Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Well--as long as they are as quiet and discreet about it as they have been up to now I don't suppose they do any harm. They might flutter the nipsy a teeny bit but one must get used to that and be unaware that one is avoiding looking like fm's avatar all day long.

And it's better than having echolalia which more than one poster here has a good dose of.

Thank you for telling me what I am supposed to think. What would I do without explanations of the things like this. This is called 'the fallacy of the omniscience argument'.
Suppose you really know what everyone else is thinking. The most natural question would be: 'Why are you wasting your time at all ... to talk to the others ... if you know everything a priori?'
I may think that the Earth is 4.54 +/- 0.05 BN years ... like all the meteorites and everything else in the SS ... on the grounds of the precisely calibrated by FM scale to the zero.
I may think that the Earth has been a molten rock some time ago ... notwithstanding of having no idea where the water has been in that case.
BTW the age of the Earth does not have any correlation to any evolutionary claims. The age of the Earth cannot be a causation to any evolution ... especially if the latter is not observed even as trace process on the other planets of the SS ... and on the meteorites ... having supposedly the same age (starting when and from what?).

I like the Age of the Universe based upon the Concordance Model because we apply a "geoseconds year' in all of our lab methods.
If you ;ook at the standard "years" age of the Universe you get a +/- of about 37 million years. This is due to a minor (Were not sure) discrepancy of the propogation of cosmic background radiation and not some WAG of a creationist whose trying to muster another bogus argument about the deity who slaps it all together.

However, it sounds like you've finally been doing some reading. That's good, maybe youll make a big circle of logic in your journey

What is so funny fm is your use of "We're" in relation to these matters.

It's not unlike one of those young, intense ladies being sponsored by the chaps in the pub to have her head shaved in the service of saving the earth.

A sort of quite touching insanity.

I mean to say old boy--not being sure about a range of 74 million years is some baby to contemplate whilst pulling one's underpants up.

Im more surprised that you can add

I've been a bookie at the dogs fm. I can add.

That spread you are working on has very wide margins filled up with talk. In slow motion.

1. This age 4.354 BN (plus/minus ...) in not the age of the universe - this is the age of the SS.
2. RE: '... and not some WAG of a creationist whose trying to muster another bogus argument about the deity'
I guess that WAG means 'We Are God' ... for if you have s.th. else in mind I'm awfully sorry for the misinterpretation ... BUT in terms of the 'bogus' argument, would you be so kind to tell us what exactly 'bogus' is supposed to mean?
- You really don't know why the meteorites coming from outside of the SS have the same age as the SS.
- You really don't know what exactly you are measuring - when does the molten lava ends up and when does the age of the hard rock begin.
... and do you really know why do I believe that 'We Are God' - it is because I don't doubt even for a nanosecond that you personally will not be able to make ... for life ... s.th. simple as a common leaf for processing CO2.
If you are asking 'Why is that' – one plausible explanation is that you may understand what does 'swimming upwards the Niagara falls' in the energy sector actually mean.

Im aware of the ages and Ive merely sked you whether you understood the significance of the =/- value of the universe. Ive given you that information , now tell me on what is the significance of the =/- for the age of the Solar System based?.

You apparently had been reading at least one of the works that I recommended many moons ago. That's good and Im proud of your incorporation of the data. NowI think you should begin your journey into discovering what all the data meant.

WAG =wild ass guess

It doesn't mean anything fm. We atheists should stick together on that.

You looking good at a social gathering explaining all these things to a goggle-eyed audience doesn't mean anything either.

In England WAG= wives and girlfriends of top sports teams.

When our teams go abroad it often happens that the cameras follow the WAGS more than they do the team. More human interest I suppose.

why don't you stick to your latest pint and search for its bottom rather than joining with piteous calls for attention

Claiming that your "data" has meaning is a cry for attention and $$$$$$s.

Why do you repetitively resort to that infantile tactic every time you are stumped? Only the dim will be impressed.

anything worth having is worth paying for. You get yer suds for free?

Yeah. Using strictly scientific economic considerations I think that is the case.

so you DO get free beer? Are you on the dole?

Still haven't figured out why I don't take you seriously, eh?

It's okay. I'm sure you'll get it eventually, my young Earth creationist friend.

JimmyJ, JimmyJ, how are you doing this?
I have always marveled at people like you. How can you talk so much in idle mode without telling anything in essence.
This cannot be learned in any university - it must be some gift ... a gift of the Big Bang, or s.th.

I apparently didn't do anything of the kind.
I use the computational functionality of the present day technology lead by the search engines ... but it doesn't matter 'How?' for the much more interesting question is 'What?'
If you, FM, are really reading the thick books for so long as you claim, what have you read there?
I don't have enough knowledge to comment why everything in the SS is 4.54 BN years old - even the comets coming from the Oort cloud ... but the theory claims that the Earth has cooled very fast, some 100 MN years after the Moon impact - so you have 4.54 BN minus 100 MN ... to have the rocks of the right type. Now follow this - the zirconium crystals contain microscopic inclusions, such as gas bubbles, that provide a unique window into the conditions on Earth ... showing that there has not been enough hydrogen and water content into the air and into the rocks to form the oceans as we know them today, which automatically means that you don't have even the vaguest idea where did all this water on the Earth come from ... and why doesn't the Moon have pro rate water content?
Just don't tell me that the Moon has lost its water with the time, for if this is true you may find out what will happen with the water on the Earth some day.