We often hear: - … climate changes dating back to the Mesozoic era from 250 to 65 million years ago … especially in the Triassic period, when 70% of land vertebrates died … During the last one and a half billion years in the history of planet Earth, three ice age cycles have been observed - warming … For 100 million years mammals could not compete with dinosaurs and occupied a subordinate position in ecological systems … and so on. I state my point of view.
I constantly see these "millions of years" in various numerous sources. In history books, in physics, in astronomy. It seems that when "scientists" do not know how to substantiate their hypotheses, they repeat: "this happened millions of years ago." That is, as if "infinitely long ago." And during this time, surely anything could have happened. But you understand that to prove a hypothesis, assumptions alone are not enough. Where do these numbers "60 million years", "200 million years", "one and a half billion years" come from? First, what calendar do you use to count these "millions of years"? In Egyptian? On the Chinese calendar? Ancient Greek? Mayan or Aztec calendar? Julian or Gregorian? I understand that for millions of years - plus or minus five thousand years does not play a big role. But there are questions about the calendar itself. Why was there no place for biblical events in the official history? Each of us went to school and remembers how our teachers told us about ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece … But not a single word was spoken about the flood, about King Solomon. Thank God, times have changed now, but biblical events are still presented as myths. Until now, historians do not have the courage to say that the Bible is not a collection of fairy tales, not myth-making, but historical evidence that we do not have enough intelligence to understand and decipher. And the events described in the Bible took place relatively recently by historical standards and not millions of years ago.times have changed now, but biblical events are still presented as myths. Until now, historians do not have the courage to say that the Bible is not a collection of fairy tales, not myth-making, but historical evidence that we do not have enough intelligence to understand and decipher. And the events described in the Bible took place relatively recently by historical standards and not millions of years ago.times have changed now, but biblical events are still presented as myths. Until now, historians do not have the courage to say that the Bible is not a collection of fairy tales, not myth-making, but historical evidence that we do not have enough intelligence to understand and decipher. And the events described in the Bible took place relatively recently by historical standards and not millions of years ago.
A simple example. We take an ordinary brick and carry out a widespread laboratory analysis, which shows: the sample under study is more than 2000 years old. Absurd? Not. This clay (!), Of which the product is made, is 2000 years old, and the brick itself was fired last year at a nearby factory. The material is ancient, but the rarity did not work. "Artifact" is completely new, modern. Historical science lacks common sense. Archaeologists will find a clay shard, which was once a jug, and begin to measure its age by rehydroxylation dating. But excuse me, but didn't the clay from which the jug was made did not exist on earth before? Or did the isotopes only enter into it after the potter finished his work? And the stone from which the sphinx is made, hasn't it existed since the creation of the world? And the material from which the paints were made, with which the bogomaz painted the icon?Common sense is a great thing!
Geochronology is based on the most important principle of the theory of evolution, which is that the present is the key to knowing the past. This concept, better known as the principle of uniformitarianism, argues that factors as diverse as wind and water erosion, volcanic activity, and land rise and fall are occurring at the present time at the same rate as in the past. … Based on this assumption, geochronologists are trying to determine the age of the Earth, as well as other celestial bodies in the Universe. The events that are written to us in the history books could happen much faster and in a completely different scenario. What is known about how the fossils are formed? Where do coal deposits come from? Is it necessary for this,for "millions of years" to pass? Or a dry hot climate is enough - excess moisture will evaporate? There are already publications that cultural monuments over the past 200-300 years are destroyed much faster than in the previous "hundreds" and even "thousands of years." Disagreements arise in dating over the recent hundreds of years. And there is nothing to talk about "millions, billions of years". The saddest thing is that the geochronological scale was created in the 20th century at the suggestion of Pierre Curie after his famous discoveries in the field of radioactivity. But the geochronological scale does not have a scientifically proven historical basis. Let's see how time is measured using radiometric dating methods. The most commonly used methods are:than in the previous "hundreds" and even "thousands of years". Disagreements arise in dating over the recent hundreds of years. And there is nothing to talk about "millions, billions of years". The saddest thing is that the geochronological scale was created in the 20th century at the suggestion of Pierre Curie after his famous discoveries in the field of radioactivity. But the geochronological scale does not have a scientifically proven historical basis. Let's see how time is measured using radiometric dating methods. The most commonly used methods are:than in the previous "hundreds" and even "thousands of years". Disagreements arise in dating over the recent hundreds of years. And there is nothing to talk about "millions, billions of years". The saddest thing is that the geochronological scale was created in the 20th century at the suggestion of Pierre Curie after his famous discoveries in the field of radioactivity. But the geochronological scale does not have a scientifically proven historical basis. Let's see how time is measured using radiometric dating methods. The most commonly used methods are:But the geochronological scale does not have a scientifically proven historical basis. Let's see how time is measured using radiometric dating methods. The most commonly used methods are:But the geochronological scale does not have a scientifically proven historical basis. Let's see how time is measured using radiometric dating methods. The most commonly used methods are:
- Uranium-lead
- Rubidium stronzoid
- Potassium-argon.
In each of these systems, the parent element undergoing decay (uranium, rubidium, potassium) gradually changes, turning into a daughter component (lead, strontium, argon, respectively). The radiometric decay rate is then used to determine how long the decay process took. In assessing these initial assumptions, the highly speculative nature of radiometric dating methods becomes apparent. None of these assumptions lend themselves to either test or proof, and therefore are not scientific.