Forums | MacLife

Very cool post below this one, Ivan!

Last edited by debbiedowner (2005-03-06 6:43 am)

I can't belive no one said anything WHEN SOMEONE POSTED THAT THERE IS NO PROOF THE EARTH IS MORE THAN 8000 YEARS OLD.

[UPDATE]:

Discovery is running Supervolcano on April 10 at 8PM about Yellowstone's impending eruption and global devastation it will cause.

http://dsc.discovery.com/schedule/episo … ;gid=13014

John

the W'rkncacnter wrote:

I can't belive no one said anything WHEN SOMEONE POSTED THAT THERE IS NO PROOF THE EARTH IS MORE THAN 8000 YEARS OLD.

Hey, some of the greatest minds on the MAF think that. There's that guy, resedit, um, uh...
Okay, fine.
--;

ivanjs wrote:

More like 5 billion years old, give or take a few million.
John

CapellaM44 wrote:

There is no proof that the planet has been around such a record number of years.  It is only between 6-8,000 years.

Based on evidence in the Bible, James Ussher, Bishop of Armagh, gave a fairly precise birthdate for the Earth: the morning ofOctober 4th 4004BC.

So the world is 6008 years old. The Church can't be wrong in these things.

This is a fun topic.

[Insert some random Hitchhikers Guide quotes here.]

I'm sorry I got here late. There are so many topics to cover I think I'll just get on my horse and gallop off in all directions at once.

Earth's mangetic poles

These are not very close to the True North and South poles (the axes of the Earth's rotation). Also, they move around a degree or so every decade. A good topographical map should tell you the variation between True North and Magnetic North, the rate of variation and the date at which the map was current, so you can work out the up-to-date variation and get True North to prevent yourself getting Truly Lost.

The strenth of the magnetic field has been reducing according to measurements over the past 150 years, but as the Mag Nth pole is in Canada it's probably something those socialists north of the 49th parallel are doing, eh.



How old are the mountains?

CapellaM44 wrote:

Robert B. wrote:

no. the earth is only 8,000 years old.

In order for the earth to be 8 million years old, the mountains would have eroded several times over.  There is no proof that the planet has been around such a record number of years.  It is only between 6-8,000 years.

Yeah, right, Bob B

We have mountain ranges where the continental tectonic plates run into each other. The Himalayas are growing where the Indian plate runs into the Asian plate. The tip of Mt Everest is marine limestone, ie it was a seabed at one time.

Is the earth warming or cooling?

On balance things are warming up. Have a look at NOAA's page on the subject; you can get there at <http://www.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateextremes.html >.   Because the interaction of the components of the  world climate is so complicated, I would not be surprised by a long period where climatic conditions oscillate between extemes and slowly converge on a new stable state, rather than smoothly ramping up to a new and warmer climate.

The news about Antartica getting colder is unusual. Up to a couple of years ago the Antarctic ice shelf was breaking off in chunks as big as counties. I remember seeing time-lapse satellite pictures of such a mega-iceberg being carried by ocean currents into the Pacific where it eventually broke up into regular icebergs, but it was a huge menace to shipping while it lasted.


Yellowstone going BANG??!!

As brendave said: You should read Bill Brysons' A Short History of Nearly Everything.  It's packed fulla this kinda stuff.

He wrote it a couple of years ago and mentioned they were expecting Yellowstone to pop it's cork then, so just wait around. It should be any day now.

He also discusses a lot of the Ice Age and climate change stuff too. A great read.


Where did the tsunami come from?

I read that the reduction in the weight of the ice on the Atarctic polar cap (12 000 feet thick at the south Pole) puts less strain on the Antarctic tectonic plate, which reduced the strain between the Antactic plate, allowing its' south-east asian neighbour to relieve some of its' own strain by shifting a bit which caused the underwater earthquake and therefore the tsunami. I don't know how true this is or where you can find out.


Did I miss anything?

I don't think the astronomical stuff is anything to worry about. Mars is too small, and at its' closest approach is still too far away to have a measureable effect on anything.

I also predict that the black hole at the centre of the galaxy will have no effect on Earth when it is aligned with the sun.

I'm looking forward to flames from Robert B and going to the top of everybody else's Ignore list.

Fried Chicken wrote:

goodvibes wrote:

ivanjs wrote:

More like 5 billion years old, give or take a few million.
John

Based on evidence in the Bible, James Ussher, Bishop of Armagh, gave a fairly precise birthdate for the Earth: the morning of October 4th 4004BC.

So the world is 6008 years old. The Church can't be wrong in these things.

Then why is it that we don't celebrate something on october 4th, and specifically, not october 4th of 2004.

And how did Mr. Man know it happened on October 4th and not October 3rd?

And, do you seriously read the bible enough to know this?

And, do you believe everything in the bible?

Maybe I should have put a after I wrote 'So the world is 6008 years old. The Church can't be wrong in these things'

Ussher lived from 1582 -1656 AD, which was a time of ignorance and superstition, not unlike today, so he could have done anything to calculate the birthday and it would have been thought valid, although I believe he totted up the ages of a lot of the people in the Bible as part of his method. (And I just found he became an Archbishop, not just a bishop)

I'm agnostic and believe 'the things that you're liable to read in the Bible ain't necessarily so.'  I go with anything that has a rational scientific explanation rather than something fuelled by religion, superstition and conspiracy theory, so I'm for the 4 600 000 000  year old age of the earth, myself rather than the shorter term.

Thrica wrote:

I know exactly how it's gonna happen. I watched the Day After Tomorrow.

Nah, we'd all be long gone before the weather got that cataclysmic. The temp. would wipe out our food and make outdoor exposure unlivable. Perhaps a few of the strongest stock might survive and then I suppose they would die from the 'Day After Tomorrow' storms. Pleasant dreams everyone....

Actually, that's an interesting point. With global warming we are altering a long standing pattern in the Earth's geological history. The thing is some people look at this as mother natures way of purging (a sort of population control, as macabre as it sounds). It's hard to say if there were any major benefits of the previous Ice Ages. Other than the fact that they help replenish the Earth's water supply and form oceans and stuff. Interesting stuff...

NAG wrote:

Actually, the pole isn't moving, it is weakening. Magnetic compasses might not be useful, in oh, a few thousand years when there are dozens of poles of varying strength. When you think about it, we are very very lucky (well not really) that this didn't happen when we were exploring the earth.

That would have been awesome! Constantly changing positions, take that Magellan!

Last edited by jax (2005-03-23 12:21 am)

titok16 wrote:

it didn't snow in hawaii. please respond.
tito

I'm very happy or sad for you. (which ever applies in a pleasing manner to you)

Snow in Hawaii.

http://wintercenter.homestead.com/photohawaii.html
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/hawaii-snow.html

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

:runs around in circles:   

Last edited by MrJ in OZ (2005-05-06 6:47 am)

Holy crap that was coherent and had a sensible point.


What have you done with tito?