Science Disproves Evolution

Welcome to the fray Pahu. PRATT List

quote:

---

CE020. An old earth would be covered by 182 feet of meteoric dust.

​

The observed rates used in Morris's calculation are based on dust collected in the atmosphere; this measurement was contaminated by dust from the earth. More recent measurements of cosmic dust influx measured from satellites give an influx rate about 1 percent as large, corresponding to a layer 66 cm thick at most over 4.5 billion years (Kyte and Wasson 1986). An even more recent study of iridium and platinum in a Greenland ice core yields an estimate of only about 14 kilotons per year of meteoric dust during the Holocene, compared with the figure of 14 million tons per year that Morris used (Gabrielli et al. 2004).

---

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. 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. 4,500,000,000/30,000,000 = 150 times !!! (:eek His estimate was based on thermodynamics (he wrote the book) but was made without knowledge of radioactivity and thermonuclear energy generation. 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). 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: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.Edited by RAZD, : correction to date factor

---

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.

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.

---

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.

Don't you know that the creationist definition of evolutionist is "not-creationist?"

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.

Yet your source says:

quote:

---

... And while the arguments over the creatures apelike characteristics are certain to rage on, Tobias argues that the bones will help solve the mystery of Leakey's Tanzanian imprints. "Little Foot could certainly have made the Laetoli footprints," he says ...

---

Which would make the owner clearly a preferential bipedal species by definition (no knuckle dragging and clear heel-toe depressions similar to those caused by weight shifts in modern footprints).Looking further I find this: Hominid Discovery, Archeology, A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America, Volume 52 Number 2, March/April 1999

quote:

---

"What is particularly interesting is just how primitive the specimen is," says Clarke, noting the flexibility of the joints in the skeleton's feet. "While we know that australopithecines were bipedal by this date," he adds, "the architecture of StW-573's feet suggests that this individual was also capable of grasping limbs and climbing trees like a chimpanzee."

---

Intermediate in form with chimps and still able to climb trees, while being adapted for bipedal locomotion, (a form of locomotion that is not inhibited in any way by either the toe or the hand structure of this specimen) ... just as would be expected in an intermediate form. The article goes on to say:

quote:

---

While taxonomic identification must await the full excavation of the skeleton,... the skeleton may be of the species Australopithecus afarensis, the same as the 3.2 million-year-old Lucy, ... and suggests it may have played a greater role in early hominid evolution than if it were geographically restricted.

​

If, on the other hand, the specimen belongs to Australopithecus africanus, ... like the 2.3-million-year-old Taung child and a 2.5-million-year-old male from a later stratum at Sterkfontein, it will be the oldest example found to date. A. africanus has been thought to have thrived between 2.5 and 3.0 million years ago.

---

The age of the specimen appears to be between 2.2 and 4.1 million years, and an accurate date is difficult due to the nature of the deposit.Then there is Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Journal of Anatomy, 2004 May; 204(5): 403-416. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00296.x.

quote:

---

There has been a considerable degree of debate surrounding locomotor affinities inferred from fossil hominin foot bones. It is well known that geologically more ”recent’ hominin species, such as Homo antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis and anatomically modern H. sapiens were fully bipedal (Trinkaus, 1983; Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999) (Fig. 1). Their feet reflect this bipedalism, although certain aspects of the pedal morphology of H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis differ from that of modern humans (Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999). The functional implications of these differences are currently unknown. Although there are no associated foot bones for one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, H. ergaster (c. 1.8 Ma) we do know from the rest of the postcranial skeleton that this taxon was also fully bipedal (Ruff & Walker, 1993). For other hominins, there is still a large degree of disagreement. The OH 8 H. habilis foot (at 1.8 Ma) was originally suggested to reflect a fully developed bipedal adaptation (Day & Napier, 1964; Leakey et al. 1964) but others have argued that it still retains evidence of an arboreal adaptation (Lewis, 1980b; Oxnard & Lisowski, 1980; Kidd et al. 1996; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999). This is consistent with some recent interpretations of other aspects of H. habilis skeletal morphology (e.g. Hartwig-Scherer & Martin, 1991; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999).

​

Similar controversy surrounds the Australopithecus afarensis foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia (c. 3.0-3.4 Ma) that are described by some as being compliant with full bipedal locomotion (Latimer & Lovejoy, 1982, 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Latimer et al. 1987), whereas others have suggested that the same fossils show traits that indicate a mosaic of terrestrial and arboreal locomotion (Susman & Stern, 1982, 1991;, 1983, 1991;, 1983; Susman et al. 1985; Duncan et al. 1994; Berillon, 1998 Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000). Both sides of this controversy can also be supported by the analysis of other aspects of postcranial anatomy (e.g. Stern & Susman, 1983; Lovejoy et al. 2002).

​

The issue is further complicated by the suggestion that the foot of the important ”Little Foot’ specimen (Stw 573), currently assigned to A. africanus, and possibly as old as 3.6 Ma, reflects mosaic locomotor affinities (Clarke & Tobias, 1995), however, there is no agreement as to the nature of this mosaic locomotor adaptation (e.g. Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000; Harcourt-Smith, 2002).

---

Again, a plethora of intermediate forms from ancient species to modern human type feet.But if you think "little foot" wais an unexpected find, then compare this 1935 prediction with "little foot" (same article):

quote:

---

---

A find that matches a prediction based on evolution.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : format

---

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.

The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory

quote:

---

(sidebar)
About the Author
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering ...

---

... and is a known liar and con man.Walt Brown

quote:

---

I am not an evolutionist -- to the contrary, I am a Bible-believing, creationist Christian who has attended and enjoyed Dr. Brown's seminar, ... In this instance, Dr. Brown has disappointed me,

​

The debate 'challenge' was originally provided to me by a student in one of my classes. The student gave me Walt's e-mail and claimed that Walt had good evidence for a global flood using only scientific research. I was also informed that Walt wanted to debate an old earth evolutionist regarding the validity of his model and wanted only to debate the science. Hence, my first e-mails to Walt stating the 'no theology' stipulation (note however that these e-mails were NOT a signed debate agreement, but merely an inquiry with my initial bias). Walt did send me a copy of his book. At that point, I realized that the basis of his argument was not at all scientific, but based on a literal reading of Genesis.

​

I would also like to remind everyone visiting these pages that Walt was likely to change the debate agreement. Indeed, I was absolutely correct. I saved a copy of the original (http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.html) just in case. What's relevant? Point #22 in the original debate agreement includes an opportunity to modify point #4 in that agreement. The new debate agreement no longer contains point #4. Neither Walt nor Peggy mention this change in their letters! I wonder why?

​

Creationist Walt Brown claims that in over 15 years no evolutionist is willing to enter into a debate with him. Just how true is this claim? Nearly 4 years ago, I began a dialogue with Walt Brown to discuss the possibility of debating him.

​

It was precisely this clause that led me to begin a dialogue with Walt and engage him in his debate. 4 years ago, I signed the agreement with a clause requesting that we be able to discuss the veracity of the Noachian flood account. This issue is germane to Walt's entire thesis and is valid debate material. In nearly 4 years, Walt has refused to have the editor decide the issue.

---

So Walt has lied about this debate for over 4 years as of 2000 ... that makes it 11 years going on 12 as a demonstrated liar.Why would he be a good source of information on anything? Why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true?Enjoy.ps - notice the use of source for evidence and then comment for argument.Notice further that I don't need to address a single thing Walt Brown says, as you cannot demonstrate anything he says is true.Sorry kid, but reality just is not your opinion.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.

Jason, please use the message reply button at the lower right corner of the message:

... rather than the general reply button to link directly to the message you are replying to. Not all old information is bad - just outdated information, where new information supersedes, supplants or augments the old information. That same reconstruction is still used in the 2004 article I cited, although the fossil is now Australopithicus africanus, no mention of a Homo Erectus heel - do you have update information on that?Perhaps we should continue this on the "{composite\Lucy\Australopithicus} was bipedal thread (see message 20)Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : sp

---

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.

No, Pahu, I have looked at his "information" and I know he is lying. About many things. I just used one example. That Peggy is still in denial of the essential part of the argument is not evidence that what Joe claims is not the truth. The bit about rattlesnake DNA is another, as is one you should also be familiar with from another board: Yahoo! Message Boards - Agnosticism - Science Disproves Evolution

quote:

---

Re: Pahu quotes liar Walt Brown 19-Jun-07 03:39 pm
stat: I checked with Benet Labs and received a prompt email denying he was ever director. So Brown lies. I have not been able to check out his other claimed credentials.

---

There is multiple evidence that Walt lies. He is a demonstrated liar. I repeat: "Why would he be a good source of information on anything? Why do creationists need to lie if creationism is true?"You, on the other hand want to believe Walt and you have done nothing to validate whether what he says is true or not.The real question Pahu, is what do you use to validate a statement for truth? How do you test it?Enjoy.ps -- there is another way you can quote materialtype [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

You can use this style to quote your text from Peggy and others, and it helps distinguish your writing from the quoted texts.Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

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.

My response is hereEnjoy.

---

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.