philosophy

If they don't know what happened on Mars and why there is no life there, how can they assert their idiocy! And are the dinosaur bones that lie in the ground fossilized too quickly, or were they brought from space? And as a result of evolution, was a new species born every day from the previous one? Space is full of mysteries that we have yet to discover! So there's no point in listening to idiots who, without thinking, put forward their empty theories! IMHO!:smile29:

Unfortunately, these people are not as stupid as they seem. Similar articles often appear here and there. For a person who is not well-versed in physics and astronomy, such reasoning may seem (and they try to present it this way) as scientific facts. Why? It's a simple struggle for power and money between people (I think you understand who is interested in such publications). Regarding the "arguments," I can explain: 1. First, there is an error in the calculations here. Second, the circumference of the Sun is not a constant value in principle. 2. C-14 accumulated only up to the point of reaching an equilibrium concentration (the rate of formation = the rate of decay). 3. It does decrease, but not so quickly. 4. Observation over 200 years is not enough to draw conclusions: such a rate has always existed. In addition, the poles of the Earth's magnetic field have a tendency to sometimes change places, and now there are signs of such a change in the poles => instability of the magnetic field. "Half-life period of the magnetic field" - there is no such concept in physics at all. 5. How can such small bodies be detected outside the Solar System, where there is no source of light? And if this "comet belt" is outside the Solar System (that is, not part of it), then why is it claimed that the comets from it are the same age. In addition, the Solar System rotates around the center of the Galaxy, and wandering comets may come across on its path. 6. Saturn's rings are not contemporaries of the Solar System (but are the remnants of one of Saturn's moons), but they are indeed gradually being destroyed. 7. and 8. They simply contradict each other, so there is no point in considering them at all. 9. This is simply a lie. The higher the temperature of a substance (gas), the greater the mass required to form a star from it => the fewer stars are formed.