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.

 

6000 year old earth

page: 13
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Cypress




Marble is metamorphic limestone. Any stone mason that claims they make marble is full of crap. Clearly you do not have a grasp of the most basic understanding of geology.


www.houzz.co.uk...

oh really


That link means absolutely nothing...




posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Shane

So you have evidence that the decay rate of these isotopes can change? Last I checked, the earth's environment is constantly changing, yet the decay rate does not.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Cypress




Marble is metamorphic limestone. Any stone mason that claims they make marble is full of crap. Clearly you do not have a grasp of the most basic understanding of geology.


www.houzz.co.uk...

oh really


Huh? You have no idea how to cite sources that back up your claims, do you? Not surprising coming from the guy that claimed peer review is simply your friends looking over your work, regardless of their credentials or expertise.

Marble isn't made by stone masons like concrete in a day. It is harvested and cut.

From Wiki:


Marble is a rock resulting from metamorphism of sedimentary carbonate rocks, most commonly limestone or dolomite rock. Metamorphism causes variable recrystallization of the original carbonate mineral grains. The resulting marble rock is typically composed of an interlocking mosaic of carbonate crystals. Primary sedimentary textures and structures of the original carbonate rock (protolith) have typically been modified or destroyed.

Pure white marble is the result of metamorphism of a very pure (silicate-poor) limestone or dolomite protolith. The characteristic swirls and veins of many colored marble varieties are usually due to various mineral impurities such as clay, silt, sand, iron oxides, or chert which were originally present as grains or layers in the limestone. Green coloration is often due to serpentine resulting from originally high magnesium limestone or dolostone with silica impurities. These various impurities have been mobilized and recrystallized by the intense pressure and heat of the metamorphism.


If you're talking about cultured marble, that's a different thing, which is marble ground into dust and then mixed with various other rocks and adhesives to form it into a concrete like material. The marble itself is not man made. My guess is that you are equivocating the 2 things just like you did with the stalactites. It's sad when people have to grasp at straws in order to argue a point. It just shows you are running out of excuses to fight science and only arguing out of desperation now.
edit on 4 1 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


(post by wisvol removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Ahh so you will really to me
the point remains he is not a Geological professional as you implied. He is a creationist talking about things he is nonexpert in.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I am of a faith which certain branches believe this 6kyo earth stuff. I don't. I never have. In fact when someone said this to me I remember looking at them like they had three heads. Its doesn't make sense. I mean what about dinosaurs and all the really cool things science has found. Personally I hold the view that time doesnt work the same way for God at all. Basically my thinking is for God its the past, present and future all at once. I am going to steal a quote from Doctor Who that makes complete sense to me.

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: YachiruKusajishi




Its doesn't make sense. I mean what about dinosaurs and all the really cool things science has found.


Thousands of years is a very long time, even a hundred year old thing is old.

Nobody ever said the world was millions of years old before Darwinism, precisely when noticed that finches don't make penguins.

So really, dinosaurs, rocks, and computers can be done in long times, a hundred years is a long time, a thousand years is a very long time.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

A thousand years is like the blink of an eye when looking at the age of the earth. Did you miss the link I posted about that or are you intentionally ignoring it? Determining the age of the earth had absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory. I guess it's understandable for somebody that doesn't know the difference between biochemistry and geology to equivocate the 2 fields.

Again, to assume young earth or young universe, you must ignore the following evidence:

1. Thermoluminescence dating

2. Dendrochronology

3. Oxidizable carbon ratio dating

4. Widmanstatten patterns

5. Ice core data

6. Formation and measurement of sedimentary layers that become rocks

7. Natural stalactite formation.

8. Mitochondrial Eve and genome history

9. Weathering rinds

10. Rock varnish

11. Permafrost

12. Fission track dating

13. Relativistic Jets

14. Space weathering

15. Petrified wood

16. Naica megacrystals

17. Cosmogenic nuclide dating

18. Iron-manganese nodule growth

19. Amino Acid racemization

20. Geomagnetic reversals

21. Numerous examples of long term erosion

22. Milankovitch astronomical cycles

23. Coral

24. Seabed plankton layering

25. Baptistina asteroid family

26. Continental drift

27. Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds

28. Impact craters

29. Rotation speed of the earth slowing down

30. Helioseismology

31. Radioactive decay

32. The rate in which the moon is moving away from earth

33. Gyrochronology

34. Globular clusters

35. Distant starlight reaching earth

And that's not even all of them...

rationalwiki.org...

To debunk the age of the earth/universe, you would need to debunk dozens of things on that list that all seem to correlate the same information. Personally, I'd be happy if you could debunk just 1 or 2, but we all know it ain't happening.


edit on 4 1 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Are you positive no one said the world was millions of years old? Ever read Hindu mythology?
edit on 1-4-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-4-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

faith vs science. some people need more than faith to beLIEve.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: YachiruKusajishi




Nobody ever said the world was millions of years old before Darwinism, precisely when noticed that finches don't make penguins.


The old earth idea is older than Darwin and became accepted science before he returned from his journey.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

TL : DR

you can condense that entire list to one word :

salt


or more specifically the salt beds of the cheshire plain [ UK ]



explain that with " young earth creationism "



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Do you believe the surface of the earth was destroyed and reformed during the Flood? If so, how did these limestone caves form so fast?

FYI, Gentry is not a Dr.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Don't forget the salt deposits in western Texas. They would have needed a flood of salt water about 400 miles deep and that would take about 130,000 years to evaporate.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Shane

So you have evidence that the decay rate of these isotopes can change? Last I checked, the earth's environment is constantly changing, yet the decay rate does not.


Valid remark, and if I may, it was a short offering to speak about MY OWN concerns in this matter.

I wouldn't exactly say that decay rates would change. I suggest initial contamination could be altered.

I may be wrong, but I understand that "testing" involves reading radiation levels in an item, and then calculating some measure of time that has past since the initial exposure based upon the "known decay rate".

Now, say that the idea of a Canopy Theory, or the Firmament, as outlined Biblically, or as Lore and Legends of many Ancient Peoples that speak to those who swam in the Skies, or the Fish People.

I frankly believe, there was a Canopy, which did several things, but the main concern here is that it would be another barrier between the Suns Radiation and allowing for exposure on the earth. Less radiation would skew the results greatly.

Now i know some would argue this may be some crazy notion, but researchers in the U.S. have done studies to "TEST" aspects of having such an Canopy enveloping the Earth. The main research has been directed towards the increase in Atmospheric Pressure and Oxygen Levels, and results found would see the Average Fern we know today, grow to extreme size
and would measure to what has been found in the Fossil Records. Insects also grow to extreme proportions. It also explains how creatures could have grown to the extreme size seen in the fossil record.

So, I would have to say, personally, this brings the results of Testing for the Decay Rate, into question, of some measure.

Anyways, I trust this clears up where my concern is based in, and why I have some doubts.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The following offers some of the matters that seem to indicate our past isn't anything like today.


The water vapor canopy hypothesis would neatly explain yet another observed anomaly…too much water in Earth’s upper atmosphere. NASA satellites have confirmed far more hydroxyl in the hydrosphere than current models predict. The parent molecule of hydroxyl (OH) is water (H2O). Because ultraviolet radiation from the sun breaks down water in Earth’s upper atmosphere into hydroxyl and hydrogen, a large amount of water must have previously existed. Some have proposed a constant influx of mini-comets as a source for the mysterious water, but that theory has been strongly criticized as unworkable. (Matthews, Robert, New Scientist, July, 1997, pp. 26-27.)

Another interesting feature of the early earth atmosphere was enhanced oxygen. The analysis of microscopic air bubbles trapped in fossilized tree resin gave Robert Berner of Yale and Gary Landis of the U.S. Geological Survey a glimpse into the ancient past. “The researchers clamped the amber into a vacuum chamber of a quadrupole mass spectrometer, a device that identifies the chemical composition of a substance. As the machine slowly crushed the sample, the microscopic bubbles were released, exhaling up to 100 billion molecules. These breaths disclosed some surprising evidence: the ancient air contained 50 percent more oxygen than the air today.” Landis believes that the reduction in oxygen could have led to the dinosaur’s demise. (Discover, February, 1988, p. 12.)

Other studies of air bubbles in amber have found increased pressure as well as greater oxygen levels. “One implication is that the atmospheric pressure of the Earth would have been much greater during the Cretaceous era, when the bubbles formed in the resin. A dense atmosphere could also explain how the ungainly pterosaur, with its stubby body and wing span of up to 11 meters, could have stayed airborne, he said. The spread of angiosperms, flowering plants, during the Cretaceous era could have caused the high oxygen levels reported by Berner and Landis, scientists said last week.” (Anderson, Ian, “Dinosaurs Breathed Air Rich in Oxygen,” New Scientist, vol. 116, 1987, p. 25.) A Yale study published in the March 3, 2000 issue of Science independently confirmed the high levels of oxygen present in the earth’s distant past. Some have even suggested that without such an atmosphere the relatively small lung capacity in certain dinosaurs could not have supplied their massive tissue with the needed oxygen.

In October 2006 Science Daily publicized a study led by Arizona State University staff entitled “Giant Insects Might Reign If Only There Was More Oxygen In The Air.” The article claims, “The delicate lady bug in your garden could be frighteningly large if only there was a greater concentration of oxygen in the air, a new study concludes. The study adds support to the theory that some insects were much larger during the late Paleozoic period because they had a much richer oxygen supply, said the study’s lead author Alexander Kaiser. The Paleozoic period…was a time of huge and abundant plant life and rather large insects — dragonflies had two-and-a-half-foot wing spans, for example. The air’s oxygen content was 35% during this period, compared to the 21% we breathe now, Kaiser said.” This research concurs with the biblical model of the early earth. In 2010 researchers at Arizona State University presented the results of experiments raising insects in various levels of atmospheric oxygen. Ten out of twelve varieties of insects studied decreased in size with lower oxygen. Some, like dragonflies, grew faster and became bigger in an enriched oxygen atmosphere (Science Daily, October 30, 2010.).


This was from the following link.

www.genesispark.com...

There are also valid remarks made to dismiss this, but the research noted, does actually imply things are not as they always have been.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Shane

Out of curiosity, what remarks are valid? Given it is a young earther site....



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: anton74

yup - attempting to discuss cave morjology with a YEC proponent its fooking hilarious

a reply to: anton74

appologies - i have not studied the geology of the texas salt beds - cos - i am a ` hobby ` geologist - i concentrate on things in the UK that complement my other activities



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: anton74

yup - attempting to discuss cave morjology with a YEC proponent its fooking hilarious

a reply to: anton74

appologies - i have not studied the geology of the texas salt beds - cos - i am a ` hobby ` geologist - i concentrate on things in the UK that complement my other activities


No need to apologize, if it wasn't for canal digging in the UK centuries ago where would geology be now? Geology s a hobby for me also.




top topics



 
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join