23 Mar 13
6 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThe "right direction" could be 13.825 Billion years for all we know and only science could (eventually) possibly tell us. Any religious belief, always being baseless and delusional, will never point to the best approximation. You believe the universe is ~6000 years for religious reasons; we believe that the universe is approximately ~13.8 billion years for rational reasons i.e. the evidence (plus logic) points to that.
I just wonder how long it is going to take for these reporters to come in contact with real scientists and start adjusting the age in the right direction.
23 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThey already did. That's why the report says 13.8 somethingorother billion years. It's the pseudoscientists who think that the universe is 6000 years old. Hmmm, when was that worked out? Shouldn't it be a bit older now?
I just wonder how long it is going to take for these reporters to come in contact with real scientists and start adjusting the age in the right direction.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerYes it is a little older now, but not on the order of billions of years. Those are figures based on wrong assumptions. Those doing the assuming are trying to make monkeys out of us, and if we let them, they will also make an ASS out of U and Me, too.
They already did. That's why the report says 13.8 somethingorother billion years. It's the pseudoscientists who think that the universe is 6000 years old. Hmmm, when was that worked out? Shouldn't it be a bit older now?
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe increase talked of by the scientists is 50 to 80 million (not billion) years, not a huge increase. 60 years is 1% of 6000 years, which would make me almost 1% of the age of the universe. That is silly to say the least.
Yes it is a little older now, but not on the order of billions of years. Those are figures based on wrong assumptions. Those doing the assuming are trying to make monkeys out of us, and if we let them, they will also make an ASS out of U and Me, too.
To be honest, I think it is the god botherers who are doing the assuming. They assume that their book is wholly correct despite the evidence whereas a scientist would have changed his theory to account for the evidence and then gathered more evidence to confirm the theory.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerI think it would also help if reporters were clear that any such 'adjustments' are usually well within the error bounds of previous estimates, and even the new estimate also has error bounds.
The increase talked of by the scientists is 50 to 80 million (not billion) years, not a huge increase.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerSo 50 to 80 million years is not much, huh? 😏
The increase talked of by the scientists is 50 to 80 million (not billion) years, not a huge increase. 60 years is 1% of 6000 years, which would make me almost 1% of the age of the universe. That is silly to say the least.
To be honest, I think it is the god botherers who are doing the assuming. They assume that their book is wholly correct despite the ev ...[text shortened]... ed his theory to account for the evidence and then gathered more evidence to confirm the theory.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerI think I can get a little closer than the scientist by relying on recorded history. I am also willing to adjust my approximate age back in time if I receive good credible evidence. At present I would say no more than 10,000 years ago and probably closer to 7,000 years.
Which date do you favour for the start of life, the universe and everything? And why that one?
25 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI thought it was approximately 6000 years? Why the inflation by at least 16%? That 10,000 years would be a sudden increase of 67%! No scientist worthy of the name would be happy with an error term in that range, that's why they waffle on about 5 sigma.
I think I can get a little closer than the scientist by relying on recorded history. I am also willing to adjust my approximate age back in time if I receive good credible evidence. At present I would say no more than 10,000 years ago and probably closer to 7,000 years.
Furthermore, since recorded history (i.e. properly attested primary sources) cover only about 2500 years worth of the history of a relatively small bit of our world, how do you know what was happening before that and in the rest of the world?
Originally posted by KeplerI have the Holy Bible as history that goes all the way back to the creation or the creation of mankind at least. It has been calculated by scholars that it accounts for a little over 6000 years. I don't believe they have determined an exact number of years so I am giving the evolutionist the benefit of the doubt that those scholars could have overlooked some time. So in hopes of satisfying those that think the earth is older, I jumped up my estimate to 7000 years with a maximum of 10,000 just in case the scholars missed something, because I did not try to do the calculating myself. I don't think it is possible to miss that much time, but 10,000 seems like a good round number as a limit and since the evil-lutionists like to throw out large wild numbers, I felt you would not mind me doing the same. 😏
I thought it was approximately 6000 years? Why the inflation by at least 16%? That 10,000 years would be a sudden increase of 67%! No scientist worthy of the name would be happy with an error term in that range, that's why they waffle on about 5 sigma.
Furthermore, since recorded history (i.e. properly attested primary sources) cover only about 2500 years ...[text shortened]... bit of our world, how do you know what was happening before that and in the rest of the world?