AGE OF THE EARTH...

[lamar]

PULLLLease, Mr. lamar. I am well aware of the HOH situation. MY question concerns WHERE the element, oxygen came from originally. That BBang created only hydrogen and helium. According to the Banger scientists.

And on that evolving life thing, you so lightly skipped by, exactly HOW did the spark of life start from rocks and rain? But, lets not go there just yet. We still can't agree on how the universe was created.

And I'm waiting to hear how you think those Peruvian coloring books got up to our southwest Indians and to the European cave folks.

Dear Shortstack;
Oxygen comes from Helium my friend. Oxygen-16 synthesised towards the tail end of the helium fusion process in stars and Oxygen-17 comes from the CNO process whereby hydrgen and and helium are burned, making it one of the most common elements in the hydrogen furnace zones of most Oxygen class stars.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Mr. lamar, I apologize for taking so long to reply. I was busy sensitizing something from a pot of coffee.
Now, you brought back the fusion processes within a star as the manufacturing element of.....well, the elements. That brings us full circle back to the original discussion of how stars were formed. Yes, stars are amazing objects that were created when the universe was manufactured. Again, those pesky gas clouds just did not condense on their own. In a Big Bang, those energy particles would have been expelled out in straight trajectories with diverging paths; NOT converging. Thus, none would have been placed into a position to collide collaterally with another particle to induce "spins" in those particles.

Seems like I've mentioned these points before, but they were lightly glossed over. Ignoring them will not change their significance.

Dear Shortstack;
No apologies are necessary my friend. Continuing on:
Yes, it would seem that gas clouds do condense on their own, my friend. We can observe the Heavens and even through my pathetically inadaquate telescope I am able to view galaxies known as super clusters. One law is that all matter tends to *clump* together to form ever larger formations. For examples, atoms make up our Sun, which is a star, and enough stars make up a galaxy, and enough galxaies form into clusters and enough clusters form into super clusters. This is undeniably factual and we can observe this occurence on any given cloud-free night.

We also know that all matter has mass, or weight. This is true throughout our known Universe. Do you agree to this, my friend? If this is true, then all the individual atoms inside of a gas cloud also would have a mass. Do you also agree to this? Therefore, if all the atoms in a gas cloud had a mass, and if each one of those tiny atoms imparted an ever so slight amount of gravity, then eventually all the atoms would interact with their neighbors. This must be true, or else our moon would not orbit our planet and our planet would not be in orbit around our Sun. Do you agree to this, my friend?

In other words, every atom would start to orbit about it's neighboring atom. And then these two orbitial atoms would then attract other atoms until we now have an ever increasing mass (weight). Over time, the mass would continue increasing. Do you agree to this concept? As the mass increases, it also starts to contract, very slowly at first, then faster as the mass density increases. Eventually it reaches a point where thermonuclear fusion occurs and energy is then released.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[lamar]

You are in luck amigo - on sale today, with our usual easy ZERO INTEREST *financing options and 100% *guarantee!

<*Easy financing terms - full price up front in cash, no questions asked no monthly payments and no interest!>
<*100% guarantee - you buy it, you own it, 100% guaranteed!>

What about the Acamba figurines, found in Mexico? Some of these also depict dinosaurs,

Are these proven to be modern fakes/frauds? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

Dear Oroblanco;
I do believe the figure which is depicted in the photo is a modern lizard, my friend, because the tail is too short to be a depiction of a dinosaur.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

What about this one?

Is this also a modern lizard? If so, which one? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar wrote, " Over time, the mass would continue increasing. Do you agree to this concept? As the mass increases, it also starts to contract, very slowly at first, then faster as the mass density increases. Eventually it reaches a point where thermonuclear fusion occurs and energy is then released.
Your friend;
LAMAR


Those comments of yours would be viable now. But, NOT from a Big Bang. As I've stated, what particles that MAY have been formed from any Big Bang, would not have been in any positions to meet, collide, clump, or anything else. Therefore, the BB is not "workable".


SEEEEEEE Mr. O. ?
I forgot about the modern lizard claim. Even though, in the last few years, paleontologists have begun to believe that the T-Rex's tail did in fact stick out straight behind them for balance, instead of dragging on the ground. I believe the latest movies with dinosaur characters reflect that updated "design" idea. It is now believed all raptors had that designed tail because it helped them to run fast.
But, of course, the Bangers won't believe that.

Hey, Mr. O, That big sucker ain't no modern lizzzzzard. WAIT! The potter got their idea from a coloring book.

 

[Oroblanco]

PS I want to point out where I stand on these Acamba figurines - I don't know whether they are genuine (ancient man-made artifacts) or modern frauds, but even if they WERE indeed ancient man-made figurines, it would not prove that those who made them must have seen the animals they are thought to portray. The makers may well have seen fossils and made their own conclusions about what the animals must have looked like. We have fair proof that ancient humans were well aware of fossils of long-dead animals in the Greek civilization, some of their "mythical" animals like griffons are most likely the result of their having seen fossils of dinosaurs and trying to figure out what the animal looked like when alive. The ancient peoples of the Americas were very intelligent people and they must have seen at least some fossils, so it would not be a great "leap" for them to try to figure what the animals looked like, perhaps even making figurines in the shape of them.

<EDIT>
On the other hand, the Greeks made some big mistakes in their guesses about fossils - like "wings" on Griffons, which are most likely from seeing fossils of the Ceratops family - perhaps from mistaking the shoulder bones? If people as advanced as the Greeks made such mistakes, how is it that ancient Amerindians got it far more correct? I guess that would argue for their having seen living examples.

Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
The 2nd photo seems to be a modern rendition of a stegasaur my friend. in fact, you can still see bits of straw stick out of the adobe clay.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblnaco;
Also, in the first photo, the stance is incorrect, plus the neck is too thick and short and the main body is far too thin to have been a dinosaur my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar perhaps there IS straw sticking out of that figurine - do you feel that an ancient piece of clay work would not have any straw remaining? I don't think we can make conclusions on the age of a clay object based on whether it has straw in it or not.
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Dear Oroblnaco;
Also, in the first photo, the stance is incorrect, plus the neck is too thick and short and the main body is far too thin to have been a dinosaur my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

On what, pray tell, do you base THOSE conclusions? Wait, you held up a picture scanned from a child's coloring book.

Mr. lamar, are you saying ALL dinosaurs of a particular type had the same sized bellies, necks, and.........whatevers? There were no "poor" dinos? Your suppositions are not viable. Just like your BB ideas.

Wait, you're just shucking us, aren't you.

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar wrote, " Over time, the mass would continue increasing. Do you agree to this concept? As the mass increases, it also starts to contract, very slowly at first, then faster as the mass density increases. Eventually it reaches a point where thermonuclear fusion occurs and energy is then released.
Your friend;
LAMAR


Those comments of yours would be viable now. But, NOT from a Big Bang. As I've stated, what particles that MAY have been formed from any Big Bang, would not have been in any positions to meet, collide, clump, or anything else. Therefore, the BB is not "workable".


SEEEEEEE Mr. O. ?
I forgot about the modern lizard claim. Even though, in the last few years, paleontologists have begun to believe that the T-Rex's tail did in fact stick out straight behind them for balance, instead of dragging on the ground. I believe the latest movies with dinosaur characters reflect that updated "design" idea. It is now believed all raptors had that designed tail because it helped them to run fast.
But, of course, the Bangers won't believe that.

Hey, Mr. O, That big sucker ain't no modern lizzzzzard. WAIT! The potter got their idea from a coloring book.

Dear Shortstack;
Certainly it's possible for just such a reaction to occur from a preceeding Big Bang my friend. In fact, NASA is observing a new star forming in the Large Magellanic Cloud right now, and below is a NASA photo of it. We know the universe is expanding outwards. This is undeniable factual, my friend. We also know how stars are formed because we are able observe the formation of the stars in various stages, thanks to there being countless numbers numbers of stars in our Universe.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Lamar perhaps there IS straw sticking out of that figurine - do you feel that an ancient piece of clay work would not have any straw remaining? I don't think we can make conclusions on the age of a clay object based on whether it has straw in it or not.
Oroblanco

Dear Oroblanco;
Noooooooooooooooo, my friend, I say this because the straw in the photo is bright, light yellow color. I would assume that old straw, say at least a few hundred years old, would have turned dark brown. Don't you agree?
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

I would have to say that USUALLY straw darkens with age, but not always - in some cases it even gets whiter with age. I just don't think we can make sound judgements of the age of an artifact (except in the case of some coins) based on what can be seen in a photo.
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

PS - if that straw could be removed, and IF it could be determined as to what type of straw it is, we might be able to make some conclusions on the age based on just what type of straw it is. If it turned out to be wheat straw for instance, it certainly couldn't date to before the arrival of the Europeans.
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

PS - if that straw could be removed, and IF it could be determined as to what type of straw it is, we might be able to make some conclusions on the age based on just what type of straw it is. If it turned out to be wheat straw for instance, it certainly couldn't date to before the arrival of the Europeans.
Oroblanco

Dear Oroblanco;
Stop encouraging Shortstack, my friend. He's getting excited enough as it is without your help. You know the stego shown in the photo is a modern rendering just as I do. Shoot, even the adobe is fresh looking! It hasn't even been fired! I could make the exact same thing in the morning, except with more details. LOL.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar,
I shall put this "forming star" into the same category as the Big Bang debris cloud that NASA expected to see as soon as Hubbel's vision was corrected. Wait.........there were NO debris clouds at the 18 billion year spot, where there? Now, they are expecting to see a star form. THAT won't happen either. The universe is winding down, not regenerating.

I would have to say that USUALLY straw darkens with age, but not always - in some cases it even gets whiter with age. I just don't think we can make sound judgements of the age of an artifact (except in the case of some coins) based on what can be seen in a photo.
Oroblanco

Mr. O.
Let us not forget that Mr. lamar deduced the structure of a lump of rock and the validity of a hammer head from about 5 pictures posted on this thread. Undoubtedly, he has the ability to do that with such an innocuous object as a piece of straw.

 

[Oroblanco]

These "Out of Place Artifacts" popularly known as OOPARTS could actually be used to argue for the Old Earth theory - such as the hammer encased in rock discussed earlier - if the rock incasement did in fact take millions of years, that means millions of years had elapsed right? These OOPARTs are a sticky, thorny subject - their existence can be used to argue either for Old or Young Earth.
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar,
I shall put this "forming star" into the same category as the Big Bang debris cloud that NASA expected to see as soon as Hubbel's vision was corrected. Wait.........there were NO debris clouds at the 18 billion year spot, where there? Now, they are expecting to see a star form. THAT won't happen either. The universe is winding down, not regenerating.

I would have to say that USUALLY straw darkens with age, but not always - in some cases it even gets whiter with age. I just don't think we can make sound judgements of the age of an artifact (except in the case of some coins) based on what can be seen in a photo.
Oroblanco

Mr. O.
Let us not forget that Mr. lamar deduced the structure of a lump of rock and the validity of a hammer head from about 5 pictures posted on this thread. Undoubtedly, he has the ability to do that with such an innocuous object as a piece of straw.

Dear Shortstack;
OK, this is how it works, my friend. First, we know where WE are. This is important. Next, we know where the celestial body which we wish to observe is located at. This is also important. Next, we capture an image of the object, just as was done in the above posted photo. Then we keep taking photos of the same object, over a period of time and then we measure the cloud. From one photo to the next we should start to see the cloud moving inwards, albeit at an infisimally tiny rate. This is not important however, because our current digitizing programs can discern such minute movements. Then, we can simulate photos of the same cloud, based wholly on it's current movement, 100 years, 500 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years or even 1 MILLION years into the future, or any time frame in between. And thus, we can actually witness the birth of a star, my friend. We can even calculate the mass of the object and computate the actual movement velocity based on the cloud movement and the calculated mass within + or - a few percent. Technology is neat, huh?
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

First, we know where WE are.

HAY! Speak for yourself there amigo! I mean after all, you may know where YOU are, but does that mean I know where I am?

Nicely phrased argument in that one BTW.
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar,

Just how do scientists know that the "cloud" in that photo is a cloud and not a curtain-like disc? If a disc of dust were turning toward a 90 degree angle to your view, wouldn't it APPEAR to be shrinking in size? Of course it would.

Now, the goal would be to wait and see if the "cloud" becomes narrow in one dimension, call it the "X" length (width) while remaining the same in it's "Y" length (vertical) or the opposite reference. We can debate this point again in 1,000 to 1 million years from today.

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar,

Just how do scientists know that the "cloud" in that photo is a cloud and not a curtain-like disc? If a disc of dust were turning toward a 90 degree angle to your view, wouldn't it APPEAR to be shrinking in size? Of course it would.

Now, the goal would be to wait and see if the "cloud" becomes narrow in one dimension, call it the "X" length (width) while remaining the same in it's "Y" length (vertical) or the opposite reference. We can debate this point again in 1,000 to 1 million years from today.

Dear Shortstack;
Because there just happens to be many different types of photography, my friend! Not only can they discern it as a gas cloud, they can tell you what the major gases and even the minor gases are. Also, there are many types of telescopes, and we are able to discern many features by using them. Also, we can take a series of photos and then analyze the photos to discern movement. From the movement we can tell what a particular gas cloud is up to and in this particular case, it's turning into a star. Therefore it's not necessary to debate this point 1,000 to 1,000,000,000 million years in the future.
Your friend;
LAMAR