Science Disproves Evolution

molbiogirl, will you marry me?

Hold up. He said he was getting this stuff from Walt Brown, and that he'd be posting examples of his "dating methods" now and again, so this isn't plagiarism, since we have been given a reference. See posts #1 and #11 on this thread.Nor is it lying if he's been taken in by Walt Brown: he would then be, not a liar, but a dupe.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Doc,The liar ref is from earlier in the thread.Message 35: I did no such thing.And this numbskull is pasting verbatim from Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Without quote boxes. Without providing the proper URLs.Since when is it kosher to just swipe unattributed material from a creo site? And add absolutely nothing else to the discussion?

Aw. Archie. You sugar lump. You made my night.

quote:

---

Ah, but there is a third alternative: ignore and run away. Surely, a tried and true YEC technique.

---

We have a winner!The sad thing is that buzz will reuse that same argument in a month.

1. I never said a peep about the age of the world/earth/planet in message 59 reference dating methods. My position for the whole 4 plus years at EvC has been that the age of the planet is not knowable as per the Biblical model. What my statements regarding dating referred to was evolution of animals and mankind. My position has always been that the 24 hour day was not determined/established until day five of creation when the animals and man was created. I'm surprised that by now you haven't known that to be the case regarding my hypothesis.2. Biblical arguments only belong in science when they apply to the topic. After all certain aspects of observable archeology, history, geology, cosmology, biology etc relative to origins involve the Biblical record. EvC involves the Bible so if you don't want it involved, you have no EvC debate in science.

---

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

Hi Buz,I'm glad your position is clear to you. The reason I call it confused is that your "hypothesis" offers no self-consistent explanation or any real-world supporting evidence, and it is really only your own idiosyncratic interpretation of Genesis.Please leave Biblical arguments out of science threads. Science is not based upon revelatory evidence. In the science threads you should offer real-world evidence for your position. EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim that creationism is every bit as much legitimate science as evolution, supported by the evidence and deserving of representation in science classrooms. If your hypothesis is supported by revelation then that's great for your religion, but it isn't science. In the science forums your arguments must be based upon real-world evidence.--Percy

In Buz's defense, I don't think he is just talking about revelation, but instead thinks that there is actual physical evidence for some of his positions. I think his Biblical references would be fine if he also presented the actual evidence for the assertion so it could be examined.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first observed this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume.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

CE110: Moon Receding

quote:

---

Claim CE110:

​

Because of tidal friction, the moon is receding, and the earth's rotation is slowing down, at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years old.

​

Source:

​

Barnes, Thomas G. 1982. Young age for the moon and earth. Impact 110 (Aug.). The Institute for Creation Research

​

Response:

​

1. The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.

​

2. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).

​

3. The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.

​

4. The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth.

​

Links:

​

Thompson, Tim, 2000. The recession of the Moon and the age of the Earth-Moon system. The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System

​

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'

---

In other words this is STILL a false claim.Try to find something that has not already been refuted eh?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Pahu, could you post something in your own words? You're the one debating here, not Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. As the Forum Guidelines state:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Also, the 2nd half of your post is an example duplicate of the 2nd half of your Message 49. The Forum Guidelines state:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

--Percy

The second half of his post is simply a copy and paste from this page

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Pahu, you really need to understand that if you find it on one of the Creationist sites, the folk here have already seen it and refuted it. The only way you are going to make an impression here is to come up with something new that you can also support with reason, logic and reality.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Evolution can be surprisingly fast, and probably all the diversity that we see in the species today can probably take place in a few tens of millions of years.The longer times for evolution are not because it is necessary, but because we see in the fossil record that it actually took hundreds of millions of years to produce the diversity we see today, not because it is necessary. It simply turns out that in real life, the morphology of a species is static for a long period of time. If it wasn't for these periods of stasis, evolution would proceed quite quickly.The age of the earth is an observational fact, not a requirement in which to fit the evolution of the species.

---

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

Heh, heh... Problem is that these measure something other than the age of the earth!Tell us, Pahu, exactly what age do each of these techniques tell you?