Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 11677

['The materials here today didnt come directly from the Big Bang, except for maybe some hydrogen and helium somewhere. Just like you can't say humans came from the Big Bang. But everything is a result of the Big Bang.
So as time went on and things were formed they got their age. The same thing with brothers and sisters. I came from the same source as my brother did, but our ages are still different.']

Nice try. Your comparing living and non-living material as if they are the same. Living material ages from the day it becomes alive. Non-living material ages from the moment it exploded into existence.

So this means that all non-living material should date close in age. But a 4.3 billion year old earth, in a 18 billion year old galaxy, does not fit with current views of the Big Bang. That's like having a baby that's older than you are. The concept does not work.

ikester7579, Bibleforums.org 24 Comments [5/15/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
Amos

Yes, he ignored what he replied to. Not all stuff come into being in the bang... But 4.3 billion years ago is more ancient than 18 billion?!

5/15/2006 2:45:37 AM

fatpie42

What a dumbass!

Why shouldn't we compare living and non-living materials? How else can we claim that humans are 90% water? (not going for accuracy here btw)

Galaxy gives birth to a planet. \"Like having a baby that's older than you are\" - er... nope!

5/15/2006 2:52:48 AM

Papabear

No, no, no. The earth is younger than the galaxy, even by the statistics you provided, so your baby analogy is just stupidly wrong.

Your age of the galaxy statistic is incorrect. My sources say it's about 13.5 billion years old.

As I understand it, the eariest known life form on earth was some type of algae dated to about 3.2 billion years ago.

5/15/2006 2:55:32 AM

Napoleon the Clown

You know what? You don't understand. See, there's this thing called gravity. It's what caused the planets and stars and everything to come together. And it is what causes objects with sufficient mass to start fusion. This is what makes stars burn. And it is also what causes the heavier elements to form. But science is too hard for you, isn't it?

5/15/2006 3:07:16 AM

Hadanelith

..............................no.

5/15/2006 3:36:44 AM

Talisman

\"Your comparing living and non-living material as if they are the same.\"

Not to be trivial, but one consists of the other so, in a technical sense, they are in fact the same.

5/15/2006 3:38:01 AM

Julian

What a collosal dumbass - fusion and fission for the elements for starters. Moving up a little, so it's impossible to make a cathedral out of sandstone millions of years old because that cathedral also would then be millions of years old? *sigh*

Someone should tell him that the carbon in his body is almost certainly at least 6 billion years old (barring the C14 stuff or ex C14, now C12 stuff that came from Nitrogen) and once upon a time it was a plant, and the hydrogen is over 13 billion years old.

Hopefully this will discourage him from breeding if he realises he's over the hill.

5/15/2006 3:43:13 AM

Bob_Zimmerman

I think this guy has idea that the earth is the center of the universe. Thus, the earth is the parent in his little analogy. It's still stupid wrong, but it's not quite as lame as it appeared.

And yeah, he really needs to take a class on ... well ... anything. Astronomy. Physics. Biology. Almost anything would do. Ideally, string theory and physics dealing with the first few Planck times of the universe. Say, until the strong and weak forces separated. That's a bit advanced for most non-fundies, though, so I'd bet that it would make this guy's head explode.

5/15/2006 3:49:09 AM

SomeoneElse

Isn't the living material made up of non-living material? if living material can magically reset the \"age counter\" to zero, why can't other things?

Unless, of course, ikester7579 is claiming that living things are made of something completely different from non-living things, which is why living things eventually turn into dirt when they die...

So much sense-making is happening that I am confused.

Also, this is from earlier in the same post...

\"You have one planet that is still very hot and volcanic. And another planet that is cool. And they both dated to 6,000 years. Now how confusing would that be? And how could science find out how things work with only 6,000 years to go by? When God created everything, he created with age for the simple fact as to show: This is how it would be, if this amount of time had actually past.\"

That is some serious mental twisting to try to make facts fit into your world view. Might it be easier to just take the same rout as the rest of them and just deny them entirely?

5/15/2006 3:52:27 AM

NotMe

This guy should read what he posted and should get a school refund if it doesn't at least strike him as an odd comment.

You have one planet that is still very hot and volcanic. And another planet that is cool. And they both dated to 6,000 years. Now how confusing would that be? And how could science find out how things work with only 6,000 years to go by? When God created everything, he created with age for the simple fact as to show: This is how it would be, if this amount of time had actually past.


And what would be the use of knowing how it would be if that much time actually had passed? This does not glorify god in any way. If I could create the universe in 6 days I would want people to know just how powerfull I am instead of making it look like random chance.

5/15/2006 6:06:56 AM

The Last Conformist

The stupid is strong with this one.

5/15/2006 7:09:55 AM

Aesmael

Originally posted by ikester7579

So this means that all non-living material should date close in age. But a 4.3 billion year old earth, in a 18 billion year old galaxy, does not fit with current views of the Big Bang. That's like having a baby that's older than you are. The concept does not work.\"


True. Current views of the Big Bang say nothing of the age of the Earth or our galaxy except that neither can be more than 13.7 billion years old.

And the Earth is pegged at 4.6 billion years old, not 4.3. And your analogy is stupid; there's no contradiction is those ages. There would be if you reversed them, but you would also be more wrong than you already are.

5/15/2006 7:11:01 AM

Aku

But a 4.3 billion year old earth, in a 18 billion year old galaxy, does not fit with current views of the Big Bang. That's like having a baby that's older than you are. The concept does not work.\"

Right, because the galaxy is the baby, and it orbits earth.

5/15/2006 7:12:34 AM

Talisman

\"This is how it would be, if this amount of time had actually past.\"

I wonder if he realizes this would be an astoundingly pointless reason for a God to create things to appear old?

5/15/2006 2:03:12 PM

moonbiter

ikester7579 is confused.

5/15/2006 6:12:06 PM

Blurb

God lit a fart. That's what caused the big bang. Jeez, don't any of these fundies watch Family Guy?

5/15/2006 8:17:45 PM

Jacob Syne

You suck the cod.

5/15/2006 8:23:45 PM

Shadows

I \"Think\" that what he tried to mean was that if all material stems from the big bang (18bil according to him) then the material that formed the earth should also date 18bil years and not 4bil? The baby analogy does not compute no matter how i look at it.

5/15/2006 9:18:37 PM

JustinGG

I suspect that fundies don't know how a decimal point works.

5/15/2006 9:21:50 PM

whitewater55

I thought jesus was the result of the BIGBANG? Oh, wait a minute, that was immaculate conception, sorry, my bad...

5/15/2006 10:48:37 PM

Alex W.

NotMe- \"If I could create the universe in 6 days I would want people to know just how powerfull I am instead of making it look like random chance.\"

Haha, yeah I'm pretty sure I'd make the world look like the center of everything, not just a tiny part of the univirce. I also think I'd write something in the sky like 'bow down, BIOTCH' to make sure everyone knows whats up.

5/15/2006 11:32:17 PM

mad dog

Hey, who wants to see a REALLY big bang?

5/16/2006 2:41:15 PM

Late_Cretaceous

4.3 billion IS younger then 18 billion. Fucking moron.

5/16/2006 6:27:25 PM

Shvetz

How come nobody is railing on what I think is the funniest line in there? The first one!

\"The materials here today didn't come directly from the Big Bang, except for maybe some hydrogen and helium somewhere.\"

How exactly did he reach the conclusion of excepting some hydrogen and helium from his already ridiculous analysis?

2/16/2007 6:20:26 PM
1