Science Disproves Evolution

Yeah, it's "true" but it's just typical creationist dishonesty. Note that the estimated age has changed significantly over 150 years, ignore the fact that significant discoveries improved the accuracy of methods incredibly, assume a linear rate of change, divide the overall change by 150 years, and publish a garbage number.The estimate hasn't changed noticeably since 1953 (4.51-4.56 GA, two independent studies).Houtermans, F.G., 1953. Determination of the age of the earth from the isotopic compositon of meteoric lead. Nuovo Cimento, Series 9, vol, 10, no, 12, pp. 1623-33.Patterson, C.C., 1953. The isotopic composition of meteoric, basaltic, and oceanic leads, and the age of the earth. Proc. Conf. on Nuclear Processes in Geologic Settings, Williams Bay, Wisconson, Sept. 21-23, 1953, pp. 36-40.

You are swallowing some pretty ancient and inexcuasable lies From Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1984. "How Old Is the Earth? A Reply to ``Scientific Creationism''", in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS 1, Part 3, California, AAAS. pp. 66-131, 23 years ago:

quote:

---

In a recent creationist monograph, Slusher and Gamwell (118) consider the contribution of radioactive heat to the problem of a cooling Earth and conclude that even with radioactivity as a source of heat, the calculations lead to the conclusion that the Earth is young:

​

quote:

---

The cooling times appear quite small (thousands of years) if the initial temperature of the earth was on the order of that for a habitable planet for any of the models. Even for initial temperatures as high as that for an initially molten earth, the cooling times are vastly less than evolutionist estimates. It would seem that the earth is vastly younger than the old earth demanded by the evolutionists. Thus, the evolutionary hypothesis would seem to be a false hypothesis for explaining things. (118, p. 75)

---

​

Their treatment of this important and complex problem, however, is inexcusably naive. They have neglected important sources of heat within the Earth, selected inappropriate depth distributions of radioactive elements, and ignored completely the loss of heat by convection in the mantle. Before discussing the flaws in their conclusions further, I here explain briefly some of the factors that scientists must consider when analyzing the Earth’s thermal history, and review some current thinking on the subject.

​

...

​

What, then, of the conclusion of Slusher and Gamwell (118) that consideration of the Earth’s heat budget indicates that the Earth is very young? They have reached this conclusion by ignoring most of what is known about the chemistry, physics, and history of the Earth. First, they begin with the erroneous assumption that the only heat-loss mechanism for the Earth is conduction; they completely ignore convection. This assumption would be excusable only had their paper been written before the mid-1960s, before there was sound evidence that the Earth’s mantle was convecting.

​

Second, Slusher and Gamwell (118) seemingly are unaware that the Earth’s surface includes both continents and ocean basins, each of which have different compositions, distinct physical characteristics, and participate in global plate tectonics in quite different ways. They take no account of the differences in either heat generation or loss between these vastly different regimes of the Earth.

​

Third, they use inappropriate depth distributions for the radioactive elements. Only by adopting the unrealistic assumption that most radioactive isotopes are concentrated in the outer 10 km or so of the crust do their analyses yield cooling times of “thousands of years” rather than millions of years. Although it is true that uranium, thorium, and potassium tend to be enriched in the Earth’s crust, there is every reason to think that the mantle also contains these elements; their concentrations may be small, but the mass of the mantle is so great that significant heat production results.

​

Finally, thermal analysis of the Earth cannot yield an estimate of its age. The age of the Earth, determined independently by radiometric dating, is one of the boundary conditions that must be satisfied in such an analysis; it is not a result. There are simply far too many things about the history and interior of the Earth that are poorly known and must be estimated. For example, even before convection was known to be an important factor in heat loss from the Earth, scientists were able to devise reasonable thermal models for the Earth that attributed all the heat generated to radioactive decay and all the heat lost to conduction. This was done simply by choosing reasonable distributions and concentrations of radioactive elements that yielded a balance between generation and loss and preserved the observed geothermal gradient. As new knowledge about mantle convection and the early history of the Earth accumulated, these models were changed to account for the new findings. There is as yet no definitive thermal model for the Earth, and it is absurd to expect that any such model can be used to determine the Earth’s age. Thus, the supposed determination of the Earth’s age from thermal calculations by Slusher and Gamwell (118) is totally without merit.

---

IOW, Slusher's peddling BS.

As Glen Morton writes now, at Accomplishments : Publications, Oil fields and Patents:

quote:

---

This view is erroneous in that it ignores the extreme temperature dependence of viscosity on temperature. At lunar temperatures, the viscosity would be such that a lunar crater could stand for billions of years. Furthermore, if the concepts utilized in this article were true (i.e. that glass could flow) astronomers would have to re-grind their lenses and mirrors every few years. This doesn't happen. This argument was used in Paul Ackerman's book, It's a Young World After All (Baker, 1986), p. 52-53. It is an erroneous argument that I wish I had never come up with.

---

And from Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?

quote:

---

Moon Rock Viscosity [OAB 56] In a paper published in a young-Earth journal (Creation Research Society Quarterly, v.20, pp.105-108 (Sept 1983)), former young-Earth advocate Glenn R. Morton attempted to calculate the time it would take for lunar craters to be erased by the slow flow of rock. The central parameter in the calculation is the viscosity of the rock (its resistance to flow). As a rock's temperature approaches its melting point, its viscosity becomes low enough (although still a trillion trillion times higher than that of honey) for some flow to be observed over long time periods. This phenomenon allows, for example, convection in the Earth's mantle, which is crucial to Plate Tectonics, and in turn to many geophysical processes. Viscous flow can also be observed in many other solids, from glass to Silly Putty, but always at temperatures that are rather close to the melting point of the solid. Morton attempted to apply this process to rocks on the surface of the Moon. However, by failing to understand viscosity's extreme dependence on temperature, he grossly underestimated the viscosities of lunar rocks. Morton assumed that the viscosity of the Moon's surface rocks would be comparable to the highest measured rock viscosities (those of Earth's mantle). However, since a rock's viscosity increases exponentially as its temperature falls (and the Earth's mantle is very hot while the Moon is very cold), the viscosities of moon rocks are exponentially higher than the viscosities in Earth's mantle. In fact, moon rock viscosities are so high that they are practically infinite, meaning that no flow will occur (i.e., rocks are more likely to break or fracture than to flow). Since the flow of rock is basically impossible at the temperatures that exist on the Moon's surface, there will be no relaxation of lunar craters, and thus no problem with the age of the Moon.

---

Not properly accounting for the temperature dependence of viscosity is a fatal flaw. That claim is shredded.

I left out that information because it's irrelevant; the Lunar rock viscosity measurements were not done at Lunar temperatures. Ignoring the strong dependence of viscosity on temperature is a fatal flaw.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Just noticed this old canard.The "doubling at a rate of once every 15 years" number is derived by dividing the change in the mainstream age of the Earth in the last 150 years by 150, That is, it assumes that the mainstream age of the Earth has changed linearly over the last 150 years. This is false, so the claim is sort of true but extremely misleading. With the discovery of radioactivity in 1896 and the first use of radioactivity for dating in 1905, this new and precise method was soon used to show that earlier estimates of the age of the Earth were way off, and there was an immediate jump in the mainstream estimate. With refined techniques and more samples the mainstream estimate rose until 1953, when the current age of 4.55 GA was obtained independently by Houterman and Holmes. That 4.55 GA number hasn't changed at all in 54 years; there have been many other studies but they all came up with the same answer.