You might find this hard to believe, but the Grand Canyon wasn't always there either.So rocks go from 4 billion years old to 12,000 years old? You guys crack me up! I prove to you the earth is not 4 billion years old and then you say "well Niagara falls was not there!"
Where was it? How did it get there? I see what we have here, You guys find a bone, a fossil, or rock and its millions of years old. The earth is 4 billion years old until I bring up Niagara falls and the rules change?
it's not part of evolution?
You guys are all over the map.
This does not prove anything LOL.Since we have great minds like TlongII,Blake, Back2Basics,and phyzik reading this topic I have a question, if the earth is 4 billion years old why is the largest coral reef only a few thousand years old? Why is the oldest tree 20-45 thousand years old?
You've proven nothing other than you can find links to post from. You really think Niagra falls has always been there since the Earth was created?So rocks go from 4 billion years old to 12,000 years old? You guys crack me up! I prove to you the earth is not 4 billion years old and then you say "well Niagara falls was not there!"
Where was it? How did it get there? I see what we have here, You guys find a bone, a fossil, or rock and its millions of years old. The earth is 4 billion years old until I bring up Niagara falls and the rules change?
it's not part of evolution?
You guys are all over the map.Please put the crack pipe down.
Oh really oh wise one? What was there before a wall mart? Watch how you answer you may bring up a great flood and then you will be labeled a bible thumper. Let me guess the grand canyon is only 900 million years old that still gives you 3 billion and change to talk about the rest of the planet.You might find this hard to believe, but the Grand Canyon wasn't always there either.
You guys have your heads so far up your asses you forget where you left off. You need a calculator to make sure you don't up and use up all your years.
I am hip to your game if you say enough time anything is possible. For example did you know 800 billion years ago Saturn had no rings and 700 billion years ago Dogs had no legs they just rolled to you when you call them.
and 600 billion years ago Canada was connected to Mexico etc....
You guys can surf the net and find all kinds of that some drunk fool smoking weed came up with that sounds good. Did you know If i would have made the Geological column 7 days before mr asshat did I would be famous I could say maggots turned into roaches and the roaches turned into rats and rats into dogs and dogs into monkeys and monkeys into man and all you fools would be quoting me.
I talk about what is here and now.... a 20 thousand year old tree a 4,500 year old barrier reef, all these you can see for yourselves, you guys talk about fantasy roll playing. why not say 900 Billion years ago the solar system was made up of gas and there was only life on one planet and men had wings and spoke through there ass holes.
I rather believe some old drunk bi polar asshole put two of every animal in a huge wooden ark than to believe anything you lost souls have to say.
It proves one thing no one here can give me an explanation,
The difference between creationalist and science is that science acnowledges its mistakes. I'm still not prepared to pick one side or the other. I hope for one and understand the other. The problem is that creationalism refuses facts. The fact that your getting defensive proves my point.
I do hope there is a God. I have no problem with how I have lived my life so far. The problem is that no one can provide proof on either side except from what we know..... and what we know completely contradicts the bible.
It's called critical thinking (cue another predictable insult from you)...
Am I not allowed to reason for myself??? Does every single thought I generate need to be linked to someone else?
Fact is, the Sun's life cycle based on what we currently observe, on what we've do ented so far, and on observations of other stars in their respective life cycles... is all driven by nuclear physics...
The Sun's nuclear reactions have slowed down over time (measurable fact)... as they do the amount of hydrogen that is consumed also decreases... if today's consumption rates bear any relevance to the past, logic would dictate that past hydrogen consumption rates were faster... meaning the Sun had to be more massive. If the Sun was more massive, it had to be larger in size... any extrapolation model attempting to pin point that exact size, however, would contain its fair share of speculation. I know that... nevertheless we can come to that conclusion based on what we've come to learn about our studies of the Sun. What is poignantly clear based on Earth's distance from the Sun, then, is that a 4 billion year model would have irreparably scorched earth's surface, completely evaporated it's atmosphere and all sources of liquid water... Earth would essentially look like Mercury or our very own moon...
That observation aside.... there is a strong ideological rift between what most people think science is capable of achieving and what it actually can...
In fact, most people don't really question the natural processes that led to earth's current state... the common 'educated man' simply accepts them and moves on because they acknowledge that science has affected all of our lives in positive, practical ways... that tangible impact, however, has biased our view on what science is able to accomplish...
While the scientific toolset has been a very powerful tool in developing useful technologies... and is extremely methodical at explaining today's processes it does have limits... the common 'educated man' however rarely confronts that question... In their mind, if science can explain today's natural phenomena with accurate precision, then we can allow those same scientific principles to accurately explain the past... no?? Science doesn't quite work that way... The past isn't always reproducible... it can't be tested on... retrivable data is incomplete and paints only partial pictures... ultimately, the past can only be observed forensically. The scientific criteria and standards we apply to studying say a tangible set of chemical reactions, or some atmospheric phenomenon, isn't fully transitive to measuring the past.... Especially when we start tossing around staggering numbers that are completely incompatible with our personal experience... I mean a million years is a very long time! How about 250 million years? 1.2 billion years? 4.6 billion years? 13 billion years?. Those numbers have little relevance to the human mind... and so we've blindly embraced them... after all, we percieve that the scientific establishment has our best interests at heart... or better, that it's completely objective on all such matters... we're duped into thinking Science can never have an agenda... (although the global warming debate seems to have opened a few eyes on that one)...
Ultimately however, we've violated the scientific principles we've established in attempting to quantify processes that supposedly existed millions and billions of years ago. The scientific establishment has errected a house of lies when pertaining to their explanation of our past... they've intricately layered that lie to encompass all fields of study even though more "holes" are poked into a multibillion-year model the more they try to extend that envelope... Ah... But feel free to think what you want... I'm not attempting to change your mind.
After all, you've never once admitted to being wrong about anything... at least not on this forum. Your perspective is completely full-proof, I know... So rather than belittling my own perspective... ignore it... and move on. I don't want to enter another back-and-forth argument with someone who has been incapable of conceding or budging on anything...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 05-27-2009 at 11:39 PM.
Smart man.
I get upset when I say my 69 Camaro is 40 years old and you guys say "actually it's 80 years old" and then when I show you the bill of sale you say "that doesn't mean anything the car could have been on the lot for 40 years.The fact that your getting defensive proves my point.
It's the round and round you guys do to make others chase their tails.
Who said you need a bible to believe in a higher power? And why bring up the Bible all the time? why keep calling me a creationist? I am just talking about things that don't make sense like if the Earth is 4 Billion years old then how come the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago.I do hope there is a God. I have no problem with how I have lived my life so far. The problem is that no one can provide proof on either side except from what we know..... and what we know completely contradicts the bible.
Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)
The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)
The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.
Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of ac ulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)
Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old.
The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!
^ Feel free to touch base on any of the statements above....
you can get whatever info from whatever source you want, troll.
If it's from God's World.com, then it's biased and you are an idiot.
you and your other trolls are all over the map
I'd rather believe in the same old drunk floating in a huge wooden ark than to believe anything you and the other 9/11 twoofers say.
I'm not sure we ever got a real answer......what do you realllly think happened on 9/11?
this quote proves you fail to read the explanations given.
simple math gives us the age of the universe, troll.
no it's not. It's called poor research.It's called critical thinking (cue another predictable insult from you)...
(cue my predictable insult)
if you think the earth is younger than several billion years, then you are just flat out ignorant.
sure, if you base your reasoning on known facts.Am I not allowed to reason for myself??? Does every single thought I generate need to be linked to someone else?
so all of the scientists in the last few hundred years that have refuted young earth theories all have agendas?Fact is, the Sun's life cycle based on what we currently observe, on what we've do ented so far, and on observations of other stars in their respective life cycles... is all driven by nuclear physics...
The Sun's nuclear reactions have slowed down over time (measurable fact)... as they do the amount of hydrogen that is consumed also decreases... if today's consumption rates bear any relevance to the past, logic would dictate that past hydrogen consumption rates were faster... meaning the Sun had to be more massive. If the Sun was more massive, it had to be larger in size... any extrapolation model attempting to pin point that exact size, however, would contain its fair share of speculation. I know that... nevertheless we can come to that conclusion based on what we've come to learn about our studies of the Sun. What is poignantly clear based on Earth's distance from the Sun, then, is that a 4 billion year model would have irreparably scorched earth's surface, completely evaporated it's atmosphere and all sources of liquid water... Earth would essentially look like Mercury or our very own moon...
That observation aside.... there is a strong ideological rift between what most people think science is capable of achieving and what it actually can...
In fact, most people don't really question the natural processes that led to earth's current state... the common 'educated man' simply accepts them and moves on because they acknowledge that science has affected all of our lives in positive, practical ways... that tangible impact, however, has biased our view on what science is able to accomplish...
While the scientific toolset has been a very powerful tool in developing useful technologies... and is extremely methodical at explaining today's processes it does have limits... the common 'educated man' however rarely confronts that question... In their mind, if science can explain today's natural phenomena with accurate precision, then we can allow those same scientific principles to accurately explain the past... no?? Science doesn't quite work that way... The past isn't always reproducible... it can't be tested on... retrivable data is incomplete and paints only partial pictures... ultimately, the past can only be observed forensically. The scientific criteria and standards we apply to studying say a tangible set of chemical reactions, or some atmospheric phenomenon, isn't fully transitive to measuring the past.... Especially when we start tossing around staggering numbers that are completely incompatible with our personal experience... I mean a million years is a very long time! How about 250 million years? 1.2 billion years? 4.6 billion years? 13 billion years?
Ultimately however, we've violated the scientific principles we've established in attempting to quantify processes that supposedly existed millions and billions of years ago. The scientific establishment has errected a house of lies when pertaining to their explanation of our past... they've intricately layered that lie to encompass all fields of study even though more "holes" are poked into a multibillion-year model the more they try to extend that envelope... Ah... But feel free to think what you want... I'm not attempting to change your mind.
After all, you've never once admitted to being wrong about anything... at least not on this forum. Your perspective is completely full-proof, I know... So rather than belittling my own perspective... ignore it... and move on. I don't want to enter another back-and-forth argument with someone who has been incapable of conceding or budging on anything...
and no, today's consumption rates do not bear any relevance to the past.
just how old do you think the earth, sun, solar system and universe are?
Last edited by Blake; 05-28-2009 at 12:35 AM.
Did Blake ever answer any of The power Hour's replies? If so I must have missed it in all his insults.
Two buildings caved in due to the 4 billion year old dirt it was built on.
Translation: I am right you are wrong and if you don't believe in what I believe in I shall insult you. Your a real debate pro!
Still waiting on your reply to my earlier post!
Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)
The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)
The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.
Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of ac ulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)
Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old.
The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!
^ Feel free to touch base on any of the statements above....
hey b2b, there's 3 trolls right there if you need em.
nope. it pretty much has been proven that planes initially caused the collapse.
youre a real idiot that doesn't want to believe in facts and uses trolls to pat himself on the back!Translation: I am right you are wrong and if you don't believe in what I believe in I shall insult you. Your a real debate pro!
naw, I'll do you one better.......I'll give you some more creationist arguments to use and save you the trouble:Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)
The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)
The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.
Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of ac ulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)
Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old.
The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!
^ Feel free to touch base on any of the statements above....
"The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment ac ulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years."
"The largest stalac es and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years."
"The oldest tree in the world is 4300 years old."
"Given the rate at which cosmic dust ac ulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young."
"There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly."
did you copy and paste the arguments from creation websites, or from talkorigins?
seriously mouse, you are an idiot.
I think its safe to say Blake is no longer part of this debate.
I have always been an atheist and I never bought into the theory the Earth is four billion years old, does that make me a creationist? And why is Blake so upset?
I don't think he was really ever in the debate he avoids answering my questions. Hes just here to expose trolls and he loves his work. I picture him in a white jumpsuit with a plasma gun,
"who you gonna call?"
I have 50 dollars that says he can't guess who I am!
According to some in here I'm older than planet Earth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
