6000 year old earth

a reply to: Shane

Do you know how heavy water is? Because it happens to VERY heavy. Do you also happen to know about saturation points and how hot water needs to be to stay vaporized for so long? I'm assuming you know none of this if you are pushing the water canopy "theory".

Though it's funny to say that you doubt dissenting remarks on this non-theory just because you want to believe it. Sounds like confirmation bias to me. That is not a scientific way to go about things.

originally posted by: Shane
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.

You can believe that if you like, but it goes against science. A canopy of vapor would block out a large part of the sun rays, but the problem is that the earth wouldn't get enough energy and most of the life would die. Plus the atmospheric pressure would be enormous. The vapor canopy idea not only is a complete guess, there is no evidence for it, and it also directly contradicts what science has discovered. If there was a period in our history where we barely got any sun, there would be evidence of such.

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.

The theory is made by a Christian apologist, Kent Hovind. It's not scientific in the least and there is no research that actually supports it. Can you please link this research? All research I have seen directly conflicts with the canopy idea.

www.talkorigins.org...

objectivechristianworldview.weebly.com...

Even most Christians don't even support the ice/water canopy hypothesis anymore.

If you believe in the god of the bible, why would there need to be a vapor canopy when he could just make the water appear?

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.

This isn't a scientific link, it is a creationist propaganda site. Do you have any research done by real scientists published in accredited journals?

originally posted by: Shane

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

Isotopic decay rate has nothing to do with the relative amount of radiation falling to Earth from the Sun or other sources of radiation. Isotopic decay, better known as radioactive decay, is an inherent component of an unstable atom. The rate of decay is exponential. It is measured as mean lifetime or half life and remains constant.

The atmosphere naturally blocks certain wavelengths of radiation. Ozone, which is formed in the stratosphere, blocks harmful UV-B and UV-C radiation. Ozone is the reason why life as we know it can exist on this planet.

The canopy and its ability to block, absorb or transmit radiation is simply based on the concentration of water, ozone and carbon dioxide. Radioactive decay rates don't play any part in this process.

originally posted by: Shane
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

BTW, guess what happens when there's too much water in the atmosphere?? It rains!!!!

The amount of hydroxYL and hydroxIDE ion in the atmosphere is governed by the dissociation constant of water. Simply put, you don't have one without the other; when the two are dissociated from the water molecule, they quickly associate with oxygen to form water. So the net concentration of hydroxYL and hydroxIDE ions essentially remains constant.

But I have to say that those Creationist links remain constant - they're universally wrong and misinterpret even the most basic science.
Amazing how ignorance is tolerated.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am certainly ignorant in this area, but doesn't vapor require something to condense onto? My uncle - masters in engineering - said something like water cannot condense no matter the temperature nor pressure, if there is nothing to condense onto. I may have taken it out of context, or maybe it's applicable in another situation.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Ever see a cloud in the sky?
The atmosphere is full of condensation nuclei.

a reply to: Phage

That's these days... Why do we assume the atmosphere was identical to today's atmosphere?

a reply to: deadlyhope

It wasn't. Six thousand years ago. There wasn't as much CO2, for one thing.
So, it didn't rain before Noah?

a reply to: Phage

That's the theory, yes.

I'm not saying it's true. I've recently given up holy books as a source of information in general, I grew up believing in them but the inconsistencies are just too numerous, etc..


However, if the atmosphere was essentially... Pure? Nothing had stirred things up so much as to kick anything into the atmosphere, would it theoretically be possible that it didn't rain for a time?

a reply to: deadlyhope

Why would there be nothing to condense onto? it takes very little to do it, unless of course one is trying to say every thing was "pure" before the flood

a reply to: deadlyhope

However, if the atmosphere was essentially... Pure?

No dust. No wind. No volcanoes. No smoke.
Sure. If it floats your ark.

a reply to: Noinden

I'm talking theoretically :p I'm not actually advocating that it's truth or how things were.

Why wouldn't it be pure if there were no events to cause it to be otherwise?

If there wasn't any volcanic eruptions, meteors, etc.. What would get dust and dirt and such miles up into the air?

a reply to: Phage

Sure!

I don't actually take the stance that this is how things were, I'm just debating the validity of the possibility.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Yes theoretically. But for there to have been no nucleation sources the earth would have to not have been habitable dirt, stone, let alone life will mean there was some sort of dust in the atmosphere. No volcanoes either. No wind. NOTHING I would love to know how this happened

Oh and a note for those young earthers lurking. You know I'm NOT an atheist if we've crossed paths here before. I am not Abrahamic either.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I'm just debating the validity of the possibility.

There is no validity. It is an impossibility.

If God is all powerful why can't he puff into existence an earth that was already 4.400004 billion years old? That way both the 4.5 billion years and 6000 years age would simultaneously be correct.

No need for 1000 human yeara equaling 1 god year.

a reply to: ButsDuge

Alternatively, if God, Gods, the flying spagetti monster (perhaps I believe in all of those) created something they did it 4ish billion years back, and the bible is not an accurate record of diddly squat

originally posted by: ButsDuge
If God is all powerful why can't he puff into existence an earth that was already 4.400004 billion years old? That way both the 4.5 billion years and 6000 years age would simultaneously be correct.

No need for 1000 human yeara equaling 1 god year.

But, It wouldn't be 4.5 billion years old if it was created 6000 years ago. This would mean that god intentionally created earth making it APPEAR 4.5 billion years old, a deception to humans. It doesn't seem logical. Why would he do this? That's a lot of extra work for nothing.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Phage

That's the theory, yes.

I'm not saying it's true. I've recently given up holy books as a source of information in general, I grew up believing in them but the inconsistencies are just too numerous, etc..


However, if the atmosphere was essentially... Pure? Nothing had stirred things up so much as to kick anything into the atmosphere, would it theoretically be possible that it didn't rain for a time?

Okay... here's something for you to think about, then.

6,000 years ago is 4000 BC - the predynastic in Egypt and in Sumeria. Proto-writing appears in both these cultures at 3500 BC. There's also evidence that the Sahara of that time is mostly savannah (wet and non-desert). So you have to ask, if they'd been passing along information all that time, why didn't they write about this time of no rain? And how could you have two big groups (over a million people in each area) that spoke such different languages/

originally posted by: Byrd


Okay... here's something for you to think about, then.

6,000 years ago is 4000 BC - the predynastic in Egypt and in Sumeria. Proto-writing appears in both these cultures at 3500 BC. There's also evidence that the Sahara of that time is mostly savannah (wet and non-desert). So you have to ask, if they'd been passing along information all that time, why didn't they write about this time of no rain? And how could you have two big groups (over a million people in each area) that spoke such different languages/

As you note Byrd, the past seems to be a vague on a great many things, when it comes to relatively recent occurrences, such the Cradle of Civilization Region found in the sand dunes we see today in these areas.

And yes, why isn't there any information detailing this set in stone? Neither of the two official forms of recorded information seems to suggest anything about their "recent history" aside from those they worshiped.

Now, while I am a relatively open minded individual, some obvious historical facts about this planet do not align with what we have to work with today.

Each Species fits and conforms with it's environment. Darwin exposed some of this showing how similar groups of birds, displayed unique adaptations to the Islands they inhabited in the Pacific.

Today, we have examples of Land Mammals like the Giraffe and Elephant, which have grown to fit their environment. Both of these herbivores, eat the food found in tree tops. One has a dexterous nose, and the other an extremely long neck for foraging the tree tops.

We see how this adaptation in each of these species have assisted in the survival of these species.

SO

When considering nature in the long run, how is it we have a fossil record that depicts enormous creatures, yet expect them to have foraged in what would basically be seen today. A Dinosaur wouldn't need to have such an extreme size, if the food source was as we see today. They would have grown to fit their environment. Today, aside from the Redwoods, I don't see any evidence that trees grew larger than they grow now.

Throw in the aspects I noted earlier, and yes, this suggestive narrative could take place. Enormous food sources for enormous creatures.

Now I directed this toward you Byrd, because you may have materials to offer that speak to the Fossil Records of both the Flora and Fauna of the Old World, and may have evidence that demostrates that at some point of time, a deciduous tree grew larger than they do today.

This is just some things I have had problems understanding, and trust your assistance will aid in clarifying things a bit.

Ciao

Shane