AGE OF THE EARTH...

[GL]

So God must have done it.
That explains everything, thank you.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[mrs.oroblanco]

If you want to move this to the Religious forum, we can discuss the idea that - before all the big bangs and everything else, where did all those elements even come from. The theory of "it was just there" just doesn't wash.

B

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

and yes, dear friends, Pluto is STILL considered by myself to be a planet

It may surprise you that you and I do agree on some things Lamar, but this point I also have to agree on - to "demote" Pluto was not justified in my opinion. What other than a planet, has an atmosphere, has its own moons, has SEASONS? It may be smaller than Mercury, but I think it still qualifies as a planet.

Shortstack wrote

If the Three Laws of Thermodynamics are true; the Big Bang is false.

Well, one could make the point that the Big Bang was the instant of Creation, which is what several religions have been saying for thousands of years right? The Universe is still expanding too - which is what we ought to have as a direct result of the Big Bang you have so readily dismissed. Why would all of the galaxies still be "flying apart" if there were NO Big Bang? Not sure if I can agree on the speed of light problem either.

Now for my next problem with a Young Earth theory - take one look at the Grand Canyon in Arizona.

quote

The Grand Canyon is 277 miles (446 km) long, ranges in width from 4 to 18 miles (6.4 to 29 km) and attains a depth of over a mile (1.83 km) (6000 feet).[1] Nearly two billion years of the Earth's geological history have been exposed as the Colorado River and its tributaries cut their channels through layer after layer of rock while the Colorado Plateau was uplifted.[2] While the specific geologic processes and timing that formed the Grand Canyon are the subject of debate by geologists, [3] recent evidence suggests the Colorado River established its course through the canyon at least 17 million years ago.[4] Since that time, the Colorado River continued to erode and form the canyon to the point we see it as today.[5]

<from Wiki, but essentially in agreement with other sources>

The layers of exposed rock strata amount to some 2 BILLION years worth, and just carving out that massive artwork is thought (by geologists) to have taken 17 MILLION years to have eroded to its current depth. Have you ever visited the Grand Canyon? When you see those layers of exposed rock, layer after layer after layer, and take into consideration the amount of time it took for each layer to have formed, it is staggering. HOW can this be explained in a Young Earth theory, and make sense? Thank you in advance,

My next problem with the Young Earth <10,000 year age> has to do with the Ice Ages, but will save that for later.

The Young Earth theory is indeed intriguing and does raise pointed questions, likewise the Old Earth theory is fascinating and has multiple questions. I don't understand why one camp ought to be "hostile" to the other, for really all we seek is the truth of the matter, right? I don't think any of us has our personal reputation tied to any scientific theory (or theories) so I would hope that NO ONE is taking offense for anyone being in disagreement over such a thing. I have heard both arguments since childhood, a big "hot button" being that the Bible supposedly says the world is YOUNG, <less than 10k years> when it doesn't actually say that. Even the Old Earth theory however has some queer things, such as why is our Solar System so 'young' when compared with the age of the rest of the Universe; heck there are stars still forming TODAY, and some stars are dying of old age. Our world is a dynamic thing, not a static or unchanging thing; this very dynamism is suggestive that the world is OLD rather than young.

Thank you for the very interesting replies and for taking the time to explain things; my apologies for bringing 'religion' into my post here but it is directly related to our subject matter - in both Young and Old Earth theories. I look forward to reading more of your replies!


Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar and Mr. bigwater. Both of you are jumping around, pulling bits and pieces of information together to support your weak theory. Your own theory of the Big Bang says that there was NOT mass, just energy that supposedly formed the basic Hydrogen atom. Again, there was NO MASS in the aftermath of the big boom. Remember, "nothing" exploded and created "everything", but the first things were just the basic hydrogen atoms that have no mass and therefore no gravitational effect on one another.

Mr. bigwater, your statement that those firework particles would eventually begin orbital motions around eachother if they didn't fall to earth, is absurd. THINK about you said. Those particles, just as the Big Bang atoms, would travel outward from the centerpoint of the explosion in STRAIGHT lines; getting further and further apart from eachother. They would never collide with eachother and; since nothing else was "out there" when the primordial energy particle exploded, they would NOT come in contact with anything else to have their trajectories CHANGED. They would simply keep going in their own, individual courses. They would keep travelling in their own straight lines, outward to more and more "aloneness". After a while, they would not even be in sight of eachother.

If you're having trouble visualizing the concept, then take a pencil, a ruler, and a piece of clean paper and put a "point" on the paper. Then, draw 2 straight lines coming off of that point to form an angle (any angle) at the apex. Keep extending those lines straight out. Do the outer ends of the lines get closer together as they go out? Or do they get further apart? That will give you a 2 dimensional picture of a 4 dimensional idea concerning the expanding particles. The Big Bang is just a theory; a theory that frankly makes no sense whatsoever.

If the Three Laws of Thermodynamics are true; the Big Bang is false. Heck, if just the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics is true, the Big Bang is false.

Mr. lamar, you stated that a cloud of hydrogen and helium molecules "colasped" and formed our sun. HOW? What conceivable reason would cause a cloud of gas to "suck" itself into a smaller and smaller size to the point to where it would ignite itself. Clouds of gas just expands until it dissipates. What magical method caused that old cloud of gas to do the impossible? And please don't say gravity. Gravity requires some type of mass to exist. Gas clouds do not have the concentrated mass to initiate a gravitational force.

Dear Shortstack;
My friend, this is incorrect. Everything has mass, Everything, even hydrogen gas has mass. All matter has mass. To validate this concept, our Sun is entirely composed of gaseous materials and the core of our Sun is a nuclear REACTOR! Yet our Sun does not explode across the galaxy and the reason for this is because the Sun has a tremendous gravitational mass about it, therefore it is contained by itself.

All matter that we are aware of has mass. Even light, which is an energy source, has mass. Even empty space has mass. Space has to have mass in order for it to be affected by gravitational force, just as light is afected by gravitational force.

And yes, cloud of gaseous matter have mass. Even the nebulas, which are almost completely comprised of gaseous materials have mass. Even though a nebula may be BILLIONS of miles from one end to the other, it still has mass. It's this mass which causes gravity and as the mass constricts, the gravity plays an ever expanding role. And yes, the nebulas which we can study are growing smaller. This is because their gravitational mass is causing them to contract. Eventually some of them will become suns, while others will become failed suns. Please note that as the gas cloud becomes smaller, gravity does NOT increase, because in order to increase the effects of gravity you need to either increase the mass of the object or increas it's velocity, or a combination of both.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[GL]

I find it impossibly simple minded to entertain the "young earth" theory with any seriousness. It seems so incredibly unlikely and obviously incorrect on all levels that it actually causes me to pity those who adhere to it in the face of overwhelming and empirical evidence to the contrary. There are members here who own arrowheads older than 10,000 years.
Perhaps if mathematics didn't exist...or was somehow reversed to before the Romans and Greeks and Egyptians and Mayans and Druids then perhaps it might seem possible but absolutely NOT in the 21st century. In this day and age no one on this planet with any schooling at all should believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. It flies in the face of common sense and is borderline insulting to the intelligence of all who read this opinion. It almost seems like this theory is designed solely to irritate educated people. Like perhaps they are sitting there laughing as they type out their responses to logical, reasoned explanations backed with geology, mathematics and proven science. You can look into the night sky in any direction and see, with the naked eye, light that is BILLIONS of years old. It is almost pitiful to me that there are still people alive that believe in a "young earth" and I feel truly sorry for them and their belief.


My opinion and it has nothing to do with "god". That is for another thread.

 

[Oroblanco]

I find it impossibly simple minded to entertain the "young earth" theory with any seriousness. It seems so incredibly unlikely and obviously incorrect on all levels that it actually causes me to pity those who adhere to it in the face of overwhelming and empirical evidence to the contrary. There are members here who own arrowheads older than 10,000 years.
Perhaps if mathematics didn't exist...or was somehow reversed to before the Romans and Greeks and Egyptians and Mayans and Druids then perhaps it might seem possible but absolutely NOT in the 21st century. In this day and age no one on this planet with any schooling at all should believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. It flies in the face of common sense and is borderline insulting to the intelligence of all who read this opinion. It almost seems like this theory is designed solely to irritate educated people. Like perhaps they are sitting there laughing as they type out their responses to logical, reasoned explanations backed with geology, mathematics and proven science. You can look into the night sky in any direction and see, with the naked eye, light that is BILLIONS of years old. It is almost pitiful to me that there are still people alive that believe in a "young earth" and I feel truly sorry for them and their belief.


My opinion and it has nothing to do with "god". That is for another thread.

GL I have to respectfully disagree with you on this, though I do accept the Old Earth explanation based on the very points you have touched on, it is not simply a matter of "intellect" and remember the Young Earth theory was widely accepted for centuries by some of the greatest minds of their day. Those who hold to the Young Earth theory today are not necessarily any less intelligent or educated than anyone else - some of their arguments have already been presented here in this thread. I agree that the weight of the evidence supports the OLD more than the Young, but everyone is certainly entitled to hold their own opinions, no need to feel sorry - for that matter some of them may well feel sorry for those of us who hold to the Old Earth theory.

We could point to another area in Geology that has a long and contentious history - uniformitarianism versus catastrophism; those in both camps for long held each other in 'virtual' contempt, yet the truth of the matter seems that BOTH ideas are the real answer to our current geology and geography.
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. O, I am a believer in the Intelligent Design Theory, BUT, I've been studiously staying away from the "religion" angle. In the past, Rebel-KGC and I have tried to have posts discussing the science part of the Design Theory, but those posts were turned into a religious discussion by OTHER posters and one or two would complain to the Mod and "bingo" the threads were deleted.
So please understand why I'm not using the "r" word, the "G" word , or the "J" word in my discussions here.

The "Bangers" like Mr. lamar keep bringing in the idea that some mysterious point of gravitational attraction would suddenly start pulling gas clouds together to make itty, bitty, pieces of matter and eventually form planets. But, they can't tell you HOW a cloud of gas shrinks down and decides it's going to become a "sun" instead of a planet, when, supposedly those clouds are composed of the same stuff.

The Big Bang Theory says that the first material to come into existence was hydrogen and helium. Then, they claim that hydrogen and helium molecules turned into "dirt". HOW? If that is true, then scientists SHOULD be able to take tanks of compressed hydrogen and helium; add the gases together in a high heat, high vacuum biosphere and create some FRESH DIRT. Has anyone actually DONE that? I don't think so.

Now, for the Grand Canyon. Yessir. I have been to the Southrim of the GC back when I was stationed at Luke AFB, AZ. in 1967. Breath taking doesn't even START to describe it. To answer your question about the erosion of that big ditch. Are you aware that the elevation of the south end of the land mass the canyon cuts through is higher than the north end? I don't recall the name, but there is a large "ridge" that runs from north to south with an easterly curve. That ridge formed a dam back in prerecorded history that held back a huge inland sea. That sea flooded, either from the melting glaciers or the worldwide flood and cut through that ridge. I don't know if you've ever seen what happens when an earthen dam gets topped by the water during a heavy rain. A trickle of water quickly grows and starts to cut away the dirt. That grows very, very fast into a larger and larger flow until that dams erupts and is washed out. That is the basic idea of an alternative view of the possible formation of the Grand Canyon.

If you want a real eyeopener, got to one of the satelite websites and have the north American continent come up on your screen. Take a good look at the area of the U.S. from the Rocky Mountains to the Mississippi River, then up to the Ohio River. What you'll see is an OBVIOUS flood plain that guided great amounts of water into the Gulf region. That water would have split into different runs at the mountains of Mexico and finished up in the Gulf of California and the Gulf of Mexico. Part of that run to the Gulf of California would have closely followed the digging of the Grand Canyon. Which, I'll point out,could have easily been washed out in a matter of DAYS, not centuries. We are told by knowledgeable geologists, that the Wichita Mountains of Oklahoma are the oldest mountains in the U.S. Makes me wonder where the dirt from those mountains went to. I'd suggest that those mountains were possibly washed away in that big water rush. Here in Mississippi, there is a very deep area of a special soil called Loess (I think that's how it's spelled) that runs from the mouth of the Yazoo River, south along the eastside of the Mississippi River, into Louisiana to the large curve of the Mississippi River where it turns more easterly toward the sites of Baton Rouge and New Orleans. This soil is very fine and very rich and extra-ordinarily deep. Now, the story is that that soil build up is the result of centuries of fine soil being blown across the country to settle in it's present location. ? How about an alternate idea? How about that soil being washed there as silt during that big water rush? Kinda makes sense, doesn't it?

Mr. O, have you noticed that it is the BANGERS who keep using the figure of 10,000 years for the age of the earth? I have not mentioned ANY figure for the age. I believe the Bangers are very desperate.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

AGREE!

 

[Oroblanco]

That sudden flood event, are you saying the Grand Canyon was the result of it? The continents themselves are in motion - not very fast motion of course, but besides moving across the face of the planet, they are also rising and sinking. Hence we have mountain tops today, which were once at the bottom of the ocean. Fossils of sea life have been found in the highest parts of the Himalayas. How is this explained in the Young Earth theory?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you have said, regarding the true age of the Earth, for you now state, quote
<Shortstack wrote>

Mr. O, have you noticed that it is the BANGERS who keep using the figure of 10,000 years for the age of the earth? I have not mentioned ANY figure for the age. I believe the Bangers are very desperate.

when earlier in this thread, you stated, quote
<Shortstack wrote>

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.

<http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,294333.msg2123341.html#msg2123341>

So now I have to ask, what figure do you assign for the true age of the Earth, if not 10,000 years? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Mr. O, I am a believer in the Intelligent Design Theory, BUT, I've been studiously staying away from the "religion" angle. In the past, Rebel-KGC and I have tried to have posts discussing the science part of the Design Theory, but those posts were turned into a religious discussion by OTHER posters and one or two would complain to the Mod and "bingo" the threads were deleted.
So please understand why I'm not using the "r" word, the "G" word , or the "J" word in my discussions here.

The "Bangers" like Mr. lamar keep bringing in the idea that some mysterious point of gravitational attraction would suddenly start pulling gas clouds together to make itty, bitty, pieces of matter and eventually form planets. But, they can't tell you HOW a cloud of gas shrinks down and decides it's going to become a "sun" instead of a planet, when, supposedly those clouds are composed of the same stuff.

The Big Bang Theory says that the first material to come into existence was hydrogen and helium. Then, they claim that hydrogen and helium molecules turned into "dirt". HOW? If that is true, then scientists SHOULD be able to take tanks of compressed hydrogen and helium; add the gases together in a high heat, high vacuum biosphere and create some FRESH DIRT. Has anyone actually DONE that? I don't think so.

Now, for the Grand Canyon. Yessir. I have been to the Southrim of the GC back when I was stationed at Luke AFB, AZ. in 1967. Breath taking doesn't even START to describe it. To answer your question about the erosion of that big ditch. Are you aware that the elevation of the south end of the land mass the canyon cuts through is higher than the north end? I don't recall the name, but there is a large "ridge" that runs from north to south with an easterly curve. That ridge formed a dam back in prerecorded history that held back a huge inland sea. That sea flooded, either from the melting glaciers or the worldwide flood and cut through that ridge. I don't know if you've ever seen what happens when an earthen dam gets topped by the water during a heavy rain. A trickle of water quickly grows and starts to cut away the dirt. That grows very, very fast into a larger and larger flow until that dams erupts and is washed out. That is the basic idea of an alternative view of the possible formation of the Grand Canyon.

If you want a real eyeopener, got to one of the satelite websites and have the north American continent come up on your screen. Take a good look at the area of the U.S. from the Rocky Mountains to the Mississippi River, then up to the Ohio River. What you'll see is an OBVIOUS flood plain that guided great amounts of water into the Gulf region. That water would have split into different runs at the mountains of Mexico and finished up in the Gulf of California and the Gulf of Mexico. Part of that run to the Gulf of California would have closely followed the digging of the Grand Canyon. Which, I'll point out,could have easily been washed out in a matter of DAYS, not centuries. We are told by knowledgeable geologists, that the Wichita Mountains of Oklahoma are the oldest mountains in the U.S. Makes me wonder where the dirt from those mountains went to. I'd suggest that those mountains were possibly washed away in that big water rush. Here in Mississippi, there is a very deep area of a special soil called Loess (I think that's how it's spelled) that runs from the mouth of the Yazoo River, south along the eastside of the Mississippi River, into Louisiana to the large curve of the Mississippi River where it turns more easterly toward the sites of Baton Rouge and New Orleans. This soil is very fine and very rich and extra-ordinarily deep. Now, the story is that that soil build up is the result of centuries of fine soil being blown across the country to settle in it's present location. ? How about an alternate idea? How about that soil being washed there as silt during that big water rush? Kinda makes sense, doesn't it?

Mr. O, have you noticed that it is the BANGERS who keep using the figure of 10,000 years for the age of the earth? I have not mentioned ANY figure for the age. I believe the Bangers are very desperate.

Dear Shortstack;
You questioned how is it possible for a gas cloud which is composed or hydrogen and helium can make dirt? Actually *dirt* is made at the planetary level and it consists of varying amounts of silica mixed with decayed organic matter, such as plant and animal life. That is dirt my friend, and that is all it consists of.

So, where does the silica come from in order to allow dirt to be made? It's made by a process called *nucleosynthesis*. First, a star is born and I don't mean Barbera Streisand either. The larger grains of silicon dust are formed in the upper atomospheres of cool stars, whereas carbon grains are formed in the atomosphere of carbon stars.

The cool stars are those which contain high concentrations of silicon and the silicon gases form tiny crystals. The same can be stated with carbon stars, which are stars which have more carbon than oxygen. The carbon and oxygen combined in the carbon stars' atomosphere and carbon monoxide is given off. At the same time, carbon crystals are formed and thus become space-borne.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. O. I was quoting a scientist's statement of the depth of meteoric dust on the moon's surface and their figure of 10,000 years of age for the moon. Does a young moon equal a young earth?

I am using the large flood idea as an alternative in the formation of the Grand Canyon. Every area of the earth with it's indigenous people has it's own "legend" of a worldwide flood. Supposedly, all of those folks had no way of communicating with one another so they did not know anything about the rest of the world's experiences, but the Bangers blow that off as make-believe and made up history.

You ask me for my idea of the true age of the Earth. I cannot say specifically how old the earth is. BUT, I can say that I do not believe the earth is billions or even millions of years old. I DO believe the all of our existence is the result of intelligent design. Just as the computer that I'm using is the result of an intelligent design. To keep this thread from turning into a religious one, I will stop at that point.

Now, we'll wait shortly for the name calling to begin. That's why discussions on certain topics turn bad. You and lamar and Rebel and I have kept our debate civil, but there has already been an indication that someothers do not have the self control and maturity to remain civil.

We can try to proceed and use the delete button if necessary.

There are many things that have been discovered in the physical sciences that support the theory of intelligent design, but the supporters of the theory of the Bang refuse to even consider them. They continue to quote the same old textbook stuff instead of considering any plausible alternatives.

 

[Oroblanco]

OK - I get where you are amigo, but are Intelligent Design and Old Earth exclusive of each other? Why would an OLD set of origins necessarily NOT be from an Intelligent Design?

Actually I think Intelligent Design is correct, but with the 'OLD' age of the world. The alternative to Intelligent Design is to say that everything which exists, is the result of a tremendous series of "happy accidents" which does not agree with what we see. Anyone who runs a Craps table will tell you the odds of the pair of dice ending up stacked on edge are extremely unlikely.

If Intelligent Design will not work with the Old Earth theory, then I AM confused! < cheap pun intended! >

Like you, I am hoping we can all remain civil in our words, sometimes we forget that we are among friends here not 'the enemy'.
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

lamar said: You questioned how is it possible for a gas cloud which is composed or hydrogen and helium can make dirt? Actually *dirt* is made at the planetary level and it consists of varying amounts of silica mixed with decayed organic matter, such as plant and animal life. That is dirt my friend, and that is all it consists of.

So, where does the silica come from in order to allow dirt to be made? It's made by a process called *nucleosynthesis*. First, a star is born and I don't mean Barbera Streisand either. The larger grains of silicon dust are formed in the upper atomospheres of cool stars, whereas carbon grains are formed in the atomosphere of carbon stars.


Isn't that EXACTLY what I said? Without the little points in between. Hydrogen and helium gases, turned into dirt...........according to the Bangers. And, AGAIN, I ask how does hydrogen and helium turn into ANYTHING other than hydrogen and helium? If it happened in "nature", then surely today's scientists can duplicate that action. You see, for a "theory" to be taken as a "fact", it must be repeatable with the same results, over and over. At least that's what the scientific community tells us.
So, take some hydrogen and helium; a furnace and vacuum chamber and MAKE SOME DIRT. It's OK if you want to make the silicon and other stuff, in the interim...........just make the dirt.

While you're at it, make a sun. Just a little bitty one to show us how it's done. Oh,that's right. Scientist CAN'T do that, even though all the suns we see in the night's sky just HAPPENED to exist through........ahhhhhhhhh, well, they just HAPPENED. Dang. If "nature" can do it, why can't WE? Does "nature" know something we don't?

 

[lamar]

lamar said: You questioned how is it possible for a gas cloud which is composed or hydrogen and helium can make dirt? Actually *dirt* is made at the planetary level and it consists of varying amounts of silica mixed with decayed organic matter, such as plant and animal life. That is dirt my friend, and that is all it consists of.

So, where does the silica come from in order to allow dirt to be made? It's made by a process called *nucleosynthesis*. First, a star is born and I don't mean Barbera Streisand either. The larger grains of silicon dust are formed in the upper atomospheres of cool stars, whereas carbon grains are formed in the atomosphere of carbon stars.


Isn't that EXACTLY what I said? Without the little points in between. Hydrogen and helium gases, turned into dirt...........according to the Bangers. And, AGAIN, I ask how does hydrogen and helium turn into ANYTHING other than hydrogen and helium? If it happened in "nature", then surely today's scientists can duplicate that action. You see, for a "theory" to be taken as a "fact", it must be repeatable with the same results, over and over. At least that's what the scientific community tells us.
So, take some hydrogen and helium; a furnace and vacuum chamber and MAKE SOME DIRT. It's OK if you want to make the silicon and other stuff, in the interim...........just make the dirt.

While you're at it, make a sun. Just a little bitty one to show us how it's done. Oh,that's right. Scientist CAN'T do that, even though all the suns we see in the night's sky just HAPPENED to exist through........ahhhhhhhhh, well, they just HAPPENED. Dang. If "nature" can do it, why can't WE? Does "nature" know something we don't?

Dear Shortstack;
You asked how is it possible for hydrogen and helium to become dirt. I answered the question already, my friend. The process is known as nucleosynthesis. In other atoms, individual atoms combine is different quantities to produce completely different structures. For example, through nucleosynthesis, nuclear physicists are now able to actually turn lead into gold! But don't start collecting old car batteries just yet, my friend, as the process is VERY expensive, yet it can and HAS be done.

Shall I make a sun for you? What in the world for, when there are already enough *mini-suns* around the world today! I believe we call them *nuclear reactors* and this is what our Sun is. Through the process of nuclear fusion we garner the effects of it's energy, namely light and heat energy. Nuclear reactors are nothing more than minature versions of our Sun, my friend.

Can I start calling you names now, or should I wait a little bit? Funny, but I never even thought about calling someone a name until you mentioned it. It's sort of like whenever I'd take a medication, then I'd read read the label on the side which stated "CAUTION! Do not operate heavy machinery for at least 4 hours after taking this medication!" Right then and there I'd get this HUGE urge to hop on a Cat D-9G and level about 50 acres of real estate, but before reading that message, I never had the urge. Weird, huh?
Your friend who now wants to drive a bulldozer while shouting rude names at people passing by;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

OK - I get where you are amigo, but are Intelligent Design and Old Earth exclusive of each other? Why would an OLD set of origins necessarily NOT be from an Intelligent Design?
Actually I think Intelligent Design is correct, but with the 'OLD' age of the world. The alternative to Intelligent Design is to say that everything which exists, is the result of a tremendous series of "happy accidents" which does not agree with what we see. Anyone who runs a Craps table will tell you the odds of the pair of dice ending up stacked on edge are extremely unlikely.

If Intelligent Design will not work with the Old Earth theory, then I AM confused! < cheap pun intended! >

Like you, I am hoping we can all remain civil in our words, sometimes we forget that we are among friends here not 'the enemy'.
Oroblanco

THAT question my friend, is where all of the nasty arguments are rooted. Is the earth billions of years old? As pointed out, the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that long age. Is the earth 10,000 years old? THAT is not absolutely proven either. This question boils down to what each person chooses to believe. That word "believe" comes from "belief" which is closely connected to .............yep................religion. Uh, OH. There's that "r" word.

The only thing we, as a people, can do is look at scientific FACTS. Not theories that we WANT to be FACTS. Pure and straight forward FACTS that are proven and REPEATABLE.

Let's look at the basic Newtonian law that says ," an object in motion, tends to stay in motion unless / until acted upon by another force." As I was writing about the particulates from the "big bang", those molecules of hydrogen and helium would have kept traveling outward in straight lines, unless acted on by other objects or forces. The bangers tell us that nothing existed before the bang.....that everything (whatever THAT was) was contained in a particle that some claim was smaller than a hydrogen atom and others say was the size of a grapefruit. Either way, there was NOTHING else....according to THEM. So there was NOTHING to act on those particulates to alter their courses. Much less, to put them into orbital motions, as another poster posited. That's why I used the example of drawing the straight lines on a piece of paper; as as visual aid to demonstrate the principle. That big bang just could not have happened. Yet, there are plenty of people who will argue to the death that it DID happen.

I have no idea if they are afraid of the possibility of an intelligent being of such enormous power that they refuse to even consider it; that they block out any thought other than the " there was a big old explosion that made everything" declaration.

Mr. O, here is a statement of truth, "Neither the Creation Model nor the Evolution Model can be scientifically proven to be true since both concepts are beyond the reach of the scientific method and both views deal with singularities (ultimate origins) which must be accepted by faith. OH NOOOOooooooo. there's that "f" word again. ROFLMAO!!!!!!

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar, those nuclear reactors all over the world do not represent mini-suns. They operate by nuclear fission. The suns operate by nuclear fusion. Which, as I've already pointed out, we don't know how to do. Nature, supposedly does it, but we intelligent humankind don't know how to DO it...........do we?

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

I've read a little about turning lead to gold - the idea being, of course, that lead is extremely stable, and you actually have to figure out how to remove 3 protons - which is impossible by chemical means, so it would need tremendous amounts of energy to do it.

However, the incidents of supposed turning lead into gold are anecdotal, at best. Since a lot of lead contains minute gold, it is quite possible that, rather than turning lead into gold, it is really drawing existing gold out of lead.

Adding protons is one thing - taking them out - especially from a stable subject like lead, while having been claimed, has not really been proven to have happened.

B

 

[lamar]

OK - I get where you are amigo, but are Intelligent Design and Old Earth exclusive of each other? Why would an OLD set of origins necessarily NOT be from an Intelligent Design?
Actually I think Intelligent Design is correct, but with the 'OLD' age of the world. The alternative to Intelligent Design is to say that everything which exists, is the result of a tremendous series of "happy accidents" which does not agree with what we see. Anyone who runs a Craps table will tell you the odds of the pair of dice ending up stacked on edge are extremely unlikely.

If Intelligent Design will not work with the Old Earth theory, then I AM confused! < cheap pun intended! >

Like you, I am hoping we can all remain civil in our words, sometimes we forget that we are among friends here not 'the enemy'.
Oroblanco

THAT question my friend, is where all of the nasty arguments are rooted. Is the earth billions of years old? As pointed out, the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that long age. Is the earth 10,000 years old? THAT is not absolutely proven either. This question boils down to what each person chooses to believe. That word "believe" comes from "belief" which is closely connected to .............yep................religion. Uh, OH. There's that "r" word.

The only thing we, as a people, can do is look at scientific FACTS. Not theories that we WANT to be FACTS. Pure and straight forward FACTS that are proven and REPEATABLE.

Let's look at the basic Newtonian law that says ," an object in motion, tends to stay in motion unless / until acted upon by another force." As I was writing about the particulates from the "big bang", those molecules of hydrogen and helium would have kept traveling outward in straight lines, unless acted on by other objects or forces. The bangers tell us that nothing existed before the bang.....that everything (whatever THAT was) was contained in a particle that some claim was smaller than a hydrogen atom and others say was the size of a grapefruit. Either way, there was NOTHING else....according to THEM. So there was NOTHING to act on those particulates to alter their courses. Much less, to put them into orbital motions, as another poster posited. That's why I used the example of drawing the straight lines on a piece of paper; as as visual aid to demonstrate the principle. That big bang just could not have happened. Yet, there are plenty of people who will argue to the death that it DID happen.

I have no idea if they are afraid of the possibility of an intelligent being of such enormous power that they refuse to even consider it; that they block out any thought other than the " there was a big old explosion that made everything" declaration.

Mr. O, here is a statement of truth, "Neither the Creation Model nor the Evolution Model can be scientifically proven to be true since both concepts are beyond the reach of the scientific method and both views deal with singularities (ultimate origins) which must be accepted by faith. OH NOOOOooooooo. there's that "f" word again. ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Dear Shortstack;
Errrrr, there are actually four thermodynamic laws, my friend. There is the Zeroth Law, the First Law, the Second Law and the Third Law, and none of these laws are in contradiction to the Big Bang theory, either directly or indirectly.
Your friend;
LAMAr

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar, those nuclear reactors all over the world do not represent mini-suns. They operate by nuclear fission. The suns operate by nuclear fusion. Which, as I've already pointed out, we don't know how to do. Nature, supposedly does it, but we intelligent humankind don't know how to DO it...........do we?

Dear Shortstack;
Yes, my friend we most certainly DO know how to DO it. And to clarify my prior statement a bit, we've been building nuclear fusion reactors for a while now. The most recent example is the Joint European Torus, which was completed around 1996 or 1997. It is currently pumping out 16.5 Megawatts of power.

It's primary purpose is to pave the way for other commercial fusion reactors, most notably the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) which is expected to be online sometime in 2018 barring unforeseen delays. This particular reactor will be capable of sustaining 250 megawatts for at least 1000 seconds and the reactor will have an estimated life span of 20 years.

If successful, ITER will then pave the way for the new Demonstration Reactor, which will have the capacity to pump out 2 gigawatts of power (scenes from Back To The Future are flashing thru my mind now)on a continual basis. This reactor will have a life of at least 35 years if operated on a continual basis with virtually no pollutants.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

I've read a little about turning lead to gold - the idea being, of course, that lead is extremely stable, and you actually have to figure out how to remove 3 protons - which is impossible by chemical means, so it would need tremendous amounts of energy to do it.

However, the incidents of supposed turning lead into gold are anecdotal, at best. Since a lot of lead contains minute gold, it is quite possible that, rather than turning lead into gold, it is really drawing existing gold out of lead.

Adding protons is one thing - taking them out - especially from a stable subject like lead, while having been claimed, has not really been proven to have happened.

B

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
It's already been done, several times that I am aware of. The process is called nuclear transmutation and it's a fairly straight forward one, although very cost ineffective. One can use either the accelerator process, the neutron bombardment process or the photonuetron process. As fate would have it, it is much easier to turn gold into lead than the other way around, therefore we should not expect to see any synthetically produced gold in the near future.
Your friend;
LAMAR