How Old Is The Earth?

[BreezeWood]

.

There is no 'faith' needed to look at the fossil record, see there are no multi-cellular organisms before about 1.2 billion years ago, and conclude there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

... and are none today ....

just for the record, there are either single-celled or multisubdivided single-celled organism on planet Earth, no multidisimilarcelled (multi-cellular) organisms exist.

all beings on Earth are single-celled organisms or multisubdivided single-celled organisms.


for this Forum, the obvious progression of evolution is not the true discussion, the true discussion is the (Spiritual) mechanism that employs the change ...

and I might be remindful that the atheist were the same as christians in their disbelief that germs (existed) and were the cause for known maladies persistent during periods as plagues in humanities past history - simply that science did not change the Spiritual but made it (real) simply by giving it a name, nothing else.

the same as will be the Spiritual mechanism for evolutionary change when the mechanism is given a scientific name ... though omitting its relevance to the Everlasting and its origin to the Almighty.

.

 

[IsaacNewton]

.

There is no 'faith' needed to look at the fossil record, see there are no multi-cellular organisms before about 1.2 billion years ago, and conclude there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

... and are none today ....

just for the record, there are either single-celled or multisubdivided single-celled organism on planet Earth, no multidisimilarcelled (multi-cellular) organisms exist.

all beings on Earth are single-celled organisms or multisubdivided single-celled organisms.


for this Forum, the obvious progression of evolution is not the true discussion, the true discussion is the (Spiritual) mechanism that employs the change ...

and I might be remindful that the atheist were the same as christians in their disbelief that germs (existed) and were the cause for known maladies persistent during periods as plagues in humanities past history - simply that science did not change the Spiritual but made it (real) simply by giving it a name, nothing else.

the same as will be the Spiritual mechanism for evolutionary change when the mechanism is given a scientific name ... though omitting its relevance to the Everlasting and its origin to the Almighty.

.

You're looking for the 'meaningless semantics that no one cares about' forum.

Go worship your chair if that makes you feel good, but don't pretend to be knowledgeable on evolution.

 

[the_human_being]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

Your problem here is that they have discovered a duckbill fossil well over ten thousand years old and it is exactly like those alive today. Ten thousand years with absolutely zero change. Do your research a little better.

Maybe not any changes from such a short time ago, but different from the platypus from 5 million years ago which have teeth unlike any other mammalian teeth. The modern platypus has no teeth.

Many species adapt. Nothing odd or earthshaking about that. Show me your half man, half bird or even an old fossil of one.

 

[Boss]

See now this is an example of the Creationist's Catch 22. No matter how many characteristics cross biological categories, and no matter how far apart those categories are, they can never be a transition species between classes because each transition species is always unique. So a platypus which has characteristics of different "classes," amphibian, reptile and mammal, it cannot represent a transition between classes because of its uniqueness.
Classes of biology are several steps above genus and species, the order is - Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species, and Creationists claim there can be no transitions as long as the Species is unique, which it always is. Catch 22. So a platypus which transitions several CLASSES can never be transitional.

You have zero evidence that a platypus has ever been anything other than genus Ornithorhynchus. It doesn't transition several classes, it is a mammal and you have no evidence it was ever anything else. Shared characteristics mean absolutely NOTHING here. It looks odd... that's about it. And it's apparently on that basis you have decided to abandon science for your faith-based belief. I have no problem with your faith, I just don't like that you parade it around as if it's science when it's not.

And there it is again, the Creationist's Catch 22. The platypus is a mammal that has venom and lays eggs like a reptile and lives both on land and in water like an amphibian, but by the Catch 22 rule it cannot be a transition between any other class it shares characteristics with, thus preserving the lie that there are no transition species no matter how obvious it is that they exist. Even though the platypus is part amphibian, part reptile and part mammal, because it is mostly mammal and therefore classified as Class Mammalia to the Creationist it must be ALL mammal no matter how much it varies from typical mammals.

No, eddy... it's nothing of the sort. The platypus is 100% mammal, it is not partly this and that. You have two eyes and four limbs, characteristics of a reptile... are you part reptile? The platypus has a neocortex which means it's a mammal.... nothing else. It's not obvious that some platypus' lack a neocortex, therefore, it's not obvious they are anything other than a mammal. You're making an ASSUMPTION based on appearance and not science.

 

[Votto]

6,000 years or 4.1 billion?

Here is one argument .....

How Old Is the Earth?

"The age of the earth debate ultimately comes down to this foundational question: Are we trusting man’s imperfect and changing ideas and assumptions about the past? Or are we trusting God’s perfectly accurate eyewitness account of the past, including the creation of the world, Noah’s global flood, and the age of the earth?"

I'd say the Earth is 4 billion years old, but that does not mean it is contradictory to the Bible.

 

[Boss]

I already said science continues to tease out the details but when it comes to evolution there is no debate on whether it is fact. Again, with finer details, yes.

No... Science can't explore what has been concluded. When you have concluded something is a fact, you've dismissed science for a faith-based belief in a conclusion. There is scientific evidence to support micro-evolution, or adaptive change within a genus taxon. There is no scientific evidence for any further type of evolution. In spite of years spent trying to find it... none exists.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I already said science continues to tease out the details but when it comes to evolution there is no debate on whether it is fact. Again, with finer details, yes.

No... Science can't explore what has been concluded. When you have concluded something is a fact, you've dismissed science for a faith-based belief in a conclusion. There is scientific evidence to support micro-evolution, or adaptive change within a genus taxon. There is no scientific evidence for any further type of evolution. In spite of years spent trying to find it... none exists.

Absolutely false but you've come to your conclusion.

 

[Hollie]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

Your problem here is that they have discovered a duckbill fossil well over ten thousand years old and it is exactly like those alive today. Ten thousand years with absolutely zero change. Do your research a little better.

Maybe not any changes from such a short time ago, but different from the platypus from 5 million years ago which have teeth unlike any other mammalian teeth. The modern platypus has no teeth.

Many species adapt. Nothing odd or earthshaking about that. Show me your half man, half bird or even an old fossil of one.

You should advise your mentors at the Jimmt Swaggert School for the Silly that such nonsense is pointless and time wasting.

 

[the_human_being]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

Your problem here is that they have discovered a duckbill fossil well over ten thousand years old and it is exactly like those alive today. Ten thousand years with absolutely zero change. Do your research a little better.

Maybe not any changes from such a short time ago, but different from the platypus from 5 million years ago which have teeth unlike any other mammalian teeth. The modern platypus has no teeth.

Many species adapt. Nothing odd or earthshaking about that. Show me your half man, half bird or even an old fossil of one.

You should advise your mentors at the Jimmt Swaggert School for the Silly that such nonsense is pointless and time wasting.

Here you go spouting off religious stuff again. Is religion all you have on your mind?

 

[edthecynic]

See now this is an example of the Creationist's Catch 22. No matter how many characteristics cross biological categories, and no matter how far apart those categories are, they can never be a transition species between classes because each transition species is always unique. So a platypus which has characteristics of different "classes," amphibian, reptile and mammal, it cannot represent a transition between classes because of its uniqueness.
Classes of biology are several steps above genus and species, the order is - Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species, and Creationists claim there can be no transitions as long as the Species is unique, which it always is. Catch 22. So a platypus which transitions several CLASSES can never be transitional.

You have zero evidence that a platypus has ever been anything other than genus Ornithorhynchus. It doesn't transition several classes, it is a mammal and you have no evidence it was ever anything else. Shared characteristics mean absolutely NOTHING here. It looks odd... that's about it. And it's apparently on that basis you have decided to abandon science for your faith-based belief. I have no problem with your faith, I just don't like that you parade it around as if it's science when it's not.

And there it is again, the Creationist's Catch 22. The platypus is a mammal that has venom and lays eggs like a reptile and lives both on land and in water like an amphibian, but by the Catch 22 rule it cannot be a transition between any other class it shares characteristics with, thus preserving the lie that there are no transition species no matter how obvious it is that they exist. Even though the platypus is part amphibian, part reptile and part mammal, because it is mostly mammal and therefore classified as Class Mammalia to the Creationist it must be ALL mammal no matter how much it varies from typical mammals.

No, eddy... it's nothing of the sort. The platypus is 100% mammal, it is not partly this and that. You have two eyes and four limbs, characteristics of a reptile... are you part reptile? The platypus has a neocortex which means it's a mammal.... nothing else. It's not obvious that some platypus' lack a neocortex, therefore, it's not obvious they are anything other than a mammal. You're making an ASSUMPTION based on appearance and not science.

Snakes are legless and they are reptiles, therefore 4 legs has absolutely nothing to do with being a reptile, but thank you again for showing the stupidity of your pontifications.

A platypus is a mammal that has retained some of the characteristics of its reptilian evolutionary ancestors, like laying eggs rather reproducing by live birth as is typical of all mammals except two, the platypus and the echidna.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

There is no 'faith' needed to look at the fossil record, see there are no multi-cellular organisms before about 1.2 billion years ago, and conclude there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

... and are none today ....

just for the record, there are either single-celled or multisubdivided single-celled organism on planet Earth, no multidisimilarcelled (multi-cellular) organisms exist.

all beings on Earth are single-celled organisms or multisubdivided single-celled organisms.


for this Forum, the obvious progression of evolution is not the true discussion, the true discussion is the (Spiritual) mechanism that employs the change ...

and I might be remindful that the atheist were the same as christians in their disbelief that germs (existed) and were the cause for known maladies persistent during periods as plagues in humanities past history - simply that science did not change the Spiritual but made it (real) simply by giving it a name, nothing else.

the same as will be the Spiritual mechanism for evolutionary change when the mechanism is given a scientific name ... though omitting its relevance to the Everlasting and its origin to the Almighty.

.

You're looking for the 'meaningless semantics that no one cares about' forum.

Go worship your chair if that makes you feel good, but don't pretend to be knowledgeable on evolution.

.

You're looking for the 'meaningless semantics that no one cares about' forum.

the post was a correction for a common error to illustrate the correct cellular structure of all organisms whether semantically meaningless to you or not and is a valid link for their mutual origin ... and what "knowledge" you have otherwise is more than welcome.

Go worship your chair if that makes you feel good, but don't pretend to be knowledgeable on evolution.

the debate is not simply the occurrence of evolution or the age of the Earth - go for it newton - but what are the mechanisms that bring them about in answering the same questions.

.




.

 

[IsaacNewton]

.

There is no 'faith' needed to look at the fossil record, see there are no multi-cellular organisms before about 1.2 billion years ago, and conclude there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

... and are none today ....

just for the record, there are either single-celled or multisubdivided single-celled organism on planet Earth, no multidisimilarcelled (multi-cellular) organisms exist.

all beings on Earth are single-celled organisms or multisubdivided single-celled organisms.


for this Forum, the obvious progression of evolution is not the true discussion, the true discussion is the (Spiritual) mechanism that employs the change ...

and I might be remindful that the atheist were the same as christians in their disbelief that germs (existed) and were the cause for known maladies persistent during periods as plagues in humanities past history - simply that science did not change the Spiritual but made it (real) simply by giving it a name, nothing else.

the same as will be the Spiritual mechanism for evolutionary change when the mechanism is given a scientific name ... though omitting its relevance to the Everlasting and its origin to the Almighty.

.

You're looking for the 'meaningless semantics that no one cares about' forum.

Go worship your chair if that makes you feel good, but don't pretend to be knowledgeable on evolution.

.

You're looking for the 'meaningless semantics that no one cares about' forum.

the post was a correction for a common error to illustrate the correct cellular structure of all organisms whether semantically meaningless to you or not and is a valid link for their mutual origin ... and what "knowledge" you have otherwise is more than welcome.

Go worship your chair if that makes you feel good, but don't pretend to be knowledgeable on evolution.

the debate is not simply the occurrence of evolution or the age of the Earth - go for it newton - but what are the mechanisms that bring them about in answering the same questions.

.




.

Alex Jones you don't even understand something as simple as 'multi-cellular'. You speak in nonsensical jibberish and you are not worth any more time. bye now.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

There is no 'faith' needed to look at the fossil record, see there are no multi-cellular organisms before about 1.2 billion years ago, and conclude there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago.

... and are none today ....

just for the record, there are either single-celled or multisubdivided single-celled organism on planet Earth, no multidisimilarcelled (multi-cellular) organisms exist.

all beings on Earth are single-celled organisms or multisubdivided single-celled organisms.


for this Forum, the obvious progression of evolution is not the true discussion, the true discussion is the (Spiritual) mechanism that employs the change ...

and I might be remindful that the atheist were the same as christians in their disbelief that germs (existed) and were the cause for known maladies persistent during periods as plagues in humanities past history - simply that science did not change the Spiritual but made it (real) simply by giving it a name, nothing else.

the same as will be the Spiritual mechanism for evolutionary change when the mechanism is given a scientific name ... though omitting its relevance to the Everlasting and its origin to the Almighty.

.

You're looking for the 'meaningless semantics that no one cares about' forum.

Go worship your chair if that makes you feel good, but don't pretend to be knowledgeable on evolution.

.

You're looking for the 'meaningless semantics that no one cares about' forum.

the post was a correction for a common error to illustrate the correct cellular structure of all organisms whether semantically meaningless to you or not and is a valid link for their mutual origin ... and what "knowledge" you have otherwise is more than welcome.

Go worship your chair if that makes you feel good, but don't pretend to be knowledgeable on evolution.

the debate is not simply the occurrence of evolution or the age of the Earth - go for it newton - but what are the mechanisms that bring them about in answering the same questions.

.




.

Alex Jones you don't even understand something as simple as 'multi-cellular'. You speak in nonsensical jibberish and you are not worth any more time. bye now.

.

lex Jones you don't even understand something as simple as 'multi-cellular'. You speak in nonsensical jibberish and you are not worth any more time. bye now.

.
you don't even understand something as simple as 'multi-cellular'


well, in my defense I do understand - all organisms are either single celled or single muti-subdivided single celled organisms - there are no multi (dissimilar) celled organism on planet Earth.

the outer ring is the original cell, all future growth is a subdivision from within the first cell and to the end all the cells are compliments of the first - so in fact all beings are single-celled organisms. and is a clue in evolution from one cell to a multi-subdivided single-celled organism - as being essentially the same.

.

 

[whoisit]

The earth is really old ! I can testify to that.

 

[Boss]

Snakes are legless and they are reptiles, therefore 4 legs has absolutely nothing to do with being a reptile, but thank you again for showing the stupidity of your pontifications.

A platypus is a mammal that has retained some of the characteristics of its reptilian evolutionary ancestors, like laying eggs rather reproducing by live birth as is typical of all mammals except two, the platypus and the echidna.

Well, you're showing the stupidity of your own pontification because I made your same argument using humans and reptiles. As a snake is a certain kind (order) of reptile, so is the platypus a certain kind of mammal. They belong to the order monotreme. There is zero evidence a platypus was ever a reptile. It sounds like you are regurgitating some 19th century mythology mixed with naturalist speculation about an unusual specimen from Australia.

 

[Hollie]

Snakes are legless and they are reptiles, therefore 4 legs has absolutely nothing to do with being a reptile, but thank you again for showing the stupidity of your pontifications.

A platypus is a mammal that has retained some of the characteristics of its reptilian evolutionary ancestors, like laying eggs rather reproducing by live birth as is typical of all mammals except two, the platypus and the echidna.

Well, you're showing the stupidity of your own pontification because I made your same argument using humans and reptiles. As a snake is a certain kind (order) of reptile, so is the platypus a certain kind of mammal. They belong to the order monotreme. There is zero evidence a platypus was ever a reptile. It sounds like you are regurgitating some 19th century mythology mixed with naturalist speculation about an unusual specimen from Australia.

Fortunately, the realm of science operates in a reality based worldview as opposed to your supernatural creationist realms of fear and superstition.

CC200: Transitional fossils

I've yet to see the creationists actually challenge the data supporting evolution.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
bringing to bear the first subdividing single celled organism is the key element for the separate paths of evolutionary development for both Flora and Fauna - and the Spiritual means for the initial accomplishment.

.

 

[edthecynic]

Snakes are legless and they are reptiles, therefore 4 legs has absolutely nothing to do with being a reptile, but thank you again for showing the stupidity of your pontifications.

A platypus is a mammal that has retained some of the characteristics of its reptilian evolutionary ancestors, like laying eggs rather reproducing by live birth as is typical of all mammals except two, the platypus and the echidna.

Well, you're showing the stupidity of your own pontification because I made your same argument using humans and reptiles. As a snake is a certain kind (order) of reptile, so is the platypus a certain kind of mammal. They belong to the order monotreme. There is zero evidence a platypus was ever a reptile. It sounds like you are regurgitating some 19th century mythology mixed with naturalist speculation about an unusual specimen from Australia.

Again you are caught just making up shit and then pontificating as if you were the absolute authority on everything even though you know nothing!

Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile - USATODAY.com

SYDNEY, Australia — Scientists said they have mapped the genetic makeup of the platypus — one of nature's strangest animals with a bill like a duck's, a mammal's fur and snake-like venom.
The researchers, whose analysis of the platypus genome was published Thursday in the journal Nature, said it could help explain how mammals, including humans, evolved from reptiles millions of years ago.

The research showed the animal's multifaceted features are reflected in its DNA with a mix of genes that crosses different classifications of animals, said Jenny Graves, an Australian National University genomics expert who co-wrote the paper.

"What we found was the genome, just like the animal, is an amazing amalgam of reptilian and mammal characteristics with quite a few unique platypus characteristics as well," she told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.

Scientists believe all mammals evolved from reptiles, and the animals that became platypuses and those that became humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, including the pain-causing poison that males can use to ward off mating rivals, Graves said.

 

[Boss]

Sorry, what you are presenting as "proven fact" is actually hypothetical speculation.

The researchers, whose analysis of the platypus genome was published Thursday in the journal Nature, said it could help explain how mammals, including humans, evolved from reptiles millions of years ago.

The research showed the animal's multifaceted features are reflected in its DNA with a mix of genes that crosses different classifications of animals, said Jenny Graves, an Australian National University genomics expert who co-wrote the paper.

"What we found was the genome, just like the animal, is an amazing amalgam of reptilian and mammal characteristics with quite a few unique platypus characteristics as well," she told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.

Scientists believe all mammals evolved from reptiles, and the animals that became platypuses and those that became humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, including the pain-causing poison that males can use to ward off mating rivals, Graves said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It could help explain.." ...It could also be total nonsense. The genome shares characteristics but humans share 53% of their DNA characteristics with bananas. Finally, the admission that scientists "BELIEVE" these things... not that they are PROVED.

So again, what you and they are doing is parading around Science as "proven fact" to support your beliefs when it's not proven at all. And we see this all the time... A recent study suggests... The results seem to indicate... Scientists believe this explains... These are NOT proven scientific facts at all. It's interesting... but it's also interesting we share 53% of our DNA with a banana.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It is not worth discussing something with someone caught in an ad nauseum closed loop.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is what the OP is about.