How Old is the Earth?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just don't call what you believe "science," and what we believe "religion."

What you believe is religion though, and we have no reason to believe that what scientists do shouldn't be called science. Hovind's attempt at a point was trite and asinine.

 

[AV1611VET]

What you believe is religion though, and we have no reason to believe that what scientists do shouldn't be called science.

Why are you wording your reply as if I said:

"Just don't call what you do 'science,' and what we believe 'religion.'"

When what I said was:

"Just don't call what you believe 'science,' and what we believe 'religion'".

Hovind's attempt at a point was trite and asinine.

Yours was by way of misquoting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why are you wording your reply as if I said:

"Just don't call what you do 'science,' and what we believe 'religion.'"

When what I said was:

"Just don't call what you believe 'science,' and what we believe 'religion'".

No, I corrected Hovind's trite views on science. Science is not a faith or religious belief, it is not something that is be believed in, nor does it require people to follow certain axioms to do and beliefs to uphold in their day to day life. Hence why science works across the board for every religion and belief. It is the way to study and document the natural and physical world around us.

To try and compare it to religion, saying that a person must 'believe' in it, is an attempt to muddy the waters to try and put science and religion on a level playing field. They cannot be on a level playing field, because they are two entirely separate things.

Yours was by way of misquoting.

I was correcting the words of a conman and an idiot.

 

[AV1611VET]

To try and compare it to religion, saying that a person must 'believe' in it, is an attempt to muddy the waters to try and put science and religion on a level playing field. They cannot be on a level playing field, because they are two entirely separate things.

I think you'll readily admit that you don't know where the primordial atom comes from.

I think you'll also claim that we don't know where God comes from.*

Yet your lack of knowledge is superior to ours?

I don't think so.

* And just so you know, we have a better explanation of where God comes from than science does where their primordial atom comes from.

I was correcting the words of a conman and an idiot.

Correcting it with what? your emotions?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think you'll readily admit that you don't know where the primordial atom comes from.

No-one does and anyone who says they do is very likely lying.

I think you'll also claim that we don't know where God comes from.*

God is eternal, the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end.

Yet your lack of knowledge is superior to ours?

I don't think so.

Never said it was and I do not quite get why you got that idea from what I said by pointing out that science and religion are two different things.

Correcting it with what? your emotions?

Factual definitions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Factual definitions.

If that's the road you want to go down, then how many men did Darwin "con" with what he believed to be true?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If that's the road you want to go down, then how many men did Darwin "con" with what he believed to be true?

He didn't con anyone. You and others can't even show what he said to be a lie.
And no, do not even think about pulling the subtitle of On Natural Selection, because it does nothing except to show that you really do not understand a damn thing you're talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

He didn't con anyone. You and others can't even show what he said to be a lie.
And no, do not even think about pulling the subtitle of On Natural Selection, because it does nothing except to show that you really do not understand a damn thing you're talking about.

And while we're at it, how many students were forced to put Pluto down as our ninth planet, because scientists believed Pluto was our ninth planet?

You want to play "conman," let's get serious and play "conman."

I've got a whole list of "conmen" for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And while we're at it, how many students were forced to put Pluto down as our ninth planet, because scientists believed Pluto was our ninth planet?

You want to play "conman," let's get serious and play "conman."

I've got a whole list of "conmen" for you.

You wouldn't know what a conman is if they came and socked you over the head and told you pool was sure fire to turn children to delinquents (you might get the reference, you might not).

 

[AV1611VET]

You wouldn't know what a conman is if they came and socked you over the head and told you pool was sure fire to turn children to delinquents (you might get the reference, you might not).

And for the record, how many atheists and other types of unbelievers bought his materials?

(I love those videos of unbelievers spending money to go to the Ark Encounter to make a video showing Mr Ham is conning us out of our money.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And for the record, how many atheists and other types of unbelievers bought his materials?

(I love those videos of unbelievers spending money to go to the Ark Encounter to make a video showing Mr Ham is conning us out of our money.)

Do not know nor do I care since you don't know what a conman is and will never explain how Darwin was a conman except for him studying how God's creation changes shape and form depending on the environment its in.

 

[FaithT]

I don't know how old the earth is, myself.

But what I do know is how long it has been in existence (plus-or-minus a couple of centuries).

That makes no sense.

 

[sjastro]

Afraid you'll be some 200 years off of Usher's calculations as well?



As Mr Hovind pointed out:

If we don't know where God came from, and you don't know where that primordial atom came from, then don't call what you believe "science," and what we believe "religion."



Not over math though.



No, you don't have to accept them.

It's your freewill not to have to.

Others have done it for you, and I posted Usher's chronology for you, and now you're retreating behind your craft (science) and telling me this is a science forum, not a religious forum.

I figured you'd pull something out of your hat, if I was to do all that work and show you my calculations; and I rejoiced when I saw Usher's calculations in chart form.

So I posted it to see what you'd say.

And sure enough, I was right.

In short, if you won't accept Usher's calculations, you surely won't accept mine.

And I never did expect you to do the math yourself, either.

My point stands.

Earth may be extremely old, but it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

Your post has degenerated into pure idiocy.
If I decided to do the sums myself and also found to be 200 years out it adds further weight that Ussher is wrong yet you don't appear to understand this basic point.

Why should I use your method anyway?
In your post#669 there is a glaring problem; you establish a genealogy between Adam and Abraham yet there is no genealogy between Abraham and Jesus.

Yet the genealogy does exist in the NT in Matthew and Luke and here lies the problem they contradict each other.
In Matthew there are 34 generations between Abraham and Jesus, in Luke there are 50.

So it appears your hero Ussher has used the modern equivalent of the too hard basket by ignoring the NT altogether.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your post has degenerated into pure idiocy.

Anything else I can help you with?

 

[sjastro]

Anything else I can help you with?

How about stop derailing threads with creationism which are off topic and violate forum rules.
This is not the Creation & Evolution forum.

 

[Estrid]

How about stop derailing threads with creationism which are off topic and violate forum rules.
This is not the Creation & Evolution forum.

Only one way to stop derails

 

[Astrophile]

Why are you wording your reply as if I said:

"Just don't call what you do 'science,' and what we believe 'religion.'"

When what I said was:

"Just don't call what you believe 'science,' and what we believe 'religion'".




Yours was by way of misquoting.

If I say that I believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit with an eccentricity of 0.0167, that the Earth is about 4540±20 million years old, and that red light is an electromagnetic wave with a frequency of about 450 Thz, do you object to my calling that 'science', and if so, why?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What I didn't expect is how many people in the video linked below didn't know how old the earth is. And how far off they were.

Well, it is all beyond imagining anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I say that I believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit with an eccentricity of 0.0167, that the Earth is about 4540±20 million years old, and that red light is an electromagnetic wave with a frequency of about 450 Thz, do you object to my calling that 'science', and if so, why?

I do not object.

But if I asked you where that primordial atom came from, and you say "I don't know," then don''t call it "science," and what we believe "religion" if we can't say where God came from.

I've even used your 450 Thz in a challenge thread I started once.

My Rangifer Challenge:

They have found an animal called a Rangifer that emits electromagnetic energy from its anterior nares in the 750nm range.

Creation or evolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But if I asked you where that primordial atom came from, and you say "I don't know," then don''t call it "science," and what we believe "religion" if we can't say where God came from.

I still do not understand why you even think that's a fair comparison. We don't know where the primordial atom came from, which is actually now (apparently) not an accepted idea for the Big Bang theory anyway, but to say that we don't know would still mean that it would still be science. And even if you said that you can't say where God came from, it would still be religion.