Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject:
Venus and Mars - post war earth?
Subject description: Yes-It hit me like a rock (Yes - that is a bump on my head)
While reading a little about planet I was stroken of Idea of Venus and Mars have been once an earthlike planets with intelegent life. Because of atmosphere which could still support life(although nnot intelegent). I believe solar system had three planets withintelegent life on it. I also believe the planet was destroyed after war.
Just a though... _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 25 Aug 2004 Location: DAS BOOT IM DER OSTSEE
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject:
By Kane...he's speaking stuff of sensical preportions.
While an interesting idea, I, personally, beleive that Mars is a planet that had life perhaps as diverse, if nor more so, as our own, though suffered a severe catastrophy, to the point of any water receeding to the ice caps, leaving the only traces of their existance in the valleys and crevaces. Of course, we cant prove this without massive paleontological excavations, something that'd be more sensible then this pointless 'drilling for nonexistant water and taking useless pictures' function all rovers on mars seem to take. _________________ PPM's Reichstrollfuherer, 236th Trollenparties brigade. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject:
Unlikely. You have to remember that we are in an ideal position around the sun to sustain carbon-based life. Any closer and it will be too hot, any further away and it will be too cold. Venus is covered in sulpur dioxide, sulphuric acid and various other sulphur-based compounds, along with carbon dioxide. This means the planet has a massive greenhouse effect, giving it a temperature of about 450 degrees celsius. Mars is simply too cold, it's about -60 degrees celsius. Even several million years ago, they would have been pretty much the same as they are now. Life on Mars is possible (just), but not sentient life.
EDIT: By the way, Mars' polar ice caps are mostly carbon dioxide, although water is trapped in them. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
They found fossil remains on Mars, but they obviously did not survive evolve into more complex lifeforms that we want to see,....or did they just abandoned the planet knowing that the plauge of humanity festers near them a few billion lightyears away!
There have been "theoretical" analysis done if life could evolve on Europa and other moons, even on Gas Giants, that may harbor some form of life, as there is evidence of water..., or at least the needed components and elements to sustain some life. but are thinking with a bias, towards life on earth, since we are carbon-based, h2o guzzling, oxygen choking organisms.
it is possible organisms may find a way to synthesis other compounds to suit their needs. Some say silicion-life is a plausiblity, but who knows if other minerals or elements exist out there in the vast cosmic dust of space that perform the same. _________________ Delirium.. QUICK_EDIT
...or did they just abandoned the planet knowing that the plauge of humanity festers near them a few billion lightyears away!
Do you know how far away that actually is? Mars is about 1 regular year away, i don't know how far that is in light years but i would guess it's not all that far, probably less than 0.1 light year.
As Carbon is the most abundant of all chemical elements it's pretty likely that all life would utilize this. The other two elements scientists think *could* also support life are silicon and lifeforms that use ammonia rather than water (water being essential to life).
Also, i doubt that any intelligent life-form would ever, and i mean ever, destroy its entire race and planet in an act of war which pretty much rules out your theory. QUICK_EDIT
They did NOT find fossils on mars - only rocks, rocks and dust - the whole 'Water' idea came from an early astronomer, who wrote that there was 'channels' on mars, incorrectly translated later to be 'canals' _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 25 Aug 2004 Location: DAS BOOT IM DER OSTSEE
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 2:06 am Post subject:
We all know Hitler has a secret base on Mars and communicates with the Reptoids to plot world domination via the tunnel to the center of the earth from Nueschwabenland. _________________ PPM's Reichstrollfuherer, 236th Trollenparties brigade. QUICK_EDIT
And if they weren't intellegent life-forms, how would they've known the existence of the other race? let alone develop weapons? (though life is impossible on mars and venus, mind)
EDIT: Plus, judging by the consistent accumilation of helium in the atmosphere, at least earth is only roughly 6000 yrs old _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 25 Aug 2004 Location: DAS BOOT IM DER OSTSEE
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 10:30 am Post subject:
Then how do you explain billions of years worth of geological data? billions, if not trilliands of organisms known to have lived before us, never having a single encounter with man...? _________________ PPM's Reichstrollfuherer, 236th Trollenparties brigade. QUICK_EDIT
Those oragnisms were either single-celled or too stupid or big to leave the planet. _________________ Comcast: Yo dawg we herd yo were downloading, so we put fail in yo modem so yo cant download while yo failin! QUICK_EDIT
And if they weren't intellegent life-forms, how would they've known the existence of the other race? let alone develop weapons? (though life is impossible on mars and venus, mind)
EDIT: Plus, judging by the consistent accumilation of helium in the atmosphere, at least earth is only roughly 6000 yrs old
6000?!! you idiot. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. There have never been any fossils found on mars. How would there have been, no excavations have ever been carried out, the only thing that's ever been there are robots that take rock samples. The only life that could have existed on mars are bacterial organisms that can survive the temperature and atmosphere. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Some say silicion-life is a plausiblity, but who knows if other minerals or elements exist out there in the vast cosmic dust of space that perform the same.
Possibility, but unlikely. For a start, silicon isn't really too common across the universe in comparison to carbon. All heavy elements occur when stars reach the ends of their life. They start depleting their hydrogen at a faster rate and, as such, heavier elements are made (usually anything up to Iron, but heavier elements may be formed). Silicon is one of those elements that doesn't appear in abundance like carbon, oxygen and hydrogen do, which is the foundation of life as we know it. Water is also a very special compound, in that it has hydrogen bonding. This means it has a higher melting point than most similar compounds. Without them, it would be more like carbon dioxide and have a melting point of about -100 degrees celsius. To my knowledge, there are no other substances that do this.
Quote:
Mars is about 1 regular year away, i don't know how far that is in light years but i would guess it's not all that far, probably less than 0.1 light year.
18 months, actually, with the fastest rockets available. At a guess, it's about 3 light-minutes from our planet (we're 8 light-minutes from the sun).
Quote:
They did NOT find fossils on mars - only rocks, rocks and dust - the whole 'Water' idea came from an early astronomer, who wrote that there was 'channels' on mars, incorrectly translated later to be 'canals'
When rocks have come from Mars in the form of meteorites, there have been chain-like shapes that have suggested organic life, but nothing more. It is possible that, once, the core of Mars was hotter (about 2 billion years ago, maybe?), hot enough to sustain life. However, I don't know enough about plate tectonics to back that up.
Quote:
EDIT: Plus, judging by the consistent accumilation of helium in the atmosphere, at least earth is only roughly 6000 yrs old
That proves nothing. Helium is very light and, as such, can have the energy to escape the atmosphere. The kinetic energy of the gas follows a probability curve that represents a bell-shape (parabola but flattens out at either end). There is always some gas that exceeds the minimum KE required to escape the gravitational pull of Earth. Since the Earth was very hot around 4 billion years ago, much of the helium would have been lost.
There is lots of other evidence proving that the Earth is older than 6000 years. For example, all the continents fit perfectly together like a jigsaw and have been slowly moving away from each other. There is no way that the plates moved as far as they did in 6000 years, especially since they move a few centimetres per year, if that.
Quote:
Mars had an atmosphere, but because his gravity were low, the atmosphere disappeared.
Mars still has an atmosphere. It has a large enough gravitational pull to keep hold of it. Only smaller objects will lose their atmosphere, like Mercury or the Moon. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
I believe that Mars did have a terrain to that of Earth's, but there are theories that the core stopped working and as such the atmosphere stripped away (thus initiating dead world procedures). Until we get there for sure, we can only speculate at what history it has. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I believe that Mars did have a terrain to that of Earth's, but there are theories that the core stopped working and as such the atmosphere stripped away (thus initiating dead world procedures). Until we get there for sure, we can only speculate at what history it has.
The thing is, if the planet was covered in water then there isn't far it can go. If it froze, then there would be lots of evidence of it on the surface of Mars. The fact that the core cooled down doesn't make gravity suddenly stop working. The gravitational force is proportional to the product of the two masses divided by distance squared. Mass doesn't decrease with cooling. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Now your just trying to think of things that fit your original hypothesis no matter how improbable or impossible. Why would there be anything in the core apart from the core itself.
Also, just for those of you who believe mars once had water on it, the south polar cap of mars is frozen water, that's not to say it ever had water on it, just ice. The north polar cap however is mainly carbon dioxide. So, it's pretty unlikely that there was ever flowing water on the surface of mars. QUICK_EDIT
That proves nothing. Helium is very light and, as such, can have the energy to escape the atmosphere. The kinetic energy of the gas follows a probability curve that represents a bell-shape (parabola but flattens out at either end). There is always some gas that exceeds the minimum KE required to escape the gravitational pull of Earth. Since the Earth was very hot around 4 billion years ago, much of the helium would have been lost.
Read this. _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Great. Someone just HAD to bring in a religion theroey to this.
It's not technically a religious theory, it just supports the view of the bible that the earth is young (about 6000 years). Of course, as with pretty much every theory pertaining to anything in the bible it contains no real critical analysis of it's own theory (i.e ok, so we provided evidence to support our theory but what about evidence that doesn't support it) conveniently skipping over such things as carbon dating and radiometric age dating which puts the age of dinosaur fossils in the millions of years. QUICK_EDIT
Scientific processes must be testable and RE testable - carbon 14 dating relies on SUPPOSITION! They dont account for the UNPREDICTABLE entering and exiting of carbon 14. Also - to test a rock - they date the soil it's in - to test the soil, they test the rock it's in - makes no sence.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
Plus, you need to know the original number, to know how long the clocks been ticking... It's all supposition - not fact.
to simplify it: I left my stop watch on for a unknown amount of time - then I took away and added unknown amounts of time from/to it- find out at what time it started.
Formula? X + X - X = ? _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Scientific processes must be testable and RE testable - carbon 14 dating relies on SUPPOSITION! They dont account for the UNPREDICTABLE entering and exiting of carbon 14.
Problem is, it's not as unpredictable as you think. Take an example i read about earlier.
You open a botle of some fizzy drink and pour it into a glass. At the start, of course, there are bubbles, lots of bubbles, far more than you could count. However, as time goes by the number of bubbles reduces until eventually they do still occur but with huge time gaps between them.
If you mapped the number of bubbles that occur versus time it's pretty easy to get a very reliable figure for the dergadation of the carbon.
Your stopwatch example is completly innacurate because it is not an unknown amount of time being taken away. QUICK_EDIT
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4
Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.
And, from my previous post:
Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old. _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
You've done nothing there but prove that the amount of carbon in something would have been different at different times. I can understand why if there is less carbon in the atmosphere when something dies it would appear younger but the examples given are nuclear testing (which is really really unlikely to affect the carbon in a million year old fossil) and the genesis flood, which unless you actually believe in the events of the bible didn't happen and so isn't much of a factor on which to base a theory and is pretty much the biggest assumption in this thread.
Perhaps if you can find time in your massively busy schedule to write out a post yourself instead of copying it from another source i might have more respect for the arguement you present. QUICK_EDIT
so you respect the argument of the person who wrote the article in the first place? And, as stated above SO MANY TIMES you CANNOT have a MILLION YEAR OLD FOSSIL. And dating ONLY works with things that were once LIVING! Evolutionists date the DEAD ROCKS which the fossil is in!
Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old!
It's got everything from anthropology, through to thermodynamics. _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject:
Quote:
All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay.
This alone proves to me that they don't know what they're talking about. This seems to miss out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS fact that particles can decay in lots of other ways, including beta decay, electron capture, gamma decay and more.
Quote:
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.23 By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies.24 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.
Wow, look at all the ancient Greek skeletons we've found, the ancient Roman skeletons, all animal skeletons and more. Obviously, if we can't find many remnants of a couple of thousand years ago, then we're not as likely to find things from longer ago.
Quote:
The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.
A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.12 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.13 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.
Relativity isn't simple, does that make it wrong?
Quote:
Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left.
False. I just calculated this myself and, if there are 100,000 C-14 nuclei, there will be 229 after 50,000 years, 0.229% of the original amount. Theoretically, that is how much C-14 will be left. Please back up your statements next time. By the way, if you're wondering how I calculated it I used:
N=Se^-λt
N is the number of particles after time t. S is the starting number and λ is the decay constant, which may be worked out by using:
t1/2=ln2/λ
Where t1/2 is the half life of the substance.
At least I back up my argument with mathematical and physical evidence, and don't rely on what one book tells me. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
All of you, quit whipping it out into the wind, for the love of god, think of it this way, Only time will tell if we truely are alone in this damned universe. _________________ ... QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 11:26 am Post subject:
I had a longer post, but the computer gave me a horrible purple screen of death. Let me summarise it:
Quote:
Yes, but all C-14 decays away in a couple ten-thousand years. The method is flawed.
You still haven't backed up this claim.
The article goes on about how the carbon dating is wrong, the obvious reason for that would be that it had a lower C-14 count than expected. Remember that radioactivity is defined as the "spontaneous, random emission of radioactive particles from the nucleus". Carbon dating isn't perfect, but if you really want to test it then get an object from about 100 years ago (something you know the age of) and perform an analysis.
You ask us to throw out carbon dating because one analysis (which could never have been accurately measured, since it's so old). You realise there are other methods for measuring older objects? This is how we know the age of the earth. I would assume they use uranium for this (U-238 has a half life of 4500 million years) and not carbon. After 60,000 years, carbon dating becomes inaccurate since the count from the carbon is indistinguishable from the background count. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
The problem is, it's not a closed system, there are many instances in the different radiometric dating methods, where Parent and daughter substances can be removed/added by heat, water, cosmic radiation, etc.
An example of which is below.
The Radiometric Dating Game wrote:
For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
www.parentcompany.com wrote:
“All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events’ or `second’ or `third events.’ ”
_________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:09 am Post subject:
Well no system is perfect. Just like the suggestion Tratos made, more bubbles could dissolve into the water or, before being opened, some bubbles could escape.
Most of physics is based on perfect systems (i.e. the ideal gas equation - PV=nRT), that doesn't make it wrong. Unless, of course, you're going to claim that the rest of physics is wrong and, as such, we should all automatically believe the universe is merely a few thousand years old, despite the fact that it is expanding and the fact that it has a temperature just above absolute zero (both of which are strong evidence to support the Big Bang)? _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
There is a closed system used to date the earth, though, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MOON AND EARTH. Laser recievers left on the moon in the apollo project have been used to measure how fast the moon is expanding it's orbit, from the earliest possible point (IE: just before the moon would be ripped apart) to now, only about 10,000 years max. and in the afore mentioned helium method 6,000 years. Evolutionary palientologists CHOOSE the date that best fits their theory, out of the many they recieve from the different methods. Evolutionists use 'circular reasoning' dating the rock to measure the soil, and dating the soil to measure the rock. C-14 dating is NOT a closed system, and can only reach up to 50,000 yrs. Radiometric dating is not closed either, and has some pretty big faults (stated in my previous post)
Yet, the helium and moon methods are simple, and pretty accurate. _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject:
Quote:
There is a closed system used to date the earth, though, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MOON AND EARTH.
That isn't closed. There are countless other objects in the Solar System that have a gravitational pull on the Moon, the Sun in particular. You've seen the Moon's surface, it is covered in craters. Each meteorite impact exerts a force on the planet and a force creates movement. This has happened over many thousand milion years, and this will slowly affect the position of the Moon. The universe isn't a very closed system at all.
Quote:
just before the moon would be ripped apart
Where do you get this crazy idea from? There isn't a place in the Earth's gravitational field where an object will be torn apart. In fact, the Moon could still orbit at about 100m above the surface, provided it is going fast enough. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject:
Quote:
It would have to be going like a bullet, the friction would slow it down after a while.
The distinct lack of much in space reduces drag/friction to a minimum. It would have to be going fast, yes, or it would be a large meteorite. However, enough will move it. Please don't forget that I mentioned the gravitational pull of other objects too.
Quote:
The result on earth would be catastrophic
Duh. I didn't realise creationists were so good at stating the obvious.
Quote:
plus, if the moon was THAT close, the atmospheric sheild would slowly rip it apart
If I flew a plane around the world continuously, it wouldn't fall to pieces because of the Earth's atmosphere. This "atmospheric sheild" idea you have here you are confusing with when objects re-enter the atmosphere. The extreme velocity of an object means that the particles in the atmosphere hit with a huge force, creating very high temperatures.
If the Moon rotated around the Earth at a low altitude, this wouldn't really happen. Imagine the atmosphere as a big piece of clingfilm or aluminium foil around a melon. If you open it and put an apple inside as well, the clingfilm will just shape itself over the apple and the melon. A similar effect would happen with the Moon and the Earth.
Quote:
EVEN if the moon started orbit a couple of CM above the earth, it would still be younger then evolution requires.
Quite possibly, I was just arguing against your false statement. Of course, the Moon didn't magically create itself and float away from the Earth, there are actual, tangible theories for how the Moon came into formation other than it just being there. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
If I flew a plane around the world continuously, it wouldn't fall to pieces because of the Earth's atmosphere. This "atmospheric sheild" idea you have here you are confusing with when objects re-enter the atmosphere. The extreme velocity of an object means that the particles in the atmosphere hit with a huge force, creating very high temperatures.
If the Moon rotated around the Earth at a low altitude, this wouldn't really happen. Imagine the atmosphere as a big piece of clingfilm or aluminium foil around a melon. If you open it and put an apple inside as well, the clingfilm will just shape itself over the apple and the melon. A similar effect would happen with the Moon and the Earth.
The friction I refer to is air, A plane has an engine, the moon uses gravity, after a while (just like a bullet) it would slow down, and earths gravity would pull it down. Even outside the atmosphere, there is a certain point, where, like sattelites, it will be travelling slowly towards earth. The moon at the moment is outside that point, and is travelling outwards.
Plus, if you think these theories are incorrect due to small disturbances along the line, then you can totally throw out the evolutionary dating methods for the earth, as they have huge holes in them, stated in my previous posts. (if you want more referances, just ask.) Go to Answers in genesis for more info.
Plus, the big bangs biggest peice of proof is 'redshift' which only proves that stars vary in distance. Not that they are moving. That is a belief.
see December 2005 - Febuary 2006 issue of Creation magazine PG 52-55. _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 8:31 am Post subject:
Quote:
Plus, the big bangs biggest peice of proof is 'redshift' which only proves that stars vary in distance. Not that they are moving. That is a belief.
Redshift (AKA the Doppler effect) proves that they're moving away. This phenomenon can be translated into reality as well. Listen to a car as it goes past. It sounds different when it's travelling towards you and away from you. This is because the waves compress or expand (depending on whether it's getting closer or further away). Redshifting follows the same principle.
There is another whopper of evidence for the Big Bang, which is called cosmic background radiation. The temperature of the universe is about 3 Kelvin, or something vaguely around that value. It is above zero, proving that something in this universe happened a long time ago that created an extremely large amount of heat that has slowly subsided.
And because, although you may not accept it, in the evolutionary state of mind (IE: we are all accidents.) Many people have been killed. What does law amount to when we're all chance? Look around you! Tiberian sun didn't make itself, and obviously so! Look at the birds! The earth itself! What makes you think that it's all chance? The chances of nothing, added to nothing, producing a big bang, which blows up something HUGE that seperates perfectly into the different minerals. And cores form, and planets shape, gas giants accumulate, and stars form. Water SOMEHOW appears, a cell forms (somehow) it reprouces EXACTLY the right amount of proteins somehow. And forms another cell, SOMEHOW they, after BILLIONS of years. The first life-form is formed. An amphibian ideally, and reproduces (somehow) and BILLIONS of years later, after ages of morphing from one thing to another, changes into man. Now, without water, we're dead, without air, we're dead, without trees and fruit and helium and protein and iron and a heart and a liver and a spleen and teeth and a brain and blood and etc. etc. etc. we'd be dead, and the process (assuming it's possible) starts over and over and over and over..... Evolution hasn't got a leg to stand on. It's a beleif. I, myself, am a 14 Yr old graphics artist, who beleives that God created the heavens and the earth. -mice16 signing out- _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject:
Quote:
What makes you think that it's all chance?
Chemical reactions are chance. They don't ALWAYS have to happen, even with the right conditions.
Radioactive decay is random, and is therefore based off chance.
Quote:
The chances of nothing, added to nothing, producing a big bang
As difficult as it is to believe, particles are continuously being created and destroyed, even in a vacuum. Besides, there didn't have to be nothing before the Big Bang, we just don't know what existed before it because the laws of physics break down, just like they go crazy inside a black hole.
Quote:
And cores form, and planets shape, gas giants accumulate, and stars form.
This is happening all the time. Stars form in planetary nebulae, and this kind of thing has been observed.
Quote:
Water SOMEHOW appears
What do you mean somehow? Hydrogen + Oxygen -> Water. It's rocket science, literally. All it takes is a bit of heat, which was ample when the Earth was being formed.
Quote:
An amphibian ideally, and reproduces
Creatures have been known to reproduce asexually, that's not exactly a problem.
Quote:
Now, without water, we're dead, without air, we're dead, without trees and fruit and helium and protein and iron and a heart and a liver and a spleen and teeth and a brain and blood and etc. etc. etc. we'd be dead
Firstly, life doesn't need oxygen to survive. Secondly, NOTHING needs helium to survive (helium is chemically inert, nothing reacts with it naturally).
So what if we're dead without the other things, that doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Quote:
Evolution hasn't got a leg to stand on. It's a beleif.
Evolution has a lot of evidence to support it. When the human race becomes too arrogant to accept that they are as insignificant as they are, then evolution won't have a leg to stand on. The universe is infinitely big, several thousand million years old and is getting bigger and older. Get over it. You're not unique. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
The formation of suns has been "observed" NEVER the formation of planets. You have shown your lack of physical knowlage when you tried to 'debunk' newtonian law!(IE: there is a gravitational barrier around the earth which would break the moon apart) PLUS particles NEVER form in a vacume with NOTHING there, you should know: 0+0=0 There has to be something there in the first place. And what about the thing it exploded? A cosmic egg, as some evolutionist would say, It would have to have sufficient mass to make all the planets in the cosmos! And, redshift actually DISproves the big bang, because, along with SDSS, proved the 'galactocetric model' and 'quantized redshifts' which are that the universe has an edge, and we are pretty close to the center. People are currently dont want to beleive someone is watching over everything they do. _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Location: Taking up space inside the TibWeb server
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject:
Mice16, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Clazzy is a college graduate. You are a seven-year-old who is copying things directly from a biased site and trying to present them as fact. When you can provide evidence for your claims, come back. Until then, stop posting opinions as fact. _________________ This mod is dead!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Venus and Mars - post war earth?
