Science Disproves Evolution

I can understand why you would prefer my uneducated opinions rather than facts that disprove evolution from scientists. But would that really be all that enlightening, or just a waste of time?

I don’t. Do you? Does that change the value of the information I am sharing?

If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust”possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon.a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.” Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.Lyttleton felt that the dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, [/I] Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585-604.Fears about the dust thickness were reduced when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. It’s a Young World After[/I] All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young”possibly less than 10,000 years old.Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

Dr Adequate: We're just not sure whether you really know what all those big words mean.Pahu: I don’t. Do you? Does that change the value of the information I am sharing?Dr Adequate: It means that to you it is not information and has no value.Pahu: Are you saying that scientific facts are meaningless unless I understand all those big words? Most of the words are little words that I do understand, which makes the information meaningful to me, and I hope, to you. Occasionally I feel the need to look up a big word to help me understand the information.Dr Adequate: Why are you presenting us with "information" which, so far as you know, may be worthless or even meaningless?Pahu: Is there a connection there somewhere, or is this an example of your inability to think logically?

Anglagard, I am aware of the information contained in your quote from AIG. I disagree with their cautionary conclusion. If you will take another look at what I shared on the subject, you may notice that the fears of a deep thickness of dust were only removed after instruments were sent to the moon to measure it, before the moon landing.The fact remains that scientists were concerned because they thought the universe was billions of years old, which would result in much more dust, given the measurements recording the annual dust entering the earth’s atmosphere. The fact that only a couple of inches of dust was found proves the moon and earth are much younger, since using the same measurements, that amount of dust would be expected to accumulate in no more than 10,000 years.Rather than making Creation scientists look foolish, these facts confirm their conclusions. Science disproves evolution.By the way, have you ever noticed how quickly dust accumulates on your furniture?

Percy: No more cut-n-pastes except short ones. No more links except as a reference to support your points. Just you writing your thoughts in your own words. Okay?Pahu: Is this another way of saying you only want my ignorant opinions rather than facts from scientists that disprove evolution? I believe it makes more sense to share further facts as a response in most cases. If your rules cannot accept that, I’m sorry.It is not my intention to engage in endless quibbling. I could simply say I am right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and that settles it. Instead, I am sharing facts from scientists that disprove evolution? If you are unable to accept them, fine. Scientists disagree all the time and the free exchange of information and ideas tends to lead to a better understanding of reality.If you prefer to remain in a dogmatic belief in unsupportable, unrealistic, erroneous pre-conceptions, then by all means shut me up, and continue to enjoy your closed mutual admiration society.

Molbiogirl: Pahu, you have been warned twice by the The Admin (Percy) to stop with the CnPs. Yet, once again, you have done nothing more than swipe from a creo site and dump it here wholesale. Are you trying to get suspended? Cause you will.Pahu: It sounds like you would like nothing better. It is understandable that you would prefer to be free of scientific facts that disprove evolution. That is usually the response of those who don’t want their pet erroneous presuppositions threatened. So much for the free exchange of ideas, right?

A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps” in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should occur to their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where gravity is greater, and temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep,” these bodies seem to be relatively young.a. Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock, “The Age of Lunar Craters,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, September 1983, pp. 105-108.The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:“The history of a circular crater in a highly viscous medium is derived from the hydrodynamic equations of motion by Z. F. Danes. The variation in shape of the crater in the course of time is expressed as a function of a time constant, T, that involves viscosity and density of the medium, acceleration of gravity, and radius of the crater lip. Correspondence between theoretical crater shapes and the observed ones is good. However the time constant, T, is surprisingly short if commonly accepted viscosity values are used.” Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-A (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. A 127.Since Danes work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall in the range of 10^21 to 10^22 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 10^21 to 10^22 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 10^4 to 10^7 years.” Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young. For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young”possibly less than 10,000 years old.Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

Nosy: Each of the so-called facts that you cut an paste have been shredded. You more or less ignore the responses and post more junk.Pahu: I don’t recall seeing any shredding of the facts I have shared. I have seen a lot of denial and alternate explanations and opinions.Nosy: It is not honest discussion to behave this way. The image that it projects of you is someone who doesn't even understand the material he is copying.
Please focus on ONE thing and finish the discussion. We have already had all this stuff posted here over and over. We don't need you to do it again.
If you are willing to defend the material do so! If you are not do not post it.
Thanks.
You have been indulged long enough time to act like a big boy now.Pahu: If I accurately understand your rules, I am not allowed to present facts, only opinions. Therefore, my defense of my position is I am right and you are wrong”in my humble opinion!

Dr Adequate: As you know this to be a lie, perhaps you should stop reciting it.Pahu: I know it to be the absolute truth”in my humble opinion.

Anglagard: My 1974 General Geophysics textbook (Physics and Geology by Jacobs, Russell, and Wilson) says 4.55 billion years. 2008-1974=34 years. So, let's see, are you lying?Pahu: Don’t you know you are breaking the rules when you introduce outside information? Shame on you! No I am not lying, I am right”in my humble opinion.

Dr Adequate: Then why do creationists themselves denounce the moon dust lie? Evedently AnswerInGenesis think that it makes creationists look foolish. And for once, they are right.Pahu: They are wrong, I am right”in my humble opinion.Dr Adequate: Here are creationists Rush and Snelling:Pahu: There you go breaking the rules again.Dr Adequate: No direct measurement had been made at the time where your phoney figures originate.Pahu: They are not phony, they are accurate”in my humble opinion.Dr Adequate: It has now. See Love and Brownlee, "A Direct Measurement of the Terrestrial Mass Accretion Rate of Cosmic Dust", Science 262, 1993.Pahu: Can’t do that, it breaks the rules. Remember, opinions only.Dr Adequate: This is amusing. Do you suppose that the dust on furniture is cosmic dust, or what?Pahu: Yes”in my humble opinion.

JonF: Not properly accounting for the temperature dependence of viscosity is a fatal flaw. That claim is shredded.Pahu: Since you broke the rules by introducing outside information, we can only assume your assertion to be your opinion. Seriously, that’s a good point, although Venus and Mercury were also mentioned, plus the moon rocks were examined and, as quoted in my post, “Since Danes work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall in the range of 10^21 to 10^22 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, ”If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 10^21 to 10^22 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 10^4 to 10^7 years.’” Why did you leave out that information?Edited by Pahu, : No reason given.Edited by Pahu, : No reason given.

Ringo: Not even close. You have been asked to produce facts. For example, you have been asked repeatedly to present the creationist determination of the age of the earth. Do that.Pahu: Precisely what I am doing”in my humble opinion. Go back and study what I have shared.

In the late 1920s, evolutionists believed that the universe was 2 billion years (b.y.) old. Later, radiometric dating techniques gave much older ages for certain rocks on Earth (1). Obviously, a part of the universe cannot be older than the universe itself. This contradiction was soon removed by devising a rationale for increasing the age of the universe.Similar problems are now widely acknowledged. If a big bang occurred, it happened 13.7 b.y. ago. If stars evolved, some stars are 16 b.y. old, such as the stars in a globular cluster (2). Globular clusters are tight, spherical concentrations of 10,000-1,000,000 stars. One globular cluster, called M13, is about 22,000 light-years away. Obviously, stars cannot be older than the universe. Also, the Hubble Space Telescope has found distant galaxies whose age, based on big bang assumptions, exceeds the age of the universe (3).Here is a similar, but less widely known, problem. Let’s suppose that the universe is 13.7 b.y. old. That is not enough time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then transmit their light to Earth. A big bang would have produced only hydrogen, helium, and lithium”the three lightest chemical elements. Light from the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contain much heavier chemical elements such as carbon, iron, and lead”elements that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form after the big bang. Evolutionists, therefore, believe that the hundred or so heavier chemical elements (97% of all chemical elements) were produced either deep inside stars or when some stars exploded as supernovas. Much later, a second generation of stars supposedly formed with the heavy elements from that exploded debris.In other words, a big bang would produce only the three lightest chemical elements. Therefore, big bang advocates have struggled to explain the origin of the heavier chemical elements (carbon, oxygen, iron, lead etc.). To squeeze enough hydrogen nuclei together to form some heavier elements would require the high temperatures inside stars. Theoretically, to form elements heavier than iron requires something much hotter”a supernova.So, if a big bang happened, there would not be enough time afterward to:a. Form the first generation of stars out of hydrogen, helium, and lithium.
b. Have many of those stars quickly (4), pass through their complete life cycles then finally explode as supernovas to produce the heavier chemical elements.
c. Recollect, somehow, enough of that exploded debris to form the second generation of stars. (Some were quasars thought to be powered by black holes, billions of times more massive than our Sun!
d. Transmit the light from these heavy elements to Earth, immense distances away.New and sophisticated light-gathering instruments have enabled astronomers to discover heavy elements in many extremely distant galaxies(5) and quasars (6). One such galaxy has a quasar at its center (7). If the speed of light has been constant, its light has taken 94% of the age of the universe to reach us. This means that only the first 6% of the age of the universe would have been available for events a-c above. (Only 0.8 b.y. would be available in a 13.7-b.y.-old universe.) Few astronomers believe that such slow processes as a-c above, if they happened at all, could happen in 0.8 b.y (8).Evolutionists can undoubtedly resolve these time contradictions”but at the cost of rejecting some cherished belief. Perhaps they will accept the possibility that light traveled much faster in the past. Measurements exist which support this revolutionary idea. Maybe they will conclude that the big bang never occurred, or that heavy elements were somehow in the first and only generation of stars, or that stars degrade, but new stars don’t evolve. Much evidence supports each of these ideas, and all are consistent with a recent creation.Few evolutionists are aware of these contradictions. However, as more powerful telescopes begin peering even farther into space, these problems will worsen and more attention will be focused on them. If scientists find, as one might expect, even more distant stars and galaxies with heavy elements, problems with the claimed age of the universe will no longer be the secret of a few evolutionists (9).References and Notes 1.Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), pp. 102, 129.2. Ivan R. King, “Globular Clusters,” Scientific American, Vol. 252, June 1985, pp. 79-88.3. Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., “An Old Galaxy in a Young Universe,” Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 555-556.James Dunlop, “A 3.5-Gyr-Old Galaxy at Redshift 1.55,” Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 581-584.4. For this to happen quickly, evolutionists must assume that the first stars were giants, more than a hundred times larger than the Sun. (Theoretically, more massive stars would burn faster.) Thus, textbooks confidently say that the first stars were giants.No one knows that the first stars were giants. It’s a required assumption if stars evolved. In fact, characteristics of the light we should see from the first generation of evolved stars is missing. Nature, [/I] Vol. 440, 20 April 2006, pp. 1002-1003.5. James Glanz, “CO in the Early Universe Clouds Cosmologists’ Views,” Science, Vol. 273, 2 August 1996, p. 581.“The presence of these [25] elements, particularly those heavier than iron, in such a young [distant] galaxy is striking. Fundamentally, it seems to indicate that in the galaxies (or at least in this galaxy) that formed relatively shortly after the Big Bang, the onset of star formation and related element production was very rapid.” John Cowan, “Elements of Surprise,” Nature, Vol. 423, 1 May 2003, p. 29.Jason X. Prochaska et al., “The Elemental Abundance Pattern in a Galaxy at z=2.626,” Nature, Vol. 423, 1 May 2003, pp. 57-59.6. “According to standard models [all based on the big bang theory], the first stars needed at least 500 million years to begin lighting up and another 700 million to 1 billion years to manufacture heavy elements such as iron and spread them through space. [Wolfram] Freudling therefore expected that gas around the quasars, which were shining when the universe was just 900 million years old, would be metal-free. [Astronomers call the hundred or so heavier chemical elements “metals.”] Instead, he and his colleagues found the quasars are surrounded by copious amounts of iron.” Kathy A. Svitil, “Signs of Primordial Star Ignition Detected,” Discover, January 2004, p. 66.“... quasar environments are metal rich at all red shifts.” F. Hamann et al., “Quasar Elemental Abundances and Host Galaxy Evolution,” Origin and Evolution of the Elements, Vol. 4, editors A. McWilliam and M. Rauch (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 12.Ohta et al., “Detection of Molecular Gas in the Quasar BR 1202-0725 at Redshift z = 4.69,” Nature, Vol. 382, 1 August 1996, pp. 426-431. “First, the chemical composition of quasars hints at early enrichments, indicative of star formation. Emission lines in the quasar spectrum can be used to measure their abundance of heavy elements, or ”metallicity.’ Luminous, high-redshift quasars have roughly solar or higher metallicity, even at redshifts > 6, indicating that they existed in a metal-rich environment similar to that found in the centers of massive galaxies.” Xiaohui Fan, “Black Holes at the Cosmic Dawn,” Science, Vol. 300, 2 May 2003, p. 752.7. Fabian Walter et al., “Molecular Gas in the Host Galaxy of a Quasar at Redshift z=6.42,” Nature, Vol. 424, 24 July 2003, pp. 406-408.8. Jeff Kanipe, “Galaxies at the Confusion Limit,” Astronomy, December 1988, pp. 56-58.R. F. Carswell, “Distant Galaxy Observed,” Nature, Vol. 335, 8 September 1988, p. 119.9. Dietrick E. Thomsen, “Farthest Galaxy Is Cosmic Question,” Science News, Vol. 133, 23 April 1988, pp. 262-263.M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Farthest Galaxies: A New Champion,” Science, Vol. 241, 19 August 1988, p. 905.Dietrick E. Thomsen, “Galaxies in a Primitive State,” Science News, Vol. 133, 23 January 1988, p. 52.M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Pushing Back the Redshift Limit,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, pp. 727-728.In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes