Jan 1, 2010

Limiting Factors

Limiting Factors are facts and data that define parameters of a theory.  If you Google the term most of the hits are related to Biology and photosynthesis, so for the point of clarity let's use this example:

If you find a sunken treasure in the ocean and within the wreckage you find a cask of gold coins.  The gold coins will give you certain parameters to determine the origin of the ship and the approximate time that it sunk.  If they are minted with the face of George Washington and bear the seal of the United States of America you can determine that these coins had to be made after 1776, right?  Thus, 1776 is a limiting factor, you can not assume the coins are older than that because the USA did not EXIST under that name until 1776.  Alternatively, if the pieces had dates, you would not look for the oldest date, you would look for the earliest date.  Why?  Simply because the latest date will give you the earliest possible time the ship could have sunken. A coin dated 1810 would define your range with a limiting factor of 1810.  By using the principals of limiting factors you can safely surmise that the ship sunk somewhere after 1810.

Curiously, using Carbon 14 testing and dating, those same coins would probably show they were millions of years old.  Based on the above, would you believe that?  Of course not, because the known and observable history tells us differently and speculation that does not conform to the known and observable must be discarded when it does not line up with the evidence.  Did you know they have Carbon 14 dated a baseball hat pulled out of the rubble after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980?  The Carbon 14 test stated the baseball hat was millions of years old.  Wow!  Who knew the California Angels were playing millions of years ago?

Thus, if you apply certain observable and known facts about the Earth and its atmosphere you can extrapolate certain limiting factors about the age of the planet.  With me so far?  Good, lets go:

The Earth's rotation is slowing slightly every year.  About once every year and a half we have to add a leap second to account for the slowing rotation.  Thus, we can assume if the Earth is slowing then at some point the Earth must have been spinning faster, right?  If the Earth is about 6000 years old then we do not have a problem, but if the Earth is Billions and Billions of years old there is a big problem.  The rotation would have been such that no life could have possibly existed on the planet.  The Coriolis Effect would have made the wind blow at over 5000 miles per hour.  Day and night would have been mere seconds.  The dinosaurs were obviously thrown into space from the centrifugal forces...

The Earth's magnetic force is lessening.  That happens, over time magnets loose their force. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for several reasons:
  • It deflects most of the cosmic radiation that would otherwise destroy life. 
  • Worldwide, precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829.
  • Since that time, the magnetic force of the Earth has deteriorated exponentially.
  • The decrease has followed a predictable curve. 
By graphing this curve, the observable facts determine that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC because the magnetic field would have been as strong as the Sun's.  Furthermore, the Earth will cease to exist after 10,000 AD since for all practical purposes, with no magnetic field left the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation.

The moon is moving away from the Earth.  That's right, but don't worry it is going about 3 inches a year.  That of course is due to the loss of the magnetic field as discussed above.  If the moon is drifting away at an observable rate, then it is reasonable to determine it was at one time much closer, right?  Using all sorts of complicated math we can determine if the Earth is 6000 years old there hasn't been much change, but if the Earth is Billions and Billions of years old the Moon at one point sat on the Earth and the tides covered the entire land mass.

Space dust accumulates at a predictable rate per year on the moon.  If the moon is billions of years old, the accumulated space dust on the moon should have been hundreds of feet thick.  When the first astronauts landed on the moon they were prepared for this and were surprised to find they did not sink!  Do you know the second statement said on the moon?  "It's solid".  The measurement of space dust on the moon supports the premise that the moon is about 6000 years old.

The limited age of things on Earth undermines the Billions of years theory.  The oldest tree is 4200 years old (pictured right).  Why aren't there older trees?  Perhaps because about 4400 years ago there was a flood that destroyed all life on Earth?  The Sahara Dessert is about 4000 years old based on it's current growth.  Why isn't it bigger if the Earth is billions of years old?  The population measurements from our recorded history support the premise that all humans came from about 8 people 4400 years ago.  If humans have been on the Earth for 3 billion years, using the known statistical analysis of population growth, where are all the people? 

So what is reasonable when you consider the above?  Why do scientists ignore these limiting factors?  Probably because they have not yet come up with an alternative to the obvious.  If you look at the Bible and go backwards to the Creation story you come up with about 6000 years.  Wouldn't it be just like the enemy of your soul to create doubt in the world by putting forth the "billions" of years old theory?  Wouldn't it be just like scientist (need I mention Global warming, flat earth, and bleeding folks as examples of this premise) to embrace a false doctrine?  Do your own research, come to your own conclusions.  Call me simple, but I am comfortable believing the Bible, if you are more comfortable believing science - well, I have a cap and trade plan to sell you.