How old is the world according to Theologists?

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Ameesh
i really dont care what faith you have if you think the earth is < 10,000 years old you are a complete idiot.

I'm sure Columbus was told the same thing when he said the earth was round

Calling someone an idiot because they have different beliefs than you makes you an idiot, my friend.

It was commonly believed to be round by the educated people in Europe at the time. Eratostenes figured out the circumference in 250bc I think, by measuring sun angles.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
As far as the fanaticals are concerned, the Earth is as old as their holy books tell them, and no amount of scientific evidence to the contraray is going to make them think otherwise.

For the ones capable of rational thought, whatever the latest figure from science is.

LMFAO! Here's a newsflash for you: science cannot prove that which it cannot observe in nature or reproduce in a labroratory. To believe either *theory* you have to have faith since neither can be proven.

4.22 billion years is the age of the earth observed in nature.

Sorry, don't buy it. The figure changes every time I hear it. When science can nail down a figure and explain exactly why the universe is that age without relying on theory of any sort, then I may believe it. Until then, I'll go by what the Bible says. Call me an idiot if you like, I'd rather be considered an idiot and be right than be considered wise and be wrong.

 

[911paramedic]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3"Once again, one man's facts may be lies to another man, it's all a matter of opinion."

If anybody thinks the earth is only ~8K years old they've been lied to.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3"Once again, one man's facts may be lies to another man, it's all a matter of opinion."

If anybody thinks the earth is only ~8K years old they've been lied to.

You're right, it isn't 8,000 years old, it's closer to 6,000.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: ThreeLeggedGnome

Actually, I think he was just stating the obvious: People who believe in idiotic facts are known as idiots.

"idiotic facts"?

I don't see how they can be idiotic if they're facts. Once again, one man's facts may be lies to another man, it's all a matter of opinion.

If you believe the Earth was creat c.6000 BCE, how do you explain the Neolithic Era, in particular Catal Huyuk, in which civilizations first began to form, beginning c.10,000 BCE.

 

[yllus]

This question is an awesome way of identifying the people you never want to hold any type of power in the world

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: ThreeLeggedGnome

Actually, I think he was just stating the obvious: People who believe in idiotic facts are known as idiots.

"idiotic facts"?

I don't see how they can be idiotic if they're facts. Once again, one man's facts may be lies to another man, it's all a matter of opinion.

If you believe the Earth was creat c.6000 BCE, how do you explain the Neolithic Era, in particular Catal Huyuk, in which civilizations first began to form, beginning c.10,000 BCE.

Because I don't believe everything I hear, just because it happens to come from a "scientist" (anthropologists are hardly scientists in my book anyway). Besides, carbon dating isn't exactly the most precise method of determining the age of an object...

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
As far as the fanaticals are concerned, the Earth is as old as their holy books tell them, and no amount of scientific evidence to the contraray is going to make them think otherwise.

For the ones capable of rational thought, whatever the latest figure from science is.

LMFAO! Here's a newsflash for you: science cannot prove that which it cannot observe in nature or reproduce in a labroratory. To believe either *theory* you have to have faith since neither can be proven.

4.22 billion years is the age of the earth observed in nature.

Sorry, don't buy it. The figure changes every time I hear it. When science can nail down a figure and explain exactly why the universe is that age without relying on theory of any sort, then I may believe it. Until then, I'll go by what the Bible says. Call me an idiot if you like, I'd rather be considered an idiot and be right than be considered wise and be wrong.

it doesn't change it is becoming more acurately measured, proposed ages throughout history

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
As far as the fanaticals are concerned, the Earth is as old as their holy books tell them, and no amount of scientific evidence to the contraray is going to make them think otherwise.

For the ones capable of rational thought, whatever the latest figure from science is.

LMFAO! Here's a newsflash for you: science cannot prove that which it cannot observe in nature or reproduce in a labroratory. To believe either *theory* you have to have faith since neither can be proven.

4.22 billion years is the age of the earth observed in nature.

Sorry, don't buy it. The figure changes every time I hear it. When science can nail down a figure and explain exactly why the universe is that age without relying on theory of any sort, then I may believe it. Until then, I'll go by what the Bible says. Call me an idiot if you like, I'd rather be considered an idiot and be right than be considered wise and be wrong.

Ironically I remembered it wrong. Current estimated age is 4.55 billion years. Of course it's not fixed. There is room for error. 4.55 billion years is the age based on the age of the oldest particle found on earth. Last I checked, there are many things older than 6000 years, so I don't see how you can so strongly believe in that absurd number, and come up with excuses like "God is trying to trick you".

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: matt426malm


it doesn't change it is becoming more acurately measured, proposed ages throughout history

Still don't buy it. "becoming more accurate" does not describe the history of this issue. You assume it's becoming more accurate because that is the natural tendency of science, but until the final figure is arrived at how can you truly know if it's becoming more accurate? I've seen everything from 6,000 years to 20 billion.

 

[conjur]

No one yelled REPOST??

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: ThreeLeggedGnome

Actually, I think he was just stating the obvious: People who believe in idiotic facts are known as idiots.

"idiotic facts"?

I don't see how they can be idiotic if they're facts. Once again, one man's facts may be lies to another man, it's all a matter of opinion.

If you believe the Earth was creat c.6000 BCE, how do you explain the Neolithic Era, in particular Catal Huyuk, in which civilizations first began to form, beginning c.10,000 BCE.

Because I don't believe everything I hear, just because it happens to come from a "scientist" (anthropologists are hardly scientists in my book anyway). Besides, carbon dating isn't exactly the most precise method of determining the age of an object...

You are right carbon dating would be horrible for figuring out the age of the earth. That is because the half-life of carbon-14 is 6000 years. Uranium238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and is great for measuring the age of the earth. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
As far as the fanaticals are concerned, the Earth is as old as their holy books tell them, and no amount of scientific evidence to the contraray is going to make them think otherwise.

For the ones capable of rational thought, whatever the latest figure from science is.

LMFAO! Here's a newsflash for you: science cannot prove that which it cannot observe in nature or reproduce in a labroratory. To believe either *theory* you have to have faith since neither can be proven.

4.22 billion years is the age of the earth observed in nature.

Sorry, don't buy it. The figure changes every time I hear it. When science can nail down a figure and explain exactly why the universe is that age without relying on theory of any sort, then I may believe it. Until then, I'll go by what the Bible says. Call me an idiot if you like, I'd rather be considered an idiot and be right than be considered wise and be wrong.

Ironically I remembered it wrong. Current estimated age is 4.55 billion years. Of course it's not fixed. There is room for error. 4.55 billion years is the age based on the age of the oldest particle found on earth. Last I checked, there are many things older than 6000 years, so I don't see how you can so strongly believe in that absurd number, and come up with excuses like "God is trying to trick you".

Ah the vanity of man... How is it any more absurd to believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old (according to the word of G-d) than it is to believe a number that changes with the direction of the wind and is based on an inprecise science?

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: matt426malm


You are right carbon dating would be horrible for figuring out the age of the earth. That is because the half-life of carbon-14 is 6000 years. Uranium238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and is great for measuring the age of the earth. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

There's that 6000 year figure again, gee, there couldn't possibly be any relevance to that

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: matt426malm


it doesn't change it is becoming more acurately measured, proposed ages throughout history

Still don't buy it. "becoming more accurate" does not describe the history of this issue. You assume it's becoming more accurate because that is the natural tendency of science, but until the final figure is arrived at how can you truly know if it's becoming more accurate? I've seen everything from 6,000 years to 20 billion.

So...the Grand Canyon was carved in 6,000 years? The glaciers that formed Yosemite Valley formed and receded in 6,000 years? Niagara Falls is in its current position because water carved that valley in 6,000 years?

Get a clue and lose the fundamentalist viewpoint. It's utterly ridiculous. Believing, word-for-word, a book that's nothing but a composition of various stories told over the centuries...LOL!

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Ameesh
i really dont care what faith you have if you think the earth is < 10,000 years old you are a complete idiot.

I'm sure Columbus was told the same thing when he said the earth was round

Calling someone an idiot because they have different beliefs than you makes you an idiot, my friend.

Yes, and Columbus was disputing the latest known scientific knowledge of the time based on his BELIEFS. He was called an idiot for that reason.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: matt426malm


it doesn't change it is becoming more acurately measured, proposed ages throughout history

Still don't buy it. "becoming more accurate" does not describe the history of this issue. You assume it's becoming more accurate because that is the natural tendency of science, but until the final figure is arrived at how can you truly know if it's becoming more accurate? I've seen everything from 6,000 years to 20 billion.

So...the Grand Canyon was carved in 6,000 years? The glaciers that formed Yosemite Valley formed and receded in 6,000 years? Niagara Falls is in its current position because water carved that valley in 6,000 years?

Get a clue and lose the fundamentalist viewpoint. It's utterly ridiculous. Believing, word-for-word, a book that's nothing but a composition of various stories told over the centuries...LOL!

How many times do I have to say this? It takes faith to believe in either viewpoint, so you calling me a fundie is ludacrous. If the big bang theory/evolution were perfect we wouldn't be having this debate now would we?

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: matt426malm


You are right carbon dating would be horrible for figuring out the age of the earth. That is because the half-life of carbon-14 is 6000 years. Uranium238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and is great for measuring the age of the earth. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

There's that 6000 year figure again, gee, there couldn't possibly be any relevance to that

It's actually 5770 I rounded up. This is something that is EASILY and very ACURATELY measured by the amount of the element that carbon-14 decays into measured in the sample.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Ameesh
i really dont care what faith you have if you think the earth is < 10,000 years old you are a complete idiot.

I'm sure Columbus was told the same thing when he said the earth was round

Calling someone an idiot because they have different beliefs than you makes you an idiot, my friend.

Yes, and Columbus was disputing the latest known scientific knowledge of the time. He was called an idiot for that reason.

Boy, that sounds familiar...

 

[AreaCode707]

Creationists (who are pure creationists rather than a blend of evolution/creation believers) tend to believe the world is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old. To address your cojoining question, they do believe in dinosaurs and such (it's not really optional, given the evidence, is it?) but their belief is that dinosaurs were created approximately the same time man was and that there was shared domain for a while. There are biblical texts that mention animals that could be construed as dinosaurs, so that contributes, but also if you include the flood as a consideration in your scientific examinings, there are scientists who have theories based on facts about the extinction and fossilization of dinosaurs.

For those of you with a bit of a blind belief in evolution-through-science (aka, believing what you read, since a few of you may have firsthand knowledge and the rest are going by trust in popular and accepted theories), there are quandaries and foils for evolution, as well as scientific pieces of evidence that would point towards creation if one chooses to look at them that way, or we could theorize a third, unknown possibility altogether.

For example, I studied astronomy for a period and know the theories of the creation of the moon, the predominant theory being that an object roughly the size of Mars crashed into a young and largely liquid earth, tearing the object to pieces and leaving a piece in orbit around our planet. When scientists were first landing a craft on the moon, they were quite concerned about the dust buildup on the moon. You see, the moon has no atmosphere to speak of, and space junk would have built up at a rate of 1 inch every 10,000 years according to their calculations. By the age of the earth and moon, that should have made a significant and dangerous amount of dust. (For a sci fi book written about this before the moon landing, read Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust" and you'll see their concern.) They designed the moon lander with special "feet" to hopefully prevent it from sinking into the dust.
Measurements showed the moon to have 1/2-1 inch of dust in most places. This isn't a question raised in classrooms or public venues. We only hear science reported when they think they've made some progress, not when there are outstanding questions.

There's evidence for both theories, depending on where you look, and both sides have VIABLE evidence for their theories. We don't have a full picture painted by the evidence yet.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Ameesh
i really dont care what faith you have if you think the earth is < 10,000 years old you are a complete idiot.

I'm sure Columbus was told the same thing when he said the earth was round

Calling someone an idiot because they have different beliefs than you makes you an idiot, my friend.

It was commonly believed to be round by the educated people in Europe at the time. Eratostenes figured out the circumference in 250bc I think, by measuring sun angles.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: matt426malm


it doesn't change it is becoming more acurately measured, proposed ages throughout history

Still don't buy it. "becoming more accurate" does not describe the history of this issue. You assume it's becoming more accurate because that is the natural tendency of science, but until the final figure is arrived at how can you truly know if it's becoming more accurate? I've seen everything from 6,000 years to 20 billion.

So...the Grand Canyon was carved in 6,000 years? The glaciers that formed Yosemite Valley formed and receded in 6,000 years? Niagara Falls is in its current position because water carved that valley in 6,000 years?

Get a clue and lose the fundamentalist viewpoint. It's utterly ridiculous. Believing, word-for-word, a book that's nothing but a composition of various stories told over the centuries...LOL!

How many times do I have to say this? It takes faith to believe in either viewpoint, so you calling me a fundie is ludacrous. If the big bang theory/evolution were perfect we wouldn't be having this debate now would we?

"I'll change the subject because I have nothing to rebut with"

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: matt426malm


it doesn't change it is becoming more acurately measured, proposed ages throughout history

Still don't buy it. "becoming more accurate" does not describe the history of this issue. You assume it's becoming more accurate because that is the natural tendency of science, but until the final figure is arrived at how can you truly know if it's becoming more accurate? I've seen everything from 6,000 years to 20 billion.

So...the Grand Canyon was carved in 6,000 years? The glaciers that formed Yosemite Valley formed and receded in 6,000 years? Niagara Falls is in its current position because water carved that valley in 6,000 years?

Get a clue and lose the fundamentalist viewpoint. It's utterly ridiculous. Believing, word-for-word, a book that's nothing but a composition of various stories told over the centuries...LOL!

There are creation scientists that have studied all those phenomenon and come up with theories based on water and erosion that would explain those in light of a huge flood. What some scientists say is impossible can be wrong. A few years ago there was a hurricane that swept away a wealth of black sand beaches. Scientists lamented the loss, saying the beaches would take thousands of years to regenerate. A few days later they were back. Science is not infallible.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: matt426malm


it doesn't change it is becoming more acurately measured, proposed ages throughout history

Still don't buy it. "becoming more accurate" does not describe the history of this issue. You assume it's becoming more accurate because that is the natural tendency of science, but until the final figure is arrived at how can you truly know if it's becoming more accurate? I've seen everything from 6,000 years to 20 billion.

So...the Grand Canyon was carved in 6,000 years? The glaciers that formed Yosemite Valley formed and receded in 6,000 years? Niagara Falls is in its current position because water carved that valley in 6,000 years?

Get a clue and lose the fundamentalist viewpoint. It's utterly ridiculous. Believing, word-for-word, a book that's nothing but a composition of various stories told over the centuries...LOL!

There are creation scientists that have studied all those phenomenon and come up with theories based on water and erosion that would explain those in light of a huge flood. What some scientists say is impossible can be wrong. A few years ago there was a hurricane that swept away a wealth of black sand beaches. Scientists lamented the loss, saying the beaches would take thousands of years to regenerate. A few days later they were back. Science is not infallible.

"Creation scientists"

I stopped reading right there. They are wackos that only seek to push a fundamentalist view of religion as a "science" and warp our children's minds with it.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Ameesh
i really dont care what faith you have if you think the earth is < 10,000 years old you are a complete idiot.

I'm sure Columbus was told the same thing when he said the earth was round

Calling someone an idiot because they have different beliefs than you makes you an idiot, my friend.

It was commonly believed to be round by the educated people in Europe at the time. Eratostenes figured out the circumference in 250bc I think, by measuring sun angles.

Don't know the date, but yeah. He noticed the sun shining straight down a well in one place while if he walked somewhere else over a period of time it would still be shining straight down a well at his destination. Hence his theory that the earth was curved.