Noah's Ark

Ex-Nyer when I was in school the science teacher as well as my text boo told me the earth is 3 billions years old- now in 2013 they say the earth is 4.5 to 5 billions years old. Can you please tell me how in 25 to 30 years the data is off by so many years? We not talking about off by 10, 100 or even a thousand years but off by nearly 2.5 BILLION years- and yet you want to trust that data???? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

They have better ways to calculate now than back then, that's why. Why is that so difficult to understand?

And if you think in terms of precentages, then the 3 billion year estimate was only in error by 33% compared to the (assumed true) 4.5 billion year estimate.

Good point:

They have better ways to calculate now than back then, that's why. Why is that so difficult to understand?

And if you think in terms of precentages, then the 3 billion year estimate was only in error by 33% compared to the (assumed true) 4.5 billion year estimate. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes they do have better methods of calculating now.

If the rate of the expansion of the universe had been off by one quintillion, that's
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 then the universe would have either dissipated into
nothing or collapsed back in on itself, no planets, no stars. not to mention
the odds of everything coming together just right in our solar system
for life on this planet to even be possible, probably even greater odds.

It's called fine tuning sucka.
(Astronomer Laura Danly The Griffith Observatory) One quintillion is a number
greater than the number of grains of sand on earth.

That just barely gets you to an environment capable of sustaining life.
The odds of the nucleotides that form RNA the simplest component of life
coming together in some spontaneous generation event are 1 with 109 zeros.
That's a number greater than the number of electrons in the whole universe.

Just a couple examples out of probably a thousand where the insurmountable
odds are you would wind up with nothing at all.

If you look at and compare DNA structures, the DNA of humans and other apes are all very similar. It's pretty interesting how a few small tweaks here and there can make such a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_e...onary_genetics Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Yes very interesting indeed, we are so close genetically to the apes that we
should be almost indistinguishable from them in looks and intelligence, but
there is light years difference between man and the apes (a little secret
darwinian evolutionist like to keep to themselves, but any expert in the field
of genetics knows this fact) there are other creatures that on paper genetically
show to be very different but in reality are almost indistinguishable in the way
they look and their intelligence.

Truth be known, they really know very little about what role the genetic
makeup of an organism even takes.

Yes they do have better methods of calculating now.

If the rate of the expansion of the universe had been off by one quintillion, that's
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 then the universe would have either dissipated into
nothing or collapsed back in on itself, no planets, no stars. not to mention
the odds of everything coming together just right in our solar system
for life on this planet to even be possible, probably even greater odds.

It's called fine tuning sucka.
(Astronomer Laura Danly The Griffith Observatory) One quintillion is a number
greater than the number of grains of sand on earth.

That just barely gets you to an environment capable of sustaining life.
The odds of the nucleotides that form RNA the simplest component of life
coming together in some spontaneous generation event are 1 with 109 zeros.
That's a number greater than the number of electrons in the whole universe.

Just a couple examples out of probably a thousand where the insurmountable
odds are you would wind up with nothing at all. Originally Posted by bojulay

Can you include a cite to any of those numbers? They sound entirely made up by whoever gave them out.

Also, since we are having this conversation, the odds of an environment capable of sustaining life appears to be ... oh, I don't know, maybe about 100%??

You can toss out all of the numbers containing a lot of zeros that you want, but what do they mean?

How many failed universes were there before ours succeeded? Maybe a number with 110 zeros after it? Seems like we were overdue.

To put it differently, if 25 million people don't win the lottery, how do you explain to the one guy with a winning ticket that he can't have the money because the 25 million losers prove that it is impossible to win the lottery.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention.

Mutation and natural selection always bring about a decrease in
genetic information never an increase (proven by science)

To have had some molecules to man evolutionary process to occur,
there would have had to be an astronomical amount of increase
in genetic information through mutation and natural selection
and this never occurs.

That fact alone is enough to bring down the whole darwinian evolution
house of cards.

Science is a wonderful thing.

Can you include a cite to any of those numbers? They sound entirely made up by whoever gave them out.

Also, since we are having this conversation, the odds of an environment capable of sustaining life appears to be ... oh, I don't know, maybe about 100%??

You can toss out all of the numbers containing a lot of zeros that you want, but what do they mean?

How many failed universes were there before ours succeeded? Maybe a number with 110 zeros after it? Seems like we were overdue.

To put it differently, if 25 million people don't win the lottery, how do you explain to the one guy with a winning ticket that he can't have the money because the 25 million losers prove that it is impossible to win the lottery. Originally Posted by ExNYer

25 million compare to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 is a helluva a lot different- also can you tell me why I was in school in the 80's - the Earth was 3 billion years old- now they estimate it to be 4.5 billion to 5 billion years old? How can I trust data tat is off by 1.5 to 2 billion which is a huge difference by any means.

They have better ways to calculate now than back then, that's why. Why is that so difficult to understand?

And if you think in terms of precentages, then the 3 billion year estimate was only in error by 33% compared to the (assumed true) 4.5 billion year estimate. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Sorry didn't see this post- better ways to calculate??? Is that your answer? Really- so in the 80's that method was outdated??? because they were still using carbon dating- tell me what method they use now that is more advanced?? This is not a matter of technology my friend.
And don't feed me this percentage garbage and you ran a business and you reported a lost of 100,000 dollars when in fact you lost 1 million dollars are you going to say it's no difference only 10%?

Ex- Nyer is this a coincidence: Genesis 3:14: So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.

http://phys.org/news/2011-02-x-rays-...g-ancient.html

Te latter is where scientist believe snakes once had legs and did not always crawl. So in the genesis verse God punishes the snake and tells it that it will crawl on it's belly and "eat dust" this must mean that obviously the snake had legs at one time. Coincidence or fact?

The Anthropic Principle.

tacos will save the world. Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

first sensible post i have seen here...and yes...TACOS will certainly save the world. in my religion...some dude fed an entire village with a single taco...probably from FUEL CITY.

but here is a guide to the Truth:

http://dudeism.com/

can a taco be divided by a quintillion?

Sorry didn't see this post- better ways to calculate??? Is that your answer? Really- so in the 80's that method was outdated??? because they were still using carbon dating- tell me what method they use now that is more advanced?? This is not a matter of technology my friend.
And don't feed me this percentage garbage and you ran a business and you reported a lost of 100,000 dollars when in fact you lost 1 million dollars are you going to say it's no difference only 10%? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Actually, it IS a matter of technology. Scientists are taking more and more measurements - and moer accurte measurements - of the size of the universe. From that they get better estimates of how old the universe is and how long ago various galaxies and the solar system formed.

I don't see why you can't understand that. Or why you simply declare "It's not a matter of technology", when, in fact, it IS.

Your comment about percentages is a non-response. The 33% percent error isn't that great considering the improvement in technology for measuring the universe.

Say, what kind of instruments do Biblical "scholars" use to measure a 6,000 year old earth?

Ex- Nyer is this a coincidence: Genesis 3:14: So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.

http://phys.org/news/2011-02-x-rays-...g-ancient.html

Te latter is where scientist believe snakes once had legs and did not always crawl. So in the genesis verse God punishes the snake and tells it that it will crawl on it's belly and "eat dust" this must mean that obviously the snake had legs at one time. Coincidence or fact? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Coincidence. Whoever made up Genesis figured out legs were a lot easier for getting around than belly-crawling. So, they decided the snake was punished by God by losing his legs. Luck guess.

Next question.