Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Home of the shitty TR Memescape

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pingu

1
And Big Buttons.
2
Brains are very weird.

They are amazing.  Human brains are possibly the most complex things in the entire universe.  If not, then only because some non-human brain is even more complex.
Nah, the biome that brain and all the other brains live in is far more complex.
Have to agree there.

Well I agree myself, except that it kind of misses my point.  I mean, by the same token, the universe is more complex than the biome that it contains. 

But nature does have the odd joint to aid carving, and carving at a reasonably convenient joint, the human brain is pretty damn awesome.  Although I'd be inclined to include the organism of which it forms a part.  It's not much use in a vat.
Well, brains themselves have the odd joint at which to carve too. They are definitely complex, especially when you recognize that they form a nonlinear complex system.

Of course.  But a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that they are somehow separate from the body. People talk about "brain and body" when they might mean "mind and body". 
3
Quote from: William Shakespeare
What a piece of worke is a man! how Noble in
Reason? how infinite in faculty? in forme and mouing
how expresse and admirable? in Action, how like an Angel?
in apprehension, how like a God?
4
Brains are very weird.

They are amazing.  Human brains are possibly the most complex things in the entire universe.  If not, then only because some non-human brain is even more complex.
Nah, the biome that brain and all the other brains live in is far more complex.
Have to agree there.

Well I agree myself, except that it kind of misses my point.  I mean, by the same token, the universe is more complex than the biome that it contains. 

But nature does have the odd joint to aid carving, and carving at a reasonably convenient joint, the human brain is pretty damn awesome.  Although I'd be inclined to include the organism of which it forms a part.  It's not much use in a vat.
5
Brains are very weird.

They are amazing.  Human brains are possibly the most complex things in the entire universe.  If not, then only because some non-human brain is even more complex.
Hmm ... does this mean that you, like Michael Denton, has at long last returned to Newton's anthropocentric view of the universe?

No.  Logic fail, there, Dave.  "possibly the most complex in" =/= "possibly the centre of"
6
Well, when it suits him.

He's flown close to eugenics in some of his posts.
7
"How does the Pope advocating personally in favor of parents make a situation different than a case where he's not?"


Hahahahahaha

What's the joke?
8
And the Pope backed the transfer.
What the hell do you think this has to do with anything?  :dunno:
Kinda puts the situation in a different category than your run of the mill child abuse case doncha think?

Not really.  In fact it's very common in cases that also involve child custody issues where the parents have different nationalities.

What makes it different from a "run of the mill child abuse case" is that the parents were convinced that there was a chance that their child could benefit from some form treatment, and were willing to put him through potential suffering on the chance that such a treatment could be found.  They obviously wanted the best for him. But they were basing their decision on what the courts decided was seriously flawed information.

That's what makes the case so hard. But there's  no doubt the court did the lawful thing, given that Alfie's welfare is legally paramount.  There was no medical chance of recovery, but some chance of suffering.  So even though it might have been kinder to the parents to let them put Alfie through futile treatment programmes, clearly the courts had no authority to do that if the evidence showed that not only was treatment futile, but that continued intervention could be causing suffering.

Let's put a slightly different case: let's say a child with a degenerative disorder is whimpering in agony on a life-support machine, and medical advice is that there is no treatment for the pain, and no chance of recovery.  Parents insist that the life-support is maintained, in case some currently unknown treatment can be found at some point.

Would you support the parents' decision in such a case? 

9
Brains are very weird.

They are amazing.  Human brains are possibly the most complex things in the entire universe.  If not, then only because some non-human brain is even more complex.
10
Reposting, as Dave seems to have forgotten my earlier answer to his question:

Again I will ask... What basis do you have for thinking Trump will not be president on January 1st 2019?  That seems pretty bold. The dossier is a fraud everyone acknowledges that now. So seriously what have you got on Trump? Other than that you don't like him. I don't think you can impeach someone just because you don't like them.

Well, it's hard to communicate why I think the ODDS are moderately high that he will not be president this time next year, because you  don't understand the difference between a probability and a prediction.  But I'll try:

There are many possible ways in which a president might not complete their term - so far, you've had a four assassinations, four natural deaths and a resignation triggered by impeachment proceedings for instance. So the baseline odds are 9/36.

I don't have any information to lead me to raise his odds of assassination above baseline. 

I think the odds of death from natural causes are higher than average because older than the presidential average and not especially fit. So he's more likely simply to die in office, or resign due to ill-health.  We may hear more about that after his medical on January 12th.  But I don't think that raises his odd of dying THIS YEAR especially high, although it may do a bit.  I do think there is some evidence of dementia, discernable in his speech patterns, but its progress doesn't seem to be very rapid.  Reagan made it through two terms after all, and he had actual Alzheimer's.

However, I think his chances of resignation are high.  I don't think he'll be impeached before this time next year, because even if the Democrats win the House, I don't expect they'll win a supermajority in the Senate, and in any case, won't be seated until after January.  But I think if impeachment starts to look even seriously possible, Trump will jump before he's pushed.

And I think they will start to look high fairly soon, even IF the present two digit lead for Democrats in the generic poll starts to erode.

This is because:

1.  That dossier isn't a "fraud".  Not everything in it may be true (and doesn't even purport to be - it's a dossier of fairly raw evidence, not a dossier of facts), but it isn't a "fraud".  It was compiled by a prefessional British intelligence officer, and was taken seriously by US professionals.  At least some of its contents have already been verified.

2. The dossier isn't the reason the intelligence services think that Russian interfered with the US election.  There appears to be copious evidence that this is the case, some of it provided by the UK intelligence service at GCHQ.

3. The dossier isn't the sole, or even primary reason the intelligence services think that the Russians attempted to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

4. There is evidence outside the dossier that Trump campaign members were at least willing to get "dirt" from the Russians on Hillary.

5. Trump campaign members, including Flynn, Kushner and Sessions have changed their stories over and over and over again about their meetings with Russians. Trump himself has lied idiotically about his relationship with Russia.

6. Trump has been extraordinarily friendly to and about Putin, who is a brutal autocrat who murders journalists, which is clearly not simply due to Trump's friendly nature as he has been extraordinarily insulting to other world leaders.

7. Trump is acting guilty as hell about the whole business of Russian interference in the election.  An innocent man would surely be saying: "Foreign interference in a US election is outrageous and I will offer every assistance to the intelligence services in getting to the bottom of it.  My campaign, at least to my knowledge, was not involved, but I will be carrying out my own investigation to verify that and if I find any evidence that anyone attempted to collude with this act of aggression by Russia, will immediately turn it over to the FBI".  As it is, he just keeps screeching "NO COLLUSION!  NO COLLUSION!!!" and making out that the entire thing is a Democratic "excuse for losing".

8.  What's more, by his OWN ADMISSION he tried to shut down the FBI investigation into US citizens' involvement with Russian interference in the election.  That is a prima facie case of obstruction of justice.

9.  Given the above, and much more, I think there is a substantial probability that within the next few months, Trump will realise that the jig is up, and look for an exit ramp - some way of leaving office while still calling it a "win".  Not sure how he'll do it, but he's a very good con-man and clearly hates living in the WH anyway - and doesn't even seem to enjoy the job much - so I think he'll find a way.  I expect he'll blame the congressional Republicans for making it impossible for him to MAGA as president right now, so he'll now do it by starting his own TV company so that the MOVEMENT goes on.

But as you no doubt disagree, then you may want to take up my bet. A charity of YOUR choice will be the beneficiary, and PP $120 poorer if I'm wrong.
11
"However, I DO think there is a substantial chance that he will resign,"

OMG

Well, obviously I think that.  That's why I placed the bet.  As I said at the time.  Did you miss it?
12
It's probably not entirely wishful thinking that Alfie's parents thought that Alfie was responding to them and aware.  There are routes from sensory organs (e.g. eyes, ears) directly to areas of the midbrain that can mediate reflexive responses to stimuli without cerebral involvement in the process.

That must be what I once experienced! I had stopped for red light at an avenue crossing. Got green, and started my usually heavy right foot. Then my left foot stomped the brake pedal all the way down. I didn't understand what happened to me, but a split second later a car shot through his red light from the left. I'm afraid that even consciously noticing the advancing car wouldn't have made me brake sufficiently and in time. Also, fortunately, my left eye is the not lazy one.

Yes, it's a good system for emergencies! Glad it worked in that case!  It's also probably the mechanism behind blindsight

From the wiki page:

Quote
In 2003, a patient known as TN lost use of his primary visual cortex, area V1. He had two successive strokes, which knocked out the region in both his left and right hemispheres. After his strokes, ordinary tests of TN's sight turned up nothing. He could not even detect large objects moving right in front of his eyes. Researchers eventually began to notice that TN exhibited signs of blindsight and in 2008 decided to test their theory. They took TN into a hallway and asked him to walk through it without using the cane he always carried after having the strokes. TN was not aware at the time, but the researchers had placed various obstacles in the hallway to test if he could avoid them without conscious use of his sight. To the researchers' delight, he moved around every obstacle with ease, at one point even pressing himself up against the wall to squeeze past a trashcan placed in his way. After navigating through the hallway, TN reported that he was just walking the way he wanted to, not because he knew anything was there.[32]

I once met a fairly famous blind-sight patient who allegedly could play quite good ping-pong, and yet could not see to choose his meal in the cafeteria. 
13
It's important I think to be clear that the  role of the UK court was to uphold Alfie's rights.  Whether they were entitled to do so for an Italian citizen I don't know. I would expect so, as we are still in the EU, but IANAL.  But bear in mind that the parents' appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was rejected.

Here is the text of the UK Supreme Court judgement:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/in-the-matter-of-alfie-evans-court-order.pdf

Note paragraphs 9 &10:

Quote
9. This made it clear that parental rights are not absolute.  The 1891 Act was followed by section 1 the Guardianship of Infants Act 1025, now replaced by section 1 of the Children Act 1989, both of which make it clear that when any question of the upbringing of a child comes before the courts, the child's welfare is the paramount consideration.  As we explained in our earlier decision in this case, the best interests of the child are the "gold standard" which is not only adopted by our law but also reflects the international standards to which this country is committed.

10. There is no reason to suppose that in this respect UK law is contrary, either to the European Convention on Human Rights, or to the law of the European Union.

So whatever Dave thinks about parental decisions being paramount, they are not paramount in English law and have not been since 1891.  Which is somewhat earlier than Orwell.

Also, note paragraph 11:

Quote
11. It has been conclusively determined that it is not in Alfie's best interests, not only to stay in Alder Hey Hospital being treated as he currently is, but also to travel abroad for the same purpose.  It is not lawful, therefore, to continue to detain him, whether in Alder Hey or elsewhere, for that purpose.  The release to which he is entitled, therefore, is release from the imposition of treatment which is not in his best interests.

14
I wouldn't call pingu's prediction lack of cowardice. I would call it out of touchness with evidence.

Of course she might get lucky and Trump might die in a helicopter crash or a car crash or get assassinated. But I think she thinks that he will be impeached and removed from office which to me is so remote that it's not even worth considering.

I guess you didn't read my post in which I said I thought there was a considerably chance (i.e. my "prediction" is probabilistic - and i suggest sufficiently probable that I was willing to put money on it, but then you've never understood probability anyway.  You don't even understand bets).

No, he won't be impeached by January, even if the Democrats get a majority in the mid-terms.  They may start impeachment proceedings, but they won't be concluded by 1st January, and to get him out of office there would have to be 2/3rds vote in the Senate anyway.

And if he has an accident, I won't consider my prediction vindicated.  And although I don't think his health is great, I don't think an incapacitating or lethal cardiovascular event is particularly likely within the next 7 months.  However, I DO think there is a substantial chance that he will resign, and I think he will resign rather than face the prospect of exposure of his corruption and probable criminality.  I expect he will find a face-saving exit ramp - "I managed to MAGA in two years instead of four!  So I'll hand over to Mike Pence - great man, the best - and enjoy a well-earned retirement!"  Or possibly "I won't participate in this Witch Hunt by Fake News!  Nobody knew how deep the swamp was!  The only thing to do is to start again! So I'm starting my own media company!  We will Make America Great Again!"

15
It's probably not entirely wishful thinking that Alfie's parents thought that Alfie was responding to them and aware.  There are routes from sensory organs (e.g. eyes, ears) directly to areas of the midbrain (B)


that can mediate reflexive responses to stimuli without cerebral involvement in the process.  I remember in the Terry Schiavo case, people reporting that she appeared to follow stimuli with her eyes, and she possibly did.  It can certainly produce the illusion of engagement, and I expect that's especially persuasive in a beloved toddler.

So I do get it.  So sad.





16
So you'd count a successful snake-oil salesman as a successful businessman?
we weren't talking about snake oil. We were talking about real estate assets. Why are you interested in snake oil?

Because that's what Trump sells.
17
Dave's (unlinked) quote he says is from wikipedia (haven't found it yet):

Quote
In 2015 Forbes estimated that Trump's real estate holdings were worth about US$3.5 billion with a value of commercial properties totaled at US$1.3 billion, his residential properties at US$410 million, and his club facilities at US$866 million, and an additional US$940 million for properties he has less than 100% stake in.[35]

...

Selected completed properties

The Trump World Tower at United Nations Plaza

The Trump International Hotel and Tower (New York City) at Columbus Circle
Trump Tower, 725 Fifth Avenue, Midtown Manhattan: A 58-story mixed-use tower,[40] the headquarters of the Trump Organization, now 100% leased, was developed by a business partnership between the Trump Organization and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States in 1983. Trump retains full control of the commercial and retail components of the tower.[41] In 2006, it was valued at $318 million, less a $30 million mortgage.[42] The total value of Trump Tower's commercial and retail spaces is $460 million. The building was refinanced for $100 million in August 2012, allowing Trump to take a cash distribution of over $73 million.[41]
...
Trump World Tower, 845 United Nations Plaza, also in Midtown Manhattan: In 2006, Forbes magazine estimated "$290 million in profits and unrealized appreciation" going to Trump.[42]
...
AXA Financial Center, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York City and 555 California Street, in San Francisco: When Trump was forced to sell a stake in the railyards on Manhattan's West Side, the Asian group to which he sold then sold much of the site for $1.76 billion. Trump owns a 30% stake in both 1290 Sixth Avenue and 555 California Street. A 43-story trophy office tower, 1290 Sixth is worth as much as $1.5 billion.[41] Trump's stake is estimated to be $450 million.[41] Trump's interest in 555 California Street is worth $400 million.[41]
...
The Trump Building at 40 Wall Street: Trump bought and renovated this building for $1 million in 1995. The pre-tax net operating income at the building as of 2011 was US$20.89 million and is valued at $350 to $400 million, according to the New York Department of Finance. Trump took out a $160 million mortgage attached to the property with an interest rate of 5.71% to use for other investments.[41] Forbes valued the property at $260 million in 2006.[42]
...
Golf courses
Trump earned at least $176.4 million from 15 golf courses in Scotland, in Ireland and across the United States' Eastern Seaboard - about 41% of the low-end estimate of his income since 2015.[39]
...

Link to a wikipedia article on Trump's net worth:

Quote
In 2016, Forbes estimated Trump's net worth at $3.7 billion, and Bloomberg $3 billion.[167][168] These estimates would make him one of the richest politicians in American history. He has often given much higher estimates, sometimes over $10 billion, with the discrepancy due in part to the uncertainty of appraised property values, as well as his own assessment of the value of his personal brand.[167][169] As of 2016, Forbes ranked him the 156th wealthiest person in the U.S.[168] and the 324th wealthiest in the world.[170]

On June 16, 2015, just prior to announcing his candidacy for president of the United States, Trump released a one-page financial statement "from a big accounting firm--one of the most respected"[171]--stating a net worth of $8,737,540,000.[172] "I'm really rich", Trump said.[171] Forbes believed his claim of $9 billion was "a whopper," figuring it was actually $4.1 billion.[173] In June 2015, Business Insider published Trump's June 2014 financial statement, noting that $3.3 billion of that total is represented by "Real Estate Licensing Deals, Brand and Branded Developments", described by Business Insider as "basically [implying] that Trump values his character at $3.3 billion."[174] In July 2015, federal election regulators released new details of Trump's self-reported wealth and financial holdings when he became a Republican presidential candidate, reporting that his assets are worth above $1.4 billion, which includes at least $70 million in stocks, and a debt of at least $265 million.[175] According to Bloomberg, for the purposes of Trump's FEC filings Trump "only reported revenue for [his] golf properties in his campaign filings even though the disclosure form asks for income", noting independent filings showing all three of his major European golf properties were unprofitable.[167]

Mortgages on Trump's major properties--including Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, and the Trump National Doral golf course--each fall into the "above $50 million" range, the highest reportable category on FEC filings, with Trump paying interest rates ranging from 4% to 7.125%.[176] Mortgages on those three properties were separately reported as $100 million, $160 million, and $125 million in 2013.[177] Trump is a leaseholder, not owner, of the land beneath 40 Wall Street.[178] Other outstanding Trump mortgages and debts are pegged to current market interest rates.[176] A 2012 report from Trump's accounting firm estimated $451.7 million in debt and other collateral obligations.[177] Filings in 2015 disclosed debt of $504 million, according to Fortune magazine.[159] Bloomberg documented debt of at least $605 million in 2016.[167] Trump's outstanding debt was at least $650 million in August 2016, in addition to an outstanding loan of $950 million to the Bank of China and Deutsche Bank (among other creditors) on 1290 Avenue of the Americas, in which Trump is a minority owner.[178]

Trump was listed on the initial Forbes List of wealthy individuals in 1982 as having an estimated $200 million fortune, including a share of his father's estimated $200 million net worth.[179] After several years on the list, Trump's financial losses in the 1980s caused him to be dropped from 1990 to 1995, and reportedly obliged him to borrow from his siblings' trusts in 1993;[179] in 2005, The New York Times referred to Trump's "verbal billions" in a skeptical article about Trump's self-reported wealth.[179] At the time, three individuals with direct knowledge of Trump's finances told reporter Timothy L. O'Brien that Trump's actual net worth was between $150 and $250 million, though Trump then publicly claimed a net worth of $5 to $6 billion.[179] Claiming libel, Trump sued the reporter (and his book publisher) for $5 billion, lost the case, and then lost again on appeal; Trump refused to turn over his unredacted tax returns despite his assertion they supported his case.[180] In a sworn deposition, Trump testified that he once borrowed $9.6 million from his father, calling it "a very small amount of money", but could not recall when he did so;[181] Trump has since told campaign audiences he began his career with "a small loan of one million dollars" from his father,[181] which he paid back with interest: "it has not been easy for me", Trump told one New Hampshire crowd.[182]

18
So why haven't you addressed my post about Trump's 'University' etc?
I'll make you a deal. Since we're talking about the guy who supposedly knows the art of the deal. Make 5 complete entries in my spreadsheet and I will look at your Trump University question.

Nope. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.

The point of THIS issue is to try to dislodge some of the weird hero-worship brainworms you've acquired. You should want to do that. It's not nice finding out you've been fooled, but better late than never.

Lol

Forbes is not public enough? Wikipedia authors sparring back and forth and finally coming to consensus is not public enough?

Lol. I linked earlier in this thread to a Forbes writer who explained just how Trump took advantage of and fooled Forbes by lying about how much he was worth for decades.

Right.  So he's had two links to that article now.

Here is a third Dave:
Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes.

Quote from:  Jonathan Greenberg, reporter for the Forbes articles cited by the wikipedia article Dave quoted from
In May 1984, an official from the Trump Organization called to tell me how rich Donald J. Trump was. I was reporting for the Forbes 400, the magazine's annual ranking of America's richest people, for the third year. In the previous edition, we'd valued Trump's holdings at $200 million, only one-fifth of what he claimed to own in our interviews. This time, his aide urged me on the phone, I needed to understand just how loaded Trump really was.

The official was John Barron -- a name we now know as an alter ego of Trump himself. When I recently rediscovered and listened, for first time since that year, to the tapes I made of this and other phone calls, I was amazed that I didn't see through the ruse: Although Trump altered some cadences and affected a slightly stronger New York accent, it was clearly him. "Barron" told me that Trump had taken possession of the business he ran with his father, Fred. "Most of the assets have been consolidated to Mr. Trump," he said. "You have down Fred Trump [as half owner] . . . but I think you can really use Donald Trump now." Trump, through this sockpuppet, was telling me he owned "in excess of 90 percent" of his family's business. With all the home runs Trump was hitting in real estate, Barron told me, he should be called a billionaire.

At the time, I suspected that some of this was untrue. I ran Trump's assertions to the ground, and for many years I was proud of the fact that Forbes had called him on his distortions and based his net worth on what I thought was solid research.

But it took decades to unwind the elaborate farce Trump had enacted to project an image as one of the richest people in America. Nearly every assertion supporting that claim was untrue.
19
Oh good grief. My definition of a successful business person as pertains to Trump is how much is his property worth and how much income does it generate.
Neither of which you know.

None of which anyone knows because he refused to release his tax returns.

What we do know from a range of sources is that he couldn't get finance from US banks after his bankruptcy.  And that his bankruptcy was colossal. And that one reason for the bankruptcy was that he'd financed the casino venture with junk bonds and lied about it.  And that allegedly, thereafter, according to one of his sons (who now denies it) got finance from Russia.

Oh, and that his "fixer" has a head that is likely to roll any time now.

So yeah, John Gotti.
20
Lol

Forbes is not public enough? Wikipedia authors sparring back and forth and finally coming to consensus is not public enough?

Have you read that WaPo article by the Forbes author yet, Dave?  The one I LINKED to?

21
And then she had the gall to call me an asshole.

Wow.

Well you are, Dave.  Mostly if someone asks for a source, the person just gives it. I'm not sure if I didn't see it (as I said, I was reading on my phone) or didn't understand that you meant that what followed was from wikipedia (because it was in a snarky aside, and there was no link to the wikipedia page).

But the fact is that I asked you for the source, and you could have given it to me but you had to make a stupid ass remark about a PhD.

You do this all the time - you scoff at people for "not reading properly" when you think they've missed something you wrote, yet you regularly ignore entire posts, or selectively quote tiny pieces of other people's posts while ignoring context.  So yes, you are an asshole.

And of course, sometimes I miss things (especially on my phone).  My eyesight, as I have mentioned, isn't all that good these days (now I'm not quite so snowed under, near the top of my to-do list is to get my eyes tested again, and possibly get on the cataract operating list).  Although it's possible that I did see it, and didn't realise, from the snarky context, that you meant that what followed was a quote from wikipedia.  I can't honestly remember.  I was on a bus at the time.

So if I ask for a source, you could have the decency to tell me, or better still, give me a link, instead of making stupid-ass comments about how I "can't be bothered" to read wikipedia, and of course PhDs.
22
Pingu - Dave had posted the source (Wikipedia). He had text on both top and bottom; I'm guessing you missed the text on top.

Unless you meant Forbes itself.

No I didn't mean Forbes itself.  I wanted to know where he got the text from - I may have missed the top (I was on my phone) or misunderstood it.

 
23
So why haven't you addressed my post about Trump's 'University' etc?
I'll make you a deal. Since we're talking about the guy who supposedly knows the art of the deal. Make 5 complete entries in my spreadsheet and I will look at your Trump University question.

 :stareicide:
24
Hey Dave do you know how old Wikipedia says the earth is?
Wikipedia is what you might call a consensus aggregator or a consensus distiller. Wikipedia is not a source of absolute truth. So yes, I know what you're thinking, and you are correct that there is a chance that Wikipedia could be wrong about Donald Trump's business accomplishments. Did you know that you too could be a Wikipedia author? It's true! If you know better than all these other Wikipedia authors about Donald Trump's business activities, you can go right over there and argue your case!

Well, the author of the original Forbes article may well do so.

And yes, of course I knew.  I've edited Wiki pages myself.
25
Yes you are, Dave.  I responded, if you note, to your first post, in which you did not give the source. You later posted the source, but after I had started responding to your first post.

Scoffing at people because they ask what source you are quoting from, because somehow someone "with a PhD" should be able to guess, is pretty assholish.

And what is utterly stupid is that Wikipedia is not a primary source.  It cites sources.  And one of those sources is Forbes.  And one of the Forbes sources recently wrote an article in which he describes how Trump misled Forbes.  Which of course you did not bother to read.

If you really regard Wikipedia as an authoritative primary source, then why not accept the truth of its article on the Age of the Earth:

Quote
The age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3][4] This age may represent the age of the Earth's accretion, of core formation, or of the material from which the Earth formed.[5] This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite[6] material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Following the development of radiometric age-dating in the early 20th century, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[7] The oldest such minerals analyzed to date--small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia--are at least 4.404 billion years old.[8][9][10] Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions--the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System--are 4.567 billion years old,[11][12] giving a lower limit for the age of the solar system.

Your double-standards are so telling.