6000 year old earth state oppinion?

Question

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(1)

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(3) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.(4)

The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.(4) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

yes i copied and pasted this information. this information was gatherd by scientists, if these sceentists are not realible then no other scientists are realible.

but no im not copying and pasting from that site but the site i am copying and pasting is similar to that.

how in the world am i trying to sound smart when I myself has admitted that these calculations of science are not mine. thats funny.

carbon dating has been proven to be very inaccurate

Answer 1

Copy / pasting from http://answersingenesis.com huh?

Answer 2

Once again, someone quoting old science theory and passing it off as evidence of a young earth. Poppycock! I will respond to just one part of your unsubstantiated ramblings, concerning the age of comets:

"The claim is that comets that pass close to the Sun (the comets we see) cannot have survived for 4.6 billion years in their present orbits. This is not necessarily true for some comets with very long orbital periods, but generally the point is a valid one. However, this claim is a One-Sided Equation that considers the rate at which comets are destroyed without considering how the comet population is replenished. The population of comets is kept in equilibrium by new comets which are continuously introduced into our solar system from beyond Pluto's orbit. When they are far away from the Sun's deteriorating effects, comets can last indefinitely. Comets that are in orbits which bring them close to the sun have not been in those orbits since the formation of the solar system, rather they were perturbed into a close-encounter trajectory by some larger body (e.g. a planet or star or even another comet). Based upon observed comet orbits, scientists have concluded that they come from two major comet sources: the Kuiper belt, a disk-shaped cloud just beyond the orbit of Neptune; and the Oort cloud, a spherically-shaped cloud that may stretch for as far as 1 light-year from the Sun. One piece of evidence favoring this theory is the fact that comets, unlike everything else in the Solar System, have retrograde orbits just as commonly as they have prograde orbits (See Orbits in the Solar System, above). This is strong evidence that comets are not in their original orbits, that rather their orbital directions were picked up randomly when they were thrown into their present orbits, in keeping with the Oort/Kuiper theory. However, due to their small size, low reflectivity, and great distance from the Sun, these objects are nearly impossible to detect. But since the Oort/Kuiper theory is coherent and explains all of the evidence amply, it alone should be sufficient to dispense with the young-Earth objection concerning comet lifetimes. Recently, however, our telescope technology has improved to the point where we no longer need to rely on theory alone to deal with this objection. Since 1995, over 50 Kuiper belt objects have been discovered, dramatically confirming the Oort/Kuiper theory of comet origins. Kuiper belt observations continue to be an ongoing frontier of Planetary Science."

Answer 3

"According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system"

clearly you do not know what evolution is. Evolution is about the development of life not the age of the solar system. By this first sentence alone you prove your own ignorance in the subject.

The unobserved "Oort cloud" are you kidding? We have pictures of it!
http://www.nineplanets.org/kboc.html
Are you going to deny pictures?

mud? ever heard of earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tectonic plates?

as for carbon dateing, it has noting to do with the age of the Earth. Scientists use over a dozen different types of radioactive elements to mesure the age of the material they are in. It often comes out into the billions. To ignore this is ignoreing nuclear physics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Answer 4

If you're saying what I think you are, most scientists say that the Earth and the Moon were created at the same time, and yet if the Solar system were as old as scientists postulate it to be, (several billion years), there should be 25 feet of dust on the Moon, yet its surface is uniformly covered in only several inches, corresponding to less than 10,000 years.

Scientists still cannot explain geologic youth of the Earth (mountains too high and sharp, very active plate tectonics and the sediment amounts in the seabeds as you mentioned, for a few examples), or why that Venus and Mars, close in mass to the Earth, have no plate tectonic activity. They are geologically dead..

There are no transitional lifeforms in the fossil records, but there are sudden explosions of fully-developed species showing no sign of mutation from previous forms.

The dating systems we use have been proven highly inaccurate also. Carbon 14 testing of living mollusks has indicated that they were millions of years old, potassium-argon tests on fresh lava indicated it was billions of years old, radioactive decay is affected by heat.

That is just a few of the scientific conundrums that evolutionists don't like to hear about. They especially don't like to hear about the beautifully crafted brass bell and the iron smelting pot that were found in blocks of coal, either, nor the rock strata in Texas that had dinosaur and human foorprints in the same strata.....

Answer 5

I am curious as to how old you are, and how much actual science you yourself have studied, as opposed to listening to ministers, teachers and authors who are often well meaning, but are completely unqualified, unsophisticated and uneducated in the field of science. Your question and continuing discussion sound exactly like one might expect from one who has gotten his "scientific" education from anti-scientific ministers and books from the local bible-book store.

For example, your statement that "Carbon dating is inaccurate" is a fallacy directly out of the creationists' handbook. Why do you (and other creationists) believe that there is this vast, world-wide scientific conspiracy to mislead humanity, and use false, inaccurate and deviously conceived machines and technology to create the illusion that their lies are true? (These are the same "faulty" machines and technology, in many cases, that have put men on the moon and landers on Mars, led to genetic cures for diseases and understanding of viral diseases like AIDS, and put the plastic and other materials in almost everything you own.)

This has been explained thousands of times, and hundreds of times here on Yahoo Answers, and yet those whose minds are closed to anything beyond their own religious teachings, however unscientific and unrealistic, still make the same old arguments against what is known scientific fact and valid scientific theory and hypothesis.

In the first place, you say "According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system..." The fact is that the science of evolution makes no prediction or extrapolation about comets or the solar system. That is the field of astronomy and has nothing to do with biology or evolution. You are also wildly wrong about the physics of astronomy and the nature of comets.

Biologists and zoologists who study evolution (there is no such thing as an "evolutionist") do not explain away "the discrepancy" of the age of comets with "the oort cloud" or the kiuper belt or any other means. They leave that to trained astronomers, thank God not to untrained fundamentalist Christians.

It is amazing (or perhaps not) that so many fundamentalists defend creationism as if it were as important as salvation, and speak as if they were highly educated authorities when they know very little or nothing about science or the scientific process.

There is no respected scientist in any field who believes that the earth, let alone the universe, is less than several billion years old. Nor is there any respected scientist in any field that believes that evolution did not occur, even if scientists cannot say precisely what path it took (because they are still learning and evaluating new facts and evidence).

You know, I take that back. I should say, no scientist who is respected in the scientific community. There are some folks who managed to get a PhD in some area of science (and some who only claim to have), who are well respected in the fundamentalist Christian community. The problem with these "scientists" is that rather than base their perception of reality on logic, observed facts, and the scientific method, they misrepresent or modify logic, facts and skew the scientific method to make the "facts" fit their preconceived beliefs, which they base on the Bible, much of which was written when myth and magic reigned over logic, and millenia before modern scientific method existed.

Most of these "scientists" are supported by churches or ministries, not by secular universities, and none are taken seriously by the wider scientific community, particularly when they speak outside of their own field of study.

I suggest that you and anyone who wishes to defend creationism (and God forbid have it taught in our public schools instead of real science)... I suggest you take some courses in science from real universities, not Bible colleges, read some of the real, unbiased scientific literature, instead of what you can find in the local Bible Bookstore, and listen to what real scientists have to say rather than your pastors, ministers, and others who have an agenda to support the unfounded religious doctrine of creationism regardless of scientific discovery and without the benefit of the scientific process, including peer review.

Answer 6

Most people a really good at coming up with an explanation to justify their beliefs - especially Bible thumpers. The scientific evidence is overwhelming in the refuting of the biblical account of the creation, the flood, and other myths. I believe concrete evidence, not the ranting of old men.

Answer 7

So, you agree with the knowledge that comets exist, what they are made of, how the interact with the sun, the orbits they travel, gravity, etc...

But you try to demonstrate that it all falls apart because you put Oort cloud in quotes?

Answer 8

I think these statements are interesting. I would have to do more research on my own. I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, because the dinosaurs pretty much debunk that theory without any effort, but... I think we should all keep an open mind and not think that just because science seems to have answers today, that those answers couldn't change as we gain more knowledge and better understanding of our universe.

Answer 9

Hmm, misinformation, denial and ignorance I see..!
So much of your information is incorrect that I don't know where to start..

You think you are being clever by setting up a question containing false information, but you are either severely misinformed, or a blatant liar.

Either way you have got it all wrong pal, so get off your smug and ficticious pedistal before you make even more of a fool of yourself..

Answer 10

I think "old-earth creationism" is a plausible explanation, and since the Earth was created before the sun in Genesis 1, we don't have any way of knowing how long the "days" of creation really were.

Answer 11

It's a very nice write up indeed. I really do thank for it. It make my mind a bit working. It's a lot better than reading Genesis for sure.

However I am a bit confused. I need to research more about your data.