Based on the layers in the crust, how old is the Earth?

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Ha finally you crack and reveal you have faith in what other people have claimed.

However, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old for several reasons:
1. Radioactive dating is based on a false assumption that the rate of decay has always been constant.
2. There are primordial Polonium halos in granite rock with no descendant anscestral halos.
3. The layers of the crust of earth is smooth without commingling proving that the rate of deposit occurred quickly not over billions of years.
4. Lack of sedimentary river deltas leading back to Mid-Atlantic ridge, indicating that when Pangaea broke apart it did so quickly and recently not slowly over 220 million years.
5. The Bible has too many fulfilled prophecies of people writing 500 years before the event,
6. The Bible is accurate with physics, archeology, history, medical sciences, cosmology, etc 1,000s of years before human knew what we know today.
7-1,000 etc.

Constant denial gets you nowhere, uc. I've already addressed the first three, of which you had no response but to plug your ears like a child. The fourth is a non-issue and clear evidence that you yet again molest geology to support your otherwise untenable arguments. You know in the pit of your stomach that the idea of a young earth itself is absurd and so you seek desperately to fashion "scientific" evidence to serve your needs--a comfort blankie, because poor uc can't stand the thought that his life is based on a construct, a fallacy.

This is called rationalizing, uc. It's unhealthy. The rest of your list, i.e. the prophecies and "accuracy" of the bible, is further evidence of that. You know and we know it.

-TG

[universalchiro]

Mets your own words said you believe what others have told you, they weren't there to observe their hypothesis, so its faith based, as is your faith in their work. And for this thread they believe and by default you have faith in their hypothesis that the layers formed over 100s of millions sedimentary deposits:
A. They weren't there to observe.
B. What is observable (smooth layers w/o commingling) refutes 100s of millions of years.

So your faith in others is misplaced for they have mislead many. The smooth layers is proof positive your faith in them is blind allegiance.

[GoranZ]

Mets your own words said you believe what others have told you, they weren't there to observe their hypothesis, so its faith based, as is your faith in their work. And for this thread they believe and by default you have faith in their hypothesis that the layers formed over 100s of millions sedimentary deposits:
A. They weren't there to observe.
B. What is observable (smooth layers w/o commingling) refutes 100s of millions of years.

So your faith in others is misplaced for they have mislead many. The smooth layers is proof positive your faith in them is blind allegiance.

If you have faith in something that doesn't mean other have
And the numbers from the pull clearly show how accurate you are... less then 1/4 of voters support you.
Numbers dont lie, only people do...

[universalchiro]

Goran, you've made another classic blunder in reasoning.
A. You assume you are correct because you are in the majority. LOL
B. You can't solve why the layers of the crust are smooth without commingling from erosion. Which proves with out a doubt that the layers formed quickly, ie from the flood of Genesis and not over 100s of millions of years. You are mentally stuck here and can't wiggle out of this. You've already been checkmated along time ago in this thread, you just can't see it because of your strong faithfulness to your doctrine has blinded you.

[notyou2]

Goran, you've made another classic blunder in reasoning.
A. You assume you are correct because you are in the majority. LOL
B. You can't solve why the layers of the crust are smooth without commingling from erosion. Which proves with out a doubt that the layers formed quickly, ie from the flood of Genesis and not over 100s of millions of years. You are mentally stuck here and can't wiggle out of this. You've already been checkmated along time ago in this thread, you just can't see it because of your strong faithfulness to your doctrine has blinded you.

UC by your logic the minority are correct. My god man you are gullible.

I have a shrub that is the ingredient in Parmesan. You just have to grow it until the fall, then make a paste by grinding the plant. Dry it out and you have delicious Parmesan to put on your spaghetti and meatballs. I'll sell it to you for $50.00. It will make about $500.00 worth of Parmesan.

[GoranZ]

Goran, you've made another classic blunder in reasoning.
A. You assume you are correct because you are in the majority. LOL
B. You can't solve why the layers of the crust are smooth without commingling from erosion. Which proves with out a doubt that the layers formed quickly, ie from the flood of Genesis and not over 100s of millions of years. You are mentally stuck here and can't wiggle out of this. You've already been checkmated along time ago in this thread, you just can't see it because of your strong faithfulness to your doctrine has blinded you.

What?
I dont assume that I'm correct, I know that I'm correct there is huge difference. Majority also think that I'm correct, but not just majority(which is 50%+1) but much more that that. How much more? Minimal majority + your supporters(69%+1) are less then those that support my point of view(71%). That's ENORMOUS difference.

Whats interesting 150 years ago when your point of view had 99.9% support no one knew to read... now when everyone know how to read that support dropped to less then 20%, I presume in the next 50 years it will drop bellow 5% and after that extinction Generally it feels good that you guys are on the road to extinction, not just defeat

Now why majority of those that voted have meaning.
1. We all have access to internet and with that we have access to most of available knowledge, same as you
2. We all come from different cultures, continents, races...
3. Me and good part of voters have different opinions about other issues yet we are on the same side in this one
4. In the time when everyone have access to knowledge there is little chance for 19% of the voters to be correct. Maybe if you guys were little bellow 50% but, numbers literally kill you.
5. Maybe 150 years ago you would had ovations from general population for your theories but that time is long gone... time to move forward, dont you think?

[universalchiro]

Goran,
You repeated your previous error in reasoning. Your logic is flawed and rejected.

A. Majority doesn't make correct.
B. Your evidence that you are correct because you know you are correct doesn't work. Save this logic for the pub.
C. You and cronnies still have no answer for layers of crust being smooth without commingling. Which is proof positive the layers formed quickly, because over 100s of millions of years erosion would mix the layers.

Smooth uniform layers = quick deposit ie global flood.

[GoranZ]

Goran,
You repeated your previous error in reasoning. Your logic is flawed and rejected.

A. Majority doesn't make correct.
B. Your evidence that you are correct because you know you are correct doesn't work. Save this logic for the pub.
C. You and cronnies still have no answer for layers of crust being smooth without commingling. Which is proof positive the layers formed quickly, because over 100s of millions of years erosion would mix the layers.

Smooth uniform layers = quick deposit ie global flood.

I'm stating the obvious... something that you obvious dont want to hear, but I dont mind... you are out voiced, you haven't found anyone to back you up...

And regardless if you tell your biblical lies a thousand times they will never become truth, they will still be lies...

But if you like you can live in your dark world, WE WONT.

[Metsfanmax]

erosion

You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

[universalchiro]

Goran,
You repeated your previous error in reasoning. Your logic is flawed and rejected.

A. Majority doesn't make correct.
B. Your evidence that you are correct because you know you are correct doesn't work. Save this logic for the pub.
C. You and cronnies still have no answer for layers of crust being smooth without commingling. Which is proof positive the layers formed quickly, because over 100s of millions of years erosion would mix the layers.

Smooth uniform layers = quick deposit ie global flood.

. you are out voiced, you haven't found anyone to back you up...

But if you like you can live in your dark world, WE WONT.

Ha ha, looks like you are again blind to obvious reality.
A. Majority doesn't equal correct.
B. You state "you haven't found anyone to back you up", blind to reality.

[GoranZ]

Goran,
You repeated your previous error in reasoning. Your logic is flawed and rejected.

A. Majority doesn't make correct.
B. Your evidence that you are correct because you know you are correct doesn't work. Save this logic for the pub.
C. You and cronnies still have no answer for layers of crust being smooth without commingling. Which is proof positive the layers formed quickly, because over 100s of millions of years erosion would mix the layers.

Smooth uniform layers = quick deposit ie global flood.

. you are out voiced, you haven't found anyone to back you up...

But if you like you can live in your dark world, WE WONT.

Ha ha, looks like you are again blind to obvious reality.
A. Majority doesn't equal correct.
B. You state "you haven't found anyone to back you up", blind to reality.

You complain that majority doesn't make it correct in a wold when almost all information is available for all of us? Sorry but your theory applies only for YOUR DARK WORLD in which you want we all to live in... not in ours.
I will repeat again... regardless if you tell your biblical lies a thousand times they will never become truth, they will still be lies...
UC you lost... face the reality while there is still time.

I think there is no point of further beating a dead horse, so I see no need to make additional posts in this threat. And use that time to celebrate the victory against the supporters of the dark world

[universalchiro]

Support your answer.

Click image to enlarge.

The current belief is that it takes 100,000 to 1 million years for each layer to form. If this were true then the earth would be very old. A common mistake is to look at the rate of soil accumulation today and extrapolate that it's always been this rate. If that were the case, then there would be commingling of the soil layers from erosion, but there is not. Take a closer look and you will see that the layers are smoothly laid out with no commingling from erosion. Which means that the layers were not formed over millions of years.

How does a creationist explain the many layers? During the flood in Noah's day, the flood waters were filled with tons of soil. How did the soil get in the flood waters? Asteroid impacts, volcanic activity, fast moving tectonic plates and water burst out of the deep fountains within the deep (Genesis 7:11). The soil in the water settled according to density over the next year as the waters receded from the 40 days and 40 nights of rain.
The lack of commingling of the layers from erosion is evidence that the layers formed quickly. This is in accordance with the Biblical flood record.
=======---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=========
The common belief is that radioactive decay is constant and if it was then the earth would be billions of years old. But don't be fooled by that notion, sure the rate of decay appears constant to us, but when trauma is involved the decay rate gets accelerated substantially.

Take for example Petrified wood, allegedly suppose to take 500,000 years. Oh no, Mount Saint Helens eruption produced petrified wood in 30 years.
Take Coalification, allegedly suppose to take 20 million years. Oh no, I can make coal in a lab in 8 months with this process: wood + clay + moisture - air + 150 degrees Celsius + 8 months = 100% coal.
Take petroleum, allegedly suppose to take 50 million years. Yet Chicken byproducts and algae is converted into petroleum in 30 minutes with high heat.

Therefore, the rate of decay that scientist determine soil to be billions of years old, is flawed. Severely flawed. And how many of you have been duped to believe this lie of 4.6 billions of years old. You've been swindled. Demand you get your brain back and research for yourself.

Goran, I understand your view, you keep repeating it, you say you're correct because you know you're correct and you know you are correct because everyone supports you and no one supports me. You truly have a dizzying intellect. No matter how hard you shout outside the arena of observable evidence, you can't bring your arguments into the arena and the smooth layers still stand as testimony against evolution.

Smooth layers w/o commingling = quick deposit, & refutes 100s millions of years. Evolution is KO and you scream victory. Address the evidence.

[Metsfanmax]

Smooth layers w/o commingling = quick deposit, & refutes 100s millions of years. Evolution is KO and you scream victory. Address the evidence.

There is no evidence. All you have done is assert that layered deposition is impossible on geologic timescales, seemingly without any background in basic geology. It's not like you have presented some stunning new fact that the rest of us were blind to. You are just seemingly incapable of understanding the very basic explanation being presented in any high school science textbook. There's literally nothing else to say but, you're wrong. Your argument is as absurd as if you said "trees cannot form rings without commingling, the very existence of clearly defined rings refutes the notion that they grew naturally over decades, so clearly God put them there instantaneously."

[jonesthecurl]

So, Uchiro: have you ever been potholing? or entered a commercialized cave system such as Carlsbad, Cheddar, Wookey Hole? Ever seen a stalactite or stalagmite? Formed by minerals seeping through limestone over many thousands of years? You can say that the water passes through faster at some times than others, and you'd be correct - but if it passes too quickly, it dosn't have time to leave a deposit andmake the stalactite/stalagmite grow.

[universalchiro]

Yes, love doing those types of things. I've been to several in the US, notable names would be Carlsbad in New Mexico, Yellowstone in Wyoming and multiple smaller one in Texas. Tons of fun.

In every one that I have been to, all the tour guides and literature published by our government, tells the tale of each stalactite and stalagmite represents 100s of millions of years. And Wikipedia tells the tale of the average growth is:
"An average growth rate is 0.13 mm (0.0051 inches) a year. The quickest growing stalactites are those formed by fast-flowing water rich in calcium carbonate and carbon dioxide, these can grow at 3 mm (0.12 inches) per year." So this proves the young earth creationist is blind, lost, foolish faith, right? Well, now hold on, let's take a closer look.

So we see the rate of formation today in some cherry picked tales, but we don't know the rate of formation of 4,000 years ago. And the Bible records a global flood event, "if" such an event really did occur, would the rate of stalactite/stalagmite formation be quicker closer to that event and slowing every sense? yes.

So let's see if there are examples naturally occurring where the rate of calcium deposit is accelerated:
http://creation.com/rapid-stalactites
" For example, Sequoyah Caverns, south of Chattanooga at Valley Head, Alabama, has fast-growing formations. Director of the caverns, Clark Byers, cemented a clear plastic panel in front of some stalactites in April, 1977, to prevent tourists from breaking them off. In less than 10 years the stalactites grew about 25 centimetres (10 inches or one inch per year)."

Click image to enlarge.

Stalactites and Stalagmites

" How many have ever gone into a cave and the guide said, don’t touch the stalactites, they take millions of years to form. You ever heard that? You go to Carlsbad Caverns, they will say it took 250 million years to make this cavern. They say it takes 1,000 years to grow one inch of stalactite. I do not think so! There is a bat covered up with flowstone before he could rot from National Geographic. Don’t you think the bat would rot in less than a few thousand years; preserved on top of a stalagmite, they grow even slower. There are 50-inch long stalactites growing under the Lincoln Memorial. It was built in 1922; did Lincoln die 50,000 years ago? Go down to Fort Pickens here in Pensacola, get into the old part of the fort that is fenced out (that they will not let people into without a guide you know, because it is a World War I fort), and you will see 16 inch stalactites growing off the electrical conduit boxes. Proving they had electricity millions of years ago! No, that stuff happens rapidly. There is a mine in Australia; they quit using the mine 55 years ago. Whey they went back inside to see what happened to their mine, giant stalactites and stalagmites had formed all over. There is a sign that says Switch and another couple of miners standing there for scale. 55 years a fully formed cave: stalactites, stalagmites, the whole thing. In Wyoming, this giant pile of flowstone was made in less than 100 years. I was there a few weeks ago with my son, bringing him back from college out there. In 1903, some guy took a pipe and stuck it in the ground because the hot mineral water was bubbling up. He made it bubble up through the pipe. In less than 100 years they had that giant flowstone pile. I stood next to it two weeks ago. Folks, it does not take millions of years for these things to form. The simple fact is, the earth is young; it cannot be billions of years old. "by Kent Hovind.

You cannot win against a young earth creationist. Sorry, there is too much evidence that naturally occurs to support the Bible and enough holes in the man made interpretation of the evidence to expose the evolution. If someone is really seeking truth, they will find it, but if one just wants to try to prove the Bible wrong and mankind is right, then they won't even know they can't find the truth.

But as to your point, yes, I understand your point. However, there are current examples that naturally occur where the deposit rate is accelerated and the closer in time to the Biblical flood, the faster the formations would have formed.

[Baron Von PWN]

Yes, love doing those types of things. I've been to several in the US, notable names would be Carlsbad in New Mexico, Yellowstone in Wyoming and multiple smaller one in Texas. Tons of fun.

In every one that I have been to, all the tour guides and literature published by our government, tells the tale of each stalactite and stalagmite represents 100s of millions of years. And Wikipedia tells the tale of the average growth is:
"An average growth rate is 0.13 mm (0.0051 inches) a year. The quickest growing stalactites are those formed by fast-flowing water rich in calcium carbonate and carbon dioxide, these can grow at 3 mm (0.12 inches) per year." So this proves the young earth creationist is blind, lost, foolish faith, right? Well, now hold on, let's take a closer look.

So we see the rate of formation today in some cherry picked tales, but we don't know the rate of formation of 4,000 years ago. And the Bible records a global flood event, "if" such an event really did occur, would the rate of stalactite/stalagmite formation be quicker closer to that event and slowing every sense? yes.

So let's see if there are examples naturally occurring where the rate of calcium deposit is accelerated:
http://creation.com/rapid-stalactites
" For example, Sequoyah Caverns, south of Chattanooga at Valley Head, Alabama, has fast-growing formations. Director of the caverns, Clark Byers, cemented a clear plastic panel in front of some stalactites in April, 1977, to prevent tourists from breaking them off. In less than 10 years the stalactites grew about 25 centimetres (10 inches or one inch per year)."

Click image to enlarge.

Stalactites and Stalagmites

" How many have ever gone into a cave and the guide said, don’t touch the stalactites, they take millions of years to form. You ever heard that? You go to Carlsbad Caverns, they will say it took 250 million years to make this cavern. They say it takes 1,000 years to grow one inch of stalactite. I do not think so! There is a bat covered up with flowstone before he could rot from National Geographic. Don’t you think the bat would rot in less than a few thousand years; preserved on top of a stalagmite, they grow even slower. There are 50-inch long stalactites growing under the Lincoln Memorial. It was built in 1922; did Lincoln die 50,000 years ago? Go down to Fort Pickens here in Pensacola, get into the old part of the fort that is fenced out (that they will not let people into without a guide you know, because it is a World War I fort), and you will see 16 inch stalactites growing off the electrical conduit boxes. Proving they had electricity millions of years ago! No, that stuff happens rapidly. There is a mine in Australia; they quit using the mine 55 years ago. Whey they went back inside to see what happened to their mine, giant stalactites and stalagmites had formed all over. There is a sign that says Switch and another couple of miners standing there for scale. 55 years a fully formed cave: stalactites, stalagmites, the whole thing. In Wyoming, this giant pile of flowstone was made in less than 100 years. I was there a few weeks ago with my son, bringing him back from college out there. In 1903, some guy took a pipe and stuck it in the ground because the hot mineral water was bubbling up. He made it bubble up through the pipe. In less than 100 years they had that giant flowstone pile. I stood next to it two weeks ago. Folks, it does not take millions of years for these things to form. The simple fact is, the earth is young; it cannot be billions of years old. "by Kent Hovind.

You cannot win against a young earth creationist. Sorry, there is too much evidence that naturally occurs to support the Bible and enough holes in the man made interpretation of the evidence to expose the evolution. If someone is really seeking truth, they will find it, but if one just wants to try to prove the Bible wrong and mankind is right, then they won't even know they can't find the truth.

But as to your point, yes, I understand your point. However, there are current examples that naturally occur where the deposit rate is accelerated and the closer in time to the Biblical flood, the faster the formations would have formed.

yawn.

it depends on the kind of mineral as to how long it takes stalactite or stalagmite to form. Concrete will form Stalactites and stalagmites very quickly, natural limestone takes a long time.

[GoranZ]

Interesting... Why I can not see the voting options in the time when God's supporters drop below 15%?

Did the chicken universalchiro remove it?

[Metsfanmax]

You cannot win against a young earth creationist.

And you call us the closed-minded ones.

And the Bible records a global flood event, "if" such an event really did occur, would the rate of stalactite/stalagmite formation be quicker closer to that event and slowing every sense? yes.

Why?

[iAmCaffeine]

Who cares?

[notyou2]

Three cheers for the anti-christ!!!

[Endgame422]

Ok once again chiro you ought to stop bashing these people for what you contend to be faith based beliefs(evolution,old earth) because your views are faith based as well. At best you guys are equals and if that is the case can't you just let them be? Is it fear in your heart that drives you to crush these beliefs? If your right,which you certainly think that you are, what purpose is there to keep making posts like this?
Trolling?
Reinforcing your own point to keep your belief strong?
Just enjoying the abuse?
Or are you just too stubborn to recognize that this is going nowhere?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Ok once again chiro you ought to stop bashing these people for what you contend to be faith based beliefs(evolution,old earth) because your views are faith based as well. At best you guys are equals and if that is the case can't you just let them be? Is it fear in your heart that drives you to crush these beliefs? If your right,which you certainly think that you are, what purpose is there to keep making posts like this?
Trolling?
Reinforcing your own point to keep your belief strong?
Just enjoying the abuse?
Or are you just too stubborn to recognize that this is going nowhere?

U.C. hasn't ''crushed" anything. He has been consistently defeated multiple times by multiple people in multiple arguments.

But if one ignores enough then one never really loses, I suppose.

-TG

[universalchiro]

The reason I'm a young earth creationist, is based on the preponderance of the evidence. There is no way around the smooth non-commingled layers of the crust is positive evidence that the layers formed quickly and not over 100s of millions of years.

Looks like the indoctrinated evolutionist need some kids science 101:

http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/exper1/exper1.htm

Soil mixed in water 100% of the time settles according to density in Layers. Its a Law!

Even liquids settle according to density. It's a Law!

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/lab ... ity-column

[AndyDufresne]

The reason I'm a young earth creationist, is based on the preponderance of the evidence. There is no way around the smooth non-commingled layers of the crust is positive evidence that the layers formed quickly and not over 100s of millions of years.

Looks like the indoctrinated evolutionist need some kids science 101:

http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/exper1/exper1.htm

Soil mixed in water 100% of the time settles according to density in Layers. Its a Law!

Even liquids settle according to density. It's a Law!

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/lab ... ity-column

I do like me a smooth non-commingling of layers. I think this use to be outlawed in the 1960's.


--Andy