Back left
Back right
Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:



"AlphaT" wrote:






"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:








It's a good thing the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years. 
I'm sorry, what?


The Earth is older than 6000 years old.

Even if you don't think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old which is the most commonly accepted figure in science, a mere 6000 is ridiculous and laughable. 
Hmm....how so?


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"hugebear" wrote:

[this is enjoying] 
I know right? 


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock
Posts: 30520

"dovakiin " wrote:



"hugebear" wrote:


[this is enjoying] 
I know right? 


[nods and stays quiet cos this is the awesome debate.  Listens intently and doesnt post again cos its going off topic and its the interesting views from Teh_Skittlez and AlphaT] ]  

___________________________
hugebear from gracie and mia
classicalmusicisepicdonethis for me siggy :love thank you

from classicalmusicisepic for mesiggy


hugebearkeep calm and hug ted


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"AlphaT" wrote:



"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:






"AlphaT" wrote:









"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:










It's a good thing the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years. 
I'm sorry, what?


The Earth is older than 6000 years old.

Even if you don't think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old which is the most commonly accepted figure in science, a mere 6000 is ridiculous and laughable. 
Hmm....how so?


Great Barrier Reef

Star light

The Grand Canyon

Ice layering

Impact craters

Lack of DNA in fossils

Nitrogen in natural diamonds

Permafrost

Petrified wood

Radioactive decay



Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"vir" wrote:



love u***

u r nothing in my life but without u ,i ain't stay

life is so bleak without ur companionship .......

u r in my heart ,but hard to utter from throat 

u r in my mind,but why r u not in here ?[Frown]



This has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to make your own topic for poetry and pictures, I encourage you to do so. However, this is not that topic. 


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:



"AlphaT" wrote:






"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:









"AlphaT" wrote:












"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:












It's a good thing the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years. 
I'm sorry, what?


The Earth is older than 6000 years old.

Even if you don't think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old which is the most commonly accepted figure in science, a mere 6000 is ridiculous and laughable. 
Hmm....how so?


Great Barrier Reef

Star light

The Grand Canyon

Ice layering

Impact craters

Lack of DNA in fossils

Nitrogen in natural diamonds

Permafrost

Petrified wood

Radioactive decay


Star Light, DNA in Fossils, Grand Canyon, and Radioactive Decay are my favorites. So, which would you like to start out with?


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock
I often refer to the definition of evolution to this simple rhyme:
"Evolution is a mystery.
Full of changes that no one can see
It makes a mockery of human history.
Because Science and Evolution simply do not agree."

-AlphaT


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"AlphaT" wrote:



"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:






"AlphaT" wrote:









"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:












"AlphaT" wrote:















"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:














It's a good thing the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years. 
I'm sorry, what?


The Earth is older than 6000 years old.

Even if you don't think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old which is the most commonly accepted figure in science, a mere 6000 is ridiculous and laughable. 
Hmm....how so?


Great Barrier Reef

Star light

The Grand Canyon

Ice layering

Impact craters

Lack of DNA in fossils

Nitrogen in natural diamonds

Permafrost

Petrified wood

Radioactive decay

 
Star Light, DNA in Fossils, Grand Canyon, and Radioactive Decay are my favorites. So, which would you like to start out with?


How did I predict that those would be your favorites?

Let's talk about nitrogen in natural diamonds.

Nitrogen is the most common impurity in natural diamonds. However, lab made diamonds and recently made diamonds don't have anywhere near as much if any, while some are up to 1% nitrogen. It takes a long amount of time, and high pressure to get those nitrogen atoms into that diamond. Research at the University of Reading has suggested that a certain type of diamond (Type Ia) spends between 200 million and 2000 million years in the mantle. 

Or how about impact craters. We know there are over a hundred kilometer wide impact craters on this planet. Asteroid strikes that do this are very, very rare. If the Earth were a mere 6000 years old, it is extremely likely that there wouldn't be any. 




Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"AlphaT" wrote:

I often refer to the definition of evolution to this simple rhyme:

"Evolution is a mystery.

Full of changes that no one can see

It makes a mockery of human history.

Because Science and Evolution simply do not agree."


-AlphaT



It's only a mystery because you haven't taken high school biology yet. 
The changes are very visible, and we see them all the time. 
Evolution is essential to understanding biology. Without evolution, biology doesn't make sense. 


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:




Nitrogen is the most common impurity in natural diamonds. However, lab made diamonds and recently made diamonds don't have anywhere near as much if any, while some are up to 1% nitrogen. It takes a long amount of time, and high pressure to get those nitrogen atoms into that diamond. Research at the University of Reading has suggested that a certain type of diamond (Type Ia) spends between 200 million and 2000 million years in the mantle. 


Or how about impact craters. We know there are over a hundred kilometer wide impact craters on this planet. Asteroid strikes that do this are very, very rare. If the Earth were a mere 6000 years old, it is extremely likely that there wouldn't be any. 




For nitrogen, we all know that breaks down to C14. Using your method, it should be carbon dated trillions of years old. If you need me to go into detail, just ask. And if there is that much nitrogen, its decay rate would distort a radioisotope with a half-life of 5730 years.

I have not studied impact craters, But I will read up on it and get back to you.
 


News Feed

To view your full News Feed please Login using your Username and Password or Register with Kidzworld!

Forum Activity