Mageth

PetriFB, hello and a cordial welcome.

You should perhaps browse the following site (on Answers in Genesis):

Arguments we think Creationists should not use

Among them:

‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’.

PetriFB

Ty a lot Mageth.................. :wave:

Vorkosigan

Don't be silly. At Infidels I am the least of the knowledgeable. CX, Toto, spin, Peter Kirby, and several others know a lot more than I, as do a couple of our present and former theist posters. I only know where to look.

You really ought to check out our Bible Crit and History forum.

Vorkosigan

Petri, that character for boat dates from medieval times. The ancient character for boat is completely different. The "eight" radical and the "mouth" radical are there to represent the sound of the character, and have nothing to do with its meaning.

Once again, that character is less than 1500 years old, and has nothing to with the Flood of Noah. I suggest you sit down with the section on Nautics in Needham's Science and Civilization in China. You will find that the character in question comes from the word for "rudder" and actually represented a boat with a rudder, not any boat. Only after several centuries of use did it come to represent "boat" in general.

Vorkosigan

PetriFB

In Chinese literature system ship symbol describes a boat, where there is eight persons in other words just same number as in the ark of Noah! In the same way character flood has figure eight! It can't be certainly accident, that same number eight is connected both to ship symbol and flood. This connection is because of also the Chinese have been preserved traditional knowledge from same global flood as other nations.

To me preceding sentences is sufficient proof on behalf of the Flood.

One of the mark from the short age of solar system are comets which goes around to sun. In that whenever these comets go arounds to sun along their track, part from their bulk evaporates away because vicinity of the sun. They lose then large part from their material.

So has been calculated, that most from the comets, which before are known being much more, evaporates to be dust about 10,000 years. In other words this would mean, that comets shouldn't be even exist, if they would be hundreds of thousands or of million years old - not to mention even from the billion years, which would be many times longer. Current existence of these comets is indeed enigma, which is not properly solved.

Birth of the new comets is not any sure proofs, even though their is explained born someplace outside the solar system some icy stock, were they then start to move.

Firstly from this kind of store is not any information - only theories of year millions or- of billion years aged macrocosm demanded such explanation than icy stocks. And secondly, even though this kind of store would be existing, so how these pieces could move? Of course they could not move themselves anywhere, but on the contrary they would remain in one place all the time and eternally. Only someone visiting star could move those, but because the tracks of the comets don't reach very afar outside the solar system, so is also this impossible.

Only conclusion thus is, that not current moving of the comets would be in any way possible, if solar system really would be 5 billion years old.


One of the mark from that, that earth can't be very old, is decisive weakening of its magnetic field. In that magnetic field of the earth, which reaches always outside of the moon track, has been observed, that it lost half from its strength always between 1400 years; in other words 1400 years ago magnetic field of the earth must be 2 times more powerful than current. These observations from the change of the magnetic field are based very accurate measurements, which have been made almost 170 year time. (Example. in the article of Uusi Suomi magazine, which name is " magnetic field of the earth reduces continually, 26.2.1990, and that article is also told, that: " The strength of magnetic field in the year 1200 strength was 1,4 and two hundred year later 0,8. The observations indicate also to us, that decrement has continued during the last hundred year. .. The decrement has been under 1 permillage per year, it has changed between 0,7 - 0,5 . ..").

So if the magnetic field of the earth has weakened all the time with same speed and equal quickly, it would mean following strength of the fields in past. These numbers indicate, that earth can't be at least not hundreds of thousands of years old, not to mention from the million or from the billion years. The numbers also indicate, that if globe might have been exist for example only 50,000 years ago, would strength of the field then been as white dwarf star. This set also certainly own borders to the age of the globe.


1400 years then - 2-times comparitively to current

2800 years then - 4-times comparitively to current

4200 years then - 8-times comparitively to current

5600 years then - 16-times comparitively to current

7000 years then - 32-times comparitively to current

14,000 years then - 1024-times comparitively to current

28,000 years then - 1 048 576-times comparitively to current

50400 years then - 68 719 400 000-times comparitively to current

mirage

How do you respond to :
In the link to the other thread I gave?

Why do you feel that a coincidence of Chinese characters is sufficient evidence to overrule the huge amount of evidence against the flood detailed on the talkorigins page?

PetriFB

Proofs, which confirms that Bible is true and God is true are massive.


When there is estimated ages of the globe and the sun, is their often thought to be about 5 billion year old. However, if we examine sun's shrinkage, it would not support these kinds of periods; its indicate next examples:

- If the sun would be shrunken 1 centimetre (0.3 inch) every day 5 billion year period, would it be initially 18,25 million kilometres ( 19,958.4426947 yard) closer to earth (distance between the sun and the globe is 150 (164,041.9947507 yard) million kilometres. ).

- If shrinkage speed would be 10 centimetres (3.9 inch) in day, the globe would been already part of the sun.

However sun not shrunk so slowly, just even several metres in day. In that when there is used as the material for example [observatory of Greenwich meridian observations (for example. Lubkin, G.B. , " Analysis of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking", Physics Today, September 1979, pp. 17...19) , would the shrinkage speed according to those about 0,1 % in century in other words almost 38 metre (41,5 yard) in day - this would made the life of the globe to be impossible already under million years ago.

Same, if we use as assistance FrenchmanJean Picardi in 1600's made astronomical observations, which are held very accurate, so would be diameter of the sun been at that time 4000 kilometres (2,485.4847689 mile) bigger than current. And yet also the other research indicate shrinkagen of the sun speed being several metres in day.

Thus if we do conclusion from such fast shrinkage of the sun, it would not and not the globe can be in any way million or billion years old. And not also the life could have been appear on the globe this kind of periods time, because heat would have prevented its.


Drawing away of the moon


Drawing away of the moon from the earth is one of the thing, which proves against billions of years. Because has noticed, that it escaped away from the earth continually about 4,5 centimetres (1.7 inch) every year. Drawing away should arise mainly from the tide phenomenon of the earth.

In addition is also calculated, that moon escaping speed from the earth would be larger, what closer earth it would be gone around. Moon would be according to these calculation closed in the earth about 1,4 billion years ago!

So if the moon might have been closed in the earth or at least closer it, would it mean, that we should set thought from 5 billion year at least to the questionable light. Also from the point of view of the life, could have appeared problems; there have calculated, that if the moon only might have been enough near to the earth, it might melt whole earth's crust surface casing! (Like this has been presented for instance. in the book "Maapallo ja avaruus", p. 47) How the life could succeed such conditions?


The marks on globe


When it is a question the age and the life of globe, in this area talked often the age of hundreds of millions years or even older periods.

However, there is several proofs, which are against such long periods. In the following this matter is inspected for instance on the basis of the oil pressure, accumulating and erosion and earth layer.


Pressure of the oil


One of the proof against of it, that earth layers would be ancient are oil wells with their current pressures. Because current high pressure wouldn't have in any way be possible, if these springs would be for example age of million years, because otherwise this pressure would be already long time ago disappered. Any pressure then could no longer be.

So when there is made calculations on the basis of these pressures, they don't indicate to the oil wells as at the most age of 10,000 years (Chapters 12-13 of prehistory and earth models by Melvin A. Cook, Max Parrish and company, 1966) this is many thousands of millions times less than what generally has been presented and questionable ordinary speeches about millions of the years.


The agglomeration of the sediment, the flow of the mineral to the sea and erosion speed

The agglomeration of the sediment, the flow of the mineral to the sea and erosion speed are some ways measure the time. All these methods are based to this, that with the observed areas are used as the basis current accumulating and wear speed. Same all these methods give also comparitively small ages, thus that it has got the following results:

- The agglomeration of the sediments to the river deltas is one habit to measure periods. It is based to this, that when is known entire amount of the delta and it then shared with the current accumulating speed in year, we can have about that the age of the delta.

On this method has got for the age of the deltas only from some centuries about 13- 14 million year, and for example the river Mississippi delta, whereby Mississippi river brings sediment annually about 230 million cubic meter, and its age have obtained only about 4000 year. (Wysong, R. L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 163) On the other hand if transport speed before has been larger, shorten it these periods of course far more.

- Flow of the mineral to the sea has given for the age of the oceans only 100 - 260,000 000 year. (Dudley J. Whitney: The face of the Deep / Salman Bloch Ks. Reini s. 216-217 nrot: 7,8,20)

In other words when there is measured moving of these material with current speed and when is known current mineral content in the sea, is about it got this time, which is many more times less than generally has been presented the age of the seas. In this doesn't notice, that flow sometimes could have been many more times powerful - for example because of the mentioned the flood in the Bible - and that part from minerals could have been already to the beginnings in the sea.

- Erosion speed. If we use as base current erosion and weathering speed, it would mean, that all mainlands would be washed away to the sea in about 14 millions year. For the example also on the Alps of Europe the face of the earth is thought to be passing and descending in the year about one metre in 1500 - 4000 year (Charles Schuchert: "Geochronology, or the Age of the Earth on the Basis of Sediments and Life" ).

On the other hand the question arises, that when alps have much rock types classified with Jurassic period and cretaceous period (these periods are thought about being 205 - 65 millions years ago), from which besides older in other words Jurassic period rock types are in the highest mountain (! ) and latter are in the valley, so how these figures fir together to that thought, that mountains would wear away already under 20 million year?

One of must therefore be incorrect; wear speed, every can be experimentally observed or comprehension from the ten and hundred million years. Both can't be true simultaneously.


Layers of the earth


Birth speed of layers of the earth is also one matter, from which we have to understand very clearly.

In this context, when it is a question the birth of these layer's, is its thought to last long times in other words even tens of or hundreds of million years, so that layers have agglomerated by the degrees over each others. And for example so said geological chart (or column) and leading petrifaction method basing completely to this thought from the slow forming of the stratum. If there is not believed to the slow forming of the stratum, there not even use these methods.

But is good to understand, that there is several proofs against previous thought in other words against forming of stratum year millions aged of the layers. In the following this matter is inspected mainly in the light of the five matter. They all prove that layers have formed inside of quite short period of time.

- Long animal and trunk petrifaction in layers. One proof against of it , that layers have formed slowly and during the millions years, are for instance. large animal petrifaction such as size as ammonites is size as back wheel of tractor, which could reach through the many different layer. Petrifaction which are in vertical can perforate different rock types, whose in the middle may be also coal layer. (Corliss, W. R., Neglected Geological Anomalies, Sourcebook, 1990, p. 256; 'Coal-Evidence of a Flood", Ex Nihilo, 1:10, no. 4, 1983)

Same has been met from the different parts of the world trunk petrifaction, which reach through many different aged layers "millions of years". For the example of old photo from Saint-Etienne coal quarry of France indicate to us, how five fossilized trunk gets through about ten floors or more. Same for instance at close quarters of Edinburgh has been found 24-metric trunk, every also gets through over ten layers!

Therefore we can to think, are into question millions years aged trees, or are ground bulks and layers formed around these trees very quickly. Both are impossible be true simultaneously, but more probable certainly is, that layers have formed quite quickly:

Thick trunks, which have remain upright pierced ten metres thick layers by indicating, how quickly all have taken place. The layers they can't be result of slow peat, such as evolution learned claims to us. (2)

- New layers and canyons of St Helena. Is also in practise proved, that layers can be born very quickly. In that in connection with St Helena volcano eruption year 1980 took place, that formed the series of the one on top of anothers layers,were thickness at its best was hundreds of metre, and only during the few week. To this everything not so needed million years, just only in the few days dissimilar layers agglomerated one on top of another.

In addition short of 2 year later to the same area formed after the moving of ground bulk canyons, in which started soon water flow. In other words these canyons haven't formed by the degrees during the million years from effect of flowing river, such as is for example explained born of famous Grand Canyon, just they formed together in the fast moment and water flow came for them only after then. It is presumable, that also the other large canyons are born very same way. Next report describes this matter:

. .. In some places almost 200 metres thick covered now new multiple-layered surface layer of the earth. Over million trunks, free of knots and as the unshelled lolled with the large areas and covered before very beautiful surface of the lake. All vegetation was disappeared. The view was like the death surface of the planet . ..

This was real display about that, how stratums can be born in a few moments. But more proof of the nature is coming. Short of after two year, from the explosion, in March 1982, again formed surface layers started to move. They formed enormous mud flow, which went irresistible towards the areas, which were lower. Mud flow took all, which hits the mark. The trees stood in the flow uprighted with their roots. The houses and bridges didn't caused difficulties to the mudslide. New stratums were born again, but now previous destruction area farther down. However, the most interesting thing perspective to researchers were, what stayed left behind to previous destruction area. Only part from stratums were start to move. The landscape split now big canyons, whose wall depths were here and there over 50 metre. Area in the pictures looks now very same as views in Colorado-canyon.

These researchers, which had examined decades birth of Colorado canyon and its stratum composition were unsaid grateful. The elements had become on the startling way to support their theories of catastrophy . ..

... Stratums of the canyon were born without interruption caused by powerful moving of water bulk and volcanic discharges. The layers had been simultaneously soft and in the cover of the water. When water then give away in the area took place several falling in subsequent years - extensive mud flows, which as the wet ground avalanches formed large canyon areas. Left behind remained only sufficient hard layers. This theory got in the case of St Helens real display. In a few years from the effect of the discharge born over a hundred metre ground layers hardened and started to change form of stone hills. The part of layers included ingredients, whose hardening resembled hardening of the cement. To the base of the canyons formed small streams, which grew to be flow. The picture get completed. Water flow didn't formed canyons, just the bases of the canyons fit well for the bed of the flow. Like this birth theory of the canyon, which Darwin had create with millions years fell according to nature's own proofs. (3)

- No erosion. If layers would be born slowly during the millions years, so should between those times seen also very clear marks from erosion. However, when there is examined globally different layers, so between from those layers can't find these marks - no for example from famous Grand Canyon and not from elsewhere. On the contrary, seems more from it, that layers are connected quite uniformly with each other and that they have formed over each other without pauses.

Lacking of this erosion between of the layers also proves mainly from three matter, which are:

1. To forming of the layers is not at all worn out million years, just they are born comparitively short time, for example by only in few days or in the weeks.

2. Another matter is, that topmost layers are almost same age as also the lower layers, in other words their has had to gather immediately over to lower layers. (From this provable also as the mentioned trunk petrifaction, which could perforate over tenth layer. )

3. Third matter is, that the birth of the layers refers very strongly to model of catastrophy, in other words to the flood, which has accumulated layers one on top of another. The geologists themselves admit, that the birth of the layers succeeds in the best way by way of the deluges and water, in other words what is to this better alternative as global flood, which would move stratums one on top of another for very short time? According to the Bible the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.

- The petrifaction in ground layers. One of the clearest proof from the fast settling of the stratum are petrifaction which are in those stratums. In that when these settling is petrifaction, are the birth of these petrifaction explicable only thus, that mud and sludge avalanches have buried some animal or plant quickly. This suits also to all management petrifaction and previous mentioned trunk petrifaction.

And actually whenever we found petrifaction, prove them to us that some plant or animal has become buried very quickly under the sludge and ground bulk, and changed then soon for the petrifaction ( petrifaction event do not need take ages, because in the laboratory conditions could prepare tree fossilized already with in few days. ). Because if burying wouldn't have taken place, would these animals and plants otherwise quickly decayed or other animals would have eaten them.

Thus when nowadays we found petrifaction, prove also those only that layer from where they are found, has had to born in short moment in other words only in few days and weeks, not at all during the millions of years. They have become buried to these layers very quickly (in best way this kind of sludge and the mud layer, which has buried plants and animals, can be explained on the flood, such as mentioned in the Bible, that before was mentioned. ), because otherwise of these could not have even remain any petrifaction. Millions of years would not help anyway in their born.

Next comment refers also to the fast accrual of the layers, so that petrifaction generally could have been born:

It is apparent, that if forming of the layers would take place in this kind of slow pace, any petrifaction couldn't preserved, because they don't buried to the sediments before the effect of water acid, which caused
caused them fragmentation, or before they destroyed and would break up asunder when they rubbing and crashing into low bottom of the sea. They can cover to sediments only in the accident, where they become buried quickly." (Geochronology or the Age of the Earth on the Basis of Sediments and Life", Bulletin of the National Recearch Council No. 80, Washington D. C., 1931, s. 14)

- Other proofs from the fast appearing of layers expressly in nearest past are for instance from the petrifaction which is in those measured carbon-14 contents and in the incorrect place being petrifaction. In the following is examined some of these discoveries:

Precambrian layers 4000 years old tree. From the most older layer in other words precambrian layers, which is assumed to have prevailed over 570 million years ago, has been found tree, which for the age is measured by carbon-14 method only 4000 years (Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, London, Max Parrish, 1966). This indicate, that not most oldest layer can be as some of the century old.

Young branch inside the chalk stone. When from Glenn Rose of Texas, was found from chalk layer footprints dinosaur, were near to those, charred branch inside the chalk stone. On radiocarbon method to this branch was got to be age only 12 800 years, in other words it indicates also, that chalk period have prevailed rather little time ago.

Age of the radiation circles in carbon settling is only some centuries. By examining uranium and plutonium formed radiation circles in carbon settling, is perhaps to best known researcher Robert V. Gentry, who has got the age carbon settling only some centuries (Gentry, R., Science at the crossroads, 1983, Bible-science association, Minneapolis, Mn. P. 63-68). In other words also carbon period, which is assumed to have prevailed few hundred million years ago, has had to be in nearest past.

In addition in the research of Gentry could state, that different layers of Grand Canyon gave similar time indications; in other words their has had to born comparitively to the same time.

Goods of the people 300 million years old settling. From carbon settling behind "300 million" year have been found also objects,which has belonged to people such as gold chain, iron pot and the skulls of the people. If these layers are really so old, also people must live then, but hardly nobody scientist believes to this kind of possibility.

Vorkosigan

Here you go, E/C regulars. <ducks>

gregor2

Two things -

Vork, don't sell yourself short in BC&H. I learn something from your posts daily,

Petri, please - before cutting and pasting from any more creationist sites with failed arguments, just look up the mountainous evidence to disprove them. Let me suggest that you look up the comprehensive database at Talk Origins. These tireless researchers have posted hundreds of creationist claims and demonstrated the fallacies in them. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Before posting an argument (from the shrinking sun to the missing 24 hour day), please read the talkorigins index and don't post something already destroyed.

Thanks

mirage

Petri, you are not discussing the substantive points which have been made against you.

Posting huge redurgitations of standard and discredited young earth arguments is useless. I'm not even going to keep reading them and I doubt many others will.