Young Age of the Earth - Part 1 (english)

(Part 1 of 2) This 1 hr program presents geo-physical evidence that seems to firmly suggest that the Earth is not 4 billion years old.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• young
• age
• earth
• coal
• fossils
• dinosaurs
• creation
• created
• global
• flood

[JoeShmuck35]

@gr8vibes2 True. I can understand why you were confused, which is why I commented.

[gr8vibes2]

@JoeShmuck35 Either way the DRIVE part is 100% relevant. The words alone were misleading, but when you see them DRIVE into the earth then it becomes clear.

[JoeShmuck35]

@gr8vibes2 No, I emphasized the words you seemed to equate (DOWN an INTO). If you'll note, I'm quoting what was written as text in the video. That's why I emphasized the words I did, and tried to explain it better, outside of the quote. But, you're welcome. :)

[gr8vibes2]

@JoeShmuck35 I think you mean to emphasize DRIVING, they are DRIVING (as in a slow angle) on a six mile tunnel angled downward .. thanks

[JoeShmuck35]

@gr8vibes2 "2,000 feet DOWN, 6 miles INTO the Earth"

As you'll note, they are driving INTO the earth. This would mean, driving 6 miles at a decent of 2,000 ft TOTAL.

They didn't drive DOWN 6 miles, they drove 6 miles to end, 2,000 ft. below the surface.

[gr8vibes2]

error found at 6:50: 2,000 ft doesn't equal 6,000 miles

[PicklePublishing]

@PetercAW In case that wasn't clear, while Po-210 and Rn-222 aren't distinguishable in biotite, they are distinguishable in fluorite. Thus the hypothesis that Po halos are really Rn halos can't explain the Po halos in fluorite, and therefore doesn't hold water.

This is a basic point that is readily available in the scientific literature, as well as in Gentry's book. There is no excuse for one of Gentry's critics to miss this point, except being under the spell of severe bias.

[PicklePublishing]

@PetercAW Can you explain why under "Gentry's basic premise" that paper as posted suggests that Po halos might be Rn halos? I brought this and other problems to the attention of the webmaster, as I recall, years ago, and nothing has been fixed.

Dishonesty?

At the very least, those involved in that posting are apparently so determined to buttress their pet theories that they will use false data to make it appear that Gentry's research is discredited, when that isn't the case.

[demoskunk]

@waffelybits Wrong. The speed of light is essentially a constant. Figger it out...

[waffelybits]

@dugudr

the speed of light isn´t a constant. look it up,.. figger it out