Actually when it comes to the age of the Earth you can give two answers that are equally correct. Many astronomers describe the Earth as being a binary planet, because Luna is so large compared to the Earth. Luna is the name of our moon by the way. Really its quite huge in relation to the size of its host planet. No planet in our solar system has a moon that even comes remotely close. Further more the leading hypothesis for the formation of Luna is planetary collision.

The theory is basically that another planet the size of Mars usually called Theia or Orpheus. Collided with the young Earth at a shallow angle destroying itself in the process, and that cast off material which formed Luna. Luna basically got a lot of the lighter material. While the young Earth accumulated most of the other planets core. So you have to say that there are actually two Earths. Either you are talking about Earth Mark 1, or Earth Mark 2.

That said all we can really do is surmise the age of Mark 2, because Mark 1 would have probably had any solid crust utterly annihilated by the event. This said Earth might actually be younger then the solar system. Not much younger mind you maybe ten million years, and when your talking in the thousands of millions of years thats like getting to the party half a minute late.

That all said what I find hilarious is that with all the fixation on Natural Selection that comes out of the religious camp world governments are murdering God down the street in broad daylight. For example the United States fully supports the theory of the Big Bang, and I mean really supports the theory. NASA has launched billions of dollars worth of space probes to actually measure the age of the Universe. That is all these probes were made to do. Hell just about every space agency on the planet is taking part.

Thats another one of those things I like to spring on Creationists. I love to corner the lunatics that think Nationalism and God are married. Well I guess its an old married couple, because Uncle Sam is taking the Big Bang out for a real expensive meal, before getting a blow job.

Mankind does many things that has nothing to do with food (or sex) , like sending man to the moon. And the monkey trade the chip only because time and time again they are rewarded  for food. This again doesn't mean an ape understand the concept of wealth/money. This is man trying to imply something human onto an ape.

 The ape was not only unthankful but eventually force the grapes out of the man's hand. Obviously the ape does not understand the concept of stealing and had no problem taking the grapes from the man's hand. Also the other ape which was giving the grapes didn't really care to share his grape to the other ape.

 Watching these apes  reminds me of some selfish children fighting of their parent inheritance that just passed away, afraid one will get more than the other. There is nothing moral about this kind of action.

Everything is evidence of evolution including ignorance. No other theory tries to use ignorance and imagination as evidence or a defense like ToE does. What this means is when it comes down to it, scientist has not figured out exactly what make you human (any other animal) and there are some who  has admited this. Of course with time they will probably figured it out but they do know there's a lot more to it than just rearranging a butch of genes.

 I keep read science papers where scientist were surprise how complex even the simplest life forms are.

Kent Hovind's PhD was from a diploma mill called Patriot bible University. Basically you turn up, do a few weeks of research, make a minuscule original contribution to knowledge, and at the end of it you get an illegitimate and unaccredited doctorate. Apparently his doctoral dissertation was only 100 pages long and did not contain any references. It's a real piss take.

He also claims that he taught high school science, which is another lie .

Both of them have been said for a specific reason, people tend to not question those who have signs of considerable experience in a field. But in Hovind's case, he has no experience whatsoever.

The main idea is that you can't prove religion wrong or a scientific theory. Religion takes blind faith well science obviously uses empirical knowledge (as you stated). That use of knowledge certainly does make it superior.

@smidlee

Science has a fairly basic philosophy about nature. Complexity arises from simplicity. The result can appear complex, but the process that brings things about is fairly simple. Take the Carbon atom for an example. We basically understand it very well, and how it forms molecular bonds with other atoms. From that we understand that it has an affinity for forming very large molecules. Does the fact that Carbon can be the backbone for a molecule that contains dozens of atoms mean that the underlying process is complex. That the fact that such a molecule can exist is beyond imagination. No it doesn't mean that at all. All it means is Carbon is predisposed to form such molecules due to its properties.

Don't confuse the final product being complex with the process that made it being complex. Which is what you are arguing for that life appears to be so complex that the only rational explanation is magic. Take for example a forest fire. Which is an insanely complex system. So much so that predicting the behavior even for trained professionals is extremely difficult. Often enough you will find fire fighters talking about fires as if they were alive, or had a mind of their own. That said even though the fire is complex the mechanisms that make it possible, and more importantly the cause are really very simple. A lightning bolt hit a dry tree in a dry forest, and that caused a fire that spread to the other trees. The fire then creates thermal updrafts which causes the air to move more rapidly.

Once again I will say it again, because something appears to be complex. Doesn't require that the causes are complex. A snowflake is complex, but the way in which water in the atmosphere freezes isn't complex at all. The molecules by their nature will line up into patterns. The way organic molecules in certain conditions will automatically form a given structure. No magic need be involved. In fact look into magic tricks to get at what I am trying to explain to you. Every person who sees a magic trick imagines all kinds of fantastic schemes that are rarely close to reality.

I remember when I was a child seeing a magic show with the floating lady and the loop. A lot of my friends saw it too, and every one of us came up with a complex explanation for how the trick was performed. We all assumed it was some incredibly complex thing. We came up with all kinds of fantastic notions. Years later when I found out how the trick was really done. They shove a crooked bar out through the curtains by the way, and the magician just traces the bar. I confess to mentally kicking myself. The explanation was painfully simple. That said at the time we all assumed that, because the trick looked real complex. That the explanation had to be equally complex.

That is why magic works. Our rational minds are manipulated wholesale. We see something that looks impossible so we jump to the conclusion that the cause must be fantastic. This is misdirection at its heart. To get people so focused on what is unimportant to hide the obvious in plain sight. In the case of the floating women it isn't the loop that is the key to getting the trick, but the path that the loop follows.

Anyway there is no magic. You just haven't found the simple trick behind things. I bet you at the end of the day when it comes to the origin of life its going to be incredibly simple. We are probably going to find a single molecule that can be cooked up in a high school lab that is just natures perfect template. On that day we are all probably going to facepalm ourselves. How stupid we had been not to see how a broken Benzene molecule just assembles all the complex things we find in cells. Which will probably last all of one day until we find the next thing that is so complex it must be magical.

Please stop comparing life with snowflakes as I seriously doubt any scientist would make that bad of a comparison. There is no Frosty the Snowman. It's like comparing snowflakes (any other crystal) to a PC.

@smidlee

Please keep your tone civil. I understand that debunking your beliefs can make you feel like you are under attack. That I assure you isn't the point. Now if you feel that you have to win the debate, but realize that you can't. Well that's really your problem isn't it rather then mine. I think if you ponder it a bit you will realize you could just leave the thread, or if it makes you feel better you could always justify doing that to yourself later. Anyway how does throwing a tantrum in the middle of a debate make you look to others. Sure it makes you feel good at the moment, but with all the guilt, and shame is it worth going down that road. Wouldn't you be better off not debating this subject if it makes your blood boil.

That said a analogy is supposed to convey an idea or meaning, and it doesn't necessarily need to be exactly similar to what it is being compared to. A good analogy is one that people can see in their minds, and that they have a lot of experience with. Scientists often use membranes like a trampoline to explain space time to laymen. Even though a trampoline in no way resembles spacetime. The differences far outweight any similarity, but very prominent scientists do use this analogy, because it works. Just as they use non representative models of the Solar System. People have issues with scale so models are usually fairly dumbed down with Earth being bigger then it really is, and Jupiter and the Sun being much smaller then they are. 

You might not like the analogy, but it is a fairly good analogy for the point being made. Which is a fairly simple point. Speaking to crystals and personal computers. Did you know crystals may be the next big thing in computer hardware. There are a lot of engineering teams working to use Diamonds for a myriad of functions. You really should look into this it is fascinating.

1.  Look, no one is denying that humans have a more advanced intellect than those monkeys, so naturally we have more advanced ideas of what we value; we can for instance value things like going to the moon that are not directly related to food or sex or death. 

2.  But even though something as abstact as "money" (a universal trade good that has no use in and of itself) is probably beyond those monkeys, they can certainly understand "wealth".  And relative wealth, and barter, etc. 

For instance, when one monkey gives another one a tool it needs to get some nuts, and then gets paid a share of the nuts, that's actually a pretty sophisticated transaction, which relies on the other monkey being MORAL and giving the first monkey the share it deserves for the, shall we say, capital investment. 

3.  On the contrary, the monkey's poor behavior is actually the direct RESULT of its ability to recognize fair (and unfair) treatment to itself, because it was getting screwed in trading compared to the other one.  (And we already know that it is not sociopathic, i.e. only recognizing/caring about its own treatment, because of its fair treatment of the other monkey in the earlier experiment.)  If it was more stupid, it would not have recognized that it was getting less in trade and would have stayed blissfully ignorant. 

4.  That is a bad analogy, becuase it did not resent the other monkey who got a better deal, nor tried to take its grape.  It just wanted to get a trade equally valuable for an equal investment. 

@ Dodece

There is nothing personal to it so you are reading more to it than there really is. When water in the air releases energy/heat it eventually  becomes snow/ice. When parts of the living cell releases energy/heat it falls apart. That's going in the exact opposite direction.  While PC may contain crystals doesn't mean they are on the same level of complexity.