Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Audie]

If you look at the data from 1 billion year ago to the present, the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling, even without humans. Some of these cycles have the CO2 falling as the temperature goes up and some have the CO2 rise with temperature.

When the media reports, it is second hottest day on record, they are only talking about data collected since about 1880. They are not talking about the ice core data since 1 billion years ago. It was much warmer many times in earth's history, compared to today.

The second hottest day on record, since 1880, is about the millionth hottest day since 1 billion years ago.

If we believe that the earth is 5 billion years old then that how does the second hottest day on record; 1880, compare to all the days since 5 billion years ago? Why limit the data to since 1880, if the earth is much older? The reason is the core data is not as reliable, as direct data, since core data works under assumptions that may or may not be true. In Genesis, the authors only knew of their time. There was no written records before their time to corroborate that data, since writing was just invented. It was not scientific to use data that was here say and not officially recorded. New earth only was official data.

Why are you asking us these things? You need to work
out your own confusion, as you will accept nothing from
anyone on these matters.

Here are a couple of little things you can try approaching.

We all know temperatures / climates have changed.
We also know lots of creatures have gone extinct.
And that forest fires occur naturally.

Does that mean-to you-that no man caused extinction ,
forest fire, or climate change is possible?

And honestly, your use of the word "assumption".
As if it is a magic last word, all you have to do is
SAY "assumption" as if all crumbles before its
mighty blast.

"You just assume Australia is really there."

Oh no!!!

Boom! It crumbles to nothing.

You absolutely cannot demonstrate that there
is any faulty assumption re ice cores.

So spare us all, esp yourself, such crap.

 

[Audie]

No, you should only show a lack of understanding and refuse to even try to learn. Forget the ignorant "gotcha" questions , they only further demonstrate your ignorance.

Foremost in the creos scanty arsenal is the word
"assume". Even some lesser beings may use the word the same way.

 

[Native]

That you understand absolutely no physics at all.

No, you should only show a lack of understanding and refuse to even try to learn. Forget the ignorant "gotcha" questions , they only further demonstrate your ignorance.

Your "answers" here are just pathetic and emotional outbursts.

Why don´t you ponder over and answer my questions - posted 4 times now.

You can start off with thinking of your "Newtonian Apple Convention":

Here a REAL scientist and natural philosopher would have thought of by what natural forces the apple was made up in the three branch in the first place and what causes it to fall down on the ground.

Then you can think of why it is that a spacecraft on it´s return shall hit the Earth´s atmosphere on the correct angle to prevent it from skidding pass the Earth and be lost in Space.
-------------------------

 

[Polymath257]

Your "answers" here are just pathetic and emotional outbursts.

Why don´t you ponder over and answer my questions - posted 4 times now.

You can start off with thinking of your "Newtonian Apple Convention":

Here a REAL scientist and natural philosopher would have thought of by what natural forces the apple was made up in the three branch in the first place and what causes it to fall down on the ground.

Then you can think of why it is that a spacecraft on it´s return shall hit the Earth´s atmosphere on the correct angle to prevent it from skidding pass the Earth and be lost in Space.
-------------------------

Once again, Newton *did* think about what brought the apple to the ground and connected it to what keeps the moon in orbit.

The spacecraft has to be careful to not 'skip' off the atmosphere, like a rock skipping on water.

And after 4 times of posting this nonsense, you still don't grasp that there is gravity in space.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, Newton *did* think about what brought the apple to the ground and connected it to what keeps the moon in orbit.

The spacecraft has to be careful to not 'skip' off the atmosphere, like a rock skipping on water.

And after 4 times of posting this nonsense, you still don't grasp that there is gravity in space.

I dislike the "skipping" claim since the atmosphere does not really produce any lift to cause the craft to skip. In a too shallow approach the danger is that the craft will not slow enough and it will continue in its orbit. Instead of a reentry the point becomes a perigee and the craft naturally rises as its orbit continues. The problem with this is that on the next near approach to the Earth it is all but guaranteed to miss its target landing area. But for a person that has no understanding of gravity at all the "skipping" analogy may help.

 

[Native]

Once again, Newton *did* think about what brought the apple to the ground and connected it to what keeps the moon in orbit.

The spacecraft has to be careful to not 'skip' off the atmosphere, like a rock skipping on water.

Yes Newton thought of the falling apple and from this he concluded "gravity" - without thinking of how the contents of the apple on the branch overcome gravity in the first place. Right since then scientists have been fooled by Newton.

The spacecraft has to be careful to not 'skip' off the atmosphere, like a rock skipping on water.

Why can there be a risk of such spacecraft skidding so close the gravitational forces of the Earth?

I dislike the "skipping" claim since the atmosphere does not really produce any lift to cause the craft to skip. In a too shallow approach the danger is that the craft will not slow enough and it will continue in its orbit.

Your nitt-picking about the skidding analogy is unnecessary since you very well understood the expression. So it is the atmosphere which slows down the spacecraft?

If gravity really works as assumed, this should not be any problem at all. So what do you now assume?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes Newton thought of the falling apple and from this he concluded "gravity" - without thinking of how the contents of the apple on the branch overcome gravity in the first place. Right since then scientists have been fooled by Newton.

The apple fell because the stem broke. Duh.

Why can there be a risk of such spacecraft skidding so close the gravitational forces of the Earth?

Huh???? That isn't the risk. There are a couple of risks: 1) that the spacecraft will 'bounce' off the atmosphere (like a rock off of water), and 2) that too steep of a descent will make the craft too hot from friction in the atmosphere and it will burn up (like a meteor). At the point when it is entering the atmosphere, the gravitational force is almost identical to that on the ground.

Your nitt-picking about the skidding analogy is unnecessary since you very well understood the expression. So it is the atmosphere which slows down the spacecraft?

Yes, it is primarily friction from the atmosphere that slows it down.

If gravity really works as assumed, this should not be any problem at all. So what do you now assume?

Huh? The thing is falling due to gravity. So it accelerates, except for the counter force of the atmosphere, which is frictional and heats up the craft. When it gets low enough, it deploys the shoots, which provide a larger frictional area, slowing it down to a safe speed for landing.

 

[Native]

The apple fell because the stem broke. Duh.

You are not much for discussing how the contents of the apple on the branch have overcome your gravity forces in the first place, are you?

 

[Polymath257]

You are not much for discussing how the contents of the apple on the branch have overcome your gravity forces in the first place, are you?

The question is either confused or trivial. The apple grew large enough so that the force of gravity was enough to break the stem. So?

 

[Native]

The question is either confused or trivial. The apple grew large enough so that the force of gravity was enough to break the stem. So?

No the question is not confused or trivial at all. It is important in order to understand how "gravity was born".

By which forces did the apple become big on the branch and thus defeated the gravity`before it fell to the ground?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes Newton thought of the falling apple and from this he concluded "gravity" - without thinking of how the contents of the apple on the branch overcome gravity in the first place. Right since then scientists have been fooled by Newton.



Why can there be a risk of such spacecraft skidding so close the gravitational forces of the Earth?



Your nitt-picking about the skidding analogy is unnecessary since you very well understood the expression. So it is the atmosphere which slows down the spacecraft?

If gravity really works as assumed, this should not be any problem at all. So what do you now assume?

Now if I corrected your ridiculous error about using the word "skidding" instead of "skipping" that might be nit picking You forgot that you do not understand the sciences at all so your opinion in these matters is almost guaranteed to be wrong. You have as much as told us that you do not understand gravity so you would not understand the answer if given to you.

 

[tayla]

I would like to see how many of our users here believe in which theory (old earth or young earth) and why.

What are the core issues in the debate between old earth and young earth?

Do you believe the earth was created in 7 days? Give your argument for or against.

There is no reason to even consider young earth unless you accept a revealed religion or revealed spiritual path as a trustworthy source of truth. None are.

 

[Audie]

I would like to see how many of our users here believe in which theory (old earth or young earth) and why.

What are the core issues in the debate between old earth and young earth?

Do you believe the earth was created in 7 days? Give your argument for or against.
]

"Young earth" is not a theory. In some informal sense
maybe, but as the word is used in science, no.

A theory has to have, like, data.
The theory has to be a coherent explanation
for ALL the relevant data.

"Young earth" has none (zero) of the characteristics
of a theory. No data, for it, all relevant data is against it.

It is comparable to saying, which do you believe,
as an explanation for earthquakes-
the plate tectonics theory, or, the giant pig underground
theory?

(That is a belief in rural Philippines)

 

[Polymath257]

No the question is not confused or trivial at all. It is important in order to understand how "gravity was born".

By which forces did the apple become big on the branch and thus defeated the gravity`before it fell to the ground?

Again, the apple did not 'defeat gravity'. The step of the apple produced an opposite force. The two forces added to zero until the step wasn't able to produce a force large enough for that mass.

The forces were the internal forces in the step. To ask about the detials of those would involve going into the biochemistry of the materials in the stem.

This isn't a case of 'gravity being born'. Gravity was there the whole time.

Again, confused or trivial.

 

[sayak83]

No the question is not confused or trivial at all. It is important in order to understand how "gravity was born".

By which forces did the apple become big on the branch and thus defeated the gravity`before it fell to the ground?

Electromagnetic force between the atoms of the apple and the branch balanced the gravitational force due to the mass of the apple. Everyone knows that.

 

[Native]

You forgot that you do not understand the sciences at all so your opinion in these matters is almost guaranteed to be wrong. You have as much as told us that you do not understand gravity so you would not understand the answer if given to you.

That´s just another (pathetic) way of getting around an annoying question. Did you learn this method on University too?

 

[Native]

Again, the apple did not 'defeat gravity'. The step of the apple produced an opposite force. The two forces added to zero until the step wasn't able to produce a force large enough for that mass.

The forces were the internal forces in the step. To ask about the detials of those would involve going into the biochemistry of the materials in the stem.

This isn't a case of 'gravity being born'. Gravity was there the whole time.

The very idea of gravity was not there "the whole time".

The very creation of the apple is of course relevant since an apple was involved in the gravitational idea in the first place, Science cannot just explain one selected part of a cyclical motion without explaining the other causes of this cyclical motion.

So yes. biochemistry is involved in this question, so is bio-magnetism, and the impact of the electromagnetic sun and the geomagnetic fields on Earth and even the atmospheric pressure - which by the way have the same properties as gravity.

As long as all these facts aren´t included in a gravitational idea, this is just a poor assumption

 

[Native]

Electromagnetic force between the atoms of the apple and the branch balanced the gravitational force due to the mass of the apple. Everyone knows that.

Yes, THIS we know of the electromagnetic forces but:

The creation of an apple is a ongoing cyclical process and motion. The word "balance" is therefor irrelevant in this cyclical process and motion.

The assumed gravitational force of the Earth is the same disregarding the growth of an apple butt and the finished apple, so other explanations are needed in order to understand the cyclic process and motion of an apple.

That is really: We also need another explanation of gravity as such.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That´s just another (pathetic) way of getting around an annoying question. Did you learn this method on University too?

No. If you were honest and wanted to learn I would have no problem helping you.

Do you think that you can be honest? Remember, you have displays a middle school or worse level of science literacy here. To be honest you need to at the very least be willing to work some math.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, THIS we know of the electromagnetic forces but:

The creation of an apple is a ongoing cyclical process and motion. The word "balance" is therefor irrelevant in this cyclical process and motion.

The assumed gravitational force of the Earth is the same disregarding the growth of an apple butt and the finished apple, so other explanations are needed in order to understand the cyclic process and motion of an apple.

That is really: We also need another explanation of gravity as such.

I could not make head or tail of this response. Apple consists of a set of atoms. An apple is simply a rearrangement of a set of atoms that existed previously and that had come together to form the structure we classify as apple. The same four forces of nature (electromagnetic, gravitational, electroweak and strong) have always acted on the atoms that today make up the apple and in whatever previous structures these atoms were in before the apple came together.
The ceaseless motion of atoms from one configuration to the next is explained by the fact that the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Specifically for earth, sunlight provides a source of high energy photons that bombard the atoms of the earth and drives them through ceaseless perturbations from one structure to the next. Photons interact with atomic electrons through the electromagnetic force. So, its the action of the electromagnetic force emanating from energetic solar photons that causes earth's atom to flow as they do.