To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9833
9832  |  9834
Subject: 
Re: Geology from Outer Space
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 20:46:10 GMT
Viewed: 
608 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR