|
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: |
[qs=dwise1]
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. I followed your directions in your "Peek Mode" and got the above result.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You need to close the [ qs ] with an [ /qs ] (with out spaces) after it.
Peek at this:
mean ol' nosy writes: Stick to the topic! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pahu Member (Idle past 5955 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?” Science, Vol. 259, 15 January 1993, pp. 350-354. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pahu Member (Idle past 5955 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
Nosy writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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). 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.
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! You remember how I proved that this wasn't true?
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young”possibly less than 10,000 years old. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Pahu writes: 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). 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: IOW, Slusher's peddling BS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
dwise writes: But we're not talking about "fulfilled prophecy", the very existence of which is in question. 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.
dwise writes: 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. I agree but our model includes such physical phenomena as I have cited above.
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. 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024