Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,139 Year: 5,396/9,624 Month: 421/323 Week: 61/204 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Size of the universe
Eli
Member (Idle past 3601 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 214 of 248 (678778)
11-10-2012 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by kofh2u
11-09-2012 7:25 PM


Re: lost in space
Those are geological scales, not cosmological.
They are also categorically wrong.
There are 4 eons/10 eras, not 6 eras. You are mixing them up.
Ceno, mezo, paleo belong to the Phanerozoic eon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 7:25 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by kofh2u, posted 11-10-2012 6:48 PM Eli has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3601 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 221 of 248 (678829)
11-10-2012 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by kofh2u
11-10-2012 5:39 PM


Re: lost in space
Yeah, that system was called "memorization."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by kofh2u, posted 11-10-2012 5:39 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3601 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 222 of 248 (678830)
11-10-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by kofh2u
11-10-2012 5:53 PM


Re: lost in space
That chart is in error.
You have eras and eons mixed up and are only giving half the picture.
geochronological eras are enumerated at 10, not six.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by kofh2u, posted 11-10-2012 5:53 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3601 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(3)
Message 223 of 248 (678832)
11-10-2012 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by kofh2u
11-10-2012 6:48 PM


Re: lost in space
no. According to the ICS, which you already acknowledged as an authority, there is a clear distinction that eras are a subcategory of eons.
It should also be noted that the eoarchean era lasted 300 million years, which is nearly as long as the Phanerozoic eon (540 million years, indicated by your own provided graphic) so these divisions are not based on time or "billions of years v millions of years."
You have no grasp of this subject which is made obvious by your defining geochronological time using a biostratigraphical definition, which is a different, albeit related, subject.
Lastly, numerology is not a scientific topic. Please don't change the facts to suit your new wave agenda. We all know better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by kofh2u, posted 11-10-2012 6:48 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by kofh2u, posted 11-13-2012 1:05 AM Eli has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3601 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 228 of 248 (679432)
11-13-2012 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by kofh2u
11-13-2012 1:05 AM


Re: lost in space
Nope. What you are doing is making disproven assertions that there are 6 eras, when there are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by kofh2u, posted 11-13-2012 1:05 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by kofh2u, posted 11-30-2012 10:59 PM Eli has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024