do not lead to new species or even an improvement in the old species. Mutations result in an inferior example of the original, not a superior one. After 50 years of testing millions of generations of fruit flies, scientists come to the conclusion; "Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—Francis Hitching

So, if you still cling to the Planet of the Apes theory of Darwin, you believe in fantasy and fringe nonsense. It defies Science... Laws of Thermodynamics... Biology... Genetics... on and on.