YEC Evidentialist Article: Evidence for a young world
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
06 Feb 2010, 5:01 am
Evidence for a young world
Author: Dr. Russell Humphreys, Creation Ex Nihilo 13(3):28-31, June-August 1991
Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less that the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000-10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time-scale and for the biblical time-scale.
Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.
==================================================
1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
==================================================
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(1)
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.
Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
==================================================
2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
==================================================
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(3) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.(4)
The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.(4) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.
Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.
==================================================
3. Not enough sodium in the sea.
==================================================
Every year, rivers(5) and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.(6,7) As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.(7) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.(7) Calculations(8) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
==================================================
4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
==================================================
The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years.(9) Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.(10) This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.(11) The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.(12)
==================================================
5. Many strata are too tightly bent.
==================================================
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.(13)
==================================================
6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
==================================================
Strong geologic evidence(14) exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone—formed an alleged 500 million years ago—of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.
==================================================
7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.
==================================================
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.(15) 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time-scale.(16) 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.(17,18)
==================================================
8. Helium in the wrong places.
==================================================
All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in five billion years.(19) This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.
A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.(20)
==================================================
9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
==================================================
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts.(21) By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies.(22) If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.
==================================================
10. Agriculture is too recent.
==================================================
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.(21) Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.(22)
==================================================
11. History is too short.
==================================================
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.(23) Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale is much more likely.(22)
==================================================
References
==================================================
1. Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.
2. Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September 1976), p. 15.
3. Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.
4. Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.
5. Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215.
6. Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.
7. Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.
8. Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October 1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.
9. Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.
10. Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh), Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113-126.
11. Coe, R.S., Prvot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp. 687-92.
12. Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.
13. Austin, S.A. and Morris, J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.
14. ibid, pp. 11-12.
15. Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) pp. 347-362.
16. Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October 1976) pp. 315-318.
17. Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.
18. Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.
19. Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
20. Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.
21. Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September 1960), pp. 194-204.
22. Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147 (January 1975), pp. 64-89.
23. Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12.
Author: Dr. Russell Humphreys, Creation Ex Nihilo 13(3):28-31, June-August 1991
Link: http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html , http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world
See also, http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 07 Feb 2010, 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
06 Feb 2010, 9:58 am
Implying the Earth has always been in the state it is now....
Implying all soil has the same ph balance...
Implying agriculture just means knowing plants grow from seeds....
"Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are."
.... Uhhhh.... You can't measure intelligence directly from fossils. You can sort of measure intelligence from the development of their culture, which is what you get from fossils. Lack of agriculture suggests lower intelligence. Not the other way around.
Seriously, where did this guy come from?
Another physicist who studies physics as if it was a made up thing and no matter what the bible is true.
Where's that quote from a geologist who is similar?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
06 Feb 2010, 10:08 am
.... Uhhhh.... You can't measure intelligence directly from fossils. You can sort of measure intelligence from the development of their culture, which is what you get from fossils. Lack of agriculture suggests lower intelligence. Not the other way around.
Actually, the complexity of tool making and other items which they produced shows at least a similar level of intelligence, as there are multiple prerequisite steps in such endeavors. Confer with Technology In The Ancient World by Henry Hodges in his chapter on the stone age.
http://www.amazon.com/Technology-Ancien ... t_ep_dpt_1
For examples of lower intelligence today are people who reply to others by mocking and ridiculing without bothering to think first. Many will reply to this thread even.
07 Feb 2010, 3:07 am
Which are these, and the remaining, most generous assumptions?
Edit: Could someone flesh the following out for me?
Found here.
(Why is my linking no longer visible here without additional bold-brackets? Or maybe I've imagined that it ever was.)
_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.
"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.
"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."
07 Feb 2010, 7:37 am
Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less that the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000-10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time-scale and for the biblical time-scale.
Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.
==================================================
1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
==================================================
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(1)
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.
Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
==================================================
2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
==================================================
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(3) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.(4)
The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.(4) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.
Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.
==================================================
3. Not enough sodium in the sea.
==================================================
Every year, rivers(5) and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.(6,7) As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.(7) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.(7) Calculations(8) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
==================================================
4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
==================================================
The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years.(9) Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.(10) This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.(11) The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.(12)
==================================================
5. Many strata are too tightly bent.
==================================================
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.(13)
==================================================
6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
==================================================
Strong geologic evidence(14) exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone—formed an alleged 500 million years ago—of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.
==================================================
7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.
==================================================
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.(15) 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time-scale.(16) 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.(17,18)
==================================================
8. Helium in the wrong places.
==================================================
All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in five billion years.(19) This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.
A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.(20)
==================================================
9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
==================================================
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts.(21) By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies.(22) If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.
==================================================
10. Agriculture is too recent.
==================================================
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.(21) Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.(22)
==================================================
11. History is too short.
==================================================
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.(23) Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale is much more likely.(22)
==================================================
References
==================================================
1. Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.
2. Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September 1976), p. 15.
3. Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.
4. Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.
5. Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215.
6. Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.
7. Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.
8. Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October 1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.
9. Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.
10. Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh), Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113-126.
11. Coe, R.S., Prvot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp. 687-92.
12. Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.
13. Austin, S.A. and Morris, J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.
14. ibid, pp. 11-12.
15. Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) pp. 347-362.
16. Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October 1976) pp. 315-318.
17. Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.
18. Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.
19. Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
20. Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.
21. Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September 1960), pp. 194-204.
22. Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147 (January 1975), pp. 64-89.
23. Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12.
Author: Dr. Russell Humphreys, Creation Ex Nihilo 13(3):28-31, June-August 1991
Link: http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html , http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world
See also, http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Do you really think the overwhelming bulk of educated and concerned scientists are total idiots?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
07 Feb 2010, 9:22 am
Whether or not they are is irrelevant. In terms of the truth value of an argument, it is not only irrelevant but fallacious as well.
Well, that's an awful lot of really stupid people.
07 Feb 2010, 9:51 am
Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old.
We are talking physics, not evolution. The potassium-argon transmutation indicates an age of circa 4.5 billion years give or take a little. To deny this age is to deny ALL of physics for the last 400 years. And this is independent of how life originated on this planet or how it developed over the eons. This is basic physics about matter and radiation.
Look up stuff on radiometric dating. The truth is in the rocks, not the bones.
ruveyn
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
07 Feb 2010, 10:00 am
Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old.
We are talking physics, not evolution. The potassium-argon transmutation indicates an age of circa 4.5 billion years give or take a little. To deny this age is to deny ALL of physics for the last 400 years. And this is independent of how life originated on this planet or how it developed over the eons. This is basic physics about matter and radiation.
Look up stuff on radiometric dating. The truth is in the rocks, not the bones.
ruveyn
Not in the least. The ratios of one element to another have numerous underlying assumptions for one particular calculation to be correct. At such ages as which the calculated number would claim, such a calculation is not able to be verified or falsified.
If physical phenomena which are vastly more observable within one's own life contradict the calculation of the latter type, then the latter type is most likely false.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
07 Feb 2010, 10:00 am
Whether or not they are is irrelevant. In terms of the truth value of an argument, it is not only irrelevant but fallacious as well.
Well, that's an awful lot of really stupid people.
You don't actually read before you post??? I'm sorry to hear that.
07 Feb 2010, 10:43 am
Whether or not they are is irrelevant. In terms of the truth value of an argument, it is not only irrelevant but fallacious as well.
Well, that's an awful lot of really stupid people.
You don't actually read before you post??? I'm sorry to hear that.
Your argument is that, assuming your data is correct (or do you knowingly post false data?) that the huge accumulation of scientific knowledge now accepted is false and your sources which are either unknown to the majority of scientists or totally discounted (because there is a huge conspiracy or all those scientific people are bumbling idiots and have this problem with asses and elbows) on prejudicial grounds. If not, why is main science so far off the mark?
07 Feb 2010, 12:18 pm
Whether or not they are is irrelevant. In terms of the truth value of an argument, it is not only irrelevant but fallacious as well.
Well, that's an awful lot of really stupid people.
You don't actually read before you post??? I'm sorry to hear that.
Your argument is that, assuming your data is correct (or do you knowingly post false data?) that the huge accumulation of scientific knowledge now accepted is false and your sources which are either unknown to the majority of scientists or totally discounted (because there is a huge conspiracy or all those scientific people are bumbling idiots and have this problem with asses and elbows) on prejudicial grounds. If not, why is main science so far off the mark?
ive often seen examples of eccentrics knowingly falsify data themselves, to prove their 'hypothesis', like the famous dinosaur footprint with a hammer, or the (absolutely ridiculous) photos of the "edge" off the world...
i wonder how these people sleep at night...
OP: there are photos of a dinosaur footprint w a hammer left in it. you should add this to the list!
_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''
07 Feb 2010, 12:31 pm
If physical phenomena which are vastly more observable within one's own life contradict the calculation of the latter type, then the latter type is most likely false.
There were over 100,000 people in Japan who found out just how good our science of radiation is.;
Bob Kolker
07 Feb 2010, 3:27 pm
You should have put the author's name at the beginning, instead of making it look like this is your work. I will fix the author attribution.
Muddled thinking or misleading use of language. In common parlance "evolutionary theory" stands for the theory of biological evolution. That doesn't have anything to say about how old comets are.
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto,
Written in 1991. Let's look at a more up to date source:
You'd want the interactions to be improbable to account for the Kuiper Belt not having been emptied of objects. Passing stars are not the only source of disturbances that can change object's orbits. There are interactions among the objects in the Kuiper Belt. I read of recent observations of objects of brown dwarf size and below that wander about unattached. And I found some more information:
Another newly discovered agent for perturbing Oort Cloud comets is gravitational tides. Created by the gravitational force of material in the Galactic disk, these tides could alter the orbits of Oort Cloud comets. In fact, some astronomers estimate that as many as 80 percent of the long-period comets entering the inner solar system for the first time were shoved from their previous orbits by the gentle tug of Galactic tides. (Benningfield, 1990, pp.32-33)
Benningfield, Damond. 1990. "Where Do Comets Come From?"Astronomy, Vol.18, No.9 (September 1990), pp.28-36
Kalmbach Publishing Co., 21027 Crossroads Circle, P.O. Box 1612,Waukesha, WI 53187
There are observations now. It appears there are calculations. Humphreys may not think they are realistic calculations if they give a result he thinks is wrong.
A little earlier Humphreys complained that the interactions that could knock objects out of the Kuiper Belt were too improbable. Now he complains they would have to be so probable that the Belt would have been empty by now. He doesn't offer evidence for either claim. What "evolutionary theory" predicts that the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted?
If you want me to spend the time to reply to the rest, there is something I want in exchange: Listen to Frank Zindler (scroll to he bottom of the page) and try to refute him, especially his point about the sediments where you can count off a lot more yearly layers than a few thousand.
Would you tell me whether you intend to be rational and how you define rationality? I know that without context this sounds like an insult. That is not the intention. I do have a point, but I need your unbiased answer first.
Last edited by Gromit on 07 Feb 2010, 4:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
07 Feb 2010, 4:19 pm
Google Scholar is your friend if you don't have access to a scientific data base. Here is what I found in a few minutes:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l45623v0293t8342/
http://www.oca.eu/morby/papers/5681a.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...328L..69D
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990ApJ...355..667Q
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987A&A...187..913D
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x740021u143331ju/
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Astronomer has unambiguous evidence of UFOs |
21 Sep 2024, 1:08 am |
| Article on Being Flaky |
11 Oct 2024, 8:56 am |
| Nice article about Daryl Hannah |
22 Nov 2024, 6:39 pm |
| Interesting article about "four core subtypes" of autism |
13 Oct 2024, 10:44 am |
