Science Disproves Evolution

[qs=dwise1]I followed your directions in your "Peek Mode" and got the above result.

The topic of this thread involves evolution. Please stick to that. If anyone wants to discuss cosmology, orbital mechanics or what have you open another thread for it.The formation of planets can not have anything at all to do with how life changes.

You need to close the [ qs ] with an [ /qs ] (with out spaces) after it.Peek at this: ABE (added by edit)Sorry that wasn't your mistake. You have an extra qs in there. Peek at this post.Edited by AdminNosy, : oops

If Earth had initially been molten, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions about the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth (a). The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.a. Harold S. Slusher and Thomas P. Gamwell, Age of the Earth, ICR Technical Monograph No. 7 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).Leonard R. Ingersoll et al., Heat Conduction: With Engineering, Geological and Other Applications, revised edition (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), pp. 99-107.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

Here's the abstract of the article.The spins of the terrestrial planets likely arose as the planets formed by the accretion of planetesimals. Depending on the masses of the impactors, the planet's final spin can either be imparted by many small bodies (ordered accretion), in which case the spin is determined by the mean angular momentum of the impactors, or by a few large bodies (stochastic accretion), in which case the spin is a random variable whose distribution is determined by the root-mean-square angular momentum of the impactors. In the case of ordered accretion, the planet's obliquity is expected to be near 0 degrees or 180 degrees , whereas, if accretion is stochastic, there should be a wide range of obliquities. Analytic arguments and extensive orbital integrations are used to calculate the expected distributions of spin rate and obliquity as a function of the planetesimal mass and velocity distributions. The results imply that the spins of the terrestrial planets are determined by stochastic accretion.Which part of that do you think disproves evolution?Which part of it do you think relates to evolution?

Unless life can change without a universe. We are drifting in order to answer questions put to me. If I stick strictly to the topic, I can’t answer the questions that drift away from the topic.

I understand the challenge of organizing the discussion. However, if new independent issues arise then they should be in separate threads. You can answer any questions just by creating a new thread for them.Life can change in whatever way it does however the universe came into being. So how planets formed has no bearing on biological evolution.You may, if you wish, start a thread that is not discussing the issue of planet formation but show how it does have some bearing evolution. Be very cautious about going down this path. You have no idea of the issues you will raise.

I think this is on topic (barring any further admin rulings), since a young earth would effectively (indirectly) prove that evolution could not have happened.So show us the dating techniques that give those young ages. We need numbers here, not just "the earth woulda/coulda/shoulda cooled in less than 4.5 billion years".And one technique that gives the result you want isn't good enough to refute dozens of methods that disagree with you. Show us how the results of your methods correlate.

---

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.

You are being lied to. Slusher and Gamwell do not make "liberal assumptions about the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth". Instead, they assume that most radioactivity is concentrated in the top 10 kiliometers of the Earth's crust, i.e. they assume that 99.99975% of the Earth's volume contains effectively no radioactive isotopes, despite the fact that all the bits of the Earth we can look at do contain radioactive isotopes. You remember how I proved that this wasn't true? Both the "dating techniques" you've come up with so far have been based on grossly faulty figures.Why don't you vary it a bit and do one based on an error of reasoning instead? I suggest the short-period comets one, that's always good for a laugh.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

Thanks for the substantial response to my message, Dwise. As I ponder the fact that creationists differ on origins relative to time and age it comes to mind that the reason evolutionists hold to a more natural and secularist view is that they believe what is taught in the schools all the way up from preschool through graduate. Biblical creationists, on the other hand including those who are subjected to the same public schooling are exposed to alternative hypothesis in the Christian circles including churches which is more in line with the Biblical model.To summarize my point, scientists and students of science who receive information from one source tend to hold to that source of information and belief exclusively. Scientists and students of science who receive information from alternative sources along with the mainline source tend to be more informed and open to alternative study including archeological discoveries, fulfilled prophecy relative to history etc. These venues of study raise questions relative to varied age hypotheses.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Bullshit and totally falsified Buz.I was raised in a Christian Church family and educated in Christian Church Schools.And so far you have NEVER been able to support nonsense like fulfilled prophecy or archaeological discoveries so why do you keep making false assertions and repeating refuted shit?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

But we're not talking about "fulfilled prophecy", the very existence of which is in question. We're talking about studying the natural universe and, more specifically, determining the ages of that natural natural and structures in it, including our planet.Furthermore, the question much more specifically was whether science or creationism does a better job of arriving at these dates. Even more specifically, the question you involved yourself into was why is it that the many independent scientific tests are in agreement with each other, whereas practically none of creationism's result are even remotely in agreement with each other.Now, it is indeed a very good idea, especially in engineering, to team together people from different disciplines, which enables the team to think outside the box during brainstorming. However, creationism would have nothing to offer and ID much less.

---

{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)

I mentioned fulfiled prophecy relative to history because this is one of the corroborating evidences Biblicalists use to argue for an intelligent designer supportive to the Biblical model.Note that along with that I cited archeology. Natural securalistic scientists refuse to acknowledge or to falsify important discoveries and research sites which creationists like Dr Lennart Moller have done such as the Nuweiba crossing site relative to the Biblical model. I agree but our model includes such physical phenomena as I have cited above. As I've argued time and again, the Biblical model implies pre-flood conditions which should render modern dating methodology inaccurate. Thus if we don't know what the properties of the atmosphere were before the flood, how can we test for acurate dating? We can't so we come up with varied date hypotheses. We use what corroborating evidence we can assemble and build our hypothesis on those. We believe we do have something to offer but the majority has the bully pulpit in education, the media and the mainstream science arena.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

I mentioned fulfiled prophecy relative to history

---

Got it. Interpreting vague prophecies to fit one of the many events in history. Too bad that another interpretation would disqualify many of those prophecies as being fulfilled. Try again Nostradamus.

quote:

---

I agree but our model includes such physical phenomena as I have cited above.

---

So you're saying your model includes factors that cannot be tested for in any way, left no evidence and run contradictory to modern applied sciences?I'm waiting for a Goddidit.

quote:

---

As I've argued time and again, the Biblical model implies pre-flood conditions which should render modern dating methodology inaccurate. Thus if we don't know what the properties of the atmosphere were before the flood, how can we test for acurate dating? We can't so we come up with varied date hypotheses. We use what corroborating evidence we can assemble and build our hypothesis on those.

---

How convenient. Your model rejects applied modern sciences and instead argues that conditions that cannot be tested for and left no evidence were in fact existing over conditions that we can test for and we know to occur at known rates. That the entire system of physical laws were in fact not operation prior to the flood and that during the flood somehow without leaving any trace whatsoever these laws of physics magically changed? Also that life as a whole which operated under the different set of physical laws was able to thrive and expand in a world governed by a new set of physical laws with no adverse or noticeable effects? Goddidit? Magic?I'm calling your argument complete and absolute bull****.

quote:

---

We believe we do have something to offer but the majority has the bully pulpit in education, the media and the mainstream science arena.

---

For a reason. Mainstream science works on the principles that assertions have to be tested. Your model relies upon a assumption that cannot be tested period and requires magic to work.The laws of physics changed radically but left no evidence of their change or previous state!Right.....