Raedril Delvon writes:
quote:
Same with the moon, which was tested with radiometric dating and was shown to be supposedly older than earth.
Incorrect. The moon has dated to younger than the earth:
Stony Brook Research writes:
Stony Brook's team, led by Oliver Schaeffer, determined the concentration and isotopic signature of argon gas contained in lunar samples. They combined these data with potassium concentrations for the same samples to derive an age of about 4 billion years for the Moon.
Other results put it at about 4.2 bya to a maximum of 4.5 bya. The earth is dated to about 4.5 bya. The moon is not older.
quote:
So, wouldn't that be contradictory to say that the earth is younger than the moon when it was made of the earth's crust?
It would if the moon had been dated to be older than the earth.
It hasn't. The earth is not younger than the moon.
quote:
Are you claiming to know more than a ancient book?
Yes. Unless you are trying to say that everything that could be known was known 3000 years ago and that all of it was written down in a single volume of about 1500 pages, then of course we know more than an ancient book.
quote:
It even says in plain words that the earth moves around the sun (Psalms 19:4-6)
No, it doesn't. It says the exact opposite:
Psalms 19 writes:
19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
How do you get an interpretation of the earth going around the sun from a statement that the
SUN is "coming out of his chamber"? I honestly want to know the answer to this question: What do you think the "bridegroom" is referring to? What in the sentence makes it not the sun?
quote:
a couple of thousand of years before it was accepted by the scientific world, or even the creation of the sciences.
Incorrect. While heliocentrism wouldn't gain acceptance until the about the 16th century, it did not originate there. If one is going to stretch interpretations, as you seem to be wont to do, then we should look to the Ancient Greeks.
Aristotle writes:
At the center, they [referring to the Pythagoreans] say, is fire, and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the center
The "fire" to which the Pythagoreans were referring was not the sun. They believed that everything, including the sun, orbited the primal fire. If we're stretching metaphors, then this would seem to be a description of galactic motion: The sun orbits the center of the galaxy, a place rife with stars.
But, let's not go with metaphorical abstractions. Aristarchus advocated the sun being the center of the solar system.
Archimedes writes:
You King Gelon are aware the 'universe' is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the center of which is the center of the Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the center of the Sun and the center of the Earth. This is the common account as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.
And that doesn't go into the other cultures that developed it such as the Hindu vedas:
Yajnavalkya writes:
The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day.... Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising.
So we have a scientific treatise and a non-Christian text saying the earth moves around the sun and then we have the Christian text saying the sun moves around the earth. Where were you going with this?
quote:
Where's your material for the "big bang"? "Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed in a chemical reaction." So, you going to keep thinking you are correct on a theory that is dispoven by it's own law?
Are you seriously claiming that physicists developed a theory that contradicted one of the most fundamental statements of physics and didn't notice?
Hint: The Big Bang isn't about the creation of the universe but rather the expansion of the universe.
quote:
Also, if the radioactive decay was accelerated by the "heat"
Huh? Radioactive decay isn't affected by heat.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
