Subject:
|
Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:32:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
508 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> Basic bad science. Unwarranted extrapolation of evidence over a very • brief
> period. It's kind of like watching the tide going out, walking away, and
> declaring the seas will dry up in a year, without any understanding of the
> ocean's (or sun's) processes. Note that 1979 date and lack of follow-ups
> confirming their conclusions.
Notice, however, that in the title was "1863-1953." Measurements of the
time it took the sun to travel past the prime meridian were recorded at the
Greenwich Observatory since the early 1800's (1). Calculations were made to
convert this into horizontal measurements of the diameter of the sun. When
John Eddy tabulated this information, the general trend was that the sun was
shrinking. The Naval Observatory in Washington had been keeping similar
records, which corroborated those in Greenwich, England. Other scientists
at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland began looking into this
phenomenon also, and they coudn't help but agree with Eddy (2).
> You aren't addressing the basic point that the 10,000 year date has been
> retrofitted because the 6,000 year date has been disproven without • reorting
> to the geologic record, but we will push on.
Yeah, that's right. Personally, I have been leaning toward 6,000 years. I
guess I have been somewhat ingrained in Creationist speaking to say "6,000
to 10,000 years..."
> >
> > J.R. Norman: "The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to
> > the origin of the fishes..." (_A History of Fishes_, P.H. Greenwood
> > [editor], 3rd edition, British Museum of Natural History, London, 1975, • page
> > 343.)
>
> This is biology, not geology. The rest are the same. None of this
> addresses the age of the earth, in any case.
I was just addressing the geologic record here. Not that that's what we're
currently talking about... :]
Here's a geological creation argument. Evidence of fossil radioactivity is
seen in radiohalos (or radioactive halos). They are minute spherical zones
of color surrounding mineral crystals. They are produced by alpha particles
in the decay process Polonium. The Polonium radiohalos seem to be a
mystery, however. They have been found in biotite (a form of mica), which
in conventional geology was formed over millions of years. The Polonium in
these rocks have a half-life anywhere from 164 microseconds (Po 214) to 138
days (Po 210). However, the radiohalos could only have been formed after
the biotite had crystallized and cooled around the Polonium. That would
imply that the rocks had to crystallize and cool in less time than it would
have taken for the radiohalos to form--a matter of milliseconds for Po 214
(3)! Therefore, the biotite could not have been formed over millions of
years, but rather in milliseconds, which could only happen if the rock was
created instantaneously!
--Ryan
(1) Frazier, K., 1982. _Our Turbulent Sun_, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, pages 74-83 (Chapter 3: The Shrinking Sun).
(2) They reported their findings here: Sophia, S., O'Keefe, J., Lesh, J.R.
and Endal, A.S., 1979. "Solar constant: constraints on possible variations
derived from solar diameter measurements." _Science_, vol. 204, pages
1306-1308
(3) Gentry, R.V. "Radioactive Halos," _Annual Review of Nuclear Science_
23 (1973): pages 347-362.
Gentry, R.V. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological
Perspective," _Science_ 184 (1974): pages 62-66.
Current research is also underway to seek a better understanding of this
phenomenon.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
| (...) I did. That's a short time, astromically speaking. (...) And......? It's still basic bad science to draw the conclusions you are inmplying. (...) As I mentioned before, recorded Chinese geneaologies go back further than 6,000 years. That's why (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes: <much snippage> (...) I'm not going to take on the geological arguments, but I'll have a go at the biology if you like. I'm delighted to see references to scientific journals, which is as far as I (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
| (...) Basic bad science. Unwarranted extrapolation of evidence over a very brief period. It's kind of like watching the tide going out, walking away, and declaring the seas will dry up in a year, without any understanding of the ocean's (or sun's) (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
