Age of the earth?

Quote from: Particle Person on July 08, 2011, 02:32:27 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 02:30:32 PM

Except Einstein wasn't a math expert, he was a theoretical physicist.  But yes, his math was obviously correct.

Can you be an expert in theoretical physics without being an expert in math?

Yes, by his own admission math was not his strong suit.  Also, just in theory at least, physics does not math to exist as its own field.  There's a landmark book I believe on this that I can dig up from my closet if you want a source.  Though I imagine its cited on wikipedia somewhere.

You can be an expert theoretical physicist without being a math expert just like how you can be an expert biologist without being an expert in organic chemistry.  You need certain degree of sapience in that adjacent field of knowledge but not necessarily be among the best of that area.

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 02:34:11 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on July 08, 2011, 02:32:27 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 02:30:32 PM

Except Einstein wasn't a math expert, he was a theoretical physicist.  But yes, his math was obviously correct.

Can you be an expert in theoretical physics without being an expert in math?

Yes, by his own admission math was not his strong suit.  Also, just in theory at least, physics does not math to exist as its own field.  There's a landmark book I believe on this that I can dig up from my closet if you want a source.  Though I imagine its cited on wikipedia somewhere.

You can be an expert theoretical physicist without being a math expert just like how you can be an expert biologist without being an expert in organic chemistry.  You need certain degree of sapience in that adjacent field of knowledge but not necessarily be among the best of that area.

Well said.

Uh huh...anyway, my point was that Einstein's math was probably stronger than the OP's is.

Uh huh...anyway, my point was that Einstein's math was probably stronger than the OP's is.

so where does einstein derive these equations? Like i said (never was addressed)  "I'm not aware of that being part of einstein's equations... and its simple algebra.."


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=dv/dt+%3D+g/(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)^3
 
Could he have been anymore off?

do FEs not beleive in gravity at all? because its simply demonstrated by standing at the base of a large mountain holding a weight on a piece of string or a pendulum. You will see the weight is not dropping straight down but leaning towards the mountain because the mountain is large enough to have its own small gravitational effect.

do FEs not beleive in gravity at all? because its simply demonstrated by standing at the base of a large mountain holding a weight on a piece of string or a pendulum. You will see the weight is not dropping straight down but leaning towards the mountain because the mountain is large enough to have its own small gravitational effect.

The cavindish 'experiment' is bunk. Even RE scientists agree with this.

Quote from: elliotuk on July 14, 2011, 12:33:40 PM

do FEs not beleive in gravity at all? because its simply demonstrated by standing at the base of a large mountain holding a weight on a piece of string or a pendulum. You will see the weight is not dropping straight down but leaning towards the mountain because the mountain is large enough to have its own small gravitational effect.

The cavindish 'experiment' is bunk. Even RE scientists agree with this.

Which RE scientists are you referring to?

Quote from: Tausami on July 14, 2011, 12:48:11 PM

Quote from: elliotuk on July 14, 2011, 12:33:40 PM

do FEs not beleive in gravity at all? because its simply demonstrated by standing at the base of a large mountain holding a weight on a piece of string or a pendulum. You will see the weight is not dropping straight down but leaning towards the mountain because the mountain is large enough to have its own small gravitational effect.

The cavindish 'experiment' is bunk. Even RE scientists agree with this.

Which RE scientists are you referring to?

Miles Mathis agrees that the Cavendish Experiment is deeply flawed. At the level of sensitivity the experiment is working on, macro forces, such as the static force, would have more of an effect on the experiment than any alleged "gravity".

Not only that, but the Cavendish Experiment itself is unreliable as well. In a past thread TheEngineer, a mechanical engineer, had this to say about a "Bending Space-Time in the Basement" Cavendish experiment:--

There seems to me, to be some unexplainable things going on in the experiments.  The second video shows a large return of the balance after it contacts the weights.  Just from looking at the video and using an estimate of the angle and time using the stamp on the video, I've made a liberal estimate of the velocity when it makes contact with the weights.  This will result in a certain kinetic energy at the moment of impact.  Assuming a perfectly elastic collision (again, very liberal), the total energy must be conserved, so that the potential energy gained by the masses must equal the kinetic energy.  Using a simple equation, I've found the gravitational attraction of the weights and masses.  Using the kinetic energy as the maximum potential energy and solving for the distance that the mass can travel, I've found the rebound angle to be 0.126 degrees, not the nearly 30 that is shown in the video.  However, there is also a water brake which should damp this small movement, making the video highly suspect.

Now, as I have said, I've made assumptions and simplifications (as it's late, I'm tired and I'm not getting paid for this), and those have been on the larger side of things.

Perhaps I will do an in depth analysis of this if I get bored.

BTW, it is stated on Wiki:

"Bending Spacetime in the Basement (do-it-yourself Cavendish apparatus - appears to be seriously flawed[1])"

Ergo we see that this instance of the Cavendish experiment is unreliable. Each and every one of us can personally observe in the demonstration videos that gravity does not act in the way predicted by Round Earth Theory.

Quote from: markjo on July 14, 2011, 01:22:38 PM

Which RE scientists are you referring to?

Miles Mathis agrees that the Cavendish Experiment is deeply flawed.

Miles Mathis is not a professional scientist, he is a professional artist.  He seems to think that atheism is deeply flawed as well, so you may want to think twice before blindly agreeing with him.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2011, 01:57:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 14, 2011, 01:22:38 PM

Which RE scientists are you referring to?

Miles Mathis agrees that the Cavendish Experiment is deeply flawed.

Miles Mathis is not a professional scientist, he is a professional artist.

Mathis studied physics at UT Austin. He is qualified to speak on the matter. See his bio:

http://mileswmathis.com/bio.html

In 2000 Miles moved to Amherst, Massachusetts, where, snuggled in amongst the five colleges, he began his serious scientific studies. He had majored for a short time in physics and astronomy at UT Austin, where he impressed his professors with a very quick mind. In his first course for physics majors, one designed to weed out the weak, the class average was 52. Miles ruined the curve with a 100. In astronomy it was the same: Miles had the high average among all the first-year classes. This was reminiscent of high school, where the calculus teacher had a longstanding trick of asking all his second-year algebra students a pre-calculus question, a leading variant of the problem Newton and Leibniz were working on when they invented the calculus. No one had ever answered it correctly. Miles did.

He had also kept up his readings in science since college, although this consisted mainly of updates on the latest theories. But, unsatisfied with the direction these theories were taking, Miles finally began studying the history of theoretical physics in earnest, especially as it related to classical mechanics and basic physics. He bought a small library of old books like Newton's Principia, Euclid's and Archimedes' treatises, Maxwell's papers, and all of Einstein's original writings. He also brushed up on his calculus and began looking into the origins of that math. This ultimately led him to Cauchy and Cantor, set theory, topology, and several other subfields, which he investigated to whatever ends he was following at the time.

Also,

He was also a National Merit Scholar and won the local National Honor Society Scholarship. He should be remembered by the takers of the PSAT, for questioning one of the answers on the math portion. The PSAT admitted its error and was forced to change all scores nationally.

He seems to think that atheism is deeply flawed as well, so you may want to think twice before blindly agreeing with him.

I don't know about that. Mathis seems to be repeating some of the same criticisms I put forward in my thread All Athiests Believe in God.

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
1.  The moon is receding a few inches each year.  The gravity of the moon would have destroyed the earth if it were billions of years old.  (Inverse Square Law)
2.  U-236 and Th-230 are both short-lived isotopes.  The moon contains these isotopes which it could not if it were billions of years old.
3.  The earth has a decaying magnetic field which would be gone if the earth were billions of years old.
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. 
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. 

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
1.  The moon is receding a few inches each year.  The gravity of the moon would have destroyed the earth if it were billions of years old.  (Inverse Square Law)
2.  U-236 and Th-230 are both short-lived isotopes.  The moon contains these isotopes which it could not if it were billions of years old.
3.  The earth has a decaying magnetic field which would be gone if the earth were billions of years old.
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. 
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old.

How do you know how far away the moon is?  How do you know it is receding and not fluctuating?

How do you know what is on the moon?

How do you know the magnetic field:  exists, is decaying and not fluxuating

How do you know that deserts never shrink

Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

Tom, the primary evidence for special relativity assumed that the standard scientific view of the world (with the Earth as a sphere rotating around the sun) was correct. That was the whole point of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment. If you have a flat Earth that isn't moving this is all irrelevant. So why do you believe in special relativity? Also, more directly connected to your question, if you think that that the "are you smarter than Einstein" sort of argument has any validity why doesn't it bother you that Einstein didn't believe in a flat Earth?

Now to deal with ChucK:

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
1.  The moon is receding a few inches each year.  The gravity of the moon would have destroyed the earth if it were billions of years old.  (Inverse Square Law)

This is wrong. You are correct that the moon is receding at a few inches a year. The moon at closest approach is around 360,000 kilometers away (assuming standard astronomy so we don't need to deal with weird flat Earth claims at the moment. You seem to be assuming some form of standard astronomy in your claim). That means that if we were to round up and assume that the moon was receding at a rate of 5 cm a year (which is an overestimate - it seems to be close to about 3.8 cm a year) and had been indefinitely then we'd get that around 5 billion years ago the moon would be about 2*10^4 kilometers closer, which would make it about 10% closer. So tides would be bit more extreme but nothing that would be anywhere near destroy the Earth.  It is a good idea to actually check the arithmetic before you make this sort of claim.

2.  U-236 and Th-230 are both short-lived isotopes.  The moon contains these isotopes which it could not if it were billions of years old.

Short-lived isotopes show up all the time. That's because long-lived isotopes like U-238 when they decay form short-lived isotopes so you get a steady supply of them. U-238 has a half-life in the billions of years, and has decay chains that give rise to both of the isotopes you mention.

3.  The earth has a decaying magnetic field which would be gone if the earth were billions of years old.

The magnetic field fluctuates over time, and sometimes reverses. We can see that in a variety of items including rocks on the sea floor.

4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years.

.

True, and so what? That just means that Niagara Falls are young. That says nothing about the age of the Earth. Features change over time.

5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. 

Huh? I'm not even sure I see the argument here. Features change over time. Deserts sometimes expand and contract. Lots of things can alter this, such as human deforestation, changes in prevailing rain patterns and other effects. There's no reason to think that we should expect to see large, ever-growing deserts.

6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old.

This falls into the same category as Niagara Falls. It just doesn't matter.

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 04:36:22 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 04:30:42 PM

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
1.  The moon is receding a few inches each year.  The gravity of the moon would have destroyed the earth if it were billions of years old.  (Inverse Square Law)
2.  U-236 and Th-230 are both short-lived isotopes.  The moon contains these isotopes which it could not if it were billions of years old.
3.  The earth has a decaying magnetic field which would be gone if the earth were billions of years old.
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. 
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old.

How do you know how far away the moon is?  How do you know it is receding and not fluctuating?

How do you know what is on the moon?

How do you know the magnetic field:  exists, is decaying and not fluxuating

How do you know that deserts never shrink

Well I'm using classic RE science references here.  The burden of proof is not on me, it is on your accepted science.

There is no combined RE science.  You are stating facts, I am just asking for your source,  obviously you havent been to the moon.

Quote from: Around And About on July 09, 2011, 05:30:28 AM

Uh huh...anyway, my point was that Einstein's math was probably stronger than the OP's is.

so where does einstein derive these equations?

The Special Theory of Relativity?

There is no combined RE science.  You are stating facts, I am just asking for your source,  obviously you haven't been to the moon.

Yes, I will get you my sources.  I had pulled the post to answer the other poster.  I'm currently working on answering his post. 

If the earth is only about 6000 years old, what about the mesopotamians?

...Features change over time. Deserts sometimes expand and contract. Lots of things can alter this, such as human deforestation, changes in prevailing rain patterns and other effects. There's no reason to think that we should expect to see large, ever-growing deserts.

There are a lot of points going on this thread.  So lets start with this one and see it through.
 
But "large, ever growing-deserts" is what we see.  This is where you jump off into speculation "There is no reason to think."  There is no reason to think otherwise, unless you have specific data against "Prevailing Winds" which are caused by two phenomena (per the spinning RE model):  The sun's heat causes north-south/ south-north winds depending upon latitude and the rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west (N-S of equator per spinning RE model) aka. Coriolis Effect.  The Sahara desert is expanding approximately four miles per year and calculations upon this fact show the desert to be around 4,000 years old.  This is what we see, not what we could see.   

Quote from: JoshuaZ on July 14, 2011, 04:59:55 PM

...Features change over time. Deserts sometimes expand and contract. Lots of things can alter this, such as human deforestation, changes in prevailing rain patterns and other effects. There's no reason to think that we should expect to see large, ever-growing deserts.

There are a lot of points going on this thread.  So lets start with this one and see it through.
 
But "large, ever growing-deserts" is what we see.  This is where you jump off into speculation "There is no reason to think."  There is no reason to think otherwise, unless you have specific data against "Prevailing Winds" which are caused by two phenomena (per the spinning RE model):  The sun's heat causes north-south/ south-north winds depending upon latitude and the rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west (N-S of equator per spinning RE model) aka. Coriolis Effect.  The Sahara desert is expanding approximately four miles per year and calculations upon this fact show the desert to be around 4,000 years old.  This is what we see, not what we could see.

There exist shrinking deserts.

Also, what does a few inches a year have to do with anything, 10cm/year for 1 billion years is only 10,000 km.

Kinda disproves the 3000 mile concept imo

Quote from: JoshuaZ on July 14, 2011, 04:59:55 PM

...Features change over time. Deserts sometimes expand and contract. Lots of things can alter this, such as human deforestation, changes in prevailing rain patterns and other effects. There's no reason to think that we should expect to see large, ever-growing deserts.

There are a lot of points going on this thread.  So lets start with this one and see it through.
 
But "large, ever growing-deserts" is what we see.  This is where you jump off into speculation "There is no reason to think."  There is no reason to think otherwise, unless you have specific data against "Prevailing Winds" which are caused by two phenomena (per the spinning RE model):  The sun's heat causes north-south/ south-north winds depending upon latitude and the rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west (N-S of equator per spinning RE model) aka. Coriolis Effect.  The Sahara desert is expanding approximately four miles per year and calculations upon this fact show the desert to be around 4,000 years old.  This is what we see, not what we could see.

Yes, I do have other reasons, like the presence of shrinking deserts. See e.g. here. Since we observe deserts that are shrinking, and others that are growing, the basic point should be clear. Moreover, we observe deserts where the rate of growth or loss changes from year to year.

So yeah, the Sahara argument fails pretty badly.

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years. Ok, so what you're telling us is that Niagra Falls is only 8,400 years old. Good to know. Doesn't prove anything.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. The Earth goes through cycles and climates change. I don't see how you could even think this was a proof.
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) That is the oldest living tree. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3545540/Worlds-oldest-living-animal-discovered-after-he-is-pictured-in-1900-photograph.html That is the oldest living animal. Do you have a point?

I only went after the ones I could do off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a good explanation for the other three.

There is a practice of exaggerating another persons claims to make them sound ridiculous, and I cant recall what it is no matter how hard I try.

For example, recording data for a period of time, finding a pattern, and then projecting the pattern in a straight line.  This is not science.

No scientist would take data like a growing desert, and imply that it must always expand.

As for Niagra Falls, you have not seen enough of the world yet to have seen ancient river courses, that have changed?  Rivers change all of the time.

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 04:30:42 PM

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years. Ok, so what you're telling us is that Niagra Falls is only 8,400 years old. Good to know. Doesn't prove anything.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. The Earth goes through cycles and climates change. I don't see how you could even think this was a proof.
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) That is the oldest living tree. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3545540/Worlds-oldest-living-animal-discovered-after-he-is-pictured-in-1900-photograph.html That is the oldest living animal. Do you have a point?

I only went after the ones I could do off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a good explanation for the other three.

Yes, thank you.  With regards to the tree, it fits within my creation view perfectly.  Coincides with the flood of Noah as well. 

Quote from: sillyrob on July 14, 2011, 06:07:20 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 04:30:42 PM

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years. Ok, so what you're telling us is that Niagra Falls is only 8,400 years old. Good to know. Doesn't prove anything.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. The Earth goes through cycles and climates change. I don't see how you could even think this was a proof.
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) That is the oldest living tree. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3545540/Worlds-oldest-living-animal-discovered-after-he-is-pictured-in-1900-photograph.html That is the oldest living animal. Do you have a point?

I only went after the ones I could do off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a good explanation for the other three.

Yes, thank you.  With regards to the tree, it fits within my creation view perfectly.  Coincides with the flood of Noah as well.

I think we can all agree that you have religious views which you are defending.  Everyone is free to believe what they want.

Please dont mislead other people into thinking that you are following any type of science though.  You have predetermined conclusions that you seek supporting data for.  You discount any data that doesnt fit.

Quote from: sillyrob on July 14, 2011, 06:07:20 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 04:30:42 PM

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years. Ok, so what you're telling us is that Niagra Falls is only 8,400 years old. Good to know. Doesn't prove anything.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. The Earth goes through cycles and climates change. I don't see how you could even think this was a proof.
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) That is the oldest living tree. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3545540/Worlds-oldest-living-animal-discovered-after-he-is-pictured-in-1900-photograph.html That is the oldest living animal. Do you have a point?

I only went after the ones I could do off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a good explanation for the other three.

Yes, thank you.  With regards to the tree, it fits within my creation view perfectly.  Coincides with the flood of Noah as well.

Or it happens to be a tree that lived to be over 4,000 years old.

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 06:15:40 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on July 14, 2011, 06:07:20 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 04:30:42 PM

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years. Ok, so what you're telling us is that Niagra Falls is only 8,400 years old. Good to know. Doesn't prove anything.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. The Earth goes through cycles and climates change. I don't see how you could even think this was a proof.
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) That is the oldest living tree. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3545540/Worlds-oldest-living-animal-discovered-after-he-is-pictured-in-1900-photograph.html That is the oldest living animal. Do you have a point?

I only went after the ones I could do off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a good explanation for the other three.

Yes, thank you.  With regards to the tree, it fits within my creation view perfectly.  Coincides with the flood of Noah as well.

I think we can all agree that you have religious views which you are defending.  Everyone is free to believe what they want.

Please dont mislead other people into thinking that you are following any type of science though.  You have predetermined conclusions that you seek supporting data for.  You discount any data that doesnt fit.

Is science not observable?  Does it not follow the scientific method?  I propose a hypothesis that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that approximately 4,500 years ago there was a flood as recorded in historical documentation.  Fact presented by Silly Rob:  The oldest living tree matches up with my hypothesis.  Fact:  The largest desert in the world matches my hypothesis.  Fact:  The oldest living coral reef supports my hypothesis.  Who's discounting??  Not I sir, but rather you!     

Is science not observable?  Does it not follow the scientific method?  I propose a hypothesis that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that approximately 4,500 years ago there was a flood as recorded in historical documentation.  Fact presented by Silly Rob:  The oldest living tree matches up with my hypothesis.  Fact:  The largest desert in the world matches my hypothesis.  Fact:  The oldest living coral reef supports my hypothesis.  Who's discounting??  Not I sir, but rather you!   

They support your hypothesis only in the extremely weak sense, and not a terribly useful one. It is especially problematic because the sort of techniques we use to date very old living things like trees are essentially the same standard techniques used in the rest of science which tells us that the world is really old. So for example, tree ages are approximately dated by using dendrochronology (counting tree rings). But using the same method, looking at old dead trees or petrified trees or the like, we can extend things back a lot farther. That goes back about to 9000 years and easily to 8000 if one just wants to be very confident.

(Incidentally, you don't seem to be discussing your other claims, especially those related to the moon. Does that mean you agree that they are wrong?)

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 06:25:16 PM

Is science not observable?  Does it not follow the scientific method?  I propose a hypothesis that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that approximately 4,500 years ago there was a flood as recorded in historical documentation.  Fact presented by Silly Rob:  The oldest living tree matches up with my hypothesis.  Fact:  The largest desert in the world matches my hypothesis.  Fact:  The oldest living coral reef supports my hypothesis.  Who's discounting??  Not I sir, but rather you!   

They support your hypothesis only in the extremely weak sense, and not a terribly useful one. It is especially problematic because the sort of techniques we use to date very old living things like trees are essentially the same standard techniques used in the rest of science which tells us that the world is really old. So for example, tree ages are approximately dated by using dendrochronology (counting tree rings). But using the same method, looking at old dead trees or petrified trees or the like, we can extend things back a lot farther. That goes back about to 9000 years and easily to 8000 if one just wants to be very confident.

(Incidentally, you don't seem to be discussing your other claims, especially those related to the moon. Does that mean you agree that they are wrong?)

I will be happy to discuss each and every one of them.  Please understand that I am answering numerous threads and posters.  I would hate to post a reply prematurely without ensuring the accuracy of said post.  I am but only one man!  I hope you understand my predicament.     

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 06:15:40 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on July 14, 2011, 06:07:20 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 04:30:42 PM

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years. Ok, so what you're telling us is that Niagra Falls is only 8,400 years old. Good to know. Doesn't prove anything.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. The Earth goes through cycles and climates change. I don't see how you could even think this was a proof.
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) That is the oldest living tree. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3545540/Worlds-oldest-living-animal-discovered-after-he-is-pictured-in-1900-photograph.html That is the oldest living animal. Do you have a point?

I only went after the ones I could do off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a good explanation for the other three.

Yes, thank you.  With regards to the tree, it fits within my creation view perfectly.  Coincides with the flood of Noah as well.

I think we can all agree that you have religious views which you are defending.  Everyone is free to believe what they want.

Please dont mislead other people into thinking that you are following any type of science though.  You have predetermined conclusions that you seek supporting data for.  You discount any data that doesnt fit.

Is science not observable?  Does it not follow the scientific method?  I propose a hypothesis that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that approximately 4,500 years ago there was a flood as recorded in historical documentation.  Fact presented by Silly Rob:  The oldest living tree matches up with my hypothesis.  Fact:  The largest desert in the world matches my hypothesis.  Fact:  The oldest living coral reef supports my hypothesis.  Who's discounting??  Not I sir, but rather you!   

No mention of the other theories that you dismiss. 

Lets follow a line of thought, how do you know how old the coral reef is?

Also, I cant believe you threw me such a softball as mentioning half lives of isotopes.

Do we even need to discuss carbon dating?  skeletal evidence?  dinosaurs?

I have done a lot of survey work in the oil and gas industry.  There are massive reserves whose locations are easily predicted by the location of an ancient sea formed by the rocky mountains rising.  We find fossil evidence of sea life in these deposits regularily