Science Disproves Evolution

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.

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.

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.

I've just read all his blah about dating, and he doesn't quote a single scientist.Possibly because none of them agree with him.

But it cannot be shown to be off by that amount.The only people who came up with an age of tens of millions, rather than billions, were physicists (not geologists or biologists, who knew that the Earth was much older) and when it was realised that the physicists had muffed their calculations by overlooking the existence of natural radioactivity, they admitted that they were wrong.Evolutionists have always maintained that the earth is not mere tens of millions of years old, and guess what, they turned out to be right.

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?

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.

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.

You've repeated this at least twice since I proved that it was a lie.Ninth Commandment, anyone?Meanwhile, we are still waiting for you creationists to make up your minds whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or 4,500,000,000 years old. Do let us know.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Please show me where creationists claimed "all along" that Piltdown Man was a hoax or that australopithecines had opposable toes --- before evolutionists told them that this was the case.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It means that to you it is not information and has no value.Why are you presenting us with "information" which, so far as you know, may be worthless or even meaningless?

(1) These are genera, not families. Again, could I suggest that you learn the "big words".(2) What the heck is this meant to prove? You can CALL Homo habilis what you like, it still has the same anatomical features, none of which is disputed by Wood or Collard, and remains an intermediate form between ancestral apes and modern humans.As Collard and Wood point out --- as you would know if you'd bothered to so much as glance at their paper --- the conclusion that habilis is not Homo comes not from re-appraising the fossils, but from redefining Homo.Let me know if you need any help with the big words. Rubbish. As a computer scientist, I should be fascinated to learn how, in your daydreams, one programs this "assumption" into a computer.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, let's make this clear.When you wrote that: ... you were talking about a paper which says no such thing, which you hadn't read, and the very title of which you didn't understand.This lends a certain humorous irony to your other remarks in this post, such as: ... and ... You haven't read all their papers and books, Jason. You don't know what their papers and books are about, Jason, and Jason, if you don't know basic biological terms --- such as the difference between a genus and a family --- then even if you had read their papers you still wouldn't know what they were about.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you had read Oxnard's paper, which you haven't, you would know that he states the australopithecines were bipedal, contrary to your assertions.Here's Oxnard on australopithecines:"Because they have pelves that have articular relationships parallel to those of man, we may guess that ... they stood and moved upright with a vertical load distribution ... They may have been bipedal in a way that is no longer seen, but have retained abilities for climbing." (Oxnard, 1975)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Excludes them from what? You have, as yet, presented no evidence that she was. Indeed, one of your few references, Oxnard, maintains that Australopithecus was bipedal. Wood and Collard, as I have shown, do not deny that Lucy was bipedal, and your remaining source, Solly Zuckerman, was writing before Lucy was discovered. So far, you have come up with not one scientist who denies that Lucy was bipedal. Would you like to try again? It isn't similar in every way. This is why they're classified as different species.I think you still haven't figured out what Wood and Collard are driving at. Just as a genus is not a family, it's not a species, either.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.