happy 13.7 billionth birthday

Discussion in 'The Bench' started by KEN COTRONA, Feb 12, 2003.

  1. KEN COTRONA

    KEN COTRONA Well-Known Member

    NASA Probe Finds Universe's Age and Vital Stats
    Tue February 11, 2003 07:48 PM ET

    By Deborah Zabarenko
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Scientists using a robotic NASA probe have determined with precision the age of the universe -- 13.7 billion years -- and figured out when stars began to shine.

    Astronomers have been closing in on these numbers for decades, but a spacecraft now about a million miles from Earth was able to look back to nearly the dawn of time to find the answers, NASA researchers said on Tuesday.

    Stars started shining just 200 million years after the theoretical Big Bang, scientists said in announcing findings of the so-called WMAP mission, which gazed on the universe when there were no stars, no galaxies, nothing except minute differences in temperature.

    These temperature differences were as little as one-millionth of a degree, but that was enough to create vast hot and cold spots that signaled the beginning of the clumping that eventually became every known structure in the universe, the scientists said.

    WMAP -- short for Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe -- looked back in time to just 380,000 years after the Big Bang explosion that many astronomers believe gave birth to the universe. That is further back in time than even the orbiting Hubble Space Telescope can see.

    The image WMAP produced is a view of the entire sky seen as a spotted oval, with hot areas indicated by yellow and red and cool ones by blue and turquoise.

    COSMIC "BABY PICTURE"

    An earlier NASA probe, the Cosmic Background Explorer, produced similar colorful ovals in 1992, but where the earlier craft saw blobs, WMAP created detailed mosaics of color, a much sharper cosmic "baby picture."

    Charles Bennett, a scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center who is principal investigator for WMAP, was elated.

    "WMAP has returned a goldmine of new results ... we have produced a new detailed full-sky picture of our infant universe, the afterglow of the Big Bang," Bennett told reporters. "It's brought the universe into sharp focus."

    John Bahcall of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University offered perspective on the find, but was no less effusive.

    "The announcement today ... represents a rite of passage for cosmology, from speculation to precision science, and I am thrilled by the precision of the results," Bahcall said.

    To explain the scope of the find, Bahcall suggested it was as if the mature universe that exists now was equivalent to a 50-year-old human and the WMAP mission managed to look back in time to take precise calculations of what that human was like as a 12-hour-old baby, down to the exact size of its toes.

    Results from WMAP were scheduled to be presented last week but were delayed in deference to those mourning the Feb. 1 loss of space shuttle Columbia and its seven crew members.

    "We believe that the best way to honor the seven astronauts on Columbia who dedicated their lives to the NASA science mission is to continue that science mission to explore the universe," said Anne Kinney, director of NASA's astronomy and physics division.
     
  2. RACEBUICKS

    RACEBUICKS Guest

    I beleive in the big bang theory


    GOD said it

    BANG

    IT HAPPENED!!


    :TU: :TU: :TU:
     
  3. Rusty Davenport

    Rusty Davenport Silver Level contributor

    Hi Ken,If you seek answers about the world seek the answers from the greatest scientist ever;which would be God as he knows all the answers and not only knows all the correct answers to your questions but actually created everything you see. Genesis1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Also see John1:1) In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.2)The same was in the beginning with God.3)All things were made by him;and without him was not anything made that was made.4)In him was life;and the life was the light of men. Ken,The bible clearly states that to deny Jesus Christ is foolishness so these so called scientist show thier ignorance in denying the most high God in creation.First off a true scientist know that based on the first true principal of science you can not get something from nothing.And common sense tells me that in any" big bang" or explosion that takes place energy is from that point on being depleated not built up and creating a universe and life!!!!!!! Let's use the so called scientist own theory in a example:let's say we took every single bicycle part in the world and piled them in a big pile and then exploded them "big bang" style so to speak.After the smokes clears you will not have a single complete useable assembled bicycle in the pile. In the millions of parts you will not find one bolt with a lock washer and a tightened up nut on it.And we have not even begun to get in to more compicated things as say a watch that keeps time or a car that could start and run and these items from a pile of parts that are correct to build that item would be infinitely easier to "big bang build" than anything that is as complicated as a living thing or that has the breath of life and starting from nothing[no pile of parts] Ken,the "big bang" is just a big joke just like the incorrect evolution theory which was based on a fools idea and a tooth found in a dig site that was later determined to be a tooth from a pig not a transitional human form.Ken,if you walked upon a watch laying on the ground that watch is evidence of a creator or maker of that watch.The bible clearly states that the earth and creation clearly show evidence of a creator and leaves man inexcusible in not believing in God.Ken just think of each miricle of the creator that must be in place for life to be here and remain here,things you and I take for granted every day;rain,air,gravity,decay of dead thing,ect,ect,ect.If it took so called billions of years for life to by accident appear by chance then how did that fragile life substain until all the needed things evolved into place to substant that life??????????? "In the beginnig god" is the only answer and each scientist and each person that denies God as creator and savior will be without excuse for thier own unbelief before a HOLY GOD JUST FROM THE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF EARTH AND CREATION ITSELF ;this is not even taking into account that most people in the world today have had the gospel of Jesus Christ preached unto them and they still reject the truth and reject Christ and will die in thier sins.
     
  4. Eric Schmelzer

    Eric Schmelzer Well-Known Member

    Greg, Your not so old after all.
     
  5. GSXMEN

    GSXMEN Got Jesus?

    "In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20: 11; see also Exodus 31:15-18).

    The reality of the situation is...we live on a 'young' Earth. Approximately 6000 years old.

    I would like anyone interested in a scientists point of view on this, to check this out.

    "Creation Scientists", as they are referred, are able to prove everything in the Bible is true! Based on not only scientific findings, but what God says in the Bible. I've heard that they are able to verify every day of existence...even including the extra half day (as mentioned in the Bible)!

    Here is a very interesting article by Ken Ham, entitled: BILLIONS, MILLIONS, OR THOUSANDS DOES IT MATTER? Click here.

    Here is a small excerpt from that article:

    It is important to note that back in the 1940's, college students were taught, as fact, that the earth and the universe were two billion years oldand this was verified by several independent methods that gave the same date. Now students are taught that the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old! This shows, clearly, that the scientific method in relation to the past has problems! Scientists should approach this issue cautiously, recognizing their own limitations.

    Here is a link to the Institute for Creation Research. There are some really good articles in there - check out Back to Genesis, in particular.

    There are many links to articles regarding the age of the Earth for instance, and many other things related to Creation and God.

    Look around...some very good reading over there!:TU:
     
  6. KEN COTRONA

    KEN COTRONA Well-Known Member

    ha ha ha ha ha ha
    creation science? what a joke.
    that ain't science. it is not valid to use the bible to prove that the bible is true.
    i could use a superman comic to prove that superman can fly.
    (superman 3:32 "up up and away") does that mean its true

    i'll get back to this thread later
     
  7. Yardley

    Yardley Club Jackass


    Yeah, but can they find my credit cards I lost 10 years ago...
     
  8. chryco63

    chryco63 14's or bust!

    One Question

    Ken and everyone,

    One question: has anyone ever proven the Bible wrong? If they have, I'd like to know!

    My opinion: If they have, I would have heard about it long ago. It would have been headline news, and all God-fearing churches would have given up long ago as well.

    Everyone, please check out
    http://www.doesgodexist.org

    I have seen this man present a conference in person, and he uses science almost exclusively to prove the Bible is correct. He also has a Q&A after every conference, and it's captivating how he uses the Bible to answer so many questions. The neat thing is that he was an atheist who went out to prove the Bible was incorrect. After reading the Bible 3 times, he concluded that he could not do it, and came to Christ. He is also a science professor. Neat!
     
  9. Mike Atwood

    Mike Atwood The Green Machine

    I guess then that scientists MUST be right then.......just exactly WHICH time were they right ..... 2 billion, 4.6 billion, or ???

    What if they find out that the universe is not that old at all, and that the Brady bunch reruns are not happening on any other world. I rate scientist right up there with the doctors that tell you something causes cancer one year, and then they change their minds and say it makes you live longer. I don't see the Bible and Gods word changing, do you?

    Mike
     
  10. Rusty Davenport

    Rusty Davenport Silver Level contributor

    Ken,Like I said in my earlier post even if you leave the bible out of it;the earth and creation itself is evidence that leaves all without excuse to not believe in God the creator.To believe in the bible one must have eyes to see and ears to hear;in other words faith.Faith is a gift of God.
     
  11. KEN COTRONA

    KEN COTRONA Well-Known Member

    Yardley,
    i asked god about your credit cards, he said they are in your plaid bellbottom jeans, the pair with the big scorpion belt buckle on em. he he he

    The reality of the situation is...we live on a 'young' Earth. Approximately 6000 years old.
    ummmmm yeah....... i guess all the fossil evidence is fake, the geologists are all wrong , i guess the devil created the dinosaurs, and prehistoric cave painting ( that pointy tail bastid can paint!!)
    http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/
    thats all a big fraud

    http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm#ribs
    .
     
  12. Shortymac83

    Shortymac83 Not Your Father's Olds!

    Hey Ken, Dr. Ballard(you know, the guy that discovered the Titanic?) found evidence of an apocalyptic flood in the Black Sea(right around where the Old Testament was taking place), and the ruins of a ship approximately the size that Noah's Ark was said to be.

    Outside the ruins of Sodom and Gamorrah, they found two pillars of salt, quite worn, but still more or less intact. In the middle of a desert.

    The big bang supposedly happened when a molecule of matter exploded, right? what made that matter? was it just always there? Imagine, just for the moment, that it was always there. Apparently, it was quite happy to survive an eternity just sitting there in it's original state. What made it explode? I learned in elementary physics that an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. So, it needed that outside force to make it blow. If it was the only thing out there, name the external force.

    Both Buddhism and Islam make mention of Christ in their holy texts. If I remember correctly, it is from Buddhism that Christ learned his nonviolence methods.

    They know where the body of John the Baptist lies, and they think they've found Christ's tomb.

    Scientists tell me that Noah's flood and Sodom and Gomorrah and teh Big Bang all happened, I tend to believe my senses.
     
  13. 11SecondGS

    11SecondGS ROCK THIS

    V8buick.com/who is right

    I often times wonder where the hell all this stuff came from, and when, and how long after I die will it remain. I don't know what started all of this, but the universe has continued to expand and contract for a very long time, through chemical and physical reactions. Scientists, (intelligent scientists like Thorne, and Hawking, who have devoted their entire life to space and its glory) still don't know if the universe will contract this time round, due to the uncertainty of the critical mass of the universe when the big bang happened. This time round it may expand forever, indefinitely. Small universes my group together as a result, but pieces will be missing.

    Ok that really doesnt have much to do with the topic but to talk about the earth being earth 6000 years old, I dont believe there is enough supporting material for that argument for that at all. Now one may say, well wheres the evidence for it being older, well lets talk about evolution, when airlines design knew planes, one of the first groups they talk to are the biologists, who study living birds. See birds so to speak have over 40,000 years of engineering in their designs, and it would be hard to come up with a better design. That couldnt happen in 6000 years.

    When we look out at the furthest reaches of the universe, at the limit of what our largest telescopes can resolve, we see galaxies as they appeared up to 15 billion years ago. Since this is only a few billion years after the Big Bang, we are just about to the point where we can actually observe the birth of the universe!

    I think maybe there is a dimension missing in our thinking, that we cant conceive the ideas of forever. Humans know a beginning and an end, and it would be hard to figure another way of having something begin, if it doesnt just begin.

    Who made God? I dont think God is some dude floating out somewhere in the heavens, Its more of a feeling, or spirit. I think coincidence has misled a lot of people.

    Help me out with this; this is what puts me to sleep at night.
    I do know that I love GSs, so whoever gave me that, thank you.

    Below is the horsehead nebula with our latest and greatest cameras. These pictures came in around July, just takes your breath away. This picture is 1500 years old, due to the distance.

    or 8,811,883,728,000,000 miles away.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. KEN COTRONA

    KEN COTRONA Well-Known Member

    Shorty,
    flood stories are everywhere in myth. (atlantis is one such myth)
    there is strong evidence supporting global flooding and other disasters. some people have suggested the earth has cycles of drastic weather changes, like mini ice ages.
    that does not automatically make the bible flood storie true.
    the egyptians had large barges. obalisk's and building blocks were probably shipped down the nile from quarrys up river.

    how would you describe a big huge boat, the biggest boat you ever saw, in a story?
    would you say "the boat was big" or "the boat was so big it could hold all the animals in the world?
    it's like the your momma is so fat jokes...........
    is your momma actually so fat that when she wears a yellow coat and walks down the street the kids think they missed the bus? or the last time she saw 90210 was on a scale?
    no but it gives the idea of huge biggness.


    nice pic 11 second, well said

    http://hubblesite.org/gallery/


    find yer credit cards yet yardley?
     
  15. RACEBUICKS

    RACEBUICKS Guest

    On evolution

    I t is true that during the 20th century, many scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton recently observed:

    "An important factor in bringing about the universal dominance and acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every eminent professional scientist appointed to posts in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50 years, in the English-speaking world, has been a convinced Darwinist. ...These men, as well as occupying powerful and important academic teaching positions, were also prolific and important writers whose influence has been widespread in forming the consensus." 1

    These names include such men as Gavin de Beer, Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, C.H. Waddington, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Simpson.
    Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:


    "...A tidal wave of new books... threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2



    As Science Digest reported:

    "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3

    One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
    "The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5
    Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." 6
     
  16. RACEBUICKS

    RACEBUICKS Guest

    on the earths age question

    Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less that the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000-10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time-scale and for the biblical time-scale.
    Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.


    1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
    According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(1)
    Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

    Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


    2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
    Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(3) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 metres.(4)
    The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.(4) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

    Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometres deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.


    3. Not enough sodium in the sea.
    Every year, rivers(5) and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.(6,7) As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.(7) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.(7) Calculations(8) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

    4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
    The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years.(9) 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.(10) This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.(11) 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.(12)

    5. Many strata are too tightly bent.
    In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.(13)

    6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
    Strong geologic evidence(14) exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone -- formed an alleged 500 million years ago -- of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.

    7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.
    Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.(15) 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time-scale.(16) 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.(17,18)

    8. Helium in the wrong places.
    All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in five billion years.(19) This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.
    A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.(20)


    9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
    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 one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.(21) By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies.(22) 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 four 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.

    10. Agriculture is too recent.
    The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.(21) Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.(22)

    11. History is too short.
    According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.(23) Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale is much more likely.(22)

    References

    Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.
    Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September 1976), p. 15.
    Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.
    Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.
    Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215.
    Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.
    Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.
    Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October 1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.
    Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.
    Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh), Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113-126.
    Coe, R.S., Prvot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp. 687-92.
    Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.
    Austin, S.A. and Morris, J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.
    ibid, pp. 11-12.
    Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) pp. 347-362.
    Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October 1976) pp. 315-318.
    Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.
    Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.
    Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
    Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.
    Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September 1960), pp. 194-204.
    Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147 (January 1975), pp. 64-89.
    Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12.
     
  17. RACEBUICKS

    RACEBUICKS Guest

    What GOD says about earths age

    God uses a relatively large amount of space in Genesis 1 to make it very clear that He created the universe in six days. There is no mention of billions-of-years or any great period of time. However, many people still wonder whether or not the modern scientific belief that the earth and universe have existed for billions of years can be harmonized with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
    Most Christians have heard the argument that the word "day" in Genesis does not mean a literal 24 hour type day, but rather that the "days" represent 6 great ages of time. This is often referred to as the day-age theory. Many people have wondered whether this argument is valid. It is true, after all, that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings, depending upon its context. However, it is our opinion that when all the facts are gathered, it is abundantly clear that God communicated with precision that all creation took place during the time period of six, normal, 24-hour type days.


    The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

    The first reference to "day" in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (NASV, see Genesis One).

    When the word "day" is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

    There is no Biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

    The "days" in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words "evening and morning." This phrase is used with "day" 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

    When the phrase "evening and morning" is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word "yom", there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years.
    We see therefore that a study of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 states in clear language that creation took place during the period of six, normal 24-hour type days. Further evidence of this conclusion is given in Exodus 20:11. This passage, written in stone by the finger of God Himself, states, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." God, the only witness to the creation events, testifies that all things were created within a literal six day period.

    Ultimately, whether one accepts this information or not probably depends more upon their interpretation of science than of the scriptures. For without the consideration of modern scientific theories of the age of the universe, there can be little reason to question the clear communication of the Bible.

    As stated by Pattle P.T. Pun, a leading progressive creationist, "It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all of the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah's family and the animals therewith." [Pattle P.T. Pun, "A Theology of Progressive Creationism," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Ipswich, MA: March 1987), p. 14]

    As in all areas of theology, God allows each believer to decide which side to take on a controversial topic. It must be noted, however, that the Scriptures are emphatically clear on this issue. The billions-of-years timescale estimated by modern scientific theories cannot be harmonized with the literal interpretation of the Bible by resorting to the misguided notion of a day-age.
     
  18. BuickGSXJuiced

    BuickGSXJuiced Well-Known Member

    alright before you try to judging me.............I Belive In GOD!!!!!, and without scientists we would not have had our buicks or any mechanical device, becasue science is what industrialized the world, now industrializing may have not been as good as people think.............now don't get me wrong ive had alot of fun with some of the things made, but WHAT IF we where not suposed to industrialize the earth or WHAT IF we are taking this technology too far, ya know a good movie to watch is that recently new one (time machine)........that movie blows my mind, Im getting lost in my own thoughts. Has anyone ever thought just sat down a thought about time, 800,000 years from now, I'm sure somebody has simular to the same thoughts that I do, like I don't think you can build a machine to capture time, and 800,000 year has already happened we just haven't expearianced it. You ever just think about time, it seems as though everything is frozen in time no matter if its 2030 or 500,000 or 1,000,000,000,000 considering to time it has already happened, its allready been laid out:confused: Maybe god don't want us to put all this technology on the earth and he's giving us warnings such as (columbia)..............I don't know.............but what i do think, I think a person can loose there self in there own imagination, now its good to have an imagination but it can destroy, You guys just might think I'm crazy, but since that stinking move ive bee trapted in this thought process and wanted to post to see what you guys think?????
     
  19. RACEBUICKS

    RACEBUICKS Guest

    And lastly THE BIG BANG THEORY

    The big bang is usually defined as a random, chance event. Some instability supposedly developed in an original "kernel" of mass energy, and the universe then ballooned outward. However, Scripture clearly rules out such an accidental origin. A modified view of the big bang theory says that when the explosive event happened, it was directed by God. This is called theistic evolution and is an attempt to compromise the Bible with long-age evolutionary theories. It is rejected by many creationists because of its conflict with the order of events in Genesis. The following chart contrasts some of the chronological discrepancies between the Bible's creation account and the big bang theory.

    Scripture Big Bang
    All elements made together Elements beyond hydrogen and helium formed after millions of years
    Earth formed before stars Earth formed long after the stars
    Plants formed before the sun Plants evolved after the sun
    Birds created before reptiles, mammals Birds evolved from reptiles
    Sun formed on the fourth day, after the earth Sun formed before the earth
    Sun, moon, and stars formed together Sun formed from older stars

    Creationists maintain that in the beginning God spoke and the earth appeared--he commanded and the heavens stood firm (Ps. 33:9)! All the many stars appeared suddenly and supernaturally in space. Scripture does not imply an explosion, although the universe must have experienced a sudden, "explosive" input of ordered energy. Perhaps some astronomical data that seems supportive of the big bang theory, such as redshift and background radiation, needs to be looked at instead as evidence of a rapid creation. Once secular variation of the big bang theory refers to an "inflationary" big bang, the suggestion being that the universe developed and matured very quickly in its first moments. In this particular theory, secular science seems to have taken one step in the creationist direction. Further developments should be of interest in this area of theory and research.

    The big bang as it is understood today is an inadequate theory. There are many fundamental problems that are seldom mentioned in popular literature. Some of the "missing links" in the theory are:


    Missing Origin: The big bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of an origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, in the big bang theory, no vacuum existed before the explosion. Actually there is no consistent secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.
    Missing Fuse: What ignited the big bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever bound as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from ever expanding outward.

    Missing Star Formation: No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.

    Missing Antimatter: Some versions of the big bang theory require the equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter-positrons and antiprotons, for example-are found in space.

    Missing Time: Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the big bang theory to unfold. A short time span will not allow for the gradual evolution of the stars or life on Earth.

    Missing Mass: Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, however, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are 100 times smaller than expected. In fact there are indications that the universe is accelerating outward instead of slowing down. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass or "dark matter" is "missing."

    Missing Life: In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?

    Missing Neutrinos: These small particles should flood the earth from the sun's fusion process. The small number detected raises questions about the sun's energy source and man's overall understanding of the universe. How then can science speak about "origins" with any authority?
     
  20. 11SecondGS

    11SecondGS ROCK THIS

    i agree with some

    Mike, thanks for the added info, I like to get all sides of a topic, from many different people. I agree that the bible should not be taken too literally.


    Missing Time: Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the big bang theory to unfold. A short time span will not allow for the gradual evolution of the stars or life on Earth.

    ok, that answered.

    Our sun emits around 2 10+38 neutrinos per second !...
    and the earth receives more than 40 billions neutrinos per second and cm2. This huge raining is undetected by the five senses of the homo sapiens.

    We can't detect them becuase they have no mass, have no anti bonding features, and only add to the strong force between molecules. Nuetrinos are the absolute smallest amount of anything, so we may never detect them. Ask any physicist, and he will opnely agree that we have really no clue on how to link everything to everything else, and what is the underlying reasoning in all of nature. einstein spent his last years looking for a way to rationalize the universe's randomness, and ways to find a way to communicate the dimension of doing science

    "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
    [Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]

    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
    [Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]
     

Share This Page