Secular scientists keep reducing the age they suppose the earth to be.

[alang1216]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

 

[progressive hunter]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

 

[alang1216]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

 

[progressive hunter]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

and why are you bringing god into it???

 

[alang1216]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

and why are you bringing god into it???

The title of the thread is "Secular scientists keep reducing the age they suppose the earth to be". Seems like you need to ask the OP that question.

As for me, whenever someone refuses to accept facts it is because they already have the answer and that answer usually comes from their God. Am I wrong?

 

[progressive hunter]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

and why are you bringing god into it???

The title of the thread is "Secular scientists keep reducing the age they suppose the earth to be". Seems like you need to ask the OP that question.

As for me, whenever someone refuses to accept facts it is because they already have the answer and that answer usually comes from their God. Am I wrong?

you and i left that part a long way back,,

 

[alang1216]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

and why are you bringing god into it???

The title of the thread is "Secular scientists keep reducing the age they suppose the earth to be". Seems like you need to ask the OP that question.

As for me, whenever someone refuses to accept facts it is because they already have the answer and that answer usually comes from their God. Am I wrong?

you and i left that part a long way back,,

Then your last statement was: I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,
To which I asked: Exactly which opinion is that?

 

[progressive hunter]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

and why are you bringing god into it???

The title of the thread is "Secular scientists keep reducing the age they suppose the earth to be". Seems like you need to ask the OP that question.

As for me, whenever someone refuses to accept facts it is because they already have the answer and that answer usually comes from their God. Am I wrong?

you and i left that part a long way back,,

Then your last statement was: I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,
To which I asked: Exactly which opinion is that?

the one youve been giving dumbass,,,

you should take your ADD meds cause this conversation is getting boring since you cant keep up with it,,

 

[alang1216]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

and why are you bringing god into it???

The title of the thread is "Secular scientists keep reducing the age they suppose the earth to be". Seems like you need to ask the OP that question.

As for me, whenever someone refuses to accept facts it is because they already have the answer and that answer usually comes from their God. Am I wrong?

you and i left that part a long way back,,

Then your last statement was: I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,
To which I asked: Exactly which opinion is that?

the one youve been giving dumbass,,,

you should take your ADD meds cause this conversation is getting boring since you cant keep up with it,,

Maybe the disconnect is you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. I've given you nothing but facts. For example, "Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift" is fact supported by science. It is not any one's opinion nor is it based on politics or religion.

 

[progressive hunter]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

and why are you bringing god into it???

The title of the thread is "Secular scientists keep reducing the age they suppose the earth to be". Seems like you need to ask the OP that question.

As for me, whenever someone refuses to accept facts it is because they already have the answer and that answer usually comes from their God. Am I wrong?

you and i left that part a long way back,,

Then your last statement was: I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,
To which I asked: Exactly which opinion is that?

the one youve been giving dumbass,,,

you should take your ADD meds cause this conversation is getting boring since you cant keep up with it,,

Maybe the disconnect is you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. I've given you nothing but facts. For example, "Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift" is fact supported by science. It is not any one's opinion nor is it based on politics or religion.

its obvious the problem is yours,,, all of the claims youre making are theories,, another word for theories is opinions not facts,,,

 

[alang1216]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

and why are you bringing god into it???

The title of the thread is "Secular scientists keep reducing the age they suppose the earth to be". Seems like you need to ask the OP that question.

As for me, whenever someone refuses to accept facts it is because they already have the answer and that answer usually comes from their God. Am I wrong?

you and i left that part a long way back,,

Then your last statement was: I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,
To which I asked: Exactly which opinion is that?

the one youve been giving dumbass,,,

you should take your ADD meds cause this conversation is getting boring since you cant keep up with it,,

Maybe the disconnect is you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. I've given you nothing but facts. For example, "Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift" is fact supported by science. It is not any one's opinion nor is it based on politics or religion.

its obvious the problem is yours,,, all of the claims youre making are theories,, another word for theories is opinions not facts,,,

If you're not willing to believe your own eyes you'll never believe me. Happy holidays.

 

[progressive hunter]

OK so its growing,, so is Hawaii,, that doesnt have anything to do with how the GC was formed,,

Wrong again, they are all related. Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift.

if you say so,,, who am I to tell you that continents cant float,,

It is not me who says so it is just about every geologist on the planet. Do you know different or do you just refuse to accept the evidence because it contradicts your interpretation of God's word?

I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,

Exactly which opinion is that?

and why are you bringing god into it???

The title of the thread is "Secular scientists keep reducing the age they suppose the earth to be". Seems like you need to ask the OP that question.

As for me, whenever someone refuses to accept facts it is because they already have the answer and that answer usually comes from their God. Am I wrong?

you and i left that part a long way back,,

Then your last statement was: I reject the opinion cause its an opinion lacking in evidence and based on assumptions not facts,,
To which I asked: Exactly which opinion is that?

the one youve been giving dumbass,,,

you should take your ADD meds cause this conversation is getting boring since you cant keep up with it,,

Maybe the disconnect is you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. I've given you nothing but facts. For example, "Iceland, Hawaii, and the GC all owe their existence to continental drift" is fact supported by science. It is not any one's opinion nor is it based on politics or religion.

its obvious the problem is yours,,, all of the claims youre making are theories,, another word for theories is opinions not facts,,,

If you're not willing to believe your own eyes you'll never believe me. Happy holidays.

how can I believe something I cant see, study or reproduce???

sorry your narrative falls flat when tested but it is what it is,, an opinion,,

 

[ReinyDays]

how can I believe something I cant see, study or reproduce???
sorry your narrative falls flat when tested but it is what it is,, an opinion,,

Go visit the Scablands ... all that has been reproduced in the lab ...

 

[Quasar44]

They have Isotope dated fossils of ancient living things from 3.5 billion yrs ago

 

[james bond]

For the Grand Canyon, it was a one gigantic global flood the likes of we've never seen before. It would affect the whole world as a killer flood.

I've only experience man-made flooding. For example, we were suppose to go white water rafting and met someplace in the forest near what appeared to be a dried up creek. The guide said to be there at 10:00 am sharp. If you can picture a large groups of people in flotation vests waiting there with large rafts and paddles in the middle of nowhere, the sight and pictures we took look ridiculous. Suddenly, we heard this rushing gurgling sound and voila we had a class III river. Upstream, they let the dam gates open at this time. The other thing I'll never forget is falling heads over heel at Meatgrinder (the more interesting rapids have names). The raft hit a drop and then an up current so it tossed me overboard (I was sitting in the back). You get disoriented. I had no idea where I was except for being in the river. All I could see were large rocks and found up by following the light. I probably was about 15 - 20 ft down, so I swam up towards it and looking out for large rocks. I felt like I was weightless and not moving. I broke the surface of the water and took a quick breath and then was pulled down again. More disorientation and weightless feeling, but I knew I was moving downstream and at a rapid pace so just tried swimming up towards the light and avoiding rocks. Once I bobbed my head out of the water, I could see the raft was waiting for me further downstream and swam towards it and they pulled me back aboard.

Thus, I think if you're caught in a flood, the rapid current will keep pulling you down and disoriented. You can't fight it, so you'll just have to keep underwater and swim up when you can and hopefully you can catch a breath before it pulls you down again. You could see a large amount of bubbles and that will obscure your vision and add to the disorientation.

If you're traveling 120 mph, then likely you don't stand much of a chance.

I think you can see that floods can cause great destruction and carve out gigantic canyons and gorges in rapid fashion.

I agree that canyons can be formed quickly ... do you agree that canyons can also be formed slowly? ... over hundreds if not thousands of years ...

Both types of canyon have clear and distinct features ... thus we can compare the Channeled Scablands to the outflow areas along the California/Arizona border ... I'm asking you how are these two areas comparable ... do we see the gravel hills, the potholes, the high water marks? ... these features are plentiful in eastern Washington, but seem absent along the lower Colorado ...

How do they form slowly? Rocks can form slowly from sedimentary layers from other layers and pressure from above.

We should be able to see what you are talking about like watching a pine tree grow. I learned glaciers cut out mountains and such, but I don't know. What do you have on the Channeled Scablands? You want to compare that to GC?

Go visit the Scablands ... all that has been reproduced in the lab ...

What do you mean by "reproduced in the lab?"

 

[Hollie]

While I still believe the earth to be much younger, it would seem that scientists are being forced to squeeze more and more environmental changes in less and less time:

The true age of Earth's core has been discovered – and it's younger than previously thought

Scientists now believe Earth’s solid core is around one billion years old, far younger than thought.

www.aol.com

Does anyone know if the scientists who conducted the research are secular or religious?

Further, the timelines they propose are a direct contradiction to a 6,000 year old planet, created by supernatural gods.

 

[Hollie]

While I still believe the earth to be much younger, it would seem that scientists are being forced to squeeze more and more environmental changes in less and less time:

It seems there is some confusion about the age of the planet’s inner core relative to the age of the planet.

Earth’s inner core is much younger than we thought

Researchers have gathered the first field data that show the inner core is 565 million years old—young compared to our 4.5-billion-year-old planet.

www.rochester.edu

Scientists appear to be studying the age of formation of the planet’s inner core, as various articles describe, not intending to imply that the planet is much younger than a billion years old.

 

[ding]

The article is about the core, and when it became solid. It is not about the age of the planet as a whole.

Apparently not, from the abstract: ... "The results constrain the resistivity and thermal conductivity of hcp iron to ∼80±5  μΩ cm and ∼100±10  W m−1 K−1, respectively, at conditions near the core-mantle boundary. Our results indicate an adiabatic heat flow of ∼10±1  TW out of the core, supporting a present-day geodynamo driven by thermal and compositional convection."

The body of the paper is behind a paywall ... but there's nothing in the abstract that touches upon the age of the Earth ... unlikely this is in the conclusions, but maybe ... anyone with access the Physical Review Letters who can check for us? ... otherwise this is most likely FAKE NEWS ...

The "Headline" was the earth's core is younger than previously assumed, which I assume is a fair representation of the paper.

The implication is that therefore the earth must be younger than previously assumed. Of course this assumes an iron core. I seem to recall a nuclear georeactor core option. The implication being we would have less time before the core went cold.

 

[progressive hunter]

how can I believe something I cant see, study or reproduce???
sorry your narrative falls flat when tested but it is what it is,, an opinion,,

Go visit the Scablands ... all that has been reproduced in the lab ...

YUK!!! keep your STD's to yourself,,

 

[ReinyDays]

For the Grand Canyon, it was a one gigantic global flood the likes of we've never seen before. It would affect the whole world as a killer flood.

I've only experience man-made flooding. For example, we were suppose to go white water rafting and met someplace in the forest near what appeared to be a dried up creek. The guide said to be there at 10:00 am sharp. If you can picture a large groups of people in flotation vests waiting there with large rafts and paddles in the middle of nowhere, the sight and pictures we took look ridiculous. Suddenly, we heard this rushing gurgling sound and voila we had a class III river. Upstream, they let the dam gates open at this time. The other thing I'll never forget is falling heads over heel at Meatgrinder (the more interesting rapids have names). The raft hit a drop and then an up current so it tossed me overboard (I was sitting in the back). You get disoriented. I had no idea where I was except for being in the river. All I could see were large rocks and found up by following the light. I probably was about 15 - 20 ft down, so I swam up towards it and looking out for large rocks. I felt like I was weightless and not moving. I broke the surface of the water and took a quick breath and then was pulled down again. More disorientation and weightless feeling, but I knew I was moving downstream and at a rapid pace so just tried swimming up towards the light and avoiding rocks. Once I bobbed my head out of the water, I could see the raft was waiting for me further downstream and swam towards it and they pulled me back aboard.

Thus, I think if you're caught in a flood, the rapid current will keep pulling you down and disoriented. You can't fight it, so you'll just have to keep underwater and swim up when you can and hopefully you can catch a breath before it pulls you down again. You could see a large amount of bubbles and that will obscure your vision and add to the disorientation.

If you're traveling 120 mph, then likely you don't stand much of a chance.

I think you can see that floods can cause great destruction and carve out gigantic canyons and gorges in rapid fashion.

I agree that canyons can be formed quickly ... do you agree that canyons can also be formed slowly? ... over hundreds if not thousands of years ...

Both types of canyon have clear and distinct features ... thus we can compare the Channeled Scablands to the outflow areas along the California/Arizona border ... I'm asking you how are these two areas comparable ... do we see the gravel hills, the potholes, the high water marks? ... these features are plentiful in eastern Washington, but seem absent along the lower Colorado ...

How do they form slowly? Rocks can form slowly from sedimentary layers from other layers and pressure from above.

We should be able to see what you are talking about like watching a pine tree grow. I learned glaciers cut out mountains and such, but I don't know. What do you have on the Channeled Scablands? You want to compare that to GC?

Go visit the Scablands ... all that has been reproduced in the lab ...

What do you mean by "reproduced in the lab?"

Not sure how to unpack this ... so I'll go straight to the end ...

What do you mean by "reproduced in the lab?"

Ripple beds - Unidirectional bedforms -- 15'04"
Potholes - Physical Geography - Potholes -- 1'33"
Erratics - Erratic Boulders -- 2'35"

This last video is from the guy, Nick on the Rocks, where I've been getting all my information ... watch some of his other videos ... top quality stuff and presented in a real accessible way ...