Age of the Earth

It is borderline unsettling how much Kyrin makes me love her at times, it's almost not even funny anymore.

That aside though...
In a sense I agree that the age of the Earth may not be important, at least not in practice. Whether our planet is 4.5 x 10⁹ years old, or a "mere" 4.5 x 10⁷, evolution still happens (and takes as long as it does), radiometry is still quite reliable, the switch still makes the lights go on, aspirin still helps with the headaches, and cyanide does, too, albeit in a much more final sort of way. What makes the age of the Earth as a scientific question so important is not what the actual number happens to turn out to be. It could be half that or twice that and pretty much nothing about our daily lives would be meaningfully different. The reason we like to bring it up as an example, a posterchild for the achievement and the power of science, and her legitimacy, as a method of... well, let's call it "unweaving the rainbow" for those among us who know why I would, is this:
You see, what the age of the Earth as a question demonstrates is that the specific kind of methodology we use in science is on a very fundamental level consistent and reliable and honest. Without conspiring, all of these vastly different and seemingly unconnected fields reached conclusions about this question that are so close by each other as for the differences to be dismissed as statistical error. No matter which path we go, no matter what we study, the way we do is one that - given the same question - generates the same response. We could contrast that with religious dogma if we wanted to, and in the past plenty of us have, but really, there is no need. Those who will say that science is arbitrary, whether or not they claim that something else isn't, and that its theories are as good as any wild guess, the age of the Earth doesn't prove wrong all on its own, but it represents of all the cases and all the ways in which those who would say that are indeed mistaken (or sometimes even lying). Controversy on questions like these is what we would expect if there were many equally common scientific methods and if their merits were all equally dubious. It is then no coincidence that those opposed to science (or even desire to subvert public literacy in it) will insist on portraying ever more strongly settled issues as ever more hotly disputed ones.

A bit more than 4.2 billion years old as backed up by so much scientific research it's surprising that it's even a question any more.

Gisteron wrote: It is borderline unsettling how much Kyrin makes me love her at times, it's almost not even funny anymore.

That aside though...

Oh no let's not set that aside you flatterer! Lol. Tell me more! High praise from one of my mentors!

OB1Shinobi wrote: so, am i the only one thats really curious what (and if) streen is going to come back and say?

Questions... Morphology? Longevity? Incept dates?

Streen wrote: I've been encouraged to contribute more to the Temple, so I thought I'd bring up a topic that a lot of people disagree on.

So, in your opinion, without quoting someone else, how old is the Earth? I'll provide my answer later.

I have been curious about your answer since you began this topic. Is it later now? Or is now later enough? I mean is nows now later enough from thens then (or thens now if you want to be philosophical about it) to be counted as later now, even though now is now and not technically later?