$1000 to Phil Plait if he can Prove the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years Old
$1000 to me if he can’t
Phil Plait, the Internet astronomical guru who has made evolution into a religion instead of a science, wonders “Why Doesn’t Florida Senator Marco Rubio Know How Old the Earth Is?” in his latest column at
slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/11/19/florida_senator_marco_rubio_the_age_of_the_earth_is_a_great_mystery.html
Talk about “bad astronomy.” Phil’s plate is full of it.
Let’s see how Phil tries to support his religion of Evolution and the Big Bang
Phil Plait: Posted Monday, Nov. 19, 2012, at 1:47 PM ET, The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. We know this because science works. A large number of independent fields of science show that the Earth is terribly old, and all these different scientific areas—highly successful in their own rights—converge on the same age of the Earth. This number is very well known, very well understood, and the process behind its determination is a foundational assumption across all fields of science.
R. Sungenis: No, sorry Phil. All of the so-called “science” that purports to get us to 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe is built on assumptions, presuppositions, fudge factors, unknowns, guesses and downright stubbornness when it comes to alternative evidence that shows the Earth and the universe are quite young. For example, modern cosmology has had to invent such things as Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Multiverse and many other totally unproven and unseen entities to prop up the anomalies that are constantly occurring in the Big Bang model. Additionally, any scientist worth his salt knows that radiometrics doesn’t prove the Earth is 4.5 billion since radiometrics has no way of knowing the parent/daughter relationship between the elements. Geology also has no way of proving the Earth is old simply because geology has no way of proving that sediments were laid over millions of years. In fact, recent scientific evidence shows that the geologic column could have been made in months rather than millions of years. (Reference?)
There is always the problem of what you consider “proof.” As recently as the 1930s, Wilbur Glen Voliva claimed the earth was not a sphere and offered $5000 to anyone who could prove it was. The prize was never collected. Why? Because the skeptics can always challenge you to prove the assumptions that your proof is based on. When you provide that proof, they say, “Oh, that doesn’t prove a thing.”
A better approach is presenting a preponderance of evidence supporting your position. Like, what would you consider proof that the sediments were laid down over millions of years? Interestingly, your statement that recent scientific evidence shows the geologic column could have been made in months. What evidence? What’s the reference on that? Who published it? When you make a statement like that you can’t just say it and not give the source. You have to give a reference so the rest of us can check it out.
Here, let me show you why this is necessary: “On a recent scientific expedition in Norway, 20 scientists from many countries discovered a cave hidden deep in a valley. Upon entering it, they were immediately confronted by angels with flaming swords forbidding them to enter further. The angels said that this was where God the father and God the son met when they visited earth and the ground was holy. Dr. Ben McCaffery, a geologist from Harvard pressed forward anyway, and was quickly killed by the head angel. The other scientists retreated quickly and reported the experience to their universities but were told to keep their mouths shut or they would be fired.” Honest!
Oh! Did you want a reference on that? Just trust me it’s true! Check it out on Snopes!
Anybody can say “There is irrefutable evidence that has confirmed several times by Nobel Laureates, that the earth is flat.” (No, I don’t happen to have the references of the peer-reviewed journals that was published in.)
/FONT]
more…
