the earth is 13,000 years old not 6,000 right

[fenrisx]

i dont see how you can say the earth is 6,000 years old :no: if adam was created 6,000 years ago and he was created on the 6th day thats 6,000 more years that makes the earth between 12,000 and 13,000 years old right:help:

The world is billions of years old and this literalist interpretation is an insult to people's intelligence

 

[Shermana]

i dont see how you can say the earth is 6,000 years old :no: if adam was created 6,000 years ago and he was created on the 6th day thats 6,000 more years that makes the earth between 12,000 and 13,000 years old right:help:

Indeed.

"A thousand years is like unto a day for thee..."



A little hidden fact most Astronomers rarely talk about, with such years as the "Billions" the Earth should have spiraled into the sun long ago, gas headwinds alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

A little hidden fact most Astronomers rarely talk about, with such years as the "Billions" the Earth should have spiraled into the sun long ago, gas headwinds alone.

Hidden fact? Perhaps you could show us the calculations predicting this, eh?

 

[Panda]

A little hidden fact most Astronomers rarely talk about, with such years as the "Billions" the Earth should have spiraled into the sun long ago, gas headwinds alone.

Care to prove that?

 

[Shermana]

You'll need access for the full article, but for this point all you need is the abstract to explain why this whole paper exists in the first place:

Rapid planetesimal formation in turbulent circumstellar disks

During the initial stages of planet formation in circumstellar gas disks, dust grains collide and build up larger and larger bodies. How this process continues from metre-sized boulders to kilometre-scale planetesimals is a major unsolved problem: boulders are expected to stick together poorly, and to spiral into the protostar in a few hundred orbits owing to a `headwind' from the slower rotating gas.

 

[Revoltingest]

You'll need access for the full article, but for this point all you need is the abstract to explain why this whole paper exists in the first place:
Rapid planetesimal formation in turbulent circumstellar disks

This appears unrelated to your claim.

 

[Panda]

You'll need access for the full article, but for this point all you need is the abstract to explain why this whole paper exists in the first place:

Rapid planetesimal formation in turbulent circumstellar disks

Do you have the physics to support your argument?

 

[Shermana]

This appears unrelated to your claim.

How so?

 

[Quagmire]

How so?

In that this:

You'll need access for the full article, but for this point all you need is the abstract to explain why this whole paper exists in the first place:

Rapid planetesimal formation in turbulent circumstellar disks

Does nothing to support (or even explain) this:

Indeed.

"A thousand years is like unto a day for thee..."



A little hidden fact most Astronomers rarely talk about, with such years as the "Billions" the Earth should have spiraled into the sun long ago, gas headwinds alone.

 

[Shermana]

In that this:


Does nothing to support (or even explain) this:

What part about "Expected to spiral into the protostar" do you need explained? What do you think the "Major unsolved problem" is referring to? Do you know what Planetiesmal means?

 

[Panda]

What part about "Expected to spiral into the protostar" do you need explained? What do you think the "Major unsolved problem" is referring to?

All that this says is that our current theory isn't quite right, it does not support yours.

 

[Quagmire]

What part about "Expected to spiral into the protostar" do you need explained? What do you think the "Major unsolved problem" is referring to?

Ah. So you're saying the earth has only orbited the sun a few 100 times.

Interesting.

How many "few" hundreds" were you thinking exactly?

 

[Shermana]

Ah. So you're saying the earth has only orbited the sun 100 times.

Interesting.

Are you deliberately not understanding what I mean or do you really need help understanding what I said? Why don't you try actually answering the question I asked. "What is the major unsolved problem" they are referring to. That would help your misunderstanding. If you don't want to answer this question, how can you possibly expect to stay on track?

 

[Photonic]

Shermana, I'll ask you to please respect my profession and not hurt my brain like that again.

I give you leave to ask me anything about astrophysics or explain anything you want me too. But please don't make such vapid assertions based on your own understanding of a scientific subject.

 

[kylixguru]

i dont see how you can say the earth is 6,000 years old :no: if adam was created 6,000 years ago and he was created on the 6th day thats 6,000 more years that makes the earth between 12,000 and 13,000 years old right:help:

When you understand what "a new heaven and a new earth" actually are you will find that there is no contention between the scientific and religious records. The Bible uses cosmic terms as a metaphor to speak of totally man-made things. The creation account is a prophetic blueprint that spells out how a patriarchal deity deals with the administration of His family.

 

[Panda]

Are you deliberately not understanding what I mean or do you really need help understanding what I said? Why don't you try actually answering the question I asked. "What is the major unsolved problem" they are referring to. That would help your misunderstanding. I'll repeat my question if I have to.

Will you answer mine about how does the suggestion that our current models are wrong support your own theory?

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, I'll ask you to please respect my profession and not hurt my brain like that again.

I give you leave to ask me anything about astrophysics or explain anything you want me too. But please don't make such vapid assertions based on your own understanding of a scientific subject.

So you have nothing to actually say about it, thanks for the ad hominem! So tell me how the Earth formed past Planateismal phase without the gas headwinds crashing it into the sun.

 

[Shermana]

Will you answer mine about how does the suggestion that our current models are wrong support your own theory?

Because no current model actually has any explanation how the Earth was able to get past the Planeteismal phase and not crash into the sun? That's the point of that whole paper, to give their theory as to the Turbulence.

 

[Panda]

Because no current model actually has any explanation how the Earth was able to get past the Planeteismal phase and not crash into the sun? That's the point of that whole paper, to give their theory as to the Turbulence.

Perhaps, but it does NOT support your theory that the earth is only 13,000 years old.

 

[Shermana]

Perhaps, but it does NOT support your theory that the earth is only 13,000 years old.

Ah, now I see your point of contention. No, it doesn't, but it shows that as of now, Science has no way of reconciling such an old Earth and Old Sun on their own forces. And saying that one day they will is just "Science of the gaps". Thus, it's not implausible to say that there is reason to suspect that such "long-ages" are dubious.