Religimyth...

[colonel Feathers 5]

what are the odds that you exist?Since the mom makes 12 eggs a year, and the old man makes millions of sperm, what are the odds of the exact two getting together?Then factor in the same odds for your parents and grand parents.I would guess the odds against you existing must be less than >00000000000000000001%, About the same odds an atheist gives for God existing.

[timwakefield 68]

Do you really want to argue that some chick-god went around and gathered the pieces of her dismembered husband and reassembled them to have sex with them is the archetype for the virgin birth of Christ?

How 'bout Osiris, the mortal son of Ra, his unique birth, his horrible death wherein his body was mutilated by evil forces, his journey to Hell, his resurrection, and his ascent to Heaven, and then his benevolent judgement of the dead and ability to grant eternal life to those dead?

[James D 0]

what are the odds that you exist?Since the mom makes 12 eggs a year, and the old man makes millions of sperm, what are the odds of the exact two getting together?Then factor in the same odds for your parents and grand parents.I would guess the odds against you existing must be less than >00000000000000000001%, About the same odds an atheist gives for God existing.

That's truly awful logic.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Define orbit..

a satellite was launched into space via a rocket, and is now "orbiting" (a satellite is generally in an orbit 100 to 1,000 miles above the earth) its the low earth orbit where an object (satellite) can rotate around the earth.are we there yet cuz I'd like to get this 6000 year old earth thing going.

[Royal_Tour 0]

what are the odds that you exist?Since the mom makes 12 eggs a year, and the old man makes millions of sperm, what are the odds of the exact two getting together?Then factor in the same odds for your parents and grand parents.I would guess the odds against you existing must be less than >00000000000000000001%, About the same odds an atheist gives for God existing.

if this reasoning was correct, and by reasoning, i mean..to assume that we are all so unique that we came to be because of exact odds.Then why do we have so many children with birth defects? why do we have miscarriages? please explain why a God would allow these to happen before this precise specimen has been given a chance to live a "free willed"life?

[crowTrobot 2]

Must be a wonderful world to wake up to where your truth is the only truth and all other truth is propaganda.

mr. shift burden of proof strikes again.

[crowTrobot 2]

what are the odds that you exist?Since the mom makes 12 eggs a year, and the old man makes millions of sperm, what are the odds of the exact two getting together?Then factor in the same odds for your parents and grand parents.I would guess the odds against you existing must be less than >00000000000000000001%,

the anthropic principal doesn't allow you to figure odds in hindsight. the odds of you existing are 100% because you do. if things had beendifferent in the past you wouldn't be around to ask the question - someone else would be asking it.

About the same odds an atheist gives for God existing.

what god? the odds of the biblical god existing are effectively zero. the odds of a generic universal creator of some kind existing are significantly higher than zero.

[Royal_Tour 0]

the anthropic principal doesn't allow you to figure odds in hindsight. the odds of you existing are 100% because you do. if things had beendifferent in the past you wouldn't be around to ask the question - someone else would be asking it.what god? the odds of the biblical god existing are effectively zero. the odds of a generic universal creator of some kind existing are significantly higher than zero.

you cant say things like this. You're going to blow their minds.I always wonder what would religion buffs do if we discover another planet in another solar system that resembles the earth. land, water, appears to have oxygen etc...imagine clear images of a planet like ours, like looking into a mirror.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Anyways, BG. back to earth being 6,000 years old. By using technology. The same technology the military uses, we can see parts of the earth that date back hundreds of millions of years. The same can be said with carbon dating, and fossils.The universe itself is expanding. By using the color spectrum and shifts, we can see how galaxies, like our own milkyway are spreading apart from one another at very fast rates. These maps, and scientific proof are available online. check for yourself. Its ok to believe the earth is as old as scientists say, thats what technology is for. To help answer the questions we ask. Think about history, before the question was even asked, people believed the earth was flat. a simple question about it being round, and the use of floating vessels. and voila. technology helped answer a question to prove or disprove an idea.The same can be said for today, by proving the age of the earth. Now lets get back into some testaments. You started to touch on the bible and its parts, age etc.. I just want to be clear on this. When we talk about the new testament, we cant refer to it as 2000 years old.its not 2000 years old, and further more, the earliest record, which has been generally accepted. And i'm using the words generally accepted, because thats all it is. is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52. which scholars believe it to date back to 117CE - 138CE. Thats a pretty long time after the death of Christ.The new testament,which makes mention to the gospel writtings of Jesus didnt even begin until over a century after the death of Jesus Christ.So how can you anyone measure any accuracy at all?You cant. The simple and sad truth is, You Cannot use any of these writings as fact. these are not eye witness accounts, not even 2nd hand.Lets also look at the average age life expectancy for some 2000 years ago. It was 40 years old. This number did not change until recently, in the 1900's.So this simple math means that the 1st ever records of the writings on the life of Christ were not until 3 - 4 generations after his death. do you refute this?

[timwakefield 68]

Lets also look at the average age life expectancy for some 2000 years ago. It was 40 years old. This number did not change until recently, in the 1900's.

I'm gonna point something out here for 2 reasons: 1: I'm a jerk, and 2: it's an often-overlooked fallacy in general.The term "average life expectancy" usually refers to "average life expectancy at birth," and unless stated otherwise, that's the default meaning.An average life expectancy of 40 does not mean that people rarely lived past 40 or 50. The thing is, average life expectancy simply adds together everybody's age at death and then divides by the number of people. But death in infancy and childhood was extremely common, which brings the average life expectancy way down for everybody. But, for example, if a person lived to see 15 then their life expectancy was probably much much higher than 40. 60-65 would be my complete stab-in-the-dark guess.The same way today, every day older you get, your life expectancy goes up. It doesn't mean that you're gonna live longer, it just means that if you make it to 13 then you've outlived all the other people who died younger, and since you can't possibly die any younger than 13, those deaths don't factor in to your actual life expectancy anymore. I think a much better method of determining how long the average adult lived would be to look at average life expectancy after age 10 or 15 or whatever.I think that made sense, and I apologize for explaining it to you like you're an idiot. I meant no offense, it was just the easiest way for me to sort it out in my head and get it to...become..words.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I'm gonna point something out here for 2 reasons: 1: I'm a jerk, and 2: it's an often-overlooked fallacy in general.The term "average life expectancy" usually refers to "average life expectancy at birth," and unless stated otherwise, that's the default meaning.An average life expectancy of 40 does not mean that people rarely lived past 40 or 50. The thing is, average life expectancy simply adds together everybody's age at death and then divides by the number of people. But death in infancy and childhood was extremely common, which brings the average life expectancy way down for everybody. But, for example, if a person lived to see 15 then their life expectancy was probably much much higher than 40. 60-65 would be my complete stab-in-the-dark guess.The same way today, every day older you get, your life expectancy goes up. It doesn't mean that you're gonna live longer, it just means that if you make it to 13 then you've outlived all the other people who died younger, and since you can't possibly die any younger than 13, those deaths don't factor in to your actual life expectancy anymore. I think a much better method of determining how long the average adult lived would be to look at average life expectancy after age 10 or 15 or whatever.I think that made sense, and I apologize for explaining it to you like you're an idiot. I meant no offense, it was just the easiest way for me to sort it out in my head and get it to...become..words.

actually, if you want me to be exact, many people did not live past the age of 20. accounting for a high rate of child deathThis average of 40 is a generous one.as a more correct statement would be to say, the average expectancy ranged from 20-40 as a higher rate of child deaths occurred. however many people who lived into adult hood, could expect an average age of 40.

[vbnautilus 48]

The old man is probably asleep by now, but we've been over this stuff so many times I can probably answer for him.

Anyways, BG. back to earth being 6,000 years old. By using technology. The same technology the military uses, we can see parts of the earth that date back hundreds of millions of years. The same can be said with carbon dating, and fossils.

He doesn't think dating methods are accurate. He has websites to prove how dating methods are bad.

The universe itself is expanding. By using the color spectrum and shifts, we can see how galaxies, like our own milkyway are spreading apart from one another at very fast rates.

God did all that stuff. Isn't he great?

So how can you anyone measure any accuracy at all?

All the prophesies in the bible came true, thats how he knows it is accurate. No one has been able to find any inaccuracy in the bible.

[Balloon guy 158]

Anyways, BG. back to earth being 6,000 years old. By using technology. The same technology the military uses, we can see parts of the earth that date back hundreds of millions of years. The same can be said with carbon dating, and fossils.The universe itself is expanding. By using the color spectrum and shifts, we can see how galaxies, like our own milkyway are spreading apart from one another at very fast rates. These maps, and scientific proof are available online. check for yourself. Its ok to believe the earth is as old as scientists say, thats what technology is for. To help answer the questions we ask. Think about history, before the question was even asked, people believed the earth was flat. a simple question about it being round, and the use of floating vessels. and voila. technology helped answer a question to prove or disprove an idea.The same can be said for today, by proving the age of the earth. Now lets get back into some testaments. You started to touch on the bible and its parts, age etc.. I just want to be clear on this. When we talk about the new testament, we cant refer to it as 2000 years old.its not 2000 years old, and further more, the earliest record, which has been generally accepted. And i'm using the words generally accepted, because thats all it is. is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52. which scholars believe it to date back to 117CE - 138CE. Thats a pretty long time after the death of Christ.The new testament,which makes mention to the gospel writtings of Jesus didnt even begin until over a century after the death of Jesus Christ.So how can you anyone measure any accuracy at all?You cant. The simple and sad truth is, You Cannot use any of these writings as fact. these are not eye witness accounts, not even 2nd hand.Lets also look at the average age life expectancy for some 2000 years ago. It was 40 years old. This number did not change until recently, in the 1900's.So this simple math means that the 1st ever records of the writings on the life of Christ were not until 3 - 4 generations after his death. do you refute this?

Well I can see someone has been drinking the kool aid from the Dawkins Kool aid stand.Your math is really bad.You use a parchment that is dated to 117ish...Christ died at 33ish..and you come up with 3-4 generations?If the parchment is a copy..then how old was the original?OhHow about applying simple logic, most of the NT was written before the destruction of the Temple which occurred in 66AD. Why do we think this? Because they don't mention it. Something in their culture that would make the 9-11 attacks, Pearl Harbor and the Civil War combined look small was ignored by the writers of the NT? They must have done that on purpose to trick us later into thinking that the letters to Corinth were written around the 55-56 date currently believed.Now the question is why must these so-called scholars you are quoting seek to date the NT much later than it says it is? They don't have any original manuscripts either, so why do they assume that the writings of the time were not actually written when they say, by who they say? When you answer this question, I will answer more of yours.

[Balloon guy 158]

The old man is probably asleep by now, but we've been over this stuff so many times I can probably answer for him.

Thanks vb, I was asleep.

He doesn't think dating methods are accurate. He has websites to prove how dating methods are bad.

Don't have any websites, and the question isn't are dating methods bad, it is How old was the earth when God made it?

God did all that stuff. Isn't he great?

Yes, yes He is.

All the prophesies in the bible came true, thats how he knows it is accurate. No one has been able to find any inaccuracy in the bible.

Not all of them, there are a couple more to come.But the ones that did..wow they were miracles

[Balloon guy 158]

only with you.

Acceptance is the first step to recovery

[Balloon guy 158]

How 'bout Osiris, the mortal son of Ra, his unique birth, his horrible death wherein his body was mutilated by evil forces, his journey to Hell, his resurrection, and his ascent to Heaven, and then his benevolent judgement of the dead and ability to grant eternal life to those dead?

That is a nice story.It doesn't fit with the rest of Osiris' story, leaves out huge parts and attempts to force it to look like the story of Christ, but I guess if you only read what someone wrote about Osiris you could come to this conclusion.Of course you must never read the real story of Osiris in order to believe this.

Later, when Hathor's identity (from the Ogdoad) was assimilated into that of Isis, Horus, who had been Isis' husband (in the Ogdoad), became considered her son, and thus, since Osiris was Isis' husband (in the Ennead), Osiris also became considered Horus' father. Attempts to explain how Osiris, a god of the dead, could give rise to Horus, who was thought to be living, led to the development[citation needed] of the Myth of Osiris and Isis, which became a central myth in Egyptian mythology. The myth described Osiris as having been killed by his brother Set who wanted Osiris' throne. Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died. Isis later gave birth to Horus. As such, since Horus was born after Osiris' resurrection, Horus became thought of as a represention of new beginnings and the vanquisher of the evil Set. This combination, Osiris-Horus, was therefore a life-death-rebirth deity, and thus associated with the new harvest each year. Afterward, Osiris became known as the Egyptian god of the dead, Isis became known as the Egyptian goddess of the children, and Horus became known as the Egyptian god of the sky.Ptah-Seker (who resulted from the identification of Ptah as Seker), who was god of re-incarnation, thus gradually became identified with Osiris, the two becoming Ptah-Seker-Osiris (rarely known as Ptah-Seker-Atum, although this was just the name, and involved Osiris rather than Atum). As the sun was thought to spend the night in the underworld, and subsequently be re-incarnated, as both king of the underworld, and god of reincarnation, Ptah-Seker-Osiris was identified.

BTW, that is the story I told earlier, this chick-god went around the world and gathered up her dead husbands body parts, had sex with them and got pregnant.Not something I would use on judgment day to explain why you denied Christ in your life...

[rjkdb8 1]

Ive never really spent any time in this section.

The hell you say.

how does agnostics and atheist differ? because its seems i've taken one as a broad term(serious question since you're a better source than wikipedia)

agnosticism is making an epistemological claim and atheism/theism are making existential claims.

[Balloon guy 158]

Anyways, BG. back to earth being 6,000 years old. By using technology. The same technology the military uses, we can see parts of the earth that date back hundreds of millions of years. The same can be said with carbon dating, and fossils.

Internal guidance systems can tell us the age of the earth?Carbon dating can date things hundreds of millions of years with accuracy?They use M-16s to study fossils?

The universe itself is expanding. By using the color spectrum and shifts, we can see how galaxies, like our own milkyway are spreading apart from one another at very fast rates.

Which means they uses to be much closer... in fact they must have at one time been sharing the same exact space..which means the universe has a beginning.

These maps, and scientific proof are available online. check for yourself.

I did THEY ARE...so is proof of alien abductions.

Its ok to believe the earth is as old as scientists say, thats what technology is for. To help answer the questions we ask. Think about history, before the question was even asked, people believed the earth was flat. a simple question about it being round, and the use of floating vessels. and voila. technology helped answer a question to prove or disprove an idea.

Which people thought the earth was flat? Oh that's right, the scientist of the day. Silly scientist, making assumptions without all the data..

The same can be said for today, by proving the age of the earth.

Proving? No, by proving that a certain amount of argon has turned to lead in a sample thy can extrapolate that they have an age they suspect.Proving would require recreation of the results, and would take...4 billion years to do.

Now lets get back into some testaments.

Yes, let's get back to the are where you are most lacking in understanding.

You started to touch on the bible and its parts, age etc.. I just want to be clear on this. When we talk about the new testament, we cant refer to it as 2000 years old.

we can and we do, and by we I mean people who study this sort of thing without wanting to sell a book to gullible twenty something year olds who think that they now understand a subject that they are severely lacking in understanding.

its not 2000 years old, and further more, the earliest record, which has been generally accepted. And i'm using the words generally accepted, because thats all it is. is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52. which scholars believe it to date back to 117CE - 138CE. Thats a pretty long time after the death of Christ.

Wow, we can date so many things so much more accurately, you'd think they would narrow this copy of the NT down a bit more.Now I will explain things to you. Dating a copy of the book of John by the style of writing doesn't mean that the original was written at the same time. I'll let that soak in...

[Balloon guy 158]

The new testament,which makes mention to the gospel writtings of Jesus didnt even begin until over a century after the death of Jesus Christ.

Oh really? And you know this because you have a detailed list of all things written for this length of time for the entire middle east or the entire world?

So how can you anyone measure any accuracy at all?

With Military technology?

You cant. The simple and sad truth is, You Cannot use any of these writings as fact. these are not eye witness accounts, not even 2nd hand.

And you know this because of that list of all things written?

Lets also look at the average age life expectancy for some 2000 years ago. It was 40 years old. This number did not change until recently, in the 1900's.

The reason you didn't understand Tim's explanation was because you can't deviate from this book you bought's logic because your whole house of cards would come crashing down. Here's a little burr for your saddle. Socrates died when he was 70

So this simple math means that the 1st ever records of the writings on the life of Christ were not until 3 - 4 generations after his death. do you refute this?

Might as well, most of the scholar world does. And by most I of course exclude the 3-4 that you and crow thinks make up the vast majority

[Royal_Tour 0]

Well I can see someone has been drinking the kool aid from the Dawkins Kool aid stand.Your math is really bad.You use a parchment that is dated to 117ish...Christ died at 33ish..and you come up with 3-4 generations?If the parchment is a copy..then how old was the original?OhHow about applying simple logic, most of the NT was written before the destruction of the Temple which occurred in 66AD. Why do we think this? Because they don't mention it. Something in their culture that would make the 9-11 attacks, Pearl Harbor and the Civil War combined look small was ignored by the writers of the NT? They must have done that on purpose to trick us later into thinking that the letters to Corinth were written around the 55-56 date currently believed.Now the question is why must these so-called scholars you are quoting seek to date the NT much later than it says it is? They don't have any original manuscripts either, so why do they assume that the writings of the time were not actually written when they say, by who they say? When you answer this question, I will answer more of yours.

woah. lol my math is not bad. Infact. The math can not be accurate with religion when your own followers cant even decide on exact dates of Christs birth, or death. There are many discrepancies on the years of his birth.Not my fault you guys don't even know when your savior was born.also that "parchment" you're talking about is the St John's fragment (Rylands Library Papyrus P52). Accepted as the first record of new testament text. Its dated from the style of scripture. Not the substance it was written on. Therefore the date of 117CE - 138CE is its earliest date. This is something YOU should KNOW. common you call yourself religious?If you wanted to get a scientific study on the age of it, paleographic evidence allows a much wider range possibly as old as 150CE. which makes your case worse.So yes, like i said. This is far from first hand, or even 2nd hand knowledge. And your idea of "simple logic" on the destruction of the temple is flawed. You're using a scholar born in 1918 (John Arthur Thomas Robinson) as he proposed this New Dating of the NT.Its a theory, and not. NOT evidence of earlier writings. Furthermore, You can't state the issue of the temples destruction as evidence because the temples destruction occurred in AD66 as you said. These gospels on the life of Jesus Christ are representing a half century prior to this.It would be like mentioning the 9-11 attacks in a book about the stock market crash in the 20's/ And. yes. These scholars seek to date the NT at sometime after AD100 because the earliest Original piece of the new testament is what i said. No earlier than 117CE. Now.. what exactly do you mean by "Not a question of dating the earth, but how old was earth when god made it"?are you saying the earth was in existence, but then God took it over and recreated it??I mean, at this rate, your crazy factor probably means you believe in the end of the world on 2012 also?

[Balloon guy 158]

woah. lol my math is not bad. Infact. The math can not be accurate with religion when your own followers cant even decide on exact dates of Christs birth, or death. There are many discrepancies on the years of his birth.Not my fault you guys don't even know when your savior was born.also that "parchment" you're talking about is the St John's fragment (Rylands Library Papyrus P52). Accepted as the first record of new testament text. Its dated from the style of scripture. Not the substance it was written on. Therefore the date of 117CE - 138CE is its earliest date. This is something YOU should KNOW. common you call yourself religious?If you wanted to get a scientific study on the age of it, paleographic evidence allows a much wider range possibly as old as 150CE. which makes your case worse.So yes, like i said. This is far from first hand, or even 2nd hand knowledge. And your idea of "simple logic" on the destruction of the temple is flawed. You're using a scholar born in 1918 (John Arthur Thomas Robinson) as he proposed this New Dating of the NT.Its a theory, and not. NOT evidence of earlier writings. Furthermore, You can't state the issue of the temples destruction as evidence because the temples destruction occurred in AD66 as you said. These gospels on the life of Jesus Christ are representing a half century prior to this.It would be like mentioning the 9-11 attacks in a book about the stock market crash in the 20's/ And. yes. These scholars seek to date the NT at sometime after AD100 because the earliest Original piece of the new testament is what i said. No earlier than 117CE. Now.. what exactly do you mean by "Not a question of dating the earth, but how old was earth when god made it"?are you saying the earth was in existence, but then God took it over and recreated it??I mean, at this rate, your crazy factor probably means you believe in the end of the world on 2012 also?

You really have a hard time following a thought don't you?

[Royal_Tour 0]

Internal guidance systems can tell us the age of the earth?Carbon dating can date things hundreds of millions of years with accuracy?They use M-16s to study fossils?

Right, cause any of what you just said makes your point valid..... // Its fair to say you pick and chose what to believe so you dont shatter your precious world. The same world that allows for a jealous God.again, you dont even know when Christ was born, yet you're going to comment on the accuracy of Carbon Dating..

Which means they uses to be much closer... in fact they must have at one time been sharing the same exact space..which means the universe has a beginning.

Right, it was called the Big Bang. If God had created the heavens, and earth and sun and blah blah.. Did he or she create other galaxies and planets?? I mean, if they were so close together, he or she must have? right?so where is the mention on this? where does God talk about the infinite amount of other planets, or cosmic phenomenas like a supernova... surely the Bible would have detailed information about this. I mean, a god that can make a planet, and a sun, and a couple people. psshh ya thats easy, that i get.But a God who can make an expanding universe, planets and sun's that reach a number so great ,its almost unimaginable.. Heck. I'd worship that dude. too bad, there isnt one...

Wow, we can date so many things so much more accurately, you'd think they would narrow this copy of the NT down a bit more.Now I will explain things to you. Dating a copy of the book of John by the style of writing doesn't mean that the original was written at the same time. I'll let that soak in...

yes. it has been narrowed down. You see, they reached the year 117 - 138 because of the style of script. If it was a copy, the style of script would date back earlier, but the date of the copy would be laterIts too bad, thats not the case... well too bad for religious buffs i guess. cuz right now, their new testament is nothing more than a couple kids who thought it would be cool to makeup stories about a super human, who can walk on water and totally pwns the Romans with his prophecies. Cast a stone he says! Cast a stone.Man that's good.

[Balloon guy 158]

woah. lol my math is not bad. Infact. The math can not be accurate with religion when your own followers cant even decide on exact dates of Christs birth, or death. There are many discrepancies on the years of his birth.Not my fault you guys don't even know when your savior was born.

Pretty sure there will not be quiz in order to get into heaven.

also that "parchment" you're talking about is the St John's fragment (Rylands Library Papyrus P52). Accepted as the first record of new testament text. Its dated from the style of scripture. Not the substance it was written on. Therefore the date of 117CE - 138CE is its earliest date. This is something YOU should KNOW. common you call yourself religious?If you wanted to get a scientific study on the age of it, paleographic evidence allows a much wider range possibly as old as 150CE. which makes your case worse.So yes, like i said. This is far from first hand, or even 2nd hand knowledge.

So you are in fact ready to declare that this fragment is the original from the book of John? There are no other earlier examples of these writings?

And your idea of "simple logic" on the destruction of the temple is flawed. You're using a scholar born in 1918 (John Arthur Thomas Robinson) as he proposed this New Dating of the NT.Its a theory, and not. NOT evidence of earlier writings. Furthermore, You can't state the issue of the temples destruction as evidence because the temples destruction occurred in AD66 as you said. These gospels on the life of Jesus Christ are representing a half century prior to this.It would be like mentioning the 9-11 attacks in a book about the stock market crash in the 20's/

You really don't follow anyone else's direction, only your own.I'm not trying to fit your flawed understanding into the truth, I'm trying to help you get past your flawed understanding.

And. yes. These scholars seek to date the NT at sometime after AD100 because the earliest Original piece of the new testament is what i said. No earlier than 117CE.

See above.

Now.. what exactly do you mean by "Not a question of dating the earth, but how old was earth when god made it"?are you saying the earth was in existence, but then God took it over and recreated it??I mean, at this rate, your crazy factor probably means you believe in the end of the world on 2012 also?

Is english your first language?

[Royal_Tour 0]

You really have a hard time following a thought don't you?

so its come to this.You cant explain why there are so many discrepancies in the bible. And you turn to comedy when refuting scientific evidence. Its apparent that religion is a fallacy. I think for some people, it helps keep them honest and in some cases, scared to commit evil acts.Last thing we need is a Mad Max anarchist society..

[Royal_Tour 0]

Is english your first language?

Can you skip the none sense and actually create replies that matter?Your eating your own words. You said. and i quote "Don't have any websites, and the question isn't are dating methods bad, it is How old was the earth when God made it?"You just said its not a question of dating methods, but dating methods prove the earth to be over 4billion years old.