How old is the Earth?

[Statler Waldorf]

Well at least you are honest enough to admit that you make up your mind on the validity of an argument BEFORE you read the argument lol.

I indeed dismiss creationist science as not science. I freely admit to creationist science as being an oxymoron.

As to your relativity argument, I already refuted that approach in another thread you posted on, so I see no need to do it again on here.

You indeed said it was untrue that relativity refuted my rebuttal, but you did not back up that claim with ... well... anything.

I love how you act like all secular scientists agree on every issue and it's only the creation guys who are marching out of step. Astronomers disagree on all sorts of issues, such as the existance of white holes and what happens when matter enters a black hole. Dr. Newton is part of the American Astronomical Society so I consider him a reputable source (unlike youtube).

Red Herring. I never made that presumption. We're talking about a specific set of issues - stop divering from the topic.

So without using any other measurement, only your little yard stick, can you tell us how you would know "where you were on the Earth"? So you could then do your calculations with your yard stick lol. Again, too insignificant of a measurement to conclude anything. Good try though, I do admire your effort on here, you give it more than most.

As you no doubt missed, I provided a link in that post pointing to how that actually works. I'll give you a hint: it involves geometry.
Although I suppose I made that link hard to find because I hid it inside of an underlined word that was a different color than the usual black.
Here it is: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fa...p018.shtml

Now that I made my link plainly obvioius I should also note that that website is a website for students and that particular idea (measuring the earth's circumferance) is a science fair project idea. Thus, proving once again that you can refute creationist crap with a basic high school education, "Government Scientist."

Such hubris for such a pointless post. That just proves what the decay rate is at the time of the observation. If I am observing the growth of a 17 year old, and I conclude that if he is really growing an inch a year I should be able to observe 1/365 of an inch a day. If I do observe this, that only means that RIGHT NOW he is growing at a rate that will yield one inch of growth in one year. Does that mean this rate will stay constant? Absolutely not. Does that mean this rate has always been constant? Absolutely not. Does this mean that I can tell how old the teenager is by how fast he is growing now? Absolutely not. I hoped you learned something.

Actually, there are clear signs in the human body that a 17 year old's growth won't stay constant. Also, there are plenty of examples of humans at different stages of growth in which it would be easy to conclude what a person's average rate of growth would be from birth to death.
So yes, you can, in fact, learn the growth rate of a human at all stages of life without necessarily needing to observe an individual human grow from birth to death.

Hahahaha. I am seriously starting to worry about you. My whole point of the "Earth's Circumfrence" argument was to point out how small of an observable area you would have compared to the whole Earth's Circumfrence when compared to 100 years to 4.5 billion years. This shows how it would be impossible to conclude how far around the Earth is if you were only able to observe a tiny section of the Earth, (remember observing the sun is violating my initial premise since it is outside of your observable area). Then you go off on some crazy tangent about how you can actually measure the Earth's circumfrence using a yardstick. However, this was completely dishonest because the experiment actually uses the sun, not just a yardstick. It also uses loads of previous tested knowledge about the Earth's shape and it's relationship to the sun. This knowledge could not have been gathered by observing your tiny allowed area, so it can then in turn not be used in the experiment. So this experiment has nothing to do with my original point. You are given a linear image of 3.5 inches of the Earth's surface. Can you use this image, and only this image to tell me how big the Earth is? No of course you can't. To think, you get on me for deviating from the discussion at hand, pullease.