Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[OnyxCougar]

more

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 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 ages of 10,000 years. (3)

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. (4) 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. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]

(3) Steidl, P.F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73–106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092.

(4) Whipple, F.L., "Background of modern comet theory," Nature 263 (2 Sept 1976) 15.

[Undertoad]

If you CAN prove it, then you destroy it -- it becomes fact. There's no longer any merit or moral benefit to belief in it, any more than there's a moral benefit to belief in gravity, or spiritual merit to the belief that airplanes can fly.

This statement offends me deeply. Determining and believing in facts and structuring your life around them, helping others to determine facts and believe in facts and structure their life around them, is the MOST MORAL BEHAVIOUR that one can engage in.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This statement offends me deeply. Determining and believing in facts and structuring your life around them, helping others to determine facts and believe in facts and structure their life around them, is the MOST MORAL BEHAVIOUR that one can engage in.

Welcome to the world of scientific thought.

[OnyxCougar]

more

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. (5) 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. (6)

The main way 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 1 billion tons per year. (6) As far as anyone knows, the other 24 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 3 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.

(5) 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) 150.

(6) 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) 14,933–14,940.

[OnyxCougar]

more

Every year, river (7) and other sources (9) 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. (8,9) 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. (9) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 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. (9) Calculations (10) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

(7) Maybeck, M., ‘Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans’, Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215.

(8) Sayles, F.L. and P.C. Mangelsdorf, ‘Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979) 767.

(9) Austin, S.A. and D.R. Humphreys, ‘The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) in press. Address, ref. 12.

(10) Austin, S.A., ‘Evolution: the oceans say no!’ ICR Impact No. 8 (Oct. 1973) Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 21.

[Undertoad]

You do realize that everything you're posting is just really bad science, right? Let's poke holes in theories we don't understand using half the information available?

[OnyxCougar]

Prove it's half the information. Provide evidence to support or disprove the statements made. Cite.

Edit to add:

Why do you call it "really bad science"?

[Undertoad]

The problem is not in the cites, it's in how they're used.

Your post #485, for example, uses cites to determine the nature of a small part of the entire big picture of geology, and then makes a massive, UNCITED leap in paragraph three.

That's not science, it's dumb people trying to understand things without looking at the overall picture because the overall picture doesn't fit their conclusions.

It's as if one took measurements of the rate of cars driving down the highway between 8 and 9am, and made a massive leap to say that more cars drive east than west which proves that there is a car deficit in the west.

So they say they have shown sediment of dirt rolling into the sea. Where, then, are their cites which show how other geologic processes create MOUNTAINS of dirt OUT of the sea?

Duh?

It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. If you throw away some of the evidence, or just prefer to ignore it, you can come to any conclusion you like. Probably the wrong one though.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The problem is not in the cites, it's in how they're used.

Your post #485, for example, uses cites to determine the nature of a small part of the entire big picture of geology, and then makes a massive, UNCITED leap in paragraph three.

That's not science, it's dumb people trying to understand things without looking at the overall picture because the overall picture doesn't fit their conclusions.

It's as if one took measurements of the rate of cars driving down the highway between 8 and 9am, and made a massive leap to say that more cars drive east than west which proves that there is a car deficit in the west.

So they say they have shown sediment of dirt rolling into the sea. Where, then, are their cites which show how other geologic processes create MOUNTAINS of dirt OUT of the sea?

Duh?

It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. If you throw away some of the evidence, or just prefer to ignore it, you can come to any conclusion you like. Probably the wrong one though.

I find it hard to believe anyone involved in this post is actually "dumb". However, I'm not sure what you may consider dumb. An I.Q. of 90 or an opinion different from your own. I saw something humorous in one of the post about teaching fact was somehow providing morality. To me this is an oxymoron. Maybe I'm just a moron. Let's give this evolution vs. creationism a break. Maybe we could find out what some of the smarter people view as the facts concerning morality.........you may find the overall view does not fit mine or your conclusions.

[OnyxCougar]

ok, lets look at the post.

First two paragraphs gives rates of accumulation and subduction, which you said you don't have a problem with the cites, so we'll assume that's correct.

Third paragraph, first sentence lists a posit of the evolutionary theory.

If the first two paragraphs (with cites) are correct, and the rates stayed the same, then the referenced posit of the evolutionary theory cannot be correct.
Would you agree with that?



edited from:
then the evolutionary theory cannot be correct
to
then the referenced posit of the evolutionary theory cannot be correct.

[Undertoad]

All theories face the same level of harsh judgement. If there isn't enough information given to prove one way, there isn't enough to prove the other way either.

[OnyxCougar]

I agree completely. I didn't mean the above posts to imply this "PROVES" creation, but instead, poke more holes in ET.

One of the posts before, from wolf's link, says that if you can disprove a theory, you have to throw that theory out and start over.

How many holes do people have to poke before we should say it's not a good theory?

[wolf]

Nice assortment. They have certainly expanded!

Nice Isis.

[Happy Monkey]

Well, Item 3 is wrong, at least. The empty space is expanding inside the universe.

[wolf]

[thinking really hard]but the size of the container cannot remain constant, unless there is some T.A.R.D.I.S. like effect to the edges of the universe ... [/head exploding]