Mickey O'Neil
Active Member
So was the first chapter in the Book of Genesis.
if god existed
- Thread starter halfloaf
- Start date
So was the first chapter in the Book of Genesis.
jonblaze420
Well-Known Member
Yeah there's more than just the dust on the moon that made me think twice. There's a whole lot of things that make me ponder how young the earth is.
I apologize for giving you incorrect data, too. Here's the Sun problem.
"
3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. [SUP]9,10,11,12 [/SUP]Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests. See also: Global Warming - Is the Sun to Blame?, The Young Faint Sun Paradox, and Speedy Star changes Baffle Long-Agers "
I apologize for giving you incorrect data, too. Here's the Sun problem.
"
3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. [SUP]9,10,11,12 [/SUP]Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests. See also: Global Warming - Is the Sun to Blame?, The Young Faint Sun Paradox, and Speedy Star changes Baffle Long-Agers "
jonblaze420
Well-Known Member
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field:
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth. [SUP]23,24,25,26 [/SUP]In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is quite young, and suggests that the earth itself is also young.
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth. [SUP]23,24,25,26 [/SUP]In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is quite young, and suggests that the earth itself is also young.
The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are quoted below.
<continued here> http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
<continued here> http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
jonblaze420
Well-Known Member
mysunnyboy
Well-Known Member
where's Bricktop when you need him?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Sent me back to Google. The solar shrinkage question is still wide open, and the shrinkage estimate you mentioned is by no means widely accepted. The precision of the old measurements is a key to this question, and it is disputed. Let's assume the sun actually did shrink that much in 400 years. The easiest thing to do is draw the best straight line through the data points, but that embodies a huge assumption. There's no way to exclude a slow cycle of solar diameter with a period of hundreds to thousands of years. But more likely imo is random and systematic error in the data that suggest rapid shrinkage. cn
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v331/n6155/abs/331421a0.html
jonblaze420
Well-Known Member
To Mysunnyboy,
I had to look up a website debunking these claims for him (bricktop), and now I'll debunk them. (I assume he's the resident debunker or something.)
1. The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!
That's not a great debunkment though. In fact, that argument is ludicrous because the idea that if the sun if the sun shrank that much less than in the last 100 years, in the past supposed 4.5 billion years, in itself, is crazier than supposing the sun shrinks at a constant and continual rate.
I had to look up a website debunking these claims for him (bricktop), and now I'll debunk them. (I assume he's the resident debunker or something.)
1. The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!
That's not a great debunkment though. In fact, that argument is ludicrous because the idea that if the sun if the sun shrank that much less than in the last 100 years, in the past supposed 4.5 billion years, in itself, is crazier than supposing the sun shrinks at a constant and continual rate.
Daxus
Active Member
Completely depends on the size, shape and way the Universe works. I watched an interesting "Through the Wormhole" about the shape of the universe that had some really good ideas but it's all conjecture when it comes down to it. I'd like the comparison that was made in regard to it working much like the asteroids video game. Go out one side come in the opposite.
halfloaf
Active Member
how the funk so are all the measurements done with the same instrament if not its shite.got a bit of string used a meter stick to measure it it was half a meter then i thought what about milameters and found out i was wrong by 20mm why difrent measuring devices
jonblaze420
Well-Known Member
That's a great story. I recommend you keep it in your repertoire for entertaining guests in the near future!
"I once was measuring a meter stick with a string..."
BTW I'm joking man. You're a funny guy.
jonblaze420
Well-Known Member
You are a spiritual being. Your body is your container. We are inter-dimensional beings, and more than our bodies, bruvvah.
Daxus
Active Member
If they have, they haven't got enough proof to convince other people, or they chock it up to divine intervention letting them see it happen and that's why no one else did.
halfloaf
Active Member
well several hundred years ago the instruments would not have given an acurate reading compared to ones today do you agree if i measure the string with somthing more acurate i would get a better measurment so i usume the person that first measured the sun did not use the sam instrument as the last person
jonblaze420
Well-Known Member
The whole sun measurement thing only got started in and or around the last 400 years. I think that for sure, in the last 100 years or so, the devices doing the measuring were all of the same type.
Hope I helped.
Hope I helped.
halfloaf
Active Member
what proof did they have when they promised use redempion and a place in heaven
jonblaze420
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
