Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 12-19-2007


Message 1 of 196 (442045)
12-19-2007 7:28 PM


[/b][/i][/b][/i]
Meteoritic Dust
Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young (a).
a. Steveson, pp. 23-25.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 12-19-2007 8:41 PM Pahu has replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 8:50 PM Pahu has replied
 Message 5 by Matt P, posted 12-19-2007 9:28 PM Pahu has not replied
 Message 6 by bluescat48, posted 12-19-2007 9:34 PM Pahu has replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 6:17 AM Pahu has not replied
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 12-20-2007 4:12 PM Pahu has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 196 (442050)
12-19-2007 8:17 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 3 of 196 (442058)
12-19-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pahu
12-19-2007 7:28 PM


Pahu writes:
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young”possibly less than 10,000 years old.
Would you please name a half-dozen or so of those techniques and the ages they indicate?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pahu, posted 12-19-2007 7:28 PM Pahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Pahu, posted 12-20-2007 12:12 PM ringo has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 196 (442062)
12-19-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pahu
12-19-2007 7:28 PM


PRATTs and Lies.
Welcome to the fray Pahu.
Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young (a).
a. Steveson, pp. 23-25.
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.
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!
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.
Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe.
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).
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
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:
quotes are easy
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pahu, posted 12-19-2007 7:28 PM Pahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Pahu, posted 12-20-2007 3:23 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 5 of 196 (442067)
12-19-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pahu
12-19-2007 7:28 PM


Meteoritic references?
Hi Pahu,
As RAZD said, you're references are wrong (and the creationist site you took this from is lying to you). Let's do some calculations to show why:
Currently, the estimated flux to the surface of the Earth is 3 x 10^7 kg /year (Love and Brownlee 1993 Science 262:550-553). This number is estimated from the actual number of things we see fall to the surface of the Earth per year, i.e., it's observed. Not much room for doubt there!
This rate has been steady within error for the last 3.8 billion years. Thus, we would expect 3 x 10^7 kg /yr * 3.8 x 10^9 yrs, 1.14 x 10^17 kg of meteoritic dust to have fallen.
The surface are of the Earth is 4 Pi R^2, where R is the radius of the Earth. The radius of the Earth is ~6400 km, so the surface area of the Earth equals 5 x 10^14 m^2.
This means that over the last 3.8 billion years, we would expect
1.14x 10^17 kg / 5 x 10^14 m^2 = 220 kg of meteoritic dust per m^2 of the Earth.
The density of meteoritic dust is about 3000 kg/m^3, so this suggests that in the last 3.8 billion years, we should see all of:
220 kg/m^2 / 3000 kg/m^3 = 0.07 m
7 cm of dust! That's a far cry from 16 feet!
Additionally, the nickel content of meteoritic dust is about 1 weight percent. So for the total amount of nickel delivered by this dust should be about 1 x 10^15 kg of nickel should have fallen to the Earth. The present day nickel content of the Earth's crust is about 2.3 x 10^18 kg (100 ppm in crust, times 2.367 x 10^22 kg mass of the crust), so all that meteoritic dust is barely a blip (about 0.05% of the total nickel of the Earth's crust).
All these calculations assume that there has been no mixing on the Earth. That's definitely not the case- most ocean rocks are

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pahu, posted 12-19-2007 7:28 PM Pahu has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 6 of 196 (442069)
12-19-2007 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pahu
12-19-2007 7:28 PM


Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young”possibly less than 10,000 years old.
Show me where you can get the above from a legitimate science web site.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pahu, posted 12-19-2007 7:28 PM Pahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Pahu, posted 12-20-2007 12:27 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 196 (442100)
12-20-2007 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pahu
12-19-2007 7:28 PM


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!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pahu, posted 12-19-2007 7:28 PM Pahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2007 7:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 10 by JonF, posted 12-20-2007 10:18 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 196 (442113)
12-20-2007 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
12-20-2007 6:17 AM


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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 6:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 8:41 AM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 196 (442119)
12-20-2007 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
12-20-2007 7:50 AM


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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2007 7:50 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2007 5:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 196 (442140)
12-20-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
12-20-2007 6:17 AM


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.
Yeah, it's "true" but it's just typical creationist dishonesty. Note that the estimated age has changed significantly over 150 years, ignore the fact that significant discoveries improved the accuracy of methods incredibly, assume a linear rate of change, divide the overall change by 150 years, and publish a garbage number.
The estimate hasn't changed noticeably since 1953 (4.51-4.56 GA, two independent studies).
Houtermans, F.G., 1953. Determination of the age of the earth from the isotopic compositon of meteoric lead. Nuovo Cimento, Series 9, vol, 10, no, 12, pp. 1623-33.
Patterson, C.C., 1953. The isotopic composition of meteoric, basaltic, and oceanic leads, and the age of the earth. Proc. Conf. on Nuclear Processes in Geologic Settings, Williams Bay, Wisconson, Sept. 21-23, 1953, pp. 36-40.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 6:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Pahu
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 12-19-2007


Message 11 of 196 (442169)
12-20-2007 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ringo
12-19-2007 8:41 PM


Ringo writes:
Would you please name a half-dozen or so of those techniques and the ages they indicate?
You can find them on the link I provided. In the meantime, I plan to share them from time to time. The one you are responding to is one example.
Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 12-19-2007 8:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 12-20-2007 12:31 PM Pahu has not replied
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 12:47 PM Pahu has not replied
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 12-20-2007 2:07 PM Pahu has not replied

  
Pahu
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 12-19-2007


Message 12 of 196 (442172)
12-20-2007 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluescat48
12-19-2007 9:34 PM


bluescat48: Show me where you can get the above from a legitimate science web site.
Pahu: Most of the information I am sharing from the indicated web site is derived from scientiests. Here is a short list:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Ral J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, . John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
What is your definition of a legitimate science web site?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluescat48, posted 12-19-2007 9:34 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 12-20-2007 12:39 PM Pahu has not replied
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 12:57 PM Pahu has not replied
 Message 19 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 4:00 PM Pahu has replied
 Message 43 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-21-2007 12:32 PM Pahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 13 of 196 (442173)
12-20-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Pahu
12-20-2007 12:12 PM


Pahu writes:
Ringo: Would you please name a half-dozen or so of those techniques and the ages they indicate?
Pahu: You can find them on the link I provided.
The link you provided is an entire website: Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. If you want us to accept an entire website as evidence, then it is only fair that that you accept an entire website as rebuttal: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy.
Of course, debating in this way would be silly, which is why EvC Forum encourages members to state their arguments and evidence in their own words, using links only as references. Here are guidelines 4 and 5:
  1. 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.
  2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Now what was that argument again?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Pahu, posted 12-20-2007 12:12 PM Pahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 14 of 196 (442175)
12-20-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Pahu
12-20-2007 12:27 PM


Pahu writes:
What is your definition of a legitimate science web site?
That would be a website that accurately presents the consensus scientific views of practicing scientists engaged in research that they publish in peer-reviewed technical journals that is then subjected to further peer-review by examination and replication.
Walt Brown's views are his own and are in no way representative of the scientific community.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Pahu, posted 12-20-2007 12:27 PM Pahu has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 196 (442177)
12-20-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Pahu
12-20-2007 12:12 PM


You can find them on the link I provided. In the meantime, I plan to share them from time to time.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Pahu, posted 12-20-2007 12:12 PM Pahu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024