AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Astronomy News
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(08-30-2016, 11:12 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: [ -> ]John, what I really mean is what I stated with 100% accuracy: The whole idea of an Oort Cloud is a total fictional fabrication, for which there has never been any observational verification. The vast, overwhelming weight of evidence conclusively proves that evolution is impossible, the universe was intelligently designed, and the universe could not be more than about 12,000 years old. I am not talking opinion, or what anyone wants to believe. I am talking about what has been conclusively proven by solid scientific observation of physical reality. Anyone who wants to preserve the current intellectual fad of vast ages for the earth and universe, so that evolution can begin to look even halfway reasonable, is denying the real facts, closing their eyes to the real weight of evidence.

First Ron, your dogmatic assurance that what you have stated is "100% accuracy", is a sure sign that you are relying completely on faith, and not on reason.  We are humans and like humans, we generally don't get everything correct the first, second, or later times.  In other words, your religious hubris diminishes you.

And I totally disagree with your child like simplicity.  It is not logical, and our Creator would be the ultimate in logic.  Further, the Creator would receive far more enjoyment, and satisfaction, in using the least amount of direct input, but rather wish to watch the natural development of this grand experiment.  

And too, you base your faith on the writings of humans, who were totally ignorant of science, yet used their imagination to interpret their idea of how the universe was created.  And please, don't try to say that G-d told them what to write, or that he actively guided them, because it would have been far better, and easier, for G-d to have just done the heavy lifting for them, and just have presented the testaments already completed.  

I consider biblical Fundamentalism as a mixture of intellectual laziness AND a fear of the possibility of discovering things that don't jibe with expectations.  Sorry about that, but I rely on logic and science, because I fervently believe that both science AND the belief in a Creator(singular or plural) compliment each other, not contradict.  

And please, stop using that "Evolution = Atheism" excuse.  Atheists are simply using a concept against Christianity, in order to enhance their own need to rebel.  By the same logic, if atheists believe in the necessity to brush one's teeth each morning, then brushing one's teeth is the result of Atheist Ideology.  Its not logical and I totally reject it.  Further, it in no way diminishes my belief in our Creator, regardless what so many Fundamentalists want to believe, because it makes them feel religiously superior.
amazing video of the sun

https://famillebonplan.fr/article-958_La...-magique_1

NASA | SDO: Year 5
(09-26-2016, 04:50 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]amazing video of the sun

https://famillebonplan.fr/article-958_La...-magique_1

Fred, there is no question that if it came to watching either of the two candidates pontificate, or watching this glorious video, I would choose the later in a heartbeat.  I eat this up and cannot get enough of it.  S22
European Mars landing probe not responding. Orbiter see long trail of ashes instead. Yet the ESA announce the experiment is a 96% success.

Glad that despite advesity they kep a sens of humor....
(10-23-2016, 05:20 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]European Mars landing probe not responding. Orbiter see long trail of ashes instead. Yet the ESA announce the experiment is a 96% success.

Well, I guess it got 96% of the way there!

S1
(10-23-2016, 05:28 PM)JohnWho Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-23-2016, 05:20 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]European Mars landing probe not responding. Orbiter see long trail of ashes instead. Yet the ESA announce the experiment is a 96% success.

Well, I guess it got 96% of the way there!

S1

Quote:HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT

Landing on Mars, Earth's neighbor and at its closest some 35 million miles (56 million km) away, is a notoriously difficult task that has thwarted most Russian efforts and given NASA trouble as well.

Yeah, either way you shake things out, the ground is still hard, even with only 37% of our gravity. Running into a horizontal wall is still running into a wall. S13
(10-23-2016, 05:28 PM)JohnWho Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-23-2016, 05:20 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]European Mars landing probe not responding. Orbiter see long trail of ashes instead. Yet the ESA announce the experiment is a 96% success.

Well, I guess it got 96% of the way there!

S1

Yes, the lander broke in pieces at 4% of the distance to the ground. S1
Here is why it is important we not become complacent about the threat of Impactors.  One of them is going to get us one of these days in the near future.  

Quote:Sneaky asteroid spotted whizzing between Earth and moon

An asteroid roughly the size of a 10-story building gave Earth a particularly close pass Monday morning.

Asteroid 2017 AG13 came within half the distance from Earth to the moon as it buzzed by early Monday morning at 4:47 a.m. PT. The fly-by happened shortly after scientists at the Catalina Sky Survey first discovered the space rock on Saturday.

As you can see in the GIF below, the asteroid looks to just barely miss us as it passes. In the cosmic sense, it really was a close shave. In real terms, Earth had well over a 100,000-mile (161,000 kilometer) buffer of distance.

[Image: c1vcyzcuaaa2xaq.jpg]
Now that NASA has been redirected back toward space research, it is beginning to show some interesting ideas. Here's one.

NASA Considers Magnetic Shield to Help Mars Grow Its Atmosphere. NASA Planetary Science Division Director, Jim Green, says launching a magnetic shield could help warm Mars and possibly allow it to become habitable.

Quote:The Planetary Science Vision 2050 Workshop is happening right now at NASA headquarters in Washington DC. The workshop is meant to discuss ambitious space projects that could be realized, or at least started, by 2050.

One of the most enticing ideas came this morning from Jim Green, NASA's Planetary Science Division Director. In a talk titled, "A Future Mars Environment for Science and Exploration," Green discussed launching a "magnetic shield" to a stable orbit between Mars and the sun, called Mars L1, to shield the planet from high-energy solar particles. The shield structure would consist of a large dipole—a closed electric circuit powerful enough to generate an artificial magnetic field.

Such a shield could leave Mars in the relatively protected magnetotail of the magnetic field created by the object, allowing the Red Planet to slowly restore its atmosphere. About 90 percent of Mars's atmosphere was stripped away by solar particles in the lifetime of the planet, which was likely temperate and had surface water about 3.5 billion years ago.

[Image: gallery-1488399162-screen-shot-2017-03-0...220-pm.png]
John, in regard to your post in this thread of 08-30-2016, 10:24 PM: I state facts that I have provided evidence for. So I am entirely justified in maintaining that I said what I did with 100% accuracy. If you dispute that, then you are not paying attention to the real facts. It is you who are relying on nothing but faith in the traditions of biased people who are desperate to maintain the idea of vast ages for the earth and universe, because they will do anything to avoid the conclusion that the human race was created by and is answerable to a Divine Creator, Who has promised to subject every human being who has ever lived to a final Judgment.

Can you explain why it is that no planetary nebula, expanding from a known central explosion, anywhere in the sky, has been expanding for more than 12,000 years? On what basis do you ignore this evidence? And how do you explain the fact that we never have seen any evidence that light from far distant stellar objects is just now reaching us? That should be the case if the speed of light has always been constant, and can be relied on for us to infer that the universe is vastly old. Why doesn't that bother you, if you really have a scientific mind? And why are you so ready to accept that an Oort Cloud exists, when there has been absolutely no observations that confirm its existence--it was simply made up in an effort to explain why the near earth passing comets still exist in large numbers, when they should have been evaporated away in 12,000 years at most? And how do you explain the fact that the layer of cosmic dust on the lunar surface is only 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch thick--if cosmic dust has been infalling on the lunar surface for billions of years? I have shown you my science. Where is your science? Don't play games with words. Deal strictly and honestly with proven truth, or do not claim that you respect scientific evidence.
Ron, I don't see any links to your "evidence" for this. Where are they? And not biblical scripture, but science.

Granted it is not proven yet, but it makes common sense, if you believe in a universe that is older than twelve thousand years, or less.
John, if you want to falsify any of the evidences that I cite, just come up with one case of a planetary nebula expanding from a known central explosion point that has been expanding for more than 12,000 years; or cite an example of stellar objects whose light is only now reaching earth, when a few years ago it had not reached earth. Or simply explain how there could be only 1/2 to 3/4 inches of cosmic dust on the lunar surface if it has been infalling for billions of years. And answer whether there is any OBJECTIVE evidence for the existence of an Oort Cloud. Etc.

In the meantime, here is an article Dr. Russell Humphreys wrote about 11 years ago that provides quite a lot of evidences and sources. I have emphasized a few arguments I consider especially impressive:

Quote:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

"Evidence for a Young World"
by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics
First published in
Impact #384, ICR
June 2005

Abstract

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages.
________________________

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.

2. Too few supernova remnants.

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3


3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and © other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15


7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

8. Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20


9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24


10. Too much helium in minerals.

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.


11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.


12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31

14. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.31

References

1. Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413.
2. D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313–315 (July 22, 1993).
3. Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175–184, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.
4. Steidl, P. F., Planets, comets, and asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), order from http://www.creationresearch.org/.
5. Whipple, F. L., Background of modern comet theory, Nature 263:15–19 (2 September 1976). Levison, H. F. et al. See also: The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296:2212–2215 (21 June 2002).
6. Milliman, John D. and James P. M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525–544 (1992).
7. Hay, W. W., et al., Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933–14,940 (10 December 1988).
8. Meybeck, M., Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans, Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).
9. Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 43:767–779 (1979).
10. Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17–33, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.
11. Nevins, S., [Austin, S. A.], Evolution: the oceans say no!, Impact No. 8 (Nov. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.
12. Humphreys, D. R., The earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39(1):3–13, June 2002. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/art...GeoMag.htm.
13. Humphreys, D. R., Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 113–126, out of print but contact http://www.creationicc.org/ for help in locating copies.
14. Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374:687–92 (20 April 1995).
15. Humphreys, D. R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 129–142, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.
16. Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 3–15, out of print, contact http://www.creationicc.org/ for help in locating copies.
17. Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28–29 (2 January 1998).
18. Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354–1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536–8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19–30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature’s ancient secrets, Nature 413:358–359 (27 September 2001).
19. Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897–900 (19 October 2000).
20. Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952–1955 (25 March 2005).
21. Gentry, R. V., Radioactive halos, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23:347–362 (1973).
22. Gentry, R. V. , W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith, J. F. Emery, S. A. Reynolds, R. Walker, S. S. Christy, and P. A. Gentry, Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification, Science 194:315–318 (15 October 1976).
23. Gentry, R. V., Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective, Science 184:62–66 (5 April 1974).
24. Snelling, A. A. and M. H. Armitage, Radiohalos—a tale of three granitic plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243–267, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.
25. Gentry, R. V., G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment, Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129–1130 (October 1982).
26. Humphreys, D. R, et al., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1–16 (June 2004). See archived article on following page of the CRS website: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/art...Helium.htm.
27. Baumgardner, J. R., et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127–142. Archived at http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html.
28. McDougall, I., F. H. Brown, and J. G. Fleagle, Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia, Nature 433(7027):733–736 (17 February 2005).
29. Deevey, E. S., The human population, Scientific American 203:194–204 (September 1960).
30. Marshack, A., Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, National Geographic 147:64–89 (January 1975).
31. Dritt, J. O., Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73–78, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.
Additional resources for items 9–11.
• DeYoung, D., Thousands … Not Billions, Master Books (2005) Green Forest, AR.
• Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. A., and Chaffin E. F., editors, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society (2005) El Cajon, CA and Chino Valley, AZ. (Technical).
Ron, I went right back to the post, and date, you mentioned, but didn't link.  There was no link within it, so I stated such.  Here is the link to the very post you mentioned.

I am not a Fundamentalist, and never will be, ok?  I find it highly suspect that our Creator would spend six days Micro-creating his idea of a universe.  You are a believer in his "Micro-Management" and I am a  believer in his "Macro-Management".  Micro-managing his way around as the bible(take your pick on which rendition) tells, makes no logical sense whatsoever.  Now, you can believe that if you wish, but this person you are now quoting, appeared to me to be taking a whole lot of liberties when I checked him out earlier.  

Sorry, but we will simply have to agree to disagree on your interpretation on how the Universe works.  Ok?
The link I gave right at the start of the quote does take you to the right list of sites. Here is the link to the specific paper I quoted: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/a...ung-world/

So rather than face up honestly to the factual evidence cited, you choose to say you question the veracity of the author. That is the kind of technique that pro-evolutionists always use when confronted with contrary evidence. You can't refute the evidence, so you just wave your hands and pretend the person who presents the evidence must be biased and need not be taken seriously. It would be easy to falsify most of the statements. Just come up with one example that contradicts what is claimed.

By the way, I do not contend that the entire universe was created in six days. That is an extreme position some people take based on a misinterpretation of Genesis 1:16: "Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also." (NKJV) The verse does not say God created the sun and moon right then; it says He made them appear as great lights; likely by clearing the obscuring dense clouds out of the way so the light could reach the surface of the earth. The second sentence "He made the stars also" is a parenthetical statement, to inform anyone who might think God did not create the entire universe, that He did. It does not say He made the stars right then.

I hold that the universe is around 12,000 years old. Earth was the last thing God created. Note Hebrews 9:11 (NKJV): "But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation." Note that the Temple of God in Heaven was said to be "not of this creation." So there was a creation before the creation of the earth.

Now, if you want a theological argument, I can provide that, too. God says He knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10). So when He created Lucifer, He knew in advance that Lucifer was the one who would invent sin and lead a third of the angels in rebellion, becoming Satan (see Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:13-15). Judging by the name Lucifer, or morning star, it appears that Lucifer was the first angel God created. So He decided to deal with the sin problem as soon as possible, proactively. Now, would it have taken billions of years for Lucifer to come up with the idea of questioning God's Goodness and leading a rebellion against Him? Or would it have taken no more than a few thousand years at most? Would God have gone on for billions of years knowing that the Damocletian Sword of Sin was hanging over His head, and the head of everyone in the universe? The God I know would be proactive.
(03-06-2017, 11:49 AM)Ron Lambert Wrote: [ -> ]I hold that the universe is around 12,000 years old. Earth was the last thing God created. Note Hebrews 9:11 (NKJV): "But Christ came as High Priest  of  the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation." Note that the Temple of God in Heaven was said to be "not of this creation." So there was a creation before the creation of the earth.

I already know you do Ron. We've been over this many times. And I do not agree, because as Spock kept saying "That is not Logical". It isn't, and I firmly believe that when the old testament was written, there was no real science, no technical means to prove things. It was simply up to the thinking of the people at the time.

And no logical Creator would micro-manage the universe, relying on ignorant humans to lay out the Word accurately. AND if those were his words, why not just write it all down on stone for everyone to see. Eliminate the Middle Man, so to speak.

You can rely on faith, and I do too. But unlike you, I have a good dose of skepticism, when relying on others. You choose to overlook this, because it would mean that you might not like what you see. So you disregard Everything that does not appear "verbatim" in the Holy Book.

But as I keep saying, we can agree to disagree. What you choose to believe is your business. And I just consider all this a waste of time. Ok?
As for writing things in stone, God did write in stone with His own finger: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11)

What is illogical about going by the clear facts of the matter? Cite me one evidence anywhere that disproves any of the arguments I have put forward that demonstrates the universe is only in the neighborhood of 12,000 years old. ONE SINGLE EVIDENCE! I can refute conclusively on the basis of strictly scientific evicence, any such evidence that has ever been put forward. You have no evidence, John. NO EVIDENCE AT ALL! And I can prove it. Try me.

If you just don't want to, that is your prerogative.
(03-05-2017, 05:12 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ][Image: gallery-1488399162-screen-shot-2017-03-0...220-pm.png]
[/quote]
What is the size and wieght of such magnetic field inductor?

Will we be able to build in space a device the size of a small town by 2050?
Fred, your guess is as good as mine on that.
Perhaps before we start terraforming other worlds, we should apply some terraforming techniques to our world. We have polar regions--including a large polar continent--that are virtually uninhabitable. Not to mention the Greenland glacier. And then 4/5 of the earth's surface is water. And we have seriously dangerous weather extremes even in the areas that are supposed to be inhabitable. Considering the threat to our power grid and highly developed electronic technology on which our society now depends, wouldn't it be beneficial to put in place a magnetic field inductor that would do for earth what such a device would supposedly do for Mars? If it diminishes the Auroras, we could live with that. Perhaps we could find some way to reduce the oceans by draining some of them into underground caverns--including chambers where oil is pumped out of. (I believe this latter is done to some extent already.)
(03-13-2017, 09:39 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps before we start terraforming other worlds, we should apply some terraforming techniques to our world. We have polar regions--including a large polar continent--that are virtually uninhabitable. Not to mention the Greenland glacier. And then 4/5 of the earth's surface is water. And we have seriously dangerous weather extremes even in the areas that are supposed to be inhabitable. Considering the threat to our power grid and highly developed electronic technology on which our society now depends, wouldn't it be beneficial to put in place a magnetic field inductor that would do for earth what such a device would supposedly do for Mars? If it diminishes the Auroras, we could live with that. Perhaps we could find some way to reduce the oceans by draining some of them into underground caverns--including chambers where oil is pumped out of. (I believe this latter is done to some extent already.)

The best solution is still going to be space habitats, of the O'Neill cylinder type. They can be placed practically anywhere, create their own gravity, and can accommodate several million in each one. And the other alternative is to start exploring the galaxy by looking for wormholes, i.e. fold points.

As for Earth modifying, the two easiest ways to warm up the planet would be placing huge mirrors in orbit in order to increase the sun's radiation. But that one would be a true eyesore. Imagine all those reflection mirrors all over the heavens. It would drive people nuts.

The other one would be to remove the Isthmus of Panama, allowing warmer Pacific waters direct access to Northern Atlantic. That's what caused this Pleistocene Ice Age in the first place. It'd require moving an awful lot of land, and the Panamanians would raise a stink, but that is the easiest.

As for where the water goes, its not a great idea to melt all the ice IMO. Pumping water into underground openings would not be enough to lower the sea levels. Besides, we are a net gainer of water from space. We accumulate some 13 tons of water from space on a daily basis, because space is loaded with H2O. Its all over the place, and literally raining down on the planet on a continual basis.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24