How Old is Earth? 6,000 Yrs or 6 Billion Yrs...Or?

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HumanitiesLastHope
 

Great video.

Many things that I was not aware of or just didn't think about.
I started watching one of his debates as well, this guy really can make his point.
Thanks for sharing,
Quad


no problem I'm glad I could help. He definitely has lots of interesting information.




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

so your a string theorist or an M-theorist?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by gnosticagnostic
 

String is more likely but it is not verifiable yet. I am a believer in a Multiverse as the Math dictates that this must exist. There has never been a case in History where the Math showed something to exist and it was proven not to.
Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
The answer to this is...well...both...

The answer is found in time dilation and relativity...

Time is not constant. Time is affected by velocity and gravity...and also the stretching of the Universe...


knowing this...along with the generally accepted big bang theory....and understanding the point of references used to calculate the age of the Universe both scientifically(humans frame of reference) and biblically(God's frame of reference) will hopefully shed some light on the subject...

A2D



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
answer to your question, the present translation says around 6000, but that's because the translation is bogus.
The material over at:
www.thechronicleproject.org...
shows the corrected translation, which shows the universe and earth had been around a very long time at that Genesis was just the time that earth was brought into the group of already developed planets.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
The answer to this is...well...both...

The answer is found in time dilation and relativity...

Time is not constant. Time is affected by velocity and gravity...and also the stretching of the Universe...


knowing this...along with the generally accepted big bang theory....and understanding the point of references used to calculate the age of the Universe both scientifically(humans frame of reference) and biblically(God's frame of reference) will hopefully shed some light on the subject...

A2D
i concur... thank you for putting it in words others can understand .. it was 2 am last night and one should never post when your halfway asleep lol



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosticagnostic
 


Yeah I completely understand. I was sitting here thinking of how I could explain it and still have people understand to a certain degree...It's completely mind blowing at first...but as long as you can stand a BIT(lol) of physics...you'll get it in no time.

A2D



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
YEC is pretty much people adding up lineages from the bible. It's all bogus, though because they claim people could live for a thousand years back then. There's no evidence at all to suggest this. Kent Hovind has been debunked numerous times (just search Hovind debunk on google. It's well explained), and he's in jail for fraud. People need to stop referencing his deceptive unscientific videos. The guy is a good speaker and can be entertaining, but that doesn't mean he's speaking the truth. YEC is beyond debunked at this point. Only religious extremists and fundamentalists even consider it. Most religious folk know that science matters and don't just throw it out the window for their literalistic interpretation of an ancient story book. If you prefer to live under a rock devoid of all scientific knowledge and technology that is your prerogative, but don't try to pollute young minds with utter nonsense and claim its proven and true. It's not even close. Basic science 101 proves the earth is much older than 10,000 years.

My favorite Hovind quote? "Believing evolution is like believing your grandfather is a rock!"

edit on 20-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
When it comes to issues of moral/spiritual "reality" ask your priest/minister/rabbi/imam. When it comes to physical reality (geology/astrophysics/hydrodynamics/botany/chemistry/biology, etc.), consult a scientist. To a religious literalist the word "allegory" evokes a blank stare.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Well its not that they think the earth is only 6,000 years old, there are timelines that predate the bible. What those are and how far, I don't know. The earth is said to be around 4.2 billion years old.

Humans have been recently found to be more than 200,000 years old by dating our mtDNA. You can wiki that and read it for yourself.

The problem is that they are intentionally witholding our true age, what they say is that we know we have a common ancestor that dates back to 200,000 which obviously destroys any credible meaning to any religion, and that this does add more credibility to the idea of evolution but we will need to turn to new pioneering ways to figure out more.

The wiki also explains they mapped out the entire genome, which means they know how old we are, but aren't letting us know. IMO the ONLY reason they would do such a thing is because announcing the find would make them look stupid. IMO our mtDNA has revealed that our true age is much older than earth, and of course they can't announce that, they would appear to be dumb, and the whole idea of mtDNA research would go out the window with it.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well from what I know about mtDNA testing is that they traced the earliest (obviously female) genetic mutation back to Africa some 180,000 years ago...don't know anything about the 200,000 but yeah...

Now, this is a perculiar question...but...let's see if you can answer it.

IF we get our mtDNA maternally....that is, from mother only....would they be able to trace all the various mutations that have occurred back in time to that point in history they think the first hominoids came to exist...and perhaps tell us, based off how many differences in mtDNA still exist at that point, how many females there were?

For example, if there were initially 3 female hominoids, they would have 3 different mtDNA codes correct? Could they use mtDNA mutation rates to verify?...

IDK what the hell I'm aiming for anymore...I just want to know how many f'n females there were in the beginning damnit!

A2D



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





IF we get our mtDNA maternally....that is, from mother only....would they be able to trace all the various mutations that have occurred back in time to that point in history
No because mtDNA only holds a limited selection of DNA, its not the full genome.




For example, if there were initially 3 female hominoids, they would have 3 different mtDNA codes correct? Could they use mtDNA mutation rates to verify?...
Well they are able to identify a common ancestor.




IDK what the hell I'm aiming for anymore...I just want to know how many f'n females there were in the beginning damnit!
Interesting question. .. Well the article claims our race never fell below tens of thousands.

Click here



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

This is complete nonsense. The rate at which Earth Core is COOLING HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EARTHS EXPOSURE TO SOLAR RADIATION. I cannot even BELIEVE that you would state this!

Earth rate of interior cores Cooling has to do with the amount of Mass that is present in a Celestial Body such as Earth...the Gravitational Effect of a Celestial Body that is generated by any other Celestial Bodies Gravitational Interaction with the other in this case...Earth's interaction with the Moon and the Sun as well as Venus and Mars and even the other Planets to a much smaller extent.

As in the case of Mars which has had it's core cooled to such an extent that it no longer has a Liquid Metal Exterior Core Spinning which is the source and mechanism which creates a Planets EM Field. Since Mars' core no longer spins it has no EM Field and thus Mars' Oceans were burned off or specifically had the Liquid Water changed chemically by Solar Radiation as H20 was split into H2 and O by the bombardment of Solar Radiation.

The thought that Solar Radiation could HEAT THE INTERIOR CORE OF EARTH or that the ratio of Earths Spinning Liquid Metal cores ongoing cooling is dependent upon the amount or changing of Solar Radiation bombardment by the Sun due to Earth changing distance to the Sun in it's elliptical orbit IS FANTASY!

The reason why Earth still has a Spinning Liquid Metal Core as apposed to Mars is that Earth not only has a greater amount of mass but it also underwent certain events such as during the early development of our planet a Moon Sized Celestial Body collided with Earth and was absorbed into the Earth creating both greater mass as well as increasing overall temps. and increasing the size and temp. of the then Super Heated Liquid Metal Core to a point that it allowed Earth both the amount of mass thus an increase in Gravitational Compression upon the core which of course increased core temps.

The AGE of Earth and the time passed that be calculated by a wide variety of means such as Isotopes decay, the age of our Sun based on calculations of the amount of Hydrogen that has been fused into Helium by examining Solar Light Frequency...allows us to calculate the Earths age to a very close actual number of years.

The Earth is 4.54 Billion Years Old with a Plus or Minus of less than 1% of those Years. The Age of our Sun is 4.57 Billion Years with a Plus or Minus even smaller then that of Earths Age Calculation. These Calculations are done by Radioactive Decay of an Elements Isotopes. This decay and calculation is based of the PHYSICS THAT ARE NATURAL TO OUR UNIVERSE and they cannot be challenged as if this was incorrect...we could not exist.

So there we have it...it is IMPOSSIBLE for Earth to be only 6000 years old or less. For anyone to dispute this is not only illogical but also the same as saying that the Physics that Govern our Universe are different here on Earth than anywhere else in the Universe....THEY ARE NOT! Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

This is complete nonsense. The rate at which Earth Core is COOLING HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EARTHS EXPOSURE TO SOLAR RADIATION. I cannot even BELIEVE that you would state this!

Earth rate of interior cores Cooling has to do with the amount of Mass that is present in a Celestial Body such as Earth...the Gravitational Effect of a Celestial Body that is generated by any other Celestial Bodies Gravitational Interaction with the other in this case...Earth's interaction with the Moon and the Sun as well as Venus and Mars and even the other Planets to a much smaller extent.

As in the case of Mars which has had it's core cooled to such an extent that it no longer has a Liquid Metal Exterior Core Spinning which is the source and mechanism which creates a Planets EM Field. Since Mars' core no longer spins it has no EM Field and thus Mars' Oceans were burned off or specifically had the Liquid Water changed chemically by Solar Radiation as H20 was split into H2 and O by the bombardment of Solar Radiation.

The thought that Solar Radiation could HEAT THE INTERIOR CORE OF EARTH or that the ratio of Earths Spinning Liquid Metal cores ongoing cooling is dependent upon the amount or changing of Solar Radiation bombardment by the Sun due to Earth changing distance to the Sun in it's elliptical orbit IS FANTASY!

The reason why Earth still has a Spinning Liquid Metal Core as apposed to Mars is that Earth not only has a greater amount of mass but it also underwent certain events such as during the early development of our planet a Moon Sized Celestial Body collided with Earth and was absorbed into the Earth creating both greater mass as well as increasing overall temps. and increasing the size and temp. of the then Super Heated Liquid Metal Core to a point that it allowed Earth both the amount of mass thus an increase in Gravitational Compression upon the core which of course increased core temps.

The AGE of Earth and the time passed that be calculated by a wide variety of means such as Isotopes decay, the age of our Sun based on calculations of the amount of Hydrogen that has been fused into Helium by examining Solar Light Frequency...allows us to calculate the Earths age to a very close actual number of years.

The Earth is 4.54 Billion Years Old with a Plus or Minus of less than 1% of those Years. The Age of our Sun is 4.57 Billion Years with a Plus or Minus even smaller then that of Earths Age Calculation. These Calculations are done by Radioactive Decay of an Elements Isotopes. This decay and calculation is based of the PHYSICS THAT ARE NATURAL TO OUR UNIVERSE and they cannot be challenged as if this was incorrect...we could not exist.

So there we have it...it is IMPOSSIBLE for Earth to be only 6000 years old or less. For anyone to dispute this is not only illogical but also the same as saying that the Physics that Govern our Universe are different here on Earth than anywhere else in the Universe....THEY ARE NOT! Split Infinity





Okay. And we thought that radioactive decay was constant too.....and that it couldn't possibly be affected by solar neutrinos...but that appears to be what happens.

Now...The core of the Earth primarily produces heat via radioactive decay...Yes? If solar neutrinos slow the rate of radioactive decay, they also slow the production of heat..meaning...COOLING.

A2D



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Okay. And we thought that radioactive decay was constant too.....and that it couldn't possibly be affected by solar neutrinos...but that appears to be what happens.

They're not certain what's causing the cyclic variation in radioactive decay rates. Just that it correlates to the rotation of the sun.


Now...The core of the Earth primarily produces heat via radioactive decay...Yes? If solar neutrinos slow the rate of radioactive decay, they also slow the production of heat..meaning...COOLING.

Except that the changes in decay rates have been shown to be cyclic, meaning that when averaged over time they are effectively constant i.e. they speed up for a couple of days, then they slow down for a couple of days, then they speed up for a couple of days, etc. Further, if you read the published literature on this phenomenon, the variations in decay rate are on the order of fractions of a percent at their minima and maxima, a matter of months over half lives that are on the order of millennia.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Why!! Because the fail is strong with these ones.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I found this article to be interesting. Sorry if it has already been posted..

t's a mystery that presented itself unexpectedly: The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.
Is this possible? Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.
There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. "That would be truly remarkable," said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.
The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.

The article goes on to say....

"It's an effect that no one yet understands," agreed Sturrock.
"Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.
" If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," Sturrock said.

phys.org...
Quad

edit on 23-11-2012 by Quadrivium because: added link



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I myself was brought up in the Christian faith, accepted Jesus, Baptism the whole ball of wax. But as I got older and read books like "The dragons of eden", (read all the Carl Sagan books) watched Cosmos, read more, went to college read even more, went in the US Navy learned even more-went more places...etc. etc. blah blah blah...things started to fall into place in my head.

It just seems to me that after all the years I've been on this planet, that most religions are full of crap. Thats what I've learned, out of everything I've seen up to this exact point. Just like an "early earth" 6000-10,000 years old! to me, it screams Crap!!


Religion (people that preach this, teach this, push this) can be evil as hell. There you go. Hell.

edit on 23-11-2012 by RUFFREADY because: spelin of cores



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


You're right they are not certain what is causing the phenomena. But the only thing they can really postulate that fits into any modern theories would either be A) solar neutrinos or B) an unknown particle emitted from the sun.

As far as the decay rates only varying "miniscule" amounts...it doesn't matter at all how much they vary, but that they vary AT ALL. We thought decay rates were constant...we're now proven wrong. What kind of implication does that have? What if decay rates varied greatly in the past....What if the amount of solar neutrinos, or "particle X", bombarding the planet were increased 100 fold....

No one knows for sure what exactly may have an impact on decay rates...but now that we know they are not "constant" by any means of the word...it opens the door for more research to be done to find out what exactly does[affect decay rates....]

I'm merely pointing out that once you think you got a handle on this Universe...it throws your *** a curveball...We don't know 1% of what there is to know...and even what we think we know, may be wrong....

A2D





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join