Old Earth vs. Young Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Banff9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
haltonarp.com/bio

You are referring to objects moving faster than the speed of light (superluminal)?

ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Kellermann2/Kellermann3_6.html

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
No, to the 2011 Nobel in physics. From the same site: šŸ™‚

ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March08/Frieman/Frieman3.html

Supernova brightness gives you distance.

Its redshift gives you expansion speed.

Plot one against the other. Oops, universe is accelerating.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/04/Union2.1_Hubble_slide.png
 
cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html

a. Vast horizontal strata point to a global flood.

In our southwestern states, where they are well exposed by erosion, but also across the continent and everywhere in the world, thousands to hundreds of thousands of square miles of flat, horizontal strata, from a few feet to hundreds of feet thick are found. At no location on the earth may the production of similar sedimentary deposits of like extent be observed today. These formations are composed of sandstone, graywacke, shale, conglomerate, limestone and other types of rock. Some of them extend for thousands of miles, spanning whole continents. For example, the St. Peter sandstone, composed of clean quartz grains, has been traced in twenty states from California to Vermont.11 The Shinarump conglomerate in the Southwest covers some 125,000 square miles,12 and another conglomerate blanket is reported to extend from New Mexico to Saskatchewan and Alberta.13

A continental blanket of clean sandstone, before being deposited, required a steadily flowing current traversing a great distance to separate the sand from silt and gravel. A continental blanket of conglomerate required a continent-sized maelstrom of water in violent, chaotic motion to dump an ungraded mixture of material of all sizes across thousands of miles of terrain. Tremendous water action such as that which would be produced by a global flood seems to offer the only reasonable explanation for the observed facts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvial_fan

now read thisā€¦
creationrevolution.com/2012/01/the-st-peter-sandstone/
 
Gricken said:
Buffalo doesnā€™t accept anything else. Since he assumes all other science is too biased to be trusted.
Click to expand...
Really?, that is an unfair assertion. You have been on this forum for 3 months?

In fact, the vast majority of my references are mainstream science, which breaks many peoples paradigm. Stick around and yours just might change too.
 
aux1 said:
No, to the 2011 Nobel in physics. From the same site: šŸ™‚

ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March08/Frieman/Frieman3.html

Supernova brightness gives you distance.

Its redshift gives you expansion speed.

Plot one against the other. Oops, universe is accelerating.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/04/Union2.1_Hubble_slide.png
Click to expand...
You still are missing the point. Objects in the universe are not accelerating at the same rate. High Z objects are connected to low Z objects. A friend of mine tells me that the people he knows at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory no longer think redshift is what it appears to be. And there is no explanation for objects moving faster than the speed of light.

There are other questions that have no answers. Assuming a Big Bang, what did the energy explode into? Nothing? And the objects traveling at many times the speed of light, where are they going? Even the deepest view Hubble image shows faint galaxies in the distance. And astronomers still think there is not enough matter in the universe so they created dark matter out of thin air? Obviously, they havenā€™t looked at any Hubble deep space images and they have no idea how large the universe is. We might be only be able to see 2% of it.

And if I want to accelerate something, I need to add energy. So if the universe is accelerating, where is the energy coming from?

Ed šŸ™‚
 
edwest2 said:
You still are missing the point. Objects in the universe are not accelerating at the same rate. High Z objects are connected to low Z objects. A friend of mine tells me that the people he knows at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory no longer think redshift is what it appears to be. And there is no explanation for objects moving faster than the speed of light.

There are other questions that have no answers. Assuming a Big Bang, what did the energy explode into? Nothing? And the objects traveling at many times the speed of light, where are they going? Even the deepest view Hubble image shows faint galaxies in the distance. And astronomers still think there is not enough matter in the universe so they created dark matter out of thin air? Obviously, they havenā€™t looked at any Hubble deep space images and they have no idea how large the universe is. We might be only be able to see 2% of it.

And if I want to accelerate something, I need to add energy. So if the universe is accelerating, where is the energy coming from?

Ed šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
One theory is multiverses.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/
 
The theory of the big bang does not imply that the matter of the universe is expanding INTO empty space. Rather, it is that space is expanding, and consequently the space between objects becomes greater over time. Itā€™s rather like painting dots on the surface of a small balloon. When you blow up the balloon, assuming it could expand indefinitely, the space between the dots will get greater and greater and for a sentient individual located on any dot, it would appear that the other dots were all receding from him. For the big bang theory, the surface of the expanding balloon is the observable three dimensional universe; the galaxies are the dots.
 
buffalo said:
The soft tissue findings are coming in faster nowā€¦

Oh and this just in from Nature (a creationist site :rotfl:)

Embryology of Early Jurassic dinosaur from China with evidence of preserved organic remains

and then we have: :hmmm:

ā€œWe interpret the bone bed as a para-autochthonous assemblage,
formed by low-energy floodingā€ā€¦
Click to expand...
Strange that the author of the paper seems to think that the findings are 190 million years old. Youā€™ve made quote-mining an art form.
 
ngill09 said:
Strange that the author of the paper seems to think that the findings are 190 million years old. Youā€™ve made quote-mining an art form.
Click to expand...
Correct, he does. So do a few others since it HAS to be that way. (circular reasoning).

Now it is up to them to actually prove soft tissue can last 70 million years and now 190 million years. Perhaps you can.
 
buffalo said:
Correct, he does. So do a few others since it HAS to be that way. (circular reasoning).

Now it is up to them to actually prove soft tissue can last 70 million years and now 190 million years. Perhaps you can.
Click to expand...
Or you need to rethink what is meant by ā€œsoft tissueā€.

For me, I think Iā€™ll trust the people who have spent their lives researching and studying these things, rather than some anonymous guy on the internet who is bound by his interpretation of mythological texts.
 
What do you evolutionists believe about the passages in Revelation where the stars fall from heaven to the Earth?

It would seem to me that you wouldnā€™t believe this scripture, or do you still?
Also, Isaiah states that the stars will no longer show their light.

The passages can be found at: biblehub.com/revelation/6-13.htm
 
bsroufek said:
What do you evolutionists believe about the passages in Revelation where the stars fall from heaven to the Earth?

It would seem to me that you wouldnā€™t believe this scripture, or do you still?
Also, Isaiah states that the stars will no longer show their light.

The passages can be found at: biblehub.com/revelation/6-13.htm
Click to expand...
How big is a typical star relative to the earth?
 
Gricken said:
Buffalo doesnā€™t accept anything else. Since he assumes all other science is too biased to be trusted.
Click to expand...
That is the same ā€˜reasoningā€™ that assumes the Church is too biased to be trusted.

Peace,
Ed
 
JimG said:
The theory of the big bang does not imply that the matter of the universe is expanding INTO empty space. Rather, it is that space is expanding, and consequently the space between objects becomes greater over time. Itā€™s rather like painting dots on the surface of a small balloon. When you blow up the balloon, assuming it could expand indefinitely, the space between the dots will get greater and greater and for a sentient individual located on any dot, it would appear that the other dots were all receding from him. For the big bang theory, the surface of the expanding balloon is the observable three dimensional universe; the galaxies are the dots.
Click to expand...
And this balloon exists where? If it is expanding, what is it expanding into? Nothing?

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top