 |
| |
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
I'll just post some evidence.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
The Earth is Not Millions of Years Old
Evidence For a Young World
Dr. D Russel Humphreys
A dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. This booklet makes a great witnessing tool.
MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.2
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
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. 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.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.
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
Every year, river7 and other sources9 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 Calculations10 for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean. [See also Salty seas: Evidence for a young Earth.]
5. The 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 1000 years.11 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.12 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.13 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.14 [See also The Earth’s magnetic field: Evidence that the Earth is young.]
6. 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.15
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
Strong geologic evidence16 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.
8. 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.17 ‘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.18 ‘Orphan’ Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.19,20
9. 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 5 billion years.21 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.22 [See also Blowing Old-Earth Belief Away: Helium gives evidence that the Earth is young.]
10. 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 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.23 By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies.24 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 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). 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.
11. 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.23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 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.24
12. History is too short
According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.25 Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.24
References
Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413.
D. Zaritsky et al., Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10.
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.
Whipple, F.L., "Background of modern comet theory," Nature 263 (2 Sept 1976) 15.
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.
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.
Maybeck, M., ‘Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans’, Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215.
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.
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.
Austin, S.A., ‘Evolution: the oceans say no!’ ICR Impact No. 8 (Oct. 1973) Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 21.
Merrill, R.T. and M. W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field , Academic Press (1983) London, pp. 101–106.
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 Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113–126.
Coe, R.S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, ‘New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal’, Nature 374 (20 April 1995) pp. 687–92.
Humphreys, D.R., ‘Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood’, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) (ref. 12).
Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘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.
ibid., pp. 11–12.
Gentry, R.V., ‘Radioactive halos’, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) 347–362.
Gentry, R.V. et al., ‘Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification’, Science 194 (15 Oct. 1976) 315–318.
Gentry, R. V., ‘Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective’, Science 184 (5 Apr. 1974) 62–66.
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.
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.
Gentry, R. V. et al., ‘Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (Oct. 1982) 1129–1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169–170.
Deevey, E.S., ‘The human population’, Scientific American 203 (Sept. 1960) 194–204.
Marshak, A., ‘Exploring the mind of Ice Age man’, Nat. Geog. 147 (Jan. 1975) 64–89.
Dritt, J. O., ‘Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creat., Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 73–78. Address, ref. 12. Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, Inc. P.O. Box 10550, Albuquerque, NM 87184 DRH September, 1999
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
I'm not knowledgeable in geology, so I'll take the last three (though I suspect that the first nine points are equally ludicrous.)
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
10. 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 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.23 By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies.24 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 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). 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. |
It's simply impossible to find all the skeletons no matter how hard you look because:
1) most bones decay, and it's because minerals drip into them and solidify (iirc) that a minority of them are preserved. In fact, even when fossils are found, they are frequently just one toe bone or one fragment of the skull, full skeletons are rarely well preserved.
2) Unless you plan to start digging on every piece of desert, rainforest, taiga, tundra, continental shelf, and city, it's impossible to even find 0.1% of the bones that are preserved.
quote:
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.23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 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. |
The number of plants that are actually suitable for breeding into crops is extremely tiny. Most edible staples we have today are cereals - wheat, barley, millet and rice. Most of these were concentrated into Eurasia, and even so, agriculture arose in only a few sporadic areas, mostly in Eurasia. North China, India, Europe, and Africa did not invent agriculture by themselves. In other places in the world, agriculture was never discovered until European arrival, simply because there aren't any plants around to plant.
Thus there's nothing extraordinary with people staying hunter-gatherer for the last 100,000 years, much of which was during the Ice Age anyway.
quote:
12. History is too short
According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.25 Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely. |
There are plenty of examples of history being kept back. Medieval Europe held science back for 1000 years - China did it for even longer.
Besides, even if something is invented, there must be an economic base to propagate it. Steam engines were invented by the Ancient Greeks, but their industrial base and metallurgical skills were not developed enough for it to be widely used and start an Industrial Revolution. In the same way, hunting and gathering societies would have found little time, energy, or use for frivolous skills like writing. Writing was only invented as a necessity for keeping accounts of grain - something only an agricultural nation would need to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:20
|
|
 Aeson... that would probably be my response too... "So?"
Regardless of who created my living consciousness (not my body... thanks mom, thanks dad) I have free will, a somewhat logical mind, and a skeptical, cynical nature. If there is a creator or god, it was part of his plan, so he knows I won't worship him just out of pure defiance. I'm not about to worship another being. What's the point? If I were a creator, I wouldn't want my creations wasting their time worshipping me. I'd want them to explore their world and live their lives... (hmmm)
If having faith helps you deal with the problems in your life and the world, then I have no objections. But when you use faith, religion, and the argument "this is what God wants", for your own agenda, then you are evil, wrong, hmmm, there's another word that describes it, but I can't think of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:20
|
|
arguing why writing was created is like arguing the existence of god... my point is that your reason is correct, but not the sole reason... no one alive today knows why exactly writing was creating, or if it's original creators even had a single motive... we don't know, so don't bother arguing your opinions on it...
IMO, writing evolved slowly as necessity for things like keeping records of grain, agriculture, trade, and time, as well as artistic expression, law, and religion... none of these is the sole reason... you are correct, but you are wrong... anyways... I'll stop this threadjack now 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
"Would seeing the sea part make you believe in God?"
It won't happen. You know it, i know it, everybody knows it.
Keep living in LA-LA land. Refuse to look reality in the face. Hide behind your "God".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Alexander's Horse: So, when did you put your brain in a jar Cyber and join the ranks of the brainwashed? |
always those inteligent remarks 
If you are THAT inteligent compared to me, why don't you know that this kind of arguments are as childish as a 6 year old child?
quote:
Well its not just the atheists - about 95% of christians disagree with fundamentalist interpretations of the bible, probably just like 95% of muslims reject muslim extremist interpretations of the koran. |
You just made up those numbers yourself?
quote:
Sava: Lay off of him AH, you can't blame someone who's been brainwashed since birth. |
Fortunately you aren't
quote:
Lemmy: But unfortunately there are plenty of other facts which can't be disproven by arguments. |
I've learned so far that for every argument there is a counter-argument. And indeed, for the evidence I just posted is counter-evidence, but believe me, there will be (found) counter-counter evidence for that as well.
people believe something, and back it up by 'evidence'.
Most of the time this evidence (from both evolutionists and creationists) come from the same place as the numbers Alexander's Horse just made up.
As long as we're talking about stuff that happened while we were not watching or we'll never be able to look at (evolution/ creation) we'll just find the evidence we want to find.
For that reason I hope that scientists will stop wasting their time and money on worthless research on the age of bones, the distance of stars and all that.
Why don't they find a way to cure cancer / aids, to stop food starvation in Africa.
quote:
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). |
Here are 6 counter arguments, it's only a matter of time for you to find counter-counter arguments.
1. ALL dating methods (including ones that point to thousands, not billions of years, are based on assumptions—beliefs, no matter how reasonable-sounding, that you can’t prove, but must accept by faith. For example:
Assuming how much of a particular chemical was originally present;
Assuming that there has been no leaching by water of the chemicals in or out of the rock;
Assuming that radioactive decay rates have stayed the same for billions of years, and more.
2. Radiometric ‘dating’ labs do not measure age—they measure amounts of chemicals, then from this they infer age, based on the underlying assumptions.
3. When the assumptions are tested by measuring rocks of known age—e.g. recent lava flows—they often fail miserably.8
4. Objects of the same age, tested by different methods, have been shown to give ‘dates’ varying by a factor of a thousand.9
5. Does modern radiometric dating prove billions of years? See why the answer is a definite NO!
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
John Woodmorappe
A masterful demonstration of the fallacy of radioactive dating assumptions and techniques with citations of almost 500 articles by evolutionists. A solid refutation of the belief that radiometric dating proves the Earth is old.
MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE
The fact that there is some consistency to radiometric dates is explained in part by the tendency to publish only data consistent with the ‘evolutionary age’ already ‘established’ by fossils. Most radioactive dating laboratories prefer you to tell them what age you expect. It is hard to see why this would be necessary if these were ‘absolute’ methods. The entire geological ‘millions of years’ system was largely in place, based on the philosophical assumptions of men like Charles Lyell and James Hutton, before radioactivity was even discovered. Where a radioactive date contradicts the ‘system’, it is invariably discarded.
6. If a ‘radiometric’ date and a ‘fossil’ (evolutionary) date conflict, the radiometric date is always discarded.
There are many other solid reasons for not accepting fallible man-made methods, such as radioactive ‘dating’, as an authority in opposition to the clear testimony of God’s infallible Word
CS
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Ranskaldan: (though I suspect that the first nine points are equally ludicrous.) |
you suspect too much.
quote:
It's simply impossible to find all the skeletons no matter how hard you look because:
1) most bones decay, and it's because minerals drip into them and solidify (iirc) that a minority of them are preserved. In fact, even when fossils are found, they are frequently just one toe bone or one fragment of the skull, full skeletons are rarely well preserved.
2) Unless you plan to start digging on every piece of desert, rainforest, taiga, tundra, continental shelf, and city, it's impossible to even find 0.1% of the bones that are preserved. |
first: you made up those arguments yourself. You don't care about scientific research or anything, but you just type what pops up in the top of your head.
1. Nobody claimed that all bones would be found.
2. you missed the point that the author used the claim of evolutoinists that they found bones from millions of years old, and that thus for that reason bones from 100000 years old must be able to be found easily.
3. you miss the point about that not that much bones were found compared to the 40 billion people that must have been buried during the stone age.
4. you miss the point that most of these bodies obviously not would be buried in desert, rainforest, taiga and tundra, but just next to the place they lived. and the fact that you include 'city' shows even more that you made up this argument yourself, since EVERY city on this world has been a place were much digging has happened.
You made up the 0.1% yourself as well.
Do you have any clue about how much 40 billion is?
0.1% of 40.000.000.000 will still be 40.000.000!
But again, that 0.1% number was just made up by yourself as well.
quote:
The number of plants that are actually suitable for breeding into crops is extremely tiny. Most edible staples we have today are cereals - wheat, barley, millet and rice. Most of these were concentrated into Eurasia, and even so, agriculture arose in only a few sporadic areas, mostly in Eurasia. North China, India, Europe, and Africa did not invent agriculture by themselves. In other places in the world, agriculture was never discovered until European arrival, simply because there aren't any plants around to plant. |
I think you competely missed the point of the argument.
You just rephrase what was rebutted by the argument.
quote:
Thus there's nothing extraordinary with people staying hunter-gatherer for the last 100,000 years, much of which was during the Ice Age anyway. |
Much? The ice age is believed to be about 20000 years ago........ That's not 'most of it' but just a small part.
Self made evidence again?
quote:
There are plenty of examples of history being kept back. Medieval Europe held science back for 1000 years - China did it for even longer. |
We're not talking about holding back science, we talk about not recording any phrase of history for 100.000 years. Medieval Europa didn't held science back for 1000 years. Much has be developped during those 1000 years. Of course things are being developped faster now.
But compared to the 100.000 years of the stone age.....
quote:
Besides, even if something is invented, there must be an economic base to propagate it. Steam engines were invented by the Ancient Greeks, but their industrial base and metallurgical skills were not developed enough for it to be widely used and start an Industrial Revolution. In the same way, hunting and gathering societies would have found little time, energy, or use for frivolous skills like writing. Writing was only invented as a necessity for keeping accounts of grain - something only an agricultural nation would need to do. |
Only to record history?
No economic base is needed for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
CyberShy:
The difference between "evolutionist explanations" and "creationist explanations" are that ours are accurate, whereas all creationist ones are false.
That isn't arrogant: it's just the way it is.
For instance, there is no doubt that the Earth's magnetic field keeps reversing (we can see the results in alternating layers of magnetized rocks). Plate tectonics is not in doubt (we can measure the movements of the continents). The near-constancy of universal forces over time is not in doubt (we can see them at work in the light from distant galaxies millions of light-years distant).
Most of these are actually acknowledged in the articles you've posted. But creationists, desperate to cling to a disproved fantasy, simply lie about the reliability of the data. For instance, the existence of an external source for comets (e.g. the Oort Cloud ) is obvious, simply by calculating the orbits of comets and noting that they are dropping into the Solar System from outside it. To claim that "So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations" is an outright lie, pure and simple.
And so it goes...
quote:
2. Radiometric ‘dating’ labs do not measure age—they measure amounts of chemicals, then from this they infer age, based on the underlying assumptions.
3. When the assumptions are tested by measuring rocks of known age—e.g. recent lava flows—they often fail miserably.8
4. Objects of the same age, tested by different methods, have been shown to give ‘dates’ varying by a factor of a thousand.9
5. Does modern radiometric dating prove billions of years? See why the answer is a definite NO!
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
John Woodmorappe |
What's measured are the chemicals sealed into impermeable crystals. Radiometric dates are wrong only in cases where contamination with material not sealed into the crystals has occurred, or where the concentration is too low to be measured (i.e. the sample is younger than the minimum age for reliable use of that particular method: this is obvious from the near-zero result).
Incidentally, did you know that "John Woodmorappe" has a split personality, and also publishes strongly anti-creationist material under the name "Jan Peczkis"? He is literally insane.
quote:
6. If a ‘radiometric’ date and a ‘fossil’ (evolutionary) date conflict, the radiometric date is always discarded. |
False. Radiometric dates are discarded if they fail an isochron test (a test for contaminants), or the date lies outside the usable range of the method being used (not enough of the parent left to measure, or not enough of the decay product to measure).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-07-2002 16:19
|