[quote]:
Cthulhu wrote:
Sure I do.I’m not the only one who believes that.Most christians belive the world is a few thousand years old too(6 thousand or maybe a little more).
[/quote]
Very few Christians believe this crap.
I agree with most of what you are saying gojira.
The main reason to buy organic is to avoid the chemicals (insecticides, pesticides, herbacides, fungacides, fertalizers, whatever a farmer deems neccissary), not necissarily the GMOed foods. There are a couple other reasons (support local economy, etc), but for the most part, GMOed foods aren’t as bad as traditional foods (but I suppose thats up for debate).
However, I gotta call you out on one point:
[quote]gojira wrote:
In regard to your question about organic being better; better than what? Is benzene better than water, because benzene is organic and water is not.
[/quote]
Don’t pull this bullshit. Organic and inorganic molecules (chemistry) are COMPLETELY different from organic / conventional foods. Faulty logic and shit like that can break down good arguments, and support shitty ones.
[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Sure I do.I’m not the only one who believes that.Most christians belive the world is a few thousand years old too(6 thousand or maybe a little more)[/quote]
There’s a big difference between 4000 and 6000 (50% is huge)
So why do you believe the world is 4000 years old? And what does what you think Christians believe have to do with it?
What I was saying is I’m not the only one who believes the world isn’t 4.4 billion years old.Like I said,there are hundreds of studies saying the world is millions and billions of years old.
Do you actually believe every scientific study is a fact?Just like one "scientific study" shows a big bang happend and another says we evolved from apes.One has to be wrong.
[quote]MookJong wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
Sure I do.I’m not the only one who believes that.Most christians belive the world is a few thousand years old too(6 thousand or maybe a little more)
There’s a big difference between 4000 and 6000 (50% is huge)
So why do you believe the world is 4000 years old? And what does what you think Christians believe have to do with it?
[/quote]
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.
There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html
[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.
I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.
[/quote]
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?
[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.
There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html
Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.
I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.
[/quote]
Another says “The earth is 4.7 billions years old view. Scientists have employed a number of methods in trying to arrive at the age of the earth. The rate of erosion, rate of salt accumulation in the ocean, and the rate of decay of certain elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium. All of these methods including the “ore method,” “meteorite method,” and the dating of fossil remains are unreliable and contain many attendant variables.”
but I guess this is all my opinion.
Btw champ,H.P.Lovecraft did not come up with the idea for the necronomicon.
Maybe you need to read the letter('s) that was written by the man about this subject.
So the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years?certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
The earth?s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn?t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn?t have had time to escape?certainly not billions of years.16
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star?the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon?not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ?dates? assigned to moon rocks).18
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old?far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.
Right here,they say it’s 4.55 billion years old: The Age of the Earth
There are MANY scientists who believe the earth is less than billions of eyars old.
In the bible it discribes the earth as being only 6,000 years old.
The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters five and eleven provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each begot the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and by adding up the ages provided in Genesis chapters five and eleven, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.
How old is Earth? Quantitative scientific methods.
In 1897, Lord Kelvin assumed that the Earth was originally molten and calculated a date based on cooling through conduction and radiation.
Age of Earth was calculated to be about 24-40 million years.
Problem: Earth has an internal heat source (radioactive decay)
In 1899 - 1901, John Joly (Irish) calculated the rate of delivery of salt to the ocean. River water has only a small concentration of salts. Rivers flow to the sea. Evaporative concentration of salts.
Age of Ocean = Total salt in oceans (in grams) divided by rate of salt added (grams per year)
Age of Earth was calculated to be 90-100 million years.
Problems: no way to account for recycled salt, salt incorporated into clay minerals, salt deposits.
Thickness of total sedimentary record divided by average sedimentation rates (in mm/yr). In 1860, calculated to be about 3 million years old. In 1910, calculated to be about 1.6 billion years old.
Early measurements of maximum thickness of sediment ranged from 25,000 m to 112,000 m. With more recent mapping, thickness of fossiliferous rocks is at least 150,000 m.
Sedimentation rates average about 0.3 m/1000 years.
At this rate, the age of the first fossiliferous rocks is about 500 million years.
Problems: did not account for past erosion or differences in sedimentation rates; also ancient sedimentary rocks are metamorphosed or melted.
Charles Lyell 1800’s compared amount of evolution shown by marine mollusks in the various series of the Tertiary System with the amount that had occurred since the beginning of the Pleistocene. Estimated 80 million years for the Cenozoic alone.
Discovery of radioactivity by Henri Becquerel in 1896. In 1905, Rutherford and Boltwood used radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and minerals. Uranium decay produces He, leading to a date of 500 million years.
In 1907, Boltwood suspected that lead was the stable end product of the decay of uranium. Published the age of a sample of urananite based on Uranium-Lead dating. Date was 1.64 billion years.
So far, oldest dated Earth rocks are 3.96 billion years.
Older rocks include meteorites and moon rocks with dates on the order of 4.6 billion years.
Moon rocks, highland ~ 4.5 by, mare basalt ~ 3.2 - 3.8 by
Meteorites - older than 4.5 by
Clearly you can see that long before you or I believed the earth was a certain age,many different scientists had DIFFERENT opinions.
Copy and paste this link: The Young Age of the Earth age not millions or billions of years old earth creation young earth creation bible
You should read whats on it.
Once again,you can clearly see that the earth being young isn’t just my opinion.
The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young
by Jonathan Sarfati
The earth has a magnetic field pointing almost north-south?only 11.5? off. This is an excellent design feature of our planet: it enables navigation by compasses, and it also shields us from dangerous charged particles from the sun. It is also powerful evidence that the earth must be as young as the Bible teaches.
How the earth’s magnetic field has changed. The intensity could not have been much higher than the starting point shown, indicating a young age.
In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,3 proposed that the earth?s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth?s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that.
Evolutionist responses
The decaying current model is obviously incompatible with the billions of years needed by evolutionists. So their preferred model is a self-sustaining dynamo (electric generator). The earth?s rotation and convection is supposed to circulate the molten nickel/iron of the outer core. Positive and negative charges in this liquid metal are supposed to circulate unevenly, producing an electric current, thus generating the magnetic field. But scientists have not produced a workable model despite half a century of research, and there are many problems.4
But the major criticism of Barnes? young-earth argument concerns evidence that the magnetic field has reversed many times?i.e. compasses would have pointed south instead of north. When grains of the common magnetic mineral magnetite in volcanic lava or ash flows cool below its Curie point (see side note) of 570?C (1060?F), the magnetic domains partly align themselves in the direction of the earth?s magnetic field at that time. Once the rock has fully cooled, the magnetite?s alignment is fixed. Thus we have a permanent record of the earth?s field through time.
Although evolutionists have no good explanations for the reversals, they maintain that, because of them, the straightforward decay assumed by Dr Barnes is invalid. Also, their model requires at least thousands of years for a reversal. And with their dating assumptions, they believe that the reversals occur at intervals of millions of years, and point to an old earth.
A ?force-field? around the earth.
The earth?s magnetism is running down. This world-wide phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, despite swapping direction many times. Evolutionary theories are not able to explain properly how the magnetism could sustain itself for billions of years.
Creationist counter-response
The nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys believed that Dr Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes? model to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth?s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection?hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.5,6 Now, as discussed in Creation 19(3), 1997, Dr John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a cause of the Genesis Flood (see online version). Dr Humphreys says these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.7 This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern?rather, the total field energy would decay even faster (see graph above).8
This model also explains why the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the dynamo model, the overall field energy of the sun is decreasing.
Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth?s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.
Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Pr?vot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90? of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke?eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.10 This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys? model. (See also Dr Humphreys? online article The Earth?s magnetic field is young.)
Conclusion
The earth?s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.
Origin of the Earth?s magnetic field
The Humphreys Proposal
Dr Humphreys proposed that God first created the earth out of water.1 He based this on several Scriptures, e.g. 2 Peter 3:5 which concludes that the earth was formed out of water and by water. After this, God would have transformed much of the water into other substances like rock minerals. Now water contains hydrogen atoms, and the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is a tiny magnet. Normally these magnets cancel out so water as a whole is almost non-magnetic. But Humphreys proposed that God created the water with the nuclear magnets aligned. Immediately after creation, they would form a more random arrangement, which would cause the earth?s magnetic field to decay. This would generate current in the core, which would then decay according to Barnes? model, apart from many reversals in the Flood year as Humphreys? model states.
Observational support from the fields of other planets
Dr Humphreys also calculated the fields of other planets (and the sun) based on this model. The important factors are the mass of the object, the size of the core and how well it conducts electricity, plus the assumption that their original material was water. His model explains features which are deep puzzles to dynamo theorists. For example, evolutionists refer to ?the enigma of lunar magnetism?2?the moon once had a strong magnetic field, although it rotates only once a month. Also, according to evolutionary models of its origin, it never had a molten core, necessary for a dynamo to work. Also, Mercury has a far stronger magnetic field than dynamo theory expects from a planet rotating 59 times slower than Earth.
Even more importantly, in 1984, Dr Humphreys made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune3 were just as Humphreys had predicted.4 Yet many anti-creationists call creation ?unscientific? because it supposedly makes no predictions!
Humphreys? model also explains why the moons of Jupiter that have cores have magnetic fields, while Callisto, which lacks a core, also lacks a field.5 (See Dr Humphreys? online article Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation)
Cause of the earth?s magnetic field
Materials like iron are composed of tiny magnetic domains, which each behave like tiny magnets. The domains themselves are composed of even tinier atoms, which are themselves microscopic magnets, lined up within the domain. Normally the domains cancel each other out. But in magnets, like a compass needle, more of the domains are lined up in the same direction, and so the material has an overall magnetic field.
Earth?s core is mainly iron and nickel, so could its magnetic field be caused the same way as a compass needle?s? No?above a temperature called the Curie point, the magnetic domains are disrupted. The earth?s core at its coolest region is about 3400?4700?C (6100?8500?F), much hotter than the Curie points of all known substances.
But in 1820, the Danish physicist H.C. ?rsted discovered that an electric current produces a magnetic field. Without this, there could be no electric motors. So could an electric current be responsible for the earth?s magnetic field? Electric motors have a power source, but electric currents normally decay almost instantly once the power source is switched off (except in superconductors). So how could there be an electric current inside the earth, without a source?
The great creationist physicist Michael Faraday answered this question in 1831 with his discovery that a changing magnetic field induces an electric voltage, the basis of electrical generators.
Imagine the earth soon after creation with a large electrical current in its core. This would produce a strong magnetic field. Without a power source, this current would decay. Thus the magnetic field would decay too. As decay is change, it would induce a current, lower but in the same direction as the original one.
So we have a decaying current producing a decaying field which generates a decaying current ? If the circuit dimensions are large enough, the current would take a while to die out. The decay rate can be accurately calculated, and is always exponential. The electrical energy doesn?t disappear?it is turned into heat, a process discovered by the creationist physicist James Joule in 1840.
This is the basis of Dr Barnes? model.
This thread should be entitled “How to look at fairy tales” instead of refering to produce.
Cthulu my friend, you are a nitwit. I could bore you with a really well referenced thought process on how I reached that conclusion, but I’m sure you have a good idea.
Ahh,poor baby mad because I show some facts?Thats ok,we all can’t be closeminded my friend. [quote]Massif wrote:
This thread should be entitled “How to look at fairy tales” instead of refering to produce.
Cthulu my friend, you are a nitwit. I could bore you with a really well referenced thought process on how I reached that conclusion, but I’m sure you have a good idea.[/quote]
Facts? It’s a THEORY!!! I’ll say it once more - the fossil record, just to use one example? Or are you one of these guys that think that the dinosaurs never existed because there’s no mention of them in the bible? How about the geographical record of the ice age? That one was a little further back than your 4000-6000 year age range.
I hate to break it to you sparky, but the bible IS NOT A HISTORY TEXT!
I’m waiting for the “Lunar Landing was a hoax” thread next.
I will not dispute a million or so years with you. But we have documents that are older than 4000 years old. Architectural structures that are over 4000 years old. Human skeletons that are 4000 years old, verified by carbon dating and other methods. Whole records of civiliations that are older than 4000 years. These are NOT studies or scientific theories, but tangible evidence that is as close to being conclusive as humanly possible. As undisputed by nearly everyone as the fact that the earth is not flat, and there are 3 macronutrients. Never mind…
[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Sure I do.I’m not the only one who believes that.Most christians belive the world is a few thousand years old too(6 thousand or maybe a little more).
No one knows for sure.I’ve seen studies telling us that the world is a billion years old,and others saying it is only a few milion years old.Every year I hear of some new study saying the earth is another million years old.
jsbrook wrote:
You believe the earth is 4,000 years old? You cannot be serious. There are bones from HUMAN skeletons well older than that. There are documented CIVILIZATIONS older than that.
Cthulhu wrote:
How old the earth was? There are studies that say it’s been around for millions of years,and there are some that say billions of years.No one really knows for sure,but I do believe it’s about four thousand years old.I’m not the one who says GMOs are safe,but have no studies showing that they’re healthy/safe.I guess we agree to disagree. Flop Hat wrote:
That’s a boy. When you know your argument it too weak to defend you can always go with the old grammer or spelling attack. However, going after capitalization is pretty lame. Did you just finish the 3rd grade?
I’m not much at spelling or grammer, but I do work on my English along with my Russian, Pashto, Dari, and Spanish. From your post I can tell that you have no desire to work on your weakness in science, yet you insist on posting pseudo-science garbage continually. You didn’t even have an idea how old the earth was in a previous post. Wake up and start reading a science book. Trust me it’s for your own good.
If you PM me I have tons of basic science websites, skeptic websites, and a good basic sience reading list. If you don’t like critical thinking you can always stop and go back to being a follower.
Cthulhu wrote:
The beginning of a sentence should have a CAPITAL letter(in this case “A”).Maybe you need to read some books on basic English.
[/quote]
[quote]achilles2095 wrote:
Facts? It’s a THEORY!!! I’ll say it once more - the fossil record, just to use one example? Or are you one of these guys that think that the dinosaurs never existed because there’s no mention of them in the bible? How about the geographical record of the ice age? That one was a little further back than your 4000-6000 year age range.
I hate to break it to you sparky, but the bible IS NOT A HISTORY TEXT!
I’m waiting for the “Lunar Landing was a hoax” thread next.[/quote]
God. We don’t even need to look back to the dinosaurs since there is real, signficant, and very compelling evidence of HUMAN beings and civilization older than 4000 years old. Further, a bibilical interpreation is not incompatible with the objective evidence. A bibilical day is not the same as a modern 24-hr day, and time is measured differently than we measure it.
To be openminded, you must actually have a mind. Are you suggesting you have met that prerequisite? Your recent posts indicate otherwise.
[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Ahh,poor baby mad because I show some facts?Thats ok,we all can’t be closeminded my friend. Massif wrote:
This thread should be entitled “How to look at fairy tales” instead of refering to produce.
Cthulu my friend, you are a nitwit. I could bore you with a really well referenced thought process on how I reached that conclusion, but I’m sure you have a good idea.
[/quote]
There is no study that shows the earth is 4000 years old. Show it to me. Post it here.
[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?
Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.
There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html
Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.
I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.
[/quote]
I never said I had a study showing that the earth was young.I said there is enough evidence showing that the earth is younger.For example,creationists say that the earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
There is no study that shows the earth is 4000 years old. Show it to me. Post it here.
Cthulhu wrote:
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?
Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.
There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html
Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.
I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.
[/quote]