AGE OF THE EARTH...

[Rebel - KGC]

Here ya go... all "earth-freaks"; your very own AGE OF THE EARTH
"pondering" or "pounding" thread. Coffee? Gonna be a LONG night...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

A big Dakota HOWDY to my amigo REBEL! Thank you for starting this thread!

So what is the TRUE age of the Earth dear readers? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

There are many scientific FACTS that support the young earth theory. Sadly, too many so-called scientists are afraid to "correct" their early published papers to reflect those facts.

As I've already written in other posts, the earth's gravity has a half-life of 1400 years. Therefore, reversing that figure, going back just 5 half-lives would mean the earth's gravity force would be 32 times stronger than it is today.

Polystrait fossils prove that it did not take 100's of thousands of years for rock strata to "build up".

Scientist's claims that the dinosaurs died out 77 million years before the "assent" of man is proved wrong by the human and dinosaur tracks being found side-by-side in rock strata. Also, by the fact that bones of dinosaurs and humans are found in the exact same layer of rock strata.

 

[Oroblanco]

Shortstack wrote

the earth's gravity has a half-life of 1400 years

Actually when you first posted that (in another thread) I meant to ask you more about it, as I have never heard this before from any source. Can you point me towards a source that says this, and explains what they mean by it? By this reckoning, in about 800 BC, gravity would have been four TIMES what it is now, which would have noticeable effects - and since they were still building in massive stone structures at that time, those huge stone blocks would be also four times as heavy. I can't see how this would work? Any pointers would be appreciated, thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. Oro, here is the info concerning earth's gravity.

QUOTE. "Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for the life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand years." UNQUOTE.

Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

 

[jonmich]

I agree shortstack!! There are not only footprints of dinos and humans side by side but there are also drawings on walls of caves and pottery done by Indians which we know are 5 to 10 thousand years old. How did they know that dinos existed and what they looked like if the dinos had died out millions of years earlier.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

YEP, "Jon"; the "side by side" tracks were found in TEXAS, I think... saw the tracks on a "pic" on the internet here... doesn't look "fake". SO... maybe the so-called "BIG FOOT", etc. are the EARLY humanoids (INTELLIGENT ANIMALS... on two legs), walking (tracking?)
along or behind the "dino"... in "soft" clay that hardened, preserving the foot-prints for us in the future.
DUNNO. Coffee?

 

[lamar]

Dear group;
The age of the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. And it's getting older every day.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

Rebel, those footprints were found in the bedrock of the Paluxi River in central Texas. The human footprints are just like you or I or anyone else would make while walking in the mud. They are not large, flatbottomed like the Yeti's or Bigfoot's (Bigfeets ) They were discovered on private property and a group of archaeologists and paleontologists were allowed in to study and document them. When this team removed the topsoil overlay from a section of the river bank, in line with the tracks, they discovered a dino track with a human footprint INSIDE of it; showing the person had come along AFTER the dino. Casts were made of this and many other tracks for further study and the tracks on top of the bank were recovered with soil to protect them from erosion. Dr. Carl Baugh of Glenrose, Texas was one of the team leaders on that project.

And, lamar, you are STILL wrong.

Jon, there are burial pots found in Peru, that have very detailed etchings of Stegosaurus with humans riding them as if they were domesticated. Man, THOSE really set the naysayers to "cackling".

 

[lamar]

Rebel, those footprints were found in the bedrock of the Paluxi River in central Texas. The human footprints are just like you or I or anyone else would make while walking in the mud. They are not large, flatbottomed like the Yeti's or Bigfoot's (Bigfeets ) They were discovered on private property and a group of archaeologists and paleontologists were allowed in to study and document them. When this team removed the topsoil overlay from a section of the river bank, in line with the tracks, they discovered a dino track with a human footprint INSIDE of it; showing the person had come along AFTER the dino. Casts were made of this and many other tracks for further study and the tracks on top of the bank were recovered with soil to protect them from erosion. Dr. Carl Baugh of Glenrose, Texas was one of the team leaders on that project.

And, lamar, you are STILL wrong.

Jon, there are burial pots found in Peru, that have very detailed etchings of Stegosaurus with humans riding them as if they were domesticated. Man, THOSE really set the naysayers to "cackling".

Dear Shortstack;
No, I am not wrong. The Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. Grapple with it and move along, please. By the way, teachers and professors have been teaching American students that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old for about the last 20 years or so.

And, the fossilized footprints of *man* at the Paluxy River site in Glen Rose, Texas are NOT footprints of man, rather they are dinosaur tracks. There also many tracks which have been modified to appear as human footprints, but they are false. Also, *Doctor* Carl Baugh is the alumnis and President of the Pacific International University, which is NOT an accredited University by ANY accredation organization in North America.

Therefore, if you've recieved your doctorate degree from Pacific International University, you will receive exactly ZERO credit hours from ANY other college or university in North America and this includes your local 2 year college. In short, the degrees from that *university* are worthless. Also, the degrees earned may NOT be used to acclaim professional status in many states, and to claim them as such is illegal.

In order for the dinosaur/man co-existence theory to have validity, dinosaur remains would need to be discovered by a RELIABLE paleontology team above the K-T boundary OR human remains would need to be discovered below the same K-T layer. Either/or would be sufficent for a dinosaur/man co-existence scenario to exist, but I wouldn't bet on it happening.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

WELCOME TO TREASURENET jonmich!

Very interesting posts amigos, thank you! As a student of geology, what I have read is in agreement with Lamar - the oldest known stones being in Quebec (if memory serves) which were over 4 billion years old, but those strange tracks which seem to be human or humanoid beside dinosaurs are sure puzzling. As for the half-life of gravity, I think this is a misunderstanding - that theory is for the Earth's magnetic field, not gravity, and science has shown that the magnetic field has cycles - it grows weaker and weaker, then reverses polarity and grows stronger, eventually starting to grow weaker again and the cycle repeats. The magnetic poles have reversed numerous times over Earth's history. I may have this all wrong of course, but if gravity is growing weaker then I have no excuse for my weight to have been increasing over the years!

If the true age of Earth is so young, how can we explain the layers of bedded sandstones, ice cores etc that seem to indicate a much older age? Is there a way to reconcile this? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

WELCOME TO TREASURENET jonmich!

Very interesting posts amigos, thank you! As a student of geology, what I have read is in agreement with Lamar - the oldest known stones being in Quebec (if memory serves) which were over 4 billion years old, but those strange tracks which seem to be human or humanoid beside dinosaurs are sure puzzling. As for the half-life of gravity, I think this is a misunderstanding - that theory is for the Earth's magnetic field, not gravity, and science has shown that the magnetic field has cycles - it grows weaker and weaker, then reverses polarity and grows stronger, eventually starting to grow weaker again and the cycle repeats. The magnetic poles have reversed numerous times over Earth's history. I may have this all wrong of course, but if gravity is growing weaker then I have no excuse for my weight to have been increasing over the years!

If the true age of Earth is so young, how can we explain the layers of bedded sandstones, ice cores etc that seem to indicate a much older age? Is there a way to reconcile this? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

Dear Oroblanco;
Gravity is not growing weaker, my friend. :-) Gravity does not get weaker like a D cell battery does. Yes, the magnetic field fluctuates all the time and yes it has switched poled countless times thus far.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

The first step is to get away from the "carbon dating" fiasco. Even the scientists will tell you that it is not reliable past the 50,000 year mark; yet they stake their "findings" on it. The key factor is there is no way to know the amount of carbon 14 the object BEGAN with and how much C-14 was added along the way. It's sort of like filling a water bucket at a faucet. If the amount of water flow is changed at different times, how can you deduce the actual "rate of fill"?

Have you noticed that the "old earthers" ignore the subjects that prove them wrong? Such as the topic of polystrait fossils? The FACT that dinosaur and human bones are found in the same strata, even though there is SUPPOSEDLY 77 million years difference in their timelines? And this is not even touching on other "younger earth" points such as the amount of Helium 4 in our atmosphere.

Papers are written about the earth's gravitational forces going through ebb and flow in strength. Yet, they don't explain HOW it is doing that? One group will tell us that the molten core of the earth is the source of the magnetic forces of the planet, then someone else's paper tells us the the gravitational forces are part of the "fabric of space". If those statements are true, then what exterior energies are acting upon the magnetic / gravitational forces that cause those ebb and flows?

The problems we all face in the area of "accepted" science theories are compounded by the rigid resistance to other ideas that form outside of the "good ole boy" science fraternity.

Did you notice that your friend lamar picked on Dr. Baugh and was quiet about Dr. Barnes? Picking what he thinks is an easy "target".

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

Dear Oroblanco;
Gravity is not growing weaker, my friend

I did not state that it was amigo. I said that I think this idea of a gravity-half-life is a misunderstanding of the magnetic field half-life, which actually goes in cycles as we have both said. There are places on Earth where gravity is weaker, and places where it is stronger, but (working from memory here and I welcome any corrections) the variations are pretty small.

Just a thought here but I would think that Earth's gravity would be very slowly increasing over time, as gravity is a function of mass, and the mass of the Earth is growing by some thousands of tons each year due to meteorites and other space debris that adds to Earth. Or do I have this wrong?

Don't geologists use other dating methods besides Carbon-14 to determine the age of rocks? As you have pointed out Shortstack - the C-14 is only usable up to around 50,000 years, beyond that it won't work. One old method was by observing the types of fossils found in the various layers of rock, of course in a 'young Earth' scenario the fossils can't be so old so that system would be contested but they do use other isotopic measurements such as an oxygen isotope. What about the ice cores? I think they had one that ran back 800,000 years, which would be far too old for the 'young Earth' theory right?

Then there is the Moon. It is moving away from the Earth, increasing it's distance by about 3.8 centimeters per year - and we have the distance from the Earth to the Moon, which we could then divide by the known rate that the Moon is moving away, and come up with a figure in years, back to the moment when the Moon was born by a violent impact of the Earth with another planet, thought to have been the size of Mars relatively speaking. Using the minimum distance of the Moon (it varies a bit) I come up with 9,555,368,421 years since that collision took place. This does not agree with the 4.5 billion age either!

Thank you for the interesting replies and in advance, hoping you will each expound on your views.
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Lamar wrote

Dear Oroblanco;
Gravity is not growing weaker, my friend

I did not state that it was amigo. I said that I think this idea of a gravity-half-life is a misunderstanding of the magnetic field half-life, which actually goes in cycles as we have both said. There are places on Earth where gravity is weaker, and places where it is stronger, but (working from memory here and I welcome any corrections) the variations are pretty small.

Just a thought here but I would think that Earth's gravity would be very slowly increasing over time, as gravity is a function of mass, and the mass of the Earth is growing by some thousands of tons each year due to meteorites and other space debris that adds to Earth. Or do I have this wrong?

Don't geologists use other dating methods besides Carbon-14 to determine the age of rocks? As you have pointed out Shortstack - the C-14 is only usable up to around 50,000 years, beyond that it won't work. One old method was by observing the types of fossils found in the various layers of rock, of course in a 'young Earth' scenario the fossils can't be so old so that system would be contested but they do use other isotopic measurements such as an oxygen isotope. What about the ice cores? I think they had one that ran back 800,000 years, which would be far too old for the 'young Earth' theory right?

Then there is the Moon. It is moving away from the Earth, increasing it's distance by about 3.8 centimeters per year - and we have the distance from the Earth to the Moon, which we could then divide by the known rate that the Moon is moving away, and come up with a figure in years, back to the moment when the Moon was born by a violent impact of the Earth with another planet, thought to have been the size of Mars relatively speaking. Using the minimum distance of the Moon (it varies a bit) I come up with 9,555,368,421 years since that collision took place. This does not agree with the 4.5 billion age either!

Thank you for the interesting replies and in advance, hoping you will each expound on your views.
Oroblanco

Dear Oroblanco;
First, if the Earth were a perfect sphere, then yes, the gravity would be the same everywhere on the face of the planet. Our Earth however, is slightly egg-shaped, which is also due to the effects of gravitation.

And yes, the Earth's gravity should be increasing ever so slightly as time passes. The Earth has mass and because of this, it tends to draw material with a lesser mass towards it, such as space dust, meteorites, etc.

To accurately ascertain the age of our planet, scientists first used radiometric dating and NOT the C-14 process. They did this by comparing extra-solar meteorite material to the oldest known Earth and moon samples. Scientists then turned their attention to tiny samples of lead-uranium rich minerals. The oldest minerals thus far examined and studied have been those from the Jack Hills area in Australia. This particular process in the radiometric field is known as the "uranium-lead" dating process. Other processes include "argon-potassium" and certain other highly specialized processes. The end results are pretty conclusive and show an error factor of about + or- 1%.

As scientists learn more about the Earth and the moon, they have come to understand better that the moon is merely a chunk of Earth blown off of Earth's surface by a giant meteorite. The current theory is that the Earth was impacted during it's very early stages of formation by a celestial body which scientists call Theia, which was probably about the size of Mars.

The impact would have then blasted enough material into orbit so the moon could form. This theory supporrts the angular momentum of the Earth and moons' interactions.

The reason why the moon is creeping away from Earth at 3.8cm annually is because of the opposing gravities. The moons' gravitational force is such that it actually slows downs the Earths' rotational orbit, which is about 0.002 per day per century. As the net result of the
conservation of angular momentum, the moon therefore is moving slowly away from Earth at the rate of 3.8 cm yearly!

We can also observe this effect by viewing the moons' *wobble* or whatever the scientific term for it is. Wait one minute, my friend. OK, it's called libration. In other words, the moon *wobbles* or *nods* and therefore we can actually observe more than 50% of the moons viewable surface. I think the actual amount of viewable surface is around 59% however it's been a while since I've seriously studied the moon, so please do not take my numbers to heart.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

please do not take my numbers to heart.

We are strictly informal here amigo - I am not going to make a big issue if anyone has a dot out of place or any kind of such minor glitch. I hope that everyone here also is as forgiving of our posts where errors are concerned for I sure make enough of them!

My example of the distance of the Moon and the rate it moves away from the Earth as a method to calculate the age of the Earth is not a sound principal - the Moon surely did not form on the very surface of the Earth but at some distance away, as the materials coagulated and took its current form. Unless that exact distance were known, this method I used to arrive at over 9 billion years is false. I was only using it to give an example of how one might calculate an age for the Earth.

There are problems in both the "old Earth" and "young Earth" theories, from my interest in geology I tend to accept the OLD Earth idea but want to hear the young Earth idea out. By comparing the evidences we can all make our own conclusions right? I had a lady tell me in no uncertain terms that the Earth is 6400 years old, and said it can be proven - but Sumerians were writing documents over 6000 years ago so it seems unlikely that all of "prehistory" (evolution of dinosaurs, extinctions, ice ages etc) could possibly have occurred in less than 400 years. I am trying to keep the door open, and appreciate the efforts being made to explain things.
Oroblanco

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Coffee?

 

[Saturna]

So what is the TRUE age of the Earth dear readers? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

There are numerous "true" ages of the Earth. Each depending on one's religion and/or beliefs.


... and each one of them is 'provable' by it's proponents.

 

[EddieR]

So what is the TRUE age of the Earth dear readers? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

There are numerous "true" ages of the Earth. Each depending on one's religion and/or beliefs.


... and each one of them is 'provable' by it's proponents.

So you want the true age of the Earth? Hang on....I'll call my mother-in-law and ask her when it was made. She was alive at the time, I think.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

LOL...