Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
You change the topic alot 0,o

For Mercury

Nature 444, 1056-1058 (21 December 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05342; Received 27 August 2006; Accepted 9 October 2006

We'll have to wait until after BepiColombo launches in August 2015 to see if expectations match results, the two part mission has a planetary orbiter and magnetosphere orbiter.

If you want to believe because of some unknowns and data, that the solar system is younger than our earth, you're welcome to do so, but your are going against a lot more knowns and data to do so.
the mercury info you quote was done after the fact.
But before the probes the conventional theory assumed that Mercury had no magnetic field.
and that it would not be deteriorating if it by some miracle did.
the conventional science on the solar system formation and assumed billion + age of Mercury gave them idea that mercury would be dead. Dr Humphrey -- mentioned the the artitle i linked to-- PREDICTED the discovery of the feild, And the rate of magnetic decay by assuming a younger age and other factors.

the conventional science had to create an answer ad hoc after the fact, and it still has problems.

And the the different points i'm bringing up go to fact that the "knowns" are not as known as believed and the unknowns and flat out CONTRADICTORY data should not be ignored if people are to be honest about the science.

just in this thread alone we mention:

•"Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.
These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis."

•the theory of solar formation "It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong."

• the red shift appears not to consistently signify distance.

• that comets appear observably young

there's much more that does NOT conform to the current accepted theories. (i could post a list)
At some point we have to say OK, the core theory has serious issues, so at the least we need to have a few extra theories on the table to try to make sense of all the data. Rather than continually shoe honing everything into one track.

seems to me.