RSR's List of Problems with Solar System Formation

Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
User Name said:
Evidence:

The United States Geological Survey(USGS) website has a lot of indepth material about how the age of the Solar System was determined. The basics of it are that all material radioactively decays into a stable isotope. Some elements decay within nanoseconds while others have projected half-lives of over 100 billion years. The USGS based their study on minerals that naturally occur in rocks and have half-lives of 700 million to 100 billion years. These dating techniques, known as radiometric dating, are firmly grounded in physics and are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to re-homogenize its radioactive elements. These techniques returned an approximate age for meteorites of 4.6 billion years and Earth bound rocks around 4.3 billion years.​

http://www.universetoday.com/15575/how-old-is-the-solar-system/
Click to expand...

Oh, you want to talk about radiometric dating now?
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Stripe said:
Oh, you want to talk about radiometric dating now?
Click to expand...

Feel free to drive the conversation.

If one assumes that God created our solar system 6,000 years ago in a mature state (in other words, with the "appearance of age"), then the question becomes, what is the "apparent age" of the solar system? Radiometric dating is a method by which we obtain an answer.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Stripe said:
That's nice. I was sticking with the aspect we were discussing: Pluto's geological activity.
Click to expand...

I know virtually nothing about Pluto's geological activity. It is merely hypothesized to be occurring. If you think you know something about it, feel free to inform the rest of us.
 
6days

6days

New member
User Name said:
Pluto certainly isn't very young, but it may be younger than current assumptions would indicate. For example, Pluto may have formed or reformed (as the result of collision) much more recently than the 8 main planets in our solar system. That would explain Pluto's small number of impact craters in that its surface is too young and fresh to have had time to receive impacts.
Click to expand...

I agree...Pluto isn't very young.... compared to you and me. You and I are not even 100 years old, whereas Pluto is thousands of years old. (Not millions...not billions)

In the beginning, God created. Our solar system was created on the 4th day with a morning and evening. "He created the stars also". Gen. 1:16. The heavens declare the glory of our Creator and proclaim His work.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
6days said:
In the beginning, God created.
Click to expand...

When was the beginning? There are many Christians who believe that there is a long gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 that would allow for millions or even billions of years, and that the creation week was in fact a re-creation.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
User Name said:
When was the beginning? There are many Christians who believe that there is a long gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 that would allow for millions or even billions of years, and that the creation week was in fact a re-creation.
Click to expand...

:yawn:

Wake us up when you've learned to stick to a topic.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Stripe said:
Pluto is a long way from anything that could generate geological processes on it.

However, if it formed recently — as the evidence indicates — the "surprises" facing the evolutionists all but disappear.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, Pluto (or at least Pluto's surface) is undoubtedly younger than the other planets in our solar system. What you are trying to imply, however, is that Pluto is only a few thousand years old, in keeping with YEC views.

Look at the surface of Mercury or the Moon, with their many craters. If all of those impacts took place a few thousand years ago, wouldn't their surfaces still be molten?
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
User Name said:
In my opinion, Pluto (or at least Pluto's surface) is undoubtedly younger than the other planets in our solar system. What you are trying to imply, however, is that Pluto is only a few thousand years old, in keeping with YEC views.

Look at the surface of Mercury or the Moon, with their many craters. If all of those impacts took place a few thousand years ago, wouldn't their surfaces still be molten?
Click to expand...
No.

And you've not understood one thing from what I posted.
 
6days

6days

New member
User Name said:
When was the beginning? There are many Christians who believe that there is a long gap between*Gen 1:1*andGen 1:2*that would allow for millions or even billions of years, and that the creation week was in fact a re-creation.
Click to expand...
There have always been people who try to compromise scripture. The Hebrew text does not allow for the gap theory. The Hebrew text does not allow for the creation days to be anything other than a normal day.*Start a new thread on the topic, or look for an older one.*


Meanwhile..... Pluto is one of hundreds of evidences supporting Biblical creation, the global flood and our young solar system.*
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
6days said:
Meanwhile..... Pluto is one of hundreds of evidences supporting Biblical creation, the global flood and our young solar system.*
Click to expand...

Even assuming Pluto supports what you wish it to, why does it overcome the rest of the evidence?

Try to respond without using Bible verses or a reliance on your particular theology. Try using the science that the rest of the rational world uses.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jonahdog said:
Even assuming Pluto supports what you wish it to, why does it overcome the rest of the evidence? Try to respond without using Bible verses or a reliance on your particular theology. Try using the science that the rest of the rational world uses.
Click to expand...
Evolutionists hate a discussion.
 
6days

6days

New member
Jonahdog said:
Even assuming Pluto supports what you wish it to, why does it overcome the rest of the evidence?

Try to respond without using Bible verses or a reliance on your particular theology. Try using the science that the rest of the rational world uses.
Click to expand...

Pluto is only one of hundreds of evidences which support the truth of God's Word.

A few examples...

* Mature galaxies in distant universe

* Optimal design of vertebrate eyes

* C14 in coal and 'ancient' organisms

* Recession rate of moon

* Lack of soil layers in the geological column

* Our functional appendix and tonsils

* Short period comets

* Echolocation

* Fine tuned universe

* Weta

* Soft Dinosaur tissue

* Grand Canyon layers

* Dead sea Scrolls

* Polystrate fossilized trees

* Earths decaying magnetic field

* Folded layers in the mountains that have hardened into rock

* DNA code

* The planet Mercury

* Little sediment on ocean floor

ETC ETC ETC


However.... The evidence that truly matter and outweighs all other evidence is the truth in God's Word.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Jonahdog said:
But Stripe will not bother to try to explain it to you. Despite how many times you ask.
Click to expand...

Creationists hate a discussion, apparently. Or at least one of them does.

He wants me to concede something I posted but I'm not even sure which point it is he wants me to concede.

Stripe, in the words of Foghorn Leghorn, “What’s it all about boy, elucidate!”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top