Science Disproves Evolution

You carry your own weight around here.If you'd like to track down something in the scientific literature, look here:PubMedIf you'd like to track down Stevenson, google his creo ass.If you'd like to track down the footnotes, turn to the back of the book!If you'd like to track down the title of the book, look on the cover!If you want to track down the quotes, turn to page 22!If you don't want to answer any of Dwise1's questions, you are going to find yourself in hot water pretty quick.You can either engage in debate or you can take your swiped creo PRATTs elsewhere.

That's why science tests its methods, in order to verify them and to find flaws so that they can be corrected, corrected for (eg, discrepancies caused by variations in C-14 production due to fluctuations in the geo-magnetic field), or the method can be dropped from use. While science welcomes tests and valid challenges to its methods, creationism has produced no valid challenges.As I quote Thwaites and Awbrey on my beta-version page, No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.html):

quote:

---

Professors William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey teach in the Biology Department at San Diego State University, where they used to run a true two-model course, in which half the lectures were given by creationists, but they had to discontinue it after protests by Christian clubs. In 1977, they pioneered the successful debating strategy of researching creation science claims beforehand and then presenting what the evidence really showed or what the misquoted source had actually said.

​

In 1993, they announced their retirement from the fray and described their very last debate on 1993 April 29. The description of the debate was preceeded by a summation of their experiences in those 15 years, of what they had hoped to learn, and of what they had learned. They had entered into debates with the hope and expectation that:

quote:

---

... a creationist would dig up a real biological paradox, one that would prove to be an interesting brain-teaser for the scientific community. We hoped that we could use the creationists to ferret out biological enigmas much as DEA agents use dogs to seek out contraband. ... While we had discovered that every creationist claim so far could easily be disproved, we still had hope that there was a genuine quandary in there somewhere. We just hadn't found it yet.

---

What did they discover after those 15 years? Complete disillusionment with the creationists. None of the creationists ever presented any real paradoxes or genuine quandaries. The creationists had no actual case to present.
(Thwaites, W., and F. Awbrey 1993. "Our last debate; our very last." Creation/Evolution 33:1-4.)

---

The problem that Ringo (I think it was; I'm in the reply page now and can't look) presented was that the creationist "estimates of the earth's age" vary among themselves greatly, whereas science's determinations of the earth's age agree with each other overall.As I remember confidence intervals (that was after all 30 years ago and not my best class), if multiple independent tests yield the same results, then your confidence in those results increase. For example, if you have, say, 10 independent methods and you're only 50% confident in any of them, then if two of them yield the same answer, you're 75% confident, if three then 87.5%, if four then 93.75%, if five then 96.875%, and if ten then 99.90% confident.Now, I'm sure that our confidence in any one actual method is higher than 50%, but I needed to make it low to demonstrate the point. Because several independent tests yield the same results, we have very high confidence in those results. On the other hand (gee, that sounds familiar), the results that creationism presents vary widely by several orders of magnitude. Just on that basis alone we cannot help but find creationism's claims to be suspect.Science offers a view of the world that is very self-consistent and consistent with the real world. Creationism (as in "creation science") offers a view of the world that is not at all self-consistent and that contradicts much of the real world.But this lack of self-consistency does not trouble creationists at all, because they don't care about it. Coming up with a self-consistent world model is not their goal. Their goal is to kill evolution and one of their methods is to discredit any science that they perceive as supporting evolution.

quote:

---

... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already.
(Paul Ellwanger, author of the "Balanced Treatment" model bill on which Arkansas Act 590 was based, from the closing of a letter written to Tom Bethell, which was admitted as evidence and cited by Judge Overton in his Decision of the Court)

---

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Pahu: So, let's take it slow, one at a time. You can tell us what facts each of them discovered that disprove evolution (or even a part of evolutionary theory) and where it is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.Posting a long list of names and a seperate list of journals as references does not cut it, especially when you then say they did not write anything about what we are discussing.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

First, if you're going to post something, then you'd damned well better have some idea about it. Just hurling crap (accurate description of the vast majority of creationist claims) at the wall in order to see if any of it sticks does not go over very well in these here parts.Second, don't pass your obligation to research your own posts off on somebody else. I do realize that is common creationist practice *, but you do need to do your own work.{* Footnote: From my report on Duane Gish's infamous "bullfrog protein" claim, No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html:

quote:

---

Shortly afterwards, at the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference, Schadewald again confronted Gish. This time Gish responded by saying that because of that Origins Research letter he was not responsible to provide any documentation (Schadewald had used "ungentlemanly language in print," i.e. the words "lie" and "charlatan"). When asked who is responsible for documenting those proteins, Gish said that it was up to Schadewald and Curtis (i.e. "You want to know the sources for my claims? YOU go look it up!").

​

Within the week, Schadewald and Patterson sent a letter to Gish's boss, Dr. Henry Morris, President of the ICR. In it, they brought Morris up-to-date on the affair, quoted Gish's statement on national television concerning the chicken and bullfrog proteins, told of Gish's repeated failure to produce his repeatedly promised documentation for them, and finally related his reversal and subsequent refusal to produce that documentation or to accept any responsibility for producing it. They concluded the letter:

quote:

---

We have long been conscious of the numerous substantial differences
between creationism and science, but this is new to us. Scientists (and science writers) take full responsibility for their public statements. Gish apparently rejects this responsibility. Was he speaking for himself in this matter, or is this doctrine of non-responsibility an official ICR policy? If so, we suggest that ICR speakers should level with the public and preface their presentations with the following disclaimer: "I am not responsible for the truth or accuracy of any statements I make."

---

​

As of press time, there had been no reply to this letter.

---

That report also relates Walter Brown's fraudulent use of his "rattlesnake protein" claim, which is still hidden away in his book as a footnote.
}Edited by dwise1, : corrected qs boxEdited by dwise1, : corrected quote

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Pahu: molbiogirl did this for us in message 19.

I'm calling bullshit on this one.Where, exactly, did I show "the 'facts' Tremaine 'discovered' which 'disprove' evolution", hm?Please quote me.Either you pony up the arguments for Tremaine or stop posting.This is getting tiresome.

Huh?Did you actually read Message 19?Can you show us from Message 19 "what 'facts' Tremaine 'discovered' which 'disprove' evolution?"

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Jinx!

So now you're resorting to flat-out lying. Yet another all-too-common creationist practice.PS
In order to label a qs box to indicate who's being quoted, you follow the qs with a "=" and then that person's name or moniker. Take a look at my post in "peek mode" to see what I mean.Edited by dwise1, : PS offering qs editting

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Hmmmm. The abstract from Science vol 259 pp 350-354 reads: The paper appears to assume throughout that the Earth accreted about 4,560,000,000 years ago from objects as large as 20% of its present mass. Tremaine never mentions life, biology, or evolution at all in the paper. How, exactly, does he "disprove evolution?"The paper is online at Science | AAAS. Pahu, would you like to read it and show me what "disproof" you are talking about?Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

But it cannot be shown to be off by that amount.The only people who came up with an age of tens of millions, rather than billions, were physicists (not geologists or biologists, who knew that the Earth was much older) and when it was realised that the physicists had muffed their calculations by overlooking the existence of natural radioactivity, they admitted that they were wrong.Evolutionists have always maintained that the earth is not mere tens of millions of years old, and guess what, they turned out to be right.

Pahu: When you looked his publications, you found:The legacy and large-scale distribution of active galaxies.
Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2005 Mar 15;363(1828):613-9; discussion 619.Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?
Science. 1993 Jan 15;259(5093):350-354.If you will read what he wrote, you will find that he is presentging facts that disprove evolution. Also, note that he published in the peer review science journal, "Science", which was the supject of the post you responded to.

Thought i would look up some of your stuff for you just for the heck of it and because i was bored.I turned up 29 publications by Scott Tremaine.
Every one of them is related to cosmology of some sort. Black holes, the age of galaxies, determination of cosmological constants. that kind of thing.Couldn't find anything about meteor dust in any of them though. I know you didn't specifically state that he did write about Meteor dust but you did say that his research helped to disprove evolution, presumably by age as that seems to be the main thrust of this thread.Out of these 29 I just picked one at random and opened it. here is the abstract if you are interested.

quote:

---

Bibliographic Information

​

An estimate of the galaxy covariance function at small scales and low luminosities. Lake, George; Tremaine, Scott. Dep. Astron., Univ. California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Astrophysical Journal (1980), 238(1, Pt. 2), L13-L16. CODEN: ASJOAB ISSN: 0004-637X. Journal written in English. CAN 93:57922 AN 1980:457922 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

Holmberg's survey of companions of spiral galaxies were used to measure the galaxy covariance function x(r) on scales of roughly (5-40)h-1 kparsec. x(r) (rc/r)g, g = 1.52 0.19, Are consistent with the value g = 1.8 obtained at large sepns. The median abs. magnitude of the galaxies in the sample is M .apprx. -13 + 5 log h. Thus the consistency of the results with earlier measurements (at M .apprx. -19 + 5 log h) suggests that the covariance function is approx. independent of luminosity. The methods employed are suitable for use with automatic plate measuring systems, and offer a simple method for the reliable measurement of x(r) at small scales and low luminosities.

​

Indexing -- Section 73-7 (Spectra by Absorption, Emission, Reflection, or Magnetic Resonance, and Other Optical Properties)

​

Galaxies
(covariance functions of, at small scales and low luminosities)

​

Supplementary Terms

​

galaxy covariance function

---

In the main introduction he lays down a few of the things that "the majority of cosmologists agree on"
item 3 on the list says this.

quote:

---

(iii) Massive BHs inevitably spiral to the centre of their host galaxy as their orbits
decay from dynamical friction, on a time-scale approximately equal to
5 E9 yr(r/10kpc)squared(vc/250kms-1)(1E8 M,/M.):
Where r is the initial orbital radius, vc is the circular speed of the host galaxy,
and M” is the BH mass (Binney & Tremaine 1987, eqn 7-26).

---

It didn't copy over very well from the pdf I'm afraid but the point I wanteed to make is that the first term in the equation is 5 times 10 to the 9th yearsIt doesn't sound like Scott Tremaine would be likely to publish anything that says the universe is younger than this. Particularly since he was one of the original authors of this 'well accepted' equation.If i continue to be 'bored' i may go and look up a few other authors in your list. However I am already pretty sure of what I will find. Not one of them will have ever said anything that supports your position other than an odd out of context quote mined sentence at one time.As others have said though, why don't you do your research and let us know where exactly we should be looking to find this evidence that you speak of.FYI I just did a document search on David Stevenson and turned up 77 results. There are actually a number of David Stevensons who have contributed papers on various stuff from femtosecond lasers to neucleotide synthesis. Even one paper by the name of "A randomised study of GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix) versus agonist (busereline) for controlled ovarian stimulation: effect on safety and efficacy.
Any idea where I should be looking?
I have no intention of sifting through 77 scientific papers before lunch.
I just don't see much of a connection between these authors that you claim as trusted sources and your actual topic.

Would you mind showing us where he says this?
I have just finished going through one of his papers and all he is doing is calculating stuff about how super massive black holes become situated at the center of active galaxys.
Incidentally he also concludes that it take a VERY long time for this to happen.I have access to about 20 of his papers and I will be happy to look up any specific reference that you have.

You are reading into his statement something that is not there. Let me share with you the complete discussion that includes his reference:[/b][/i][/b][/i]

​

Evolving Planets?
Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun (a). Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational interactions than they are to be pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together (b). (Similar difficulties relate to a moon forming from particles orbiting a planet.)Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet” by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c).The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d).a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases”hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, several times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)c. Stars like our Sun”even those which evolutionists say are young”do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve.Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.a . Very special conditions are required to capture orbiting bodies.b . John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, “An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion,” Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp. 282-283.“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54.c . Tim Folger, “This Battered Earth,” Discover, January 1994, p. 33. “”We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ”that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, {the observed} prograde rotation just can’t be explained,’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.” Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,” Science, Vol. 258, 23 October 1992, p. 548.Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?” Science, Vol. 259, 15 January 1993, pp. 350-354.Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets”basically hydrogen and helium.d . “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.e . There is a further difficulty with this idea. If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?f . B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, pp. 494-496.g . “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, {what evolutionists believe is} the lifetime of the solar system. ”Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ”We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’” Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 402, 9 December 1999, pp. 599-600.Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood