INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 226
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#601 Postby Pahu » October 9th, 2017, 4:02 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
The Great Flood was only about 4000 years ago. Are you saying that all those fossils were created less than 4000 years ago? Do you know how long it takes to make a fossil?


Actually the Flood was about 4300 BC. That would be about 6300 years ago. Burial took place rapidly. The fossils developed within a few years after burial. Here is more information:

Image


Experiment: Fast-Formed Fossils


Do fossils require millions of years to form? Hardly! Even secular geologists now recognize that rocks form very quickly. The key is the right chemical conditions, not time. See for yourself with a simple experiment.

Everyone knows that the fossils we find all over the world took millions of years to form—scientists proved that years ago, right?

Actually, even secular geologists recognize that fossils form rapidly. If they didn’t, the organism would decay so quickly there would be almost nothing left to fossilize!

Scientists constantly test ways to understand and replicate the process of forming fossils. Taphonomists (those who study how to make fossils) have demonstrated the astonishing speed of fossilization. Some fossils can be generated in days, or even hours!1

Fossils can form in a wide variety of ways. Some common methods include:

The body can leave an impression or mold showing its outer shape in the surrounding sand or mud. This can include footprints and the inside and outside of shells. With the right ingredients and conditions, the mold can harden quickly, like cement.
Petrification takes place when minerals replace the original material of the plant or animal. These petrified fossils must form quickly, before the body parts have time to decay. Petrified wood is a classic example.
Permineralization, or encased fossilization, occurs when dissolved minerals fill the pores and empty spaces in the plant or animal but don’t replace any of the original material. The chemicals then turn into crystals, keeping the organism safe and preserved. While it is possible for many different chemicals to do this, quartz is the most common. Most dinosaur bones are permineralized.
Fossils can form under all kinds of conditions all over the world. While water and dissolved minerals are usually needed to form the three types of fossils above, many processes—coalification, compression, freezing, desiccation (drying out), to name a few—do not require either.

Though there are numerous ways to make fossils, fossilization is somewhat rare today. Why is that?

God created the world to efficiently recycle organic matter. When something dies, scavengers, fungi (like mushrooms), and/or bacteria normally consume it. This process of decomposition leaves nothing behind to fossilize.

However, massive catastrophes like Noah’s Flood would produce the conditions necessary to quickly bury and protect creatures so that they can fossilize. It appears that God wanted to leave abundant evidence of His past judgment of mankind’s sin.

While scientists are still trying to sort out the complex details about fossilization, one fact is undisputed—it can be amazingly fast.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/ho ... d-fossils/
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

VINDICATOR
Posts: 234
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#602 Postby VINDICATOR » October 10th, 2017, 4:04 pm

Dear Pahu,
According to the Bible, the whole universe was created just about 6000 years ago, how could the Great Flood have been before the universe was created? Archeologists have proven by carbon dating etc. that fossils are millions of years old. The fossils might be created rather quickly but the burying into rock takes millions of years, unless it was done by a miracle!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 226
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#603 Postby Pahu » October 10th, 2017, 4:29 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
According to the Bible, the whole universe was created just about 6000 years ago, how could the Great Flood have been before the universe was created? Archeologists have proven by carbon dating etc. that fossils are millions of years old. The fossils might be created rather quickly but the burying into rock takes millions of years, unless it was done by a miracle!


According to the Bible, the universe was created about 6000 BC, or about 8000 years ago. Dating methods are unreliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating


The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 1940's. It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field. In the following article, some of the most common misunderstandings regarding radiocarbon dating are addressed, and corrective, up-to-date scientific creationist thought is provided where appropriate.

MYTH #1. Radiocarbon is used to date the age of rocks, which enables scientists to date the age of the earth.

Radiocarbon is not used to date the age of rocks or to determine the age of the earth. Other radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium are used for such purposes by those who believe that the earth is billions of years old. Radiocarbon is not suitable for this purpose because it is only applicable: a) on a time scale of thousands of years and b) to remains of once-living organisms (with minor exceptions, from which rocks are excluded).

MYTH #2 Radiocarbon dating has established the date of some organic materials (e.g., some peat deposits) to be well in excess of 50,000 years, thus rendering a recent creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) impossible.

Some organic materials do give radiocarbon ages in excess of 50,000 "radiocarbon years." However, it is important to distinguish between "radiocarbon years" and calendar years. These two measures of time will only be the same if all of the assumptions which go into the conventional radiocarbon dating technique are valid. Comparison of ancient, historically dated artifacts (from Egypt, for example) with their radiocarbon dates has revealed that radiocarbon years and calendar years are not the same even for the last 5,000 calendar years. Since no reliable historically dated artifacts exist which are older than 5,000 years, it has not been possible to determine the relationship of radiocarbon years to calendar years for objects which yield dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years. Thus, it is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years.

MYTH #3. The shells of live freshwater clams have been radiocarbon dated in excess of 1600 years old, clearly showing that the radiocarbon dating technique is not valid.

The shells of live freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results. However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example. It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.

The problem with freshwater clams arises because these organisms derive the carbon atoms which they use to build their shells from the water in their environment. If this water is in contact with significant quantities of limestone, it will contain many carbon atoms from dissolved limestone. Since limestone contains very little, if any, radiocarbon, clam shells will contain less radiocarbon than would have been the case if they had gotten their carbon atoms from the air. This gives the clam shell an artificially old radiocarbon age.

This problem, known as the "reservoir effect," is not of very great practical importance for radiocarbon dating since most of the artifacts which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from air, not the water.

MYTH #4. Samples of coal have been found with radiocarbon ages of only 20,000 radiocarbon years or less, thus proving the recent origin of fossil fuels, probably in the Flood.

I am not aware of any authentic research which supports this claim. Also, it does not coincide with what creationist scientists would currently anticipate based upon our understanding of the impact of the Flood on radiocarbon.

It is not difficult to see how such a claim could arise, however. There are two characteristics of the instrumental measurement of radiocarbon which, if the lay observer is unaware, could easily lead to such an idea.

First, any instrument which is built to measure radiocarbon has a limit beyond which it cannot separate the signal due to radiocarbon in the sample from the signal due to background processes within the measuring apparatus. Even a hypothetical sample containing absolutely no radiocarbon will register counts in a radiocarbon counter because of background signals within the counter. In the early days of radiocarbon analysis this limit was often around 20,000 radiocarbon years. Thus, all the researcher was able to say about samples with low levels of radiocarbon was that their age was greater than or equal to 20,000 radiocarbon years (or whatever the sensitivity limit of his apparatus was). Some may have mistaken this to mean that the sample had been dated to 20,000 radiocarbon years.

The second characteristic of the measurement of radiocarbon is that it is easy to contaminate a sample which contains very little radiocarbon with enough radiocarbon from the research environment to give it an apparent radiocarbon age which is much less than its actual radiocarbon age. For example, a sample with a true radiocarbon age of 100,000 radiocarbon years will yield a measured radiocarbon age of about 20,000 radiocarbon years if the sample is contaminated with a weight of modern carbon of just 5% of the weight of the sample's carbon. It is not too difficult to supply contaminating radiocarbon since it is present in relatively high concentrations in the air and in the tissues of all living things including any individuals handling the sample. For this reason special precautions need to be exercised when sampling materials which contain only small amounts of radiocarbon.

Reports of young radiocarbon ages for coal probably all stem from a misunderstanding of one or both of these two factors. Measurements made using specially designed, more elaborate apparatus and more astute sampling-handling techniques have yielded radiocarbon ages for anthracite greater than 70,000 radiocarbon years, the sensitivity limit of this equipment.

MYTH #5. Continuous series of tree-ring dated wood samples have been obtained for roughly the past 10,000 years which give the approximate correct radiocarbon age, demonstrating the general validity of the conventional radiocarbon dating technique.

Several long tree-ring chronologies have been constructed specifically for use in calibrating the radiocarbon time scale. By radiocarbon dating a piece of wood which has been dated by counting the annual growth rings of trees back to when that piece of wood grew, a calibration table can be constructed to convert radiocarbon years to true calendar years. Of course, the table, so constructed, will only give the correct calibration if the tree-ring chronology which was used to construct it had placed each ring in the true calendar year in which it grew.

Long tree-ring chronologies are rare (there are only two that I am aware of which are of sufficient length to be of interest to radiocarbon) and difficult to construct. They have been slowly built up by matching ring patterns between trees of different ages, both living and dead, from a given locality. As one might expect, the further back the tree-ring chronology extends, the more difficult it becomes to locate ancient tree specimens with which to extend the chronology. To alleviate this problem it seems, from the published literature, to be a common practice to first radiocarbon date a large number of potential tree specimens and then select those with appropriate radiocarbon age for incorporation into the tree-ring chronology. Such a procedure introduces a bias into the construction of the tree-ring chronology for the earliest millennia which could possibly obscure any unexpected radiocarbon behavior.

It is not clear to what extent this circular process has influenced the final tree-ring calibrations of radiocarbon. Efforts by creationist scientists to obtain the raw data from which the oldest tree-ring chronology has been constructed to investigate this possible source of bias have so far not met with success. Until the raw data does become available for general scrutiny, creationists are clearly justified in maintaining a high degree of skepticism.

In any event, the calibration tables which have been produced from tree rings do not support the conventional steady-state model of radiocarbon which Libby introduced. Rather, they lend support to the idea that significant perturbations to radiocarbon have occurred in the past.

MYTH #6. Creationists are only interested in debunking radiocarbon.

Creationists are interested in the truth. This involves exposing areas of weakness and error in the conventional interpretation of radiocarbon results as well as suggesting better understandings of radiocarbon congruent with a Biblical, catastrophist, Flood model of earth history. At ICR research into alternative interpretations of radiocarbon which are not in conflict with the Biblical record of the past continue to be actively pursued and a special radiocarbon laboratory is being developed for research into the method.

Radiocarbon holds unique potential for the student of earth history who adheres to a recent creation. It is doubtful that other radiometric dating techniques such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium will ever be of much value or interest to the young-earth creationist who desires to develop further our understanding of the past because they are only applicble on a time scale of millions or billions of years. Radiocarbon, however, is applicable on a time scale of thousands of years. A proper understanding of radiocarbon will undoubtedly figure very significantly into the unraveling of such questions as when (and possibly why) the mammoths became extinct, the duration of the glacial period following the Flood, and the general chronology of events from the Flood to the present.

Creationists are not so much interested in debunking radiocarbon as we are in developing a proper understanding of it to answer many of our own questions regarding the past. At the present time it appears that the conventional radiocarbon dating technique is on relatively firm ground for dates which fall within the past 3,000 years. For periods of time prior to this, there are legitimate reasons to question the validity of the conventional results and seek for alternative interpretations.

http://www.icr.org/article/293
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21843
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#604 Postby Alan H » October 10th, 2017, 4:44 pm

Pahu wrote:
VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
According to the Bible, the whole universe was created just about 6000 years ago, how could the Great Flood have been before the universe was created? Archeologists have proven by carbon dating etc. that fossils are millions of years old. The fossils might be created rather quickly but the burying into rock takes millions of years, unless it was done by a miracle!


According to the Bible, the universe was created about 6000 BC, or about 8000 years ago. Dating methods are unreliable.
:laughter:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 226
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#605 Postby Pahu » October 11th, 2017, 3:13 pm

The Cambrian Explosion 3



Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Almost all of today’s plant and animal phyla—including flowering plants (c), vascular plants (d), and vertebrates (e)—appear at the base of the fossil record.

c. “... it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants.” Corner, p. 100.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Occurrence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab,” [i]Nature,
Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796–797.

A. K. Ghosh, J. Sen, and A. Bose, “Evidence Bearing on the Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab,” Geological Magazine, Vol. 88, March–April 1951, pp. 129–133.

J. Coates et al., “Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,” Nature, Vol. 155, 3 March 1945, pp. 266–267.

Clifford Burdick, in his doctoral research at the University of Arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. [See Clifford Burdick, “Microflora of the Grand Canyon,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 3, May 1966, pp. 38–50.] Burdick was denied a doctor’s degree at the University of Arizona because of these discoveries. [See Jerry Bergman, “Clifford Burdick: Unjustly Expelled Twice,” Parts I and II, Creation Matters, September/October and July/August 2010.

d. S. Leclercq, “Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian,” Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1956, pp. 109–114.

e. John E. Repetski, “A Fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America,” Science, Vol. 200, 5 May 1978, pp. 529–531.

“Vertebrates and their progenitors, according to the new studies, evolved in the Cambrian, earlier than paleontologists have traditionally assumed.” Richard Monastersky, “Vertebrate Origins: The Fossils Speak Up,” [i]Science News, Vol. 149, 3 February 1996, p. 75.

“Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Paul Chien (Chairman, Biology Department, University of San Francisco), “Explosion of Life,” http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_e ... flife.html, p. 3. Interviewed 30 June 1997.

[i] “At 530 million years, the 3-centimeter-long Haikouichthys appears to be the world’s oldest fish, while another new specimen, Myllokunmingia, has simpler gills and is more primitive. To Conway Morris and others, the presence of these jawless fish in the Early Cambrian suggests that the origin of chordates lies even farther back in time.” Erik Stokstad, “Exquisite Chinese Fossils Add New Pages to Book of Life,” [i]Science,
Vol. 291, 12 January 2001, p. 233.

“The [500] [i] specimens [of fish] [i] may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of a storm-induced burial....The possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with Haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the Early Cambrian.” D. G. Shu et al., “Head and Backbone of the Early Cambrian Vertebrate Haikouichthys,” [i]Nature, Vol. 421, 30 January 2003, pp. 527, 529.

D. G. Shu et al., “Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China,” Nature, Vol. 402, 4 November 1999, pp. 42–46.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on October 11th, 2017, 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: [quote]...[/quote]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

VINDICATOR
Posts: 234
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#606 Postby VINDICATOR » October 12th, 2017, 11:07 pm

Dear Pahu,
Modern astronomy proves that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Why do you have to condense the appearance of life to a measly 6000 years ago?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 226
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#607 Postby Pahu » October 13th, 2017, 3:06 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
Modern astronomy proves that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Why do you have to condense the appearance of life to a measly 6000 years ago?


How has modern astronomy proven the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old and the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. God says they are younger. Dating methods are unreliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Earth/Universe Age




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 actual evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence:


Helium



One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium?” New Scientist, Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631–632.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10–14.

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?” Nature, Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371–372.

Lead and Helium Diffusion


Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found (a).

Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals (b). Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old (c). Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in young zircons.

a. “Taken together, these results strongly suggest that there has been little or no differential Pb loss which can be attributed to the higher temperatures existing at greater depths.” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Science, 16 April 1982, p. 296.

Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, October 1982, pp. 13–14.

b. Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, April 1983, p. 13.

c. “In fact, considering the Precambrian age of the granite cores, our results show an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained at higher temperatures, and the reason for this certainly needs further investigation ...” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1982, p. 1130.

Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February 1984.

D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 2003), pp. 175–195.

Excess Fluid Pressure


Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock (a). If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently (b).

a. “It is certain that at the present time large areas of the Gulf Coast are underlain by zones containing water under pressure almost high enough to float the overlying rocks.” Parke A. Dickey, Calcutta R. Shriram, and William R. Paine, “Abnormal Pressures in Deep Wells of Southwestern Louisiana,” Science, Vol. 160, No. 3828, 10 May 1968, p. 614.

b. “Some geologists find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years. Creationists also use this currently puzzling situation as evidence that oil was formed less than 10,000 years ago.” Stansfield, p. 82. [Stansfield had no alternative explanation.]

Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, p. 341.

Volcanic Debris


Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth’s sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years (a).

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75–76.

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutín [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts.” Stansfield, p. 81.

River Sediments


More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport is diminishing as looser topsoil is removed and as erosion smooths out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old (a).

a. Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution: The Ocean Says No!” Symposium on Creation V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), pp. 77–83.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 69–71.

Continental Erosion


The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years (a). However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years. Something is wrong.

a. Nevins, pp. 80–81.

George C. Kennedy, “The Origin of Continents, Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins,” American Scientist, Vol. 47, December 1959, pp. 491–504.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 65–67.

“North America is now being eroded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years ...” Dott and Batten, p. 133.

Dissolved Metals


Rivers carry dissolved elements such as copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, silicon, sodium, tin, and uranium into the oceans at very rapid rates when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. In other words, far fewer than a million years’ worth of metals are dissolved in the oceans (a). There is no known means by which large amounts of these elements can come out of solution. Therefore, the oceans must be much younger than a million years.

a. “... most metals are markedly undersaturated with respect to their least soluble compounds, and the supply of metals during geological time has been more than sufficient to attain saturation.” Peter G. Brewer, “Minor Elements in Sea Water,” Chemical Oceanography, editors J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 427.

Shallow Meteorites


Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface (a). (Unsuccessful searches have been made for these deep—and very valuable—meteorites, including in the Grand Canyon and along conveyor belts in coal processing plants.) Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers (b).

If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

Similar conclusions can be made about ancient rock slides which are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock (c).

a. Fritz Heide, Meteorites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 119.

Peter A. Steveson, “Meteoritic Evidence for a Young Earth,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, June 1975, pp. 23–25.

“...neither tektites nor other meteorites have been found in any of the ancient geologic formations...” Ralph Stair, “Tektites and the Lost Planet,” The Scientific Monthly, July 1956, p. 11.

“No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column.” William Henry Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 144.

“...the astronomer Olbers had noticed: that there are no ‘fossil’ meteorites known, from any period older than the middle of the Quaternary. The quantity of coal mined during the last century amounted to many billions of tons, and with it about a thousand meteorites should have been dug out, if during the time the coal deposits were formed the meteorite frequency had been the same as it is today. Equally complete is the absence of meteorites in any other geologically old material that has been excavated in the course of technical operations.” F. A. Paneth, “The Frequency of Meteorite Falls throughout the Ages,” Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 2, editor Arthur Beer (New York: Pergamon Press, 1956), p. 1681.

“I have interviewed the late Dr. G. P. Merrill, of the U.S. National Museum, and Dr. G. T. Prior, of the British Natural History Museum, both well-known students of meteorites, and neither man knew of a single occurrence of a meteorite in sedimentary rocks.” W. A. Tarr, “Meteorites in Sedimentary Rocks?” Science, Vol. 75, 1 January 1932, pp. 17–18.

“No meteorites have been found in the geological column.” Stansfield, p. 81.

“In view of the connection of comets, meteors, and meteorites, the absence of meteorites in old deposits in the crust of the earth is very significant. It has been estimated that at least 500 meteorites should have been found in already worked coal seams, whereas none has been identified in strata older than the Quaternary epoch (about 1 million years ago). This suggests a very recent origin of meteorites and, by inference, of comets.” N. T. Bobrovnikoff, “Comets,” Astrophysics, editor J. A. Hynek (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 352.

b. Hans Pettersson, “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust,” Scientific American, Vol. 202, February 1960, pp. 123–129.

c. “Examples of ancient rock slides have been identified from the geologic column in few instances.” William Henry Twenhofel, Treatise on Sedimentation, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1961), p. 102.

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.

Rapid Cooling


If the Earth began in a molten state, 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.

Moon Recession


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. [For details see pages: 501-504]

Moon Dust and Debris


If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon. [For details see pages: 506-509]

Image
Figure 31: Moon Dust and Debris. Concern that astronauts and equipment would sink into a sea of dust was so great that two missions (Ranger and Surveyor) were sent to the Moon for a closer look. The anticipated problem, which turned out not to exist, arose from the belief that the Moon is billions of years old.

a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:

“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.” Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.

Lyttleton felt that the dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.

Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]

Fears about the dust thickness were reduced when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]

Crater Creep


A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps” in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.

Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should occur to their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where gravity is greater, and temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep,” these bodies seem to be relatively young.

Image
Figure 32: Young Craters. Large craters on the Moon have high, steep walls that should be slowly slumping and deep floors that should be bulging upward. Little deformation exists, so these craters appear relatively young. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Venus and Mercury.

a. Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock, “The Age of Lunar Craters,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, September 1983, pp. 105–108.

The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:
“The history of a circular crater in a highly viscous medium is derived from the hydrodynamic equations of motion by Z. F. Danes. The variation in shape of the crater in the course of time is expressed as a function of a time constant, T, that involves viscosity and density of the medium, acceleration of gravity, and radius of the crater lip. Correspondence between theoretical crater shapes and the observed ones is good. However the time constant, T, is surprisingly short if commonly accepted viscosity values are used.” Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-A (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. A 127.

Since Danes work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall in the range of 10^21 to 10^22 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 10^21 to 10^22 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 10^4 to 10^7 years.”

Hot Moon


A surprising amount of heat is flowing out of the Moon from just below its surface, and yet the Moon’s interior is relatively cold (a). Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon is much younger than most people had guessed, or relatively recent events have altered the Moon’s heat flow (b)— or both.

a. “ [The following is] a somewhat surprising outcome considering the size of the Moon and the assumption that most of its heat energy had been lost....These unexpectedly high lunar [heat flow] values seem to indicate the Moon’s interior is much hotter than most thermal models had anticipated. If the temperature gradient in the lower regolith is extrapolated to great depths, the lunar interior would appear to be at least partly molten—a condition contradicted by other evidence.” Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p. 184.

b. The unexpectedly large heat flow may be a consequence of large impacts occurring on the lunar surface at the time of Earth’s global flood. [See Figure 153]

Young Comets


As comets pass near the Sun, some of their mass vaporizes, producing a long tail and other debris (a). Comets also fragment frequently or crash into the Sun (b) or planets. Typical comets should disintegrate after several hundred orbits. For many comets this is less than 10,000 years. There is no evidence for a distant shell of cometary material surrounding the solar system, and there is no known way to add comets to the solar system at rates that even remotely balance their destruction. Actually, the gravity of planets tends to expel comets from the solar system rather than capture them (c). So, comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old. [For more on comets, see: “The Origin of Comets”]

a. Ron Cowen, “Comets: Mudballs of the Solar System,” Science News, Vol. 141, 14 March 1992, pp. 170–171.

b. Ray Jayawardhana, “Keeping Tabs on Cometary Breakups,” Science, Vol. 264, 13 May 1994, p. 907.

c. “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.” Sagan and Druyan, p. 210.

However, Sagan and Druyan believed that the Oort cloud exists, and went on to predict (p. 211) that “with the refinement of our scientific instruments, and the development of space missions to go far beyond Pluto,” the cloud will be seen, measured, and studied.

d. Raymond A. Lyttleton, “The Non-Existence of the Oort Cometary Shell,” Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1974, p. 393.

If comet formation accompanies star formation, as evolutionists claim, then many comets should have been expelled from other stars. Some expelled comets should have passed through our solar system in recent years. No incoming comet has ever been observed with an interstellar (i.e. hyperbolic) orbit. [See Wetherill, p. 470.]

[continue]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 226
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#608 Postby Pahu » October 13th, 2017, 3:14 pm

Earth/Universe Age


[continued]

Small Comets


Photographs taken from Earth-orbiting satellites show small, ice-filled comets striking Earth’s upper atmosphere at an average rate of one every three seconds (a).

Graphic removed.

Figure 33: Small Comets. The Dynamic Explorer satellite took this picture in ultraviolet light showing small comets (the dark spots) colliding with Earth’s upper atmosphere. The comets begin to break up 800 miles above the Earth’s surface, then frictional heating vaporizes the pieces and their descent stops at an elevation of about 35 miles. The water vapor, which soon dissipates, blocks ultraviolet light from Earth, producing the dark spots. The northern lights are shown by the halo.

Each comet adds 20–40 tons of water to the Earth’s atmosphere. If this influx began when evolutionists say the Earth started to evolve, all our oceans would have come from small comets. Actually, impact rates were undoubtedly greater in the past, because the planets have swept many of these comets from the solar system. Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young. [See also pages 287 and 295

a. Louis A. Frank with Patrick Huyghe, The Big Splash (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990).

Richard Monastersky, “Comet Controversy Caught on Film,” Science News, Vol. 133, 28 May 1988, p. 340.

Timothy M. Beardsley, “Ice Storm,” Scientific American, Vol. 258, June 1988, p. 24.

Jonathan Eberhart, “A Bunch of Little Comets—But Just a Little Bunch,” Science News, Vol. 132, 29 August 1987, p. 132.

Richard A. Kerr, “In Search of Elusive Little Comets,” Science, Vol. 240, 10 June 1988, pp. 1403–1404.

Richard A. Kerr, “Double Exposures Reveal Mini-Comets?” Science, Vol. 243, 13 January 1989, pp. 170–171.

Richard Monastersky, “Small Comet Controversy Flares Again,” [i]Science News,
Vol. 137, 9 June 1990, p. 365.

Hot Planets


Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune each radiate away more than twice the heat energy they receive from the Sun (a). Uranus (b) and Venus (c) also radiate too much heat. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear fusion (d), radioactive decay, gravitational contraction, or phase changes (e) within those planets. This suggests that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off (f).

a. H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie Jr., “The Internal Powers and Effective Temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, July 1969, pp. L69–L72.

“Jupiter radiates into space rather more than twice the energy it receives from space.” G. H. A. Cole, The Structure of Planets (New York: Crane, Russak & Co., Inc., 1978), p. 114.

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Puzzle That Is Saturn,” Science, 18 September 1981, p. 1351.

Jonathan Eberhart, “Neptune’s Inner Warmth,” Science News, Vol. 112, 12 November 1977, p. 316.

b. Ibid.

c. “The Mystery of Venus’ Internal Heat,” New Scientist, Vol. 88, 13 November 1980, p. 437.

d. To initiate nuclear fusion, a body must be at least ten times as massive as Jupiter. [See Andrew P. Ingersoll, “Jupiter and Saturn,” Scientific American, Vol. 245, December 1981, p. 92.]

e. Ingersoll and others once proposed that Saturn and Jupiter could generate internal heat if their helium gas liquefied or their liquid hydrogen solidified. Neither is possible, because each planet’s temperature greatly exceeds the critical temperatures of helium and hydrogen. (The critical temperature of a particular gas is that temperature above which no amount of pressure can squeeze it into a liquid or solid.) Even if the temperature were cold enough to permit gases to liquefy, what could initiate nucleation? When I mentioned this in a private conversation with Ingersoll in December 1981, he quickly acknowledged his error.

f. Paul M. Steidl, “The Solar System: An Assessment of Recent Evidence—Planets, Comets, and Asteroids,” Design and Origins in Astronomy, editor George Mulfinger Jr. (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1983), pp. 87, 91, 100.

Jupiter would have rapidly cooled to its present temperature, even if it had been an unreasonably hot 20,000 kelvins when it formed. Evolutionary models require too much time. [See Edwin V. Bishop and Wendell C. DeMarcus, “Thermal Histories of Jupiter Models,” Icarus, Vol. 12, May 1970, pp. 317–330.]

Solar Wind


The Sun’s radiation applies an outward force on particles orbiting the Sun. Particles less than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been “blown out” of the solar system if it were billions of years old. Yet these particles are still orbiting the Sun. (a) Conclusion: the solar system appears young.

a. After showing abundant photographic evidence for the presence of micrometeorites as small as 10^-15 g that “struck every square centimeter of the lunar surface,” Stuart Ross Taylor stated:

“It has been thought previously that radiation pressure would have swept less massive particles out of the inner solar system, but there is a finite flux below 10^-14 g.” Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 90.

Large lunar impacts are continually churning up and overturning the lunar surface. Therefore, for these micrometeorite impacts to blanket the surface so completely, they must have been recent. [For more details see: Figure 155]

Poynting-Robertson Effect


Dust particles larger than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter form a large disk-shaped cloud that orbits the Sun between the orbits of Venus and the asteroid belt. This cloud produces zodiacal light (a). Forces acting on these particles should spiral most of them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. (This is called the Poynting-Robertson effect. ) Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old.

This is how the Poynting-Robertson effect works: Rain falling on a speeding car tends to strike the front of the car and slow it down slightly. Likewise, the Sun’s rays that strike particles orbiting the Sun tend to slow them down, causing them to spiral into the Sun. Thus, the Sun’s radiation and gravity act as a giant vacuum cleaner that pulls in about 100,000 tons of nearby micrometeoroids per day. Disintegrating comets and asteroids add dust at less than half the rate at which it is being destroyed (b).

A disintegrating comet becomes a cluster of particles called a meteor stream. The Poynting-Robertson effect causes smaller particles in a meteor stream to spiral into the Sun more rapidly than larger particles. After about 10,000 years, these orbits should be visibly segregated by particle size. Because this segregation is generally not seen, meteor streams are probably a recent phenomenon (c).

Huge quantities of microscopic dust particles also have been discovered around some stars (d). Yet, according to the theory of stellar evolution, those stars are many millions of years old, so that dust should have been removed by stellar wind and the Poynting-Robertson effect. Until some process is discovered that continually resupplies vast amounts of dust, one should consider whether the “millions of years” are imaginary.

a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii] , above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill. ... In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’ ” Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse,” Science, Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386–387.
To understand the origin of zodiacal light, see page 319.

b. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 60–61.

Harold S. Slusher and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and Extinction of Interplanetary Dust, ICR Technical Monograph No. 6, revised edition (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

c. Stanley P. Wyatt Jr. and Fred L. Whipple, “The Poynting-Robertson Effect on Meteor Orbits,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 3, January 1950, pp. 134–141.

Ron Cowen, “Meteorites: To Stream or Not to Stream,” Science News, Vol. 142, 1 August 1992, p. 71.

d. David A. Weintraub, “Comets in Collision,” Nature, Vol. 351, 6 June 1991, pp. 440–441.

Supernova Remnants


In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b). So, the Milky Way looks young.
[img]http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/astrophysicalsciences-crab_nebula.jpg[/img]
Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, the remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

a. “An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae.” G. A. Tammann, “On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

• A more recent technique that surveyed thousands of galaxies, including smaller galaxies, concluded that
... the time between [supernova] explosions is 100 years or more.” Michael S. Turner, “Yes, Things Really Are Going Faster,” Science, Vol. 299, 31 January 2003, p. 663.

b. Keith Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp. 175–184.

“Where have all the remnants gone?” Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.

Connected Galaxies


Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.

a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass,” Nature, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 41–44.

William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth,” Science Digest, July 1981, pp. 76–81, 117.

Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift,” Science 81, December 1981, p. 18.

Unstable Galaxies


Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age (a). The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.

a. David Fleischer, “The Galaxy Maker,” Science Digest, October 1981, Vol. 89, pp. 12, 116.

Galaxy Clusters


Hundreds of rapidly moving galaxies often cluster tightly together. Their relative velocities, as inferred by the redshifts of their light, are so high that these clusters should be flying apart, because each cluster’s visible mass is much too small to hold its galaxies together gravitationally (a). Because galaxies within clusters are so close together, they have not been flying apart for very long.

A similar statement can be made concerning many stars in spiral galaxies and gas clouds that surround some galaxies (b). These stars and gas clouds have such high relative velocities that they should have broken their “gravitational bonds” long ago if they were billions of years old. If the redshifted starlight always indicates a star’s velocity, then a billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed.

These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass—called dark matter—is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, about 80% of the mass in the universe must be invisible—and hidden in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass” does not exist (c). Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe. See Missing Mass.

a. “In 1933 the late Fritz Zwicky pointed out that the galaxies of the Coma cluster are moving too fast: there is not enough visible mass in the galaxies to bind the cluster together by gravity. Subsequent observations verified this ‘missing’ mass in other clusters.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe,” Science, Vol. 219, 4 March 1983, p. 1050.

b. Faye Flam, “NASA PR: Hype or Public Education?” Science, Vol. 260, 4 June 1993, pp. 1417–1418.

“It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are ‘boiling.’ This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy.” Trefil, p. 93.

Gerardus D. Bouw, “Galaxy Clusters and the Mass Anomaly,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, September 1977, pp. 108–112.

Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 179–185.

Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 188–191.

Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

Halton M. Arp, “NGC-1199,” Astronomy, Vol. 6, September 1978, p. 15.

Halton M. Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts,” Astrophysical Journal, 15 July 1980, pp. 469–474.

c. A huge dust ring has been observed orbiting two galaxies. The measured orbital velocity of this ring allows the calculation of the mass of the two galaxies and any hidden mass. There was little hidden mass. Statistical analyses of 155 other small galactic groups also suggest that there is not enough hidden mass to hold them together. [See Stephen E. Schneider, “Neutral Hydrogen in the M96 Group: The Galaxies and the Intergalactic Ring,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 343, 1 August 1989, pp. 94–106.]

Conclusion

All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages, presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for dating “clocks” that show a young Earth and a young universe.

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?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1260517
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21843
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#609 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 8:29 pm

Duplicate.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21843
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#610 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 8:37 pm

Pahu

Do not post screeds of your copy and pasted stuff again. It is completely unnecessary, does not help the discussion and will be deleted. If you want to cite some book, website, etc that you think supports your notions and helps the discussion, you are free to do so by linking to the book/website and referencing the page or paragraph you wish to refer to. Alternatively - and even better - would be for you to precis the material, saying how it supports your beliefs about the matter under discussion.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21843
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#611 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 8:39 pm

Pahu wrote:According to the Bible, the universe was created about 6000 BC
What do you mean by 'about'?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 226
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#612 Postby Pahu » October 13th, 2017, 9:09 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:According to the Bible, the universe was created about 6000 BC
What do you mean by 'about'?


Around.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21843
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#613 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 10:14 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:According to the Bible, the universe was created about 6000 BC
What do you mean by 'about'?


Around.
Goodness. What do you mean by 'around'?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 607
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#614 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » October 14th, 2017, 1:31 am

Pahu wrote:Dust particles larger than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter form a large disk-shaped cloud that orbits the Sun between the orbits of Venus and the asteroid belt. This cloud produces zodiacal light (a). Forces acting on these particles should spiral most of them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. (This is called the Poynting-Robertson effect. ) Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old.


Hebrews 13:8 Authorized Version.
You seem to have forgotten ( or hoped that we had forgotten) that this bêtise has been exposed and refuted in # 249.

Particles with radii between about 0.06 and 0.5 microns are actually blown out of the solar system by radiation pressure and never get a chance to fall into the sun. For smaller particles, the time scales for falling into the sun range from about 30,000 years for particles as small as 0.01 micron radius, up to about 300,000 years, for particles just below the 0.06 micron threshold for radiative ejection. On the larger side, the time scales range from about 1,000,000 years for particles just too big for ejection (just over 0.5 micron radius) to just over 10,000,000 years for the biggest particles considered, those with a radius of 1 millimeter (The Kuiper Belt, D. Jewitt & J. Luu, A chapter in "From Stardust to Planetesimals", ASP Conference Series, vol 122, 1997; Pages 335-344).

The time scale for loss of dust is seen to be anywhere from 30,000 to 1,000,000 years, and not strictly limited to the 50,000 year assertion from the creationist. But the creationist assertion that there is no source of replenishment for dust and small particles is incorrect. Collisions between asteroids and smaller objects in the solar system are frequent enough on such large time scales, to provide a fresh supply as quickly as the old dust is ejected (The Kuiper Belt, D. Jewitt & J. Luu, A chapter in "From Stardust to Planetesimals", ASP Conference Series, vol 122, 1997; Pages 335-344; Origin and Evolution of The Kuiper Belt, L. Dones, A chapter in "From Stardust to Planetesimals", ASP Conference Series, vol 122, 1997; Pages 347-365).

Verdict:
Is the claim correct? The claim that dust & small particles can remain in the solar system for only relatively short periods of time is true. The claim that there are no known sources of replenishment is false.
Is the claim relevant? The issue is relevsant, since the absence of replenishment would expose a contradisction.
Does the claim constitute evidence for creation or against evolution? No, it does not.

Interplanetary Dust Particles (IDPs), A synopsis by P.H. Benoit

What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 226
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#615 Postby Pahu » October 14th, 2017, 2:47 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:What do you mean by 'about'?


Around.
Goodness. What do you mean by 'around'?


Approximately.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21843
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#616 Postby Alan H » October 14th, 2017, 2:57 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Around.
Goodness. What do you mean by 'around'?


Approximately.

This is a fun - if puerile - game, isn't it, Pahu. How approximate is your number? Please be specific.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5881
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#617 Postby animist » October 16th, 2017, 11:20 am

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Goodness. What do you mean by 'around'?


Approximately.

This is a fun - if puerile - game, isn't it, Pahu. How approximate is your number? Please be specific.
I imagine that Pahu does read his Bible, and that his reluctance to be tied down to a claim he's made reflects the lack of any information in that book about the age of the world. OK, Pahu, prove me wrong

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 226
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#618 Postby Pahu » October 18th, 2017, 3:16 pm

The Cambrian Explosion 4



Many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today (f). Complex species, such as fish (g) worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish (h) sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animal species (living and extinct), have no known evolutionary ancestors (i). Insects found in supposedly 100-million-year-old amber look like those living today (j). The fossil record does not support evolution  (k).

f. “Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.” Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” [i]Science, Vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291.

“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] [i] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] [i] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], [i] than exist now.

“Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed—we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”
Chien, p. 2.

[i] “It was puzzling for a while because they [evolutionary paleontologists] [i] refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist now—that’s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now.”   Ibid., p. 3.

g. [i] “But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong...I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.” Errol White, “A Little on Lung-Fishes,” [i]Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London,
Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.

“The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes...” J. R. Norman, [i]A History of Fishes, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 343.

“All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?” Gerald T. Todd, “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes—A Causal Relationship?” [i]American Zoologist, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1980, p. 757.

h. Cloud and Glaessner, pp. 783–792.

i. “There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like...Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred.” Peter Farb, [i]The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1962), pp. 14–15.

“There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods.” Frank M. Carpenter, “Fossil Insects,” [i]Insects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.

j. “For the most part, an ant [trapped in amber] living 100 million years ago looks like an ant today.” Paul Tafforeau, as quoted by Amy Barth, Discover, July/August 2009, p. 38.

k. “If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.” Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, [i] Stratigraphy and Life History (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 103.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21843
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#619 Postby Alan H » October 18th, 2017, 6:24 pm

Hey! Pahu:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Goodness. What do you mean by 'around'?


Approximately.

This is a fun - if puerile - game, isn't it, Pahu. How approximate is your number? Please be specific.
How approximate is your number?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3112
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#620 Postby Tetenterre » October 19th, 2017, 11:30 am

Hey, Pahu, have you considered reading and understanding the stuff here: Answers in Science? Here's a little taster for you, ported from the Talk Origins Archive, in response to your recent drivel:

Claim CC300:
Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 80-81.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 60-62.

Response:

  1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

  2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

  3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

    Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

    And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.

  4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

  5. There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

    • The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
    • Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
    • The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
    • Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
    • Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
    • Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
    • Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
  6. Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).

  7. Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).

References:

Allwood, A. C. et al. 2006. Stromatolite reef from the Early Archaean era of Australia. Nature 441: 714-718. See also Awramik, Stanley M. 2006. Respect for stromatolites. Nature 441: 700-701.
Brocks, J. J., G. A. Logan, R. Buick and R. E. Summons, 1999. Archean molecular fossils and the early rise of eukaryotes. Science 285: 1033-1036. See also Knoll, A. H., 1999. A new molecular window on early life. Science 285: 1025-1026. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5430/1025
Brown, Kathryn S., 1999. Deep Green rewrites evolutionary history of plants. Science 285: 990-991.
Budd, Graham E. and Sören Jensen. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews 75: 253-295.
Canfield, D. E. and A. Teske, 1996. Late Proterozoic rise in atmospheric oxygen concentration inferred from phylogenetic and sulphur-isotope studies. Nature 382: 127-132. See also: Knoll, A. H., 1996. Breathing room for early animals. Nature 382: 111-112.
Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2000. Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4457-4462. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4457
Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2004. Small bilaterian fossils from 40 to 55 million years before the Cambrian. Science 305: 218-222, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213 . See also Stokstad, E., 2004. Controversial fossil could shed light on early animals' blueprint. Science 304: 1425.
Collins, Allen G., 1994. Metazoa: Fossil record. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html
Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford.
Cook, P. J. and J. H. Shergold (eds.), 1986. Phosphate Deposits of the World, Volume 1. Proterozoic and Cambrian Phosphorites. Cambridge University Press.
Furnes, H., N. R. Banerjee, K. Muehlenbachs, H. Staudigel and M. de Wit, 2004. Early life recorded in Archean pillow lavas. Science 304: 578-581.
Hoffman, Paul F. et al., 1998. A Neoproterozoic snowball earth. Science 281: 1342-1346. See also: Kerr, Richard A., 1998. Did an ancient deep freeze nearly doom life? Science 281: 1259,1261.
Kerr, Richard A., 2000. An appealing snowball earth that's still hard to swallow. Science 287: 1734-1736.
Logan, G. A., J. M. Hayes, G. B. Hieshima and R. E. Summons, 1995. Terminal Proterozoic reorganization of biogeochemical cycles. Nature 376: 53-56. See also Walter, M., 1995. Faecal pellets in world events. Nature 376: 16-17.
Lipps, J. H. and P. W. Signor (eds.), 1992. Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. New York: Plenum Press.
Martin, M. W. et al., 2000. Age of Neoproterozoic bilatarian body and trace fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for metazoan evolution. Science 288: 841-845. See also Kerr, Richard A., 2000. Stretching the reign of early animals. Science 288: 789.
Miller, Arnold I., 1997. Dissecting global diversity patterns: Examples from the Ordovician radiation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 85-104.
Porter, Susannah M. and Andrew H. Knoll, 2000. Testate amoebae in the Neoproterozoic Era: evidence from vase-shaped microfossils in the Chuar Group, Grand Canyon. Paleobiology 26(3): 360-385.
Rasmussen, B., S. Bengtson, I. R. Fletcher and N. J. McNaughton, 2002. Discoidal impressions and trace-like fossils more than 1200 million years old. Science 296: 1112-1115.
Schopf, J. W., 1993. Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New evidence of the antiquity of life. Science 260: 640-646.
Shen, Y., R. Buick and D. E. Canfield, 2001. Isotopic evidence for microbial sulphate reduction in the early Archaean era. Nature 410: 77-81.
Thomas, A. L. R., 1997. The breath of life -- did increased oxygen levels trigger the Cambrian Explosion? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12: 44-45.
Valentine, James W., Allen G. Collins and C. Porter Meyer, 1994. Morphological complexity increase in metazoans. Paleobiology 20(2): 131-142.
Wang, D. Y.-C., S. Kumar and S. B. Hedges, 1999. Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 266: 163-71.


Further Reading:

Conway Morris, Simon. 1998. The Crucible of Creation. Oxford.

Conway Morris, Simon. 2000. The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4426-4429. (technical)

Schopf, J. William. 2000. Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(13): 6947-6953. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947


PS: Alan, I'm not intending to make a habit of C&P huge screeds.
Steve

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. (Richard Feynman)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21843
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#621 Postby Alan H » October 19th, 2017, 11:41 am

Tetenterre wrote:PS: Alan, I'm not intending to make a habit of C&P huge screeds.
That's OK. At least you properly put it in quote tags so it was clear what you were doing...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest