20 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsScientists have their flaws but I would prefer to be marooned on a desert island with the average scientist rather than the average fundie, if you know what I mean. (do you want a tounge smiley to go with that? 🙂 )
You appear to be indoctrinated well by all the non-science writings
and theories out there. Nothing is a fact in science until it passes
the scientific methods. The main point of the scientific methods is
that to be proven a scientific fact it must be observed to occur and
must be repeatable. You are believing in conjecture as if it were fact.
I am ...[text shortened]... without question is turning out to be wrong. I
am sure there will be many more in the future.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelWould you prefer the average scientist over Jesus?
Scientists have their flaws but I would prefer to be marooned on a desert island with the average scientist rather than the average fundie, if you know what I mean. (do you want a tounge smiley to go with that? 🙂 )
21 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI am not the only one that believes the earth and the moon is not
Only 10,000 years old? You really are an idiot.
4.5 billion years old. The moon rocks that the Apollo astronauts
brought back have been carefully studied and have been found to
be virually identical to a kind of earth rock called basalt. This
discovery that the moon's surface is covered with basalt-type rock
rules out the possibility that lunar crators are more than a few
thousand years old. Geophysicist and astronomer Harold Slusher
of the University of Texas at El Paso, along with Glenn Morton and
Richard Mandock, say the viscosity of the moon rocks is on the
order of 100 million times too low to hold the craters shape for
3 or 4 billion years. They say even if the surface were made of
granite the viscosity value would be 10 million times too low to hold
the craters shape for 3 billion years.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd of course since this analysis agrees with your fairy tale, you swallow the story hook line and sinker. ANYTHING to keep your cognitive dissonance at bay.
I am not the only one that believes the earth and the moon is not
4.5 billion years old. The moon rocks that the Apollo astronauts
brought back have been carefully studied and have been found to
be virually identical to a kind of earth rock called basalt. This
discovery that the moon's surface is covered with basalt-type rock
rules out the possibilit ...[text shortened]... scosity value would be 10 million times too low to hold
the craters shape for 3 billion years.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThe source is Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock,
And of course since this analysis agrees with your fairy tale, you swallow the story hook line and sinker. ANYTHING to keep your cognitive dissonance at bay.
"The Age of Lunar Craters", Creation Research Society Quarterly 20
(September 1983): 105-108.
I am sure there must have been enough time for rebuttal by now, so do
you have any references from the evolutionary scientist? I am interested
in knowing what story they made up for this one.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsDid they present their findings in a scientific forum, or only in a religious one? If the latter, then a rebuttal may not have been made. If the former, there was either a rebuttal or they won the Nobel prize. Which is it?
I am sure there must have been enough time for rebuttal by now, so do
you have any references from the evolutionary scientist? I am interested
in knowing what story they made up for this one.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhitehead"We've found particles of fresh glass in Moon rocks that were produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago," added Norman. "The presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years. These rocks must have come from the Moon!"
Did they present their findings in a scientific forum, or only in a religious one? If the latter, then a rebuttal may not have been made. If the former, there was either a rebuttal or they won the Nobel prize. Which is it?
I have found that the reason evolutionary scientist give for the moon rocks
holding there crater shapes is due to the lack of water in the moon rocks.
A very likely possibility. So maybe the creation scientists "jumped the gun"
on this on.
21 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsCreationists jump the gun on anything they can lay their hands on. You cannot honestly call them scientists if they do not follow scientific protocols in their work - which includes not jumping guns.
So maybe the creation scientists "jumped the gun"
on this on.
If they had followed the usual channels, you would never have heard of their work because the errors in their findings would have been identified before their article was even published, or soon after. But instead of following the standard review process, they instead published their findings in a religious setting for the sole purpose of supporting their religious beliefs.
They know their findings were in error or they would have followed the normal channels in the hope of winning that Nobel prize I keep mentioning. A verified finding that the earth or the moon is only 4000 years old would guarantee not only that prize but many other such accolades. Their fame would possibly even exceed Einstein's or Newtons.
The fact that no such Nobel prizes have been awarded and no such famous scientists are known to you or I tells us without doubt that:
Nobody has yet presented evidence that has been verified using the scientific process that the earth is in the region of 4000 years old.
So you are on a futile mission looking for such evidence. Your only hope it to do the research yourself and take your findings through the scientific process. But do you think you are qualified to do better than all your fellow creationists to date? Many very well educated people have tried to disprove the Theory of Evolution and many have tried to prove a young earth. None have succeeded (via the scientific process). So ultimately anything you present (that makes either claim) in this forum can automatically be dismissed as unscientific.
21 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere is something else to consider. There is a cluster of 4 stars in the
Creationists jump the gun on anything they can lay their hands on. You cannot honestly call them scientists if they do not follow scientific protocols in their work - which includes not jumping guns.
If they had followed the usual channels, you would never have heard of their work because the errors in their findings would have been identified before the ...[text shortened]... ize but many other such accolades. Their fame would possibly even exceed Einstein's or Newtons.
Trapezium of the Orion nebula that are rapidly moving away from a
common point. The projection backward at their present speed show
their paths lead to a common point of origin only about 10,000 years
ago. According to Slusher, this raises the question as to whether the
creation itself should be considered more than 10,000 years ago.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsCan you give the names of the stars and any reference that supports what you said?
Here is something else to consider. There is a cluster of 4 stars in the
Trapezium of the Orion nebula that are rapidly moving away from a
common point. The projection backward at their present speed show
their paths lead to a common point of origin only about 10,000 years
ago. According to Slusher, this raises the question as to whether the
creation itself should be considered more than 10,000 years ago.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy would it have any effect on your beliefs as to when the creation was?
According to Slusher, this raises the question as to whether the
creation itself should be considered more than 10,000 years ago.
Are you saying they could not have come from a common point after the creation, or that they must have come from a common point after the creation?
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWikipedia says the "Trapezium" is actually eight stars, some of which are binaries. It also says that it is over 1000 light years away so anything you see happening happened over 1000 years ago.
There is a cluster of 4 stars in the Trapezium of the Orion nebula that are rapidly moving away from a
common point.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not sure what slusher is saying unless He believes the Holy Bible
Why would it have any effect on your beliefs as to when the creation was?
Are you saying they could not have come from a common point after the creation, or that they must have come from a common point after the creation?
account that stars where created in the beginning with the rest of the
universe at the same time. But here is another mystery concerning a
star named Sirius B, a white dwarf. Egyptian hieroglyphs from about
2000 B.C describe Sirius as red. Cicero, writing in 50 B.C. stated that
Sirius was red. Seneca described Sirius as redder than Mars, which he
in turn said was redder than Juptier. The early astronomer Ptolemy in
150 A.D. listed Sirius as one of six red stars. The mystery of Sirius B
is that according to present conception of thermonuclear star radiation
it should take at least 100,000 years for a red giant star to collapse
into a white dwarf star.
21 Jun 11
Here is another interesting discovery by Barry Setterfield that in his
study of the speed of light he found that the first determination was
reported in 1675 by the Danish astronomer Roemer. After checking
all the determinations up to the present he discovered that the speed
of light had been faster in the past than it is today. He put all this
information together to graph a curve of the observed light-speed
measurements. This was to enable hime to project back what the
speed was at earlier times. This projection to him indicated the
origin of the universe was about 6,000 years ago. This may or may
not be so, but since the radioactive-dating methods is directly related
to the speed of light, this means that all dating calculations must be
corrected to account for the ever-decreasing value of the speed of
light. When this is done, all radioactive dates fall within a time frame
of a few thousand years. The corroborations of Setterfield's work is
said to be piling up.