How old is the Earth?

[Statler Waldorf]

Between 6000 and 7000 years.

I'm gonna piss myself!

I think your position is equally as funny. So you have proven nothing. Nobody on here has even come close to proving otherwise. Starlight and Radio-metric dating are the best they have? Seriously?

---

I told you guys, just another creationist asshole.

Personal attack, read the forum rules that you agreed to when you made an account.

[Ace Otana]

I think your position is equally as funny. So you have proven nothing. Nobody on here has even come close to proving otherwise. Starlight and Radio-metric dating are the best they have? Seriously?

I'm not even going to bother debating with you. Not worth it.
Like Richard Dawkins, I don't debate with creationists.

[Existentialist]

It's not just because of the speed of light that I think the earth is billions of years rather than a few thousand. Evolution, ice core layers, continental drift, fossils, rock formations with fossils in the right layers all seem to add up to a billion-year process.

But I am interested in the psychology behind this. Why is the 6,000-year earth theory so important that it is necessary to have such elaborate theories to make the physics fit? Is it a kind of psychological first line of defence? Do you really need physics to be explainable in order to believe in God? A lot of Christians are ok with the 4.5 bn year analysis. Their faith doesn't seem to be shaken by the debunking of the literal bible. Why hang on to it? Is it a measure of insecurity?

[Statler Waldorf]

I think your position is equally as funny. So you have proven nothing. Nobody on here has even come close to proving otherwise. Starlight and Radio-metric dating are the best they have? Seriously?

I'm not even going to bother debating with you. Not worth it.
Like Richard Dawkins, I don't debate with creationists.

It's not that Dawkins doesn't debate with Creationists, it's that he can't debate with Creationists. He'd get his smug little British toosh handed to him if he did. Seems to me that you are in the same boat as him. If Creationists are so far off the mark you'd think it would be a pretty easy debate right? No reason to be scared there buddy.

[theVOID]

How old you think the Earth is.

4.5 Billion years.

Why you think this.

Because the best truth gathering mechanism we know of point towards this conclusion, and thus this is the conclusion that we have most reason to believe is true.

What presuppositions you had before examining the evidence and making your conclusions. [/i]

Just a solid epistemology.

What about you?

[Ace Otana]

It's not that Dawkins doesn't debate with Creationists, it's that he can't debate with Creationists. He'd get his smug little British toosh handed to him if he did. No reason to be scared there buddy.

Hardly.

If Creationists are so far off the mark you'd think it would be a pretty easy debate right?

Yes easy, thing is...it never fucking ends. That's the problem. I have no problem going into discussion with other theists, just not creationists. I'm going to be honest with you, I don't debate with creationists because I think they're too stupid to debate with. Just not worth the time and effort...mate.

No reason to be scared there buddy

Scared or wise? Should I conserve my energy or waste it on an endless argument with a creationist?
Easy choice.
Anyway, other atheists here have already said what needed to be said.

[Statler Waldorf]

It's not just because of the speed of light that I think the earth is billions of years rather than a few thousand. Evolution, ice core layers, continental drift, fossils, rock formations with fossils in the right layers all seem to add up to a billion-year process.

But I am interested in the psychology behind this. Why is the 6,000-year earth theory so important that it is necessary to have such elaborate theories to make the physics fit? Is it a kind of psychological first line of defence? Do you really need physics to be explainable in order to believe in God? A lot of Christians are ok with the 4.5 bn year analysis. Their faith doesn't seem to be shaken by the debunking of the literal bible. Why hang on to it? Is it a measure of insecurity?

Well all of the things you mentioned in the first paragraph can be explained with a Young Earth view just like they can with an Old Earth view, so I do not believe they should be used to back one position over the other.

As to your second paragraph, you ask a very good question and I applaud you for asking it. I first of all do not believe the Science denies a Young Earth, but for the purpose of the discussion let's say it appeared to. I think a literal view of Scripture should be taken for many reasons but here are four. . .

1. If you don't take the book of Genesis literally then why take any of the rest of the Bible literally? Maybe Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead. Maybe he was not actually born of a Virgin? If you start compromising on all of these cornerstones of the Faith then you start believing in something that is not Christianity at all.

2. Why compromise on it to begin with? It will not help anyone come to the Faith. "Well I just can't except a Young Earth because Science does not back it, but I will accept Virgins giving birth." You see my point?

3. Jesus seemed to take the Genesis account literally, so if the Son of God did, then so too must His followers.

4. People will believe when God wants them to believe. So it is my job to present and support what scripture says, not water it down to make it more appealing. One Creationist said it very well, "It's God's job to open their hearts, it's our job to shut their mouths." :-)

Science requires interpretation, it can all be interpreted to support the Biblical view of creation. So I really do not see any reason to abandon that view.

Thanks for being civil in your response!

---

It's not that Dawkins doesn't debate with Creationists, it's that he can't debate with Creationists. He'd get his smug little British toosh handed to him if he did. No reason to be scared there buddy.

Hardly.

If Creationists are so far off the mark you'd think it would be a pretty easy debate right?

Yes easy, thing is...it never fucking ends. That's the problem. I have no problem going into discussion with other theists, just not creationists. I'm going to be honest with you, I don't debate with creationists because I think they're too stupid to debate with. Just not worth the time and effort...mate.

No reason to be scared there buddy

Scared or wise? Should I conserve my energy or waste it on an endless argument with a creationist?
Easy choice.
Anyway, other atheists here have already said what needed to be said.

Well you certainly don't add any credit to your position by being too scared to debate the opposing position. I never run from a debate because I am secure in my beliefs. I suggest you re-evalucate your's.

Could you imagine if the top Creation Scientists in the World acted like Dawkins? "Well we know we are right but we will not debate any Evolutionists", there would be outrage! Yet, they are the ones who have extended the open invitation to debate any Atheist anywhere on Earth and they'd even pay the expenses. They are still waiting for someoen to accept that invitation.

[Ace Otana]

Well you certainly don't add any credit to your position by being too scared to debate the opposing position. I never run from a debate because I am secure in my beliefs. I suggest you re-evalucate your's.

Refusing to argue with creationists doesn't imply the emotion of fear. There are people in the world who believe the earth is flat, now I would refuse to debate with them as well. It's just not worth it.

I don't debate with total idiots. End of.

Though I shall add this, because I wants too.



Now old chap, if you don't mind. I'm going to have some rest. It's really late over here. If you want to argue with someone over your beliefs, find someone else. Quite frankly the banana nightmare and the crock-a-duck did the trick on convincing me to never waste time with a creationist.

Good night.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I don't think you get it. The An-isotropic Propagation of Light Model is completely consistant with Albert's Theories. You cannot prove one of the two models to be correct because emperical proof requires direct observation and the two models appear identical to the observer, that's the point. Like I said early, many are moving towards the newer model because it solves a lot of time problems fo the Big Bang theory. However, it also makes it so that you can know longer use Starlight to date the Universe, bummer dude.

It sounds like someone's attempt to say that despite all observational evidence, math, and physics, somesone somewhere found a way to attempt to discredit a consistent speed of light despite having zero observational evidence for that theory.
My google search on the topic turned up very few topics related to that specific model - precisely six results.
On the Origin of Inertia
The cosmological lens equation and the equivalent single-plane gravitational lens
The cosmological lens equation and the equivalent single-plane gravitational lens
(The above is the same file as the previous, different location)
Question On Origin of Inertia ( Physics Forums Cosmology )

Of the links provided, one didn't go to where the link stated (having nothing to do with the topic) and one attempted to download a file into my computer. From what I've read from the links provided above, the authors seem to asssert the opposite idea in terms of the propogation of light directionally.
In other words, I have no reason to believe, so far, that this idea simply isn't an attempt to psudeo-scientifically attenpt to discredit the speed of light's consistency throughout the universe. It's also interesting because despite admitting that it'd be impossible to observe, you neglect to mention all the problelms that this theory would have concerning pretty much all of physics... as in... the entire discipline would fall apart.

The youtube (seriously? youtube?) video you posted dealt with "C-decay", which has nothing to do with An-Isotropic Propagation of Light. So you missed the mark on that one.

Yes. I know it's hard to believe, but people post things on youtube that are professional as well as scientific up on youtube. Also, while C-decay was dealt with, it wasn't the primary focus of all the videos. In fact, it dealt with a number of things, except an-isotropic propogation of light but it did prove, using high school physics, that the speed of light is constant in all directions (which is something that the theory of relativity does as well).

According to Wikipedia (and if you don't like that source, I'll easily cite another):

Special relativity (SR) (also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity—that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be. Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.

Thus, an-isotropic propogation of light (aka: un-identical propogation of light in all directions) is utterly in violation of Einstein's special theory of relativity and observation.

The Astrophysicist I quoted IS an expert and HAS spent his career observing the stars, so you didn't prove anything there.

And his viewpoint is irrelevant for one important reason (but not the only reason):
He's a creationist - which means he isn't objective which means any point he makes that contradicts his worldview is immediately the subject of scrutiny. Anything from him about anything he says, unless it has been peer reviewed by the scientific community, is irrelevant. I could make the case for many things said by most scientists about virtually anything because while scientific concepts come from individuals, like Einstein, they only become a part of the scientific literature when they are peer reviewed, subjected to repeatable tests or observation by independant source, and any number of other hurdles I may be forgetting.
That's why Evolution and Big Bang are prevelant in the scientific community and An-isotropic Propogation of Light is a lame attempt to discredit Relativity and the idea of a constant speed of light.

You said, "Nothing is one hundred percent accurate. Ever." Is this statement not 100 % accurate then? :-)

It's as accurate as anything else in the universe.

Well if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old then you cannot "observe" that decay rates are constant because yoru observation is vastly too small and insignificant compared to the whole time period. Even if you could observe it for 100 years it would still only be 2.2X10^-11 percent of the total time. Even a curved line looks straight when you only observe an insignificant portion of it. So you're going to have to provide some other backing as to how you know those rates are constant

I don't need to see the whole planet to know that the earth is spherical. I just need a few good points to measure and trigonometry and I can figure out the circumferance of the entire planet without needing a billion-dollar shuttle and a space suit.
Same concept. Different application.

Between 6000 and 7000 years.

That's just sad.

[Minimalist]

That's just sad.

Not to mention typical.

I guess he believes in a world-covering flood that killed all but 8 people, too?


There are two classes of xtians. One thinks that the Garden of Eden is allegorical and Noah's Ark was part of the folklore of the region. The second bunch swears that its all TOTALLY FUCKING REAL. The second group is truly worth nothing more than being used as a floor mat.