[Stranger]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Already pointed that out, but these people are reluctant to absorb any scientific information that does favor the belief of God.

Sorry, just was a little flustered by this.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

are you kidding me? half-life has nothing to do with how much a certian element weighs. it deals with radioactivity. any elementary chemistry class will tell you that.

also the amount of carbon-14 with remain relatively the same due to the cosmic rays (radiation) that the sun gives off and the carbon absorbs.

try again next time.

Already pointed that out, but these people are reluctant to absorb any scientific information that does favor the belief of God.

[Stranger]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Brother, anyone (scientist) who says the earth is old doesn't know how to do math.

Scientists use "radio carbon dating" to determine how old things are.

Lets use one of their concepts "half-life" to see how stupid they are.

A half life is the decay rate of an element. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years (or so). That means, 5730 years ago there was twice as much Carbon-14 as there is now.

Scientists claim that the earth is 3.5 billion years old. For a half life of 5730, that's 610,820 half lives for carbon-14.

If there's only one pound of carbon-14 in the world today, before 610,820 half lives, there would be:

1 half life 2 lbs
2 half lives 4; 8; 16; 32; 64; 126; 256; 512; (for ease) 1000; 2000; 4000; 8000; 16000; 32000; 64000; 126,000; 256,000; 512,000; (for ease) 1,000,000; 2,000,000; 4,000,000; 8,000,000; 16,000,000; 32,000,000; 64,000,000; 128,000,000; 256,000,000; 512,000,000...

That's a whole lot of carbon. Before 29 half-lives, saying there's only one pound of carbon-14 today; we get a number of 512 billion pounds of carbon 14. That's in only 166,170 years. We aren't anywhere near the million mark, let alone the billion year mark.

FYI, there's a whole lot more carbon-14 around now than a pound.

The numbers just don't add up.

There's no way the earth can be more than 6,010 years old.

It's just not possible.

Thank you for your valuable research.

YIC
V

are you kidding me? half-life has nothing to do with how much a certian element weighs. it deals with radioactivity. any elementary chemistry class will tell you that.

also the amount of carbon-14 with remain relatively the same due to the cosmic rays (radiation) that the sun gives off and the carbon absorbs.

try again next time.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Can you mind even comprehend how large 1E+26510000 is? Mine sure can't.
Pastor Billy-Reuben

It's hard for us to understand large numbers, because there was no favor in natrual selection for individulas who can comprehend large numbers; however, I don't need to comprehend it. If the number on both sides of the equation is the same, then I am satisfied.

[Sacha-DG]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Well if you haven't been living under a rock all of your life, you will have noticed an increasing average temperature and adverse weather conditions, which can be explained by greenhouse gases.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Why wouldn't you? The effects are observable from your own window.

Stuff and nonsense. I released some carbon only the other day, and I have yet to see any effects from my window yet.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

That I can't argue...yet, because I don't know what the expected amount of microorganismims that belong to the domain bacteria or domain archaea should exist on the Earth. But I'm sure there is someone who can find a flaw in your logic.

You are "sure" because of your faith in science. I don't understand how anyone can be so foolish as to put their faith in science. Science is the creation of fallible man.

I put my faith in the Lord.

Because I cannot trust the credibility of Pastor Reuben,

When have I shown myself to be anything other than credible? By the way, Reuben is my middle name. Nobody calls me "Pastor Reuben". Please call me Pastor Billy-Reuben, Pastor Billy, Pastor Gibson, or just Billy.

I would first have to research on my own how many bacteria should exist on the planet.

Do you have any concept of the magnitude of the numbers we are talking about here? Do you understand the difference between 5E+30 and 1E+26510000? Can you mind even comprehend how large 1E+26510000 is? Mine sure can't.

Until then, I will not accept Jesus as my savior.

By all means, do your research. If you have read this whole thread, then you should have seen that we have had some real live microbiologists in here. When I asked them how many bacteria our planet could support, they left in a hurry, because they knew there was no way the planet could support the numbers of bacteria that evolution predicts.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[LyingDingDong]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Another debate victory for Pastor Billy-Reuben. Backed by the Holy Ghost, of course!

Your apology is accepted Miss Bling. The moral thing to do now would be to beg Jesus to accept you, and to send a robust Love Offering via the Paypal button at the bottom of this page.

I'm actually an individual that carries an X and Y chromosome not two X's.

Because I cannot trust the credibility of Pastor Reuben, I would first have to research on my own how many bacteria should exist on the planet. Until then, I will not accept Jesus as my savior.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

That I can't argue...yet, because I don't know what the expected amount of microorganismims that belong to the domain bacteria or domain archaea should exist on the Earth. But I'm sure there is someone who can find a flaw in your logic.

Another debate victory for Pastor Billy-Reuben. Backed by the Holy Ghost, of course!

Your apology is accepted Miss Bling. The moral thing to do now would be to beg Jesus to accept you, and to send a robust Love Offering via the Paypal button at the bottom of this page.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Whichever. The point is they reproduce by splitting themselves in two.

You still can't refute my findings. All you can do is nitpick. There are way too few bacteria on the planet to support the "old earth" theory. The amount of bacteria is exactly what we would expect if the Earth is around 6,000 years old.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

That I can't argue...yet, because I don't know what the expected amount of microorganismims that belong to the domain bacteria or domain archaea should exist on the Earth. But I'm sure there is someone who can find a flaw in your logic.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

First off, bacteria undergo mitosis, only animals, plants, fungi, and some protists undergo meiosis.

Whichever. The point is they reproduce by splitting themselves in two.

You still can't refute my findings. All you can do is nitpick. There are way too few bacteria on the planet to support the "old earth" theory. The amount of bacteria is exactly what we would expect if the Earth is around 6,000 years old.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[narrowpathy]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Bacteria undergo meiosis every twenty minutes. This would mean that a given population of bacteria doubles every twenty minutes. Bacteria don't just double without bound, however. They die as well. Not counting new bacteria produced, the half-life of a population of bacteria is twenty minutes plus fifteen microseconds.

The growth rate of 100%/20 minutes minus the decay rate of 49.99997473%/20 minutes provides bacteria with an overall global growth rate of about 1.1762% annually.

There are roughly 5E+30, or 5 nonillian, bacteria on our planet today. If we work backwards from 5E+30 with a 1.1762% growth rate, compounded every twenty minutes, we find that the first bacterium appeared about 6000 years ago, just as Creation Science predicted.

Try this on your financial calculator:
FV=5E+30
PV=1
Int=1.1762/(3*24*365.25)%
compute NPER=157935000 twenty minute intervals

158045000 / (3*24*365.25) = 6009.77 years.

GLORY!

There is some rounding going on in there. I suspect the true number of bacteria on the planet is closer to 5.0004832E+30, which would mean the first bacteria appeared exactly 6010 years and three days ago, on the third day of creation, along with the other plants.

However, if we assume as the evolutionists do, that the first bacterium appeared 3.5 billion years ago, we wind up with a ridiculously large number of bacteria, approximately 1E+26510000, or 1E+26509970 times the number of bacteria we actually have.

A single bacterium weighs 95 picograms. The number of bacteria that evolution predicts would weigh 9.5E+26509984 kilograms, a clearly ridiculous value. But our whole planet, including all of the bacteria on it, only weighs about 6E+24 kilograms.

That's the wacky world of evolution for you!

Pastor Billy-Reuben

That's a mighty lot of calculations you did, dear Pastor.
Does Jesus approve of math?

[LyingDingDong]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

First off, bacteria undergo mitosis, only animals, plants, fungi, and some protists undergo meiosis.

Secondly, C-14 is a reoccurring isotope that can be created through unremitting cosmic rays that impacts on nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere, which creates more of the Carbon-14 isotope. So all the Carbon-14 isotope would have, indeed, vanished long ago if it wasn't for the earth creating more every day.

Just going to put this out there one more time.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Why wouldn't you? The effects are observable from your own window.

And based on that "logic," why don't you accept the reality of God? The evidence of his existance is observable from your own window.

[Sacha-DG]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

No, I don't actually believe that carbon emissions have any effect on the environment.

Why wouldn't you? The effects are observable from your own window. The explanation is totally logical and I've no doubt that you could recreate the effects of greenhouse gases in the laboratory, if it hasn't been done already.