Subject:
|
Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 20:46:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
516 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes:
> 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."
I did. That's a short time, astromically speaking.
> 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).
And......? It's still basic bad science to draw the conclusions you are
inmplying.
>
> > 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..."
As I mentioned before, recorded Chinese geneaologies go back further than
6,000 years. That's why the 10,000 year fudge-factor appeared.
>
> > >
> > > 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!
You just said in another message that science can't prove anything (not that
it ever truly succeeds 100%). I'll answer this if you retract the other
statement. Sorry, but I'm not going to let you have your cake and eat it,
too. You need to make up your mind. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
| Bruce Schlickbernd: (...) But that can be reconciled with 6,000 years. When one examines the early Chinese dynasties, one can find that precisely documented dynasties only go back as far as about 2000 B.C. The first true Chinese dynasty was started (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
| (...) brief (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
