How old is the Earth?

2010-05-26 02:47 PM

HilaryK
Denton, TX
Posts: 39

How old is the Earth? Thousands, millions or billions of years old?

2010-05-26 06:37 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

About 4.5 billion years old is the best guess.

2010-05-27 02:17 PM

PASHA
Seattle, WA
Posts: 96

about 5.5 billion years, for we can't actually measure the slag state
of the molten ball.
So if the GENESIS 6 days was a PARABLE-PARALLEL written for
early mankind before SCIENCE came along and we largely became exposed
to what it demonstrates, then the earth ebing WITHOUT FORM could well
have begun to form_COALESCE 6 billion years ago, or to children who
have no real grasp on time- like 6 days.

STRANGE how the GENESIS STORY was written down in the same order
as what modern PALEO SCIENCE notes of the order of species- leading
to the ASCENSION of man.

QUESTION, why did the lot form HERE where this piece of cosmic realestate
orbits about? WHY does the SUN basically stay locked in a gravity well, and not spin
off like the rest of the universe?

WE ARE SO WISE AND YET WISDOM WAS DISPENSED THOUSANDS OF YEARS
AGO, when the first GREEK formed the idea of ATOMIC, which the later Muslims
took note of in their holy book of record.
THAT is what these books are in fact, RECORDS, of events, that have been
blurred by time and mans own tendency to intervene, with his/her own bent skews.

IN MYTH one can always find TRUTH.

SO then the next question must surely be
WHY NOT ALSO A GOD OUT WHERE WE HAVEN"T LOOKED OR THOUGHT
TO FIND HIM/THEM.

pax

2010-05-27 02:34 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

Hydrogen in the sun is estimated at igniting roughly 5.4 billion years ago. I have seen no estimates of earth being even close to 5 billion years old, let alone 6, even in molten state. I've seen ranges from 4.3 billion to 4.55 billion years old. If you want to take it back even farther, the particals that make up everything, including human beings, has existed since the big bang, roughly 13.75 billion years ago.

I noticed you used your 6 days anology as a measurement for the major extinction periods that wiped out more than 20% of life in Earth's history in other posts. It can't apply to both.

2010-05-27 02:42 PM

PASHA
Seattle, WA
Posts: 96

really AND HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
Were you here when the shake and bake started?
So it is all SUBJECTIVE @ best, and SUSPECT as well.

SPECULATIVE is what best describes all our so called TRUTH
KNOWLEDGE, about events and things that we couldn't in the here and
now say we are so sure that is how it was.
LOOK we have so much trouble in just in our own time about LANGUAGE
as a case in point, how each person uses it, and we are going to say what
someone 2 millenniums ago wrote- meant to say?
Or what someone 5 millenniums meant when it was drawn?
And now the problem gets EXPONENTIAL: in our ASSERTIONS of what HELIUM and
HYDROGEN was like 6 EONS ago?

What I postulate is what I believe ever SEE DICK, SEE JANE , SEE SPOT book
also offers up, a horizon that isn't limited to the tittles of the title.

WE WEREN"T THERE, we haven't even been to MARS and reap a cup of water
to assert there is water
and we haven't done the same on the moon even with just one lame assed
rocket shot at it.
THAT IS THE WORST SCIENCE EVER, it verges on BLIND RELIGIOUSNESS
where the PROOF can't be replicated with any GUARANTEE.

MAKE WATER then claim there is water.
UNTIL it is all suspect-subjective SPECTULATION verging on OPTIMISM>

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY ABOUT HOPE?
FOR ME
I THINK LIKE BROTHER THOMAS< SHOW ME THE BEEF and I'll believe as you
would have me believe, until then I am DON QUIXOTE tilting @ the NONSENSE that
has divided mankind since GOD knows when.

pax

2010-05-27 03:02 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

Dating isotopes.

Here is a pretty good overview of it.

2010-05-27 03:09 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

It's odd how you think science is bad, and claim it has no valid argement. When science is built upon a huge foundation of evidence from multiple sources, while your faith is just set up on just one simple book, one source that has little corroborating evidence.

You come up with the 6 billion year old idea out of nowhere in an effort to give support to some fable in The Bible. Where science uses the laws of physics, and other natural laws to come to the conclusion of 4.5 billion years. Evidence is suppose to support the conclusion. You can't use the conclusion to support the evidence, that makes no sence.

2010-05-27 03:12 PM

PASHA
Seattle, WA
Posts: 96

WHO WENT TO SOL AND TOOK SAMPLES, huh ZACH?
Don't you see? IT"S SPECULATIVE, AT BEST or the LEAST

I know about how we read stuff here on earth, but we ain't been to SOL YET
to collext samples just as we ain't been to the belly of this earth or even beyond the
lunar gravitational reach.
We rely on tests that @ the very best are SO BASIC so GENERAL as to be laughable.

We are all made of STAR DUST, but when was that STAR DUST FORMED and
how many times has it been REFORMED?

CONSIDER the GULF BP spill, it was oil before it was released, it is oil on the surface
but not as it was, before the release, and when it time it will have become buried again
it won't be as it is now, it will become like the ALBERTA TAR SANDS. CHANGED
yes EVEN ATOMS CHANGE as we all know from HIROSHIMA, and the ATOMIC AGE.
DECAY-ENTROPY holds sway and for someone to claim something they can't reproduce is
what? GOOD SCIENCE?

pax

2010-05-27 03:28 PM

PASHA
Seattle, WA
Posts: 96

WE are leap frogging each others posts
I QUESTION EVERYTHING AND TEND TO BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE- that being SUBJECT
to me-- with a modicum of COGITO ERGO SUM, DEI ERGO SUM
LOOK I BELIEVE ALOT OF STUFF, religious and scientific and I lambast all equally from
my perspective which to others may well be subjective or suspect- best or least.
BUT I DON"T SWALLOW ALL THE CODSWADDLE that is thrust out as TRUTH.

TELL ME ZACH what is it that GOT MAN TO LOOK-which then ultimately led man, not ape
or chimp, or the EDIACARANS?
Maybe they all wondered and thought, we gots better tings to do, than get bogged down
trying to fathom ROCKS, AIR, WATER, SKY, EARTH, EACH OTHER for that matter.

BUT WE HUMANS WONDER, and we tend to have been all at it for a very long time, so when
was science first science, or was science something before it became science, like an art
say like religion?

WHAT I POSTULATED with the 6 days, is that SCRIPTURE has ALWAYS LED THE WAY
of SCIENCE
no matter what the latter day scinece community or religious claim.
DARWIN was a RELGIOUS PERSON, who saw things none had noticed as special
TESLA noticed something special as well in BROADCAST POWER
DECARTES speculated in his now FIELD of SCIENCE that there must be MORE than
just a collection of being moving each of us to reach further than our grasp can reach.

SCIENCE was borne from the HYPOCRISY of BLIND RELIGION,
But that doesn't make the grasshopper the sensei does it?

IN BALANCE is perfection attained not in one extreme or another.
GOD SUPPOSEDLY USED WHAT WAS THERE, didn't make from NADA something.
So like all good developers, there is an order to the development.

GENESIS STATES MAN AS MADE LAST? SURELY GOD COULD HAVE MADE MANKIND
FIRST< BUT HE DIDN"T.
SCIENCE STATES THE SAME THING based on other CRITERIA, which it assumes as
uniquely it's own. BULL.
LOGIC is not limited to SCIENCE but to men and women of UNCOMMON TRAITS
ILLOGIC traits however seem to afflict all venues, religion and science alike.

TRUTH, bare naked and ugly pleasing to NOBODY but itself.

pax

2010-05-27 03:47 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

The lab tests have been reproduced many, many times. We have landed on Mars, far from the moon. Gravitational reach of any body is infinite, the effect just become minimal. Measuring atomic decay is the method used for dating. Sure you can say science is somewhat speculative when it comes to dating. But using the same arguement, faith and religion is 100% speculative. Noone knows for a fact, it is rough guesses based on the world around us. How do we know that the year is 365.25 days long? Do we have someone above the solar system timing the rotations as the earth spins around the sun? How do we know that T-Rex ate meat? Did anyone see him down in the cafeteria? No, we take evidence of the known world and the laws of physics and make calcuations and come up with theories, not blindly believe in one random book.

2010-05-27 03:54 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

PASHA Wrote:

TRUTH, bare naked and ugly pleasing to NOBODY but itself.

Not a fan of truth?

2010-05-27 04:31 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

Hi Hilary,

The Hebrew word translated "yom" can mean a 24-hour day and it can mean a very long period of time.

I don't know how old the earth is. I believe man has been here about six thousand years, but the earth is probably much older than that.

MrWonder

2010-05-29 05:11 PM

PASHA
Seattle, WA
Posts: 96

The lab tests have been reproduced many, many times. We have landed on Mars, far from the moon

AHHHHHH
We have not been there ZACH, we have SURMISED, HYPOTHESISED
We have sent little iron machines to stand in for us.
SEND your car and see what it will impart for a start.

Just because we have a lot of one HOLE SHOTS, to my way of thinking that seems
like really really BAD SCIENCE.

It's like someone digging up a new fossil bone, not the whole creation just a bone
and then spinning ALOT ABOUT NOTHING around that wee bone.
EVERY new bone fragment of simian likeness must SURELY THEREFORE
PROVE we are all decended from the apes.
By that reasoning then we are all decended from the T-REX,
By that chain of LOGIC we are all decended from the little green men of Mars.

I'll give you your argument as having a SKEWED MERIT, but then by the same, so does MINE.
BIG TEETH must make me a ferrotious beast.
And we didn't always believe that the year was 365 days long, for the HEBREW calender
ran not on the sun but LE LUNE.
We also once believed that SOL revolved around us, go outside, and tell me that
it doesn't when I stand still it orbits east to west around me.
So one would thus have to have a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE in order to deduce
somethings correctly.

BP also relied on SCIENCE and look at the mess their science has created?
What was the hurry to get the oil from one mile down out of the deposit of the
MISSISSIPPI? Now lets see how science will FIX this?
What were the DISPERSENTS USED? Where they BENIGN or will they be the
next WRONG in mans KNOW HOW?

I have never presumed on T REX as being a MEATEATER, by that samwe token
then MR WALRUS must be one heck of a meat eater?
Or how about Mr ELEPHANT with it's two great teeth>

SCIENCE as well RELIGION are both cousins of alot of PRESUMPTION.
And BAD SCIENCE and BAD RELIGION seems todays vogue.

you postulated
we take evidence of the known world and the laws of physics and make
calcuations and come up with theories, not blindly believe in one random book.
THEORIES, need I say more?
WHAT ARE THEORIES? Are they not trite IDEALS-IDOLS that folks pray about and to?
O what would this world be like with out so many MAN MADE IDOLS?
IDOLS men have been bashing each others collectives in over.

pax

2010-05-29 05:13 PM

PASHA
Seattle, WA
Posts: 96

I love TRUTH,, that is why it is naked, bare and ugly
What I hate is SKEWED self serving TRUTHS that serve
nobody, not men, not GOD, just vain sods filled with souls.
I love truth, that is why I am at ease lambasting the scientific
as well religious.
For they are as I noted kissing cousins serving NOBODY but their
own greedy priesthoods.

pax

2010-05-29 06:28 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

T-Rex is assumed to be a meat eater not because its teeth were big, but because they were sharp and razor-like. It is a trait that all predators who have teeth share. Noone is saying that we descended from T-Rex. No scientific evidence suggests that we descended from Martians. Nor is the current idea that we descended from apes. However, apes and humans evolved from the same ancestor. An adaptation that occured some 400,000 years ago. We know this because our DNA is 99.9% the same, bone records support this, and the fact that the human race is still adapting to our enviroments, noticably. The appendix is slowly wasting away more each generation. The pinky toe is slowly curling in wasting away as well since it is no longer used for climbing. Areas where the population still climb on a daily basis are not showing signs of the enfeebled pinky toe. Evidence that humans once had tails is still slightly present.

For science to recognize an idea as a theory, it has to go through rigorous scrutiny. Evidence must be presented, and any evidence against that idea prevents it from becoming a thoery. It's not like people just shout out random things and calls them thoeries.