[_ Old Earth _] Why Did The Dinosaurs Go ?

[jwu]

1) Back in time, the earth's magnetic field was much stronger which means it gravitational pull was probably stronger as well

Actually the earth's magnetic field oscillates...however, if you think you discovered a connection between electromagneticforces and gravity, then write a paper about it and earn your Nobel prize - that's what physicists have been looking for for almost a hundred years now, and so far no correlation could be detected.

2) As the moon is closer, you have whats called the Inverse Square Law.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... .html#isqg

Being that the gravitational pull is actually "multiplied" between two objects that attract one another, as they get closer. Instead of a gradual increase as most would think is what would happen. Makes me also bring up the third question.

3) How did the moon escape the gravity pull so close to the earth, when the Inverse Square law multiplies that pull?

The moon would have had to be orbiting the earth so fast, moving away from it would have slung it out into space. Because if you subtract the Inverse Square Law, as the moon drifts away. The loss of gravity is multiplied which means the moon could not have held it's orbit over billions of years. And this would also apply to every other planet, with moons.

Centripetal force also is subject to a square law, this precisely balances out each other. Physics 101.

4) The gravitational pull upon the earth's crust is also multiplied by the Inverse Square Law, which means around the time of when the plants started to grow, then the dinos appeared. The every day earthquakes, each time the moon went by, would have caused such massive lava flows. High tides, etc.... It would have killed all life as we know it.

In fact, if the moon were just 1/4 closer to our earth today, it's gravitational pull upon it's crust would be almost double. Which means there would be earth quakes every day. And volcanic eruptions would increase 10 times which would have darkened our atmosphere so. The air would have been un-breathable. And the earth would be mostly frozen. because the sun would not be able to shine through it.

Wrong.
Right now the pull of the moon has little effect on earthquakes on earth, no significant correlation could be established. Doubling that won't do much either:
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/seismo/faq/planets.html

However, the moon itself is subject to 81 times as much gravitational pull from the earth than vice versa - and when those Apollo crews were up there they apparently did not have to worry about seismic events, did they?

And how far do we go back in time before the moon is 1/4 closer to the earth? Not by much.

The moon being 1/4 closer, with double the pull would:

1) Increase earth quakes.
2) Double our tides height.
3) Increase volcanic activity.
4) The pull would also affect the health of every living thing upon our planet.

The tides would have been greater of course (albeit by by the time when the moon was 1/4 closer there wasn't even animal life on the land yet, according to your numbers that would have been more than a billion years ago).
However, i don't see any problem with twice as high tides. They vary greatly anyway all over the earth, from close to nothing in the Baltic Sea to 12 metres in the Minas Basin in Nova Scotia. That's not a problem for life at all.

The moon's recession is caused by tidal effects, which themselves are caused by the moon's gravity. The closer the moon, the stronger the effect. Therefor, the moon's recession would have been exponentially fasterr going backwards in time. Long before the moon could be close enough to touch the earth, the tidal forces would have ripped it apart (the Roche Limit).

True, but the continents have a huge effect as well, and the moon is hypothesized to have formed from debris during a huge impact event some four billion years ago.
The math is very complicated and we don't really know what the continents looked like more than 1.1 billion years ago. It however is viable, there are plenty of papers on this.

 

[ikester7579]

Actually the earth's magnetic field oscillates...however, if you think you discovered a connection between electromagneticforces and gravity, then write a paper about it and earn your Nobel prize - that's what physicists have been looking for for almost a hundred years now, and so far no correlation could be detected.

Oscillation of the magnetic field has not been proven. The "~" (oscillation) replacing the actual "/" (the actual increase), was an excuse to explain away how far back you can go before the magnetic field is to strong for life to exist. They do not know how often it would happen. And it is claimed that we are over 100,000 years over due for a flip that cause the oscillation you are referring to.

Problem with the 100,000 year over due, is that going back just 30,000 makes the field to strong to support life. Evolution always needs a forever time-line in order to work. So every theory is based around making that time-line work, which has nothing to do with finding the truth

Centripetal force also is subject to a square law, this precisely balances out each other. Physics 101.

Another perfect example of how when one law disproves the time-line needed for evolution, another to cancel it out is made up.

Wrong.
Right now the pull of the moon has little effect on earthquakes on earth, no significant correlation could be established. Doubling that won't do much either:
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/seismo/faq/planets.html

Ok, I guess the tides are controlled by the god of natural selection.

However, the moon itself is subject to 81 times as much gravitational pull from the earth than vice versa - and when those Apollo crews were up there they apparently did not have to worry about seismic events, did they?

And the moon is mostly cooled off, correct? Which means that because it is mainly solid. There's not much to pull around to cause seismic activity. Unless you want to prove that the moon has a core that is as molten as the earth's. And a crust that is the same thickness.

The tides would have been greater of course (albeit by by the time when the moon was 1/4 closer there wasn't even animal life on the land yet, according to your numbers that would have been more than a billion years ago).
However, i don't see any problem with twice as high tides. They vary greatly anyway all over the earth, from close to nothing in the Baltic Sea to 12 metres in the Minas Basin in Nova Scotia. That's not a problem for life at all.

Hurricanes cause as high of tides as there would be if the moon were 1/4 closer to the earth. There is a lot of erosion from such high tides. And because high and low tides happen twice a day, twice the height, twice a day, would make the shore lines lose so much sand. Most of the land we see would already be eroded into the ocean in a billion years of doing this.

The moon's recession is caused by tidal effects, which themselves are caused by the moon's gravity. The closer the moon, the stronger the effect. Therefor, the moon's recession would have been exponentially faster going backwards in time. Long before the moon could be close enough to touch the earth, the tidal forces would have ripped it apart (the Roche Limit). True, but the continents have a huge effect as well, and the moon is hypothesized to have formed from debris during a huge impact event some four billion years ago.
The math is very complicated and we don't really know what the continents looked like more than 1.1 billion years ago. It however is viable, there are plenty of papers on this.

Papers make truth?

BTW, I noticed you did not address the tilt of the earth issue. Because the moon controls the tilt of the earth. The moon getting 1/4 closer would change that tilt, which would change our weather for the worse.

How easy is the earth's tilt to change? I heard a certain huge wave (tsunami) that hit some poor country, the quake that caused it tilted the axis of the earth enough to be measured.

Also, an impact that would have knocked off a piece of the earth big enough to form the moon, would have wiped out any atmosphere that was there. Also, I noticed that the scientists who say they know where that impact was (in the deepest part of the ocean of course), use what I call the hiding evidence. No one but them have the equipment to survey such things. And because of ocean floor recycling, There actually should be no evidence. But when it comes to old earth theories, the evidence is there whether it can be seen or not. Kinda like the Oort cloud.

What I find even funnier. What is one of the reason Atheist always use for not believing God? Can't see Him or test Him. And that requires faith. And how many things does science claim is there, but yet no one can see it? Faith again.

 

[LightHorseman]

Not even Evolutionists consider marsupials to be a transitional state between egg layers and live birth (placental mammals).

Um, excuse me... I'm an evolutionist, and I consider marsupials to be a transitional state.

ANCIENT monotremes, gave way to ANCIENT marsupials (the underdeveloped birth form aspect, not necesarily pouchs) gave rise to ANC(IENT placental mamals. modern monotremes and marsupials are decendants of these interim forms.

 

[jwu]

Oscillation of the magnetic field has not been proven. The "~" (oscillation) replacing the actual "/" (the actual increase), was an excuse to explain away how far back you can go before the magnetic field is to strong for life to exist. They do not know how often it would happen. And it is claimed that we are over 100,000 years over due for a flip that cause the oscillation you are referring to.

Actually there is tons of evidence for it, such as the alternating magnetization of rocks on the sea floor.

Problem with the 100,000 year over due, is that going back just 30,000 makes the field to strong to support life. Evolution always needs a forever time-line in order to work. So every theory is based around making that time-line work, which has nothing to do with finding the truth

Show me the data. Back up the way how the ridiculously oversized extrapolation is chosen, why an expenential curve instead of a sinus or linear or inverse logarithmic.

Another perfect example of how when one law disproves the time-line needed for evolution, another to cancel it out is made up.

Excuse me? Do you seriously assert that there is some evil atheist conspiracy that made up this law which anyone can test in own simple experiments at home?
It's mathematically derived (i even did that myself on the blackboard a few years ago in physics class) and unanimously supported by experiments. You see it at work every time you watch a car race or drive a car or bike yourself.

Ok, I guess the tides are controlled by the god of natural selection.

Tides and earthquakes are not the same.

And the moon is mostly cooled off, correct? Which means that because it is mainly solid. There's not much to pull around to cause seismic activity. Unless you want to prove that the moon has a core that is as molten as the earth's. And a crust that is the same thickness.

Still it's subject to enormous forces, 81 times as much as the earth experiences in return. But ok, without a lot of math we won't get far with this example.
However, i've given a source which supports that the tidal forces of the moon have little impact on the frequency and strength of earthquakes.
Even if that effect is doubled, we're still not anywhere near conditions which would render the earth uninhabitable.

Hurricanes cause as high of tides as there would be if the moon were 1/4 closer to the earth. There is a lot of erosion from such high tides. And because high and low tides happen twice a day, twice the height, twice a day, would make the shore lines lose so much sand.

Source for that claim about the effect of hurricanes? Moreover, hurricanes are very violent events, not a slow rising and receding of water. And as already mentioned, we do observe a great variety of tidal heights right now anyway, and it's not a problem to local life at all.

Most of the land we see would already be eroded into the ocean in a billion years of doing this.

Without plate tectonics, yes. The upheaval of plates however solves this.

Papers make truth?

They can contain errors of course, but these typically get catched in peer review. However, they show that the models are viable if they withstand this process.

BTW, I noticed you did not address the tilt of the earth issue. Because the moon controls the tilt of the earth. The moon getting 1/4 closer would change that tilt, which would change our weather for the worse.

In what way would it change? Please show me the math of both the change of the tilt and the climatic changes. Blanket statements like that don't impress me at all. And "not as cuddly and comfortable as today" doesn't equal "inhospitable to life" either.
By the way, a billion years ago there pretty much was only marine life, which cares little about the surface weather anyway.

How easy is the earth's tilt to change? I heard a certain huge wave (tsunami) that hit some poor country, the quake that caused it tilted the axis of the earth enough to be measured.

The earth is a giant gyroscope...these things are used in avionics and astronautics exactly because they have a hard to change tilt.

However, if you know any studies about the impact of that tsunami on the earth's tilt, just let me know. I'm quite interested.

Also, an impact that would have knocked off a piece of the earth big enough to form the moon, would have wiped out any atmosphere that was there.

Yes...but that atmosphere was quite hostile to life back then anyway, and atmospheres can form anew from gasses which were solved elsewhere.

lso, I noticed that the scientists who say they know where that impact was (in the deepest part of the ocean of course), use what I call the hiding evidence. No one but them have the equipment to survey such things. And because of ocean floor recycling, There actually should be no evidence. But when it comes to old earth theories, the evidence is there whether it can be seen or not. Kinda like the Oort cloud.

Umm...back then there probably wasn't even fuild water on earth when that happened. It#s thought to have happened in the very early days of earth when it still was a ball of molten slag.

However, of course there is no crater - dropping a rock into a lake won't leave a permanent crater on the surface of the water either.
There is other evidence though, such as the composition of the moon - it constists of the same materials in the same composition as the crust of the earth.

And how many things does science claim is there, but yet no one can see it? Faith again.

...but these things leave indirect evidence which can be predicted to be there and then checked if it is there, thus testing the hypothesis.
We have never directly seen electrons either - but do you doubt that there is a ton of evidence that they exist?

 

[ikester7579]

Actually there is tons of evidence for it, such as the alternating magnetization of rocks on the sea floor.

What controls the magnetic field of lava rock?

Example: From a previous lava flow, that is now cooled. The bed is magnetized by the earth's magnetic field. The field of the lava flow is even readable by allowing a compass near it, which changes direction. Another lava flow flow over the top of the bed the is already magnetized. Which magnetic field is going to have more effect upon the final out come? The lava cooled off lava flow, that the new flow is sitting on? Or is the earth's magnetic field stronger? And since opposites attract, the new lava flow will have the opposite poles as the one already laid.

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.10.html

And about the tons of evidence.... Name just ten. That's not quite a ton, so it should be easy.

Show me the data. Back up the way how the ridiculously oversized extrapolation is chosen, why an expenential curve instead of a sinus or linear or inverse logarithmic.

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.7.html

Excuse me? Do you seriously assert that there is some evil atheist conspiracy that made up this law which anyone can test in own simple experiments at home?
It's mathematically derived (i even did that myself on the blackboard a few years ago in physics class) and unanimously supported by experiments. You see it at work every time you watch a car race or drive a car or bike yourself.

Why is a law needed when another cancels it? It's because it leaves leeway for scientists not to allow such a law to counter supporting evidence for their pet theory. For if the law was to stand alone, the time-line needed for evolution would not work.

Tides and earthquakes are not the same.

Never said they were. One was the direct cause of the other.

Still it's subject to enormous forces, 81 times as much as the earth experiences in return. But ok, without a lot of math we won't get far with this example.
However, i've given a source which supports that the tidal forces of the moon have little impact on the frequency and strength of earthquakes.

So I see you cannot prove that the moon would be affected, and have extra seismic activity. It's make up changes the effect 81 times more pull would have.

Even if that effect is doubled, we're still not anywhere near conditions which would render the earth uninhabitable.

So would you like to tell us exactly what condition, using current subject, would render the earth uninhabitabal? Like: How close can the moon get to the earth before life on earth could not exist? I'd like to see the facts and figures on such a claim. Also showing that double the pull would do nothing.

Source for that claim about the effect of hurricanes? Moreover, hurricanes are very violent events, not a slow rising and receding of water. And as already mentioned, we do observe a great variety of tidal heights right now anyway, and it's not a problem to local life at all.

I suspect you have never been to a beach. As the tide rises or falls, there are constant waves, which are also present during a hurricane. But are bigger, and more abundant... When the moon is closer, not only will the tide rise much faster to achieve an extra high, but it will also run out much quicker to achieve a much lower tide. How?

The same extra pull (double) that made the extra high tide, will pull and make an extra low tide. It is the ocean water running back from a extra high tide, to an extra low tide that causes the extra erosion. How?

An extra high tide covers more area (sand and dirt), compared to a normal tide. So when an extra high tide runs back into the ocean to make the extra low tide. More sand and dirt will be pulled into the ocean.

Hurricanes cause more beach erosion:
Google

Without plate tectonics, yes. The upheaval of plates however solves this.

Really? Plate tectonics barf the sand and dirt back up on the shore line which each high and low tide? The beach I used to go to, and drive my jeep upon, sure could use some of this barfing to restore it. Currently, it cannot be driven upon because most cars cannot float.

Also, do you know why sea walls are built? It's to protect land from tide erosion, as well as hurricane erosion. So who ever builds these sea walls most be ripping us off, if they are not needed because beach erosion does not exist. As you imply. I suggest you spend a day at the beach. When the tide starts to go our, go and stand in the water, and you will experience erosion first hand as sand is removed from around your feet.

In what way would it change? Please show me the math of both the change of the tilt and the climatic changes. Blanket statements like that don't impress me at all. And "not as cuddly and comfortable as today" doesn't equal "inhospitable to life" either.
By the way, a billion years ago there pretty much was only marine life, which cares little about the surface weather anyway.

One example: Let's take the tilt away, and see how long life can exist with no seasons?

The tilt of the earth makes the 4 seasons happen. A more of a tilt would make warmer weather reach closer to the poles during the summer, or winter. Which would melt a lot of the pole caps. This would also affect the equator. The sun's rays moving further away from the center, because tilt is more. Would cause the area around the equator to cool down more. Which would kill all tropical plants that cannot stand cold weather.

Weather all around the whole earth would change. Hurricanes would happen in places where it has never bee seen.

How seasons work: http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/weather/1.html

How easy is it to tilt the axis? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/ear ... tters.html

The period of these shifts are related to changes in the tilt of Earth’s rotational axis (41,000 years), changes in the orientation of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun, called the “precession of the equinoxes†(23,000 years), and to changes in the shape (more round or less round) of the elliptical orbit (100,000 years). The theory that orbital shifts caused the waxing and waning of ice ages was first pointed out by James Croll in the 19th Century and developed more fully by Milutin Milankovitch in 1938.

The earth is a giant gyroscope...these things are used in avionics and astronautics exactly because they have a hard to change tilt.

Gyro scopes do not have a magnetic field or gravity. Nor do they have supposed polar flips. So it's not a direct comparison.

However, if you know any studies about the impact of that tsunami on the earth's tilt, just let me know. I'm quite interested.

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnatu ... _tilt.html

This earthquake was also reported to be the longest duration of faulting ever observed, lasting between 500 and 600 seconds, and it was large enough that it caused the entire planet to vibrate at least half an inch, or over a centimetre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_India ... earthquake

]The earth, although hard, is elastic. When some sort of high energy event
occurs (earthquake, volcano, explosion of a nuclear device) the earth can
"ring" -- a geological bell of sorts. Sensitive seismometers at numerous
locations around the world can detect these earth-vibrations. In fact, the
echoes of the vibrations can also be detected. There is no global danger
from such events (except maybe the atmospheric dust from a volcano), but
obviously from the news disaster can occur at a local level and even
hundreds of miles away.

Vince Calder
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env275.htm

etc....

Yes...but that atmosphere was quite hostile to life back then anyway, and atmospheres can form anew from gasses which were solved elsewhere.

Water boils in a vacuum at room temps. There is also what is called the triple point of water. This is where the water can be all three forms at the same time (solid, liquid, and gas). This would affect sea life, with no atmosphere. Plus the exposure to the absolute zero of space.

And even if there is some atmosphere left after the impact. Lower barometric pressure lowers the boiling point of water. A much warmer earth, with a low barometric pressure, would contain water that is constantly boiling. How can life form or exist in boiling water?

Umm...back then there probably wasn't even fuild water on earth when that happened. It#s thought to have happened in the very early days of earth when it still was a ball of molten slag.

However, of course there is no crater - dropping a rock into a lake won't leave a permanent crater on the surface of the water either.
There is other evidence though, such as the composition of the moon - it constists of the same materials in the same composition as the crust of the earth.

Earth: Silicate rocks. Continents dominated by granites. Ocean crust dominated by basalt.

Moon: Silicate rocks. Highlands dominated by feldspar-rich rocks and maria by basalt.

The moon should be the same make up from the surface of the earth, which happens to be granite rock.

...but these things leave indirect evidence which can be predicted to be there and then checked if it is there, thus testing the hypothesis.
We have never directly seen electrons either - but do you doubt that there is a ton of evidence that they exist?

The bible is also physical evidence of God. And can already be mostly backed up historically. Which is even more evidence.

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.36.html

 

[jwu]

Example: From a previous lava flow, that is now cooled. The bed is magnetized by the earth's magnetic field. The field of the lava flow is even readable by allowing a compass near it, which changes direction. Another lava flow flow over the top of the bed the is already magnetized. Which magnetic field is going to have more effect upon the final out come? The lava cooled off lava flow, that the new flow is sitting on? Or is the earth's magnetic field stronger? And since opposites attract, the new lava flow will have the opposite poles as the one already laid.

The earth's magnetic field is not necessarily stronger but larger, it penetrates the whole flow while the field of an underlying older flow only significantly affects a few inches at most.

However, this is rendered irrelevant because e.g. on the seafloor the alternating samples are not vertically overlying but the areas of different polarization are next to each other. Moreover, the effect which you describe there should be visible there if your guesses about the mechanics were correct, which is not what we find.
Moreover, your explaination should result in chaotic readings all over the world, each individual location would get its own pattern based on the frequency of its lava flows. That's not what we find either.

And about the tons of evidence.... Name just ten. That's not quite a ton, so it should be easy.

Magnetized rock from e.g. seafloor spreading all over the world. Way more than ten locations.

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html5.7.html

Perhaps i am blind...where does this justify an exponential extrapolation? Where does it even offer any proper plots of the data?

Moreover, from that article

The information for the graph is: Gravity has weakened by 6% in 150 years. Graph it out, backwards and you will see.

And because of the magnetic field getting weaker. The moon moves away from the earth 3 inches a year. At this rate, how did it stay in orbit for billions of years?

Gravity has weakened by 6%? Where do they get that from? How about evidence to the contrary, such as things which were 1kg hundred years ago still weighting 1kg?
And that claim about the magnetic field being responsible for the receding of the moon is just plain wrong as well...

Why is a law needed when another cancels it? It's because it leaves leeway for scientists not to allow such a law to counter supporting evidence for their pet theory. For if the law was to stand alone, the time-line needed for evolution would not work.

It is needed because it has been directly observed and also mathematically derived. Logic dictates it.

Or do you deny that the centripetal force is F=mv/r² ?

Never said they were. One was the direct cause of the other.

Then your argument doesn't make any sense there.

So I see you cannot prove that the moon would be affected, and have extra seismic activity.

Actually wouldn't it help your case if there was significant seismic activity on the moon?

So would you like to tell us exactly what condition, using current subject, would render the earth uninhabitabal? Like: How close can the moon get to the earth before life on earth could not exist? I'd like to see the facts and figures on such a claim. Also showing that double the pull would do nothing.

You first made the claim that it would render the earth uninhabitable, so that's your job to show.
However, the frequency and strength of earthquakes varies greatly all over the place, which already demonstrates that life isn't significantly affected by this.

I suspect you have never been to a beach. As the tide rises or falls, there are constant waves, which are also present during a hurricane. But are bigger, and more abundant... When the moon is closer, not only will the tide rise much faster to achieve an extra high, but it will also run out much quicker to achieve a much lower tide. How?

They however would not be anything like hurricane waves. Actually i don't see why wave height would be affected. Just because the tides are higher doesn't mean the waves get higher too - wave height is governed by things like wind, not the tides.

An extra high tide covers more area (sand and dirt), compared to a normal tide. So when an extra high tide runs back into the ocean to make the extra low tide. More sand and dirt will be pulled into the ocean.

It covers more area, but exactly that also can reduce the erosional effect if it has to work on actual rocks. They'd be most affected if there were not tides at all and the waves hit the same spot all the time - with tides this changes all the time and the effect is diluted over a larger area.

Hurricanes cause more beach erosion:

Hurricanes are irrelevant as they are not like ordinary tides, low or high, at all.

Really? Plate tectonics barf the sand and dirt back up on the shore line which each high and low tide? The beach I used to go to, and drive my jeep upon, sure could use some of this barfing to restore it. Currently, it cannot be driven upon because most cars cannot float.

D'uh...it forms dry ladn elsewhere. No-one denies that coastlines change.

Also, do you know why sea walls are built? It's to protect land from tide erosion, as well as hurricane erosion. So who ever builds these sea walls most be ripping us off, if they are not needed because beach erosion does not exist. As you imply. I suggest you spend a day at the beach. When the tide starts to go our, go and stand in the water, and you will experience erosion first hand as sand is removed from around your feet.

...because the particular land which they are to protect is of value to someone. Again, no-one denies that land is lost to the seas - but that does not mean that no new land forms elsewhere.

One example: Let's take the tilt away, and see how long life can exist with no seasons?

Just fine, like in tropical regions where there are no significant seasons anyway. How does life depend on seasons?

The tilt of the earth makes the 4 seasons happen. A more of a tilt would make warmer weather reach closer to the poles during the summer, or winter. Which would melt a lot of the pole caps. This would also affect the equator. The sun's rays moving further away from the center, because tilt is more. Would cause the area around the equator to cool down more.

Of course, increased tilt would cause more extreme seasons. That doesn't mean that the earth would be inhabitable.

Which would kill all tropical plants that cannot stand cold weather.

If it were to happen in an instant, then yes - and plants and animals which can deal with changing temperatures such as the ones which live in non-tropical regions would take over.

And by the way...wouldn't the moon be closer result in less tilt anyway, not more?

How easy is it to tilt the axis? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/ear ... tters.html

The earth wobbling a bit by itself does not mean that it is easy to make it wobble. It takes astronomical amounts of energy to cause such a thing.

Gyro scopes do not have a magnetic field or gravity. Nor do they have supposed polar flips. So it's not a direct comparison.

How are these things relevant? If anything it's the liquid interior which creates instabilities, but basic mechanics still apply.

This earthquake was also reported to be the longest duration of faulting ever observed, lasting between 500 and 600 seconds, and it was large enough that it caused the entire planet to vibrate at least half an inch, or over a centimetre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_India ... earthquake

Vibratioon is not a change of tilt - it ends back in the same position where it started.

Water boils in a vacuum at room temps. There is also what is called the triple point of water. This is where the water can be all three forms at the same time (solid, liquid, and gas). This would affect sea life, with no atmosphere. Plus the exposure to the absolute zero of space.

And even if there is some atmosphere left after the impact. Lower barometric pressure lowers the boiling point of water. A much warmer earth, with a low barometric pressure, would contain water that is constantly boiling. How can life form or exist in boiling water?

Back then there was no life yet though, so no-one claims that it existed in these conditions.
(And besides, that'd only affect life under surface pressure, not life inside the earth anyway)

Earth: Silicate rocks. Continents dominated by granites. Ocean crust dominated by basalt.

Moon: Silicate rocks. Highlands dominated by feldspar-rich rocks and maria by basalt.

The moon should be the same make up from the surface of the earth, which happens to be granite rock.

Do you know what granite is? A metamorphic rock and it consists primarily of feldspar. It's feldspar which was worked on by plate tectonics - which the moon lacks. You've shot your own leg there...

 

[ikester7579]

I can see where this will be an endless debate. I also see where you also made several mistakes. Even in the last post. But they are ignored when pointed out. I have no problem with the information you present, I learn from each post. I even back up what I can when I post. But you williness to just see what you want, and disregard the rest, baffles me. I will use one example, because I am tired of researching stuff to only have it ignored.

Example: The earth's tilt will not effect life? Ok, how many plants that we eat from grow in the tropics? More than half of the food source we currently have cannot grow when seasons do not exist. Which not only affects human life, but animal life as well.

Will you admit to being wrong on this? I doubt it.

If you knew anything about what you claim, you would realize this instead of making broad excuses for mistakes in which I'm not going to point out just so another excuse can be conjured up. So if you want to believe what you post, I have no problem. But I'm not wasting my time with a debate that is basically one sided, where one side always has to be right. Even if ignoring evidence makes it so.

 

[jwu]

I can see where this will be an endless debate. I also see where you also made several mistakes. Even in the last post. But they are ignored when pointed out.

Could you please point out mistakes which i ignored instead of adressing them?

Example: The earth's tilt will not effect life?

Where did i say that the tilt of the earth does not affect life?

Quote me.

I said that the existence of life does not depend on the earth being tilted in this particular angle and could exist with a different tilt as well, not that life is completely unaffected by it.

Ok, how many plants that we eat from grow in the tropics? More than half of the food source we currently have cannot grow when seasons do not exist. Which not only affects human life, but animal life as well.

Will you admit to being wrong on this? I doubt it.

I notice you're backpedaling quite a lot. Of course do the seasons influence life, after all it has adapted to them, there are species which wouldn't do so well without them. I never claimed anything else, and that you assert that i did appears to me as an outright lie. You are putting words into my mouth that i did not say because you are unable to deal with the real ones.

I even explicitly stated that a change of the seasons would have enormous influence on what thrives and what does not, this is what i said in my last post:

"Which would kill all tropical plants that cannot stand cold weather."

If it were to happen in an instant, then yes - and plants and animals which can deal with changing temperatures such as the ones which live in non-tropical regions would take over.

I doubt your figures about half of what we grow as food depending on seasons, but that's beside the point; i don't mind using that figure for now.

But that does not mean that life as a whole could not exist without seasons.

 

[LightHorseman]

Has anyone mentioned that the inverse square law relates to the distance from the centre of gravity of an object?

Or that all orbiting bodies either receed from or colapse towards their central point? Tidal effects mean a 100% stable orbit is impossible.

 

[LightHorseman]

Why would a theory need a god?

Why would a theory need a piano accordian?

I don't understand the question

 

[ikester7579]

jwu, never mind. I'm not doing this just to have you restart the whole thing over again (common tactic). And since you think I lie intensionally (a usual assertion), what's the point? After all, all creationists lie on purpose, correct?

I guess if I believed in science, I could replace all that I could not explain with the word theory. In that way it would not look like a lie, and I could use other theories that cancel out any theory that did not go along. Therefore I could and would have an explanation (excuse) for everything.

And you changed your post to make it look like I lied (another common tactic). And for that stunt, you also go on my ignore list.

 

[jwu]

Now that's the easy way out...

And since you think I lie intensionally (a usual assertion), what's the point? After all, all creationists lie on purpose, correct?

Actually there are many creationists who are honest but simply misinformed.

However, since i cannot imagine that you accidentally put words into my mouth like that - after all i have shown that i explicitly stated the precise opposite of what you claim i said in my previous post - i do believe that you did this intentionally.

And you changed your post to make it look like I lied (another common tactic).

Editing posts leaves "edit" marks on them for everyone to see, showing how often and when it has been edited if someone else than the poster already read it. Just like it can be seen on the very first post of this thread.
Since there are no such edit marks on my posts i cannot possibly have done what you accuse me of and you are proven a liar.

And with that you also implicitly concede that i indeed did not say what you claimed i did.

 

[LightHorseman]

After all, all creationists lie on purpose, correct?

Would it be below the belt at this point for me to point out that Kent Hoven, the annointed champion of all things creationist, has recently been arrested for massive tax fraud and perjury?

 

[Vic C.]

Topic is locked and will be under review by a Moderator.