|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science Disproves Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pahu Member (Idle past 5955 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
[/b][/i][/b][/i]
Meteoritic Dust Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young (a). a. Steveson, pp. 23-25. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Pahu writes: Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young”possibly less than 10,000 years old. Would you please name a half-dozen or so of those techniques and the ages they indicate? Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Pahu.
Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young (a). a. Steveson, pp. 23-25. PRATT Listquote: Correcting the calculation from 182 feet down to 16 feet doesn't make much difference when the reality is 2 feet. Note that this PRATT is contradicted by another one: # CE101. There is not enough moon dust for an old universe. Gotta love that consistency of thought.
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! Better put in another few !!!'s as it makes the argument from incredulity even more compelling . Gosh: science changes when it finds new information - SHOCKING. But the real numbers are different (why can't creationists even get their arguments right?): in 1868/9 (at the time "Origins" was published) Lord Kelvin estimated the age of the earth at 20 to 40 million years versus 4.5 billion. 4,50 Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nope. Evolution happens today, every day and even if the universe was created yesterday evolution would still exist. The evidence on the other hand, the natural history of life on this planet as found in both the fossil record, and the radioactive age of rocks, and the patterns found in the genetic record show that the earth, in fact, IS old, and that life has been around for a good share of it. If you want to discuss this evidence then see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III).
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 Can you tell me why, if creationism is true that creationists like this need to lie? Enjoy. ps as you are new here, type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. Edited by RAZD, : correction to date factor we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Matt P Member (Idle past 4804 days) Posts: 106 From: Tampa FL Joined: |
Hi Pahu,
As RAZD said, you're references are wrong (and the creationist site you took this from is lying to you). Let's do some calculations to show why: Currently, the estimated flux to the surface of the Earth is 3 x 10^7 kg /year (Love and Brownlee 1993 Science 262:550-553). This number is estimated from the actual number of things we see fall to the surface of the Earth per year, i.e., it's observed. Not much room for doubt there! This rate has been steady within error for the last 3.8 billion years. Thus, we would expect 3 x 10^7 kg /yr * 3.8 x 10^9 yrs, 1.14 x 10^17 kg of meteoritic dust to have fallen. The surface are of the Earth is 4 Pi R^2, where R is the radius of the Earth. The radius of the Earth is ~6400 km, so the surface area of the Earth equals 5 x 10^14 m^2. This means that over the last 3.8 billion years, we would expect1.14x 10^17 kg / 5 x 10^14 m^2 = 220 kg of meteoritic dust per m^2 of the Earth. The density of meteoritic dust is about 3000 kg/m^3, so this suggests that in the last 3.8 billion years, we should see all of:220 kg/m^2 / 3000 kg/m^3 = 0.07 m 7 cm of dust! That's a far cry from 16 feet! Additionally, the nickel content of meteoritic dust is about 1 weight percent. So for the total amount of nickel delivered by this dust should be about 1 x 10^15 kg of nickel should have fallen to the Earth. The present day nickel content of the Earth's crust is about 2.3 x 10^18 kg (100 ppm in crust, times 2.367 x 10^22 kg mass of the crust), so all that meteoritic dust is barely a blip (about 0.05% of the total nickel of the Earth's crust). All these calculations assume that there has been no mixing on the Earth. That's definitely not the case- most ocean rocks are
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young”possibly less than 10,000 years old. Show me where you can get the above from a legitimate science web site. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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! But this is not actually true, is it? The estimate hasn't changed significantly in my lifetime, and having looked it up I see that in the early twentieth century the best estimates were certainly in the right order of magnitude, i.e. a few billion years. "Taking the mean of this and the upper limit found above from the ratio of uranium to lead, we obtain 4 x 10^9 years as a rough approximation to the age of the Earth's crust. --- Russell, H.N., 1921. A superior limit to the age of the Earth's crust in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, vol. 99, pp. 84-86. Four billion. In 1921. Meanwhile, to this very day creationist estimates of the age of the earth vary from 6,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years, depending on how they interpret the Bible and which bits of science they're willing to admit are true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But this is not actually true, is it? The estimate hasn't changed significantly in my lifetime, and having looked it up I see that in the early twentieth century the best estimates were certainly in the right order of magnitude, i.e. a few billion years. At the time of "Origins" Lord Kelvin estimated the age at 20 to 40 million, based on thermodynamics and before they knew about thermonuclear energy. It would be interesting to graph the estimates of age against time to show that as more knowledge was acquired the they honed in on 4.5 billion. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
At the time of "Origins" Lord Kelvin estimated the age at 20 to 40 million, based on thermodynamics and before they knew about thermonuclear energy. Yah, but as all the biologists and geologists told him he was wrong, Kelvin's mistake hardly relates to Pahu's claim about "evolutionists", unless Pahu's simply using evolution as a synonym for all science ever. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But this is not actually true, is it? The estimate hasn't changed significantly in my lifetime, and having looked it up I see that in the early twentieth century the best estimates were certainly in the right order of magnitude, i.e. a few billion years. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pahu Member (Idle past 5955 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
Ringo writes: Would you please name a half-dozen or so of those techniques and the ages they indicate? You can find them on the link I provided. In the meantime, I plan to share them from time to time. The one you are responding to is one example. Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pahu Member (Idle past 5955 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
bluescat48: Show me where you can get the above from a legitimate science web site.
Pahu: Most of the information I am sharing from the indicated web site is derived from scientiests. Here is a short list: Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Ral J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, . John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, etc. The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals: American journal of scienceAstronomical journal Astrophysics and space science Astrophysical journal Bioscience Geology Icarus Nature New scientist Physical review Physical review d Physical review letters Science Space science reviews What is your definition of a legitimate science web site?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Pahu writes: Ringo: Would you please name a half-dozen or so of those techniques and the ages they indicate? Pahu: You can find them on the link I provided. The link you provided is an entire website: Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. If you want us to accept an entire website as evidence, then it is only fair that that you accept an entire website as rebuttal: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Of course, debating in this way would be silly, which is why EvC Forum encourages members to state their arguments and evidence in their own words, using links only as references. Here are guidelines 4 and 5:
Now what was that argument again? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Pahu writes: What is your definition of a legitimate science web site? That would be a website that accurately presents the consensus scientific views of practicing scientists engaged in research that they publish in peer-reviewed technical journals that is then subjected to further peer-review by examination and replication. Walt Brown's views are his own and are in no way representative of the scientific community. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You can find them on the link I provided. In the meantime, I plan to share them from time to time. You might as well save your breath, I don't think there's anything there that we haven't seen a thousand times. Dear me, short-period comets, cosmic dust on the moon ... Still, one thing gave me a giggle. Right at the end of his recital, he concludes with: "This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?" Yeah, Walt, you imagine that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024