At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the Species????
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
You are quote-mining.
In reality Darwin wrote: (second edition)
===
Hence,
feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
length would be a sufficient allowance.
the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
three hundred million years. But perhaps it would be safer to allow two
or three inches per century, and this would reduce the number of years
to one hundred and fifty or one hundred million years.
====
It is obvious from the above passage that this is a made up example,
for the purpose of arriving at an order of magnitude estimate.
Darwin was right of of course. Hundreds of millions of years
is a correct estimate for the time scale of geology and evolution.
It was not possible to do better, at the time.
Jan
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about 75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
You are quote-mining.
In reality Darwin wrote: (second edition)
===
Hence, under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
length would be a sufficient allowance. At this rate, on the above data,
the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years; or say three hundred million years. But perhaps it would be safer to allow two
or three inches per century, and this would reduce the number of years
to one hundred and fifty or one hundred million years.
====
It is obvious from the above passage that this is a made up example,
for the purpose of arriving at an order of magnitude estimate.
Darwin was right of of course. Hundreds of millions of years
is a correct estimate for the time scale of geology and evolution.
It was not possible to do better, at the time.
Jan
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that >> number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
You are quote-mining.
In reality Darwin wrote: (second edition)
===
Hence,
Huh?
under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
length would be a sufficient allowance.
500*12*100 is 600000 years.
At this rate, on the above data,
the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
Weald, whatever that may have been.
Somebody smelling a really stinking rat or is our canine arithmetic
woefully wrong somewhere?
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Well, the
or say
three hundred million years. But perhaps it would be safer to allow two
or three inches per century, and this would reduce the number of years
to one hundred and fifty or one hundred million years.
====
It is obvious from the above passage that this is a made up example,
for the purpose of arriving at an order of magnitude estimate.
Darwin was right of of course. Hundreds of millions of years
is a correct estimate for the time scale of geology and evolution.
It was not possible to do better, at the time.
Jan
--
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that >> number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
You are quote-mining.
In reality Darwin wrote: (second edition)
===
Hence,
Huh?
under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
length would be a sufficient allowance.
500*12*100 is 600000 years.
At this rate, on the above data,
the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
Weald, whatever that may have been.
fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that >>>> number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the >>>> age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
You are quote-mining.
In reality Darwin wrote: (second edition)
===
Hence,
Huh?
under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
length would be a sufficient allowance.
500*12*100 is 600000 years.
At this rate, on the above data,
the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
There you have it, talking again without understanding
of what it is all about.
You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
Weald, whatever that may have been.
FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)
And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
estimate of about 300 000 000 years.
Jan
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:10:53 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about >>>> 75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that >>>> number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the >>>> age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
You are quote-mining.
In reality Darwin wrote: (second edition)
===
Hence,
Huh?
under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
length would be a sufficient allowance.
500*12*100 is 600000 years.
At this rate, on the above data,
the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
There you have it, talking again without understanding
of what it is all about.
You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet >> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
Weald, whatever that may have been.
FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)
And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
estimate of about 300 000 000 years.
Erosion or height reduction is in the vertical plane. Not horizontal.
Erosion of 255552 feet in the vertical plane gives us in miles 255552/(3*1760) or 255552/5280 or a bit over 48 miles.
Not 22 miles which is beyond the limit of jet engines.
So according to Darwin and his followers there was a mountain in the
Weald whose height was in near space.
Point is, what could erode that much height with no wind or water for
that purpose.
Not that certain physicists need be bothered by such pesky issues.
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the Species????
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 9:43:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:[crap]
For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
balancing, more or less.
A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears.
(in some tens of millions of years)
So how did the 300000000 year figure reached by Darwin for the age of
the Earth have anything to do with the behaviour of mountain ranges!
As Star has pointed out, genius of a certain kind pulls out figures from certain dark places to suit their theories.
That sort of genius gets little respect from the seekers of scientific excellence.
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:10:53 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about >>>>>> 75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that >>>>>> number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the >>>>>> age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
You are quote-mining.
In reality Darwin wrote: (second edition)
===
Hence,
Huh?
under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
length would be a sufficient allowance.
500*12*100 is 600000 years.
At this rate, on the above data,
the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
There you have it, talking again without understanding
of what it is all about.
You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet >>>> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
Weald, whatever that may have been.
FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)
And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
estimate of about 300 000 000 years.
Erosion or height reduction is in the vertical plane. Not horizontal.
Erosion of 255552 feet in the vertical plane gives us in miles
255552/(3*1760) or 255552/5280 or a bit over 48 miles.
Not 22 miles which is beyond the limit of jet engines.
So according to Darwin and his followers there was a mountain in the
Weald whose height was in near space.
Point is, what could erode that much height with no wind or water for
that purpose.
Not that certain physicists need be bothered by such pesky issues.
You are both blundering idiots, with feet in mouth,
by pontificating on subjects you don't know the first things of.
Why for heavens sake?
Is it that important to you to belittle a genius?
For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
balancing, more or less.
A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears.
(in some tens of millions of years)
So 'The Weald' never was a 22 mile high mountain.
That 22 miles is a reasonable estimate for the amount of material
that was removed from it by erosion, over geologic time.
(from identifying continuing layers on both sides)
So Darwin was completely right here:
erosion is of order of a few centimeters/century,
total hight of material removed by erosion
is of order tens of kilometers,
So typical ages of old mountain ranges
can be estimated to be in the hundreds of million of years old.
Jan
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 9:43:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:[crap]
For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
balancing, more or less.
A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears.
(in some tens of millions of years)
So how did the 300000000 year figure reached by Darwin for the age of
the Earth have anything to do with the behaviour of mountain ranges!
See above, and ref. cited.
As Star has pointed out, genius of a certain kind pulls out figures from
certain dark places to suit their theories.
That sort of genius gets little respect from the seekers of scientific
excellence.
Excellent scientists know how to make order of magnitude estimates,
Jan
The Starmaker wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about 75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the Species????
"Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that >>> number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how >>> come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
Species????
"Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
who knows how he came out with that number?
How about that number 75,000????
In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
universe....
Somebody is holding you guys back..
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about 75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the Species????
"Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
who knows how he came out with that number?
How about that number 75,000????
In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
that
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with
number)how
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the >>> > age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But
come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
Species????
"Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
who knows how he came out with that number?
See his
"Scala graduum Caloris. Calorum Descriptiones & signa.",
published anonymously.
The problem with it is that the Earth doesn't cool like a cup of tea.
How about that number 75,000????
In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
Same errors as Newton.
Before the development of thermodynamics
things like temperature, energy content,
and the various heat conduction processes were poorly understood.
The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
The correct answer to the cooling problem
was obtained by Kelvin about a hundred years later.
It is some tens of millions of years.
Kelvin established a sharp conflict between the physical timescale
and the needs of geologists for much longer times.
Finally, in 1904, Rutherford got it right
by also taking radioactive heat into account,
Jan
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about 75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the Species????
"Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
who knows how he came out with that number?
How about that number 75,000????
In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
Somebody is holding you guys back..
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about 75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the Species????
"Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
who knows how he came out with that number?
How about that number 75,000????
In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
Somebody is holding you guys back..
Okay, if you look at the History of the age of the earth, the numbers go up and up and up and up...
and it stops at 4.54 billion.
Why did it stop? and Why did it stop at the year 1956????
Somebody is holding you guys back..you are not allowed to think...forward.
Yous need permission to ..think.
I don't have that problem. I already know the age of the earth is the same age of the universe. It's irrefutable!
In fact, look up at the Big Dipper, it's the same age of the universe.
Now yous people don't realy understand Stars and it's arrangement..
Yes, it is arranged as you see it.
Now, this part you never heard before...
every star you see has a twin..
but the twin is at the other side
of the universe...and that twin has a twin, and that
twin has a twin at the other side of the universe..
and that twin has a twin, and that
twin has a twin at the other side of the universe.
That's a total of 4 stars.
You can actually find each twin by
simply
drawing a straight line and that line will reach'
directly without any interferences from
any other star.
All stars have 4 twins.
Each twin is located in the next dimension..
4 dimensions...visible dimensions.
Okay, if you look at the History of the age of the earth, the numbers go up and up and up and up...
and it stops at 4.54 billion.
Why did it stop? and Why did it stop at the year 1956????
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the Species????
"Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
who knows how he came out with that number?
How about that number 75,000????
In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
Somebody is holding you guys back..
Okay, if you look at the History of the age of the earth, the numbers go up and up and up and up...
and it stops at 4.54 billion.
Why did it stop? and Why did it stop at the year 1956????
Somebody is holding you guys back..you are not allowed to think...forward.
Yous need permission to ..think.
I don't have that problem. I already know the age of the earth is the same age of the universe. It's irrefutable!
In fact, look up at the Big Dipper, it's the same age of the universe.
Now yous people don't realy understand Stars and it's arrangement..
Yes, it is arranged as you see it.
Now, this part you never heard before...
every star you see has a twin..
but the twin is at the other side
of the universe...and that twin has a twin, and that
twin has a twin at the other side of the universe..
and that twin has a twin, and that
twin has a twin at the other side of the universe.
That's a total of 4 stars.
You can actually find each twin by
simply
drawing a straight line and that line will reach'
directly without any interferences from
any other star.
All stars have 4 twins.
Each twin is located in the next dimension..
4 dimensions...visible dimensions.
All 4 stars are twins or copies of each other..
each one in a different dimension. You can actualy draw a
straight line to each one and it forms a perfect square.
All stars have a copy of itself in another dimension, and
there are only 4 dimensions.
Now imagine drawing billons of straight lines that form perfect
squares. You have billons of squares. From a far..the stard appear
to be scattered, but are they?
If each star has a copy of itself, in another dimension, in the
same 'position' of it's copy in each dimension...then
all stars in the universe are arranged in order.
In one dimension it appears scattered..but the second dimension
contains a mirror reflection of it's first dimension.
4 reflections, 4 dimensions....all connected.
There is a center to the 4 dimensions.
It's a star. One star. No twins.
It holds all 4 dimensions together.
The Starmaker
i forgot to mention that all these stars in 4 dimensions are located
Before the big bang.
So, there isn't any fourth dimensions of time.
Time didn't exist until After the big bang....t=0
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about 75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the Species????
"Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
who knows how he came out with that number?
How about that number 75,000????
In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
Somebody is holding you guys back..
Okay, if you look at the History of the age of the earth, the numbers go up and up and up and up...
and it stops at 4.54 billion.
Why did it stop? and Why did it stop at the year 1956????
Somebody is holding you guys back..you are not allowed to think...forward.
Yous need permission to ..think.
I don't have that problem. I already know the age of the earth is the same age of the universe. It's irrefutable!
In fact, look up at the Big Dipper, it's the same age of the universe.
Now yous people don't realy understand Stars and it's arrangement..
Yes, it is arranged as you see it.
Now, this part you never heard before...
every star you see has a twin..
but the twin is at the other side
of the universe...and that twin has a twin, and that
twin has a twin at the other side of the universe..
and that twin has a twin, and that
twin has a twin at the other side of the universe.
That's a total of 4 stars.
You can actually find each twin by
simply
drawing a straight line and that line will reach'
directly without any interferences from
any other star.
All stars have 4 twins.
Each twin is located in the next dimension..
4 dimensions...visible dimensions.
All 4 stars are twins or copies of each other..
each one in a different dimension. You can actualy draw a
straight line to each one and it forms a perfect square.
All stars have a copy of itself in another dimension, and
there are only 4 dimensions.
Now imagine drawing billons of straight lines that form perfect
squares. You have billons of squares. From a far..the stard appear
to be scattered, but are they?
If each star has a copy of itself, in another dimension, in the
same 'position' of it's copy in each dimension...then
all stars in the universe are arranged in order.
In one dimension it appears scattered..but the second dimension
contains a mirror reflection of it's first dimension.
4 reflections, 4 dimensions....all connected.
There is a center to the 4 dimensions.
It's a star. One star. No twins.
It holds all 4 dimensions together.
The Starmaker
Am Sonntag000020, 20.04.2025 um 08:59 schrieb The Starmaker:
At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old. (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
number)
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
So he, 'made up a number'!
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.
The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
come nobody out there sez he lied????
What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
Species????
Darwin's book is among the worst crap ever written in science.
Darwin actually wanted to write a novel about his travels around the
globe and a fable about the magnificence of the British aristocracy (the 'preferred race').
What Darwin actually invented, that was 'scientific' racism and one of
the forerunners of Naziism, called 'Eugenics'.
TH
There was no big bang.
Bertitaylor wrote:
There was no big bang.
well, it wasn't that loud...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 505 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:47:34 |
| Calls: | 9,919 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,801 |
| Messages: | 6,347,273 |