Prechgold1180:
How old is planet Earth

Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old .The earth is about thesame age as the Sun.The earth is a spin off of the Sun.It literally cut off the Sun like the other 7 planets revolving around the Sun

68 indeed.

I wonder where I was 68 million years ago.

Why den no dey see dinosaurs bones for Nigeria sef abi ancestors still chop all finish as bush meat then as we dey do now?

Finnestgreat:
wow u mean it,ride on nonsense

U are either to believe it or not, the Bible u believe Stated that a god just magically existed and created everything n u believe, and u think that's not nonsense too.

Finnestgreat:
keep quiet if u don't know what to comment

I have made my comment, u makes yrs n don't tell me to keep quiet.

It's simple as that

DenreleDave:


Rubbish scientist.. No be only 100 million years, na 1 billion years ago..


Are these scientists mad?

Shey we resemble Omo Ase ni??

Werey lawon eleyi Sha.. Imagine 100 million years



Thank you.. What is carbon dating sef?

I know carbon, I know dating

Does carbon date each other again

So you think they are lying?

Oh

Maybe the bones that was found was just not complete. ?

ibuildstuff:
I have made my comment, u makes yrs n don't tell me to keep quiet.
It's simple as that

keep quiet joor

ibuildstuff:

U are either to believe it or not, the Bible u believe Stated that a god just magically existed and created everything n u believe, and u think that's not nonsense too.

it's not nonsense,ok wat of science dat said humans originated 4rm apes,is dat not stupid.As 4 me i was created a human by God,i don't know about you

Fash20:


The ancestors of humans and mammal in general were like rats they lived in borrows. It was due to the extinction of the dinosaurs we are here today.

Really?
Did you see where it was said in the article that the dino (must have) lost one of its digit. That is what is been observed - loss of structure; not the gradual addition of structure that evolution evangelists want us to believe.

Realist1:

Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old not 3.5billion .The earth is about thesame age as the Sun. The earth is a spin off of the Sun.It literally cut off the Sun like the other 7 planets revolving around the Sun .

All these funny cosmological hypothesis that does not have place in real science.
Dust collapsing in a constantly expanding matter (universe)
Nebula hypothesis producing our solar system, yet Venus move in a direction opposite that of other planet
Assigning age to them arbitrarily is not a full proof that it is like that

Pelecius:

Really?
Did you see where it was said in the article that the dino (must have) lost one of its digit. That is what is been observed - loss of structure; not the gradual addition of structure that evolution evangelists want us to believe.

Evolution does not lead to addition of structure (i.e it doesn't go back to the drawing board)? It only modifies the existing one to suit a purpose.

Finnestgreat:
it's not nonsense,ok wat of science dat said humans originated 4rm apes,is dat not stupid.As 4 me i was created a human by God,i don't know about you

Humans and apes have the same origins, not that humans originated from apes. It's obvious for u to see.

Finnestgreat:
keep quiet joor

Dumb dum

ibuildstuff:


Humans and apes have the same origins, not that humans originated from apes. It's obvious for u to see.

No b only origin, we human do not share any origin with apes or any other animal for that matter

ibuildstuff:
Dumb dum

i said shhh!

Finnestgreat:
i said shhh!

Sars shoot u there

ibuildstuff:
Sars shoot u there

nope u first dumbas.s

Fash20:


Evolution does not lead to addition of structure (i.e it doesn't go back to the drawing board)? It only modifies the existing one to suit a purpose.

Very good, but it was claimed that evolution does not have purpose
Secondly, just ordinary modification would not change one structure to another (say; scale to feather) as they would want us to believe
Also, the general theory of evolution wants us to believe that all what we see now started from chemicals that came together and formed the first unicellular life which now gradually added structures (allegedly through modification). These are fanciful wishes as what is observed is what one can call 'devolution' - loosing structures

Pelecius:

Very good, but it was claimed that evolution does not have purpose
Secondly, just ordinary modification would not change one structure to another (say; scale to feather) as they would want us to believe
Also, the general theory of evolution wants us to believe that all what we see now started from chemicals that came together and formed the first unicellular life which now gradually added structures (allegedly through modification). These are fanciful wishes as what is observed is what one can call 'devolution' - loosing structures

Its still part of evolution. When a stucture is not in use, it starts to diminish untill it finally disappears. A typical example is the lack of tail in human and other closely rated apes. Our ancestors stopped using their tail for balance, hanging on tree e.t.c thats why we don't have tail today.

Even if evolution isn't entirely true, which i doubt, I believe its the closest thing to the truth cus the evidence is overwhelming

Denique:
68 million years! Carbon dating o...
Modified:
Radioactive dating o...

E be thinz

Openbusiness:
It's not carbon dating. It is radio dating or radioactive dating. Carbon dating is not accurate beyond 50,000 years

Carbon dating radio dating olosho dating
Na dem sabi.....

Lolz ������

DenreleDave:


Rubbish scientist.. No be only 100 million years, na 1 billion years ago..


Are these scientists mad?

Shey we resemble Omo Ase ni??

Werey lawon eleyi Sha.. Imagine 100 million years



Thank you.. What is carbon dating sef?

I know carbon, I know dating

Does carbon date each other again

Pelecius:

All these funny cosmological hypothesis that does not have place in real science.
Dust collapsing in a constantly expanding matter (universe)
Nebula hypothesis producing our solar system, yet Venus move in a direction opposite that of other planet
Assigning age to them arbitrarily is not a full proof that it is like that

You don't have to be a creationist to see through the BS of all these nonsense. There are atheist that don't think the big bang ever happend. Down here, ignorant people call you ignorant cause you don't agree that the big bang happened. This post on reddit captures the whole picture.

Suppose you are honest and not in the business of “publish or perish” in academia, the following are some examples of contradictions in science.

(1) Ultimate free lunch in the Big Bang model.

We suspend the law of conservation of energy in a closed system of our universe when it began. It came from absolute nothing and “big bang” to what it is today. Absolute nothing means that there was not even space and time, and matter—-not even laws of physics as you need space and time to write the equation and invoke the invariance.

(2) The age of the moon and its moving away from the earth.

As another example of a contradiction in different disciplines of science, let’s consider the measured age of the moon and the rate of lunar recession.

According to high-precision uranium-lead dating of Apollo 14 zircon fragments collected from the moon, geologists have determined that the age of the moon is 4.51 billion years. (see Early formation of the Moon 4.51 billion years ago

).

But this age is in contradiction from the analysis of lunar recession according to the extrapolate-back-in-time paradigm of Big Bang cosmology.

Friedman’s solution to Einstein’s field equations of general relativity is a classical deterministic system. Being a deterministic system, the solution is invariant to the direction of time. Since our universe is observed to be expanding at the present age, if you wind back the clock, it must have been extremely small and our universe is said to be the result of the “Big Bang” from that singularity.

The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment finds that the moon is moving away from the earth at the rate of 3.82±0.07cm per year (see Calculation of lunar orbit anomaly

) at the current distance of 384,402 km from the earth,

Using the same extrapolate-back-in time paradigm, if the moon is moving away from the earth, it must have been closer to the earth in the past.

Now if you analyze the tidal forces, angular momentum and so on, you will find that the rate of change of the distance r

to the earth is a deterministic differential equation:

drdt=αr112.

Here, α

is a constant that is based on the combination of the mass of the earth, the radius of the earth, the mass of the moon, the universal gravitational constant, and so on.

We can use the 3.82 cm per year (3.82 ×10−5
km per year) and the current distance of 384,402 km to calibrate the constant α and find that it is 1.99 ×1026.

Using high-school calculus, you can integrate the differential equation backward in time to find that the moon would hit the earth in only 1.55 billion years. It is much earlier by about 3 billion years!

To reconcile the contradiction, planetary scientists are saying that the moon retreated more slowly in the past due to hypotheses such as shifts in plate tectonics. But how could you have plates if the earth was in the “molten state”?

(3) Survival of blood and soft tissues in 68-million-year-old dinosaurs.

Since the first discovery by Mary Schweitzer, other research groups have also found biologically degradable tissues in other dinosaurs. It is quite a mystery how such tissues could have survived such a long time.

(4) Epoch-dependent science versus Epoch-independent science

Notice that common in these contradictions is the distant past. They are epoch-dependent. By definition of repeatability, science ought to be epoch-independent. Examples of epoch-independent science include synthetic chemistry, nano-materials, computer science, and so on. In these disciplines, you don’t look at the past or the origins. You don’t need uniformitarianism or other philosophical lenses.

What happened in the historical past could not be observed directly. You need the hypotheses to extrapolate from observations of this age to eons ago. We know that to draw a line, you need at least two points. We are now observing at one point of the cosmic age and how do you extrapolate back in time without some other reference point in the past? In the absence of observations, say 1 million years ago, scientists in the epoch-dependent fields have no choice but to trust and believe that their hypotheses and assumptions (e.g., the rate of radioactive decay does not change, dark energy and dark matter are real, etc) work. Otherwise, how could you get your papers accepted for peer-review journals? How could you get funding for your science projects?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-contradictions-in-science?share=1

https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/

SmartMugu:

No mind these scientists. They said we used to be apes until we suddenly became humans, shouldnt we still see apes that suddenly become humans everyday? What changed and stopped today's apes from metamorphosis to humans? How many gorillas have graduated to humans since we were born?Lies everywhere.

You're either ignorant about how evolution works or you’re just dumb as hell... Humans did not evolve from any species of apes that currently exist.We did not evolve from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, or gibbons. Instead, we evolved from a “common ancestor”
with chimpanzees and bonobos. Going even further back, a“ common ancestor”of gorillas and then further back a “common ancestor” of orangutans. Meaning, at some point in the very distant past, there was a species of ape that no longer exists and, eventually, all extant species of ape, including humans, evolved from that species. The other species of apes that currently exist are not our ancestors; instead, they are more like our cousins.

Evolution does not work the way you reason it does. One species can diverge into several different species and, over time, these species can grow further and further apart.

What you said is just like saying “Since dogs all came from one specie of wolfs why don’t all the other dogs change to German Shepherd, or rot willers”or “ since I came from my grandfather , why do my cousins exist?”.

There is no reason why non-human apes should have evolved into humans. They have adapted to their environments in their own ways, which just happen to be different from the ways in which humans have adapted to our environments over the course of our evolutionary history. There is no more a reason why a gorilla should have evolved into a human than there is a reason why a human should have evolved into a gorilla.
I’m sure the gorilla is better equipped to survive in the jungle than we are. Your statement is like a gorilla saying: “Why havent’t these humans evolved to be strong and brutal like me”.

To throw you off your balance can you explain to me how Neanderthals who share the same amount of chromosome with us modern humans, breed with us? Although there species have been wiped out, a small percent of their DNA can be found in most Caucasians.

Can you also explain why humans and chimps have almost the same number of chromosomes?

Can you explain why upon gorillas and chimps are more aesthetically similar, chimps are more genetically related to humans than they are to gorillas?

Can you explain why diseases found in our DNA existing a long time ago can also be found in that of chimps?

Can you explain why chimps share 98% of our DNA?

Benesis:
Africans will believe that the sun is 4 light minutes away from the earth but when the same science now tell them that the earth is millions of years old, they wont believe, solely because the old testament says God created the earth 6000 years ago

Lmao

GidiCars:


You don't have to be a creationist to see through the BS of all these nonsense. There are atheist that don't think the big bang ever happend. Down here, ignorant people call you ignorant cause you don't agree that the big bang happened. This post on reddit captures the whole picture.

Suppose you are honest and not in the business of “publish or perish” in academia, the following are some examples of contradictions in science.

(1) Ultimate free lunch in the Big Bang model.

We suspend the law of conservation of energy in a closed system of our universe when it began. It came from absolute nothing and “big bang” to what it is today. Absolute nothing means that there was not even space and time, and matter—-not even laws of physics as you need space and time to write the equation and invoke the invariance.

(2) The age of the moon and its moving away from the earth.

As another example of a contradiction in different disciplines of science, let’s consider the measured age of the moon and the rate of lunar recession.

According to high-precision uranium-lead dating of Apollo 14 zircon fragments collected from the moon, geologists have determined that the age of the moon is 4.51 billion years. (see Early formation of the Moon 4.51 billion years ago

).

But this age is in contradiction from the analysis of lunar recession according to the extrapolate-back-in-time paradigm of Big Bang cosmology.

Friedman’s solution to Einstein’s field equations of general relativity is a classical deterministic system. Being a deterministic system, the solution is invariant to the direction of time. Since our universe is observed to be expanding at the present age, if you wind back the clock, it must have been extremely small and our universe is said to be the result of the “Big Bang” from that singularity.

The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment finds that the moon is moving away from the earth at the rate of 3.82±0.07cm per year (see Calculation of lunar orbit anomaly

) at the current distance of 384,402 km from the earth,

Using the same extrapolate-back-in time paradigm, if the moon is moving away from the earth, it must have been closer to the earth in the past.

Now if you analyze the tidal forces, angular momentum and so on, you will find that the rate of change of the distance r

to the earth is a deterministic differential equation:

drdt=αr112.

Here, α

is a constant that is based on the combination of the mass of the earth, the radius of the earth, the mass of the moon, the universal gravitational constant, and so on.

We can use the 3.82 cm per year (3.82 ×10−5
km per year) and the current distance of 384,402 km to calibrate the constant α and find that it is 1.99 ×1026.

Using high-school calculus, you can integrate the differential equation backward in time to find that the moon would hit the earth in only 1.55 billion years. It is much earlier by about 3 billion years!

To reconcile the contradiction, planetary scientists are saying that the moon retreated more slowly in the past due to hypotheses such as shifts in plate tectonics. But how could you have plates if the earth was in the “molten state”?

(3) Survival of blood and soft tissues in 68-million-year-old dinosaurs.

Since the first discovery by Mary Schweitzer, other research groups have also found biologically degradable tissues in other dinosaurs. It is quite a mystery how such tissues could have survived such a long time.

(4) Epoch-dependent science versus Epoch-independent science

Notice that common in these contradictions is the distant past. They are epoch-dependent. By definition of repeatability, science ought to be epoch-independent. Examples of epoch-independent science include synthetic chemistry, nano-materials, computer science, and so on. In these disciplines, you don’t look at the past or the origins. You don’t need uniformitarianism or other philosophical lenses.

What happened in the historical past could not be observed directly. You need the hypotheses to extrapolate from observations of this age to eons ago. We know that to draw a line, you need at least two points. We are now observing at one point of the cosmic age and how do you extrapolate back in time without some other reference point in the past? In the absence of observations, say 1 million years ago, scientists in the epoch-dependent fields have no choice but to trust and believe that their hypotheses and assumptions (e.g., the rate of radioactive decay does not change, dark energy and dark matter are real, etc) work. Otherwise, how could you get your papers accepted for peer-review journals? How could you get funding for your science projects?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-contradictions-in-science?share=1

https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/

Suppose you are honest and not in the business of “publish or perish” in academia...
Unfortunately, the “publish or perish” persecution that many scientists face in the academia. You have people that are denied of their tenure, papers are refused to be published, funding are stopped the moment you try to challenge cosmic and biological evolution

...our universe when it began. It came from absolute nothing...
That is the greatest nonsense that have been swallowed by the general public. NOTHING exploded. Someone even made it sound more annoying by summarizing it as “nothing exploded and produced hydrogen…”

Using high-school calculus, you can integrate the differential equation backward in time to find that the moon would hit the earth in only 1.55 billion years. It is much earlier by about 3 billion years!
That is another instance of how historical science (cosmology in this case) fails when confronted with real science

To reconcile the contradiction, planetary scientists are saying that the moon retreated more slowly in the past due to hypotheses such as shifts in plate tectonics. But how could you have plates if the earth was in the “molten state”?
This is how intelligent folks ridicule themselves because of ‘faith’ in materialism. Plate tectonics in a molten earth; very funny of them

Since the first discovery by Mary Schweitzer, other research groups have also found biologically degradable tissues in other dinosaurs. It is quite a mystery how such tissues could have survived such a long time.
The funny thing is that her discovery has now made her an authority in field of Paleobiology. She received so many backlash but was able to stand by her results, though trying to interpret it from evolutionary lens so as to ‘appease the gods’.
Whenever such discovery is made, they resort to claiming that it must have been contaminated. That is a very nonsense approach to science. If ruling paradigm are protected at all cost (including stupidity), how will it advance?

We are now observing at one point of the cosmic age and how do you extrapolate back in time without some other reference point in the past? In the absence of observations, say 1 million years ago, scientists in the epoch-dependent fields have no choice but to trust and believe that their hypotheses and assumptions (e.g., the rate of radioactive decay does not change, dark energy and dark matter are real, etc) work
This last one is where my wannabe science guys in NL do amuse me. They fail to differentiate operational science which fulfils the scientific method from historical science that is more or less just-so-stories.

Otherwise, how could you get your papers accepted for peer-review journals? How could you get funding for your science projects?
These questions are just there and makes life difficult for honest scientists.

Doff my hat for you

gasparpisciotta:


Regale me please with what you know ser

DYOR

DenreleDave:


Rubbish scientist.. No be only 100 million years, na 1 billion years ago..


Are these scientists mad?

Shey we resemble Omo Ase ni??

Werey lawon eleyi Sha.. Imagine 100 million years



Thank you.. What is carbon dating sef?

I know carbon, I know dating

Does carbon date each other again

guy!!!! u make me laugh i swear, no mind dem.. doz pple will just b fetching years, as if na water dem de fetch