The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[crjmurray]

Yes, that is right. I have been told the age of the earth as being anything from 200 million to 14 billion years old and everything in between by atheists but of course atheists as is usual are in denial and try to cover up the implausibility of what they claim by stating that one atheist does not speak for another so I guess as an atheist you believe whatever you want to believe and that is truth because I say so and if another atheist comes along and says something different then that is the truth because he says so and if another atheist comes along and says.....The shifting sands of atheism is there for all to see, but why worry. The truth is not high on their agenda as they trade on myths and fairy stories so anything goes as long as they don't have to prove what they say is the truth.

Their security seems to be to say anything that massages a damaged ego in the hope that no one will discover the fallacy of their dreams, obfuscation and complete and utter bunkum. (Forgive me if that language is a bit strong).

Who is telling you that the earth is only 200 million years old?

 

[As I was saying]

Who is telling you that the earth is only 200 million years old?

Atheists.

 

[klutedavid]

This is just flat out wrong. Really, really wrong.
Humans can navigate quite well without any visual reference points. They can even navigate accurately while blindfolded.
merely took it upon yourself to do some research and reading on the subject.

Not sure if you realize that it is not a claim but common sense.

(LiveScience)

When lost in the desert or a thick forest terrains devoid of landmarks people tend to walk in circles.
Blindfolded people show the same tendency; lacking external reference points, they curve around in
loops as tight as 66 feet (20 meters) in diameter, all the while believing they are walking in straight
lines.

Why can't we walk straight?

Only recently have scientists begun to make gains in answering this age-old question. By conducting a series of experiments with blindfolded test subjects, a group of researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybergenetics in Germany have systematically ruled out several plausible explanations for loopy walking. For example, body asymmetries has been posed as one theory, but the team found no correlation between factors such as uneven leg lengths and right- or left-side dominance and walkers' veering directions.

The researchers also ruled out random physical errors, such as incorrect gauging of how you need to move your legs to walk straight, arguing that these would cause walkers to meander back and forth in a zigzag fashion rather than to trace out circles.

The researchers believe that loopy paths follow from a walker's changing sense of "straight ahead." With every step, a small deviation is likely added to a person's cognitive sense of what's straight, and these deviations accumulate to send that individual veering around in ever tighter circles as time goes on.

This increasing curvature doesn't happen when external reference points are visible, because these allow the walker to frequently recalibrate his or her sense of direction. When walking down the street, for example, the looming presence of a nearby building (as seen in your peripheral vision) prevents you from curving into it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Humans can navigate quite well even when blindfolded in environments that they know. E.g. around their own house.

Yes, in a featureless environment people tend to walk in circles. Why don't we have better navigation? Well, why don't we have better eyesight like an eagle? Why don't we have better lung capacity like a dolphin? Because those features either weren't important for our ecological niche and hence weren't selected for. Or over our evolutionary history, there never was an opportunity for us to develop this GPS, because nothing of that sort ever developed within our ancestors so that it couldn't then improve through a process of natural selection and evolution.

Atheists.

Can you name one such person who says that the world is only 200 million years old?

 

[As I was saying]

Humans can navigate quite well even when blindfolded in environments that they know. E.g. around their own house.

Yes, in a featureless environment people tend to walk in circles. Why don't we have better navigation? Well, why don't we have better eyesight like an eagle? Why don't we have better lung capacity like a dolphin? Because those features either weren't important for our ecological niche and hence weren't selected for. Or over our evolutionary history, there never was an opportunity for us to develop this GPS, because nothing of that sort ever developed within our ancestors so that it couldn't then improve through a process of natural selection and evolution.



Can you name one such person who says that the world is only 200 million years old?

Yes, the one that told me it was 200 million years old.

 

[Astrophile]

Oh by the way, I note you have not denied that the age of the universe goes up and down depending on who you talk to.

No, but I did; look at post 211.

the age of about 13.7 billion years from WMAP has stood since 2004,

 

[crjmurray]

Atheists.

You did not find 200 million years as an absolute age in any modern scientific source.

 

[Astrophile]

Sorry Astrophile, but Wikipedia is not my Bible or source of reference. Anyone can say anything on Wikipedia so making that your source is to say the least, is fraught with dangers and leaves you open to being led up the garden path.

I gave you a link to Sandage's 1958 paper in Astrophysical Journal, where he concluded that the age of the universe was 13 billion years, to within a factor of two. Albrecht Unsöld, in The New Cosmos (1967), gives an age of 13±5 billion years. C.W. Allen, in Astrophysical Quantities (Third Edition, published in 1973), gives the age as 15 billion years. All these ages were published long before Wikipedia was thought of.

I have been studying astronomy for more than 55 years. I do not rely on Wikipedia for my knowledge; I quote it simply because it is readily accessible for other readers of these threads.

 

[Astrophile]

Atheists.

Then they must have been very ignorant atheists. The age of the Earth has been established at 4550±50 million years since the 1950s. Even before that time scientists knew that the Earth was much more than 200 million years old.

Harold Spencer Jones, in General Astronomy (published 1934), says that the oldest rocks whose ages have been directly determined (by radiometric dating) have ages of about 1,300 million years, and that 'the age of the Earth (from the time when the crust formed) is of the order of two or three thousand million years'.

Perhaps in future you should ask scientists rather than atheists how old the Earth is.

 

[As I was saying]

Then they must have been very ignorant atheists. The age of the Earth has been established at 4550±50 million years since the 1950s. Even before that time scientists knew that the Earth was much more than 200 million years old.

Harold Spencer Jones, in General Astronomy (published 1934), says that the oldest rocks whose ages have been directly determined (by radiometric dating) have ages of about 1,300 million years, and that 'the age of the Earth (from the time when the crust formed) is of the order of two or three thousand million years'.

Perhaps in future you should ask scientists rather than atheists how old the Earth is.

True, like all the other atheists. Actually I asked the scientist that knows more than all the other scientists put together. His name is the Great I Am. Others known him as Yahweh. In the book written about him it says that his foolishness is greater than all the wisdom of man. That is awesome!!

By the way, who is Harold Spencer Jones? Is he another of those ignorant atheists?

 

[As I was saying]

I gave you a link to Sandage's 1958 paper in Astrophysical Journal, where he concluded that the age of the universe was 13 billion years, to within a factor of two. Albrecht Unsöld, in The New Cosmos (1967), gives an age of 13±5 billion years. C.W. Allen, in Astrophysical Quantities (Third Edition, published in 1973), gives the age as 15 billion years. All these ages were published long before Wikipedia was thought of.

I have been studying astronomy for more than 55 years. I do not rely on Wikipedia for my knowledge; I quote it simply because it is readily accessible for other readers of these threads.

Well, to put you in the picture, my source who is the Great I Am was around before any of your favourite atheists were writing books on their nonsense. In fact he created the people you are quoting so that makes him far superior to your favourite sons. In fact the book written about him says that the his foolishness is greater that the wisdom of man so that doesn't say much for the wisdom of man does it. It would suggest that you are on very shaky ground when you quote man for your evidence as it means you are relying on foolishness uno numero.

Oh by the way, all this speculation about the age of the earth and what not by humans has no basis in fact. All it is is speculation. Another word for speculation is gamble. Not being a gambling man I don't bother going to second hand sources. I would rather consult with THE source of all knowledge.

A fried of mine who debated atheists about the existence of God answered all their questions and claims with perfection. Afterwards he was asked by his friends how he knew so much. He said "I don't. I didn't even know what some of the questions meant, so I relied on the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth and give me the answers."

As they could not counteract his answers, he won hands down. I know that such a supernatural event is way beyond your pay grade, but them's the facts.

 

[As I was saying]

No, but I did; look at post 211.

That is not denying the age of the earth goes up and down. That is stating one source that said one thing.

 

[As I was saying]

You did not find 200 million years as an absolute age in any modern scientific source.

Didn't I? How do you know what I have read and what I haven't read? I have noticed one thing here and that is atheists seem to think that they know what everyone who is not an atheist reads and talks to even though they have never met anyone of them in their life or stood by as they talked to whom they talked to.

I was under the impression that atheists pride themselves in dealing with logic and fact but it seems not. They are as much creatures of supposition, guesswork, gambling, blind faith and foolishness as the next person.

 

[crjmurray]

Didn't I? How do you know what I have read and what I haven't read? I have noticed one thing here and that is atheists seem to think that they know what everyone who is not an atheist reads and talks to even though they have never met anyone of them in their life or stood by as they talked to whom they talked to.

I was under the impression that atheists pride themselves in dealing with logic and fact but it seems not. They are as much creatures of supposition, guesswork, gambling, blind faith and foolishness as the next person.

One, I'm not an atheist.

Two, show a source that states the absolute age of the earth is 200 million years. Make claims, support them, etc.

 

[Astrophile]

By the way, who is Harold Spencer Jones? Is he another of those ignorant atheists?

Harold Spencer Jones (1890-1960) was Astronomer Royal from 1933 to 1955, after having been Chief Assistant at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope. In the latter position he carried out important work in connection with star catalogues and stellar radial velocities.

He was an authority on positional astronomy. In 1930-31 he measured the Earth's distance from the Sun by using observations of the near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros, and was awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Medal of the Royal Society for this work.

He was the author of the book General Astronomy and several other books, as well as technical papers. He played an important part in the removal of the Royal Observatory from Greenwich to Herstmonceux. The catalogue of the working papers of Harold Spencer Jones contains 707 items.

I do not know anything about Spencer Jones's religion, but I think that what I have said shows that he was not an 'ignorant atheist'.

 

[As I was saying]

One, I'm not an atheist.

Two, show a source that states the absolute age of the earth is 200 million years. Make claims, support them, etc.

I didn't make the claim. An atheist did.

 

[crjmurray]

I didn't make the claim. An atheist did.

You made the claim that someone said the earth has an absolute age of 200 million years. If you claim that some random internet person told you this, I don't care but why you would bring it up in conversation, I do not know. If you claim you got this from a legitimate scientific source, then I'd love to see that supported.

 

[Shemjaza]

I didn't make the claim. An atheist did.

You haven't given us any reason to believe you.

It's also irrelevant.

I am an atheist, I believe the Earth is over four billion years old. You shouldn't believe me because I say so, but I can explain why: the structure and signs of radiometric decay in the rocks of the Earth point to that age; in addition the structure and make up of our Solar system also point to the formation of the Earth four to five billion years ago.

Can you see the difference?

 

[As I was saying]

Harold Spencer Jones (1890-1960) was Astronomer Royal from 1933 to 1955, after having been Chief Assistant at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope. In the latter position he carried out important work in connection with star catalogues and stellar radial velocities.

He was an authority on positional astronomy. In 1930-31 he measured the Earth's distance from the Sun by using observations of the near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros, and was awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Medal of the Royal Society for this work.

He was the author of the book General Astronomy and several other books, as well as technical papers. He played an important part in the removal of the Royal Observatory from Greenwich to Herstmonceux. The catalogue of the working papers of Harold Spencer Jones contains 707 items.

I do not know anything about Spencer Jones's religion, but I think that what I have said shows that he was not an 'ignorant atheist'.

Nice resume. I am so delighted that my source leaves Mr. Spencer brain dead in comparison. I talk to my source every day and the things he tells me leaves me breathless sometimes. I am a bookaholic and I thank God that he gave me a love for reading so much so that I have over 1,000 books in my personal library and I buy about 20 books a year to read on all sorts of subjects. At the moment I am getting myself informed on Islam, mainly reading books written by people who have worked amongst muslims for several years and those who have suffered terribly at the hands of muslims.

I avoid third person speculation, preferring authors who are there on the ground seeing what is happening but I know some atheists don't believe in first person evidence. If the author in question hasn't written a scientific paper about their treatment by muslims, then the evidence is not admissible.

I thank God that I am not the cynical average atheist who is denied the pleasure of reading other people's stories with an open mind and an ability to sympathise with the people who are being written about. The book I have just read was based on research over a period of 20 years by about 200 researchers in every corner of Islam. None of them have written scientific papers so I guess it is all mumbo jumbo.

Think what you like whilst I just enjoy the fact that millions of muslims are coming to faith in Jesus all round the world as they have seen Islam for what it is, a barbaric war torn religion that offers nothing and christianity for what is it is as loving caring society with a Saviour that offers salvation and peace of mind.

 

[As I was saying]

You haven't given us any reason to believe you.

It's also irrelevant.

I am an atheist, I believe the Earth is over four billion years old. You shouldn't believe me because I say so, but I can explain why: the structure and signs of radiometric decay in the rocks of the Earth point to that age; in addition the structure and make up of our Solar system also point to the formation of the Earth four to five billion years ago.

Can you see the difference?

I am not trying to make you believe me. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. You asked a question and I answered it. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. if you want to waste your time here asking questions you don't want the answer to be my guest. I have worked out a long time ago that atheists in general do not want answers they want arguments. Well, go ahead and ask away and I will give the answers I want to give, not the ones that you want me to give.

The fact that you have to spend so much time trying to control other people's answers shows how insecure you are.