B_A
I was here
I kinda think the earth was smaller and hence larger animals.
Loch121
OG
That shit terrifying, spoiler that shit
Rubato
it only matters to us
You’re on the right track, let’s keep reading from the source you used...
It’s rock that has filled to the shape of the bone that used to be there.
Good stuff. I'm enjoying this.
But the link you provided didn't address the NASA link that says the Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year. When you factor the Earth's growth this is what you end up with:
"Over millions of years...what's left is a solid rock copy of the original specimen"
+
The Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year.
_______________________________________________________________________________
= What's left is a solid rock copy of the original specimen that grows at a rate of 0.1 millimeter per year.
Last edited:
Rubato
it only matters to us
The earth expanding at that rate doesn’t mean all the matter on or in the earth is expanding....but I’m sure you know that
Old Man Cain
OG
loud-ninja
Here to point out the illogical
Bones stop growing in length when people reach adulthood. Bones can get denser during the lifetime of a person based on muscle activity and stress. Bones dont grow after death. Just like the rest of the body. How can the earth have any affect with the growth of a dead object?
Fightbackmode2005
I LOVE TRANNIES!
No, I don't agree. You assume the linear without any evidence.
Fightbackmode2005
I LOVE TRANNIES!
Fightbackmode2005
I LOVE TRANNIES!
You keep incorrectly assuming a linear relationship. Why?
Fightbackmode2005
I LOVE TRANNIES!
He doesn't.
Look, I'm not an archeologist and probably know as much about paleontology as any other person on ABW.
According to the link @Rubato posted, there is such thing as "fossil distortion". If a fossil can naturally be distorted to appear smaller, then if the Earth has grown a gigameter in the past 100 million years, that could have distorted the fossils in the other direction.
I don't have it all figured out, but I think it's plausible that the so-called "dinosaurs" that lived "100-200 million years ago" might have just been insects, birds, amphibians, reptiles who's corpses were mummified in soil over 100s of millions of years and grew as the Earth grew.
That's all I have to say about dinosaurs.
As far as time itself, Elijah Muhammad said that time is measured by motion. A day is the length of time it takes for the Earth to rotate on it's axis once. A year is the length of time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun once.
A day is broken up in to 24 hours
An hour is broken up into 60 minutes
A minute is broken up into 60 seconds
There are 86,400 seconds in a day
A picosecond is one trillionth of a second
A jiffy is the length of time it takes for light to travel one fermi, which is considered the shortest length of time.
According to the link Fightbackmode2005 posted, the Earth itself is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeters per year. Which means if we go back far enough, the Earth was just a speck of dust, maybe the size of a grain of sand, or a pebble.
Once you go back that far in time, it becomes difficult to measure time because there's no Earth rotating on it's axis, and there's no Earth revolving around the Sun. So how would you measure a day or a year if the Earth is just a grain of sand floating in space?
So-called scientists claim that the Earth is 4 billion years old, or 14.5 billion years old. Or whatever.
I've never heard (although I've never done any research either) of a scientist explain how they calculated the Earth's age, or what unit of measurement they used to calculate the Earth's age? As I mentioned earlier, if you go back in time far enough, the Earth wasn't rotating nor revolving.
In fact, the Earth is 93 million miles away from the Sun. It travels at 66,000 miles per hour as it revolves around the Sun.
But if the universe is expanding, then it's reasonable to assume that at one point the Earth was 92 million miles from the Sun, or 91 million miles away.
At what rate is the universe expanding and is it linear?
Q. How would you calculate time in an expanding universe when the Earth was only 33 miles from the Sun? How would you calculate a day, or a year?
$1,000,000 in ABW dollars for the best answer.
You must show your work
Rubato
it only matters to us
It would take me a full day’s work to unpack how much is wrong with your post so I’ll just start here. The outer limits of the macro universe expanding has little to no impact on the distance between two objects, that is more tied to their relative gravitational fields.
12bitCounsel
Je Ne Sais Quoi
bro nobody has any verifiable information concerning the age of the earth, it's all speculative. It's a question of what methods and facts a person use in their speculation to arrive to a conclusion. Every bit of which will yield a different conclusion based on both the method used and the facts either examined or ignored.
Answer this, where does religion come from? And do you have any logical reason to reject the accounts given in the Bible notable the book of Genesis?
Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun. It takes 500 seconds (8 minutes, 20 seconds) for Sunlight to reach Earth. We travel around that Sun at 66,615 miles per hour. It takes 365 1/4 days to make a complete revolution around the Sun. The orbital speeds of the planets vary depending on their distance from the Sun. This is because of the gravitational force being exerted on the planets by the Sun. Additionally, according to the Kepler’s laws of planetary motion; the flight path of every planet is in the shape of an ellipse.
Your premise is flawed. You claim that the, "outer limits of the macro universe expanding has little to no impact on the distance between two objects".
I'm not even sure if that makes any sense
Are you suggesting that our solar system has always been the same size?
According to NASA Earth is growing at a rate of 0.1 millimeters per year
How on Earth (pun intended) could our solar system remain the same size over billions of years, while the Earth is growing 0.1 millimeters per (edit) year?
Do you really think your premise makes sense or are you just playing devil's advocate?
Last edited:
I have a, " logical reason to reject the accounts given in the Bible in the book of Genesis".
1. It says Adam and Eve were the first two people. A serpent tricked Eve into eating an apple
2. It goes on to say they had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain married Adam's daughter
How is that possible?
3. Then it goes on to say Noah gathered two of every animal, put them on a big boat and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the whole world was wiped out, but, humans and the animals procreated.
Now I'm not rejecting the Bible. It's a great book and has alot of parables that can be useful today. But as far as logic, and debating science the Bible is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
Rubato
it only matters to us
Nope, just saying you tying two completely unrelated phenomena together