Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnyCrash
How old do you think the earth is?
I can't answer that question. Perusing the literature I can glean that the number of years is a function of background radiation and the fact that there is a red shift which displays that the universe is expanding.
By backwards projection and assuming that the "big bang' is a point focus of the densest matter which expands the age has been calculated to be 13.1 billion years.
Apparently, the clustering of aging stars has produced a figure of about 11 billion years.
The people who produce these results are in agreement that thee are many assumptions made in this calculation and they can live with this complexity, so to speak.
Now, in this thread and others in Religion, God and Theology the religion bashers come aboard and call to question the religious mind who cannot see this clearly, who in the main are like the people who have produced these results. It is not so clear that this figure or the method is "Gospel" but the uninformed come aboard and decry and call foolish anyone who dares to question any figure as if they had lost their minds. the only minds that are lost are the absolutists who demand subservience via epithets and create a monstrant imbroglio; totally unnecessary.
The second part of my answer to the "millions of years" is as noted frequently the concept of "abiogenesis". This does call to question the figure for the numbers are consequential to a mineral consideration of what happens after the "big bang".
Scientists and especially biologists( not all of course), long ago, denied the concept of abiogenesis . If one believes that this is a reality in the past,present, or the future then we are dealing with "magical thinking". Its hard to leave it for all of our scientific considerations are creations of the mineral thought and it would only be natural to think of plants secondary to the mineral kingdom.
Francesco Redi stated it clearly "life only comes from life ". this also calls to question the idea that all the higher animals move up to the pinnacle, that of Man. The cry comes "do you believe in evolution", if you don;t believe or question it you are placed to the realm of the foolish. This is the politicization of a good science by the those that think less than adequately ( the magical mumsters).
Do I believe in evolution ? Yes I do, as I see the entire kingdoms of nature within Man as more of an negative "excretion" as mankind "rejects" finishing off into an animal type but still carries , within him, the template or the negative for all of the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms.
Darwin wasn't wrong for he saw the connection and i suspect the "others" made this connection into a facilitated movement from mineral to plant to animal to man, that of easy facile thought process, no work involved.
Punch line: you can't come to this "reverse evolution" without considering Man as a supersensible being of soul and spirit who has evolved without the minerality of our present times. Man was first, and all else is as of a mighty spread of this being of soul and spirit. QED