It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

proof against early earth creation

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I have been searching for a while and have found many facts that proves to me that the earth is far beyond what the Old Testement states.

What do you guys think?

-during each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu in Japan. they die and sink to the bottom of the lake. they create a thin white layer. During the rest of the year dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. the result are alternating dark and light annual layers -- much like the annual growth rings on a tree. scientists have counted about 45,000 layers, they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. this is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 thousand years claim by creationists.

-ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice.

-the galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. this means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. this would indicate that our galaxy is much older than what creationist claim.

-Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. after an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. scientists have found that, every nuclide with a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth. nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels. the only logical explanation for these observations is that the world formed billions of years ago. There are enough long-lived nuclides still around to be still detectable. The short-lived nuclides have long since decayed and disappeared. The only exceptions to the latter are short lived nuclides which are being continuously generated by the decay of long-lived nuclides.

-Because of tides, the rotation of the earth is gradually slowing, by about 1 second every 50,000 years. about 380 million years ago, each day would have been very close to 22 hours long... There would have been about 398 days in the year. studies of rings on rugose coral fosils that were independntly estimated to be 370milion years old revealed that when they were alive, there were about 400 days in the year. this relationship has been confirmed with other coral fossils. This is good proof that the world has exsisted atleast 1third or a billion years.

-the thickness of the coral reef at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean has been measured at up to 1,380 meters. even the most optimistic coral growth rates would require that the atoll be over 130,000 years of age.

-it takes thousands of years of below freezing temps to build a 100 ft layer of permofrost. But large area in the north are permanently frozen to depths of almost one mile, this took many thousands of years to accomplish.

-radiocarbn dating of wood usin acelerator mass spectrometry, is acurate as far back as 50,000 years. the method has many wooden and textile objects to be found tens of thousands of years old.

-reversals of the earth's magnetic pole are recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom for the past 80 million years.

-The rate at which the continents are spreading apart from each other indicates that the Atlantic Ocean is about 200 million years old.

- Measurements by sensors attached to satellites shows that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year. This rate would require 4.5 billion years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is aprox the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon.(thats if they did, lets leave that to the other threads)

-Evolutionary principls applied to geology indicate that about 100 million years ago, the one land mass= Pangea was beginning to split apart so that land that would become South America and Africa drifted apart, at first the drift caused some shallow seas and a few land bridges. Later the Atlantic Ocean opened up and became gradually wider until it became the ocean that we see today. this theory would have a logical consequence in the evolution of dinosaurs. before this split in land mass took place, dinosaurs would have evolved into a variety of species which were found throughout Pangea. since 100 million years ago, when the land bridges disappeared and the seas became too deep to cross, the dinosaurs would have evolved differently in Africa and South America, due to their isolation from each other. This is precisely what has been observed in the fossil record.

Dont deny ignorance.
can someone please tell me what a logical conclusion to what all these points would equal to?


[edit on 12/11/2004 by cheeser]




posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   
They must be evidence of natural evolution !!! hence storys from the bible dating back a few thousand years have largly been misinterpreted !
"The world" or rather the known world was a much smaller place then, hence a flood that "covered the earth" may have indeed done so, but only the earth in one place, not the entire planet, which was unknown then.
likewise if noah built an arc, he may well of collected two of every animal, (given God warned him in time) but only of animals in "the world" as he knew it, i.e one place.
In this way i could go through and rationalise every story of the bible, and have no problem beleiving the folk of the time wrote as they beleived/saw/conceived of events.
Giants in the earth in those days? perhaps more robust men, taller and more solid than most came from lands unknown to the writers.
The original tellers of these storys called them giants. compare the japanese to the swedish for example, the japanese are not known as a huge people, to them the swedish (known to be tall) would be thought of as giants.
folk who beleive faith is lessened by beleiving in evolution and science facts, hold blindy to their word for word literal interpretation of the bible,
despite, commonsense telling them it dont add up.
Why would God give men the brains and eyes to discover the great complexity of life on earth and its patterns, if he wanted you to blindly beleive he just waved his mighty hand and it was done in one week, 6000yrs ago, exactly as it is today?
"let those who have ears hear and those who have eyes see" didnt he say? and let them understand who can understand!
Anyone blindly interpreting the bible as word for word literal fact is letting God down. He gave you curiosity to wonder and inquire, intelligence to learn, and eyes to see the world he created and everything in it as it is,
he did not give you these gifts to ignore in favor of blind illogical faith.
The bible is just a book, its a man made thing, written by men, no more.
look out the window, the world out there is Gods "word", everything you need to learn is out there and everything you need to learn with is your eyes and your brain ! The bible is mans word, its fallable, the earth is fact!

[edit on 063131p://34126 by instar]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:57 AM
link   


Anyone blindly interpreting the bible as word for word literal fact is letting God down. He gave you curiosity to wonder and inquire, intelligence to learn, and eyes to see the world he created and everything in it as it is,
he did not give you these gifts to ignore in favor of blind illogical faith.
The bible is just a book, its a man made thing, written by men, no more.
look out the window, the world out there is Gods "word", everything you need to learn is out there and everything you need to learn with is your eyes and your brain ! The bible is mans word, its fallable, the earth is fact!


i cant say how much i believe in that. you said it so gracefully. i have no problem with people believing in god, just people that deny the logic.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
-Evolutionary principls applied to geology indicate that about 100 million years ago, the one land mass= Pangea was beginning to split apart so that land that would become South America and Africa drifted apart,

www.amonline.net.au...
Fossil evidence shows that monotremes were once also found in South America. A platypus-like tooth that is similar to ancient Australian platypus fossils was found in Southern Argentina in 1991.
Pangea- made up of Laurasia [North America, Europe, and Asia] and Gondwanaland. Gondwanaland was what broke apart and became Antarctica, Australia and South America. Platipi are unique to australia yet a fossils suggest that it was also in South America. The platypus though is kind of an evolutionary freak.. it hasn't changed much [perhaps had no reason to] and has shrunk.
The continental drift thing.. not sure why but some sources say that it started breaking up just under 200 million years ago.
pangaea.org...
I'll keep looking [tommorow]. This stuff is facsinating.. my brain is soaking it all up.


[edit on 19-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Indeed Cheeser, faith and science need not be mutually exclusive and faith and common sense should not be either!



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   
yeah i have heard different sources here and there indication different time. ive heard 120million alot. but yet, there wouldnt of been an exact date. 124,123,413years ago the Pangea started to devide!.. i havnt a feeling it wouldnt of been like that. It would of been a very slow gradual faze which makes it harder to distinguish the starting point.
What i have also read that you might find interesting is that in the Cretaceous Period - 144-65 million years ago, there was a sudden evolutionary spurt occured and all kinds of dinosaurs arose with much diversity. The leading theory goes for Pangea break apart, creating new environments for the creatures, and getting out of the Monsoon weather. the rest speaks for itself


[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
yeah i have heard different sources here and there indication different time. ive heard 120million alot. but yet, there wouldnt of been an exact date. 124,123,413years ago the Pangea started to devide!.. i havnt a feeling it wouldnt of been like that. It would of been a very slow gradual faze which makes it harder to distinguish the starting point.

True.. they say continents move cms a year so.. it'd take a while.
Hard to pinpoint.

What i have also read that you might find interesting is that in the Cretaceous Period - 144-65 million years ago, there was a sudden evolutionary spurt occured and all kinds of dinosaurs arose with much diversity.

I'm wondering if an asteroid may have triggered this? It would be ironic.

The leading theory goes for Pangea break apart, creating new environments for the creatures, and getting out of the Monsoon weather. the rest speaks for itself

Now this really makes sense to me.. diverse enviroments- diverse species. Our planet truly is amazing.. it's a shame it's most evolved species [from our point of view] rarely gives it the respect it deserves.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
yeah your right about that, it is amazing. I wish i could of seen the whole cycle happen uptil now! like a 2hour film of our earths geological and evolution history from when our world was first created. that'd be sikim off for the nite,

*What i have also read that you might find interesting is that in the Cretaceous Period - 144-65 million years ago, there was a sudden evolutionary spurt occured and all kinds of dinosaurs arose with much diversity.* this was believed to be from pangea splitting creating all the new environments. When Pangea was around. there wasnt much variety in animal life and all the dinos were fairly ordinary- during the Triassic and Jurassic period that is. then when the super continient split. BANG

ps... why is jurassic park called that when T-Rex and most of those dino's in that movie we around in the Cretaceous.
i spose Cretaceous Park doesnt have the same ring..


[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   
what if God created the light from stars already on earth? after all, why would he wait 8 minutes for the light to reach earth from sun, just make it already on the earth. same woith the continents, and planets... if the continents are only a few thousand years old, than they havent moved much, have they?

Evidence FOR a young earth...

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
The Earth is Not Millions of Years Old

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 dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately 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. Comets disintegrate too quickly

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 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 10,000 years.3

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 (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 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. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really 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.

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.5 This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.6

The main way known to remove the mud 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. 6 As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount 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 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud 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 mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.



1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
The Earth is Not Millions of Years Old



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 dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately 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
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 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 10,000 years.3

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 (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 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. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really 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.
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.5 This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.6

The main way known to remove the mud 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. 6 As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount 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 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud 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 mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.
4. Not enough sodium in the sea

Every year, river7 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.8,9 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.9 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.9 Calculations10 for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast

The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 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.12 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.13 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 10,000 years old.1

History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.(23) Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale is much more likely

and if the earth is that old, why has the sun still got 98% of its energy left?

[edit on 19-12-2004 by yermom]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   
nice copy and paste, too bad you have no clue what you're even pasting, just as long as presents a theistic viewpoint.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
yeah your right about that, it is amazing. I wish i could of seen the whole cycle happen uptil now! like a 2hour film of our earths geological and evolution history from when our world was first created.

If I had the $ I'd definently fund it.


*What i have also read that you might find interesting is that in the Cretaceous Period - 144-65 million years ago, there was a sudden evolutionary spurt occured and all kinds of dinosaurs arose with much diversity.* this was believed to be from pangea splitting creating all the new environments. When Pangea was around. there wasnt much variety in animal life and all the dinos were fairly ordinary- during the Triassic and Jurassic period that is. then when the super continient split. BANG

I'm still trying to work out the catalyst for the break up.. volcanos? Shifting plates? Asteroid? The earth spinning? And how was Pangea what created in the first place.. I think most island masses are the result of two plates coliding to form mountains; or volcanoes forming etc.

It baffles me as to why people aren't in awe of such an amazing past.. they would rather believe in an infantile and boring wave of the hand from a guy in the sky.. underminding the miracle which is our home.

[edit on 20-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Ok,

I think I need to step in and settle this one here.

Cheeser.......you know that you are right. You accept the information given to you, and then you accept the logical processes that create that information.

Cheeser, you look at the information, and in your OWN MIND, you see the truth. You use YOUR OWN LOGIC. You question what people tell you and seek answers.

All of those in support of cheeser do the same thing.

For everyone else. You all follow blindly without any logic. You are sheep. You reject science. You reject math. You reject truth because you are afraid to think for yourself. Do you think any information that you have posted in the 5 or so recent evolution threads came from your own mind? How about the guy who claimed that entropy made evolution impossible. He just listened to someone blindly, and repeated what he heard. Even though the very principals he was stating, support the evolution theory. Same with the long post in this very thread. Someone just found a website, didn't even read it, and copied it. Blind, foolish, sheep.

What you have to realize is this. Not one of these people argued that there is no God. There may very well be a creater. That still does not mean evolution is a lie. Why would someone make up this as a lie? Where in the heck would someone just make up this theory? The person used logic and science. He didn't just make it up.

In science there are a few things we do not know...(well many, but a few relavent things). First off, what is infinity. Is it real? Or is everything finite? Our minds can't truly comprehend infinity or its true implications. Second, if the universe started, who or what started it. How long was that who or what around. Who started that? Third thing we do not know. What makes us alive and conscious? Why are the same elements that are dead in a rock, alive in us? We are made of the same materials. What is life?

What some people fail to realize, is that you are not open minded. You follow blindly what is illogical because of your fear of death. Your fear of life. Your fear of choice. If you would get your noses out of your pastors butt's, and out of your bibles, you might be smart enough to realize that the support you need as evidence for a creator isn't up his butt, or in that book. Its in science. If you want to disect science to prove your God's existence, why don't you start at the logical place?? Why don't you think for yourself? Why don't you cite the reasons listed above? The reasons that actually have some sense? Why do you still buy into the control aparatus of the roman empire. Why do you still listen to explanations give to you from people who thought the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe to such an extent that they killed people for disagreeing with it? Why do you still listen to the same people who had no scientific explanations for anything, only imagination? Why do you listen to the words that come from a book with contradictions that shake the very foundation it supposedly stands on (like whether or not we truly carry original sin from Adam and Eve...and yeah....there are places in the bible which deny that...in turn DENYING JESUS CHRIST HIS VERY SUPPOSED REASON FOR DEATH ON THE CROSS AND SUBSEQUENT MEANINGLESS OF CHRISTIANITY!!!!?) Why do you ignore these things? Why do you quote random verses from the bible together to form weird paragraphs, and then criticise those for not understanding? Foolish, foolish people.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:09 AM
link   


and if the earth is that old, why has the sun still got 98% of its energy left?

please provide where you found this information, i am intreged.
this is all i could find



How much energy is left in the Sun, and when is it expected to burn out?
Thanks for asking Dr. SOHO! As you may know, stars are vast clumps of hydrogen gas. Stars shine by fusing hydrogen into helium in their hot, dense cores. When a star of the Sun's size runs out of usable hydrogen in its core, it will "puff out" its outer layers. This will create a bubble-like planetary nebula. The Sun's interior will collapse into a tiny white dwarf star. This white dwarf will be very dense -- a 0.1 inch cube of white dwarf material would weigh half a ton on Earth. White dwarfs (dwarves?) glow with leftover heat, but they generate no new energy by themselves.

Stars much larger than the Sun can explode as a supernova. The remnants of a supernova collapse beyond the white dwarf stage and into a neutron star, or even a black hole.

Now, how much time does the Sun have left? Astronomers have never actually watched a star go through all the phases of its life cycle -- but they have made models and simulations of stars. They can also observe many stars in various stages of their evolution. Based on stellar models, we know that a star like the Sun (that is, with the Sun's brightness and mass) should shine for about nine or ten billion years.

Astronomers think the Sun is about halfway through those nine billion years. We know this through several sources: those solar models, the hydrogen- to-helium ratio of the Sun, and the geologic age of the Earth and of Moon rocks. (We think the Earth and the other planets formed at about the same time the Sun began to shine.)

So the Sun should burn for another 4 to 5 billion years. I am not sure how much energy it will consume during that time. We could make a rough guess of this energy by estimating how much mass is in the Sun's core. Solar fusion turns mass into energy via Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation.

(Now, there are some complications: the Sun will not fuse all of its core hydrogen before it stops. And it is fairly inefficient in the meantime, too!)




sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

and by the way seapeople, i believe in what you said. i have released this over my 3 weeks at ATS.

[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join