How Old Is The Earth?

[IsaacNewton]

Let's recognize reality please. This thread has turned into the falling hammer scenario. In calculus there is a problem given that if you drop a hammer from 10 feet above the ground it must fall half that distance, then half the distance left, then half that distance, and so on. So the hammer, via the asymptotic line, should never reach the ground because half of something is always something. The equation never reaches zero.

Mental gymnastics are fun, but reality cannot be ignored.

 

[Boss]

The age of the Earth is determined by dating many rocks, including moon rocks and meteorites from Antarctica. All support approx. 4.6 billion years old as noted by many posting here.

No one is arguing that scientists don't estimate the universe to be 4.6 billion years old or 4.543 billion years old. I'm not arguing about the methods they used or whether they are wrong. My point has always been, we are not certain. We think we are, but I'm sure we thought that before... when the universe was thought to be 20 million years old. I don't know what tests we did back then to come up with that number but they were obviously wrong if we've now determined a different age. And as sure as we are of the methods used to come up with 4.6 billion years, those test methods could be equally as wrong. For instance, we could learn something about dark energy and dark matter, quantum mechanics or subatomic particles, that completely changes our understanding with how we measure age of things really old. I'm not claiming we will, I have no way of knowing what we might discover in the future... but I'm not some egotistical smart ass who has closed his mind to the possibility our estimates could be wrong or that we could learn something new.

Ad Infinitum fallacy. You seem to argue that we'll never know anything for sure.

Honestly why you post to threads like these is an oddity, your belief in everything is utterly nebulous and nothing is really 'known' so what's the point.

And while trying to argue 'we really will never know' you don't do a simple search to understand why scientists DO know these things.

Science doesn't draw conclusions. The very nature of science is to question what we know or think we know. The antithesis of science is a conclusion. Science cannot do anything with a conclusion, it's work is over. A conclusion requires faith, not science. The instant you profess a conclusion you are stating that you are no longer applying science and you've adopted faith in a conclusion.

We won't ever know anything for sure. We never have. We can believe we're sure. The evidence we observe can convince us that we must be right. But unless we somehow come to know all informational knowledge possible in the universe, we can't say we know for certain. The possibility still remains that we could be wrong.

Humans have this uncanny hubris. We assume that whatever Science thinks at the moment is absolute truth or fact and we'll never learn anything more. But we see all through history, this is not what happens. Science continue to ask questions. It does not draw conclusions. YOU do that... as a human being with a faith-based belief in something.

 

[Boss]

Let's objectively look at this "now" you speak of...

Nothing can "happen" in the "now". It's not physically possible. Anything that "happens" requires passage of time. We are unable to observe "the now" because of physics. Light must travel from an object to our eyes and our brain must register the image... all of it takes time to happen. By the time we have any realization of "the present" or "the now" that particular moment has passed. In essence, all we have are perceptions of time which has passed. The very most recent passage of time we call the present.

Think about this... The future doesn't exist yet. The past no longer exists. The present takes no time at all. Does time actually exist?

I would think under that scenario you could question if anything exists. I think of the now as ever present and not fleeting. There is a lot of change in the now but it is always here and includes all existence. In my mind it is what eternity is and reality. Everything happens in the now in a series of changes. The light that travels is a change in the light. What once was in a state of now, no longer exists and its current state of change is in the now. Some change is faster and some slower. But its current state is in the now. The now isn't something that changes but houses all other changes within it. It is existence and reality. It contains all our current passing thoughts, experiences, feelings, etc. It doesn't fade into the past but only the changes within it fade. It becomes the now with new changes in it. Sure there are intervals between events that occur due to change but that is the nature of change. We derive time from change and not change from time. We use change to create time and we find it quite useful. We structure our lives around it so much that we find it hard to separate it from reality. But perhaps it is only change in a constant now. Time is a measure. We measure how long the change of traveling light takes to reach our eyes in relation to some other change. If we agree on the measure we use to measure the interval of a beginning state of change to and ending state of change we call it time, but it is all just change in the now. The interval is due to the nature of the way varying things change. The measure of it becomes time. After a while we begin to think of time as an actual property because we live in change. But maybe it is all occurring in a constant Now which is ever present and everything is enclosed within it. Perhaps it is also known as eternity. It is a never ending reality that cannot be escaped.

Well I wasn't presenting a scenario. I was explaining physics. It's impossible to observe "the now" because physics has to happen. Whatever is happening in "the now" will eventually become your perception of "the now" but time will pass because things in physics which have to happen take time. Your reality is a perception of "the now" which is already in the past and old news by the time your brain comprehends it. There is already another "the now" but you can't observe it until physics happens. We literally exist with a perception in the past, of time that has passed.

As for your arguments about change driving time, this is not valid according to physics. There are many conflicting arguments about time within physics but this ain't one of them.

 

[Boss]

The question was: how old is michealangelo's David? So you lose.
And you copied me, should I be flattered?

But we can do the same tests you use on rocks and meteorites to determine the Earth is 4.563 billion years old and we find the marble he used is considerably older than 500 years. The point you seem to be missing is, the creation doesn't have anything to do with the material the creation was made from. God could create an Earth 6,000 years ago and just like with Michelangelo's masterpiece, he used material that was much older. For the record, I don't believe the 6k-yr. Earth story. But I also don't believe 4.563 billion years is some empirical truth that can't ever be challenged. And regardless of how old the marble is, it has nothing at all to do with the masterpiece.

You should be flattered that you've lasted a week without me putting you on ignore. It is purely attributable to how fun it is to slap you around here. Most stupid people I encounter are smart enough to know when to shut up or when they're over their heads... but not you. We just keep on being entertained with your 'gems of brilliance' and I'm like an intellectual cat with a little toy mouse.

Don't be mad that I handed you your fried chicken lunch again. Just enjoy it.

You must have looked funny going for fried chicken without an ass.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The age of the Earth is determined by dating many rocks, including moon rocks and meteorites from Antarctica. All support approx. 4.6 billion years old as noted by many posting here.

No one is arguing that scientists don't estimate the universe to be 4.6 billion years old or 4.543 billion years old. I'm not arguing about the methods they used or whether they are wrong. My point has always been, we are not certain. We think we are, but I'm sure we thought that before... when the universe was thought to be 20 million years old. I don't know what tests we did back then to come up with that number but they were obviously wrong if we've now determined a different age. And as sure as we are of the methods used to come up with 4.6 billion years, those test methods could be equally as wrong. For instance, we could learn something about dark energy and dark matter, quantum mechanics or subatomic particles, that completely changes our understanding with how we measure age of things really old. I'm not claiming we will, I have no way of knowing what we might discover in the future... but I'm not some egotistical smart ass who has closed his mind to the possibility our estimates could be wrong or that we could learn something new.

Ad Infinitum fallacy. You seem to argue that we'll never know anything for sure.

Honestly why you post to threads like these is an oddity, your belief in everything is utterly nebulous and nothing is really 'known' so what's the point.

And while trying to argue 'we really will never know' you don't do a simple search to understand why scientists DO know these things.

Science doesn't draw conclusions. The very nature of science is to question what we know or think we know. The antithesis of science is a conclusion. Science cannot do anything with a conclusion, it's work is over. A conclusion requires faith, not science. The instant you profess a conclusion you are stating that you are no longer applying science and you've adopted faith in a conclusion.

We won't ever know anything for sure. We never have. We can believe we're sure. The evidence we observe can convince us that we must be right. But unless we somehow come to know all informational knowledge possible in the universe, we can't say we know for certain. The possibility still remains that we could be wrong.

Humans have this uncanny hubris. We assume that whatever Science thinks at the moment is absolute truth or fact and we'll never learn anything more. But we see all through history, this is not what happens. Science continue to ask questions. It does not draw conclusions. YOU do that... as a human being with a faith-based belief in something.

"We don't know anything for sure..."

You sure about that?

"We don't know everything therefore we can't be sure about anything".

We've dated various rocks from various sources with varied and reliable dating techniques that are accepted throughout science as proven and very accurate. The dates aren't yesterday, and they aren't a 20 billion years. They are 4.6 billion years.

YOU don't know anything for sure. You projecting that out onto the world has no effect on the rest of the world. Sorry.

The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method - Of course science draws conclusions.

 

[BreezeWood]

Mental gymnastics are fun, but reality cannot be ignored.

.

OP: "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?"

which reality, when no other planet known to exist has an even remote resemblance to the Aqua / Terra Firma of Earth as an existence derived 4.6 Billion years ago from the onset of a Singularity - being a corollary conclusion whatsoever ?

.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Mental gymnastics are fun, but reality cannot be ignored.

.

OP: "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?"

which reality, when no other planet known to exist has an even remote resemblance to the Aqua / Terra Firma of Earth as an existence derived 4.6 Billion years ago from the onset of a Singularity - being a corollary conclusion whatsoever ?

.

"no other planet known to exist"...

We've only in the last 5 years or so been able to spot planets outside the solar system, I think its going to take a lot longer, out of the billions of planets, to confirm or deny yes? LOL And the overwhelming likelihood of other Earth like planets existing is real. Its only a matter of time and searching.

 

[Boss]

The age of the Earth is determined by dating many rocks, including moon rocks and meteorites from Antarctica. All support approx. 4.6 billion years old as noted by many posting here.

No one is arguing that scientists don't estimate the universe to be 4.6 billion years old or 4.543 billion years old. I'm not arguing about the methods they used or whether they are wrong. My point has always been, we are not certain. We think we are, but I'm sure we thought that before... when the universe was thought to be 20 million years old. I don't know what tests we did back then to come up with that number but they were obviously wrong if we've now determined a different age. And as sure as we are of the methods used to come up with 4.6 billion years, those test methods could be equally as wrong. For instance, we could learn something about dark energy and dark matter, quantum mechanics or subatomic particles, that completely changes our understanding with how we measure age of things really old. I'm not claiming we will, I have no way of knowing what we might discover in the future... but I'm not some egotistical smart ass who has closed his mind to the possibility our estimates could be wrong or that we could learn something new.

Ad Infinitum fallacy. You seem to argue that we'll never know anything for sure.

Honestly why you post to threads like these is an oddity, your belief in everything is utterly nebulous and nothing is really 'known' so what's the point.

And while trying to argue 'we really will never know' you don't do a simple search to understand why scientists DO know these things.

Science doesn't draw conclusions. The very nature of science is to question what we know or think we know. The antithesis of science is a conclusion. Science cannot do anything with a conclusion, it's work is over. A conclusion requires faith, not science. The instant you profess a conclusion you are stating that you are no longer applying science and you've adopted faith in a conclusion.

We won't ever know anything for sure. We never have. We can believe we're sure. The evidence we observe can convince us that we must be right. But unless we somehow come to know all informational knowledge possible in the universe, we can't say we know for certain. The possibility still remains that we could be wrong.

Humans have this uncanny hubris. We assume that whatever Science thinks at the moment is absolute truth or fact and we'll never learn anything more. But we see all through history, this is not what happens. Science continue to ask questions. It does not draw conclusions. YOU do that... as a human being with a faith-based belief in something.

"We don't know anything for sure..."

You sure about that?

"We don't know everything therefore we can't be sure about anything".

We've dated various rocks from various sources with varied and reliable dating techniques that are accepted throughout science as proven and very accurate. The dates aren't yesterday, and they aren't a 20 billion years. They are 4.6 billion years.

YOU don't know anything for sure. You projecting that out onto the world has no effect on the rest of the world. Sorry.

The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method - Of course science draws conclusions.

LOL.. Well then, obviously... we were ******* wrong back when Science said Earth was 110 million years old... and before that, when Science said 20 million... or 1 million... or "eternal" ...or that there wasn't a universe other than here on Earth.

I have not disputed the validity of the tests we've done on rocks. I am sure they are the best possible scientific evaluations and we firmly believe this is accurate. But time and time again, we discover something new... something we didn't know before... and it has a funny way of changing what we though we knew for certain. If you don't understand this, you need to stay as far away from science as possible... you're a real danger.

 

[BreezeWood]

Mental gymnastics are fun, but reality cannot be ignored.

.

OP: "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?"

which reality, when no other planet known to exist has an even remote resemblance to the Aqua / Terra Firma of Earth as an existence derived 4.6 Billion years ago from the onset of a Singularity - being a corollary conclusion whatsoever ?

.

"no other planet known to exist"...

We've only in the last 5 years or so been able to spot planets outside the solar system, I think its going to take a lot longer, out of the billions of planets, to confirm or deny yes? LOL And the overwhelming likelihood of other Earth like planets existing is real. Its only a matter of time and searching.

.

And the overwhelming likelihood of other Earth like planets existing is real

... other Earth like planets


and how will you date those, by drilling into their "rocks" ? - and with "other" life forms or not - the same date ...

.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The age of the Earth is determined by dating many rocks, including moon rocks and meteorites from Antarctica. All support approx. 4.6 billion years old as noted by many posting here.

No one is arguing that scientists don't estimate the universe to be 4.6 billion years old or 4.543 billion years old. I'm not arguing about the methods they used or whether they are wrong. My point has always been, we are not certain. We think we are, but I'm sure we thought that before... when the universe was thought to be 20 million years old. I don't know what tests we did back then to come up with that number but they were obviously wrong if we've now determined a different age. And as sure as we are of the methods used to come up with 4.6 billion years, those test methods could be equally as wrong. For instance, we could learn something about dark energy and dark matter, quantum mechanics or subatomic particles, that completely changes our understanding with how we measure age of things really old. I'm not claiming we will, I have no way of knowing what we might discover in the future... but I'm not some egotistical smart ass who has closed his mind to the possibility our estimates could be wrong or that we could learn something new.

Ad Infinitum fallacy. You seem to argue that we'll never know anything for sure.

Honestly why you post to threads like these is an oddity, your belief in everything is utterly nebulous and nothing is really 'known' so what's the point.

And while trying to argue 'we really will never know' you don't do a simple search to understand why scientists DO know these things.

Science doesn't draw conclusions. The very nature of science is to question what we know or think we know. The antithesis of science is a conclusion. Science cannot do anything with a conclusion, it's work is over. A conclusion requires faith, not science. The instant you profess a conclusion you are stating that you are no longer applying science and you've adopted faith in a conclusion.

We won't ever know anything for sure. We never have. We can believe we're sure. The evidence we observe can convince us that we must be right. But unless we somehow come to know all informational knowledge possible in the universe, we can't say we know for certain. The possibility still remains that we could be wrong.

Humans have this uncanny hubris. We assume that whatever Science thinks at the moment is absolute truth or fact and we'll never learn anything more. But we see all through history, this is not what happens. Science continue to ask questions. It does not draw conclusions. YOU do that... as a human being with a faith-based belief in something.

"We don't know anything for sure..."

You sure about that?

"We don't know everything therefore we can't be sure about anything".

We've dated various rocks from various sources with varied and reliable dating techniques that are accepted throughout science as proven and very accurate. The dates aren't yesterday, and they aren't a 20 billion years. They are 4.6 billion years.

YOU don't know anything for sure. You projecting that out onto the world has no effect on the rest of the world. Sorry.

The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method - Of course science draws conclusions.

LOL.. Well then, obviously... we were ******* wrong back when Science said Earth was 110 million years old... and before that, when Science said 20 million... or 1 million... or "eternal" ...or that there wasn't a universe other than here on Earth.

I have not disputed the validity of the tests we've done on rocks. I am sure they are the best possible scientific evaluations and we firmly believe this is accurate. But time and time again, we discover something new... something we didn't know before... and it has a funny way of changing what we though we knew for certain. If you don't understand this, you need to stay as far away from science as possible... you're a real danger.

You provide no substantive discussion and I've tried.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Mental gymnastics are fun, but reality cannot be ignored.

.

OP: "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?"

which reality, when no other planet known to exist has an even remote resemblance to the Aqua / Terra Firma of Earth as an existence derived 4.6 Billion years ago from the onset of a Singularity - being a corollary conclusion whatsoever ?

.

"no other planet known to exist"...

We've only in the last 5 years or so been able to spot planets outside the solar system, I think its going to take a lot longer, out of the billions of planets, to confirm or deny yes? LOL And the overwhelming likelihood of other Earth like planets existing is real. Its only a matter of time and searching.

.

And the overwhelming likelihood of other Earth like planets existing is real

... other Earth like planets


and how will you date those, by drilling into their "rocks" ? - and with "other" life forms or not - the same date ...

.

So your argument is, if you don't know how something is known, then it can't be known.

You are another who gives the appearance of being able to have a discussion but your mind rejects most of reality.

Have a nice day.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Then there's always the possibility that none of us existed, mush less what we call our universe, more than a nanosecond ago until some entity called God turned on his computer and started to play...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[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?

 

[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?

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

 

[IsaacNewton]

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.

 

[BreezeWood]

Mental gymnastics are fun, but reality cannot be ignored.

.

OP: "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?"

which reality, when no other planet known to exist has an even remote resemblance to the Aqua / Terra Firma of Earth as an existence derived 4.6 Billion years ago from the onset of a Singularity - being a corollary conclusion whatsoever ?

.

"no other planet known to exist"...

We've only in the last 5 years or so been able to spot planets outside the solar system, I think its going to take a lot longer, out of the billions of planets, to confirm or deny yes? LOL And the overwhelming likelihood of other Earth like planets existing is real. Its only a matter of time and searching.

.

And the overwhelming likelihood of other Earth like planets existing is real

... other Earth like planets


and how will you date those, by drilling into their "rocks" ? - and with "other" life forms or not - the same date ...

.

So your argument is, if you don't know how something is known, then it can't be known.

You are another who gives the appearance of being able to have a discussion but your mind rejects most of reality.

Have a nice day.

.

Isaac: So your argument is, if you don't know how something is known, then it can't be known.

How Old Is The Earth?


your point above is meaningless, the question is not planet Earth the question is how old is Earth - your (1) dimensional answer is to drill a hole in a rock ....

EARTH as concluded by the OP is qualified by qualities of life specific to this planet ... "rocks" do not produce Life, Life which very well is / may be a component of the Everlasting - - presumably predating the physical Singularity 4.5 billion years.

as far as "knowing" - I am in complete agreement with you and the Egyptians - the Apex of Knowledge is the only means of self preservation beyond the physiological existence. a required goal.

Bossy is out to lunch.

.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Mental gymnastics are fun, but reality cannot be ignored.

.

OP: "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?"

which reality, when no other planet known to exist has an even remote resemblance to the Aqua / Terra Firma of Earth as an existence derived 4.6 Billion years ago from the onset of a Singularity - being a corollary conclusion whatsoever ?

.

"no other planet known to exist"...

We've only in the last 5 years or so been able to spot planets outside the solar system, I think its going to take a lot longer, out of the billions of planets, to confirm or deny yes? LOL And the overwhelming likelihood of other Earth like planets existing is real. Its only a matter of time and searching.

.

And the overwhelming likelihood of other Earth like planets existing is real

... other Earth like planets


and how will you date those, by drilling into their "rocks" ? - and with "other" life forms or not - the same date ...

.

So your argument is, if you don't know how something is known, then it can't be known.

You are another who gives the appearance of being able to have a discussion but your mind rejects most of reality.

Have a nice day.

.

Isaac: So your argument is, if you don't know how something is known, then it can't be known.

How Old Is The Earth?


your point above is meaningless, the question is not planet Earth the question is how old is Earth - your (1) dimensional answer is to drill a hole in a rock ....

EARTH as concluded by the OP is qualified by qualities of life specific to this planet ... "rocks" do not produce Life, Life which very well is / may be a component of the Everlasting - - presumably predating the physical Singularity 4.5 billion years.

as far as "knowing" - I am in complete agreement with you and the Egyptians - the Apex of Knowledge is the only means of self preservation beyond the physiological existence. a required goal.

Bossy is out to lunch.

.

LOL

The question is how old is the Earth. This we know. The question is a simple one and was answered by a number of people.

 

[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!

 

[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.

 

[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.