AGE OF THE EARTH...

[gallileo60]

Lamar=Right.........................Shortstack=Wrong................

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Shortstack]

Mr. Oro, here is the info concerning earth's gravity.

QUOTE. "Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for the life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand years." UNQUOTE.

Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

Magnetic feild, and gravity are two different things......Gravity per say has no half life...

OK, given that the magnetic field and gravity are two different things, then, does that mean that the mag field isn't important for life here on the planet? Does that mean that the "pull" of objects to the ground is not affected by the earth's magnetic energy? Tell me this. Isn't the moon's gravity about 1/6th that of the earth's yet the moon is larger than 1/6th the size of the earth. So a planetoid's mag field would be very important to it's gravity field. Therefore, the importance of this statement from my quote above, " In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for the life processes could not form. Is still viable.

galileo, you are very quick to place a lasting judgement. Are you saying that the earth's magnetic field is UNimportant? Are you saying Dr. Barnes is wrong? If you will kindly look again, you will see he was talking about the earth's magnetic field.

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Shortstack,

I have to assume that you know that a lot of what Barnes wrote and his deductions were based almost entirely on "assumptions" for everything that he could not explain.

If you have read his books, (and I'm sure you have), he copied a sampling from another person, that showed some years - up to 1965 I think, that showed the declining magnetism of the earth. He then wrote that he had to "assume" that it would continue. He also wrote about the magnetism having to do with the liquid center of the earth.

Cowling pretty much decimated a big part of Barnes' writings and assumptions - in fact, by the time one of his books came out, some of Barne's theories had already been disproved by other evidence.

Barnes also refused to think that magnetism can make any changes in polarity, which is another thing that has been heavily refuted, and, in fact, had no explanation (except his own one-sided argument), about the phenomenon that there are rocks that do self-reversal of their own polarity, though not necessarily in a long term scenario, but rather a short term polarity change - but the fact that it happens meant nothing to Barnes, it didn't fit into his assessment, so he passed it off, pretty much.

Now, for his day, his ideas certainly showed promise - but, still - and by further testing by many others, we know there is no half-life in magnetism, we know that there are rocks capable of self-reversal of magnetism, and that, indeed, just because the magnetism goes down for a few years, does not mean that it doesn't go back up - which it does. It is cyclic like many other earth-related things - like weather.

B

 

[lamar]

Mr. Oro, here is the info concerning earth's gravity.

QUOTE. "Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for the life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand years." UNQUOTE.

Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

Magnetic feild, and gravity are two different things......Gravity per say has no half life...

OK, given that the magnetic field and gravity are two different things, then, does that mean that the mag field isn't important for life here on the planet? Does that mean that the "pull" of objects to the ground is not affected by the earth's magnetic energy? Tell me this. Isn't the moon's gravity about 1/6th that of the earth's yet the moon is larger than 1/6th the size of the earth. So a planetoid's mag field would be very important to it's gravity field. Therefore, the importance of this statement from my quote above, " In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for the life processes could not form. Is still viable.

galileo, you are very quick to place a lasting judgement. Are you saying that the earth's magnetic field is UNimportant? Are you saying Dr. Barnes is wrong? If you will kindly look again, you will see he was talking about the earth's magnetic field.

Dear Shortstack;
Yes, however it was YOU who stated that gravity has a half-life, when in fact it does not. This is why everyone keeps refuting you.

Next, yes I agree that Earth's magnetic properties are VERY important, especially from a creation timeline point of view. For example we know that the Earths' magnetic field started some 3.45 BILLION years ago, my friend. We can arrive at this conclusion by studying basalt flows and from these we can see that the highly magnetic magnetite within the basalt rocks have their respective poles aligned properly.

In basalt which was formed more than 3.45 billion years ago, the poles of the magnetite are randomly arranged, therefore no magnetic field could have existed before that time. Also, from the study of the world's basalt flows we can determine at which times had polar magnetic shifting occurred. The last major polar magnetic polar shift occurred was 780,000 years, therefore we are due for another shift.

Also, Barnes was wrong because he based his assumptions of magnetic half-life on a liquid inner core, whereas we know the inner core of the Earth is a solid one. The intense pressures placed upon the Earth's core preclude any chance for it to be in a liquid state, or even a semi-liquid.

By using earthquakes and even sub-surface nuclear detonations as seismic sending units, we can map the Earth's core and all studies verify the fact that the inner core is solid, therefore Barnes' theories must therefore be incorrect.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Rebel - KGC]

What we ALL have to remember is that "theories" LATER proven WRONG, were CORRECT, for their "time period", "era", etc. I DO NOT think there is a "wrongness" about SOME things; just make sure info/"theories" are as "updated" as possible. At ONE time... the EARTH was flat... you would sail off the edge of the ocean... the EARTH was the center of the universe... etc, etc. Coffee?

 

[Shortstack]

Mrs. O. When researchers are working on their theories, they often use assumptions which are fine tuned as they make their discoveries. Lamar keeps defining gravity and the earth's magnetic field as two separate entities which is in sync with today's scientific discoveries of the "fabric" of gravity that supposedly exists throughout the universe. That is OK, but does not detract from the importance of the earth's own magnetic field and Dr. Barnes' work concerned that particular arena. And, no, I haven't read all of his writings.

Mr. lamar, you are still referring to the age of the earth's material as 3 billion years plus which is inaccurate. But, of course, as an "old earther", that is what you believe. As a "Young Earther", I still disagree with assumption; and that is all it is.......and assumption. And, yes, my ideas are assumptions, too. Ones that I shall retain.

In one of your later posts you brought up the hammerhead encased in rock and claimed it is in sometype of limestone secretions, such as a stalactite or stalagmite. You are wrong. It is in Cretaceous rock. Here's the article from the Creation Evidence Museum website:


The London Artifact




The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimball County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal.


Photo K16


The density of the iron in a central, cross-sectional plane is shown in Photo K16. It shows the interior metal to be very pure, with no bubbles. Modern industry cannot consistently produce iron castings with this quality, as evidenced by test results that show bubbles and density variations that have caused pump and valve bodies to break. The handle eye is oval shaped, and roughly 1"x1/2".

Photo K16 shows that the density is about 10% greater near the surface. In this representation, colors are used to indicate the density of a particular region. The white areas are most dense, and the dark areas are least dense.



As previously stated, a file cut was made in one of the side edges in 1934, and has remained corrosion-free in the sixty-plus years since the artifact was discovered. The area is shown in photo G3. Photo to the right is photo G3

The wooden handle appears to have been broken off, then worn smooth where it protruded from the rock concretion. Photo G6 shows the handle from the top with the hammerhead removed. The dark area in the wood is where it has partially turned to coal. The end of the handle visible through the top of the hammerhead eye appears sawn off, as shown in photo E2



Photo G6




Photo E2



Remaining Questions:
Further analysis is planned to answer questions that include the following:

•Is the chlorine content in the iron alloy found throughout the hammerhead or only at the surface?
•Is the concentration of iron oxides higher in the rock immediately next to the hammerhead?
•Are there carbon-bearing residues in the cavity?
•There are reports that the file mark may contain FeO. This iron oxide does not readily form under present environmental conditions. We also know that evidence points to a decaying geomagnetic field, with a half-life of approximately 1400 years. If the hammer is truly ancient, could the stronger magnetic field have had the effect of helping the formation of FeO?
•If the artifact is truly from the Cretaceous time frame, where does this leave evolutionary theory, since man was not supposed to have evolved for another 100-million years or so?
•If the artifact is relatively recent, that means that the Cretaceous Hensell Sand formation from which it came is relatively young. Some may argue that the original rock and fossil were eroded and reworked, but reworked fossils show evidence of wear. The fossils in the concretion retain fine detail, indicating that they were not reworked, but part of the original formation. Again, where does that leave evolutionary theory with its traditional dates for the Cretaceous formations?

 

[lamar]

Dear Shortstack;
According to what we know, gravity DOES exist throughout the universe, therefore that should not be an issue.

Next, you don't REALLY believe that hammer is genuine, do you?
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Saturna]

Here's the article from the Creation Evidence Museum website:

LOL, now who's bringing the actual reason for all this "science" into the thread.

 

[lamar]

Dear group;
There happens to be a LOT wrong with that particular *artifact*. First, the clam shell that fits over the hammer is definitely a modern clam. Next, the rock in which the hammer is embedded in is not part of the local matrix for London Texas. It would seem that someone took a fairly modern hammer and embedded it in a dissolved mineral solution, which was then permitted to harden.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[gallileo60]

Mr. Oro, here is the info concerning earth's gravity.

QUOTE. "Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for the life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand years." UNQUOTE.

Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

Magnetic feild, and gravity are two different things......Gravity per say has no half life...

OK, given that the magnetic field and gravity are two different things, then, does that mean that the mag field isn't important for life here on the planet? Does that mean that the "pull" of objects to the ground is not affected by the earth's magnetic energy? Tell me this. Isn't the moon's gravity about 1/6th that of the earth's yet the moon is larger than 1/6th the size of the earth. So a planetoid's mag field would be very important to it's gravity field. Therefore, the importance of this statement from my quote above, " In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for the life processes could not form. Is still viable.

galileo, you are very quick to place a lasting judgement. Are you saying that the earth's magnetic field is UNimportant? Are you saying Dr. Barnes is wrong? If you will kindly look again, you will see he was talking about the earth's magnetic field.

No, I am saying the Earth is around 4.5 billion years as most Scientist say it is, not In the hundreds of thousands, or less as you say...I said nothing about Barnes....YES, the magnetic field is vital to life on this planet.....On the Track thing, EVEN IF, (I said if) there were tracks side by side all that means is that a few large reptiles stayed around longer than we think they did.....There is no doubt that the Earth is very old.....Gravity, and Magnetic fields are two different things...If anything over the years Gravity should increase..(Ever so slightly) Also Gravity is dependent upon density, so the size of the Moon, and the Earth are not the important things, (They do enter into it tho) but the density of Each.....Saturn is less dense than the Earth, And IF it were the same size as the Earth it would have less gravity than the Earth...Hope that clears up my position on this.....

 

[lamar]

Mr. Oro, here is the info concerning earth's gravity.

QUOTE. "Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for the life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand years." UNQUOTE.

Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

Magnetic feild, and gravity are two different things......Gravity per say has no half life...

OK, given that the magnetic field and gravity are two different things, then, does that mean that the mag field isn't important for life here on the planet? Does that mean that the "pull" of objects to the ground is not affected by the earth's magnetic energy? Tell me this. Isn't the moon's gravity about 1/6th that of the earth's yet the moon is larger than 1/6th the size of the earth. So a planetoid's mag field would be very important to it's gravity field. Therefore, the importance of this statement from my quote above, " In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for the life processes could not form. Is still viable.

galileo, you are very quick to place a lasting judgement. Are you saying that the earth's magnetic field is UNimportant? Are you saying Dr. Barnes is wrong? If you will kindly look again, you will see he was talking about the earth's magnetic field.

No, I am saying the Earth is around 4.5 billion years as most Scientist say it is, not In the hundreds of thousands, or less as you say...I said nothing about Barnes....YES, the magnetic field is vital to life on this planet.....On the Track thing, EVEN IF, (I said if) there were tracks side by side all that means is that a few large reptiles stayed around longer than we think they did.....There is no doubt that the Earth is very old.....Gravity, and Magnetic fields are two different things...If anything over the years Gravity should increase..(Ever so slightly) Also Gravity is dependent upon density, so the size of the Moon, and the Earth are not the important things, (They do enter into it tho) but the density of Each.....Saturn is less dense than the Earth, And IF it were the same size as the Earth it would have less gravity than the Earth...Hope that clears up my position on this.....

Dear Gallileo60;
Exactly my friend! This is what I've been trying to clarify for the last 2 pages. I like to use the *trampoline* visualization when describing the space/time continuim.

Imagine, if you will, a tightly stretched rectangular trampoline. The surface of the trampoline is space/time, which space being the length and time being the width.

Now, if we disregard the effects of wind resistence and friction and we shoot a marble from one end of the trampoline to the other, the marble zips along the trampoline, never altering it's path or velocity. We can do this over and over, with repeated results.

Next, we take a 10 pound lead ball (representing a body with mass, such as the Earth) and place it in the center of the trampoline. Notice how the center of the trampoline bends downwards in a funnel shape? This is the effect that gravity has on space/time! Gravity *warps* space/time.

Next, we fire our marble from one end to the other, just slightly off center so it will not impact the weight in the center. The marble veers towards the center of the trampoline! This represents the gravitational effect that a larger mass has on a smaller mass in space/time.

Next, we notice that the marble curves towards the weight and it continues travelling in this arc all the way to the other end of the trampoline. The distance of the marble has now been increased even though the marble STILL travelled the same overall distance, that being from one end of the trampoline to the other! Yet, because of the mass of our *Earth* which we've strategically placed in the center of the trampoline, the distance travelled is now LONGER!

Also, even though the VELOCITY of our marble did not change, the TIME for the marble to travel the distance of the trampoline was INCREASED! Please note that if our destination was the mass in the center of the trampoline, the time would have increased. This is because mass which travels towards a denser mass accelerates, while a mass which is travelling away from a denser mass decelerates.

And that's how gravity affects space/time everybody!
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

Dear Shortstack;
According to what we know, gravity DOES exist throughout the universe, therefore that should not be an issue.

Next, you don't REALLY believe that hammer is genuine, do you?
Your friend;
LAMAR

Yes. I certainly do.

Dear group;
There happens to be a LOT wrong with that particular *artifact*. First, the clam shell that fits over the hammer is definitely a modern clam. Next, the rock in which the hammer is embedded in is not part of the local matrix for London Texas. It would seem that someone took a fairly modern hammer and embedded it in a dissolved mineral solution, which was then permitted to harden.
Your friend;
LAMAR

My, my, Mr. lamar, you certainly assumed an awful LOT from just a few pictures. This is EXACTLY the type of scientific evaluation used by Bangers and Old Earthers. You have met my expectations FULLY.

Mr. gallileo, you said," If anything over the years Gravity should increase..(Ever so slightly) Also Gravity is dependent upon density, so the size of the Moon, and the Earth are not the important things, (They do enter into it tho) but the density of Each.....Saturn is less dense than the Earth, And IF it were the same size as the Earth it would have less gravity than the Earth...Hope that clears up my position on this.....

Gravity should increase over time? If Saturn were the same size as the Earth......well, you see, THAT carries us back to what the Bangers tell us about the formation of this solar system. Those itty, bitty specs of mysterious gravity something just popped up out of...........something. Then started to attract bits of that great big old dust / gas cloud and brought together nine planets with nine different compositions in nine different sizes. Now, here's where things get REALLY confusing. If gravity is just a free rangeing "frabrical" force throughout the universe, just WHAT caused the planets to begin forming? I mean, you and lamar keep talking about a planet's MASS generating a gravity force......or SOMETHING. Just what was the MASSIVE piece of whatever that began to bring all of that nasty old dust to clump up?

So folks, what came first, the chicken or the egg? What came first, nine none existant masses that brought about nine different planets or..............WHAT? What caused those nine different wrinkles in the fabric of gravity?

And finally. Let's not have any "IF's" If Grandpa had wheels he'd be a wagon. How about some FACTS.........not suppositions.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

No, I am saying the Earth is around 4.5 billion years as most Scientist say it is, not In the hundreds of thousands, or less as you say...I said nothing about Barnes....YES, the magnetic field is vital to life on this planet.....On the Track thing, EVEN IF, (I said if) there were tracks side by side all that means is that a few large reptiles stayed around longer than we think they did.....

But if they could have been wrong about THAT...
...know what I mean?

 

[lamar]

Dear Shortstack;
According to what we know, gravity DOES exist throughout the universe, therefore that should not be an issue.

Next, you don't REALLY believe that hammer is genuine, do you?
Your friend;
LAMAR

Yes. I certainly do.

Dear group;
There happens to be a LOT wrong with that particular *artifact*. First, the clam shell that fits over the hammer is definitely a modern clam. Next, the rock in which the hammer is embedded in is not part of the local matrix for London Texas. It would seem that someone took a fairly modern hammer and embedded it in a dissolved mineral solution, which was then permitted to harden.
Your friend;
LAMAR

My, my, Mr. lamar, you certainly assumed an awful LOT from just a few pictures. This is EXACTLY the type of scientific evaluation used by Bangers and Old Earthers. You have met my expectations FULLY.

Mr. gallileo, you said," If anything over the years Gravity should increase..(Ever so slightly) Also Gravity is dependent upon density, so the size of the Moon, and the Earth are not the important things, (They do enter into it tho) but the density of Each.....Saturn is less dense than the Earth, And IF it were the same size as the Earth it would have less gravity than the Earth...Hope that clears up my position on this.....

Gravity should increase over time? If Saturn were the same size as the Earth......well, you see, THAT carries us back to what the Bangers tell us about the formation of this solar system. Those itty, bitty specs of mysterious gravity something just popped up out of...........something. Then started to attract bits of that great big old dust / gas cloud and brought together nine planets with nine different compositions in nine different sizes. Now, here's where things get REALLY confusing. If gravity is just a free rangeing "frabrical" force throughout the universe, just WHAT caused the planets to begin forming? I mean, you and lamar keep talking about a planet's MASS generating a gravity force......or SOMETHING. Just what was the MASSIVE piece of whatever that began to bring all of that nasty old dust to clump up?

So folks, what came first, the chicken or the egg? What came first, nine none existant masses that brought about nine different planets or..............WHAT? What caused those nine different wrinkles in the fabric of gravity?

And finally. Let's not have any "IF's" If Grandpa had wheels he'd be a wagon. How about some FACTS.........not suppositions.

Dear Shortstack;
No, my friend, I've actually been to the London, Texas site as I am originally from that neck o' the woods and I can state that the original creekbed with the fossilized prints has become so contaminated that's very difficult to ascertain ANYTHING at this point.

The facts are this. Mass attracts mass, my friend. It's simply how things work. Our Sun was formed from a cloud of hydrogen and helium gases. Now, it doesn't matter one tiny bit if that gas cloud is ten billion miles across or one thousand miles across, because the mass has the same gravitational force. Because of the mass of the gas cloud, the gravitational force caused it collapse upon itself.

Finally, it had compressed itself to the point where nuclear fusion was possible and it is because of this that the Sun is no collapsing and it is now in a relatively stable state. Eventually our Sun will have consumed itself and it will no longer give off heat and light. We KNOW this WILL happen, my friend. The wonderful thing about our Universe is the fact that it is so vast. Because our Universe is so vast, nothing occurs simultaniously and we are able to observe the remnants of dying and dead Suns elsewhere. We are able to observe nebulas (my favorite night time objects, besides our solar planets, by the way) and all sorts of wonderful and beautiful sights.

Now, when our Sun was still a gas cloud, even though it was spread out over a very large distance, it still had mass and because of this, it had attracted particulate matter. This particulate matter started orbiting about the cloud and as the cloud shrank in size, likewise did the debris field travel inwards at the same rate. The debris field also has mass and because of this, objects started appearing out of the debris field orbiting the now shrinking gas cloud.

We know that two objects in space of equal mass will have mutual attraction and as such, they will be drawn to each other until they are close enough that they start to orbit each other. Eventually will they collide with each other and form a single particle of matter which now has double the mass of the former two smaller particles. This composite particle will either then be attracted to an even larger particle, or it will attract a smaller one. In all actuality, both states can occurs at the same time, and this is most likely what happens.

These particles are what formed our planets my friend. We can see that the larger gas giants were formed from remnants of the cloud which formed our Sun, only with solid matter cores. We can also state that the formation of our planets is a valid theory because of how our planets are arranged in orbit around the Sun. Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun, is small in mass for a very good reason, my friend.

The reason why is because MOST of the matter in the debris field closest to the Sun became part of the Sun with only a small amount having been formed which is now Mercury. Next, Venus is almost the same size as the Earth and the reason for this is because we share almost identical orbitial planes. We can now look at Mars, which is beyond Earths' orbitial path and we can see that it's roughly half the size of the Earth. The reason for this is because poor Mars got the leftovers that were not attracted to Earth's and Vensus' gravities

Beyond Mars we now have Jupiter, the largest of our gas giants. Astronomers have long surmised that Jupiter is a failed sun and this may very well be true, because it has the mass to have been a sun, had the initial conditions during formation been correct. Next is Saturn, the second largest gas giant and it's own highly visible planetary debris field orbiting it.

Now, we may ask ourselves, "If the theory of mass attracting mass is true, then why isn't the debris field around Saturn forming moons?" Well, the truth is that the debris field orbiting Saturn IS forming moons, however this does not happen overnight, my friend. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for this to happen and because it takes so long, it's difficult to observe using visual methods alone.

And this is where the young earth theory crumbles into dust. It's simply NOT possible for the earth to have been formed 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago or even 1 MILLION years ago, because if this were so, then our planet would still be UNINHABITABLE! The theory itself defies even the most basis tenants of physics, my friend.

Next we have Uranus and Neptune, which are the last two gas giants in our solar system and wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out there, we have tiny little Pluto. Now, because of the WAY in which the planets were formed, astronomers now have a very good idea of how typical solar systems may POSSIBLY be formed in other systems as well.

Now, I am not stating that traditional physics and sciences have all the answers, when the very opposite is true. There exists so much which we do not know, and furthermore, there are things which we will most likely never be able to conclude with any degree of certainty, yet this should not give us cause to cease searching for the answers, or that we should be quick to embrace the fast and easy answers.

The main difference between the young earth theory and the old earth theory is that a great deal of practical physics in the young earth is ignored. Now, detractors of the old earth theory may state the same about the earth being old, when the truth is there does not exist any conflicting or contradictory information, rather there only exists unknowns, and an unknown quantity is very different from a contradictory one.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[GL]

ROFL @ dinosaurs and humans coexisting. OMG this is hilarious keep going by all means.

Burial pots? Egyptians drew dog headed men but it doesn't mean dog headed men walked the Earth.

Not believing hilarious theories isn't being closed minded. Stop persecuting me and my Occam's Razor, science, accepted fact, common sense, reams of data and general logic OMG.

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar, there's a whole lot of "assuming going on" in your comments based on the scientific theories that you choose to ascribe to while I choose to follow alternate scientific theories that support a younger earth. That "mass spread out is still mass ( )" is interesting, but doesn't explain HOW those little bitty, individual spots of "attractions" popped up. What could POSSIBLY have caused those small spots in a huge cloud. That doesn't fit the "bowling ball on a trampoline" illustration given by you or someone else in an earlier post. It appears that we will agree on nothing but disagreement. So be it.
I have no doubt that the tracks in Texas have been eroded, screwed up, and probably vandalized a little to boot. That's sad.
I do want to congratulate you for carrying on a lively, but COURTIOUS debate. Because of this I've taken you off of my "ignore" list......................for the time being.

ROFL @ dinosaurs and humans coexisting. OMG this is hilarious keep going by all means.

Burial pots? Egyptians drew dog headed men but it doesn't mean dog headed men walked the Earth.
Not believing hilarious theories isn't being closed minded. Stop persecuting me and my Occam's Razor, science, accepted fact, common sense, reams of data and general logic OMG.

Mr. GL,
Yep, you are certainly right, the Egyptians did draw pictures of dog headed men and it doesn't necessarily mean dog headed men walked the earth, BUT the Egyptians DID have dogs to look at and men to look at (of course) to make those drawings from. You just helped make my point. Those Nazca folks had living dinosaurs to look at, too. You will notice that the Nazca folks stayed real and just drew real life, not fantasies, such as men with dinosaur heads. Thank you for your support! I appreciate it. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Of all the animals the Nazcans could have drawn, they chose a dinosaur. Why? Those drawings on the burial pots are the only representations of dinosaurs in that country. Why show a domesticated animal they did not have? After all, they had OTHER animals to use in those sketches. The details drawn into those sketches were very accurate; especially the scale structure with the cooling veins.
Your reams of data contain many holes.

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar, there's a whole lot of "assuming going on" in your comments based on the scientific theories that you choose to ascribe to while I choose to follow alternate scientific theories that support a younger earth. That "mass spread out is still mass ( )" is interesting, but doesn't explain HOW those little bitty, individual spots of "attractions" popped up. What could POSSIBLY have caused those small spots in a huge cloud. That doesn't fit the "bowling ball on a trampoline" illustration given by you or someone else in an earlier post. It appears that we will agree on nothing but disagreement. So be it.
I have no doubt that the tracks in Texas have been eroded, screwed up, and probably vandalized a little to boot. That's sad.
I do want to congratulate you for carrying on a lively, but COURTIOUS debate. Because of this I've taken you off of my "ignore" list......................for the time being.

ROFL @ dinosaurs and humans coexisting. OMG this is hilarious keep going by all means.

Burial pots? Egyptians drew dog headed men but it doesn't mean dog headed men walked the Earth.
Not believing hilarious theories isn't being closed minded. Stop persecuting me and my Occam's Razor, science, accepted fact, common sense, reams of data and general logic OMG.

Mr. GL,
Yep, you are certainly right, the Egyptians did draw pictures of dog headed men and it doesn't necessarily mean dog headed men walked the earth, BUT the Egyptians DID have dogs to look at and men to look at (of course) to make those drawings from. You just helped make my point. Those Nazca folks had living dinosaurs to look at, too. You will notice that the Nazca folks stayed real and just drew real life, not fantasies, such as men with dinosaur heads. Thank you for your support! I appreciate it. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Of all the animals the Nazcans could have drawn, they chose a dinosaur. Why? Those drawings on the burial pots are the only representations of dinosaurs in that country. Why show a domesticated animal they did not have? After all, they had OTHER animals to use in those sketches. The details drawn into those sketches were very accurate; especially the scale structure with the cooling veins.
Your reams of data contain many holes.

Dear Shortstack;
I do happen to know of the pottery in which you speak of, and in fact the pottery artifacts were fakes. It seems there was a farmer who was selling the *artifacts* to tourists and stating that he found them in a cave. When he was finally arrested by authorities(selling artifacts is highly illegal in Peru), he admitted to the authoritities there was no cave and that he was making the pottery and then selling the pieces to tourists as Inca era pottery. An inspection of his premises confirmed that he was indeed making the *artifacts*, along with his entire extended family. Not satisifed, the police took several pieces of pottery to Lima where they were confirmed by archeologists to be forgeries.
Your friend;
LAMAR
P.S. As I recall the preceedings, when one of the archeologists questioned the farmer as to where he was able to obtain such anatomically correct dinosaur renderings, the farmer showed the archie his reference data. A popular children's coloring book.

 

[Oroblanco]

GL wrote

Stop persecuting me

Persecuting you? All I asked you to do was simply present the evidence & argument for an Old Earth rather than posting ridicule and insults. Sheesh. I don't know what I said that you are taking as persecution, but I hope you understand that no offense was intended. You are among friends here, believe it or not, even though some disagree with you.


OK back to our topic - I have yet another problem for the Young Earth theory - the sheer amount of water present on the Earth in our oceans, lakes rivers glaciers and atmosphere. At least one version of how we came to have water is that it arrived by comets crashing into Earth. If that is true (not sure about that idea) then wouldn't it take a very large number of such comets and impacts to have accumulated SO much water? Comet impacts with Earth are a fairly rare event, so it suggests a VERY long period of time for so much water to have built up. Of course another idea is that the water was present from the formation of the planet - yet the geological evidence suggests that Earth may have not had any water in its early life. How could this be explained in the Young Earth theory? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

WOW. Isn't that amazing? That farmer was discovered just in time to refute a piece of archaeological information. Sort of convenient wasn't it? Welllllll. I don't have anything further on that point without further research. I do have to wonder if the investigators are the same ones who discovered the faking of the Piltdown Man, etc. If so, they are certainly fair in their debunking, aren't they? If they aren't, that's a wonderful "one-up-manship" and the folks on "my side" have slacked off. I wonder about the interview with an archaeologist who spoke about the "desert varnish" that had filled in the sketchlines during the decades / centuries of the pottery's existence. I also wonder if that native guy was just copying legitimate pots with dinos; trying to capitalize on the situation. After all, counterfitters copy real money, paintings, etc. Yep, more research is needed on this matter, by me.

For the record, a large cloud of gas would not condense into itself because because there is no intergal gravity. Mass spread out does not have the same concentration as a compact mass. A large, randomly moving cloud of gas would not spontaneously begin to condense without anoutside force acting upon the situation. There was no outside force there. The particles of energy were travelling outward in straight trajectories, not bumbling around in cloudy conglomerates. Remember, the Bang would have sent it's ...........stuff outward in a 3 dimensional, 360 degrees worth of direction. I keep bringing this up because the Bangers' textbook simply does not explain how or where that spontaneous gravity well came from. To simply say, "it happened" is pure theory........NOT proven fact. Therefore, Intelligent Design deserves equal consideration; to be evaluated by each person in his or her own time; using his or her own reasoning.
Hey, I didn't believe a green sunset was possible, until I SAW one. (actually, several)

 

[lamar]

WOW. Isn't that amazing? That farmer was discovered just in time to refute a piece of archaeological information. Sort of convenient wasn't it? Welllllll. I don't have anything further on that point without further research. I do have to wonder if the investigators are the same ones who discovered the faking of the Piltdown Man, etc. If so, they are certainly fair in their debunking, aren't they? If they aren't, that's a wonderful "one-up-manship" and the folks on "my side" have slacked off. I wonder about the interview with an archaeologist who spoke about the "desert varnish" that had filled in the sketchlines during the decades / centuries of the pottery's existence. I also wonder if that native guy was just copying legitimate pots with dinos; trying to capitalize on the situation. After all, counterfitters copy real money, paintings, etc. Yep, more research is needed on this matter, by me.

For the record, a large cloud of gas would not condense into itself because because there is no intergal gravity. Mass spread out does not have the same concentration as a compact mass. A large, randomly moving cloud of gas would not spontaneously begin to condense without anoutside force acting upon the situation. There was no outside force there. The particles of energy were travelling outward in straight trajectories, not bumbling around in cloudy conglomerates. Remember, the Bang would have sent it's ...........stuff outward in a 3 dimensional, 360 degrees worth of direction. I keep bringing this up because the Bangers' textbook simply does not explain how or where that spontaneous gravity well came from. To simply say, "it happened" is pure theory........NOT proven fact. Therefore, Intelligent Design deserves equal consideration; to be evaluated by each person in his or her own time; using his or her own reasoning.
Hey, I didn't believe a green sunset was possible, until I SAW one. (actually, several)

Dear Shortstack;
No, my friend, it didn't *just happen*. The farmer and his family had been doing it for at least several years, until more and more tourists from all over the world contacted the University in Lima, Peru in regards to the dinosaurs which were prominently depicted on the pottery. After enough enquiries, some with accompanying photographs, the faculty in Lima contacted the federal police, who located and arrested the farmer in short order.

Also, the Piltdown Man was decried as a hoax almost immediately after it was displayed. Several key paleonthologists of the era examined the skull and proclaimed it to be a hoax, yet the British government seemed unwilling to accept the physical evidence as proof, most likely because of national pride. In the end, the Piltdown Man was not shown to be a hoax, because that was already known some 20 odd years prior, rather it was proven beyond the shadow of ANY doubt that it was in fact nothing more than a hoax in 1948.
Your friend;
LAMAR