| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Perro Grande
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 198
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 12:57 pm Post subject: Proofs of Old Universe and/or Evolution |
|
|
Okay -- we've got a thread for the Young Earth Creationists and/or Old Earth Creationists...
Now we have a thread for those that believe that the Earth and Universe are very old, and that current life on Earth is the result of Evolution (either by chance or by an external intelligence.)
As with the other thread, ideas should be presented in a clean and concise manner, complete with references and links.
NO FLAMING and ARGUING. These topics can be debated in other threads...
Enjoy!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bread Guest
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:06 pm Post subject: Please wait until Nov 21 |
|
|
I have a special request for all people that hold to Old Earth and/or Evolution theories:
Please dod not post anything here until Nov 21st. Let us allow the thread on Young Earth run its course first. We are aware of the the info on Old Earth and Evolution. LEt us now give a chance to our rewsident Young Earthers and Creationists to air their views and defend and eapand their theories, with which we are less exposed to.
LEt us not start adding to this thread, until we had a chnace to see the other side first.
I know it is an imposition on you to ask for a delay of one week. Can you indulge me in this matter? It will make things more tidy.
Thanks to anyone who cooperates.
Bread |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
eruss
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 900
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:55 am Post subject: Re: Proofs of Old Universe and/or Evolution |
|
|
| Perro Grande wrote: | Okay -- we've got a thread for the Young Earth Creationists and/or Old Earth Creationists...
Now we have a thread for those that believe that the Earth and Universe are very old, and that current life on Earth is the result of Evolution (either by chance or by an external intelligence.)
As with the other thread, ideas should be presented in a clean and concise manner, complete with references and links.
NO FLAMING and ARGUING. These topics can be debated in other threads...
Enjoy!! |
I see you presented nothing.
The evolutionist ASSUME and old earth. They use decay rates in granite rock as their proof. But they ASSUME the decay rates of existing mater are the same as matter in the past. It is a down right ASSUMPTION. Based solely on theory and FAITH.
Now we have hard evidence in Polonium Radio Halos that suggest they are wrong in their ASSUMPTIONS.
I list all the arguments against Polonium halos and the responses to them from Gentry himself.
The matter of an old earth even went to a court trial. All the defendant of the old theory could say is that the Polonium Radio Halos were a mystery to him. He had no refutation other than that. Therefore, the Creationist won is court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Perro Grande
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 198
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eruss,
1) Read the message I wrote. This is a presentation thread. Not a debate/flame thread. We can debate your claims on a separate thread.
2) I'm honoring Bread's request. I'll wait until after the 21st. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
everybee
Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 858
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Unknown 288
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 69
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll present my case, from astronomy/astrophysics field:
- The farthest objects in the sky are quasars.
- The youngest quasar currently has a redshift of 5.8 (I heard about one with 6.42 recently).
- The distance of the quasar is 700,000 parsecs.
- This translates to a quasar 14 billion years in the past.
- Conclusion: the universe cannot be any younger than 14 billion years.
From nuclear-dating:
- Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years are found all over the continents of Earth.
- Different nuclear-dating techniques used yield consistent results within a few percent.
- The oldest measurement is of zircon crystals in Western Australia, 4.3 billion years old.
- Conclusion: the Earth cannot be any younger than 4.3 billion years.
All ages are consistent with the calculations of 4.54 billion years old Solar system, 11-13 billion years old Milky Way, and 10-15 billion years old universe.
Last edited by Unknown 288 on Fri Nov 21, 2003 5:14 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Debmey
Joined: 11 Apr 2003 Posts: 497 Location: Singapore
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So how old is earth supposed to be?
How was it formed according to evolutionists? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
everybee
Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 858
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Debmey
Joined: 11 Apr 2003 Posts: 497 Location: Singapore
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmmm............ interesting.
One question though. How do scientists know what is the starting level of radioactive isotopes in the beginning? Why do they assujme that it is the same level as those levels in meteorites? Strange assumption isn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Unknown 451
Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
As a mere counter point to Debney's false info...
If you make a new radioactive isotope of the same element, it will always start in the same state and decay from there. As far as I know, you can't adjust radioactive decay rates. As far as I know, you also can't can't make the same element or isotope different. I've never seen two different C-14 atoms. Or two different anything of the same isotope. Links would be much appreciated if you know otherwise. Their assumption isn't strange, however I can make an assumption you've never seen a form of the reference used in obtaining my information, my high school basic chem textbook.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
everybee
Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 858
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Incarnate wrote: | As a mere counter point to Debney's false info...
If you make a new radioactive isotope of the same element, it will always start in the same state and decay from there. As far as I know, you can't adjust radioactive decay rates. As far as I know, you also can't can't make the same element or isotope different. I've never seen two different C-14 atoms. Or two different anything of the same isotope. Links would be much appreciated if you know otherwise. Their assumption isn't strange, however I can make an assumption you've never seen a form of the reference used in obtaining my information, my high school basic chem textbook.  |
Your question was answered by the link I posted above.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5904&highlight=quantum |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|