AGE OF THE EARTH...

[Old Silver]

Mr. lamar,

Just how do scientists know that the "cloud" in that photo is a cloud and not a curtain-like disc? If a disc of dust were turning toward a 90 degree angle to your view, wouldn't it APPEAR to be shrinking in size? Of course it would.

Now, the goal would be to wait and see if the "cloud" becomes narrow in one dimension, call it the "X" length (width) while remaining the same in it's "Y" length (vertical) or the opposite reference. We can debate this point again in 1,000 to 1 million years from today.

Dear Shortstack;
Because there just happens to be many different types of photography, my friend! Not only can they discern it as a gas cloud, they can tell you what the major gases and even the minor gases are. Also, there are many types of telescopes, and we are able to discern many features by using them. Also, we can take a series of photos and then analyze the photos to discern movement. From the movement we can tell what a particular gas cloud is up to and in this particular case, it's turning into a star. Therefore it's not necessary to debate this point 1,000 to 1,000,000,000 million years in the future.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Just educated guesses.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[lamar]

Mr. lamar,

Just how do scientists know that the "cloud" in that photo is a cloud and not a curtain-like disc? If a disc of dust were turning toward a 90 degree angle to your view, wouldn't it APPEAR to be shrinking in size? Of course it would.

Now, the goal would be to wait and see if the "cloud" becomes narrow in one dimension, call it the "X" length (width) while remaining the same in it's "Y" length (vertical) or the opposite reference. We can debate this point again in 1,000 to 1 million years from today.

Dear Shortstack;
Because there just happens to be many different types of photography, my friend! Not only can they discern it as a gas cloud, they can tell you what the major gases and even the minor gases are. Also, there are many types of telescopes, and we are able to discern many features by using them. Also, we can take a series of photos and then analyze the photos to discern movement. From the movement we can tell what a particular gas cloud is up to and in this particular case, it's turning into a star. Therefore it's not necessary to debate this point 1,000 to 1,000,000,000 million years in the future.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Just educated guesses.

Dear Old Silver;
Which are ininitely preferrable to UNEDUCATED guesses, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[GL]

New Earth proponents, how does rock form?

How long does wood last lying in the open or buried underground?

When was the Iron Age compared to the stone age?

Did the stone age exist?

How old are the paintings in Lascaux, France?

There are all sorts of OOPA not just these few. Some depict obvious manmade objects and cannot be reasonably explained using current science. That being true, is it possible that they can be explained scientifically provided we had the missing clues? Maybe after science advances our understanding in say another 100 years or so? In much the same way we no longer believe the Earth is flat or the sky is full of Gods and chariots?

Thanks in advance for the upcoming answers.

 

[Old Silver]

Dear Old Silver;
Which are ininitely preferrable to UNEDUCATED guesses, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Then I guess we need something more than guesses.

 

[Shortstack]

Old Silver,
Please understand, Bangers, such as lamar, consider their theories as scientific facts and the theories presented by Designers as uneducated guesses; all the while ignoring those facts and discoveries that defy cataloging by their narrow view. Such as polystrait fossils and polonium 214 halos in crystalline granite. Then, you add in population growth and other questions that point out their narrow focus and they will begin their personal attacks to cover their lack of answers.
Mr. lamar usually does not stoop to personal attacks, but WILL selectively ignore things.

And, welcome to the forum, Old Silver.

 

[Oroblanco]

Ditto, WELCOME TO TREASURENET Old Silver!

 

[lamar]

Old Silver,
Please understand, Bangers, such as lamar, consider their theories as scientific facts and the theories presented by Designers as uneducated guesses; all the while ignoring those facts and discoveries that defy cataloging by their narrow view. Such as polystrait fossils and polonium 214 halos in crystalline granite. Then, you add in population growth and other questions that point out their narrow focus and they will begin their personal attacks to cover their lack of answers.
Mr. lamar usually does not stoop to personal attacks, but WILL selectively ignore things.

And, welcome to the forum, Old Silver.

Dear Shortstack;
This is not quite accurate, my friend. I base my observations on accepted scientific theory, whereas the young Earth group tends to base their theories more on faith rather than upon facts. Look at around for a minute. Virtually EVERYTHING that you see, touch and experience is based upon very well grounded scientific principles,from the light switch you turn on to the microwave you use to thaw out your steaks, to the fridge that you store those steaks in, to the scanner used to tell you the price of that steak at the supermarket, and so on, ad infinium.

In truth, there is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, in your life which a scientific principle has not touched upon nor improved upon. This happens literally HUNDREDS of times EVERY DAY! On the other hand, those less than scientific principles which the young earth theorists use has NO BASIS in scientific fact, my friend.

I personally do not care what an individual believes as far as the age of the Earth is concerned. If you want to believe the Earth is 10,000 years old, then that's fine with me. It's not and been scientifically proved to be impossible, yet some people will continue believing this.

Also, humanoids and dinosaurs could not have possibly existed on the same planet at the same time, for one reason which I've yet to touch upon, and that is the atomosphere differential. Dinosaurs breathed much thinner air than can support humanoid life, my friend. It's a fact. Look at the fossilized remains for a bit and you may notice that without exception, all dinosaurs had very large rib cages. This was because they had huge lungs in order to process the oxygen poor air.

Also, dinosaurs cannot breathe an oxygen enriched environment for the same reason that humanoids could not survive in an oxygen poor one. Because they would be poisoned. Period. None of the designer crowd seems to take this one simple fact into consideration, but it's still a fact.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Lamar,

Where did you get the idea that dinosaurs could not breath in an oxygen rich environment?

If you are talking about the old theory that was touted for a long time, that fact has been pretty much denounced by the studies done with alligators and birds. The newest theory being that they had one-way air flow capacity, so that they could utilize air very highly concentrated, and that birds, being a descendent of dinosaur birds, actually needed the extra-rich oxygen, for flights that demanded high oxygen (like when they migrate), and alligators have the same capacity. Or am I not understanding what you saying?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ird-breath-may-explain-dinosaurs-triumph.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100114-alligators-dinosaurs-birds-lungs-breathing/

http://www.sciencentral.com/video/2009/03/25/dinosaur-bird-bones/

B

 

[Shortstack]

Dear Shortstack;
This is not quite accurate, my friend. I base my observations on accepted scientific theory, whereas the young Earth group tends to base their theories more on faith rather than upon facts. Look at around for a minute. Virtually EVERYTHING that you see, touch and experience is based upon very well grounded scientific principles,from the light switch you turn on to the microwave you use to thaw out your steaks, to the fridge that you store those steaks in, to the scanner used to tell you the price of that steak at the supermarket, and so on, ad infinium.

In truth, there is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, in your life which a scientific principle has not touched upon nor improved upon. This happens literally HUNDREDS of times EVERY DAY! On the other hand, those less than scientific principles which the young earth theorists use has NO BASIS in scientific fact, my friend.
I personally do not care what an individual believes as far as the age of the Earth is concerned. If you want to believe the Earth is 10,000 years old, then that's fine with me. It's not and been scientifically proved to be impossible, yet some people will continue believing this.

Also, humanoids and dinosaurs could not have possibly existed on the same planet at the same time, for one reason which I've yet to touch upon, and that is the atomosphere differential. Dinosaurs breathed much thinner air than can support humanoid life, my friend. It's a fact. Look at the fossilized remains for a bit and you may notice that without exception, all dinosaurs had very large rib cages. This was because they had huge lungs in order to process the oxygen poor air.

Also, dinosaurs cannot breathe an oxygen enriched environment for the same reason that humanoids could not survive in an oxygen poor one. Because they would be poisoned. Period. None of the designer crowd seems to take this one simple fact into consideration, but it's still a fact.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Mr. lamar,
I can assure you that we Young Earthers fully understand and appreciate the scientific principles all around us such as the electrical power, processed foods, etc. Why would you think otherwise. Intelligent Design requires solid physical laws to establish and uphold our very existence.

Those hugh lungs enjoyed by dinosaurs were REQUIRED for processing the needed oxygen for their cells. The earliest periods of earth's existence included a higher atmospheric pressure which helped to insure that process. That higher pressure and certain canopy conditions are why the folks in the biblical history books lived to such old ages. That was before the worldwide flood. Lifespans of hundreds of years were recorded. After the cataclysmic happenings that brought on the flood, the atmosphere was not concentrated any longer and became the basic atmospheric pressure of 29.92 psi that we enjoy (endure?) today. And that brought the end of the dinosaurs because they could not get enough oxygen for their body's requirements. After the flood is when great climatic changes began is when the earth's poles began to freeze over. Bangers blame the dinos' deaths on some gigantic meteor and / or pole shifting.

 

[Oroblanco]

I have to ask, just for clarification - under the Young Earth theory, the dinosaurs died out due to the flood? What about the Ice Age mammals <"mega-fauna"> like giant bison, mammoths and mastodons, etc? Under the Young Earth theory, were they living at the same time as the dinosaurs? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. O,
The animals you referred to as the Ice Age animals were the remnants saved by various means, such as the biblical Noah. Biblical researchers believe that Noah took either infant dinos or dino eggs on board his boat and that provided their lengthened span of existence......at least the smaller ones who were capable of adjusting to the lower atmospheric pressures and diluted oxygen content.

 

[lamar]

Mr. O,
The animals you referred to as the Ice Age animals were the remnants saved by various means, such as the biblical Noah. Biblical researchers believe that Noah took either infant dinos or dino eggs on board his boat and that provided their lengthened span of existence......at least the smaller ones who were capable of adjusting to the lower atmospheric pressures and diluted oxygen content.

Dear Shortstack;
OK, my friend, it's time to introduce some reality into the discussion. Do you happen to know know many animal species there are on Earth at this time? Around 125 MILLION, more or less. And you actually believe that Noah rounded up TWO of every species, for a total of over 250 MILLION animals and put all of them on a boat? Seriously? That must have been some other kind of a BIG boat, my friend. Realistically, not even the entire US Navy's carrier FLEET could contain a pair of every animal species on the planet, my friend. Obviously, we cannot take everything which was written in the Old Testmant LITERALLY. We need to look at it from a figuratively speaking point of view.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar,
Noah took 2 of every specie, NOT subspecies. As an example, 2 dogs does NOT mean 2 of each type of dog.......just "dog". Two birds.......not 2 of every kind of bird, but 2 birds; 2 snakes, not each type of snake; etc.
You see, too many folks confuse species and subspecies. The "Human Species" is divided into subspecies, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Each of those subspecies is divided into various regional "adjustments".

This "species" and "subspecies" was illustrated quite well back during the Spotted Owl debacle. The Spotted Owl was not endangered nor rare. The particular family of Spotted Owls that liked to live in that particular forest were mislabeled as a separate "species" which was totally WRONG. But, that is the norm in today's climate of tree hugging specialties.

As to Noah's boat. The historical record tells us that he was instructed to build his boat from Gopher wood. Well, for centuries folks thought that was a subspecies of "tree". In the last decade, biblical scholars have discovered that the term "gopher wood" simply means, "any trees available". Also, the measurements given were modelled and revealed that the design was extraordinarily stable in rough water. That's CONTRARY to that Science Channel crap that had a model sink in their water tank. If you'll notice, too, illustrations of the Ark show a boat with a rounded bow. Again, that's wrong. Blunt ends were all that were needed since the Ark had no propulsion system nor a steering mechanism.

 

[lamar]

Lamar,

Where did you get the idea that dinosaurs could not breath in an oxygen rich environment?

If you are talking about the old theory that was touted for a long time, that fact has been pretty much denounced by the studies done with alligators and birds. The newest theory being that they had one-way air flow capacity, so that they could utilize air very highly concentrated, and that birds, being a descendent of dinosaur birds, actually needed the extra-rich oxygen, for flights that demanded high oxygen (like when they migrate), and alligators have the same capacity. Or am I not understanding what you saying?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ird-breath-may-explain-dinosaurs-triumph.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100114-alligators-dinosaurs-birds-lungs-breathing/

http://www.sciencentral.com/video/2009/03/25/dinosaur-bird-bones/
B

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
TO explain in a bit more depth, recent research has proven that the Earth's atomosphere was much thinner in the beginning than it is now. This had been theorized for quite some time, because it seemed to be a long shot that oxygen was introduced to our planet from beyond our own atomosphere.

The first bacteria and plankton started giving off oxygen. This much is known because they can be reproduced in labratories at will. In fact, most liology students culture these examples because they are so easy to produce and there is so little which can go wrong with their experiments.

We now understand that during the proto-earths's formation there was less than 10% oxygen in the atomosphere and very likely much less than that rather high number. As bacterias grew into multi-cellular proto-plant life, they started consuming the huge amounts of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide in the atomosphere and excreted oxygen as a result.

As dinosaurs evolved, the earth was a seething mass of plant life, because of the rising oxygen content, and as a result of the rising oxygen content, water was also being produced from the remaining hydrogen in the atomosphere. By this time, mutli-cellular life forms were literally THRIVING on their environments and multi-celled animals were soon evolving to counteract the sharp rise in plant life.

A large number of dinosaurs were very small, however there were also very large herds of herbivores and it was these dinosaurs which consumed huge quantities of plant life, all the while excreting huge amounts of poorly eaten and poorly digested plant life. By this point, the oxygen content was on the rise, but it was still not to the point where modern types of mammals could hope to survive, therefore they did not evolve until much later in the timeline.

Evolution is an extremely odd characteristic of Earth-born life forms and it is also VERY exacting. In short, the evolutionary process will not produce a life form which is not adapted to the environment in which it lives. For instance, we know that the largest mammals are the ones which lived in areas with the largest food sources. During the age of the wooly mammoth, we know that even though it was mostly a cold weather mammal, there must have also been great amounts of plant life in order to sustain large herds of these creatures, and in fact, most of Russia had just tthe right amount of flora for them to eat.

Dinosaurs therefore ate the plant matter which was producing oxygen and the dinosaurs were also expelling huge amounts of carbon dioxide at the same time. This is natures' check and balances in motion. We also know that during the age of the dinosaurs, the oxygen content was stil very low.

By this, we can also ascertain that even if dinosaurs were capable of high speeds over long distances, this was probably not possible because of the reduced oxygen content of the era. It has been surmised that DNA scientists can reverse-engineer all animals thus far known, including extinct species such as dinosaurs, yet one of the primary concerns would be the animals' ability to survive in a modern Earth environment without genetic alterations.

The odds of actually hatching a triceratops and having it live are close to nil, simply because of a large number of factors involved, with one of those being the animals' ability to adapt to an now oxygen rich environment. Most scientists feel that it is simply not possible to do so, because of the vast environmental differences.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar,
Noah took 2 of every specie, NOT subspecies. As an example, 2 dogs does NOT mean 2 of each type of dog.......just "dog". Two birds.......not 2 of every kind of bird, but 2 birds; 2 snakes, not each type of snake; etc.
You see, too many folks confuse species and subspecies. The "Human Species" is divided into subspecies, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Each of those subspecies is divided into various regional "adjustments".

This "species" and "subspecies" was illustrated quite well back during the Spotted Owl debacle. The Spotted Owl was not endangered nor rare. The particular family of Spotted Owls that liked to live in that particular forest were mislabeled as a separate "species" which was totally WRONG. But, that is the norm in today's climate of tree hugging specialties.

As to Noah's boat. The historical record tells us that he was instructed to build his boat from Gopher wood. Well, for centuries folks thought that was a subspecies of "tree". In the last decade, biblical scholars have discovered that the term "gopher wood" simply means, "any trees available". Also, the measurements given were modelled and revealed that the design was extraordinarily stable in rough water. That's CONTRARY to that Science Channel crap that had a model sink in their water tank. If you'll notice, too, illustrations of the Ark show a boat with a rounded bow. Again, that's wrong. Blunt ends were all that were needed since the Ark had no propulsion system nor a steering mechanism.

Dear Shortstack;
We can also conclude that *sub-species* were around way before Noah built the ark my friend. The DNA profile does not lie. It simply is what it is and what it is happens to be a blueprint for life. We can take an animal, any animal and trace it's hereditary lineage way past Noah and we can see if it was an offshoot of another family member, and when it happened. This kind of throws THAT theory out of the window.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

The odds of actually hatching a triceratops and having it live are close to nil

Thank goodness! <Begin RANT>

If there WERE some chance of re-introducing long extinct species to the Earth, surely some nitwit would be trying to do it. I can't get over the nitwits trying to bring back the Mammoths. They were wiped out by natural selection, not from building a suburban development and do not belong in our world today but there are several labs working to bring them back. There are another bunch of nitwits pushing to introduce African wildlife to the North American plains too - just picture African lions, leopards and elephants trotting around loose in Kansas to get the image, and I wish I were kidding.
<\end RANT>

Sorry for the personal rant there amigos, just don't agree with some of the hare-brained ideas some folks get.
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar,
Of course the animal DNA can be traced back to before the flood. ALL animal DNA (including the human animal) can be traced back before the flood. All members of a specie, including all SUBspecies share the same basic DNA for THAT specie. The individual lines of DNA were not severed with the flood. Given just the 8 members of Noah's little family provided the "tie in " with human DNA going back to "Eve". All human DNA from the mother's side can be traced back to a single beginning. That gives an excellent example of how it's done for all of the different species.

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar,
Noah took 2 of every specie, NOT subspecies. As an example, 2 dogs does NOT mean 2 of each type of dog.......just "dog". Two birds.......not 2 of every kind of bird, but 2 birds; 2 snakes, not each type of snake; etc.
You see, too many folks confuse species and subspecies. The "Human Species" is divided into subspecies, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Each of those subspecies is divided into various regional "adjustments".

This "species" and "subspecies" was illustrated quite well back during the Spotted Owl debacle. The Spotted Owl was not endangered nor rare. The particular family of Spotted Owls that liked to live in that particular forest were mislabeled as a separate "species" which was totally WRONG. But, that is the norm in today's climate of tree hugging specialties.

As to Noah's boat. The historical record tells us that he was instructed to build his boat from Gopher wood. Well, for centuries folks thought that was a subspecies of "tree". In the last decade, biblical scholars have discovered that the term "gopher wood" simply means, "any trees available". Also, the measurements given were modelled and revealed that the design was extraordinarily stable in rough water. That's CONTRARY to that Science Channel crap that had a model sink in their water tank. If you'll notice, too, illustrations of the Ark show a boat with a rounded bow. Again, that's wrong. Blunt ends were all that were needed since the Ark had no propulsion system nor a steering mechanism.

Dear Shortstack;
I noticed a trend in that the young Earth crowd likes to take everything literally, especially pertaining to the O-T, so why does they NOT take the description of the animals that Noah put on the ark quite so literally, my friend. As I recall, the Bible does not mention species or sub-species, it merely states two of every kind of animal, and by my reckoning, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 MILLION animals.

By God, when the O-T states the Earth was created in 6 days, then bygummy bears, it was created in SIX days! Right? Righttttttttt? Not six and one half days, not five and one quarter days, but SIX days!
Therefore two of EVERY KIND of animal means two of each of ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF ANIMALS!!! Right? That works out to 250,000,000 give or take a few here and there! This is taking the Bible literally, if you take one portion of the Bible literally then you must take the ENTIRE Bible literally! And the Bible states two of EVERY KIND of animal! Now, a hound is different from a poodle, therefore they must have had hiunds AND poodles! And monkeys, and chimps and gorgillas, because they are ALL different! Right? Right!
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear Shortstack;
Even by your words, the fallacy lies in the statement, my friend. Let's suppose that Noah only took two of each TYPE of animal on the ark. OK. This would mean that Noah took two simians onboard, yet which two we don't know. OK then, let's say that he took two small ones that weren't much trouble and didn't eat much. Let's say he took a pair of spider monekys.

Now, the flood covered the earth and all animals not on the ark drowned! Period. This is eactly what the O-T states. OK, fine. So where did the gorillas, and the chimapnzees and all of the OTHER 1,500 odd *sub-species* of simians come from, if they supposedly all drowned in the flood, my friend? And we KNOW that apes can NOT swim, therefore they could not have treaded water for 40 days.

We also know that they could not have evolved in the 4,000 odd years since the flood. So, where did they come from, if they were exterminated in the flood, my friend? That question is a bit difficult to answer I'd think.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

Calm down, Mr. lamar. The word "kind" is the biblical phrase for "specie". If you'll look in Genesis, you will see that during creation, God said, "let each animal reproduce after it's own kind. That is why dogs and cats cannot breed together. They are different species of animal. You Bangers and evolutionists believe that the human species evolved from the ape species. If that were true, humans could reproduce with the apes. But, we cannot do that because we are each of different "kinds".....or species. Horses and Zebras can reproduce together because the Zebra is a subspecies of the Horse species. There was a recent story of a man in northern Alaska who was being charged with illegally killing a bear that was a cross between a Polar Bear and a Grizzly and was considered very rare due to the fact that the two sub species of bears very rarely cohabitate the same territory. They can EASILY breed together because THEY ARE BEARS; subspecies Grizzly and Polar. Different types of dogs can easily (too dang easily ) breed together; such as a Lab and a Shephard; because they are dogs.

To spell it out clearer, "dogs" are a kind, "cats" are a kind, "elephants" are a kind, "humans" are a kind, etc, etc.