AGE OF THE EARTH...

[Shortstack]

So what is the TRUE age of the Earth dear readers? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

There are numerous "true" ages of the Earth. Each depending on one's religion and/or beliefs.
... and each one of them is 'provable' by it's proponents.

Please DO NOT bring religion into this discussion. We are talking scientific facts, principles, and theories. If you would like to argue from a religious standpoint, please take it to the Rubber Room, Religion section.

Hey, Rebel, that sure felt good...................know what I mean?

Now, back to our scientific repartee. (however that's spelled )

Mention has been made of the theory that the moon is a chunk of the earth that was knocked off during it's molten state. There are many scientists who SERIOUSLY believe that. Apparently none of those folks have ever played pool, 9 ball, or snooker. IF a wandering planitoid hit the earth during it's molten state, or anyother time, any chunk that might have been knocked off would not have gone into orbit around the parent object. Even I know that. Any chuck would have continued going out into space. Yet, these scientists want us to believe that the chunk STOPPED at a certain distance, then went into a near perfect orbit around the parent planet. PLEEEEEEEEESE, give me a break. Even Newtonian physics doesn't support that.

Another question, lightly overlooked, is how would a supposedly piece of the earth, have such a large amount of helium 3 in it's geology when the parent planet DOESN'T?

Mention has been made that meteors and meteoric dust has settled onto the earth thusly increasing the earth's magnetic force. ? Micro-meteoric dust is descending onto this planet at a rate of 14 million tons each year. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the depth of dust would be about 54 feet thick. There is approximately 1/8th of an inch depth on the Moon's surface which gives an age in the order of only 10,000 years.
The dust contains a percentage of nickel, and if it is assumed that most of the dust is swept into the sea, then tests show that there is only 8,000 years worth of nickel in the oceans.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rebel - KGC]

 

[lamar]

So what is the TRUE age of the Earth dear readers? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

There are numerous "true" ages of the Earth. Each depending on one's religion and/or beliefs.
... and each one of them is 'provable' by it's proponents.

Please DO NOT bring religion into this discussion. We are talking scientific facts, principles, and theories. If you would like to argue from a religious standpoint, please take it to the Rubber Room, Religion section.

Hey, Rebel, that sure felt good...................know what I mean?

Now, back to our scientific repartee. (however that's spelled )

Mention has been made of the theory that the moon is a chunk of the earth that was knocked off during it's molten state. There are many scientists who SERIOUSLY believe that. Apparently none of those folks have ever played pool, 9 ball, or snooker. IF a wandering planitoid hit the earth during it's molten state, or anyother time, any chunk that might have been knocked off would not have gone into orbit around the parent object. Even I know that. Any chuck would have continued going out into space. Yet, these scientists want us to believe that the chunk STOPPED at a certain distance, then went into a near perfect orbit around the parent planet. PLEEEEEEEEESE, give me a break. Even Newtonian physics doesn't support that.

Another question, lightly overlooked, is how would a supposedly piece of the earth, have such a large amount of helium 3 in it's geology when the parent planet DOESN'T?

Mention has been made that meteors and meteoric dust has settled onto the earth thusly increasing the earth's magnetic force. ? Micro-meteoric dust is descending onto this planet at a rate of 14 million tons each year. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the depth of dust would be about 54 feet thick. There is approximately 1/8th of an inch depth on the Moon's surface which gives an age in the order of only 10,000 years.
The dust contains a percentage of nickel, and if it is assumed that most of the dust is swept into the sea, then tests show that there is only 8,000 years worth of nickel in the oceans.

Dear Shortstack;
No, my friend, the theory is that a meteorite the size of Mars impacted the Earth during Earths' proto-stage and the resulting ejecta was sent into orbit. During this time frame the Earth had no real atomosphere to speak of, therefore it's a very sound theory. In other words, the Earths' crust had not yet started to cool sufficently, and thus it absorbed most of the impact, yet a large portion of Earths' surface went ballistic, and thus formed our moon.

Thus far all moon rocks which have been taken from the lunar surface correspond extremely well to how the Earths' surface would have been during the proto-stages of the Earth and the oldest sample yet returned to Earth is about 4.2 billion years old, which means that the Earth was only 300 million years old when the moon was formed. Scientists once theorized that our moon may have once been a part of Mars, but now everybody thinks that cannot be so.

The moon is only about 40-50 million years younger than the rest of our Solar System, so that would mean that the Earth was still being formed and had not yet reached the stage where the crust was cool enough to support life.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar, you are STILL ignoring the fact that any glob of material knocked off during ANY stage of the earth's formation would have kept going out into space. It would NOT have stopped it's flight and gone into a near circular orbit around the parent object. You also have chosen to ignore the Helium 3 deposits all over the moon, but that material is extremely rare on earth.

You are still ignoring the basics of physics and geological facts. You truly have no viable counter arguments to the presented information. You are still simply repeating the mainstream scientists' mantra supported by their manufactured "facts".

 

[extractor]

Ooo I got to follow this thread

 

[Digginman]

Ooo I got to follow this thread

I agree, great thread. It should be required reading of every member on TNet, to show how a real debate should go.

DM

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Coffee?

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar wrote,"In order for the dinosaur/man co-existence theory to have validity, dinosaur remains would need to be discovered by a RELIABLE paleontology team above the K-T boundary OR human remains would need to be discovered below the same K-T layer. Either/or would be sufficent for a dinosaur/man co-existence scenario to exist, but I wouldn't bet on it happening.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Mr. lamar, Man-made artifacts have been discovered in different layers of rock. For instance, a hammer, a human footprint and handprint were found in Cretaceous rock. A human sandal print with trilobite was found in Cambrian rock. All of these different geological layers of rock are tied together by "polystrate fossils". The very definition of "polystrate fossils" is, "Fossils extending from one geologic layer to another." Your K-T boundaries and layers have no special meanings. And as far as those "RELIABLE" paleontological teams..............well, would those be the same "experts" who manufactured the "piltdown man" skull by gluing pieces of the skulls of an ape and a man together to make their great "missing link" discovery? Or would it be the "experts" who "discovered" the Nebraska Man fossil based on one tooth(a molar) only to find out 2 years later that the stoneage man and his family that they had "built" around that tooth was actually............a wild PIG?

No, lamar, your RELIABLE paleontologists leave a whole LOT to be desired. Thank you very much.

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar, you are STILL ignoring the fact that any glob of material knocked off during ANY stage of the earth's formation would have kept going out into space. It would NOT have stopped it's flight and gone into a near circular orbit around the parent object. You also have chosen to ignore the Helium 3 deposits all over the moon, but that material is extremely rare on earth.

You are still ignoring the basics of physics and geological facts. You truly have no viable counter arguments to the presented information. You are still simply repeating the mainstream scientists' mantra supported by their manufactured "facts".

Dear Shortstack;
If your theory were valid, my friend, then NONE of the planets would have formed, nor even the Sun, for that matter. We must always bear in the mind the effects of gravity. Mass attracks mass, my friend. Even the tiniest particles of physical matter has weight, even gases, and so they tend to conglomerate towards each other. We may see this same effects with nebulas.

After an age, the particles start swirling around each other, eventually contacting one another and the effect snowballs from there. Granted, this does not happen overnight either. Itr takes millions upon millions of years for a planetary profiled body to form and even then, there are no guarantees that it WILL happen. Scientists surmise that for every planet formed, there are at least 10 planets which failed for a multitude or reasons, at various stages of their creation.

Moving onwards, yes there exists HE-3 on the moon, BUT there also exists HE-3 on Earth as well. HE-3 on the lunar surface has concentrations of HE-3 which consists of less than 1 PPM. On the other hand, the Earth has areas where the HE-3 concentrates are on the order of 2 to 3 PPM but these zones are rare. The Earths' mantle also contains large amounts of HE-3 as well.

And now we can examine the reason why the Lunar surface has more HE-3 than the Earths' surface.

It's because HE-3 is a gas which is lighter than air, my friend. The moons' atomosphere is so thin that lighter gases tend to stay on the strata or just below, at the sub-strata level. The Earth on the other hand, has a very vibrant atomosphere therefore all lighter than air gases migrate towards the upper atomosphere, which is exactly where the largest concentrations of HE-3 are thus far known on Earth. The concentration of HE-3 in our atomosphere is 1.38 PPM even spread throughout the Earths' atomosphere.

Please note that I am not ignoring anything my friend. I've been an amateur astronomer since the last of the Mercury launches and I've tried to stay abreast of the latest discoveries. There is nothing wrong with mainstream science, either. I've listened to those same mainstream scientists on TV for years, and I've read, studied and admired their work and theories on universe in which we live. I read about all the debates and I also tend to take sides in them. It's all very good spirited, with bets being placed, etc.

I may never be an Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Carl Sagan or Ft. Lemaitre, but this does not mean that I cannot study their work and attempt to understand their theories and what they have discovered. I may not understand it all FULLY but at least I attempt to understand it all.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with presenting an minority opinion, either. Many great scientists take the minority position simply to spur debate and further research into a particular theory. Stephen Hawking is known for doing this and he seems to have good time with it too. Einstein was incorrect many times, and like a true pro, he just shrugged it off and got back to work. The result of research should not be *knowing* rather it should be *learning*, or at least this is my opinion on the subject.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear Shortstack;
You wrote:
Mr. lamar, you are STILL ignoring the fact that any glob of material knocked off during ANY stage of the earth's formation would have kept going out into space. It would NOT have stopped it's flight and gone into a near circular orbit around the parent object

OK, my friend, I'll play along with this for a bit. I do have one question though. If that theory were true, then why does Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus all have planetary rings which are locked into orbits about their respective bodies? Hmmmm....

Also, it's been theorized that the Earth once sustained planetary rings as well. It's actually fascinating to think that Earth's planetary rings may have been responsible for the various ice ages.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

The result of research should not be *knowing* rather it should be *learning*, or at least this is my opinion on the subject.

I agree with you here Lamar, I think we all gain from a debate of the differing theories and the evidence in support and refutation. I have also played "Devil's advocate" on occasion here on T-net just to keep the discussion interesting. Your mention of the former rings of Earth being possibly responsible for causing some of the past Ice Ages is intriguing too - though I cannot imagine how one might ever hope to prove it.
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Dear Shortstack;
Also, please note that Saturn, the planet with the most highly visible planetary rings, also hosts the largest amount of moons, with the total being 62 thus far discovered. Jupiter, the planet with the secondmost visible planetary rings hosts 17 moons that are larger than 10 km across.

Uranus hosts 5 large moons and Neptune has 13 total of varying sizes and shapes. This seems to state that planets with the largest amounts of debris orbiting them also have the largest amount of moons. This should tell us something of note, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
You so vaguely implied
agree with you here Lamar, I think we all gain from a debate of the differing theories and the evidence in support and refutation. I have also played "Devil's advocate" on occasion
Only if your definition of *on occasion* is bi-weekly or more my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

Only if your definition of *on occasion* is bi-weekly or more my friend

You mean you haven't figure that out? I will never tell!

To try to tie this in to our topic, let me ask this;

If the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, does that mean that the other planets, our Sun, the other stars and galaxies are of the same young age? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[GL]

The planet Earth is a little over four and a half billion years old.

 

[lamar]

Lamar wrote

The result of research should not be *knowing* rather it should be *learning*, or at least this is my opinion on the subject.

I agree with you here Lamar, I think we all gain from a debate of the differing theories and the evidence in support and refutation. I have also played "Devil's advocate" on occasion here on T-net just to keep the discussion interesting. Your mention of the former rings of Earth being possibly responsible for causing some of the past Ice Ages is intriguing too - though I cannot imagine how one might ever hope to prove it.
Oroblanco

Dear Oroblanco;
The theory, as wild as far out as it may seem to be at first glance, actually DOES present some intriguing possibilities. For example, scientists are fairly certain that a huge meteorite screamed in about 65 million years ago and formed the Gulf of Mexico. Afterwards the Earth saw a gradual cooling off period in which about 80% of Earths' life forms of that time perished, including plant life.

Nobody knows why this was. True, a very large meteorite impact would have upset the Earth's eco-system for a long time, perhaps as long as 5,000 years, yet this is still not sufficent to explain why so much of Earths' life became extinct. It's now theorized that the same meteorite which impacted the Earth spewed off ejecta into space, thus forming a very large debris field, known more commonly as a planetary ring.

If the ring were dense enough, it could have feasibly blocked out as much as 1/3 of the Suns' warming rays, thus causing the Earth to gradually cool down and life to become extinct. From the fossil record, we understand that life forms after the K-T extinction event had thicker hides and birds with feathers evolved. Hair and on mammals replaced leathery skins and scales and the newly evolving reptiles were short, spraddle-legged crawlers and slitherers ( I think I made that word up just now) in order to warm themselves from the Earths' radiated heat from the Sun.

In other words, most life not only became extinct, the life which evolved afterwards seemed to be better equipped to handle a colder environment than the earlier life forms had. Also, please note that this is MY theory and you will not read about life on Earth evolving as species which were better equipped to handles cold climates than the last dinosaurs were.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Rebel - KGC]

LAWD GAWD A'MIGHTY!

 

[lamar]

The planet Earth is a little over four and a half billion years old.

Dear GL;
I'll agree to that my friend!
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[GL]

Good grief, are you people serious? The Earth is obviously far older than 10,000 years. You people are reading the WRONG BOOK. Try a different one.

Thank you.

 

[lamar]

Dear GL;
It's known as the Creationist theory my friend. Now, as you may already know, I am a VERY hardcore Roman Catholic as most people on this forum are likely to tell you, even if you do not ask them, however even I do not take the Old Testament QUITE that literally. Others do take the OT that literally however and that is their right to believe whatever they wish to believe. I merely try to present the facts as I understand them, be they right or wrong.
Your friend;
LAMAR