Planets are formed when the various heavier elements gravitationally attract to form more massive bodies. Your description is nonsensical.
It appears we agree that the age of the elements is not the age of the earth. In fact given how fast C-14 can be created when it is bombarded by cosmic radiation your stardust age could be quite young meaning a great radioactive decay ages does not mean elements are billions of years old, etc...
What process are you talking about here? I am unaware that lumps of gold will spontaneaously vaporise in space...... What are you talking about?
Water in the upper atmosphere even though cold vaporizes which is the reason I was told gold is not used for seals in the space shuttle in that in a vaccum it vaporizes.
If we know the half life of a substance and can measure the amount of the substance as compared to the amount of the post decay isotope we can determine the age of an object.
C-14 dating I agree has gotten better proving its a young earth. You might want to check out some reputable scientists on the subject like kent hovind, walt brown, andrew snelling, john baumgardener, etc...
I'm not saying your ignorant on the subject even though I suspect your moving the pea under the cup, etc...
________________________________________________________________
Measurable 14C in pre-Flood organic materials fossilized in Flood strata therefore appears to represent a powerful and testable confirmation of the young earth Creation-Flood model.
http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html
________________________________________________________________
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the chemical elemenets A) Make up the fabric of spacetime and B) Were directly created in the BB. Neither is true.
No seems I believe nothing is a part of the fabric of spacetime and its through these dimensions that the past present and future exists. Einstein believed nothing is not true nothing for when space expands energy is being created from the expansion of nothing.
Some string theory people say that elements are strings not points. I take it you believe elements are points created in stars however if we have time going forward and back from the present the elements can not be pointlike.
Since the entire universe is said to be still expanding is the big bang still happening? (Were we all created within the current big bang expansion?)Is nothing not still expanding from within because nothing is really nothing thus different dimensions of nothing expanding? Is energy not being created as time expands forward expanding nothing and is the present held together by the past and the future? How would the universe look if you could see the past present and the future in one view? Would it still be a flat universe as all part of what we call the currently observable universe is said to be? ? Do you believe that the past present and future are part of the big bang senerio? Its like t=p t is time and p is the present and the past is always less than p and the future always greater than p yet the mass of the earth stretches (exists) from the past to the future and not only just a point within the present yet in spite of this its still only a flat universe because of how nothing is being used as a dimension expanding within the atom and not outside the atom so its still only a flat universe?
I suspect this can only be if the atom is not pointlike but its existence is like a string of energy going both backward and forward in time meaning the past affects the future but the future does not affect the past(other than God) is this not because of the momentum of the big bang? Does not some string theory people believe too that the atoms not pointlike that gravity is just related to time moving from the present phasing into the past and phasing into the future yet existing in the present instead those that believe the atom is pointlike meaning the past not existing which likely is what an atheist might believe, but it just appears that time is moving and exists in the past and the future though all we can see is the present, etc...
__________________________________________________________________
So when we say "WMAP provides strong evidence that the universe is flat", we really mean "WMAP provides strong evidence that the observable universe is flat".
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=171
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.