Age of the Earth.

[Dirty Penguin]

If you had taken the time to go back to the source of this particular section in the debate, you would have seen that my response #247, to the post sent in by URAVIP2ME, as viewed here,

Don't get so hot around the collar. Your debate was with Darkendless. I read some of it but you lost me around a few points you were trying to make. This happens when the religious throw out esoteric words and phrases instead of getting to the point. Case in point;

This universal body, which is the seventh generation of the heavens and the earth, is only 13.7 billion years old.

"universal body"...? This is stated as if you know for a fact the universe has boundaries but then you go on to say it is boubdless. No one has any knowledge of this.

But this, the seventh generation of the universe, will roll up as a scroll with a great hissing noise and the universal elements will burn up and fall as massive columns of fire into the Great Abyss/Black Hole, from which it originated.

You may believe this but it really really makes no sense. There is no scientific evidence to substantiate your claim.

It is the eighth eternal heaven of light, that God created to be the first after his works, in which there in neither years, months, weeks, days, or hours, for all time shall be stuck together in one aeon, and there is no close to the eighth Cosmic day in which, the previous seven generations of the universe revolve eternally.

Again...it makes no sense unless you've been eating shrooms.

Shows that I not only believe that this Universal body, in which the 4.5 billion year old earth was formed, is somewhere between 13.3 to 13.9 billion years old, but that I also believe that this is, but one of many universal bodies in an eternal cyclic universe that exists within an eternal and boundless cosmos.

This is not how you presented it above and most of what you believe here has not been established as fact. We have no idea if there are multiple universes nor do we know if "the" universe is cyclic.

Then you decided to jump into this particular section of the debate after the response to my previous post # 247 by some brash “Bible believer” basher.

Because some of us didn't know what kind of acid trip you were on...see your own responses above. You state what you "believe" and converge science with pseudoscience. Mixing science with religion/eastern philosophy doesn't help.

 

[darkendless]

Which geologic facts are you assuming proves them wrong? You who hold no view yourself as to the age of the universe as proven by the Big Bang, which is the best model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe, that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation; and yes, I have Googled this up for you.

Dating of rocks and the rock cycle itself is something i use every day. I live in South east Queensland so all the clay i deal with is a result of bassalt erosion following the eruption of Mt. Warning which deposited bassalt extrusively a few hundreds million years ago.

Knowing that you are not one for making assumptions with no base, I hope that you have not stated anywhere in this thread, or some other, that the universe, in which this earth is estimated to be about 4.54 billion years old, is itself, about 13.9 billion years old, cos if you have, a little dicky bird will tell me all about it matey.

I have sourced the age of the universe from wikipedia i think, i don't know much about it though so i can't say i would have stated using my own opinion anything like that.

 

[S-word]

quote=Dirty Penguin;1972735]Don't get so hot around the collar. Your debate was with Darkendless.

S-words Response; My dear friend, as you have never met one person on God’s earth who believes as you do, and does not disagree with you on many points of your belief system, that same applies to me, as I have never yet met another, with whom I am in total agreement, so why in heavens name, would I get hot around the collar, because I Have come up against another, who cannot accept my version of the truth? And Yes my debate was with “darkendless”

quote=Dirty Penguin; I read some of it but you lost me around a few points you were trying to make.
This happens when the religious throw out esoteric words and phrases instead of getting to the point. Case in point;
"universal body"...? This is stated as if you know for a fact the universe has boundaries but then you go on to say it is boubdless. No one has any knowledge of this.

S-words Response; Never ever, have I said that the Universe is “BOUBDLESS.” But I have said that the Cosmos is eternal and boundless. The Eternal and Boundless Cosmos, in which every Universal body, throughout all time, exist in their own particular point in space/time. and although I realise that you do not as yet have the ability to understand the truth by using your “COMMON” sense, I did explain to you that it is my belief that a universe is seen in the billions of Galactic clusters scattered through the eternal and Boundless Cosmos, that are each being gathered to a super Black Hole, into which, they will descend to be condensed into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity from which they originated, as shown in post #260 in this thread, as seen below.

Post # 260; I believe in the views of many scientists, that this universe was created from the big Bang, which spatially separated the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, which was a previous universe that had fallen into the Great abyss from which it originated, and that this Galactic cluster/universe is falling in toward one of the many Super duper Black Hole scattered throughout the eternal and boundless cosmos.

S-words Response; The fact that you refuse to accept the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small condition at some finite time in the past, and that the best measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.9 billion years ago, and that the Cosmos in which the condensing Galactic Clusters/Universes are seen, continues to expand or eternally evolve today, is really something that you will have to revisit and examine with something more suitable than just your “COMMON” sense.

You’re going to have to learn to understand what you have read before putting you filthy foot into your mouth old mate.
As to the rest of your sarcastic and insulting remarks, we will simply ignore them with the utter contempt that they deserve, and this has been said by one who is hot around the collar, but by one with the cool and calm conviction of one who knows that they are correct.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

S-words Response; My dear friend, as you have never met one person on God’s earth who believes as you do, and does not disagree with you on many points of your belief system, that same applies to me, as I have never yet met another, with whom I am in total agreement, so why in heavens name, would I get hot around the collar, because I Have come up against another, who cannot accept my version of the truth? And Yes my debate was with “darkendless”

I get it now...It's "your version of truth"....That clears things up a bit....

S-words Response; Never ever, have I said that the Universe is “BOUBDLESS.”

Ha....haaaa...!

My mistake. The ("n") was right next to the (b) but in the typing process I must have missed it. I'm quite sure you know what I meant.

But I have said that the Cosmos is eternal and boundless. The Eternal and Boundless Cosmos, in which every Universal body, throughout all time, exist in their own particular point in space/time.

But you have no evidence...this is another "belief" of yours correct?

and although I realise that you do not as yet have the ability to understand the truth by using your “COMMON” sense, I did explain to you that it is my belief that a universe is seen in the billions of Galactic clusters scattered through the eternal and Boundless Cosmos, that are each being gathered to a super Black Hole, into which, they will descend to be condensed into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity from which they originated, as shown in post #260 in this thread, as seen below.

Why so sarcastic..?....WOW....

I get it...it's what you believe....

S-words Response; The fact that you refuse to accept the idea that the Universe has expanded

I've given you no reason to assume that I don't accept the consensus that says the universe is expanding.

from a primordial infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small condition at some finite time in the past, and that the best measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.9 billion years ago,

I see....so your understanding is that I haven't used my ("COMMON sense") to realize this....even though I cited two articles touching on this back at Post #243....?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1970401-post243.html

you will have to revisit and examine with something more suitable than just your “COMMON” sense.

Been using it all along as indicated by the link I provided above......

You’re going to have to learn to understand what you have read before putting you filthy foot into your mouth old mate.

All I did was list the evidence.....nowhere did in inject, unlike you, constant comments as to "what I believe".....

 

[S-word]

I get it now...It's "your version of truth"....That clears things up a bit....

S-words Response;Correct! This is my version of the truth, and as every ones version of a truth can be dismissed as false by others, that does not mean to say that my version of the truth as opposed to yours, is incorrect.


quote=Dirty Penguin;1 Ha....haaaa...!

My mistake. The ("n") was right next to the (b) but in the typing process I must have missed it. I'm quite sure you know what I meant.

S-words Response;Yes, you are known to have been mistaken in many instances, as shown below, for I never did say the that the many universes that make up the eternal and boundless Cosmos, were themselves boundless, as the boundaries of those Galactic clusters/Universes can be determined.

quote=Dirty Penguin;1 "universal body"...? This is stated as if you know for a fact the universe has boundaries but then you go on to say it is boubdless. No one has any knowledge of this

But I have said that the Cosmos is eternal and boundless. The Eternal and Boundless Cosmos, in which every Universal body, throughout all time, exist in their own particular point in space/time

quote=Dirty Penguin;1 But you have no evidence...this is another "belief" of yours correct?

S-words Response;Correct once again, it is my belief that it is a fact that there can be no beginning to the Cosmos, which is all that exists, unless of course your "COMMON" sense tells you other wise, and you can prove that energy and matter can be created from the non-existent, or that all the energy/matter that is in existence can become non-existent. But now is your opportunity to prove me wrong, show to us, by the use of your “COMMON” sense, that the Cosmos is not eternal, by revealing where it began and where and how, it will cease to be. Prove to all, by the use of your “COMMON” sense, that the Cosmos is not boundless, by revealing, where the cosmic horizon ends and what lies beyond the boundary of the Cosmos.

quote=Dirty Penguin;1 Why so sarcastic..?....WOW....

I get it...it's what you believe....

S-words Response;No, it is not what I believe my dear friend, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and it is every person who reads your sarcastic and insulting remarks made against me, who will believe that you speak from the lowest depths of the cess-pit from which you gather your material. quote=Dirty Penguin;1 Again...it makes no sense unless you've been eating shrooms……. Because some of us didn't know what kind of acid trip you were on. S-words Response; So, you’re accusing me of being a drug addict are you?
In my saying, "that I realised that you do not as yet have the ability to understand the truth by using your “COMMON” sense," I was not being sarcastic, but simply stating a fact, which I then went on to prove.

quote=Dirty Penguin;1 I've given you no reason to assume that I don't accept the consensus that says the universe is expanding.

S-words Response; But you have given me reason to believe that you do not accept that the Cosmos is boundless, and if it your belief that the Cosmos is the Universe, and that your universe/Cosmos is not Boundless, then according to your belief, you must be able to show to us where the boundary of your Universe/Cosmos, begins and ends. Or do you have no evidence to support your argument against my statement that the Cosmos is eternal and boundless, and please don’t say that I can’t prove that the Cosmos is not eternal and boundless, because until it can be proven otherwise, that will remain my belief.

quote=Dirty Penguin;1 I see....so your understanding is that I haven't used my ("COMMON sense") to realize this....even though I cited two articles touching on this back at Post #243....?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1970401-post243.html


S-words Response;Many people quote from scientific sources with no evidence that those sources are correct, but they simply assume, that because it is a scientific source then it must be correct. But still,I suppose that quoting from scientific sources could be considered to be using common sense, as long as you know from which source you are quoting, as many scientific sources are in direct conflict which each other, I will check to see if, in this thread and others, you have not quoted from scientific sources that contradict each other, because that wouldn’t be using your “COMMON” sense, would it?

quote=Dirty Penguin;1 Been using it all along as indicated by the link I provided above......

S-words Response;We’ll see.


quote=Dirty Penguin;1 All I did was list the evidence.....nowhere did in inject, unlike you, constant comments as to "what I believe

S-words Response; And pray tell, what evidence have you presented in your debate with me in this thread? Like many other negative knockers in this forum, you appear to use the sea gull approach to debating, “fly in, crap all over the post, then fly out.”

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Like many other negative knockers in this forum, you appear to use the sea gull approach to debating, “fly in, crap all over the post, then fly out.”

In fairness to Penguin, any seagull crap that falls on the bulk of your posts would hardly be discernible.

Despite your claims, there are not multiple versions of the truth.

 

[S-word]

In fairness to Penguin, any seagull crap that falls on the bulk of your posts would hardly be discernible.

Despite your claims, there are not multiple versions of the truth.

A truth is an absolute fact, and when I was a young fellow at the local annual show, some bloke was selling bags of facts for twenty cents a bag. Having bought one, I opened it up to find it was full of scare-crow droppings, and I said to him, "Hey! This bag's full of scare-crow droppings," to which he replied, "That's a fact son, that's a fact." You're just a joke matey and can only be answered with a joke.

 

[RedOne77]

S-word,

You talk about common sense, but common sense more often then not begets misconceptions then truth when dealing with the realm of science. Common sense is important, but it is perhaps more important to know when to use it, and when not to.

What do you mean by "cosmos" and "universe"? In one sentence you talk as if they are one in the same, but in another you describe the big bang as happening a finite time ago; yet you say that the cosmos is both eternal and boundless. Are you proposing a multi-verse embedded into, or collectively understood as, the cosmos which is eternal and boundless?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Correct! This is my version of the truth, and as every ones version of a truth can be dismissed as false by others, that does not mean to say that my version of the truth as opposed to yours, is incorrect.

But then it doesn't mean that it is either and more often than not in this forum the evidences are presented to you and are stacked against what you believe but you continue on as if your version of truth really means something beyond you and it doesn't.....

Yes, you are known to have been mistaken in many instances, as shown below,

But I have said that the Cosmos is eternal and boundless. The Eternal and Boundless Cosmos, in which every Universal body, throughout all time, exist in their own particular point in space/time

How can I be mistaken if you are openly admitting that this is what "YOU BELIEVE"...?

So when you say Cosmos you're saying "universe" and all the universal bodies (planets, stars etc. I'm guessing) exist within a boundless universe??????

If I have that wrong then clarify what you mean by cosmos. I know what it means but I'm curious to find out what you mean by it.

for I never did say the that the many universes that make up the eternal and boundless Cosmos, were themselves boundless, as the boundaries of those Galactic clusters/Universes can be determined.

Is this your belief again or is there any evidence to this?

unless of course your "COMMON" sense tells you other wise, and you can prove that energy and matter can be created from the non-existent, or that all the energy/matter that is in existence can become non-existent. But now is your opportunity to prove me wrong, show to us, by the use of your “COMMON” sense, that the Cosmos is not eternal, by revealing where it began and where and how, it will cease to be. Prove to all, by the use of your “COMMON” sense, that the Cosmos is not boundless, by revealing, where the cosmic horizon ends and what lies beyond the boundary of the Cosmos.

I've made no claim that it was or wasn't. The burden of proof is on you. You're the one making the claim......

quote=Dirty Penguin;1 I've given you no reason to assume that I don't accept the consensus that says the universe is expanding.

S-words Response; But you have given me reason to believe that you do not accept that the Cosmos is boundless, and if it your belief that the Cosmos is the Universe, and that your universe/Cosmos is not Boundless, then according to your belief, you must be able to show to us where the boundary of your Universe/Cosmos, begins and ends.

I see what you're doing. See I've said none of these things but you appear to be deflecting the fact "YOU" are unable to present evidence. I've made no claims other than (we simply don't really know)....but you, on the other hand, have made definite claims which you have presented nothing other than what you have admitted to... (you belief...."opinion" basically).

quote=Dirty Penguin;1 I see....so your understanding is that I haven't used my ("COMMON sense") to realize this....even though I cited two articles touching on this back at Post #243....?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1970401-post243.html


S-words Response;Many people quote from scientific sources with no evidence that those sources are correct, but they simply assume, that because it is a scientific source then it must be correct. But still,I suppose that quoting from scientific sources could be considered to be using common sense, as long as you know from which source you are quoting, as many scientific sources are in direct conflict which each other, I will check to see if, in this thread and others, you have not quoted from scientific sources that contradict each other, because that wouldn’t be using your “COMMON” sense, would it?

quote=Dirty Penguin;1 All I did was list the evidence.....nowhere did in inject, unlike you, constant comments as to "what I believe

S-words Response; And pray tell, what evidence have you presented in your debate with me in this thread? Like many other negative knockers in this forum, you appear to use the sea gull approach to debating, “fly in, crap all over the post, then fly out.”

When I presented the links to the scientific articles of what astronomers have discovered that was presenting evidence. It was in keeping with the OP considering we're discussing the age of the earth. The only issue I took with your post is your wanting to put forth your belief/opinion, as you admit, as some sort of fact or knowledge of the universe.

 

[S-word]

S-word,

You talk about common sense, but common sense more often then not begets misconceptions then truth when dealing with the realm of science. Common sense is important, but it is perhaps more important to know when to use it, and when not to.

What do you mean by "cosmos" and "universe"? In one sentence you talk as if they are one in the same, but in another you describe the big bang as happening a finite time ago; yet you say that the cosmos is both eternal and boundless. Are you proposing a multi-verse embedded into, or collectively understood as, the cosmos which is eternal and boundless?

There have been many Big Bangs throughout eternity, each resulting in a universal body from the least to the greatest, each of which, occupy their own particular positions in space/time and these collectively are the Cosmos. Does that explain it better for you?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

A truth is an absolute fact, and when I was a young fellow at the local annual show, some bloke was selling bags of facts for twenty cents a bag. Having bought one, I opened it up to find it was full of scare-crow droppings, and I said to him, "Hey! This bag's full of scare-crow droppings," to which he replied, "That's a fact son, that's a fact." You're just a joke matey and can only be answered with a joke.

It's readily apparent that, after eating the contents of the bag, the quality of your posts has at least become consistent. As long as you insist that there are "versions" of truth, I'll continue to point out the level of BS in your posts.

Enjoy. Matey.

 

[S-word]

It's readily apparent that, after eating the contents of the bag, the quality of your posts has at least become consistent. As long as you insist that there are "versions" of truth, I'll continue to point out the level of BS in your posts.

Enjoy. Matey.

Because you have given your location as "The Land Of Oz," I am assuming that like myself, you live in Australia. So now, picture this scene, a car is traveling north from Brisbane to Cairns, you are standing on the western side of the road, seeing the car from the passengers side, while I stand on the eastern side, viewing the right-hand drivers side of the car.

Looking at the wheels, I see that they are revolving in a clockwise direction and this is an absolute truth. Now tell me truthfully, from your view point, in which direction do you see those wheels revolving, 'Clockwise, or anti-clockwise' and is your version of the truth the same as mine?

 

[darkendless]

There have been many Big Bangs throughout eternity, each resulting in a universal body from the least to the greatest, each of which, occupy their own particular positions in space/time and these collectively are the Cosmos. Does that explain it better for you?

And your proof for this is where exactly?

Or is it just another "belief"?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And your proof for this is where exactly?

Or is it just another "belief"?

So it's not just me that sees the flaws in his reasoning...?...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Because you have given your location as "The Land Of Oz," I am assuming that like myself, you live in Australia.

This is the second time that we've had this discussion. I live in the USA, not Australia. Not a problem, and I understand how you could misinterpret the "Oz" reference.

So now, picture this scene, a car is traveling north from Brisbane to Cairns, you are standing on the western side of the road, seeing the car from the passengers side, while I stand on the eastern side, viewing the right-hand drivers side of the car.

Looking at the wheels, I see that they are revolving in a clockwise direction and this is an absolute truth. Now tell me truthfully, from your view point, in which direction do you see those wheels revolving, 'Clockwise, or anti-clockwise' and is your version of the truth the same as mine?

I understand your question, and I will not dodge it. What you are describing is a classic example of relativity. If you understand the idea of relativity, then you already know the answer.
The answer is that both of us see the wheels turning (from top to bottom) in a northerly direction (toward Cairns). We see the same motion. We use differing terms to describe the same motion because of our positions RELATIVE to the car.

There is only one truth in your example. The use of the two differing terms to describe one motion is reconciled once we both understand the concept of relativity.

Two terms - one truth. Simple.

 

[S-word]

This is the second time that we've had this discussion. I live in the USA, not Australia. Not a problem, and I understand how you could misinterpret the "Oz" reference.

I understand your question, and I will not dodge it. What you are describing is a classic example of relativity. If you understand the idea of relativity, then you already know the answer.
The answer is that both of us see the wheels turning (from top to bottom) in a northerly direction (toward Cairns). We see the same motion. We use differing terms to describe the same motion because of our positions RELATIVE to the car.

There is only one truth in your example. The use of the two differing terms to describe one motion is reconciled once we both understand the concept of relativity.

Two terms - one truth. Simple.

And you have just admitted, that your version of the one truth. as seen from your particular stand point, is not only different to, but totally opposite to my version to the one truth.

Do you believe that the truth as accepted by the world today from their particular view point in time, as to the origins of the Cosmos and the universal bodies that make up the Cosmos, will be the same version of the accepted truth of the origin of the Cosmos as seen by our descendants of the far distant future from their view point in their particular position in space-time, and have you ever received a visitation by one of your as yet unborn descendants of the future?

Have you ever, in a state of deep meditation, or hypnosis, entered into the inner most sanctuary of your being and descended mentally along the unbroken genetic thread of life that binds you to the beginning, and merged with the mind of one your living ancestors in the long dead past of "Who You Are," where you were able to experience the life and times of your seemingly long since dead ancestor, while those attending your comatose body of the present, witnessed it speaking in a language/tongue, which you are totally unfamiliar with?

For if you have, then you will understand that it is therefore possible, for your as yet unborn descendant of the future, to enter into their inner most being, and to descend mentally along the unbroken genetic thread of life that binds "Who They Are" to "Who They Were," and to merge with your mind of today, where you will experience the life and times of your as yet unborn descendants, and others may witness your apparent comatose body speaking in a language/tongue, which has not as yet even developed/evolved.

Come travel with me on a journey through time
Not in some capsule, but in our minds
To the Inner Most Sanctuary will we descend
To that single cell from which your body began
In the Holy of Holies where all is one
Where all of space and time is joined
We’ll mingle there with other minds
From other lands, in other times
Minds of the past, who seem dead and gone
And minds of the future who are yet unborn
For they in their time, whether here on this world
Or some distant planet to which they’ve been lured
Will enter their inner most sanctuary too
And there perhaps they’ll merge with you
Ah! To travel through space In the wink of an eye
One with your child on some world way on high
And if this is but madness, then madness it be
But come my mad brothers, come fly with me.....By S-word.

I think that I have said all that I choose to say in this particular thread, which is beginning to attracting the lower forms of sarcastic and insulting life forms. Good morning strawman, I'm off to bed, I've done my night shift.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

And you have just admitted, that your version of the one truth. as seen from your particular stand point, is not only different to, but totally opposite to my version to the one truth.

Well, it would have been nice to see you admit that there is only one truth, with two descriptions based on point of view. I guess that was too much to hope for.

I think that I have said all that I choose to say in this particular thread, which is beginning to attracting the lower forms of sarcastic and insulting life forms. Good morning strawman, I'm off to bed, I've done my night shift.

Not to worry, mate. I'll be here on the morrow - still calling BS when I see it.

A scarecrow's work is never done.

 

[S-word]

Well, it would have been nice to see you admit that there is only one truth, with two descriptions based on point of view. I guess that was too much to hope for.[/font][/color]

Not to worry, mate. I'll be here on the morrow - still calling BS when I see it.

A scarecrow's work is never done.

I know that it is hard for strawmen to understand anything, but I'm sure if you were to ask any normal person to explain it to you, they will tell you that I have admitted that your version of the one particular truth referred to here, as seen from your view point, is not only a different version of, but a totally opposite version of that truth as seen from my particular view point.

On the morrow, if your genetic line extends into the morrow, which is the eighth eternal day of unapproachable light, you will come to the understanding that your calling of my statements as being BS, was only BS that was coming from your own person.

Perhaps you might do better than portraying yourself as a brainless strawman, but then again, you may consider that portayal of yourself, to be the best represenation of who you actually are.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I know that it is hard for strawmen to understand anything, but I'm sure if you were to ask any normal person to explain it to you, they will tell you that I have admitted that your version of the one particular truth referred to here, as seen from your view point, is not only a different version of, but a totally opposite version of that truth as seen from my particular view point.

On the morrow, if your genetic line extends into the morrow, which is the eighth eternal day of unapproachable light, you will come to the understanding that your calling of my statements as being BS, was only BS that was coming from your own person.

Perhaps you might do better than portraying yourself as a brainless strawman, but then again, you may consider that portayal of yourself, to be the best represenation of who you actually are.

I'm sure there was a witty insult in there somewhere. I'll have to wait for the condensed version of it.

 

[Wotan]

"Have you ever, in a state of deep meditation, or hypnosis, entered into the inner most sanctuary of your being and descended mentally along the unbroken genetic thread of life that binds you to the beginning, and merged with the mind of one your living ancestors in the long dead past of "Who You Are," where you were able to experience the life and times of your seemingly long since dead ancestor, while those attending your comatose body of the present, witnessed it speaking in a language/tongue, which you are totally unfamiliar with?"

No I haven't. I doubt VoR has. Neither of us has access to or inclination use the serious **** you are smoking if you actually believe that.