If the moon's orbit was far more elliptical

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
3,618
Points
1,115
I dont have to prove the rate is not contact. We know how old the earth and moon are. You are saying that is false. The burden of proof lies with you.
I've proved the Earth is 6K years old from creation.com which you claimed I used. It's a nice source, but biased so I used other sites. Per the Roche limit, you have to start there and with the lunar recession, the estimate of the moon being 4.5 B yrs old cannot be right. AFAIK the recession has been constant -- Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer. You should know this since you're the guy with a telescope and camera setup lol.

Every trait we possess, of course. In a difgerent environment, under different selective pressures, we would have evolved differently.
Lol, lol, lol. These are just your assertions. Nothing I can use here.

If this is it, then you need to take your telescope and camera and run along kiddie.
The planet is far older than 6,000 years.

The charlatans at creation.com make you an
accomplice to fear and ignorance.

Don't be an accomplice.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
59,399
Reaction score
8,775
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,005
Reaction score
667
Points
155
I've proved the Earth is 6K years old
:backpedal:
It's from creation.com which you claimed I used. Thus, I started using it and they said that C-14 still remains in coal, diamonds, oil, fossil wood, etc. Thus, they could use radiocarbon dating, a form of radiometric dating, and it showed a young Earth.

How did they get billions of years old Earth?
 

ReinyDays

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
899
Points
90
Location
State of Jefferson
Well ... we don't use carbon dating to date "billions of years" ... I think we use uranium but I could be wrong ...

This was calculated in Roman times ... and the largest Roman number was M = 1,000 ... I'm guessing they carved four or five M's and decided to skip the remaining 4,700,000 ...
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,005
Reaction score
667
Points
155
Well ... we don't use carbon dating to date "billions of years" ... I think we use uranium but I could be wrong ...

This was calculated in Roman times ... and the largest Roman number was M = 1,000 ... I'm guessing they carved four or five M's and decided to skip the remaining 4,700,000 ...
You're wrong. If it really was "billions of years," then the C-14 would be gone.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top