[_ Old Earth _] Were Dinosaurs a deception from Satan to make the world look older ?

[jasoncran]

and its not begging the question was adam and eve kids or adults when god made them. if adults they could be zero years old but aged by god to be whatever age he made them.

same with the universe. one or days old but aged by god. the problem for the bbt is the moon if the moon was i think according the to problem 2.5 billions years old then the tides would be so high and destrcutive no life could exist.

 

[Barbarian]

same with the universe. one or days old but aged by god. the problem for the bbt is the moon if the moon was i think according the to problem 2.5 billions years old then the tides would be so high and destrcutive no life could exist.

The world's record for high tides is in Nove Scotia, where 53 foot high tides can be found, with no noticable affect on living things other than a large intertidal zone. To make tides that high generally, the Moon would have to be within the Roche limit (zone where Earth's gravity would tear it apart).

The evidence shows the Moon was a lot closer at one time, but has receded at an irregular pace. The irregular pace is due to plate tectonics. The amount of force transferred to the Moon from the Earth depends on the amount of coastline exposed to tides, and this changes over geologic time.

 

[Roof]

The world's record for high tides is in Nove Scotia, where 53 foot high tides can be found, with no noticable affect on living things other than a large intertidal zone. To make tides that high generally, the Moon would have to be within the Roche limit (zone where Earth's gravity would tear it apart).

The evidence shows the Moon was a lot closer at one time, but has receded at an irregular pace. The irregular pace is due to plate tectonics. The amount of force transferred to the Moon from the Earth depends on the amount of coastline exposed to tides, and this changes over geologic time.

As the earth transfer more energy to the moon it gets farther away but does that also slow down our roatation making our days longer?

 

[Pard]

I have literally no clue what tides have to do with the OP but I'll indulge...

A lot of the various tide heights has to do with the shape of the ocean's bottom. A good part of Nova Scotia's (and to the same extent the majority of Downeast) high tides has to do with the rather unique 'funnel' shape that characterizes much of the inland tidal zones from Connecticut all the way up into Northeastern Canada. This entire area has high tides than the global average.

 

[Asyncritus]

See, proof that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man!

Sorry lefty, couldn't help that!

 

[Gazelle]

IDK if that picture shows it, but they do have fossil prints of man and dinosaur in the same path, now. Cool eh?

Wait, if dinosaurs have names and are in the Bible, then they were with Adam because he named everything, right? ;)

 

[jasoncran]

provide the evidence barb with no specualation where it was known to do that.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The world's record for high tides is in Nova Scotia, where 53 foot high tides can be found, with no noticable affect on living things other than a large intertidal zone. To make tides that high generally, the Moon would have to be within the Roche limit (zone where Earth's gravity would tear it apart).

The evidence shows the Moon was a lot closer at one time, but has receded at an irregular pace. The irregular pace is due to plate tectonics. The amount of force transferred to the Moon from the Earth depends on the amount of coastline exposed to tides, and this changes over geologic time.

provide the evidence barb with no specualation where it was known to do that.

Tidal rhythmites are one of the best sources of evidence for this.

The physical evidence of this slower rate comes in the form of tidal rhythmites (tidally laminated sediments). They record the velocity and range of the tides providing a method to measure tidal strengths of the past. They show that 650 million years ago, the rate of recession was about 2 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year.
http://epicidiot.com/evo_cre/moon_recession.htm

 

[jasoncran]

that doesnt seem to work compared to this from an accredited astrophysict who has written papers in the secular field.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/08/11/feedback-lunar-recession

take that up with him. i am not an expert.

 

[Barbarian]

Your guy seems completely unaware of the evidence from tidal rhythmites. And he doesn't seem to realize that the net tidal bulge depends on the position of the land masses over the ages.

That data, which has to be accounted for in any theory of recession, is just absent from his hypothesis. Which, I suppose, is why he disagrees with astrophysicists on the issue.

 

[jasoncran]

well then write him and tell him that surely an astrophysict of the caliper would know that barb.

but then again in science many scientist often dont agree when it comes to origins, funny thing aint it.


some say dinosaurs didnt come from theropauds others do. whom is right?

 

[Barbarian]

well then write him and tell him that surely an astrophysict of the caliper would know that barb.

Don't know what caliber he is. But he clearly doesn't agree with most prominent astrophysicists.

but then again in science many scientist often dont agree when it comes to origins, funny thing aint it.

Evolutionary theory, for example. Using data from Discovery Institute and Project Steve, about 0.3% of Biology PhDs don't accept it.

Some say dinosaurs didnt come from theropauds others do. whom is right?

You mean thecodonts? Theropods are dinosaurs.

 

[Jam]

It's not a fact, It's a theory. There's a big difference...

Theories are as close to facts as scientists ever claim to come.

That evolution within species has taken place, there is no doubt...and even honest evolutionists will agree that there are no obvious fossilized examples of one species evolving into another.

Before I criticise, I just want to mention that I agree very strongly with the point you've been advocating this entire thread! I don't want to seem grumpy ahaa.

Anyway yes, I just wanted to point out that the "boundaries" between species are entirely arbitrary: the only reason we have not observed inter-specific evolution (generally referred to by us religious folk as macroevolution) is because our definitions of species are sufficiently vague as to allow that to be the case. It's for this reason that talk of micro- and macroevolution concerns me somewhat: we should not be arguing over something as trivial as definitions; it often causes mere semantic disputes. Rather, we should simply be arguing that evolution has not occured (or does not occur for the more scientifically deviant among us) on a scale as large as popular Evolutionary Theory claims.

 

[stovebolts]

The earth's age cannot be determined down to an exact year, but it's a fact it's millions, if not billions of years old, a scientific fact, not a theory.

It's fact based upon a theory and the theory is based on assumption.

Evolutionists assume the earth is millions or billions of years old based on what is visible today. What is visible today is not in dispute. However, how that data is interpreted is in dispute.

What we can all agree on as fact, is that nobody has been collecting data for 6,000 years, let alone millions or billions of years. Thus, we need to set clear what our assumptions are and not pretend that no assumptions exist from either party. Even Hawkings hold intelligent design as a possiblity and readily admits that he does not, nor can he account for when existence began, let alone came from.

In other words, if we believe that the world is billions of years old, we will interpret the data as billions of years old. Likewise, if we view the world as 6,000 years old, we will view the data in like. This, is what everyone will deem as fact because it is something that is clearly visible and can be tested.

 

[jasoncran]

Don't know what caliber he is. But he clearly doesn't agree with most prominent astrophysicists.



Evolutionary theory, for example. Using data from Discovery Institute and Project Steve, about 0.3% of Biology PhDs don't accept it.



You mean thecodonts? Theropods are dinosaurs.

i meant birds and fyi i dont use any facts from wikipedia nor the everhonest talkorigins as that isnt a science based instution. that is why the other site didnt allow it(NOT PEER REVIEWED)

FUNNY Aint it. and i can also get the recent facts on 26% of college educted folks who dont buy evolution

numbers make it right? so if the 80% of the earths thiests believe in any god but the god of the bible therefore since they reasearched the matter that makes it right? argumentum ad populum is a fallacy!

that is why i asked you to got to that link, evos are allowed just called to be honest in their debates. no logical fallicies allowed. you do believe in logic dont you?

 

[Barbarian]

It's fact based upon a theory and the theory is based on assumption.

Theories are always based on evidence. It can't become a theory, until there is evidence supporting it.

Evolutionists assume the earth is millions or billions of years old based on what is visible today.

Evidence. The idea that we can't accurately determine what happened in the past from evidence it leaves behind is demonstrably wrong.

What is visible today is not in dispute. However, how that data is interpreted is in dispute.

Not to scientists. For example, YE creationist (and scientist) Harold Coffin testified in the Arkansas creationism trial that if it were not for his his religious beliefs, the evidence would lead him to believe the Earth was very old.

In other words, if we believe that the world is billions of years old, we will interpret the data as billions of years old.

In fact, the first scientists who found the evidence were shocked to see how old the Earth was. The evidence clearly shows that the Earth is billions of years old. People can objectively evaluate evidence, even when it contradicts their beliefs. (see Harold Coffin)

 

[Barbarian]

i meant birds and fyi i dont use any facts from wikipedia nor the everhonest talkorigins as that isnt a science based instution. that is why the other site didnt allow it(NOT PEER REVIEWED)

It's easy to get around that. Talk-origins cites the peer-reviewed work that they present on their site. It takes a little more effort, but you can just find the original research and you've done exactly what talk.origins did.

FUNNY Aint it. and i can also get the recent facts on 26% of college educted folks who dont buy evolution

So a college education almost doubles the likelihood that you'll accept evolution. Not surprising.

that is why i asked you to got to that link, evos are allowed just called to be honest in their debates. no logical fallicies allowed. you do believe in logic dont you?

Sounds like the definition of "honesty" is a bit flexible there. Could be wrong, but I tend to spend my time on sites a bit more even-handed.

 

[jasoncran]

not really. let me ask you this whom verifies and runs talkorigins. why do atheist go to great lenghts to harrass and threatne lawsuits on youtube to the creationists? why do they also creat poe forums.

see barb is not hard to google and get links from the science sites themselves. its really easy.sometimes i cant get the info from the pay sites but others can.

but ah the creationist lie bit again.then again when the talkorigins group that is so pro christian attacks the rcc for the geocentrism what do you do? you do know that galleleo was refused on evidence not religous dogma.

im sure you know that fact.

and why does this speeker want scientist to say instead of we believe in evolution instead of accept evolution when most literature is stated that way and has conjecture in it and they admit it?

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4686

 

[Barbarian]

not really. let me ask you this whom verifies and runs talkorigins. why do atheist go to great lenghts to harrass and threatne lawsuits on youtube to the creationists? why do they also creat poe forums.

How do you know they are Poe forums? I often can't tell.

see barb is not hard to google and get links from the science sites themselves. its really easy.sometimes i cant get the info from the pay sites but others can.

The real advantage of talk.origins is that they keep all sorts of useful links handy. So one can visit there, and get some hints at where to look for evidence. You might have noticed that I don't link to talk.orgins most of the time.

but ah the creationist lie bit again.then again when the talkorigins group that is so pro christian attacks the rcc for the geocentrism what do you do?

Doesn't bother me. It has never been dogma in the Church for a geocentric universe. It's why some Popes have argued for geocentrism, but could not do it from the Seat of Peter. God didn't allow it.

you do know that galleleo was refused on evidence not religous dogma.

Mostly, because he was a political liability, and an obnoxious know-it-all. The Pope at the time actually encouraged his investigations, until he crossed a line politically.

 

[jasoncran]

How do you know they are Poe forums? I often can't tell.



The real advantage of talk.origins is that they keep all sorts of useful links handy. So one can visit there, and get some hints at where to look for evidence. You might have noticed that I don't link to talk.orgins most of the time.



Doesn't bother me. It has never been dogma in the Church for a geocentric universe. It's why some Popes have argued for geocentrism, but could not do it from the Seat of Peter. God didn't allow it.



Mostly, because he was a political liability, and an obnoxious know-it-all. The Pope at the time actually encouraged his investigations, until he crossed a line politically.

gee barb. its easy you do remember the poster here who was a geocentrist? and aslo was removed? i know why .he had two accounts.
and my brother has been harrased on you tube by athiests.

a poe forum as in the flat earth society. gee yes that has been known for some time.

so i have links my self.

i used them from time to time.