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.
And REALITY points out there wasn't.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
And REALITY points out there wasn't.
what reality?
there have been many findings on giant human skeletons and bones, even Kent Hovind has a giant femur in his museum.
there were giants in the earth and the reason they are not published is simply because it goes against the evolution theory. it really does. its totally opposite of the evolution theory, if we evolved from somethign bigger and are now getting smaller, that doesnt prove evolution so that needs to be thrown out. that is first of all, not science and is also not fair to throw out facts just because it doesnt support the theory.
as for carbon dating and other radiometric dating, they are all based on flaws and assumptions.
also the sun is shrinking. losing mass and matter.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
there have been many findings on giant human skeletons and bones, even Kent Hovind has a giant femur in his museum.
there were giants in the earth and the reason they are not published is simply because it goes against the evolution theory. it really does. its totally opposite of the evolution theory, if we evolved from somethign bigger and are now getting smaller,
as for carbon dating and other radiometric dating, they are all based on flaws and assumptions.
also the sun is shrinking. losing mass and matter.
so there is my proof, the earth is not millions of years old due to the fact that the earths magnetic field is losing strength
earths atmosphere was estimated to reach equilibrium within 30,000 years
its less than 30,000 years.
if it 'used' to be bigger the planet wouldn't be habitable and we wouldn't be here.
That is not why the sun is not shrinking. The sun cannot be said to be shrinking because the evidence does not support it as shrinking. The problem you note is the entire logic behind the creationist arguement that the world must be young; that if the sun is shrinking at such and such rate, then millions of years ago the earth'd've been destroyed; and since it wasn't, then the world is recently created.
EC, Pleas provide backup to support your contention thatthe sun is shrinking.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
dude just google it, this is one that does not take a lot of work to find. but if you want I will provide some references for you.
www.answersingenesis.org...
www.asa3.org...
www.icr.org...
im sure there are more out there for both sides of the argument. both sides of the story are presented. and I think that the only reason evolutionists refute limiting factors such as; the suns size and shrinkage, carbon 14 in the atmosphere and the magnetic field losing strength is because if they included those, evolution would not be true becasue without millions of years, the theory looks very stupid.
EC
Look near citation 13 of the ASA paper
Of particular What began as an interesting puzzle in the arena of solar astronomy has been transformed into a "proof 'for recent creation. relevance to the present discussion is the result that during the period from 1967-80 the sun exhibited an increase in diameter at the mean rate of 0.03 are second per year, equivalent to a linear rate of eight feet per hour. Since 1980 the solar diameter has remained nearly constant, with a weak suggestion of decreasing.
Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known.
In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate.
The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)
With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples.
and the results are tossed out as meaningless because they do not fit the desired result.
Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.
Originally posted by silentlonewolf
EC actually read the ASA article. You might find it amusing.
Look near citation 13 of the ASA paper
Of particular What began as an interesting puzzle in the arena of solar astronomy has been transformed into a "proof 'for recent creation. relevance to the present discussion is the result that during the period from 1967-80 the sun exhibited an increase in diameter at the mean rate of 0.03 are second per year, equivalent to a linear rate of eight feet per hour. Since 1980 the solar diameter has remained nearly constant, with a weak suggestion of decreasing.
That paper show why and how the shrinking sun myth is just that. It is also well cited I might add.
You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
Tell It Like It Is
No, we never walked with dinosaurs.
Dinosars went extinct 65 million years ago, and modern man (Homo sapiens) is 100,000 years old. There is no discussion...
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
like I asked you before. do you know for a fact that dinosaurs went extinct 65 millions years ago, or is that what you believe? there is no way to prove that. so whats your proof?
I think you confuse belief with knowledge. I don't "believe", I "think". And that is just as valid as belief.
You say there is no proof, yet you deny the proof that exists. I can select evidence to support any radical, unfounded position all day; but it's the amount of evidence in the big-picture that must be looked at.
Also, keep in mind that modern science is less than 300 years old. Of course there are problems with physics, chemistry, biology, etc....But it's science's pursuit of knowledge and fact (not truth - I don't think there is truth) that has my support. Holes and problems in science can and will be dealt with because of human curiosity - not a supernatural deity. Science changes with evidence, but too often, religion shapes evidence to fit its beliefs.
But there is a point when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and theories become accepted fact. Evolution is in this category. Among almost all scientists, evolution is accepted.
Evolution occurs whether humanity is on earth or not, but I don't "believe" religion does.