Scientists piece together human ancestry [Archive]

View Full Version : Scientists piece together human ancestry

Pages : [1] 2

tlongII

05-19-2009, 06:14 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/19/human.ancestor/index.html

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/TECH/science/05/19/human.ancestor/art.fossil.history.from.jpg

(CNN) -- Scientists hailed Tuesday a 47-million-year-old fossil of an ancient "small cat"-sized primate as a possible common ancestor of monkeys, primates and humans.

Scientists say the fossil, dubbed "Ida," is a transitional species, living around the time the primate lineage split into two groups: A line that would eventually produce humans, primates and monkeys, and another that would give rise to lemurs and other primates.

The fossil was formally named Darwinius masillae, in honor of the anniversary of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday.

"This is the most complete primate fossil before human burial," said Dr. Jorn Hurum, of the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo, who led the study of the fossil, a young female primate.

"And it's not a few million years old; it's 47 million years old," Hurum said, speaking at a news conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

The fossil was discovered in 1983 in the Messel Pit, Germany, near Frankfurt, and had been until recently in private collections, according to an article published Tuesday in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, a publication of the Public Library of Science. Read the report from PLoS ONE

However, because it was split into two parts, its significance was not immediately recognized.

An international team of scientists, which Hurum led, conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the fossil for the past two years, the release said.

Hurum nicknamed the fossil Ida after his young daughter, he said.

The fossil's body is nearly complete; only part of one leg is missing, according to Hurum. In addition to the bones, the softer features are also preserved, as are the remnants of its last meal: fruits, seeds and leaves, which were found in Ida's gut, according to the scientists.

"It's such a beautiful specimen," Hurum said of Ida. He said the fossil is about 2 feet long, "like a small cat in size."

The fossil has both adult and baby teeth, indicating that it was weaned and about 9 months old when it died, the PLoS article said.

She would have eventually grown to the size of a lemur, the article said.

The young primate fossil does not have two crucial anatomical features found in lemurs: a grooming claw on the second digit of its foot and a fused row of teeth in the middle of its lower jaw, known as a toothcomb, the scientists said.

X-rays revealed a broken wrist, which the team of scientists believe may have contributed to Ida's death, according to a news release from the museum at Oslo.

Ida may have been overcome by carbon dioxide gas while drinking from the Messel lake, which was often covered by a low-lying blanket of the gas, the news release said. Hampered by the broken wrist, the young primate may have fallen into unconsciousness and may have slipped into the lake. The primate sunk to the bottom and was preserved for 47 million years, the news release said.

MiamiHeat

05-19-2009, 06:49 PM

Enki and Enlil would not be amused.

BacktoBasics

05-20-2009, 10:22 AM

Transitional fossil. Huh never thought those existed. :rolleyes

baseline bum

05-20-2009, 12:24 PM

White man in the sky put it there to test your faith.

z0sa

05-20-2009, 12:46 PM

I'm not sure I read any hard evidence as to:

1) why it's 100% sure 47 million years old. Inaccurate carbon dating or circular logic using the geologic column is assumed. Upon further reading of the original PLoS journal entries, they categorize the forest where it was found is always Eocene, thus it is clearly inferred they used the geologic column (circular reasoning) to date this.

2) why this cannot be a specially adapted lemur-type animal considering they seem to imply its very similar to one (they refuse to compare it to any specifics of today's species that I can clearly perceive, instead pushing their personal agendas and only classifying it as "primate" due to only slight differences in bone structure :rolleyes good way to avoid a creationists' adaptation argument)

how come every fossil found is a transitional form, dear scientist? Because that's what your dogmatic scientific ideology calls for?

oh and, btw ...

4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

take it with a grain of salt, I understand, but don't ignore the concept. "Human" primates would have overinhabited the earth a long, long time ago.

Blake

05-20-2009, 03:02 PM

+/- this thread: 6 pages

ManuTP9

05-20-2009, 03:09 PM

BacktoBasics

05-20-2009, 03:10 PM

E20

05-20-2009, 03:11 PM

The fossil looks like a dinosaur and this thread is gonna suck ass.

BacktoBasics

05-20-2009, 03:12 PM

The whole idea that we "evolved" from anything is stupid. It can never be proven until you go back in time and see it happen over what millions of years? lol :lol

These people are the most stupid in the world. They can't believe in God but they can believe that through chance this shit happens precisely like this to create human beings?
Oh and how exactly have you proven the existence of a God? What physical tangible proof do you offer?

I wasn't really in the mood but all of a sudden the thumpers start pounding their non-apelike chests and I'm ready.

BacktoBasics

05-20-2009, 03:12 PM

The fossil looks like a dinosaur and this thread is gonna suck ass.yes and yes.

MiamiHeat

05-20-2009, 03:14 PM

The whole idea that we "evolved" from anything is stupid. It can never be proven until you go back in time and see it happen over what millions of years? lol :lol

These people are the most stupid in the world. They can't believe in God but they can believe that through chance this shit happens precisely like this to create human beings?

Hello

Meet the LIGER.

XI2m_65vOU0

Sure it's man-made, and this one is sterile, but every now and then, a hybrid is fertile and breeds a new species.

Although hybrid speciation is still considered to be a minor addition to evolution, it is a nice example nonetheless

BacktoBasics

05-20-2009, 03:18 PM

He scoffs at tangible evidence and cites something completely unproven. Why do so many of these people post at this site. Did Slomo install some kind of Jesus beacon

Blake

05-20-2009, 03:21 PM

Did Slomo install some kind of Jesus beacon

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_byJua8kJBFc/SBm_iI9PQVI/AAAAAAAAATg/s8pqCsqPp4s/s320/Bat-Signal-Only-SBC.jpg

BacktoBasics

05-20-2009, 03:22 PM

Thumper come back....tell us more about how dinosaurs aren't real.

clambake

05-20-2009, 03:24 PM

Thumper come back....tell us more about how dinosaurs aren't real.

it can't be real.......the earth is only 5000 yrs. old. :(

BacktoBasics

05-20-2009, 03:28 PM

You jerks ran him.

MiamiHeat

05-20-2009, 03:34 PM

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/liger.jpg

let's see you pull a David on that cat, jesusians.

clambake

05-20-2009, 03:36 PM

You jerks ran him.

no we didn't. he was in over his head.

BacktoBasics

05-20-2009, 03:39 PM

no we didn't. he was in over his head.Way over.

Strike

05-20-2009, 05:04 PM

White man in the sky put it there to test your faith.

:lmao

Sig worthy.

FaithInOne

05-20-2009, 05:32 PM

It obviously being overhyped as the "missing link in evolution" is a stretch.

Badass to see something that old though.

Cant_Be_Faded

05-20-2009, 11:08 PM

hegamboa already disproved evolution by pointing to the scientific fallacies behind carbon dating. That skeleton is only 4000 years old, according to scientifically credentialed people like him.

LnGrrrR

05-21-2009, 09:59 AM

z0sa

05-21-2009, 12:42 PM

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/liger.jpg

let's see you pull a David on that cat, jesusians.

all cats come from a simpler cat ancestor according to evolutionary theory, right?

the same occurs for popular religious accounts as well ...

DarkReign

05-21-2009, 02:11 PM

No no NO!

6000 year old EARTH, man!

God did it, bro!

LA LA LA LA...I cant heeeeeeear you!

Whatever. Let those who doubt continue to doubt, let those who do not doubt continue as well.

This goes both ways.

jacobdrj

05-21-2009, 02:19 PM

Anyone ever see that movie Dogma. Funny stuff. I didn't like Carlin playing that Bishop though.

Anyhoo...

They are looking for a common ancestor. That is nice. I think the evidence is circumstatial, but I would like them to address the Neandratol debate more. Based on current genetic variation, I just don't see why Occam's Razor doesn't come into play to say they were not a seporate species...

Last Comic Standing

05-21-2009, 02:47 PM

The evidence is overwhelming.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/0-manny2.jpg

MiamiHeat

05-21-2009, 03:18 PM

Whatever. Let those who doubt continue to doubt, let those who do not doubt continue as well.

This goes both ways.

On the internet, I agree. If you don't care to argue, then fine.

But in real life, your attitude stinks because people who believe in creation aggressively dismiss science, raise their kids to believe in those things, and try to sneak into public schools to corrupt children away from scientific observation.

It's a conflict of interest. There's no getting around it. You can't just hope it goes away, and in this case, science HAS to win or else we get thrown in the dark ages again (not going to happen, but you know what I mean)

PEP

05-21-2009, 05:21 PM

The evidence is overwhelming.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/0-manny2.jpg

Whatever happened to humpty?

phyzik

05-21-2009, 07:16 PM

Just saw a commercial for a show called "The Link: this changes everything" thats going to air on The History Channel about this find. Will be on Monday at 8 CST.

z0sa

05-21-2009, 10:59 PM

Just saw a commercial for a show called "The Link: this changes everything" thats going to air on The History Channel about this find. Will be on Monday at 8 CST.

sounds like you bought into some History propaganda if you ask me. This is no link, but a common ancestor of both apes and men. Upon further reading, they are proposing its the earliest link between man and elephants, zebras, etc ...

the link ... :sleep i am interested in an explanation for a few things. Chances are they won't address many pertinent issues, but there's always hope for some ridiculous claims to spice up the program.

a couple things they will hopefully answer: a) which primate this most resembles and why it cannot be that species, b) why they never pieced the two skeletons together before, and c) a little more explanation on how the food in its stomach was preserved for 47 million years.

z0sa

05-21-2009, 11:30 PM

since we're on primates ...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081117-tarsier-photo-missions.html

PHOTO IN THE NEWS: "Extinct" Primate Found in Indonesia

PHOTO IN THE NEWS: "Extinct" Primate Found in Indonesia
Email to a Friend More Photos in the News

It may look like a gremlin, but this tiny animal is actually a pygmy tarsier, recently rediscovered in the forests of Indonesia.

The 2-ounce (57-gram) carnivorous primate had not been seen alive since the 1920s.

That was until researchers on a summer expedition captured, tagged, and released three members of the species (including this individual, above).

"Everyone's always talking about pygmy tarsiers," said lead researcher Sharon Gursky-Doyen, a professor at Texas A&M University.

"There have been dozens of expeditions looking for them—all unsuccessful. I needed to go and try to see for myself if they were really there or if they were really extinct," added Gursky-Doyen, whose research was funded in part by the National Geographic Society's Conservation Trust.

Once relatively abundant among the mossy, forested mountain slopes of Lore Lindu National Park in central Sulawesi, the pygmy tarsier population may have shrunk when logging in the 1970s destroyed its habitat, Gursky-Doyen said.

The nocturnal creatures rely on darkness to avoid predation. However in fragmented forests, the canopy lets in more moonlight, exposing the small animal to birds and other predators as it leaps from tree to tree.

Gursky-Doyen said she hopes the find will inspire the Indonesian government to protect the species and its habitat.

"[The] government needs to figure out a compromise between people and animals living in Lore Lindu."

—Tasha Eichenseher

_____________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------

how can we see this^ and not require hard, verifiable evidence on the aforementioned fossil species' age and classification? distinguishable traits if you will.

MiamiHeat

05-22-2009, 01:47 AM

how can we see this^ and not require hard, verifiable evidence on the aforementioned fossil species' age and classification? distinguishable traits if you will.

That's a funny requirement coming from someone who believes in the bible 'just because', a book that was written by humans back in the bronze age about magic and super powers.

z0sa

05-22-2009, 07:48 AM

That's a funny requirement coming from someone who believes in the bible 'just because', a book that was written by humans back in the bronze age about magic and super powers.

misinformation. This is a false quote I never made.

my beliefs, while obviously leaning towards one of the two sides in this great debate, have never been identified.

MiamiHeat sadly does not understand, or is simply not aware, that many scholars who may or may not believe in a holy book's supernatural message still study its archaeological/moral teachings and wide arching influences on humanity.

Additionally, your bronze age/magic powers argument is easily overlooked. The Bible (or whatever) has quantifiable results every day that passes, and has ever since its origin. You can't fix what isn't broken. Besides, there's plenty of people who would profess the "magic powers" continue to work even now.

phyzik

05-22-2009, 08:11 AM

sounds like you bought into some History propaganda if you ask me. This is no link, but a common ancestor of both apes and men. Upon further reading, they are proposing its the earliest link between man and elephants, zebras, etc ...

the link ... :sleep i am interested in an explanation for a few things. Chances are they won't address many pertinent issues, but there's always hope for some ridiculous claims to spice up the program.

a couple things they will hopefully answer: a) which primate this most resembles and why it cannot be that species, b) why they never pieced the two skeletons together before, and c) a little more explanation on how the food in its stomach was preserved for 47 million years.

Your assumption that I "bought into something" is assinine. Im just saying there's a show thats going to air on monday. No need to get all defensive about your man in the sky.

byrontx

05-22-2009, 08:12 AM

It is funny when they refer to scientists as being dogmatic. The mind-blowing part is where the religious nuts struggle with evolution but buy into Noah's ark.

z0sa

05-22-2009, 08:31 AM

Your assumption that I "bought into something" is assinine. Im just saying there's a show thats going to air on monday. No need to get all defensive about your man in the sky.

I said it "sounds" like you bought into some history propaganda, not that you did - the assumption was that they have already made anyone do so by convincing you "this [the link] changes everything". Use your critical thinking about what the program is called compared to what its actually related to. "The link: this changes everything" implies a different sort of link if you ask me - one between our ancestor and neanderthals, not one before any of the apes appeared in an attempt to connect us with simpler mammals. This is a large scientific find, but I'll bet they're hardpressed to make something viewer friendly enough to not fill it with random opinion-facts interlaced throughout. Hence buying into their propaganda.

I apologize. I didn't want to mean it that way, like you specifically bought into everything, sorry about that. That title is bs is what i was probably getting at. And thanks for the announcement of the program.

clambake

05-22-2009, 10:03 AM

In 2000 yrs I expect the bible to be replaced by Harry Potter.

Phenomanul

05-22-2009, 10:58 AM

The Liger is a terrible example to advocate the theory of evolution....

If anything it shows that Lions and Tigers all descended from the same kind... How exactly does this fact contradict the Bible?

But I don't want to get caught up in these stupid threads again... especially not before a 3-day weekend. We get it... most of you all hate Christianity or anything having to do with a belief in GOD...

And your talk about tolerance for 'other lifestyles' can barely be heard due to the deafening hypocrisy that many of you all unknowingly and sometimes willingly unleash... that is because most of you all can't even muster enough tolerance to respect their right to believe in GOD... a constitutionally protected perogative. You feel compeled to make that decision for them through derisive scorn, or by suggesting that they are somehow stupid.

Edit: clarification...

clambake

05-22-2009, 11:04 AM

it's your "constitutional perogative" ftw.

LnGrrrR

05-22-2009, 01:47 PM

Pheno,

We don't hate people with religion. We just mock those who would use it to denigrate the majority of science by placing their trust in the words of a book written centuries ago. :) No more so than you "hate" scientists who think that science can answer everything.

Alex Jones

05-22-2009, 02:44 PM

by placing their trust in the words of a book written centuries ago..

the bible 'just because', a book that was written by humans back in the bronze age

But yet you and your pals get to use fossil charts written by a man?

http://lewis-clark.org/media/NewImages/PHILADELPHIA/paleo_Cuvier-port-Wikimedia.jpg

Cuvier documented the fact of evolution theorists would later try to explain. He popularized the idea that fossils tell the story of past life on earth. Thus, in Essay on the Theory of the Earth (1827)

Cuvier, however, rarely speculated on the observations he reported. He seems to have been more interested in documenting the fact of evolution than in identifying the underlying biological forces that brought it about. His attitude seems to have been the same as that of modern paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who once told the writer that saltational change had to be accepted with or without explanation since it is an empirical fact documented in the fossil record.

You monkey lovers crack me up! :lmao

Alex Jones

05-22-2009, 02:55 PM

G1RUhkgqjug

The Power Hour.

05-22-2009, 03:07 PM

If the Earth is millions of years old why is the oldest tree found only 10,000 years old?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm

FaithInOne

05-22-2009, 03:18 PM

For such people who hate the idea of a God and wish to honor science, how funny those same geniuses have found their Deity of Gorebage and ignore common sense.

tlongII

05-22-2009, 09:46 PM

If the Earth is millions of years old why is the oldest tree found only 10,000 years old?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm

Actually the earth is over 4 billion years old. Ever been to the petrified forest?

The Power Hour.

05-22-2009, 11:53 PM

Actually the earth is over 4 billion years old

Are you sure? Maybe it's 3 1/2 Billion years old. Hate to bust your bubble but.... Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind. Add to the fact the sun can only burn for a few thousand years how did it survive 4 billion years? :lmao

Ever been to the petrified forest?

Sure that's where I found this petrified Boot!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/boot2.jpg

Sorry brah the petrified argument has been proven wrong years ago. :lmao

tlongII

05-23-2009, 12:23 AM

Are you sure? Maybe it's 3 1/2 Billion years old. Hate to bust your bubble but.... Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind. Add to the fact the sun can only burn for a few thousand years how did it survive 4 billion years? :lmao

Sure that's where I found this petrified Boot!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/boot2.jpg

Sorry brah the petrified argument has been proven wrong years ago. :lmao

Clueless... :rolleyes

E20

05-23-2009, 12:38 AM

The Power Hour.

05-23-2009, 03:35 AM

The reason we say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, is because the oldest rock using Argon radioactive dating is roughly 4 billion years old. I think it was Argon or Uranium, both have crazy half lives.

Fatal flaw with Radioactive dating methods.

Radiocarbon Dating (Carbon 14)
Willard F. Libby, a physical chemist, developed this technique in 1949. Radiocarbon dating was formulated upon the understanding that neutrons are produced by cosmic radiation
There where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old.

Living snails that carbon-date to 2,300 years old, a living seal that was carbon-dated at 1,300 years old, and 8,000-year-old living penguins. Not to mention dinosaur bones that dated to 20,000 years ago. Obviously carbon dating doesn't work,

The Power Hour.

05-23-2009, 03:45 AM

Clueless... :rolleyes

Your the one that thinks it takes millions of years to petrify something. I just proved you wrong. I thought you Science buffs already knew this shit!

Here is a petrified hat I suppose its a few million years old also. :lmao

http://www.beginningingenesis.com/petrified%20hat.jpg

How about a petrified pickle? Who knew Vlasic was around before Jesus!

http://www.edconrad.com/pics/PetrifiedPP.jpg

LnGrrrR

05-23-2009, 08:06 AM

So, if you guys don't think carbon dating is correct, what method SHOULD we be using to test the Earth's age? You can't just say, "That doesn't work!" without having another theory to test.

The Power Hour.

05-23-2009, 09:12 AM

Here's an idea how about the common sense theory?

The Mississippi River annually empties four hundred and six million tons of mud into the Gulf of Mexico that's an entire football field every half hour.It would take 200,000 dump trucks — every day — on the roads [to bring] that [amount of] soil in. The Mississippi River built five million acres of south Louisiana. It built 20,000 square miles of south Louisiana. It built everything you see between Texas and Mississippi and inland about 50 miles. All of that's care of and thanks to the Mississippi River.
The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment accumulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years. If the Mississippi River was even 1 Million years old it would be a wide as the United states by now.

boutons_deux

05-23-2009, 11:05 AM

"If the Mississippi River was even 1 Million years old"

and if the climate has been for the last million years exactly as it has been recently, plausible, except the climate (and river flows) have not been stable for a million years.

Much of the soil washed into our rivers (along with poisonous pesticides and synthetic fertilizer and cow/pig shit) comes from land that was covered for 1000s of years in grasses that anchored the soil, and moisture, in place.

Our rivers our man-made septic flows, causing dead zones where they flow into the oceans, whereas natural rivers, the Amazon (at least for now), washes tons of nutrients into the ocean and causes extremely fertile, nourishing zones in the oceans.

eg, the 1930s Dustbowl was due to those grasses, that had survived lots of similar draughts, being replaced by agricultural plants on effectively denuded top soil. When the draught killed the agriculture, only naked, baked soil was left.

You Bible-thumping creationists are such ignorant dumbfucks. (which has nothing to with my attitude towards Christ and the Bible).

E20

05-23-2009, 11:54 AM

Fatal flaw with Radioactive dating methods.

Radiocarbon Dating (Carbon 14)
Willard F. Libby, a physical chemist, developed this technique in 1949. Radiocarbon dating was formulated upon the understanding that neutrons are produced by cosmic radiation
There where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old.

Living snails that carbon-date to 2,300 years old, a living seal that was carbon-dated at 1,300 years old, and 8,000-year-old living penguins. Not to mention dinosaur bones that dated to 20,000 years ago. Obviously carbon dating doesn't work,

Argon =/ Carbon

z0sa

05-23-2009, 02:21 PM

You Bible-thumping creationists are such ignorant dumbfucks.

you're just a bigot, obviously, the most ignorant of all dumbfucks.

and your climate change/subject changing argument is unconvincing. Try harder next time for those of us who don't blindly eat all the shit a scientist squeezes out.

The Power Hour.

05-23-2009, 03:05 PM

You Bible-thumping creationists are such ignorant dumbfucks. (which has nothing to with my attitude towards Christ and the Bible).

Hate to ruin your wet dream you seem to have going on but...the truth is, I don't read the Bible or go to church. So save all your Bible thumping smack for the others.

I deal with logical and Intelligent thinking. And anyone with an 9th grade education knows the solar system, earth, and many planets, rotate differently and in opposite directions. If the Big bang really took place all matter would rotate in the same direction.Not all planets rotate themselves in the same direction. Venus and Uranus rotate in a clockwise direction. This is called retrograde. Uranus rotates around a nearly horizontal axis. This is still considered to be a retrograde rotation. Venus rotates extremely slowly in a clockwise direction.

Another thing....if the earth is over a million years old why is the largest coral reef..The Great Barrier Reef (Australia) only a few thousand years old?

Also..."Observations have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying over the last century and a half. Precise measurements of the field's intensity, or strength, have been made on a worldwide basis since 1829 that determine the state of the field at any point in time." If the earth was a million years old there would be no magnetic field left.

"In the 1970s, the late creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook, proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core. Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth

The Sun is shrinking!

Today’s rate of shrinkage (5 feet per hour) was faster years ago. Perhaps at the rate of 10 or 20 feet per hour. The sun would have been big enough to touch the earth only 20 million years ago. Evolutionists claim the earth is 4 BILLION years old. You can see why this is impossible.
If the earth was Billions of years old, then the earth would have been destroyed by the sun.

MavTalker

05-23-2009, 11:16 PM

Power Hour 5

Monkey lovers 0

tlongII

05-24-2009, 12:51 PM

How Old are the Rocks? Using Radioactivity to Find Out--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a volcanic magma cools down and solidifies, radioactive "clocks" in it can be set. Geologists can use these "clocks" to find out how long ago the rock formed.

An example: the Uranium-235/Lead-207 clock.

As zircon crystals form in cooling magma, they capture radioactive uranium, but they don't capture lead. There is no lead in the crystals when the clock starts. Uranium decays into lead. So when you study volcanic rock formations, you know that the lead atoms you find in zircon crystals came from the decay of uranium. Comparing the proportion of Lead-207 to the proportion of Uranium-235 in zircons can tell geologists how long ago the magma solidified into rock.

Simple, eh? Well, no. But useful.

Some naturally radioactive elements decay very quickly, and others decay much more slowly. So there are a lot of different radioisotopic "clocks." Isotopes that decay slowly are more useful for very old rocks, and isotopes that decay more quickly are more useful for younger rocks.

Half-Life: the Time it Takes for Half of the Original Atoms in a Sample to Decay to a "Daughter" Product

The daughter product may also be radioactive, and may decay into another product.

Parent Daughter Half Change in...

Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5730 years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4,470 million years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1,280 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14,010 million years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48,800 million years

The Power Hour.

05-24-2009, 01:57 PM

Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5730 years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4,470 million years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1,280 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14,010 million years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48,800 million years

Intelligent person to gullible idiot after reading your postings.
2 to 3 minutes.

:wakeup

Do you even have a clue how long just one Million years is?

Man can't even agree on what really took place 2 to 6 thousand years ago and you want us to believe some text book theories that were written in the last 50 years by men who are going by data they have been told to by others? Man can't even agree on what global warming is and that is happening now! and you really want us to believe you know what took place Millions of years ago?

You think because some text book says 250 million years ago....that it has to be true? We still don't know what really happened on 9/11 and you want us to just put down our beliefs and common sense and agree with you
and your God hating Darwin worshipers because some scientist, or some machine / invention claims it knows how old rocks are and how they change?

You must really be threaten by the Bible thumpers to have to keep ensuring yourself how old the Earth is so you can have an excuse to discard any possibility of a creator. Well you have your own rights to chose your own mind like I have also.

Trust me If you igmos were to just say a long time ago there were dinosaurs etc....I would have no problem it's when you guys say 250 Million years ago..that I have an issue with. and then your well educated pals are really naive enough to actually say the Earth is 4 Billion years old? :lmao

Sorry bro but all your lab results and text book findings will never convince me the Earth and the solar system is more than 50.000 years old, and that is stretching it as it is.

Fact: Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. Here it is today, alive and unchanged. Where is the evolution?

http://www.newgeology.us/coelacanth.jpg

.

The Power Hour.

05-24-2009, 02:04 PM

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs. Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.

http://www.newgeology.us/Platypus.jpg

MiamiHeat

05-24-2009, 02:47 PM

A fossil find in New South Wales in 1984 indicated the platypus was once a larger animal, with teeth. That find is consistent with other indications that the platypus today has lost information possessed by its more robust ancestor

Jame Gumb

05-24-2009, 03:28 PM

MH is on your ass you better give up now! :tu

Captain Koons

05-24-2009, 03:44 PM

Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book The Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

scientology

05-27-2009, 01:26 AM

Power Hour 5

Monkey lovers 0

:tu

pickle girl

05-27-2009, 07:31 AM

How about a petrified pickle? Who knew Vlasic was around before Jesus!

http://www.edconrad.com/pics/PetrifiedPP.jpg

Now that is one crunchy pickle!!!

JoeChalupa

05-27-2009, 08:04 AM

I watched "The Link" on The History Channel the other night. Pretty interesting stuff.

ATRAIN

05-27-2009, 08:22 AM

Phenomanul

05-27-2009, 11:07 AM

I watched "The Link" on The History Channel the other night. Pretty interesting stuff.

From an article I found on the web... even if I don't fully buy into all their other stuff...

Ida’s appeal undoubtedly lies in her pristine preservation. But this is really bad news for her promoters, since the fossil is so complete that there is no doubt about its utter lack of transitional features. Already, articles in Science and New Scientist have described Ida as just an extinct lemur and not a “missing link.” She was even found in the wrong rock layer: “Ida is much younger than both good fossils of lemurs and good fossils of monkeys.” However, her campaign seems to have gathered too much momentum for little things like facts to get in its way.

Even as creation scientist Duane Gish correctly predicted that extinct apes like the popular “Lucy,” called australopithecenes, were destined to become an evolutionary dead end, the same forecast can be made for Ida. Australopithecus’ status as a missing link officially fizzled 16 years after Gish’s prediction. However, its removal from the evolutionary lineup was not prominently publicized, but instead crept into the technical literature with no fanfare.

Ida is following the same well-worn chain of events. She has been promoted as a “missing link” with widespread media hype. After further study, however, this claim will be quietly rescinded. The most damaging result of this backward publish-the-story-first-and-ask-scientific-questions-later routine is that evolution is promoted whether or not the discovery provides any evidence to support it. This is not the way ideal science is conducted—it’s closer to propaganda.

JoeChalupa

05-27-2009, 11:13 AM

from an article i found on the web... Even if i don't fully buy into all their other stuff...

d'oh!!

tlongII

05-27-2009, 11:43 AM

Intelligent person to gullible idiot after reading your postings.
2 to 3 minutes.

:wakeup

Do you even have a clue how long just one Million years is?

Man can't even agree on what really took place 2 to 6 thousand years ago and you want us to believe some text book theories that were written in the last 50 years by men who are going by data they have been told to by others? Man can't even agree on what global warming is and that is happening now! and you really want us to believe you know what took place Millions of years ago?

You think because some text book says 250 million years ago....that it has to be true? We still don't know what really happened on 9/11 and you want us to just put down our beliefs and common sense and agree with you
and your God hating Darwin worshipers because some scientist, or some machine / invention claims it knows how old rocks are and how they change?

You must really be threaten by the Bible thumpers to have to keep ensuring yourself how old the Earth is so you can have an excuse to discard any possibility of a creator. Well you have your own rights to chose your own mind like I have also.

Trust me If you igmos were to just say a long time ago there were dinosaurs etc....I would have no problem it's when you guys say 250 Million years ago..that I have an issue with. and then your well educated pals are really naive enough to actually say the Earth is 4 Billion years old? :lmao

Sorry bro but all your lab results and text book findings will never convince me the Earth and the solar system is more than 50.000 years old, and that is stretching it as it is.

Fact: Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. Here it is today, alive and unchanged. Where is the evolution?

http://www.newgeology.us/coelacanth.jpg

.

Just how clueless are you???

The radioactive decay in these substances is a measurable FACT!

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 12:33 PM

Sorry sir but you will have to come up with a little more than just two line replies if you want to be taken serious. Try posting a link that disproves my quotes.

Like this....

Just how clueless are you???

You might want to direct that comment to the scientist and professors who I am quoting.

Roland Watts
Mr. Alexander Williams, B.Sc., M.Sc.(Hons), Th.C., Dip.C.S., ThL. Mr Williams
1. Taylor,I.
3. Gheury, de Bray.
4. Birge, R.T.
5. Edmonson, S.K.
6. Editor's column 1927. Science.
7. Setterfield, B. 1983. The Velocity of Light & the Age of the
Universe. Australia: CSA Inc. Monograph.
8. Taylor. Ibid.p.435-6

The radioactive decay in these substances is a measurable FACT!Radioactive decay flaws:
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".

(The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods).

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/line.jpg
Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.
This is common practice.
They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?
They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.
Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.
So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

BacktoBasics

05-27-2009, 12:44 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/line.jpg
Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.
This is common practice.
They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?
They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.
Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.
So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.
Carbon dating aside there is no evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth 2-4k years ago. According to your "couple thousand years ago" theory wouldn't Jesus have mentioned a holy raptor or a serving of Triceratops with sundays wine. Perhaps the greeks might have documented something...you know how much they loved their historians. 300 would have been a much better movie if a massive T-Rex would have made a guest appearance. Early Egyptian records seem to be void of a few brontosaurus tales.

You're arguing against something with zero supporting evidence outside of carbon dating inaccuracies. So the very thing you find inaccurate is the basis for your argument? Doesn't sound too intelligent.

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 12:48 PM

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

The flaws of Carbon Dating (Science and Technology)

How do you tell how old a fossil is? Or how long a body is dead? Or the age of the earth? Well, one method is to use carbon dating.
As any good upper secondary physics student should know, carbon dating works using the principle of radioactive decay of carbon-14. Most carbon on earth exist as carbon-12 but a small percentage exists as carbon-14. So even some of the carbon we eat of we breathe is radioactive. Yes, you my friend, are radioactive.

So when the the organism dies, it stops taking in carbon. The carbon-14 slowly decomposes with a predictable rate similar to the graph above. (The y-axis represents radioactivity/mass of carbon-14, while the x-axis represents time.) Hence by finding out the radioactivity of the subject, we can deduce the time of death.

However, there are many flaws to this method. For one, it assumes that the ratio of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant throughout the ages. Well that is not really true. We have to concede that at certain periods in history, the ratio is significantly lower due to the the Industrial Revolution, the comsic flares from the sun,the atomic age and if you believe it, the Genesis flood.

Secondly, it assumes that organismes take up carbon-14 at the constant rate. Some plants do not, and we definitely cannot be sure for fossils.
So do not be so eager to accept whatever your textbook says. In other words, the world could only be a few thousand years old.

The Alternative: better than any newspaper or textbook.

Dr Storm

The Power Hour

05-27-2009, 12:54 PM

I traced my Roots years ago.

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 01:00 PM

Carbon dating aside there is no evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth 2-4k years ago. According to your "couple thousand years ago" theory wouldn't Jesus have mentioned a holy raptor or a serving of Triceratops with sundays wine.

You may have to scroll back I clearly said I don't read the bible or attend church I am just responding to show how flawed Carbon dating is.
Also I feel the dinosaurs where here around approximately 20 50 thousand years ago that is 18 to 48 thousand years before Jesus. So I don't get your point.

Perhaps the greeks might have documented something...you know how much they loved their historians. 300 would have been a much better movie if a massive T-Rex would have made a guest appearance. Early Egyptian records seem to be void of a few brontosaurus tales.

I never said dinosaurs walked the earth during the times you mentioned, I just stated the earth in my opinion is not Millions of years old and according to you and others you claim it's Billions of years old.

To me that is a theory and without any solid proof and any sort of flawless dating system to confirm it, and a fossil chart that has been debunked years ago, it shows your argument is very weak.

You're arguing against something with zero supporting evidence outside of carbon dating inaccuracies. So the very thing you find inaccurate is the basis for your argument?

I said Carbon dating has flaws, and I posted the links.I don't see where you get zero supporting evidence from. Why not Google Carbon Dating flaws see what you find.

Doesn't sound too intelligent.

Saying the earth is 4 billions years old and man evolved from a fish sounds even worst.

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 01:09 PM

Lets go over what we do know as facts........................

Chances are you and your children have read in many Science books over the years that stalactites and flowstones take Millions of years to form.

That is Lie #1 the truth is...they can form in less that one hundred years.

The picture was taken in late 1987 at level 5 workings in the lead-zinc mine at Mt Isa, in north-western Queensland, Australia.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/images/202Cave.jpg

At that time, the mine itself was only about 55 years old, which therefore is the absolute maximum age for all these stalactites.
About 55 metres (180 feet) above this level there is an aquifer (water source) in fairly porous dolomite, a rock that is usually quite dense. Slow, continuous seepage of lime-saturated water into the old level 5 workings was responsible for these formations.

z0sa

05-27-2009, 01:18 PM

Carbon dating aside there is no evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth 2-4k years ago. According to your "couple thousand years ago" theory wouldn't Jesus have mentioned a holy raptor or a serving of Triceratops with sundays wine. Perhaps the greeks might have documented something...you know how much they loved their historians. 300 would have been a much better movie if a massive T-Rex would have made a guest appearance. Early Egyptian records seem to be void of a few brontosaurus tales.

This is the very problem with the "missing link" found in the article this thread was created upon. Accurately dating life forms according to evolutionary theory is impossible. Rather than admit the fossils they find are more than likely just specifically adapted living creatures (or recent extinction), they use circular reasoning to "prove" the fossil lived 47 million years ago, just because of where they dug it up at.

Very disconcerting to think scientists routinely state their personal opinions - really, their beliefs - as unquestionable fact. Only one such instance like this almost makes you not want to trust anything they have to say that isn't easily verifiable. Kinda makes you realize these scientists are prone to error and bias as any human, not the veritable demi-gods atheistic agendas make them out to be.

So the evolutionist can decide, without true knowledge, whether "ida" is simply a lemur with a broken hand from a few thousand or less years ago (what objective scientists may still conclude), or some huge discovery just because there's a total lack of fossils backing up evolutionary theory.

Phineas J. Whoopee

05-27-2009, 01:24 PM

So far, rocks older than 3.0 billion years have been found in North America, India, Russia, Greenland, Australia, and Africa.

z0sa

05-27-2009, 01:26 PM

So far, rocks older than 3.0 billion years have been found in North America, India, Russia, Greenland, Australia, and Africa.

source

DarkReign

05-27-2009, 01:32 PM

source

I only wish to ask you a question and one question only. I will not attempt to berate you or belittle your opinion.

Do you honestly believe Earth is not ~6 billion years old?

If so, how old is it?

z0sa

05-27-2009, 01:37 PM

I only wish to ask you a question and one question only. I will not attempt to berate you or belittle your opinion.

Not to be an ass, but herein lies the problem. How about this: I won't berate you or belittle you for believing we evolved from Ida. Or that the fossil record shows anything other than fully formed species as opposed to many transitional forms that would have been killed off and destroyed due to their inadequate nature throughout history.

The fossil record should show vast graveyards of transitional forms in various ages - emptiness. The ground is empty, devoid of the fossils Darwin's theory initially was predicated upon. In order to overcome this incredible fallacy in the theory, they say every fossil is a transitional form now - circular reasoning, for there is no documented proof of transitional forms even now.

Do you honestly believe Earth is not ~6 billion years old?

Yes.

If so, how old is it?

180 years of steady calculations of our magnetic field proves the earth cannot be more than tens of thousands of years old.

Blake

05-27-2009, 01:39 PM

+/- this thread: 6 pages

whoever bet the overs is looking to be in good shape

LnGrrrR

05-27-2009, 01:42 PM

More importantly: Is there a source other than the Bible whose evidence zosa would accept?

Blake

05-27-2009, 01:43 PM

180 years of steady calculations of our magnetic field proves the earth cannot be more than tens of thousands of years old.

source please.

z0sa

05-27-2009, 01:48 PM

source please.

150* years, my bad.

http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38

this explains the process of measurement and its decay more explicitly.

Alex Jones

05-27-2009, 01:49 PM

So far, rocks older than 3.0 billion years have been found in North America, India, Russia, Greenland, Australia, and Africa.

How many were found in your head?

DarkReign

05-27-2009, 01:49 PM

@ z0sa

Fine then. Another question, if I may.

Do you or do you not believe that evolution does in fact happen? That is, speciation and the like?

phyzik

05-27-2009, 01:50 PM

Not to be an ass, but herein lies the problem. How about this: I won't berate you or belittle you for believing we evolved from Ida. Or that the fossil record shows anything other than fully formed species as opposed to many transitional forms that would have been killed off and destroyed due to their inadequate nature throughout history.

The fossil record should show vast graveyards of transitional forms in various ages - emptiness. The ground is empty, devoid of the fossils Darwin's theory initially was predicated upon. In order to overcome this incredible fallacy in the theory, they say every fossil is a transitional form now - circular reasoning, for there is no documented proof of transitional forms even now.

Yes.

180 years of steady calculations of our magnetic field proves the earth cannot be more than tens of thousands of years old.

The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

1. While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

2. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).

3. Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

4. Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

z0sa

05-27-2009, 01:55 PM

@ z0sa

Fine then. Another question, if I may.

Do you or do you not believe that evolution does in fact happen? That is, speciation and the like?

microevolution is a documented fact. The scientific method has been used countless times to record this natural phenomenon. But macroevolution is impossible.

Take this sentence example.
Now this sentence.

Now this sentence.

Try randomly splicing in and out letters from the alphabet on any random line and space to see how long the sentences are coherent - without putting any letters on the blank line by chance, just for starters. This is literally the exact procedure that must be used to evolve on a major scale. Microevolution requires no such splicing - all the information necessary for this species to possibly survive has already been coded in! This is why evolution can be coupled with many different sciences for accurate results.

DarkReign

05-27-2009, 02:00 PM

microevolution is a documented fact. The scientific method has been used countless times to record this natural phenomenon. But macroevolution is impossible.

Try randomly splicing in and out letters from the alphabet on any random line and space to see how long the sentences are coherent - without putting any letters on the blank line by chance, just for starters. This is literally the exact procedure that must be used to evolve on a major scale. Microevolution requires no such splicing - all the information necessary for this species to possibly survive has already been coded in! This is why evolution can be coupled with many different sciences for accurate results.

So, correct me if I am wrong, you purport that speciation does not happen?

Phineas J. Whoopee

05-27-2009, 02:08 PM

source

There are many out there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

http://ncseweb.org/evolution/science/how-old-is-earth

My main source is my own scientific studies.

Phineas J. Whoopee

05-27-2009, 02:12 PM

How many were found in your head?

How many rocks have you smoked?

Blake

05-27-2009, 02:33 PM

How many were found in your head?

probably not as many as there are mouse trolls

DarkReign

05-27-2009, 02:33 PM

BTW, z0sa, dont think I am trying to "set you up" or anything with my line of questioning. I dont have the patience, time or cunning for such games. I am truly just trying to grasp your position here.

If you reject common scientific understanding (age of Earth, carbon dating, evolution, etc), then my question is, what is your position exactly?

"I dont know" is not an acceptable answer, to me and me alone. Because thousands of people dedicate their lives, studies, paychecks, grants, education and personal worth on the scientific work you so easily trounce as untrue and patently false.

Basically, what makes you and mouse so incredibly smarter and more informed than the Universities from here to Japan and beyond that all offer undergrad/postgrad curriculum in the fields of study you so easily dismiss?

Youre either incredibly brilliant, blinded by bias or contradictory for contradictions sake.

This is what I am trying to pin down.

BacktoBasics

05-27-2009, 02:34 PM

probably not as many as there are mouse trollsHere we go again with the "mouse trolls". Not every troll is mouse for fuck sake. Dude doesn't have a tenth of the trolls you think he does.

DarkReign

05-27-2009, 02:35 PM

Here we go again with the "mouse trolls". Not every troll is mouse for fuck sake. Dude doesn't have a tenth of the trolls you think he does.

Not true, sir. Especially the few that have shown in this thread.

Blake

05-27-2009, 02:35 PM

Here we go again with the "mouse trolls". Not every troll is mouse for fuck sake. Dude doesn't have a tenth of the trolls you think he does.

alex jones is a mouse troll for fuck sake

Blake

05-27-2009, 02:38 PM

150* years, my bad.

http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38

this explains the process of measurement and its decay more explicitly.

a biased creation website........hooray.

thanks for nothing.

Troll

05-27-2009, 02:38 PM

Here we go again with the "mouse trolls". Not every troll is mouse for fuck sake. Dude doesn't have a tenth of the trolls you think he does.

:tu But he does have more than just a few.

BacktoBasics

05-27-2009, 02:40 PM

:tu But he does have more than just a few.3 at best.

Blake

05-27-2009, 02:42 PM

3 at best.

you don't get out of the club much, do you.....

tlongII

05-27-2009, 02:44 PM

Moocher

05-27-2009, 02:54 PM

3 at best.

:lmao :lmao

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 03:26 PM

tlongII

05-27-2009, 03:27 PM

Radioisotope Aging Techniques

A technique which is very important to our estimates of the timescale on which the Solar System was formed involves measurement of the relative abundances of radioisotopes in rocks.

A radioisotope is a kind of atom that is not stable, and will turn into another kind of atom. For example a Rubidium 87 (symbolized by 87Rb) atom, which has 37 protons and 50 neutrons in its nucleus, will spontaneously turn into a Strontium 87 (symbolized by 87Sr) atom, which has 38 protons and 49 neutrons in its nucleus, if you let it sit long enough. This happens when one of the neutrons in the nucleus turns into a proton. When people talk about "radioactive decay" they're talking about one of a variety of processes like this, where the nucleus of atom of a radioisotope is changed because the particles in it spontaneously change (neutrons change to protons or vice versa or some quantity of particles leaves or is added).

Important to this is that a particular process (like the one above with 87Rb and 87Sr) happens spontaneously with a certain likelihood in a certain amount of time. The longer you leave a radioisotope atom sitting alone in a room, the more likely it will have decayed when you get back. We talk about the likelyhood P of its decaying. P is a number from 0 to 1, 0 being no likelihood and 1 being certainty. If you graph the likelihood of a 87Rb atom having decayed as a function of the time you leave it in the room, it looks like this

http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~fbuls/ast101/part2/images/graf.jpg

where P is likelihood and time is in gigayears, billions of years. What exactly does this graph say? To give an example, the value at 100 Gyr (100 billion years) is about .75; this means that if you leave a 87Rb atom alone for 100 Gyr, there is a 75% chance that it will have decayed to 87Sr when you return. You might be able to tell from the graph that in 49 billion years, an atom of 87Rb has a 50/50 chance (P=0.5) of having turned into an atom of 87Sr. Thus 49 billion years is the "half-life" of 87Rb. That is, if you leave one pound of it and come back 49 billion years later, only 1/2 pound will still be 87Rb and 1/2 pound will be 87Sr (since each atom has a 50/50 chance). Some of the atoms will change sooner (in one second, a 87Rb atom has about a 1 in a million million million chance of changing), some later, but when averaged, half of some large number of them will change in 49 Gyr. Other radioisotopes have other half-lives (for example Carbon 14 has a half-life of only about 5600 years).

So, if you know how much of a certain radioisotope and its daughter species (the kind it turns into) was in a rock when it first solidified, and you can measure how much of each is there now, you can tell how many half-lives have passed since the rock formed, simply because you know how fast that particular decay takes place. But you might ask, "Well, what if you don't know how much of both was in the rock when it formed? Or what if some 87Sr leaked out?" Well, you'd be right if you asked one of these questions. It's hard to know the answers. For this reason, more complicated techniques are used.

ISOCHRON TECHNIQUE

For example, there's another "isotope" of Strontium, 86Sr (it has one less neutron in its nucleus than 87Sr), which is chemically the same as 87Sr (neutrons don't strongly affect the chemical properties of an atom), and that means that if two different rocks form from the same material, they will have the same ratio of the two (86Sr/87Sr). But if the two rocks are chemically different (perhaps different minerals) then they'll have different percentages of 87Rb. So as the 87Rb decays, 87Sr will build up faster in the rock with the greater original percentage of 87Rb, and the ratios 86Sr/87Sr of the two rocks will change at different rates. How much the two ratios differ when you measure them tells you how long it's been going on. So you don't even have to know how much was in the rocks to begin with, just what the difference in the ratios is now.

There's a way to use a graph to get a quick idea of the age of a set of rocks that formed together. Say you take samples from 4 different rocks that formed at the same time, but have different relative amounts of Strontium and Rubidium, because they're different minerals. If they had just formed, then the ratio of percentages of the two isotopes of Strontium

87Sr/86Sr

would be the same for all 3 rocks. The ratio of the different elements, however,

87Rb/86Sr

would be different because they're different minerals. If you made a graph where the vertical axis was the first ratio and the horizontal axis was the second, and where each rock was represented by one point, then initially, the graph would be a horizontal straight line. As 87Rb decays into 87Sr, both ratios in each rock would change, the first going up and the second going down, Each point would move in a straight line toward the upper left because each Rb atom would turn into one Sr atom. The line connecting the sample points would gain in slope, as in the figure below. The steeper the line, the older the set of rocks. Note that you don't need to know any of the initial ratios, just the final ratios, and that ideally this can be done with only two rocks (as long as they're the same age and have different abundances of the 3 species).

http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~fbuls/ast101/part2/images/fig-05.gif

Why is the slope proportional to the age of the rocks? Well, remember above it was stated that as the 87Rb decays, 87Sr will build up faster in the rock with the greater original percentage of 87Rb, and the ratios 86Sr/87Sr of the two rocks will change at different rates. In fact, the greater the 87Rb/86Sr, the greater the rate of change of 87Sr/86Sr. In other words, the farther to the right the point is in the diagram, the faster it will move upwards and to the left, and the relation between x position and y rate will be proportional.

The technique is a little more complicated than it sounds here because somtimes one of the species can leak out of the rock while its aging, and this has to be taken into account. But it's been used to find the age of many rocks on Earth, the Moon, and meteors. Various radioactive decay processes are used for this, and the ages of the oldest rocks all seem to be around 4.6 Gyr. This then, is how long ago the first rocks solidified, when the Solar System formed.

A more indepth discussion of this can be found at this site.

When the ages of rocks from various places in the Solar System are tested in this way, the results vary with the place of origin of the rocks. Below is a figure showing the age ranges of rocks from various different places.

http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~fbuls/ast101/part2/images/timeline.gif

These ranges are consistent with what we would expect. The Earth is the largest solid object in the Solar System, and so should be most internally active at this point in its history, while all smaller objects should have cooled sufficiently early on to have ceased producing rocks a short time into the history of the Solar System. So the asteroids and the Moon should have older rocks, which they do. Also, Earth's rocks vary greatly in age, since Earth has been actively making rocks since its formation, and so the ranges of ages of Earth rocks should be quite large, which this figure shows.

CARBON 14 METHOD

This same basic technique is used to find the ages of dead lifeforms which have been dead much less time than these truly ancient rocks. A different radioisotope is used, called carbon 14, which has a much shorter half-life, making it appropriate for shorter time scales.

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 03:36 PM

You must think if you post enough charts it must be true? I can find a chart that shows Santa Clause really lives in Cleveland that doesn't make it true.

ISOCHRON ROCK DATING IS FATALLY FLAWED
by William Overn
For Exciting New Work On Radiometric Dating Showing a Young Earth, Click HERE (http://www.icr.org/rate/)
ABSTRACT
Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes. Many methods of estimating these beginning concentrations have been proposed, but all rest on tenuous assumptions which have limited their acceptance. This paper attempts to show that the Isochron-Diagram method contains a logical flaw that invalidates it. This most accepted of all methods has two variations, the mineral isochron and the whole-rock isochron. The logically-sound authenticating mechanism of the mineral isochron is applied to the whole-rock isochron, where it is invalid. The long-term stability of the whole-rock is applied to the mineral, where it is inappropriate.
When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance. This paper shows that all whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. It is noted that by analogy the mixing-line logic casts strong suspicion on the mineral isochron as well. Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game anyway, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited.
Keywords:

Age
Geochronology
Isochron
Isotope
Old-earth
Radiometric
Young-earth

Introduction:
Thanks mainly to the fact that they appear to be so constant, the decay rates of radioactive materials have become the primary mechanism for attempting to discover the age of rocks.[5,16] In addition to a constant rate of variation, however, any timing mechanism must also have a calibrated beginning point. A number of methods have been tried to calibrate the "radiometric clock". But they have all required unprovable and apparently unwarranted assumptions. Faure, in his textbook [9] refers to all of them as "assumed values" except for those obtained by the "isochron", or similar linear method.
The linear methods are several, and have in common the reduction of the data to a set which can yield a straight-line plot. Many exceedingly detailed descriptions of these methods are available.[1,2,5,16] A summary description of the Rb-Sr isochron is included below.
Arndts and Overn alerted the creationist community to the fact that in spite of the mathematical rigor of the isochron, it also has unwarranted assumptions, and the data carefully gathered and processed to indicate immense ages can more appropriately be dismissed as indicating the recent mixing of two or more magmas.[1,2,3] Dalrymple[6] challenged our analysis with five points, all of which were promptly and thoroughly refuted.[4]
In Dalrymple's latest book [7] he ignores the entire issue of the whole-rock isochron, only defending the mineral isochron. There is sound logic supporting the mineral isochron, but another fatal flaw. Individual mineral crystals are not closed systems. Even over the few thousands of years available in the young-earth paradigm, they are insufficiently stable to give acceptable data to the geochronologists.
The Rb-Sr Isochron Method
Rubidium and strontium occur as trace elements in many common rock types. Rubidium has two isotopes. 85Rb (stable, abundance 72%) and 87Rb (radioactive). 87Rb decays to 87Sr with a half-life of (approximately) 48.8 billion years. Strontium is stable in all natural forms, and in addition to the radiogenic 87Sr (7%), has isotopes 88Sr (82%), 86Sr (10%), and 84Sr (<1%).
The general method of dating is to take several samples of the rock, to determine the ratios of the Rb-Sr isotopes in each, and by simultaneous equations determine the probable beginning points for each, from which the age may be determined.[16]
For the sake of compatibility with the available laboratory instruments, the specific ratios chosen are 87Rb-86Sr and 87Sr-86Sr. The algebra is equivalent to a simple straight-line diagram as in Figure 1. where points a, b, and c represent the samples.

http://www.tccsa.tc/images/isochron_fig_1.gif
Here is graphically represented the fact that the amount of daughter isotope increases as the amount of parent increases in the sample. The magnitude of that increase (i.e. the slope of the line) depends on the time allowed for the decay process to transpire, or the age of the rock. If we extrapolate down the line to the zero intercept, we have a representation of a sample with no parent isotope to contribute to the daughter concentration. This must represent the initial daughter concentration.
The slope is the age and the intercept is the initial daughter ratio. The scheme is mathematically sound. We must examine the assumptions.
For a problem to be solvable by simultaneous equations there must be as many independent equations as there are unknowns. The unknowns are the original 87Sr-86Sr ratio for each sample and the age of each sample. Each sample gives one equation, but introduces two additional unknowns. Regardless of the number of samples, there are never enough equations to cover all the unknowns.[16] These problems must be resolved by the assumptions.
The same age
It is assumed that all samples analyzed together are the same age. The word "isochron" (from the Greek "same time") symbolizes that. We do not dispute this assumption.
The same initial strontium ratio
If all initial 87Sr-86Sr ratios in the system are assumed to be the same, the scheme can be made to work, as the unknowns are reduced to two, the common age, and the common strontium ratio. Any two samples may now introduce the required two equations, and any more beyond that will simply improve the accuracy and the confidence level. This assumption is outside the experience based on field data, however, where the general case is that every sample has its own unique ratio. However, it can be rationally assumed that each sample we find has its own age and its particular rubidium concentration, which over time may have imparted a unique portion of daughter isotope. The assumed uniform strontium ratios should certainly be valid when applied to a rock system solidifying from a uniform homogenized melt. We must emphasize, however, that this enabling assumption must fail in the absence of an initial homogenized melt.
A "closed" system
If isotopes have migrated in or out of the sample during the aging period, the resulting data have no time significance. Isochrons are thought to be self checking in this regard, since with several samples an open system with random migration should scatter the points off of the straight line. Indeed, it often happens that there is a scatter of data, rendering the isochron worthless. But there are many occurrences of isochrons having acceptably straight-line form that are also rejected. Often "metamorphism" is cited as the probable cause, the system having opened, either partially or completely resetting the clock. [11,19] In order to assure an acceptably closed system, samples as large as 1 meter cubes have been suggested.[20] The assumption of a closed system for many of the isochrons, if they have not been questioned by the geochronologists, will not be challenged here. We note that these are generally obtained on the samples of larger dimensions, that is the whole-rock isochrons.
Independent equations
If the equations are not independent, the problem cannot be solved. This would be the case where all samples on the diagram plot on a single point. Although the single point on the diagram is valid, there is no way of finding a slope or intercept. If the melt were initially homogeneous and remained closed, it could be expected still to be homogeneous, and yield that single-point isochron. This should be the general case of the whole-rock isochron.
The need is to find samples with a variety of initial rubidium content but still having initial strontium ratios that are known to be uniform. The assumed initial homogeneous melt cannot be expected to give whole-rock samples with variable rubidium, but the assumed uniform 87Sr-86Sr ratios demand such an initial homogeneous melt.
The mineral isochron solves the dilemma. The mineral crystals have done the job in an elegant way. Crystals naturally form around a specific chemical composition, each atom occupying its naturally-assigned site. Foreign atoms just don't fit, either electrochemically or physically, and are strongly rejected. Depending on its concentration in the melt, a foreign element may have more or less acceptance in a crystal, based on its chemical and physical resemblance to one or another of the normal host elements. As the crystals form, each different mineral type accepts a different trace level of rubidium and of strontium. Because of their individual unique chemistry they each extract a different amount of rubidium and of strontium from the melt. The crystals of the individual minerals are used as the rock samples in the mineral isochrons.
MIXING
Often an isochron yields an unacceptable slope, indicating an age much too young or much too old to be compatible with the accepted model. [19] Frequently the slope is negative.[18,14] A common explanation for these cases is "mixing". It has always been recognized that the same straight-line plot as the isochron can be achieved if the original melt were a mixture of two original homogenized pools.[12] Figure 1. may also be used to illustrate this case. If points a and c are the compositions of the two original pools that partially merged to form the melt, any sample from the melt will occupy a place on a straight line between them, such as point b. No sample will be found above a or below c. Such a "mixing line" has no time significance, and the textbook warns to be wary of accepting such mixing as a true isochron.
Faure's text also proposes a test for mixing. [13] If a plot of 87Sr-86Sr vs 1/Sr (the concentration of strontium) shows a linear relationship, then mixing is indicated. A brief study conducted in 1981 showed a high degree of correlation to this mixing test in the isochrons being published.[3] A subsequent public dialog between Dalrymple[6] and Arndts & Overn [4] concluded that although the mixing test is strongly indicative of mixing, there are circumstances under which mixing would not be detected by such a test, and others wherein the test could give a false indication of mixing. The caution for the geochronologist would be to suspect any isochron, since there is no way to rule out mixing.
It is now clear, however, that there is at least one positive test for mixing. It is the whole-rock isochron itself. If the whole rock yields samples that give a linear plot, whether the slope is positive or negative, or whether the slope signifies an age that fits a preconceived model or not, there is no other known mechanism outside of mixing to which the data may be rationally ascribed.
Discussion
Mixing is an unfortunate misnomer that has become popular for describing rocks formed from two or more original melts, or from a melt becoming contaminated by isolated incorporation of local rock. Understand it to mean partial mixing, with resulting heterogeneity. Complete mixing would result in homogeneity, and would give only a single point to plot. No curve of any kind, nor even a scattering of points would occur.
This homogeneity is the assumed starting point in the history of the rock being dated. It then solidifies. But now, years later, we dig up 6 adjacent meter cubes of the rock, and discover that the normalized ratio of the parent (and incidentally of the daughter) is different in each cube, sufficient to plot as an "isochron". How can we rationally accept the assumed initial homogeneity? We can not.
What is needed but missing in the whole rock isochron is a mechanism to establish initial homogeneity, and then to extract heterogeneous samples. The mineral crystals do the job in an elegant way. Each type accepts a different level of contamination of the parent isotope, chemically determined. One cannot rationally extend this process back to the whole rock. It has been tried, but there is a fallacy . [5,20]
As we stated in 1986: [5]
The whole-rock isochron is justified on the basis that migration of the isotopes in a metamorphic event may be confined to distances of perhaps 1 cm. This is much larger than the average crystal size. Thus the original constituents of each crystal will lie nearby. By taking samples of 100-cm dimensions, one could assure that the entire content of the original crystals are well represented by the sample, with very small error. However, this matrix is the original melt that was theorized to be homogeneous. The ability to find differences in the rubidium content among the samples violates the assumption of original homogeneity. Original inhomogeneity is the only possible explanation: in other words, mixing.
This method of justifying the whole-rock isochron on the basis of the mineral is logically unsound. Within the larger matrix the tiny crystals may incorporate discrete trace elements and return them over time. But they are powerless to alter the composition of the whole-rock matrix.
It is claimed that fractional crystallization of magmas and separation of crystals from the remaining liquid result in suites of comagmatic rocks of differing composition. [10]. This may be true, but there is no experimental evidence that this can generally be applied to trace elements that are foreign to the crystals. Add the fact that trace elements are not securely held by crystals until temperatures are well below the melting points, and this postulate falls far short of explaining the variation in rubidium in whole-rock isochrons. Mixing is much preferred, particularly when it is noted that many data sets have negative slope, where mixing is always the accepted explanation. Often the negative-slope data pertain to large formations that particularly fit the hypothesis of slow cooling from a melt. [15,18]
In the case of the mineral isochrons the scheme postulates an initial homogeneous melt, represented by a single point on the diagram. As the crystals form, their differential solubility will move their individual points on the diagram horizontally , different distances. (Only horizontally, since the vertical is a ratio of two isotopes of the same element). The large volume of whole-rock isochrons, however, shows the general case to be an initial heterogeneous melt represented by the kind of diagram published as an isochron, and which we conclude is actually a mixing line. Any point in the melt can be represented as a point on the straight line. When mineral crystals form, each crystal will move its point off the straight line in one or the other horizontal directions. The result is a scattering of the points. The geochronologist discards it as one of the following:
A three or more part mixture,
Subsequent metamorphosis,
Not a closed system: In this case he recognizes that crystals really cannot be expected to be a closed system. They tend to continue to reject contaminants long after formation, the mobilities of foreign elements in crystals being a whole school of scientific study. The retention of trace elements in crystals is so inadequate that it has been possible to construct "Isochrons" from various parts of the same crystal.[17] It is common that when the mineral isochron fails, the geochronologist then produces a whole-rock isochron from the same formation.
The ability to obtain a whole-rock diagram, straight-line or not, can be considered proof that the data represent a "mixing line" rather than an "isochron". If mixing has not occurred, and the system has remained closed, then the whole-rock data must all lie on a single point. In fact, even if the whole-rock data show scatter, either mixing is indicated -- but of a complex nature, with more than two components -- or there have been subsequent alterations described as the system being open, or both.
Has any legitimate isochron ever been formed? It is improbable. There is ample evidence for mixing. Any "isochron" could be mixing. There is no way to rule it out. All whole-rock "isochrons" are mixing, and they are approximately 90% of all published. Many of the remaining (mineral) "isochrons" have a whole-rock point located close enough to the straight line to discredit them. Why should we expect any of the others to be "true isochrons", since mixing has the strongest probability?
If one possesses a strong faith in the antiquity of the rocks, one could rationally expect that an occasional mineral isochron is legitimate. But it would also require the whole-rock diagram to be concentrated in a single point. (Neither a straight line or scattered). Often a whole rock point is put on a mineral diagram. That does not meet the criterion. Several whole-rock samples must be obtained, using the same techniques required for the whole-rock method. Their individual data points must be identical, i.e. superimposed on the diagram. At that point mixing would not have been ruled out, but all available tests requiring mixing would have been eliminated.
In the dialog with Dalrymple [4] it was noted that he is unwilling to defend the whole-rock isochron. In his latest book [7] on the age of the earth he has included a section that describes the elegant process with which crystals (minerals) give the necessary heterogeneity to make the system work. He also shows why the mineral isochron cannot be relied upon for dating, but does not state that conclusion. He carefully avoids describing the whole-rock method, which leads the casual reader to conclude that it is validated by the same processes as is the mineral method. Nothing could be farther from the case. Dalrymple has seen our initial critique of the whole-rock method, [5] and is obviously reluctant to forthrightly claim any scientific merit for it. He has clearly sidestepped the issue.
Dalrymple [7] does not depend directly on isochron dating of rocks to date the earth, but rather on the lead-isotope ratios. He must be commended for his carefully pointing out the many assumptions involved. However, he finally ignores them and claims that the age has been determined within a very narrow margin.
His ultimate method is to take the radiometric ages of lead ores (Circa 2.6-3.5 Ga) and correct to the beginning. Again I point out that the "isochrons" used to date the ores, as well as those of the meteorites, that add so much to Dalrymple's confidence in the method, are most probably mixing. Note tables 7.4 and 7.5, [Ref 7] which give many meteorite ages. Almost all are whole-rock.
Additionally note that with all his enthusiasm for the isochron, Dalrymple characterizes the method as a "first approximation" [8]
As has been pointed out many times before, all radiometric methods including the linear-plot techniques have been effectively "calibrated" to the fossil dates by selecting among the discordant data those that fit the accepted stratigraphic model. [16] Since the proponents of the isochrons don't take them at face value, others should by equally wary.
See also: "Still No Proof For Ancient Age -A Response" (http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons.html) by W. M. Overn and Russell T. Arndts
A technical analysis of "Isochrons" as defended by Dalrymple against creationist criticism, showing that despite mathematical sophistication, they are unreliable and are calibrated to "known ages" using the geologic column.

BacktoBasics

05-27-2009, 03:40 PM

You must think if you post enough charts it must be true? I can find a chart that shows Santa Clause really lives in Cleveland that doesn't make it true.
Link it up.

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 03:51 PM

TlongII wants us to believe rocks found in different layers of earth are millions of years apart. Just like the fossils. And yet a tree was able to stay standing for millions of years though all those layers?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/77-1.jpg

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-layers-mt-st-helens-chart-th.gif (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-layers-mt-st-helens-chart.gif)
Mt. St. Helens (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-layers-mt-st-helens-chart.gif)
The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock.

SantaClaus

05-27-2009, 03:51 PM

Link it up.

+1 I'd never live in Cleveland.

Phenomanul

05-27-2009, 03:56 PM

The Sun is shrinking. The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to

t = (93,000,000 miles) (5,280 ft/mile) (2.5 ft/hr) (24 hr/da) (365 day/yr) =

Technically the sun's annual rate of radial shrinkage would have to be proportional to the sun's volumetric fuel consumption rate (in the sun's case, Hydrogen).

Those two variables aren't linearly proportional...

That said, the volumetric hydrogen consumption rate that is used to power the sun's nuclear reactions isn't linear either... a larger sun would create a larger gravitational field; which in turn would fuel the fusion reactions at a higher rate. That's why documented radial shrinkage rates in the past were higher than today's rates (in our relatively 'short' history for measuring such rates).

Either way, a 4 or 6 billon year old model for Earth's age doesn't jive with what we know about the sun...

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 04:10 PM

phyzik

05-27-2009, 04:16 PM

^ good point! :tu

The Tlong's of the forum avoid talking about the sun. They avoid talking about Niagara Falls. If The earth was 1/4 of a Million years old Niagara would be as wide as China!
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-429667.png

Except that landmass and tectonic plates are always moving. Niagara Falls hasn't always been there. Your assuming that Niagara Falls has been there since the beginning.

It hasnt. Its part of the Niagara escarpment which includes a small part of the great lakes. The great lakes where created by the great northern glacier, which also covered most of what is now the united states (including where Niagara is). The Niagara Escarpment was covered with a sheet of ice 2 - 3 kilometers thick (Wisconsin Glacier) 23,000 - 12,000 years ago.

The last glacial ice age occurred during three distinct periods of time during the past 65,000 years. The glacier originated east of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec and Labrador. This great glacier was known as "the Wisconsin Glacier".

The early Wisconsin Glacier covered the Niagara District and most of the northern North America 65,000 years ago. This glacier remained for a period of approximately 15,000 years before retreating 50,000 years ago.

The middle Wisconsin Glacier advanced again over the Niagara District 40,000 years ago. It remained for approximately 8,000 years before retreating 32,000 years ago.

The late Wisconsin Glacier advanced again 20,000 years ago. It remained for approximately 8,000 years before beginning its final retreat 12,000 years ago.

The plain of the lowest beach was 122 - 153 meters (400 - 500 feet) above present Lake Ontario (Lake Iroquois).

As the Glacier retreated, the water levels slowly lowered forming the four lakes.

Phineas J. Whoopee

05-27-2009, 04:28 PM

Except that landmass and tectonic plates are always moving. Niagara Falls hasn't always been there. Your assuming that Niagara Falls has been there since the beginning.

It hasnt. Its part of the Niagara escarpment which includes a small part of the great lakes. The great lakes where created by the great northern glacier, which also covered most of what is now the united states (including where Niagara is). The Niagara Escarpment was covered with a sheet of ice 2 - 3 kilometers thick (Wisconsin Glacier) 23,000 - 12,000 years ago.

The last glacial ice age occurred during three distinct periods of time during the past 65,000 years. The glacier originated east of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec and Labrador. This great glacier was known as "the Wisconsin Glacier".

The early Wisconsin Glacier covered the Niagara District and most of the northern North America 65,000 years ago. This glacier remained for a period of approximately 15,000 years before retreating 50,000 years ago.

The middle Wisconsin Glacier advanced again over the Niagara District 40,000 years ago. It remained for approximately 8,000 years before retreating 32,000 years ago.

The late Wisconsin Glacier advanced again 20,000 years ago. It remained for approximately 8,000 years before beginning its final retreat 12,000 years ago.

The plain of the lowest beach was 122 - 153 meters (400 - 500 feet) above present Lake Ontario (Lake Iroquois).

As the Glacier retreated, the water levels slowly lowered forming the four lakes.

+100 Exactly. Planet Earth is constantly changing and that is a no-brainer.

Blake

05-27-2009, 04:31 PM

Blake

05-27-2009, 04:34 PM

Either way, a 4 or 6 billon year old model for Earth's age doesn't jive with what we know about the sun...

source?

if it's from a creation website, I'm going to call you an idiot. Just sayin.

phyzik

05-27-2009, 04:44 PM

Another conundrum for creationalists. The farthest object in space that has been spotted so far is 13 billion light years away, it was a star going supernova. It took the light from that supernova 13.1 billion years to reach earth only recently. That means it must be at least that old. but the earth was only created a few thousand or even 10's of thousands of years ago? Seriously?

BacktoBasics

05-27-2009, 04:46 PM

Blake

05-27-2009, 04:48 PM

Another conundrum for creationalists. The farthest object in space that has been spotted so far is 13 billion light years away. It took the light from that object 13 billion years to reach earth only recently. That means it must be at least that old. but the earth was only created a few thousand or even 10's of thousands of years ago? Seriously?

Adam appeared to about "30" when he was born, so that could be it.....

although I wonder about Methuseluh......

he was 969 years old.......yet young earthers say the world is only several thousand years old......

at what point did people suddenly stop living so long and start living to only around 80 or so?

tlongII

05-27-2009, 04:58 PM

LnGrrrR

05-27-2009, 05:01 PM

U.S.A.F.

05-27-2009, 05:13 PM

source?

if it's from a creation website, I'm going to call you an idiot. Just sayin.

So now your not just happy to debate now your telling us where we can and can't get info from?
So as long as you don't post anything that Darwin said or from any Evolution site then I can read it? What do you guys care where info comes from, either you agree with it or you don't

BTW don't post anything from Google I will call you an Idiot Just sayin.

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 05:19 PM

+100 Exactly. Planet Earth is constantly changing and that is a no-brainer.

So rocks go from 4 billion years old to 12,000 years old? You guys crack me up! I prove to you the earth is not 4 billion years old and then you say "well Niagara falls was not there!"

Where was it? How did it get there? I see what we have here, You guys find a bone, a fossil, or rock and its millions of years old. The earth is 4 billion years old until I bring up Niagara falls and the rules change?
it's not part of evolution?

You guys are all over the map. :lmao

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 05:26 PM

Since we have great minds like TlongII,Blake, Back2Basics,and phyzik reading this topic I have a question, if the earth is 4 billion years old why is the largest coral reef only a few thousand years old? Why is the oldest tree 20-45 thousand years old?

Don't worry i know your answer...If its something you believe in it has been here 4 billion years if its something I bring up? it was not there at the time its recent does not apply to your theories it must be wrong.

Funny how you guys seem to know what took place billions of years ago and yet you can't even explain how Stonehenge was built.

phyzik (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1521)

tlongII

05-27-2009, 05:30 PM

So rocks go from 4 billion years old to 12,000 years old? You guys crack me up! I prove to you the earth is not 4 billion years old and then you say "well Niagara falls was not there!"

Where was it? How did it get there? I see what we have here, You guys find a bone, a fossil, or rock and its millions of years old. The earth is 4 billion years old until I bring up Niagara falls and the rules change?
it's not part of evolution?

You guys are all over the map. :lmao

You might find this hard to believe, but the Grand Canyon wasn't always there either.

:spless:

E20

05-27-2009, 06:04 PM

Phineas J. Whoopee

05-27-2009, 06:06 PM

So rocks go from 4 billion years old to 12,000 years old? You guys crack me up! I prove to you the earth is not 4 billion years old and then you say "well Niagara falls was not there!"

Where was it? How did it get there? I see what we have here, You guys find a bone, a fossil, or rock and its millions of years old. The earth is 4 billion years old until I bring up Niagara falls and the rules change?
it's not part of evolution?

You guys are all over the map. :lmao

You've proven nothing other than you can find links to post from. You really think Niagra falls has always been there since the Earth was created? :lol Please put the crack pipe down.

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 08:50 PM

You might find this hard to believe, but the Grand Canyon wasn't always there either.

:spless:

Oh really oh wise one? What was there before a wall mart? Watch how you answer you may bring up a great flood and then you will be labeled a bible thumper. Let me guess the grand canyon is only 900 million years old that still gives you 3 billion and change to talk about the rest of the planet.

You guys have your heads so far up your asses you forget where you left off. You need a calculator to make sure you don't fuck up and use up all your years.

I am hip to your game if you say enough time anything is possible. For example did you know 800 billion years ago Saturn had no rings and 700 billion years ago Dogs had no legs they just rolled to you when you call them.

and 600 billion years ago Canada was connected to Mexico etc....

You guys can surf the net and find all kinds of shit that some drunk fool smoking weed came up with that sounds good. Did you know If i would have made the Geological column 7 days before mr asshat did I would be famous I could say maggots turned into roaches and the roaches turned into rats and rats into dogs and dogs into monkeys and monkeys into man and all you fools would be quoting me.

I talk about what is here and now.... a 20 thousand year old tree a 4,500 year old barrier reef, all these you can see for yourselves, you guys talk about fantasy roll playing. Hell why not say 900 Billion years ago the solar system was made up of gas and there was only life on one planet and men had wings and spoke through there ass holes.

I rather believe some old drunk bi polar asshole put two of every animal in a huge wooden ark than to believe anything you lost souls have to say.

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 08:52 PM

This does not prove anything LOL.

It proves one thing no one here can give me an explanation,

phyzik

05-27-2009, 10:35 PM

Oh really oh wise one? What was there before a wall mart? Watch how you answer you may bring up a great flood and then you will be labeled a bible thumper. Let me guess the grand canyon is only 900 million years old that still gives you 3 billion and change to talk about the rest of the planet.

You guys have your heads so far up your asses you forget where you left off. You need a calculator to make sure you don't fuck up and use up all your years.

I am hip to your game if you say enough time anything is possible. For example did you know 800 billion years ago Saturn had no rings and 700 billion years ago Dogs had no legs they just rolled to you when you call them.

and 600 billion years ago Canada was connected to Mexico etc....

You guys can surf the net and find all kinds of shit that some drunk fool smoking weed came up with that sounds good. Did you know If i would have made the Geological column 7 days before mr asshat did I would be famous I could say maggots turned into roaches and the roaches turned into rats and rats into dogs and dogs into monkeys and monkeys into man and all you fools would be quoting me.

I talk about what is here and now.... a 20 thousand year old tree a 4,500 year old barrier reef, all these you can see for yourselves, you guys talk about fantasy roll playing. Hell why not say 900 Billion years ago the solar system was made up of gas and there was only life on one planet and men had wings and spoke through there ass holes.

I rather believe some old drunk bi polar asshole put two of every animal in a huge wooden ark than to believe anything you lost souls have to say.

The difference between creationalist and science is that science acnowledges its mistakes. I'm still not prepared to pick one side or the other. I hope for one and understand the other. The problem is that creationalism refuses facts. The fact that your getting defensive proves my point.

I do hope there is a God. I have no problem with how I have lived my life so far. The problem is that no one can provide proof on either side except from what we know..... and what we know completely contradicts the bible.

Phenomanul

05-27-2009, 11:00 PM

source?

if it's from a creation website, I'm going to call you an idiot. Just sayin.

It's called critical thinking (cue another predictable insult from you)... :downspin:
Am I not allowed to reason for myself??? Does every single thought I generate need to be linked to someone else?

Fact is, the Sun's life cycle based on what we currently observe, on what we've documented so far, and on observations of other stars in their respective life cycles... is all driven by nuclear physics...

The Sun's nuclear reactions have slowed down over time (measurable fact)... as they do the amount of hydrogen that is consumed also decreases... if today's consumption rates bear any relevance to the past, logic would dictate that past hydrogen consumption rates were faster... meaning the Sun had to be more massive. If the Sun was more massive, it had to be larger in size... any extrapolation model attempting to pin point that exact size, however, would contain its fair share of speculation. I know that... nevertheless we can come to that conclusion based on what we've come to learn about our studies of the Sun. What is poignantly clear based on Earth's distance from the Sun, then, is that a 4 billion year model would have irreparably scorched earth's surface, completely evaporated it's atmosphere and all sources of liquid water... Earth would essentially look like Mercury or our very own moon...

That observation aside.... there is a strong ideological rift between what most people think science is capable of achieving and what it actually can...

In fact, most people don't really question the natural processes that led to earth's current state... the common 'educated man' simply accepts them and moves on because they acknowledge that science has affected all of our lives in positive, practical ways... that tangible impact, however, has biased our view on what science is able to accomplish...

While the scientific toolset has been a very powerful tool in developing useful technologies... and is extremely methodical at explaining today's processes it does have limits... the common 'educated man' however rarely confronts that question... In their mind, if science can explain today's natural phenomena with accurate precision, then we can allow those same scientific principles to accurately explain the past... no?? Science doesn't quite work that way... The past isn't always reproducible... it can't be tested on... retrivable data is incomplete and paints only partial pictures... ultimately, the past can only be observed forensically. The scientific criteria and standards we apply to studying say a tangible set of chemical reactions, or some atmospheric phenomenon, isn't fully transitive to measuring the past.... Especially when we start tossing around staggering numbers that are completely incompatible with our personal experience... I mean a million years is a very long time! How about 250 million years? 1.2 billion years? 4.6 billion years? 13 billion years? :wow. Those numbers have little relevance to the human mind... and so we've blindly embraced them... after all, we percieve that the scientific establishment has our best interests at heart... or better, that it's completely objective on all such matters... we're duped into thinking Science can never have an agenda... (although the global warming debate seems to have opened a few eyes on that one)...

Ultimately however, we've violated the scientific principles we've established in attempting to quantify processes that supposedly existed millions and billions of years ago. The scientific establishment has errected a house of lies when pertaining to their explanation of our past... they've intricately layered that lie to encompass all fields of study even though more "holes" are poked into a multibillion-year model the more they try to extend that envelope... Ah... But feel free to think what you want... I'm not attempting to change your mind.

After all, you've never once admitted to being wrong about anything... at least not on this forum. Your perspective is completely full-proof, I know... So rather than belittling my own perspective... ignore it... and move on. I don't want to enter another back-and-forth argument with someone who has been incapable of conceding or budging on anything...

The Power Hour.

05-27-2009, 11:16 PM

The difference between creationalist and science is that science acnowledges its mistakes. I'm still not prepared to pick one side or the other.

Smart man.

The fact that your getting defensive proves my point.

I get upset when I say my 69 Camaro is 40 years old and you guys say "actually it's 80 years old" and then when I show you the bill of sale you say "that doesn't mean anything the car could have been on the lot for 40 years.

It's the round and round you guys do to make others chase their tails.

I do hope there is a God. I have no problem with how I have lived my life so far. The problem is that no one can provide proof on either side except from what we know..... and what we know completely contradicts the bible.

Who said you need a bible to believe in a higher power? And why bring up the Bible all the time? why keep calling me a creationist? I am just talking about things that don't make sense like if the Earth is 4 Billion years old then how come the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago.

Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.

Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)

Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old.

The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!

^ Feel free to touch base on any of the statements above....:tu

Blake

05-27-2009, 11:48 PM

So now your not just happy to debate now your telling us where we can and can't get info from?
So as long as you don't post anything that Darwin said or from any Evolution site then I can read it? What do you guys care where info comes from, either you agree with it or you don't

BTW don't post anything from Google I will call you an Idiot Just sayin.

you can get whatever info from whatever source you want, troll.

If it's from God's World.com, then it's biased and you are an idiot.

Blake

05-27-2009, 11:51 PM

Funny how you guys seem to know what took place billions of years ago and yet you can't even explain how Stonehenge was built.

you and your other trolls are all over the map

Blake

05-27-2009, 11:57 PM

I rather believe some old drunk bi polar asshole put two of every animal in a huge wooden ark than to believe anything you lost souls have to say.

I'd rather believe in the same old drunk floating in a huge wooden ark than to believe anything you and the other 9/11 twoofers say.

I'm not sure we ever got a real answer......what do you realllly think happened on 9/11?

Blake

05-27-2009, 11:58 PM

It proves one thing no one here can give me an explanation,

this quote proves you fail to read the explanations given.

simple math gives us the age of the universe, troll.

Blake

05-28-2009, 12:29 AM

It's called critical thinking (cue another predictable insult from you)... :downspin:

no it's not. It's called poor research.

(cue my predictable insult)

if you think the earth is younger than several billion years, then you are just flat out ignorant.

Am I not allowed to reason for myself??? Does every single thought I generate need to be linked to someone else?

sure, if you base your reasoning on known facts.

Fact is, the Sun's life cycle based on what we currently observe, on what we've documented so far, and on observations of other stars in their respective life cycles... is all driven by nuclear physics...

The Sun's nuclear reactions have slowed down over time (measurable fact)... as they do the amount of hydrogen that is consumed also decreases... if today's consumption rates bear any relevance to the past, logic would dictate that past hydrogen consumption rates were faster... meaning the Sun had to be more massive. If the Sun was more massive, it had to be larger in size... any extrapolation model attempting to pin point that exact size, however, would contain its fair share of speculation. I know that... nevertheless we can come to that conclusion based on what we've come to learn about our studies of the Sun. What is poignantly clear based on Earth's distance from the Sun, then, is that a 4 billion year model would have irreparably scorched earth's surface, completely evaporated it's atmosphere and all sources of liquid water... Earth would essentially look like Mercury or our very own moon...

That observation aside.... there is a strong ideological rift between what most people think science is capable of achieving and what it actually can...

In fact, most people don't really question the natural processes that led to earth's current state... the common 'educated man' simply accepts them and moves on because they acknowledge that science has affected all of our lives in positive, practical ways... that tangible impact, however, has biased our view on what science is able to accomplish...

While the scientific toolset has been a very powerful tool in developing useful technologies... and is extremely methodical at explaining today's processes it does have limits... the common 'educated man' however rarely confronts that question... In their mind, if science can explain today's natural phenomena with accurate precision, then we can allow those same scientific principles to accurately explain the past... no?? Science doesn't quite work that way... The past isn't always reproducible... it can't be tested on... retrivable data is incomplete and paints only partial pictures... ultimately, the past can only be observed forensically. The scientific criteria and standards we apply to studying say a tangible set of chemical reactions, or some atmospheric phenomenon, isn't fully transitive to measuring the past.... Especially when we start tossing around staggering numbers that are completely incompatible with our personal experience... I mean a million years is a very long time! How about 250 million years? 1.2 billion years? 4.6 billion years? 13 billion years? :wow. Those numbers have little relevance to the human mind... and so we've blindly embraced them... after all, we percieve that the scientific establishment has our best interests at heart... or better, that it's completely objective on all such matters... we're duped into thinking Science can never have an agenda... (although the global warming debate seems to have opened a few eyes on that one)...

Ultimately however, we've violated the scientific principles we've established in attempting to quantify processes that supposedly existed millions and billions of years ago. The scientific establishment has errected a house of lies when pertaining to their explanation of our past... they've intricately layered that lie to encompass all fields of study even though more "holes" are poked into a multibillion-year model the more they try to extend that envelope... Ah... But feel free to think what you want... I'm not attempting to change your mind.

After all, you've never once admitted to being wrong about anything... at least not on this forum. Your perspective is completely full-proof, I know... So rather than belittling my own perspective... ignore it... and move on. I don't want to enter another back-and-forth argument with someone who has been incapable of conceding or budging on anything...

so all of the scientists in the last few hundred years that have refuted young earth theories all have agendas?

and no, today's consumption rates do not bear any relevance to the past.

just how old do you think the earth, sun, solar system and universe are?

scientology

05-28-2009, 01:16 AM

Did Blake ever answer any of The power Hour's replies? If so I must have missed it in all his insults.

911

05-28-2009, 01:20 AM

.....what do you realllly think happened on 9/11?

Two buildings caved in due to the 4 billion year old dirt it was built on.

The Power Hour.

05-28-2009, 01:25 AM

if you think the earth is younger than several billion years, then you are just flat out ignorant.

Translation: I am right you are wrong and if you don't believe in what I believe in I shall insult you. Your a real debate pro! :tu

Still waiting on your reply to my earlier post!

Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.

Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)

Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old.

The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!

^ Feel free to touch base on any of the statements above....:tu

Blake

05-28-2009, 01:39 AM

hey b2b, there's 3 trolls right there if you need em.

Blake

05-28-2009, 01:41 AM

Two buildings caved in due to the 4 billion year old dirt it was built on.

nope. it pretty much has been proven that planes initially caused the collapse.

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:04 AM

Translation: I am right you are wrong and if you don't believe in what I believe in I shall insult you. Your a real debate pro! :tu

youre a real idiot that doesn't want to believe in facts and uses trolls to pat himself on the back! :tu

Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.

Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)

Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old.

The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!

^ Feel free to touch base on any of the statements above....

naw, I'll do you one better.......I'll give you some more creationist arguments to use and save you the trouble:

"The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment accumulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years."

"The largest stalactites and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years."

"The oldest tree in the world is 4300 years old."

"Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young."

"There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly."

did you copy and paste the arguments from creation websites, or from talkorigins?

seriously mouse, you are an idiot.

step up to the mike

05-28-2009, 06:46 AM

youre a real idiot

I think its safe to say Blake is no longer part of this debate.

wrench

05-28-2009, 06:52 AM

I have always been an atheist and I never bought into the theory the Earth is four billion years old, does that make me a creationist? And why is Blake so upset?

The Power Hour.

05-28-2009, 06:58 AM

I think its safe to say Blake is no longer part of this debate.

I don't think he was really ever in the debate he avoids answering my questions. Hes just here to expose trolls and he loves his work. I picture him in a white jumpsuit with a plasma gun,
"who you gonna call?"

http://freedomforip.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/picture-4-300x177.png

french bread

05-28-2009, 07:23 AM

Hes just here to expose trolls

I have 50 dollars that says he can't guess who I am!
:wakeup

JackLalanne

05-28-2009, 07:33 AM

According to some in here I'm older than planet Earth.

The Club

05-28-2009, 08:12 AM

According to some in here I'm older than planet Earth.

:lmao

Blake

05-28-2009, 08:29 AM

I have 50 dollars that says he can't guess who I am!
:wakeup

I don't really care who you are, even if you are probably Joe Chalupa.

you and the other 50 trolls that have roamed this thread have brought nothing to the discussion...

but keep on slapping yourselves on the back with your troll posts. This thread was ready to die any way.

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 08:33 AM

I don't really care who you are, even if you are probably Joe Chalupa.

you and the other 50 trolls that have roamed this thread have brought nothing to the discussion...

but keep on slapping yourselves on the back with your troll posts. This thread was ready to die any way.

Damn, now I get lumped in with this lame ass thread? :rolleyes

phyzik

05-28-2009, 08:36 AM

Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)

To the simplest approximation, Earth's continental crust is a floating aggregate on the planet's surface that is first attracted to subduction zones and, upon arrival, thickened by mountain building (then producing some extension). Thickened regions are thinned again by erosion. A comparison between 65 Ma and the present shows that the modern state is significantly more mountainous. An estimated average continental elevation increase relative to average ocean floor depth of about 54 m and sea level decrease relative to the ocean floor of about 102 m add up to a 156-m increase of continent elevation over sea level since 65 Ma. Both are affected most strongly by the roughly 1.7% continent surface area decrease caused by Cenozoic mountain building. This includes contributions from erosion. Volumes of sediments in deltas and submarine fans indicate an average thickness of 371 m deposited globally in the ocean basins since 65 Ma. This relatively large change of continent area over a short span of Earth history has significant consequences. Extrapolating, if continent area change exceeded 5% in the past, either severe erosion or flooded continents occurred. If continent elevation (freeboard) remains at the present value of a few hundred meters, the past continent-ocean area ratio might have been quite different, depending on earlier volumes of continental crust and water. We conclude that, along with the ages of ocean basins, continental crustal thickening exerts a first-order control on the global sea level over hundreds of million years.

In other words, its actually thicker than it used to be. Or did you forget that the core of this rock that we live on is molten and can deposit new minerals on the surface at any given time?

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

Um, it does escape. Geologists (some anyway) have long known that natural oil seeps occur, and have occurred as long as the Earth's sediments have been generating oil and gas. Oil fields leak their hydrocarbons to the surface, whether on land or beneath the oceans. Hydrocarbons are less dense than rocks and the water they contain, so the oil and gas is continually trying to escape to the surface. Eventually, given enough time, it all does.

Oil and gas do a lot of migrating, and the oil accumulated in a given reservoir may have recently migrated there from another reservoir. Thus, a given pool of oil may or may not have been there for millions and millions of years. A recent geological shift in the rocks might also increase the leakage of the primary oil pool, which had been hitherto sealed for millions of years. Thus, the mere existence of leaky trapping rocks does not prove that a pool of oil and gas was recently created.

The primary migration of oil from 1 to 5 kilometers deep in the earth, where it is produced under a combination of pressure and heat acting on organic matter, probably goes hand in hand with water migration. Certainly, oil and water are often found together, the oil floating on top of the water within permeable rock. The water is squeezed out as the source sediment experiences more and more pressure. Thus, it may interest you to know how fast water migrates down there.

Some idea of the extremely slow speed of fluid motion to be expected can be gained by considering the movement of ground water at shallow depths in dense clays, classed as "impermeable." Under a moderate hydraulic gradient and a reasonable value of permeability for clay, we come up with flow speeds of ground water on the order of 2 to 3 million years per kilometer [3.2 to 4.8 million years per mile]. Yet the permeability of source shales of petroleum is rated at only one-thousandth as great as for clays tested in the surface environment (Wszolek and Burlingame, 1978, p. 573).

(Strahler, 1987, p.237)

Thus, the primary migration of oil from its place of origin will take far longer than the mere 6000 years or so creationists allow for the age of the earth. Creationists have tried to dance around that figure by quoting special cases of secondary migration or by simple smoke screen tactics, but the problem remains (Strahler, 1987, pp.237-238).

The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.

Wrong. The earth's rotation IS slowing, but at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).

Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)

In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating. Funny, how the sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea floor spreading zone! That is, the farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening. (Funny, how Dr. Hovind always comes up with "a few thousand years" no matter what we are looking at!)

Here is another interesting but little known fact. Mathematical calculations done by Dan McKenzie in 1967 indicated that an ocean floor, spreading at a few inches per year from a rift which adds new material, would cool and contract. It would sink deeper into the mantle as it contracted. "The process is so undeviating that there is a striking relationship between the age of the sea floor and the depth of water covering it." (Miller, 1983, p.122)

John Sclater and his students at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, put McKenzie's theory to the test in 1971. They gathered up every scrap of data on the age and depth of the Pacific sea floor. McKenzie's theory was confirmed! The increasing depths of the older portions of the Pacific floor were a result of thermal contraction. Plate tectonics even explains the basic facts about the depth of the Pacific!

That's bad news for those creationists who believe that the earth's plates did some dancing after Noah's flood. In the few thousand years that creationists have to play around with, there is not enough time for a growing ocean plate to cool down.

Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old.

Dr. Hovind, who supports that theory, is assuming that salt cannot be removed from the oceans. The more sophisticated creationists, such as Melvin Cook, know better than to make that assumption. Here's what Cook had to say:

The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73]

(Dalrymple, 1984, pp.115-116)

Thus, salt is being removed from the oceans as quickly as it is being added by the world's rivers. Consequently, no age can be calculated, save a minimum age based upon an assumption of initial salt content. There is no comfort here for the young-earth creationist.

The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!

Yes, and by the same reasoning 8 germs could populate every cubic inch of available living space on Earth to the tune of 1 million strong in less than a week! That is, if we allow for a generous die-off rate such that the fourth generation has about 40 germs instead of 128, and if we assume that the population divides every hour, each and every cubic inch of living space on the earth (from 100 feet below ground to a mile above) would have 1 million germs after 158 generations. I guess, by creationist reckoning, the earth must be a week old! If it were a few thousand years old, the germ population would have gone through the roof!

Yes, given unlimited living space, an inexhaustible supply of food, a good deal of luck in the early stages, and a high motivation to travel while having more kids than is practical, eight people

could probably populate the earth in a few thousand years. Eight germs could do it in less than a week. Eight bunny rabbits would fall somewhere in between. Eight cats would give us yet another figure. What do any of these figures have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing! What do these figures have to do with actual growth rates? Absolutely nothing!

The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources are finally squandered, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous!

When man lived in scattered tribal groups, which is what he did for 99% of his history, the net human population growth was zero most of the time, just as it is for animals today. Animal populations, especially small animals such as rabbits or mice, often undergo cycles of boom and bust but their net growth is zero. No permanent increase in population can be sustained unless it is supported by a permanent change in the environment. Such a change might include the loss of a predator due to the colonization of new territory, a permanent increase in the food supply due to climatic change or a change in dietary habits, or a variety of other factors. In the case of man, hunting technology, the development of agriculture, and the use of fossil fuels have played major roles. After a favorable change in the environment, a population of animals (or people) may record a permanent jump before leveling off at a zero net growth again. Thus, the growth rate, before technology intervened in a major way, necessarily involved a series of plateaus where the population was in approximate equilibrium with the environment. No doubt, many tribal groups died out. Anthropologists can cite several examples of early human or near-human species, side branches on our evolutionary tree, which left no descendants. There was no assurance that early man would even survive. When favorable changes did occur, large jumps between plateau levels would likely have been exponential. Indeed, the human exponential growth rate of the last 300 years or so can be thought of as one long jump to a new plateau, which has been raised artificially high by technology. Those who imagine that eight people gave rise to everyone living today according to a simple exponential growth curve have demonstrated an inability to think things through.

^ Feel free to touch base on any of the statements above...

Bring on some more if you wish. Hell, Ive got one better. Here's a few more answers to some of your, and Dr. Hovind's, other silly assumptions.

The sun is shrinking at 5 feet/hour which limits the earth-sun relationship to less than 5 million years.

The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!

That's a little like watching the tide go out and concluding that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been under water a few weeks ago! Since careful inspection shows no signs of such a flood, the earth can't be older than a few weeks!

Obviously, we cannot extend a rate willy-nilly. We do need to know something about the system under study. Tides come and go. No one familiar with tides would assume that the rate of water going out is constant over weeks of time! Just as obvious, at least to the experts, our sun could not have been continuously shrinking over millions of years as described by some creationists. Such a view totally ignores the known forces at work within our sun. Infinitely more likely is the possibility that our sun might alternate between small periods of shrinking and small periods of expansion, a kind of oscillation. Indeed, some scientists believe there may be an 80-day cycle of slight shrinking and expanding.

In its formative years, before our sun's core became hot and dense enough to ignite the fusion process and, as a result, check the gravitational collapse, our sun did do some prolonged shrinking. Billions of years from now the depletion of the sun's hydrogen will upset the sun's internal balance, and the sun will again undergo some long term changes. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with the shrinking-sun argument above, which attempts to prove that the solar system is less than 5 million years old.

To sum up our first point, the shrinking-sun argument rests squarely on a naive extension of a rate measured over a relatively short period of time. It's the type of blunder one might find in a high school science project.

An ad hoc attempt to prop up this naive extrapolation boldly declares that our sun is really getting its energy from gravitational collapse alone! An ongoing gravitational collapse of the sun, called the Helmholtz (or Kelvin-Helmholtz) contraction, was the best that scientists could come up with before nuclear fusion was discovered. The heat liberated from vast quantities of falling matter would be enough to make the sun shine. Then nuclear fusion was discovered. The discovery of nuclear fusion (and the realization that the sun's core had the density and temperature to initiate and sustain nuclear fusion) made it clear since the 1930s that the thermonuclear-fusion process was responsible for the sun's energy. Thermonuclear-fusion would soon stop any Helmholtz contraction. Aside from totally ignoring the last 60 years of solar science, this ad hoc argument also ignores the massive evidence relating to ancient climates. (A much larger sun in our recent geological past would have had a noticeable effect on the climate.) The creationist advocates of the Helmholtz contraction argue that their idea rules out the possibility of past geological ages. Just the opposite is true! The evidence for ancient climates, spanning millions of years, is massive and well documented; it rules out this ad hoc use of the Helmholtz contraction.

Blunder number two is the unwarranted assumption that the rate of shrinkage reported by Eddy and Boornazian is an established fact. Far from it! The rate of shrinkage was published as an abstract to further scientific discussion, not as a polished paper. Certain creationists nevertheless pounced upon it as though it were the Holy Grail. Before long, serious flaws in its methodology turned up and the data has since been discredited; the full text of their study was never published. It is instructive to note how creationist authors became fixated on that one point even though several studies at the time (or shortly thereafter) drew completely different conclusions.

Some creationists, such as Walter Brown, have tried to pump new life into the argument by quoting additional sources (Lippard, 1990, p.25), but only in vain. In Brown's case, two of the three sources offered were obsolete, and the third actually undercut his position! (Lippard, 1990, p.25). In a rebuttal to Lippard, Walter Brown offered no new studies to back up his "feeling" that the sun is undergoing a small, but continuous shrinkage (Brown, 1990, pp.45-46).

Brown, in his debate with Lippard, then dodged into the missing-neutrino problem in a vain effort to turn it into evidence for his position. (Neutrinos are subatomic particles with no electric charge and little or no mass. They are important here as a calculated by-product of the thermonuclear-fusion process in the sun. The vast majority of neutrinos pass effortlessly through the earth and are, therefore, extremely hard to detect.) To make his case, Brown must demonstrate that the "missing" neutrinos are due to a corresponding lack of nuclear fusion, and that the sun's current output of energy is due, in large part, to gravitational collapse. (A prolonged gravitational collapse of the sun is impossible once the thermonuclear-fusion process gets rolling. A creationist might argue that the coexistence of nuclear fusion and a Helmholtz contraction implies a young sun on its way to equilibrium. However, that would be a very tough row to hoe in that possible oscillations in the sun's diameter and other phenomena unrelated to a true Helmholtz contraction must be ruled out. Thus, Brown's motive for undermining the thermonuclear-fusion process by way of the missing-neutrino problem.)

As there are several possible solutions to the missing-neutrino problem (Lippard, 1990a, p.32), Brown's scenario is an extremely tall order. Even if it were proved that there is a serious deficiency in solar nuclear fusion, that being the cause of the low neutrino count, Brown would still have to prove that the situation was permanent. It could be a temporary glitch or even part of some complex cycle. Thus, any attempt at the present time to use the missing-neutrino problem as support for a shrinking sun is wholly misguided. Furthermore, invoking a Helmholtz contraction in place of thermonuclear fusion is subject to all of the problems listed above.

It was in 1979 that astronomers John Eddy and Aram Boornazian presented their paper and published its abstract: "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953." In the April 1980 issue of ICR's Impact series (Impact #82), Russell Akridge picked up the report and naively extended the shrinkage rate of 5 feet/hour into the indefinite past. As that soon led to an impossible situation, he concluded that the earth was much less than 20 million years old. Soon, Walter Brown, Thomas Barnes, Henry Morris, Hilton Hinderliter, James Hanson, and other creationists were in on the act, and the shrinking-sun argument became a creationist legend. A number of studies have not found any evidence for a continuous shrinking of the sun. Leslie Morrison, for example, drawing on Edmund Halley's observations of the solar eclipse of 1715, concluded that there is no evidence that the sun is shrinking. His findings were reported in the January, 1988 issue of Gemini (no.18, pp.6-8). Gemini is the official journal of the Royal Greenwich Observatory.

Thomas Barnes, Walter Brown, and Henry Morris used the argument for several years after the original report by Eddy and Boornazian was discredited (Van Till, 1986). I guess a lot of creationists still haven't gotten the word. In his debate with Dr. Paul Hilpman, on June 15, 1992 at the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri, Dr. Hovind applied the obsolete, shrinking-sun argument.

Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the 'creation-science' community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as 'scientific evidence' for a young Earth.

(Van Till, 1986, p.17)

That was true in 1986 and is true today; it will be true for years to come. "Scientific" creationism lives like the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand; it has no effective mechanism to weed out error.

An outstanding study by H. Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988, pp.47-65) beautifully contrasts the sober scientific handling of the findings of John Eddy and Aram Boornazian (who advanced the scientific claim that the sun was shrinking) with the reckless, speculative spin put on it by the "scientific" creationists. The reader might also consult pages 29-39 where Van Till gives us an excellent feeling for what scientific competence, integrity, and judgment are all about. After reading that, one understands why "scientific" creationists are rarely published in the refereed scientific journals.

There. I've even provided you the books and what pages you can read all this from. In other words, I can copy and paste just as well as you can.

Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young.

The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used! It has coasted along on obsolete evidence, and nothing but obsolete evidence, for the last 25 years!! It nicely illustrates how creationists borrow from each other and never do any outside reading.

The obsolescence of this argument has been brought out in numerous debates and published in countless books, journals, and newsletters. It can be discovered by anyone who exercises his or her library card. It's not a state secret! What does it take to get through to the creationist brain??

The earliest use of the cosmic dust argument that Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988) could find was in an article by Harold Slusher, which was published in the June 1971 issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly. Slusher made several blunders which are handed down in the "scientific" creationist literature to this very day. In 1974 the cosmic dust argument received its big kick-off from Henry Morris' book, Scientific Creationism. Morris quoted an article by Hans Pettersson in the February 1960 issue of Scientific American. Pettersson's upper estimate for the influx of cosmic dust, a figure he considered risky, was based on particles he collected from two filtration units in the Hawaiian Islands. One was located near the summit of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and the other near the observatory on Haleakala, Maui. He came up with 39,150 tons/day. Pettersson actually favored a figure about two-thirds less, and he warned his readers that the true figure could be much lower still. Further work was planned in Switzerland.

This caution seems to have been lost on Henry Morris, who may have been relying on Slusher's work, and he ignored Pettersson's preferred value in favor of his highest estimate. By the time the Impact insert #110 of Acts & Facts (August 1982) came out, sporting as it did a collection of young-earth claims, the reader was being told that just prior to the manned, moon landing scientists were worried about a thick layer of dust. (Again, we have echoes of Slusher's article.) Of course, the sea of cosmic dust did not materialize, and the Impact article claimed a victory for creation science which supports a young moon without much cosmic dust. Steven Shore shows that this entire scenario is wrongheaded. Let's get a proper perspective on history:

In a conference held in late 1963, on the Lunar Surface Layer, McCracken and Dublin state that

"The lunar surface layer thus formed would, therefore, consist of a mixture of lunar material and interplanetary material (primarily of cometary origin) from 10 cm to 1 m thick. The low value for the accretion rate for the small particles is not adequate to produce large scale dust erosion or to form deep layers of dust on the moon, for the flux has probably remained fairly constant during the past several billion years." (p. 204)

(Shore, 1984, p.34)

In 1965, a conference was held on the nature of the lunar surface. The basic conclusion of this conference was that both from the optical properties of the scattering of sunlight observed from the Earth, and from the early Ranger photographs, there was no evidence for an extensive dust layer.

(Shore, 1984, p.34)

Thus, several years before men landed on the moon there was a general feeling that our astronauts would not be greeted by vast layers of cosmic dust. Although direct confirmation was not yet at hand, thus allowing a few dissenting opinions, few scientists expected even as much as three feet of cosmic dust on the moon. In May 1966 Surveyor I had landed on the moon, thus putting an end to any lingering doubts about a manned landing sinking in dust.

The cosmic dust argument was already obsolete by the time Henry Morris included it in his book, Scientific Creationism. It was already obsolete when Harold Slusher wrote his article three years earlier.

Since the late 1960s, much better and more direct measurements of the meteoritic influx to the Earth have been available from satellite penetration data. In a comprehensive review article, Dohnanyi [1972, Icarus 17: 1-48] showed that the mass of meteoritic material impinging on the Earth is only about 22,000 tons per year [60 tons/day]... Other recent estimates of the mass of interplanetary matter reaching the Earth from space, based on satellite-borne detectors, range from about 11,000 to 18,000 tons per year (67) [30-49 tons/day]; estimates based on the cosmic-dust content of deep-sea sediment are comparable (e.g., 11, 103).

(Dalrymple, 1984, p.109)

Thus, we have good satellite data from the late 1960s in addition to estimates from deep-sea sediment content, the latter going back to at least 1968 and yielding comparable figures. Satellite data goes back even further. On August 9-13, 1965 a symposium on meteor orbits and dust was sponsored by NASA and the Smithsonian Institute (Van Till et al, 1988, p.70). Results from the early microphone-type dust detectors (recording clicks as bits of space dust struck at high speeds) were compared with penetration detectors (which recorded holes punched in thin foil). At the time there was no clear explanation as to why the former method gave such higher counts, sometimes as much as a 100 times that of the penetration detectors. Shortly afterwards it was learned that the microphone-type detectors also picked up spacecraft noises due to thermal expansion and contraction as well as effects caused by solar flares and cosmic rays. Even so, those early detectors gave results which were 10 to 100 times smaller than Pettersson's figure.

Dohnanyi's figure of 60 tons/day includes everything from slowly settling dust to the average input of meteorites.

Dohnanyi's figure for the moon (2 x 10-9 grams/square centimeter per year) yields 2.3 tons/day. In 4.5 billion years a layer of about one and a half inches of cosmic dust would accumulate on the moon. (On the moon, of course, a ton would weigh much less. We're actually talking about a mass that would weigh 2.3 tons on Earth.)

In his book Age of the Cosmos, published in 1980, Harold Slusher devoted a chapter to the amount of space dust raining down on the earth. He dwells on Pettersson's 1960 figure of 39,000 tons/day and even produces a 1967 figure which gives a whopping 700,000 tons/day! Alan Hayward, a respected physicist and Bible-believing Christian, felt it necessary to make the following observation:

To write like that in 1980 was inexcusable. The two sources he quotes were dated 1960 and 1967--hopelessly out of date in a fast-changing area of science. They merely provide estimates of what the influx of meteoritic dust might possibly be.

But we no longer have to rely on estimates. A paper, published four years before Slusher's book, described how the amount of meteoritic dust in space has now been measured, with detectors mounted on satellites.

(Hayward, 1985, pp.142-143)

Hayward was referring to a July 1976 article by D. W. Hughes, published in the New Scientist, which gave a figure of 48 tons/day--enough to cover the earth with about 1.5 inches of dust during the earth's lifetime! It's nearly a 1000 times smaller than Pettersson's figure, and it utterly destroys the cosmic dust argument.

Because of the incredible amount of space junk orbiting the earth, modern estimates of incoming dust have become more difficult. However, with the 1990 retrieval of the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) satellite, which spent nearly six years in orbit, possibly the clearest figure yet is now available for the influx of space dust.

In the October 22, 1993, Science, Stanley G. Love and Donald E. Brownlee (University of Washington) describe their analysis of 761 small impact craters found on some of LDEF's aluminum-alloy plates. These surfaces continuously faced spaceward while the satellite was in orbit. ...As the researcher explain, this location was superbly suited for their study. It was largely protected from orbital debris and secondary impacts from collisions elsewhere on the satellite, and in pointing

outward it also sampled a variety of interplanetary directions as LDEF orbited the Earth.

(Sky & Telescope, March 1994, p.13)

The article goes on to explain that dust particles as small as 35 trillionths of an ounce (10-9 grams) were detected. Love and Brownlee concluded that each year the earth collects about 40,000 metric tons (121 tons/day) which is a bit higher than the less direct figures given above. The results are "comparable to rates crudely calculated from the long-term accumulation of the rare element iridium in sea sediment and Antarctic ice."

Thus, the very latest, and possibly the best, cosmic dust influx measurement dooms the creationist argument once again. (How many strikes does it take before you're out in creationland? Answer: Who knows? They play by no rules and have no referees.) In summary, the general scientific consensus, going back to the 1960s, has been borne out by numerous measurements during the last 25 years.

Perhaps these constant reminders about obsolete data finally got to Henry Morris. Yet, he did not drop the cosmic dust argument like a hot potato, as one might expect. To the contrary, his second edition of Scientific Creationism (1985) expanded his footnote reference to Pettersson to suggest that a much more recent source from NASA gave an even larger influx of dust! The reader was referred to: "G.S. Hawkins, Ed., Meteor Orbits and Dust, published by NASA, 1976" (Wheeler, 1987, p.14). Thus, Morris appeared to have an unimpeachable source which was even more recent than Dohnanyi's figure!

Frank Lovell, suspecting that years of direct measurement from space (supported by sea floor studies) could not be that wrong, smelling a rat as it were, checked up on the source. It turned out that the actual date was 1967! The digits had been reversed (Wheeler, 1987, pp.14-15). Furthermore, the figure quoted by Morris (200 million tons of dust each year) was not given in the original source! It was a calculation based on the original source, done by an unnamed "creationist physicist" who botched it! The unsuspecting reader would have assumed that the rate had the official blessing of NASA. Astronomer Larry W. Esposito had some choice words concerning this incredible fiasco by Henry Morris:

...the work is incorrectly cited, outdated, from a non-referenced symposium publication, based on unreliable data. The calculation multiplies together unrelated numbers: the product of these factors is not a reliable estimation of the current cosmic dust deposition rate.

(Wheeler, 1987, p.15)

Wheeler and Lovell were party to another strange, creationist tale of reversed digits! They had written a letter to a religious magazine, Concern, published in Louisville, Kentucky, and had criticized an article which had used Pettersson's obsolete figure for cosmic dust influx. Concern published that letter along with a reply from the author of the original article. The author stated that Richard Bliss (a member of the Institute for Creation Research) had written the following to him in a letter:

It seems that we have estimates on meteor dust deposition, based on various assumptions, of the total volume of incoming meteoritic material ranging from 800,000 to 1 x 106 tons per day. You can get this information from the following sources:

1. Space Handbook, Astronautics and its Applications by R.W. Beucherin and staff of the Rand Corporation, Random House, NY 1959.

2. Nazarove, I.N. Rocket and Satellite Investigations of Meteors presented at the fifth meeting of the COMITE Speciale De I'annee Geophysique International, Moscow, August 1985.

(Wheeler, 1987, p.15)

The first source was even more obsolete than Pettersson's, but the second one was dated 1985. In response to a query, Bliss said that he got the figures from Harold Slusher, also of ICR. Several attempts to get through to Slusher failed.

Finally it occurred to us that the date cited for this reference, like that of Morris, might be incorrect. The International Geophysical Year ("I'annee Geophysique International") was 1957-1958, and I found in Nature [182:294 (1958)] that the fifth meeting of the Special Committee was held in Moscow in July-August 1958, and that it included a symposium on the rocket and satellite program; this obviously was the source of Slusher's reference.

(Wheeler, 1987, p.15)

Thus, we have a second case of inverted digits! A complaint about obsolete data was answered with data even more obsolete!! The average reader, of course, would never have guessed that the citation was bogus.

Thus, creationism carried its obsolete banner ever forward. In 1989, Walter Brown came out with the 5th edition of his booklet In the Beginning. He was no longer quoting Pettersson as was the case in older editions. Nevertheless, he calculated that in 4.6 billion years 2,000 feet of dust should have accumulated on the moon.

Brown says his figure is based on data from two sources, Stuart R. Taylor's Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, 1975, p.92) and David W. Hughes's "The Changing Micrometeoroid Flux" (Nature 251(379-380), 4 October 1974). Hughes gives no basis for any calculation.

(Schadewald, 1990, p.16)

As for Taylor's paper, Schadewald identifies the appropriate distribution equation, makes use of the calculus and shows that even if we extend the range of particles way beyond what was actually detected we would get a layer of dust only 1 inch deep! Schadewald was left wondering where Brown got his 2000 feet of dust! Perhaps, he mused, Brown had moon dust in his eyes when he made that calculation.

I shouldn't tease Dr. Brown since I blew the initial calculations before correcting myself! The equation which Schadewald uses (from Taylor) is:

log(N) = -1.62 - 1.16 log(m)

N is the number of bodies with masses greater than m, which impact a square kilometer of moon per year. The density of the dust is given as 3 grams/cubic centimeter. It does make a difference which units one uses for mass. The context of Schadewald's article suggests that the proper mass units are grams (not kilograms), and a little playing around with the equation makes that reasonably clear. If one erroneously uses kilograms and integrates N(m) over a range of 10-16 kilograms to 1020 kilograms, a figure of 2259 feet of dust may be obtained for a period of 4.6 billion years. Possibly something like that happened in Dr. Brown's calculation. (By the way, if you are not familiar with mathematics, just hop over these little diversions. I dive into the mathematics, at times, to give the more able reader the finer points. You don't need them to get the general drift.)

If I understand the equation properly, a straightforward integration of N(m) is not the most precise method, but it does yield a good approximation to the answers I got. For a mass range of 100Kg to 1000Kg I calculate that 4.6 billion years would deposit a layer of dust 0.107mm (4 thousandths of an inch) thick. For a mass range of 100gms to 1000Kg I get 0.79mm. However, in extending the calculation to extremes, from 10-13 grams to 1023 grams, I came up with 26.4cm (10.4 inches) instead of 2.5cm which Schadewald got. The point is that you wouldn't even get 10.4 inches of dust in 4.6 billion years, being that the formula is not accurate for these extreme ranges. Attempts to inflate this value further, by going to even greater ranges, is simply an abuse of the formula and proves nothing.

Neither the above formula, when properly used, nor actual measurements made in space offer anything close to the huge amounts of cosmic dust needed in this young-earth argument. Of course, a little thing like that would never stop those creationists from circulating it!

Today, armies of creationists, such as Dr. Hovind, carry forth the banner of the cosmic dust argument, and some of them are still using Pettersson's 1960 calculations! As for Dr. Hovind, he seems to have written a new chapter altogether! In his June 15, 1992 debate with Dr. Hilpman in the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri, Dr. Hovid calmly stated that scientists had predicted that 182 feet of cosmic dust would be found on the moon based on an accumulation of 1 inch every 10,000 years. I played that video segment three times to make sure I had it right! Had he checked those figures he would have found that they represent two different rates, that of 4144 tons/day and a whopping 872,798 tons/day! Compare either figure to the 2.3 tons/day given by Dohnanyi which was based on actual measurements made in space. The cosmic dust argument, having been obsolete for 25 years, has now entered the realm of comedy! Perhaps, I should have said "tragedy" since this is the kind of nonsense creationists want to teach our children.

Did I say "want to teach"? It may interest you to know that a sixth-grade science textbook Observing God's World, published by A Beka Book Publications in 1978, made use of the cosmic dust argument! (Van Till et al, 1988, p.78). It was probably written for one of those private, "Christian" schools which don't teach evolution. I certainly hope that none of our public schools have sunk that low! There's something rotten about foisting such sleazy garbage on children who look to their teachers for knowledge.

For an excellent study of this moon dust argument, read Clarence Menninga (Van Till et al, 1988, pp.67-82). If you do, you will find that there are still more blunders associated with this infamous creationist argument!

A few young-earth creationists do show signs of acute embarrassment, and in them there is some light at the end of a long, dark tunnel. Some of them are trying to set up a review process to weed out errors in the creationist literature. However, I'm afraid that when the last of the bath water is thrown out, no baby will be found!

-------------------------------------------------------

Should I keep going? I can do this all damn day if you want. :wakeup

scientology

05-28-2009, 08:49 AM

To the simplest approximation, Earth's continental crust is a floating aggregate on the planet's surface that is first attracted to subduction zones and, upon arrival, thickened by mountain building (then producing some extension). Thickened regions are thinned again by erosion. A comparison between 65 Ma and the present shows that the modern state is significantly more mountainous. An estimated average continental elevation increase relative to average ocean floor depth of about 54 m and sea level decrease relative to the ocean floor of about 102 m add up to a 156-m increase of continent elevation over sea level since 65 Ma. Both are affected most strongly by the roughly 1.7% continent surface area decrease caused by Cenozoic mountain building. This includes contributions from erosion. Volumes of sediments in deltas and submarine fans indicate an average thickness of 371 m deposited globally in the ocean basins since 65 Ma. This relatively large change of continent area over a short span of Earth history has significant consequences. Extrapolating, if continent area change exceeded 5% in the past, either severe erosion or flooded continents occurred. If continent elevation (freeboard) remains at the present value of a few hundred meters, the past continent-ocean area ratio might have been quite different, depending on earlier volumes of continental crust and water. We conclude that, along with the ages of ocean basins, continental crustal thickening exerts a first-order control on the global sea level over hundreds of million years.

In other words, its actually thicker than it used to be. Or did you forget that the core of this rock that we live on is molten and can deposit new minerals on the surface at any given time?

Um, it does escape. Geologists (some anyway) have long known that natural oil seeps occur, and have occurred as long as the Earth's sediments have been generating oil and gas. Oil fields leak their hydrocarbons to the surface, whether on land or beneath the oceans. Hydrocarbons are less dense than rocks and the water they contain, so the oil and gas is continually trying to escape to the surface. Eventually, given enough time, it all does. what, do you really think it just stays there locked in a little bubble underground? :lol

Wrong. The earth's rotation IS slowing, but at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).

In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating. Funny, how the sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea floor spreading zone! That is, the farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening. (Funny, how Dr. Hovind always comes up with "a few thousand years" no matter what we are looking at!)

Here is another interesting but little known fact. Mathematical calculations done by Dan McKenzie in 1967 indicated that an ocean floor, spreading at a few inches per year from a rift which adds new material, would cool and contract. It would sink deeper into the mantle as it contracted. "The process is so undeviating that there is a striking relationship between the age of the sea floor and the depth of water covering it." (Miller, 1983, p.122)

John Sclater and his students at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, put McKenzie's theory to the test in 1971. They gathered up every scrap of data on the age and depth of the Pacific sea floor. McKenzie's theory was confirmed! The increasing depths of the older portions of the Pacific floor were a result of thermal contraction. Plate tectonics even explains the basic facts about the depth of the Pacific!

That's bad news for those creationists who believe that the earth's plates did some dancing after Noah's flood. In the few thousand years that creationists have to play around with, there is not enough time for a growing ocean plate to cool down.

Dr. Hovind, who supports that theory, is assuming that salt cannot be removed from the oceans. The more sophisticated creationists, such as Melvin Cook, know better than to make that assumption. Here's what Cook had to say:

The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73]

(Dalrymple, 1984, pp.115-116)

Thus, salt is being removed from the oceans as quickly as it is being added by the world's rivers. Consequently, no age can be calculated, save a minimum age based upon an assumption of initial salt content. There is no comfort here for the young-earth creationist.

Yes, and by the same reasoning 8 germs could populate every cubic inch of available living space on Earth to the tune of 1 million strong in less than a week! That is, if we allow for a generous die-off rate such that the fourth generation has about 40 germs instead of 128, and if we assume that the population divides every hour, each and every cubic inch of living space on the earth (from 100 feet below ground to a mile above) would have 1 million germs after 158 generations. I guess, by creationist reckoning, the earth must be a week old! If it were a few thousand years old, the germ population would have gone through the roof!

Yes, given unlimited living space, an inexhaustible supply of food, a good deal of luck in the early stages, and a high motivation to travel while having more kids than is practical, eight people

could probably populate the earth in a few thousand years. Eight germs could do it in less than a week. Eight bunny rabbits would fall somewhere in between. Eight cats would give us yet another figure. What do any of these figures have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing! What do these figures have to do with actual growth rates? Absolutely nothing!

The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources are finally squandered, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous!

When man lived in scattered tribal groups, which is what he did for 99% of his history, the net human population growth was zero most of the time, just as it is for animals today. Animal populations, especially small animals such as rabbits or mice, often undergo cycles of boom and bust but their net growth is zero. No permanent increase in population can be sustained unless it is supported by a permanent change in the environment. Such a change might include the loss of a predator due to the colonization of new territory, a permanent increase in the food supply due to climatic change or a change in dietary habits, or a variety of other factors. In the case of man, hunting technology, the development of agriculture, and the use of fossil fuels have played major roles. After a favorable change in the environment, a population of animals (or people) may record a permanent jump before leveling off at a zero net growth again. Thus, the growth rate, before technology intervened in a major way, necessarily involved a series of plateaus where the population was in approximate equilibrium with the environment. No doubt, many tribal groups died out. Anthropologists can cite several examples of early human or near-human species, side branches on our evolutionary tree, which left no descendants. There was no assurance that early man would even survive. When favorable changes did occur, large jumps between plateau levels would likely have been exponential. Indeed, the human exponential growth rate of the last 300 years or so can be thought of as one long jump to a new plateau, which has been raised artificially high by technology. Those who imagine that eight people gave rise to everyone living today according to a simple exponential growth curve have demonstrated an inability to think things through.

Bring on some more if you wish. Hell, Ive got one better. Here's a few more answers to some of your, and Dr. Hovind's, other silly assumptions.

The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!

That's a little like watching the tide go out and concluding that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been under water a few weeks ago! Since careful inspection shows no signs of such a flood, the earth can't be older than a few weeks!

Obviously, we cannot extend a rate willy-nilly. We do need to know something about the system under study. Tides come and go. No one familiar with tides would assume that the rate of water going out is constant over weeks of time! Just as obvious, at least to the experts, our sun could not have been continuously shrinking over millions of years as described by some creationists. Such a view totally ignores the known forces at work within our sun. Infinitely more likely is the possibility that our sun might alternate between small periods of shrinking and small periods of expansion, a kind of oscillation. Indeed, some scientists believe there may be an 80-day cycle of slight shrinking and expanding.

In its formative years, before our sun's core became hot and dense enough to ignite the fusion process and, as a result, check the gravitational collapse, our sun did do some prolonged shrinking. Billions of years from now the depletion of the sun's hydrogen will upset the sun's internal balance, and the sun will again undergo some long term changes. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with the shrinking-sun argument above, which attempts to prove that the solar system is less than 5 million years old.

To sum up our first point, the shrinking-sun argument rests squarely on a naive extension of a rate measured over a relatively short period of time. It's the type of blunder one might find in a high school science project.

An ad hoc attempt to prop up this naive extrapolation boldly declares that our sun is really getting its energy from gravitational collapse alone! An ongoing gravitational collapse of the sun, called the Helmholtz (or Kelvin-Helmholtz) contraction, was the best that scientists could come up with before nuclear fusion was discovered. The heat liberated from vast quantities of falling matter would be enough to make the sun shine. Then nuclear fusion was discovered. The discovery of nuclear fusion (and the realization that the sun's core had the density and temperature to initiate and sustain nuclear fusion) made it clear since the 1930s that the thermonuclear-fusion process was responsible for the sun's energy. Thermonuclear-fusion would soon stop any Helmholtz contraction. Aside from totally ignoring the last 60 years of solar science, this ad hoc argument also ignores the massive evidence relating to ancient climates. (A much larger sun in our recent geological past would have had a noticeable effect on the climate.) The creationist advocates of the Helmholtz contraction argue that their idea rules out the possibility of past geological ages. Just the opposite is true! The evidence for ancient climates, spanning millions of years, is massive and well documented; it rules out this ad hoc use of the Helmholtz contraction.

Blunder number two is the unwarranted assumption that the rate of shrinkage reported by Eddy and Boornazian is an established fact. Far from it! The rate of shrinkage was published as an abstract to further scientific discussion, not as a polished paper. Certain creationists nevertheless pounced upon it as though it were the Holy Grail. Before long, serious flaws in its methodology turned up and the data has since been discredited; the full text of their study was never published. It is instructive to note how creationist authors became fixated on that one point even though several studies at the time (or shortly thereafter) drew completely different conclusions.

Some creationists, such as Walter Brown, have tried to pump new life into the argument by quoting additional sources (Lippard, 1990, p.25), but only in vain. In Brown's case, two of the three sources offered were obsolete, and the third actually undercut his position! (Lippard, 1990, p.25). In a rebuttal to Lippard, Walter Brown offered no new studies to back up his "feeling" that the sun is undergoing a small, but continuous shrinkage (Brown, 1990, pp.45-46).

Some creationists, such as Walter Brown, have tried to pump new life into the argument by quoting additional sources (Lippard, 1990, p.25), but only in vain. In Brown's case, two of the three sources offered were obsolete, and the third actually undercut his position! (Lippard, 1990, p.25). In a rebuttal to Lippard, Walter Brown offered no new studies to back up his "feeling" that the sun is undergoing a small, but continuous shrinkage (Brown, 1990, pp.45-46).

Brown, in his debate with Lippard, then dodged into the missing-neutrino problem in a vain effort to turn it into evidence for his position. (Neutrinos are subatomic particles with no electric charge and little or no mass. They are important here as a calculated by-product of the thermonuclear-fusion process in the sun. The vast majority of neutrinos pass effortlessly through the earth and are, therefore, extremely hard to detect.) To make his case, Brown must demonstrate that the "missing" neutrinos are due to a corresponding lack of nuclear fusion, and that the sun's current output of energy is due, in large part, to gravitational collapse. (A prolonged gravitational collapse of the sun is impossible once the thermonuclear-fusion process gets rolling. A creationist might argue that the coexistence of nuclear fusion and a Helmholtz contraction implies a young sun on its way to equilibrium. However, that would be a very tough row to hoe in that possible oscillations in the sun's diameter and other phenomena unrelated to a true Helmholtz contraction must be ruled out. Thus, Brown's motive for undermining the thermonuclear-fusion process by way of the missing-neutrino problem.)

As there are several possible solutions to the missing-neutrino problem (Lippard, 1990a, p.32), Brown's scenario is an extremely tall order. Even if it were proved that there is a serious deficiency in solar nuclear fusion, that being the cause of the low neutrino count, Brown would still have to prove that the situation was permanent. It could be a temporary glitch or even part of some complex cycle. Thus, any attempt at the present time to use the missing-neutrino problem as support for a shrinking sun is wholly misguided. Furthermore, invoking a Helmholtz contraction in place of thermonuclear fusion is subject to all of the problems listed above.

It was in 1979 that astronomers John Eddy and Aram Boornazian presented their paper and published its abstract: "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953." In the April 1980 issue of ICR's Impact series (Impact #82), Russell Akridge picked up the report and naively extended the shrinkage rate of 5 feet/hour into the indefinite past. As that soon led to an impossible situation, he concluded that the earth was much less than 20 million years old. Soon, Walter Brown, Thomas Barnes, Henry Morris, Hilton Hinderliter, James Hanson, and other creationists were in on the act, and the shrinking-sun argument became a creationist legend. A number of studies have not found any evidence for a continuous shrinking of the sun. Leslie Morrison, for example, drawing on Edmund Halley's observations of the solar eclipse of 1715, concluded that there is no evidence that the sun is shrinking. His findings were reported in the January, 1988 issue of Gemini (no.18, pp.6-8). Gemini is the official journal of the Royal Greenwich Observatory.

Thomas Barnes, Walter Brown, and Henry Morris used the argument for several years after the original report by Eddy and Boornazian was discredited (Van Till, 1986). I guess a lot of creationists still haven't gotten the word. In his debate with Dr. Paul Hilpman, on June 15, 1992 at the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri, Dr. Hovind applied the obsolete, shrinking-sun argument.

Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the 'creation-science' community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as 'scientific evidence' for a young Earth.

(Van Till, 1986, p.17)

That was true in 1986 and is true today; it will be true for years to come. "Scientific" creationism lives like the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand; it has no effective mechanism to weed out error.

An outstanding study by H. Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988, pp.47-65) beautifully contrasts the sober scientific handling of the findings of John Eddy and Aram Boornazian (who advanced the scientific claim that the sun was shrinking) with the reckless, speculative spin put on it by the "scientific" creationists. The reader might also consult pages 29-39 where Van Till gives us an excellent feeling for what scientific competence, integrity, and judgment are all about. After reading that, one understands why "scientific" creationists are rarely published in the refereed scientific journals.

There. I've even provided you the books and what pages you can read all this from. In other words, I can copy and paste just as well as you can.

The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used! It has coasted along on obsolete evidence, and nothing but obsolete evidence, for the last 25 years!! It nicely illustrates how creationists borrow from each other and never do any outside reading.

The obsolescence of this argument has been brought out in numerous debates and published in countless books, journals, and newsletters. It can be discovered by anyone who exercises his or her library card. It's not a state secret! What does it take to get through to the creationist brain??

The earliest use of the cosmic dust argument that Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988) could find was in an article by Harold Slusher, which was published in the June 1971 issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly. Slusher made several blunders which are handed down in the "scientific" creationist literature to this very day. In 1974 the cosmic dust argument received its big kick-off from Henry Morris' book, Scientific Creationism. Morris quoted an article by Hans Pettersson in the February 1960 issue of Scientific American. Pettersson's upper estimate for the influx of cosmic dust, a figure he considered risky, was based on particles he collected from two filtration units in the Hawaiian Islands. One was located near the summit of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and the other near the observatory on Haleakala, Maui. He came up with 39,150 tons/day. Pettersson actually favored a figure about two-thirds less, and he warned his readers that the true figure could be much lower still. Further work was planned in Switzerland.

This caution seems to have been lost on Henry Morris, who may have been relying on Slusher's work, and he ignored Pettersson's preferred value in favor of his highest estimate. By the time the Impact insert #110 of Acts & Facts (August 1982) came out, sporting as it did a collection of young-earth claims, the reader was being told that just prior to the manned, moon landing scientists were worried about a thick layer of dust. (Again, we have echoes of Slusher's article.) Of course, the sea of cosmic dust did not materialize, and the Impact article claimed a victory for creation science which supports a young moon without much cosmic dust. Steven Shore shows that this entire scenario is wrongheaded. Let's get a proper perspective on history:

In a conference held in late 1963, on the Lunar Surface Layer, McCracken and Dublin state that

"The lunar surface layer thus formed would, therefore, consist of a mixture of lunar material and interplanetary material (primarily of cometary origin) from 10 cm to 1 m thick. The low value for the accretion rate for the small particles is not adequate to produce large scale dust erosion or to form deep layers of dust on the moon, for the flux has probably remained fairly constant during the past several billion years." (p. 204)

(Shore, 1984, p.34)

In 1965, a conference was held on the nature of the lunar surface. The basic conclusion of this conference was that both from the optical properties of the scattering of sunlight observed from the Earth, and from the early Ranger photographs, there was no evidence for an extensive dust layer.

(Shore, 1984, p.34)

Thus, several years before men landed on the moon there was a general feeling that our astronauts would not be greeted by vast layers of cosmic dust. Although direct confirmation was not yet at hand, thus allowing a few dissenting opinions, few scientists expected even as much as three feet of cosmic dust on the moon. In May 1966 Surveyor I had landed on the moon, thus putting an end to any lingering doubts about a manned landing sinking in dust.

The cosmic dust argument was already obsolete by the time Henry Morris included it in his book, Scientific Creationism. It was already obsolete when Harold Slusher wrote his article three years earlier.

Since the late 1960s, much better and more direct measurements of the meteoritic influx to the Earth have been available from satellite penetration data. In a comprehensive review article, Dohnanyi [1972, Icarus 17: 1-48] showed that the mass of meteoritic material impinging on the Earth is only about 22,000 tons per year [60 tons/day]... Other recent estimates of the mass of interplanetary matter reaching the Earth from space, based on satellite-borne detectors, range from about 11,000 to 18,000 tons per year (67) [30-49 tons/day]; estimates based on the cosmic-dust content of deep-sea sediment are comparable (e.g., 11, 103).

(Dalrymple, 1984, p.109)

Thus, we have good satellite data from the late 1960s in addition to estimates from deep-sea sediment content, the latter going back to at least 1968 and yielding comparable figures. Satellite data goes back even further. On August 9-13, 1965 a symposium on meteor orbits and dust was sponsored by NASA and the Smithsonian Institute (Van Till et al, 1988, p.70). Results from the early microphone-type dust detectors (recording clicks as bits of space dust struck at high speeds) were compared with penetration detectors (which recorded holes punched in thin foil). At the time there was no clear explanation as to why the former method gave such higher counts, sometimes as much as a 100 times that of the penetration detectors. Shortly afterwards it was learned that the microphone-type detectors also picked up spacecraft noises due to thermal expansion and contraction as well as effects caused by solar flares and cosmic rays. Even so, those early detectors gave results which were 10 to 100 times smaller than Pettersson's figure.

Dohnanyi's figure of 60 tons/day includes everything from slowly settling dust to the average input of meteorites.

Dohnanyi's figure for the moon (2 x 10-9 grams/square centimeter per year) yields 2.3 tons/day. In 4.5 billion years a layer of about one and a half inches of cosmic dust would accumulate on the moon. (On the moon, of course, a ton would weigh much less. We're actually talking about a mass that would weigh 2.3 tons on Earth.)

In his book Age of the Cosmos, published in 1980, Harold Slusher devoted a chapter to the amount of space dust raining down on the earth. He dwells on Pettersson's 1960 figure of 39,000 tons/day and even produces a 1967 figure which gives a whopping 700,000 tons/day! Alan Hayward, a respected physicist and Bible-believing Christian, felt it necessary to make the following observation:

To write like that in 1980 was inexcusable. The two sources he quotes were dated 1960 and 1967--hopelessly out of date in a fast-changing area of science. They merely provide estimates of what the influx of meteoritic dust might possibly be.

But we no longer have to rely on estimates. A paper, published four years before Slusher's book, described how the amount of meteoritic dust in space has now been measured, with detectors mounted on satellites.

(Hayward, 1985, pp.142-143)

Hayward was referring to a July 1976 article by D. W. Hughes, published in the New Scientist, which gave a figure of 48 tons/day--enough to cover the earth with about 1.5 inches of dust during the earth's lifetime! It's nearly a 1000 times smaller than Pettersson's figure, and it utterly destroys the cosmic dust argument.

Because of the incredible amount of space junk orbiting the earth, modern estimates of incoming dust have become more difficult. However, with the 1990 retrieval of the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) satellite, which spent nearly six years in orbit, possibly the clearest figure yet is now available for the influx of space dust.

In the October 22, 1993, Science, Stanley G. Love and Donald E. Brownlee (University of Washington) describe their analysis of 761 small impact craters found on some of LDEF's aluminum-alloy plates. These surfaces continuously faced spaceward while the satellite was in orbit. ...As the researcher explain, this location was superbly suited for their study. It was largely protected from orbital debris and secondary impacts from collisions elsewhere on the satellite, and in pointing

outward it also sampled a variety of interplanetary directions as LDEF orbited the Earth.

(Sky & Telescope, March 1994, p.13)

The article goes on to explain that dust particles as small as 35 trillionths of an ounce (10-9 grams) were detected. Love and Brownlee concluded that each year the earth collects about 40,000 metric tons (121 tons/day) which is a bit higher than the less direct figures given above. The results are "comparable to rates crudely calculated from the long-term accumulation of the rare element iridium in sea sediment and Antarctic ice."

Thus, the very latest, and possibly the best, cosmic dust influx measurement dooms the creationist argument once again. (How many strikes does it take before you're out in creationland? Answer: Who knows? They play by no rules and have no referees.) In summary, the general scientific consensus, going back to the 1960s, has been borne out by numerous measurements during the last 25 years.

Perhaps these constant reminders about obsolete data finally got to Henry Morris. Yet, he did not drop the cosmic dust argument like a hot potato, as one might expect. To the contrary, his second edition of Scientific Creationism (1985) expanded his footnote reference to Pettersson to suggest that a much more recent source from NASA gave an even larger influx of dust! The reader was referred to: "G.S. Hawkins, Ed., Meteor Orbits and Dust, published by NASA, 1976" (Wheeler, 1987, p.14). Thus, Morris appeared to have an unimpeachable source which was even more recent than Dohnanyi's figure!

Frank Lovell, suspecting that years of direct measurement from space (supported by sea floor studies) could not be that wrong, smelling a rat as it were, checked up on the source. It turned out that the actual date was 1967! The digits had been reversed (Wheeler, 1987, pp.14-15). Furthermore, the figure quoted by Morris (200 million tons of dust each year) was not given in the original source! It was a calculation based on the original source, done by an unnamed "creationist physicist" who botched it! The unsuspecting reader would have assumed that the rate had the official blessing of NASA. Astronomer Larry W. Esposito had some choice words concerning this incredible fiasco by Henry Morris:

...the work is incorrectly cited, outdated, from a non-referenced symposium publication, based on unreliable data. The calculation multiplies together unrelated numbers: the product of these factors is not a reliable estimation of the current cosmic dust deposition rate.

(Wheeler, 1987, p.15)

Wheeler and Lovell were party to another strange, creationist tale of reversed digits! They had written a letter to a religious magazine, Concern, published in Louisville, Kentucky, and had criticized an article which had used Pettersson's obsolete figure for cosmic dust influx. Concern published that letter along with a reply from the author of the original article. The author stated that Richard Bliss (a member of the Institute for Creation Research) had written the following to him in a letter:

It seems that we have estimates on meteor dust deposition, based on various assumptions, of the total volume of incoming meteoritic material ranging from 800,000 to 1 x 106 tons per day. You can get this information from the following sources:

1. Space Handbook, Astronautics and its Applications by R.W. Beucherin and staff of the Rand Corporation, Random House, NY 1959.

2. Nazarove, I.N. Rocket and Satellite Investigations of Meteors presented at the fifth meeting of the COMITE Speciale De I'annee Geophysique International, Moscow, August 1985.

(Wheeler, 1987, p.15)

The first source was even more obsolete than Pettersson's, but the second one was dated 1985. In response to a query, Bliss said that he got the figures from Harold Slusher, also of ICR. Several attempts to get through to Slusher failed.

Finally it occurred to us that the date cited for this reference, like that of Morris, might be incorrect. The International Geophysical Year ("I'annee Geophysique International") was 1957-1958, and I found in Nature [182:294 (1958)] that the fifth meeting of the Special Committee was held in Moscow in July-August 1958, and that it included a symposium on the rocket and satellite program; this obviously was the source of Slusher's reference.

(Wheeler, 1987, p.15)

Thus, we have a second case of inverted digits! A complaint about obsolete data was answered with data even more obsolete!! The average reader, of course, would never have guessed that the citation was bogus.

Thus, creationism carried its obsolete banner ever forward. In 1989, Walter Brown came out with the 5th edition of his booklet In the Beginning. He was no longer quoting Pettersson as was the case in older editions. Nevertheless, he calculated that in 4.6 billion years 2,000 feet of dust should have accumulated on the moon.

Brown says his figure is based on data from two sources, Stuart R. Taylor's Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, 1975, p.92) and David W. Hughes's "The Changing Micrometeoroid Flux" (Nature 251(379-380), 4 October 1974). Hughes gives no basis for any calculation.

(Schadewald, 1990, p.16)

As for Taylor's paper, Schadewald identifies the appropriate distribution equation, makes use of the calculus and shows that even if we extend the range of particles way beyond what was actually detected we would get a layer of dust only 1 inch deep! Schadewald was left wondering where Brown got his 2000 feet of dust! Perhaps, he mused, Brown had moon dust in his eyes when he made that calculation.

I shouldn't tease Dr. Brown since I blew the initial calculations before correcting myself! The equation which Schadewald uses (from Taylor) is:

log(N) = -1.62 - 1.16 log(m)

N is the number of bodies with masses greater than m, which impact a square kilometer of moon per year. The density of the dust is given as 3 grams/cubic centimeter. It does make a difference which units one uses for mass. The context of Schadewald's article suggests that the proper mass units are grams (not kilograms), and a little playing around with the equation makes that reasonably clear. If one erroneously uses kilograms and integrates N(m) over a range of 10-16 kilograms to 1020 kilograms, a figure of 2259 feet of dust may be obtained for a period of 4.6 billion years. Possibly something like that happened in Dr. Brown's calculation. (By the way, if you are not familiar with mathematics, just hop over these little diversions. I dive into the mathematics, at times, to give the more able reader the finer points. You don't need them to get the general drift.)

If I understand the equation properly, a straightforward integration of N(m) is not the most precise method, but it does yield a good approximation to the answers I got. For a mass range of 100Kg to 1000Kg I calculate that 4.6 billion years would deposit a layer of dust 0.107mm (4 thousandths of an inch) thick. For a mass range of 100gms to 1000Kg I get 0.79mm. However, in extending the calculation to extremes, from 10-13 grams to 1023 grams, I came up with 26.4cm (10.4 inches) instead of 2.5cm which Schadewald got. The point is that you wouldn't even get 10.4 inches of dust in 4.6 billion years, being that the formula is not accurate for these extreme ranges. Attempts to inflate this value further, by going to even greater ranges, is simply an abuse of the formula and proves nothing.

Neither the above formula, when properly used, nor actual measurements made in space offer anything close to the huge amounts of cosmic dust needed in this young-earth argument. Of course, a little thing like that would never stop those creationists from circulating it!

Today, armies of creationists, such as Dr. Hovind, carry forth the banner of the cosmic dust argument, and some of them are still using Pettersson's 1960 calculations! As for Dr. Hovind, he seems to have written a new chapter altogether! In his June 15, 1992 debate with Dr. Hilpman in the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri, Dr. Hovid calmly stated that scientists had predicted that 182 feet of cosmic dust would be found on the moon based on an accumulation of 1 inch every 10,000 years. I played that video segment three times to make sure I had it right! Had he checked those figures he would have found that they represent two different rates, that of 4144 tons/day and a whopping 872,798 tons/day! Compare either figure to the 2.3 tons/day given by Dohnanyi which was based on actual measurements made in space. The cosmic dust argument, having been obsolete for 25 years, has now entered the realm of comedy! Perhaps, I should have said "tragedy" since this is the kind of nonsense creationists want to teach our children.

Did I say "want to teach"? It may interest you to know that a sixth-grade science textbook Observing God's World, published by A Beka Book Publications in 1978, made use of the cosmic dust argument! (Van Till et al, 1988, p.78). It was probably written for one of those private, "Christian" schools which don't teach evolution. I certainly hope that none of our public schools have sunk that low! There's something rotten about foisting such sleazy garbage on children who look to their teachers for knowledge.

For an excellent study of this moon dust argument, read Clarence Menninga (Van Till et al, 1988, pp.67-82). If you do, you will find that there are still more blunders associated with this infamous creationist argument!

A few young-earth creationists do show signs of acute embarrassment, and in them there is some light at the end of a long, dark tunnel. Some of them are trying to set up a review process to weed out errors in the creationist literature. However, I'm afraid that when the last of the bath water is thrown out, no baby will be found!

-------------------------------------------------------

Should I keep going? I can do this all damn day if you want. :wakeup

Yes don't stop, but wait until the Power Hour reads before you go any further.
Thank you for your adult replies your one of the few reasons I am still reading this topic. Blake on the other hand with all his troll hunter persona is becoming a pain in the ass troll himself. He has yet to address any of the issues put to him.

BacktoBasics

05-28-2009, 08:50 AM

phyzik. Nice work.

Blake

05-28-2009, 08:54 AM

Yes don't stop, but wait until the Power Hour reads before you go any further.
Thank you for your adult replies your one of the few reasons I am still reading this topic. Blake on the other hand with all his troll hunter persona is becoming a pain in the ass troll himself. He has yet to address any of the issues put to him.

:lol

you're either a lazy ass, or you're just doing your usual trolling.

it's really not hard to find the answers to those young earth questions if you really wanted to find them.

my guess is you don't.

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 08:59 AM

Yes don't stop, but wait until the Power Hour reads before you go any further.
Thank you for your adult replies your one of the few reasons I am still reading this topic. Blake on the other hand with all his troll hunter persona is becoming a pain in the ass troll himself. He has yet to address any of the issues put to him.

It would be easier to read if you didn't have to quote a whole damn page. Just saying.
I believe the earth is billions of years old. Okay, I'm out before Blake has a cow.

The Power Hour.

05-28-2009, 08:59 AM

:lol

you're either a lazy ass, or you're just doing your usual trolling.

it's really not hard to find the answers to those young earth questions if you really wanted to find them.

my guess is you don't.

Sorry but I am at work and I can only surf the net every 15 minutes, don't take it as being lazy or scared. Trust me the young earth crowd has more unanswered questions than the Darwin loving misguided crowd has.

If this man wants to have a copy and paste war i will win and in a huge way! :tu

Liar

05-28-2009, 09:00 AM

Sorry but I am at work and I can only surf the net every 15 minutes, don't take it as being lazy or scared. Trust me the young earth crowd has more unanswered questions than the Darwin loving misguided crowd has.

If this man wants to have a copy and paste war i will win and in a huge way! :tu

At work? :lol

The Power Hour.

05-28-2009, 09:03 AM

It would be easier to read if you didn't have to quote a whole damn page. Just saying.
The quoting serves a purpose in case he decides to edit his questions. We still have the original draft. :tu

I believe the earth is billions of years old.

You also think your oldest daughter will finish collage drug free with no drinking and no sex. Your just in denial like many others!

Okay, I'm out before Blake has a cow.

I am not sure if that fits in with his evolution chart, maybe he will have a fish or a monkey! :toast

CheezWiz

05-28-2009, 09:08 AM

The science is out there peeps. It isn't hard to understand.

Blake

05-28-2009, 09:11 AM

phyzik. Nice work.

Young-earth "proof" #2: Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young.

2. The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used! It has coasted along on obsolete evidence, and nothing but obsolete evidence, for the last 25 years!! It nicely illustrates how creationists borrow from each other and never do any outside reading.

The obsolescence of this argument has been brought out in numerous debates and published in countless books, journals, and newsletters. It can be discovered by anyone who exercises his or her library card. It's not a state secret! What does it take to get through to the creationist brain??

The earliest use of the cosmic dust argument that Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988) could find was ..................................... [more]"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof2

talkorigins takes each of mouse's "thought out" young earth questions/dilemmas that are stunningly worded exactly the same as his and debunks each one of them almost in order.

amazingly enough, phyzik's answer seems to be worded almost exactly the same as what talkorigins has. what a freak coincidence.

too much. :lol

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 09:11 AM

The quoting serves a purpose in case he decides to edit his questions. We still have the original draft. :tu

You also think your oldest daughter will finish collage drug free with no drinking and no sex. Your just in denial like many others!

I am not sure if that fits in with his evolution chart, maybe he will have a fish or a monkey! :toast

I've never said such things about my oldest daughter. You are just in denial of scientific facts.

Oh, and you got a job? :tu

phyzik

05-28-2009, 09:14 AM

talkorigins takes each of mouse's "thought out" young earth questions/dilemmas that are stunningly worded exactly the same as his and debunks each one of them almost in order.

amazingly enough, phyzik's answer seems to be worded almost exactly the same as what talkorigins has. what a freak coincidence.

too much. :lol

yeah, I found that page and saw each quote of his was exactly the same so I just copied and pasted :lol I even said so in my post (somewhere in the middle).

what ever he pastes in here, there will be an answer for it on talkorigins. thats why I said I could do this all day. :lol

Blake

05-28-2009, 09:25 AM

what ever he pastes in here, there will be an answer for it on talkorigins. thats why I said I could do this all day. :lol

which is why he is also either just trolling for the hell of it or a lazy ass.

Blake

05-28-2009, 09:28 AM

It would be easier to read if you didn't have to quote a whole damn page. Just saying.
I believe the earth is billions of years old. Okay, I'm out before Blake has a cow.

sitting here waiting for a cow troll.

so none of the other trolls in this thread are yours? :lol

If you believe the earth is a billion, then you obviously don't believe in the literal version of Genesis, correct?

BacktoBasics

05-28-2009, 09:37 AM

I still have not seem more than 3 mouse trolls. The rest are Chalupa's.

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 09:45 AM

I still have not seem more than 3 mouse trolls. The rest are Chalupa's.

Wrong. You think like Bigzak does.

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 09:47 AM

sitting here waiting for a cow troll.

so none of the other trolls in this thread are yours? :lol

If you believe the earth is a billion, then you obviously don't believe in the literal version of Genesis, correct?

Well, I do believe in God but I don't believe that a "day" in biblical terms means 24 hours but yeah, I guess you could say that.

Blake

05-28-2009, 09:49 AM

Wrong. You think like Bigzak does.

Bigzak!

thanks, I couldn't remember the name of the other troll maker.

the other troll I thought might be you was probably bigzak.

hunting trolls can be fun, kids.

Blake

05-28-2009, 09:51 AM

Well, I do believe in God but I don't believe that a "day" in biblical terms means 24 hours but yeah, I guess you could say that.

just curious, how long do you believe a day to be in "biblical terms"?

how about a year in "biblical terms"?

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 10:14 AM

just curious, how long do you believe a day to be in "biblical terms"?

how about a year in "biblical terms"?

I have no idea and in all honesty that has never been a big issue for me.

The Power Hour.

05-28-2009, 10:59 AM

In other words, its actually thicker than it used to be. Or did you forget that the core of this rock that we live on is molten and can deposit new minerals on the surface at any given time?

Then according to your own words the earth should be as thick as the Sun given it had 4 Billion years to get thicker. You see how the 4 Billion fantasy comes back to bite that ass? :toast

Um, it does escape. Geologists (some anyway) have long known that natural oil seeps occur, and have occurred as long as the Earth's sediments have been generating oil and gas. Oil fields leak their hydrocarbons to the surface, whether on land or beneath the oceans. Hydrocarbons are less dense than rocks and the water they contain, so the oil and gas is continually trying to escape to the surface. Eventually, given enough time, it all does.

Dude 4 billion years is not enough time? How much time you need?

Oil and gas do a lot of migrating, and the oil accumulated in a given reservoir may have recently migrated there from another reservoir. Thus, a given pool of oil may or may not have been there for millions and millions of years. A recent geological shift in the rocks might also increase the leakage of the primary oil pool, which had been hitherto sealed for millions of years. Thus, the mere existence of leaky trapping rocks does not prove that a pool of oil and gas was recently created.

Then how come that theory doesn't work with fossils? Maybe Fossils move also and can be dated earlier or later than they had been?

You really want me to believe a huge pool of Oil under Iraq could have once been under Cleveland Ohio? Dude I am not sure where you get your facts from but give me the link in case I need a good laugh.:lmao

The primary migration of oil from 1 to 5 kilometers deep in the earth, where it is produced under a combination of pressure and heat acting on organic matter, probably goes hand in hand with water migration. Certainly, oil and water are often found together, the oil floating on top of the water within permeable rock. The water is squeezed out as the source sediment experiences more and more pressure. Thus, it may interest you to know how fast water migrates down there.

Hey I am with you on the oil and water thing. I just don't agree with it being there for over 4 Billion , years.

Some idea of the extremely slow speed of fluid motion to be expected can be gained by considering the movement of ground water at shallow depths in dense clays, classed as "impermeable." Under a moderate hydraulic gradient and a reasonable value of permeability for clay, we come up with flow speeds of ground water on the order of 2 to 3 million years per kilometer [3.2 to 4.8 million years per mile]. Yet the permeability of source shales of petroleum is rated at only one-thousandth as great as for clays tested in the surface environment (Wszolek and Burlingame, 1978, p. 573).

(Strahler, 1987, p.237)

Thus, the primary migration of oil from its place of origin will take far longer than the mere 6000 years or so creationists allow for the age of the earth. Creationists have tried to dance around that figure by quoting special cases of secondary migration or by simple smoke screen tactics, but the problem remains (Strahler, 1987, pp.237-238).

It sounds to me like we both have evidence either way about the oil and pressure I say we call it a draw and move on to the hard to debunk information. tu

Wrong. The earth's rotation IS slowing, but at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

Show me how 4 Billion years at 0.005 seconds per year is not a contradiction in itself. Do the math. And who is to say 0.005 is correct?

Also....as the earth’s rotation is slowing down, the moon is gradually receding from earth about 2 inches a year. At that rate, 1 million years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that it would have fallen into our planet because of the gravitational pull. Also the moon would have been so close that the tides on earth would have been much higher, and would have eroded away the continents and destroyed life.

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).

Is this an answer to my Coral reef question?

In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating. Funny, how the sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea floor spreading zone! That is, the farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined byradiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening.

It has been proven time and time again, radiometric dating has to many flaws I would find another source for your explanations.

(Funny, how Dr. Hovind always comes up with "a few thousand years" no matter what we are looking at!)

If he thinks the Earth is thousands of years old what else is he going say?

Here is another interesting but little known fact. Mathematical calculations done by Dan McKenzie in 1967 indicated that an ocean floor, spreading at a few inches per year from a rift which adds new material, would cool and contract. It would sink deeper into the mantle as it contracted. "The process is so undeviating that there is a striking relationship between the age of the sea floor and the depth of water covering it." (Miller, 1983, p.122)

Do you even know who Dan McKenzie is? The man has been put to shame in every debate topics.

John Sclater and his students at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, put McKenzie's theory to the test in 1971. They gathered up every scrap of data on the age and depth of the Pacific sea floor. McKenzie's theory was confirmed! The increasing depths of the older portions of the Pacific floor were a result of thermal contraction. Plate tectonics even explains the basic facts about the depth of the Pacific!

There are just as many professors and scientist all over the globe that have done their own testing none which have been proven either way do you really want to copy and paste every thing some atheist says he discovered?

Dr. Hovind, who supports that theory, is assuming that salt cannot be removed from the oceans. The more sophisticated creationists, such as Melvin Cook, know better than to make that assumption. Here's what Cook had to say:

The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73]

(Dalrymple, 1984, pp.115-116)

Thus, salt is being removed from the oceans as quickly as it is being added by the world's rivers. Consequently, no age can be calculated, save a minimum age based upon an assumption of initial salt content. There is no comfort here for the young-earth creationist.

Now your cherry picking which creationist you quote so that you sound like your right. The bottom-line is 4 billion years is to far away to know what took place and you know it.

Yes, and by the same reasoning 8 germs could populate every cubic inch of available living space on Earth to the tune of 1 million strong in less than a week! That is, if we allow for a generous die-off rate such that the fourth generation has about 40 germs instead of 128, and if we assume that the population divides every hour, each and every cubic inch of living space on the earth (from 100 feet below ground to a mile above) would have 1 million germs after 158 generations. I guess, by creationist reckoning, the earth must be a week old! If it were a few thousand years old, the germ population would have gone through the roof!

Yes, given unlimited living space, an inexhaustible supply of food, a good deal of luck in the early stages, and a high motivation to travel while having more kids than is practical, eight people

could probably populate the earth in a few thousand years. Eight germs could do it in less than a week. Eight bunny rabbits would fall somewhere in between. Eight cats would give us yet another figure. What do any of these figures have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing! What do these figures have to do with actual growth rates? Absolutely nothing!

4 Billion years of people having sex show me the people? You have no solid evidence.

The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources are finally squandered, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous!

If you think lack of food and disease can keep a population from booming then you haven't seen any of the feed the children in Africa commercials.

When man lived in scattered tribal groups, which is what he did for 99% of his history, the net human population growth was zero most of the time, just as it is for animals today. Animal populations, especially small animals such as rabbits or mice, often undergo cycles of boom and bust but their net growth is zero. No permanent increase in population can be sustained unless it is supported by a permanent change in the environment. Such a change might include the loss of a predator due to the colonization of new territory, a permanent increase in the food supply due to climatic change or a change in dietary habits, or a variety of other factors. In the case of man, hunting technology, the development of agriculture, and the use of fossil fuels have played major roles. After a favorable change in the environment, a population of animals (or people) may record a permanent jump before leveling off at a zero net growth again. Thus, the growth rate, before technology intervened in a major way, necessarily involved a series of plateaus where the population was in approximate equilibrium with the environment. No doubt, many tribal groups died out. Anthropologists can cite several examples of early human or near-human species, side branches on our evolutionary tree, which left no descendants. There was no assurance that early man would even survive. When favorable changes did occur, large jumps between plateau levels would likely have been exponential. Indeed, the human exponential growth rate of the last 300 years or so can be thought of as one long jump to a new plateau, which has been raised artificially high by technology. Those who imagine that eight people gave rise to everyone living today according to a simple exponential growth curve have demonstrated an inability to think things through.

That was just a long way of saying you really don't have an answer to where the 4 Billion years of people having sex every day went to?

Your speculating at best.

Bring on some more if you wish. Hell, Ive got one better. Here's a few more answers to some of your, and Dr. Hovind's, other silly assumptions.

I am not here to defend Dr. Hovind, and why must you call his science silly? You know how silly you sound talking about how your great great grandfather was a tadpole?

The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!

And I am sure you know what it was doing 4 Billion years ago! I like how your billion year old theories hold water but mine don't. When you say something that is happening today you show me how its proff of what has been happening for millions of years. When I show you something that is happening now you say [b]"that doesn't mean it happened long ago"

Your starting to get real bias with your weak comebacks.

That's a little like watching the tide go out and concluding that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been under water a few weeks ago! Since careful inspection shows no signs of such a flood, the earth can't be older than a few weeks!

And going to the zoo shows you really only took 200 years to evolve?
what kind of Tpark funnel cake response was that?

Obviously, we cannot extend a rate willy-nilly. We do need to know something about the system under study. Tides come and go. No one familiar with tides would assume that the rate of water going out is constant over weeks of time! Just as obvious, at least to the experts, our sun could not have been continuously shrinking over millions of years as described by some creationists. Such a view totally ignores the known forces at work within our sun. Infinitely more likely is the possibility that our sun might alternate between small periods of shrinking and small periods of expansion, a kind of oscillation. Indeed, some scientists believe there may be an 80-day cycle of slight shrinking and expanding.

Now multiply it by 4 Billion years

In its formative years, before our sun's core became hot and dense enough to ignite the fusion process and, as a result, check the gravitational collapse, our sun did do some prolonged shrinking. Billions of years from now the depletion of the sun's hydrogen will upset the sun's internal balance, and the sun will again undergo some long term changes. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with the shrinking-sun argument above, which attempts to prove that the solar system is less than 5 million years old.

And your carbon 14 hit or miss technique doesn't prove 4 billion years so we both are speculating.

To sum up our first point, the shrinking-sun argument rests squarely on a naive extension of a rate measured over a relatively short period of time. It's the type of blunder one might find in a high school science project.

The same high schools that teaches Evolution as fact? Why would you go there and pull out the High School card? Now you look like a brain washed one sided desperate person. You was doing good when you gave your personal opinions.

Ps: I also was told in high school if I got a boner during gym class I was Gay that doesn't make it true.

An ad hoc attempt to prop up this naive extrapolation boldly declares that our sun is really getting its energy from gravitational collapse alone! An ongoing gravitational collapse of the sun, called the Helmholtz (or Kelvin-Helmholtz) contraction, was the best that scientists could come up with before nuclear fusion was discovered. The heat liberated from vast quantities of falling matter would be enough to make the sun shine. Then nuclear fusion was discovered. The discovery of nuclear fusion (and the realization that the sun's core had the density and temperature to initiate and sustain nuclear fusion) made it clear since the 1930s that the thermonuclear-fusion process was responsible for the sun's energy. Thermonuclear-fusion would soon stop any Helmholtz contraction. Aside from totally ignoring the last 60 years of solar science, this ad hoc argument also ignores the massive evidence relating to ancient climates. (A much larger sun in our recent geological past would have had a noticeable effect on the climate.) The creationist advocates of the Helmholtz contraction argue that their idea rules out the possibility of past geological ages. Just the opposite is true! The evidence for ancient climates, spanning millions of years, is massive and well documented; it rules out this ad hoc use of the Helmholtz contraction.

Blunder number two is the unwarranted assumption that the rate of shrinkage reported by Eddy and Boornazian is an established fact. Far from it! The rate of shrinkage was published as an abstract to further scientific discussion, not as a polished paper. Certain creationists nevertheless pounced upon it as though it were the Holy Grail. Before long, serious flaws in its methodology turned up and the data has since been discredited; the full text of their study was never published. It is instructive to note how creationist authors became fixated on that one point even though several studies at the time (or shortly thereafter) drew completely different conclusions.

Some creationists, such as Walter Brown, have tried to pump new life into the argument by quoting additional sources (Lippard, 1990, p.25), but only in vain. In Brown's case, two of the three sources offered were obsolete, and the third actually undercut his position! (Lippard, 1990, p.25). In a rebuttal to Lippard, Walter Brown offered no new studies to back up his "feeling" that the sun is undergoing a small, but continuous shrinkage (Brown, 1990, pp.45-46).

Brown, in his debate with Lippard, then dodged into the missing-neutrino problem in a vain effort to turn it into evidence for his position. (Neutrinos are subatomic particles with no electric charge and little or no mass. They are important here as a calculated by-product of the thermonuclear-fusion process in the sun. The vast majority of neutrinos pass effortlessly through the earth and are, therefore, extremely hard to detect.) To make his case, Brown must demonstrate that the "missing" neutrinos are due to a corresponding lack of nuclear fusion, and that the sun's current output of energy is due, in large part, to gravitational collapse. (A prolonged gravitational collapse of the sun is impossible once the thermonuclear-fusion process gets rolling. A creationist might argue that the coexistence of nuclear fusion and a Helmholtz contraction implies a young sun on its way to equilibrium. However, that would be a very tough row to hoe in that possible oscillations in the sun's diameter and other phenomena unrelated to a true Helmholtz contraction must be ruled out. Thus, Brown's motive for undermining the thermonuclear-fusion process by way of the missing-neutrino problem.)

As there are several possible solutions to the missing-neutrino problem (Lippard, 1990a, p.32), Brown's scenario is an extremely tall order. Even if it were proved that there is a serious deficiency in solar nuclear fusion, that being the cause of the low neutrino count, Brown would still have to prove that the situation was permanent. It could be a temporary glitch or even part of some complex cycle. Thus, any attempt at the present time to use the missing-neutrino problem as support for a shrinking sun is wholly misguided. Furthermore, invoking a Helmholtz contraction in place of thermonuclear fusion is subject to all of the problems listed above.

It was in 1979 that astronomers John Eddy and Aram Boornazian presented their paper and published its abstract: "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953." In the April 1980 issue of ICR's Impact series (Impact #82), Russell Akridge picked up the report and naively extended the shrinkage rate of 5 feet/hour into the indefinite past. As that soon led to an impossible situation, he concluded that the earth was much less than 20 million years old. Soon, Walter Brown, Thomas Barnes, Henry Morris, Hilton Hinderliter, James Hanson, and other creationists were in on the act, and the shrinking-sun argument became a creationist legend. A number of studies have not found any evidence for a continuous shrinking of the sun. Leslie Morrison, for example, drawing on Edmund Halley's observations of the solar eclipse of 1715, concluded that there is no evidence that the sun is shrinking. His findings were reported in the January, 1988 issue of Gemini (no.18, pp.6-8). Gemini is the official journal of the Royal Greenwich Observatory.

Thomas Barnes, Walter Brown, and Henry Morris used the argument for several years after the original report by Eddy and Boornazian was discredited (Van Till, 1986). I guess a lot of creationists still haven't gotten the word. In his debate with Dr. Paul Hilpman, on June 15, 1992 at the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri, Dr. Hovind applied the obsolete, shrinking-sun argument.

Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the 'creation-science' community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as 'scientific evidence' for a young Earth.

(Van Till, 1986, p.17)

That was true in 1986 and is true today; it will be true for years to come. "Scientific" creationism lives like the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand; it has no effective mechanism to weed out error.

An outstanding study by H. Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988, pp.47-65) beautifully contrasts the sober scientific handling of the findings of John Eddy and Aram Boornazian (who advanced the scientific claim that the sun was shrinking) with the reckless, speculative spin put on it by the "scientific" creationists. The reader might also consult pages 29-39 where Van Till gives us an excellent feeling for what scientific competence, integrity, and judgment are all about. After reading that, one understands why "scientific" creationists are rarely published in the refereed scientific journals.

After reading your quote both sides have flaws and good points, but I didn't see where you proved to me either side was wrong. We both have holes in our theories.

There. I've even provided you the books and what pages you can read all this from. In other words, I can copy and paste just as well as you can.

Yes but the difference is I paste to show you why I believe the way I do, You paste to belittle or insult Dr. Hovind and others like him.
There is a huge difference in someone who seeks the truth and someone who just wants to win a debate so they can to look good for others.

The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used! It has coasted along on obsolete evidence, and nothing but obsolete evidence, for the last 25 years!! It nicely illustrates how creationists borrow from each other and never do any outside reading.

The obsolescence of this argument has been brought out in numerous debates and published in countless books, journals, and newsletters. It can be discovered by anyone who exercises his or her library card. It's not a state secret! What does it take to get through to the creationist brain??

Now maybe you know how they feel when you keep using that out dated and debunked geological column and fossil charts.

The earliest use of the cosmic dust argument that Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988) could find was in an article by Harold Slusher, which was published in the June 1971 issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly. Slusher made several blunders which are handed down in the "scientific" creationist literature to this very day. In 1974 the cosmic dust argument received its big kick-off from Henry Morris' book, Scientific Creationism. Morris quoted an article by Hans Pettersson in the February 1960 issue of Scientific American. Pettersson's upper estimate for the influx of cosmic dust, a figure he considered risky, was based on particles he collected from two filtration units in the Hawaiian Islands. One was located near the summit of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and the other near the observatory on Haleakala, Maui. He came up with 39,150 tons/day. Pettersson actually favored a figure about two-thirds less, and he warned his readers that the true figure could be much lower still. Further work was planned in Switzerland.

Im sorry but 4 Billion years of dust doesn't just evaporate and if I am right you guys say the solar system is 20 billion years old?

If any of that was true we would have no sun left and the moon and earth would be touching each other with huge bridge made from dust alone.

I know its hard to imagine but 20 billion years is a long time try waiting 2000 years and you will see my point.

This caution seems to have been lost on Henry Morris, who may have been relying on Slusher's work, and he ignored Pettersson's preferred value in favor of his highest estimate. By the time the Impact insert #110 of Acts & Facts (August 1982) came out, sporting as it did a collection of young-earth claims, the reader was being told that just prior to the manned, moon landing scientists were worried about a thick layer of dust. (Again, we have echoes of Slusher's article.) Of course, the sea of cosmic dust did not materialize, and the Impact article claimed a victory for creation science which supports a young moon without much cosmic dust. Steven Shore shows that this entire scenario is wrongheaded. Let's get a proper perspective on history:

In a conference held in late 1963, on the Lunar Surface Layer, McCracken and Dublin state that

"The lunar surface layer thus formed would, therefore, consist of a mixture of lunar material and interplanetary material (primarily of cometary origin) from 10 cm to 1 m thick. The low value for the accretion rate for the small particles is not adequate to produce large scale dust erosion or to form deep layers of dust on the moon, for the flux has probably remained fairly constant during the past several billion years." (p. 204)

(Shore, 1984, p.34)

In 1965, a conference was held on the nature of the lunar surface. The basic conclusion of this conference was that both from the optical properties of the scattering of sunlight observed from the Earth, and from the early Ranger photographs, there was no evidence for an extensive dust layer.

(Shore, 1984, p.34)

Thus, several years before men landed on the moon there was a general feeling that our astronauts would not be greeted by vast layers of cosmic dust. Although direct confirmation was not yet at hand, thus allowing a few dissenting opinions, few scientists expected even as much as three feet of cosmic dust on the moon. In May 1966 Surveyor I had landed on the moon, thus putting an end to any lingering doubts about a manned landing sinking in dust.

The cosmic dust argument was already obsolete by the time Henry Morris included it in his book, Scientific Creationism. It was already obsolete when Harold Slusher wrote his article three years earlier.

Since the late 1960s, much better and more direct measurements of the meteoritic influx to the Earth have been available from satellite penetration data. In a comprehensive review article, Dohnanyi [1972, Icarus 17: 1-48] showed that the mass of meteoritic material impinging on the Earth is only about 22,000 tons per year [60 tons/day]... Other recent estimates of the mass of interplanetary matter reaching the Earth from space, based on satellite-borne detectors, range from about 11,000 to 18,000 tons per year (67) [30-49 tons/day]; estimates based on the cosmic-dust content of deep-sea sediment are comparable (e.g., 11, 103).

(Dalrymple, 1984, p.109)

Thus, we have good satellite data from the late 1960s in addition to estimates from deep-sea sediment content, the latter going back to at least 1968 and yielding comparable figures. Satellite data goes back even further. On August 9-13, 1965 a symposium on meteor orbits and dust was sponsored by NASA and the Smithsonian Institute (Van Till et al, 1988, p.70). Results from the early microphone-type dust detectors (recording clicks as bits of space dust struck at high speeds) were compared with penetration detectors (which recorded holes punched in thin foil). At the time there was no clear explanation as to why the former method gave such higher counts, sometimes as much as a 100 times that of the penetration detectors. Shortly afterwards it was learned that the microphone-type detectors also picked up spacecraft noises due to thermal expansion and contraction as well as effects caused by solar flares and cosmic rays. Even so, those early detectors gave results which were 10 to 100 times smaller than Pettersson's figure.

Dohnanyi's figure of 60 tons/day includes everything from slowly settling dust to the average input of meteorites.

Dohnanyi's figure for the moon (2 x 10-9 grams/square centimeter per year) yields 2.3 tons/day. In 4.5 billion years a layer of about one and a half inches of cosmic dust would accumulate on the moon. (On the moon, of course, a ton would weigh much less. We're actually talking about a mass that would weigh 2.3 tons on Earth.)

In his book Age of the Cosmos, published in 1980, Harold Slusher devoted a chapter to the amount of space dust raining down on the earth. He dwells on Pettersson's 1960 figure of 39,000 tons/day and even produces a 1967 figure which gives a whopping 700,000 tons/day! Alan Hayward, a respected physicist and Bible-believing Christian, felt it necessary to make the following observation:

To write like that in 1980 was inexcusable. The two sources he quotes were dated 1960 and 1967--hopelessly out of date in a fast-changing area of science. They merely provide estimates of what the influx of meteoritic dust might possibly be.

But we no longer have to rely on estimates. A paper, published four years before Slusher's book, described how the amount of meteoritic dust in space has now been measured, with detectors mounted on satellites.

(Hayward, 1985, pp.142-143)

Hayward was referring to a July 1976 article by D. W. Hughes, published in the New Scientist, which gave a figure of 48 tons/day--enough to cover the earth with about 1.5 inches of dust during the earth's lifetime! It's nearly a 1000 times smaller than Pettersson's figure, and it utterly destroys the cosmic dust argument.

Because of the incredible amount of space junk orbiting the earth, modern estimates of incoming dust have become more difficult. However, with the 1990 retrieval of the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) satellite, which spent nearly six years in orbit, possibly the clearest figure yet is now available for the influx of space dust.

In the October 22, 1993, Science, Stanley G. Love and Donald E. Brownlee (University of Washington) describe their analysis of 761 small impact craters found on some of LDEF's aluminum-alloy plates. These surfaces continuously faced spaceward while the satellite was in orbit. ...As the researcher explain, this location was superbly suited for their study. It was largely protected from orbital debris and secondary impacts from collisions elsewhere on the satellite, and in pointing

outward it also sampled a variety of interplanetary directions as LDEF orbited the Earth.

(Sky & Telescope, March 1994, p.13)

The article goes on to explain that dust particles as small as 35 trillionths of an ounce (10-9 grams) were detected. Love and Brownlee concluded that each year the earth collects about 40,000 metric tons (121 tons/day) which is a bit higher than the less direct figures given above. The results are "comparable to rates crudely calculated from the long-term accumulation of the rare element iridium in sea sediment and Antarctic ice."

Thus, the very latest, and possibly the best, cosmic dust influx measurement dooms the creationist argument once again. (How many strikes does it take before you're out in creationland? Answer: Who knows? They play by no rules and have no referees.) In summary, the general scientific consensus, going back to the 1960s, has been borne out by numerous measurements during the last 25 years.

Perhaps these constant reminders about obsolete data finally got to Henry Morris. Yet, he did not drop the cosmic dust argument like a hot potato, as one might expect. To the contrary, his second edition of Scientific Creationism (1985) expanded his footnote reference to Pettersson to suggest that a much more recent source from NASA gave an even larger influx of dust! The reader was referred to: "G.S. Hawkins, Ed., Meteor Orbits and Dust, published by NASA, 1976" (Wheeler, 1987, p.14). Thus, Morris appeared to have an unimpeachable source which was even more recent than Dohnanyi's figure!

Frank Lovell, suspecting that years of direct measurement from space (supported by sea floor studies) could not be that wrong, smelling a rat as it were, checked up on the source. It turned out that the actual date was 1967! The digits had been reversed (Wheeler, 1987, pp.14-15). Furthermore, the figure quoted by Morris (200 million tons of dust each year) was not given in the original source! It was a calculation based on the original source, done by an unnamed "creationist physicist" who botched it! The unsuspecting reader would have assumed that the rate had the official blessing of NASA. Astronomer Larry W. Esposito had some choice words concerning this incredible fiasco by Henry Morris:

...the work is incorrectly cited, outdated, from a non-referenced symposium publication, based on unreliable data. The calculation multiplies together unrelated numbers: the product of these factors is not a reliable estimation of the current cosmic dust deposition rate.

(Wheeler, 1987, p.15)

Wheeler and Lovell were party to another strange, creationist tale of reversed digits! They had written a letter to a religious magazine, Concern, published in Louisville, Kentucky, and had criticized an article which had used Pettersson's obsolete figure for cosmic dust influx. Concern published that letter along with a reply from the author of the original article. The author stated that Richard Bliss (a member of the Institute for Creation Research) had written the following to him in a letter:

It seems that we have estimates on meteor dust deposition, based on various assumptions, of the total volume of incoming meteoritic material ranging from 800,000 to 1 x 106 tons per day. You can get this information from the following sources:

1. Space Handbook, Astronautics and its Applications by R.W. Beucherin and staff of the Rand Corporation, Random House, NY 1959.

2. Nazarove, I.N. Rocket and Satellite Investigations of Meteors presented at the fifth meeting of the COMITE Speciale De I'annee Geophysique International, Moscow, August 1985.

(Wheeler, 1987, p.15)

The first source was even more obsolete than Pettersson's, but the second one was dated 1985. In response to a query, Bliss said that he got the figures from Harold Slusher, also of ICR. Several attempts to get through to Slusher failed.

Finally it occurred to us that the date cited for this reference, like that of Morris, might be incorrect. The International Geophysical Year ("I'annee Geophysique International") was 1957-1958, and I found in Nature [182:294 (1958)] that the fifth meeting of the Special Committee was held in Moscow in July-August 1958, and that it included a symposium on the rocket and satellite program; this obviously was the source of Slusher's reference.

(Wheeler, 1987, p.15)

Thus, we have a second case of inverted digits! A complaint about obsolete data was answered with data even more obsolete!! The average reader, of course, would never have guessed that the citation was bogus.

Thus, creationism carried its obsolete banner ever forward. In 1989, Walter Brown came out with the 5th edition of his booklet In the Beginning. He was no longer quoting Pettersson as was the case in older editions. Nevertheless, he calculated that in 4.6 billion years 2,000 feet of dust should have accumulated on the moon.

Brown says his figure is based on data from two sources, Stuart R. Taylor's Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, 1975, p.92) and David W. Hughes's "The Changing Micrometeoroid Flux" (Nature 251(379-380), 4 October 1974). Hughes gives no basis for any calculation.

(Schadewald, 1990, p.16)

As for Taylor's paper, Schadewald identifies the appropriate distribution equation, makes use of the calculus and shows that even if we extend the range of particles way beyond what was actually detected we would get a layer of dust only 1 inch deep! Schadewald was left wondering where Brown got his 2000 feet of dust! Perhaps, he mused, Brown had moon dust in his eyes when he made that calculation.

I shouldn't tease Dr. Brown since I blew the initial calculations before correcting myself! The equation which Schadewald uses (from Taylor) is:

log(N) = -1.62 - 1.16 log(m)

N is the number of bodies with masses greater than m, which impact a square kilometer of moon per year. The density of the dust is given as 3 grams/cubic centimeter. It does make a difference which units one uses for mass. The context of Schadewald's article suggests that the proper mass units are grams (not kilograms), and a little playing around with the equation makes that reasonably clear. If one erroneously uses kilograms and integrates N(m) over a range of 10-16 kilograms to 1020 kilograms, a figure of 2259 feet of dust may be obtained for a period of 4.6 billion years. Possibly something like that happened in Dr. Brown's calculation. (By the way, if you are not familiar with mathematics, just hop over these little diversions. I dive into the mathematics, at times, to give the more able reader the finer points. You don't need them to get the general drift.)

If I understand the equation properly, a straightforward integration of N(m) is not the most precise method, but it does yield a good approximation to the answers I got. For a mass range of 100Kg to 1000Kg I calculate that 4.6 billion years would deposit a layer of dust 0.107mm (4 thousandths of an inch) thick. For a mass range of 100gms to 1000Kg I get 0.79mm. However, in extending the calculation to extremes, from 10-13 grams to 1023 grams, I came up with 26.4cm (10.4 inches) instead of 2.5cm which Schadewald got. The point is that you wouldn't even get 10.4 inches of dust in 4.6 billion years, being that the formula is not accurate for these extreme ranges. Attempts to inflate this value further, by going to even greater ranges, is simply an abuse of the formula and proves nothing.

Neither the above formula, when properly used, nor actual measurements made in space offer anything close to the huge amounts of cosmic dust needed in this young-earth argument. Of course, a little thing like that would never stop those creationists from circulating it!

Today, armies of creationists, such as Dr. Hovind, carry forth the banner of the cosmic dust argument, and some of them are still using Pettersson's 1960 calculations! As for Dr. Hovind, he seems to have written a new chapter altogether! In his June 15, 1992 debate with Dr. Hilpman in the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri, Dr. Hovid calmly stated that scientists had predicted that 182 feet of cosmic dust would be found on the moon based on an accumulation of 1 inch every 10,000 years. I played that video segment three times to make sure I had it right! Had he checked those figures he would have found that they represent two different rates, that of 4144 tons/day and a whopping 872,798 tons/day! Compare either figure to the 2.3 tons/day given by Dohnanyi which was based on actual measurements made in space. The cosmic dust argument, having been obsolete for 25 years, has now entered the realm of comedy! Perhaps, I should have said "tragedy" since this is the kind of nonsense creationists want to teach our children.

Did I say "want to teach"? It may interest you to know that a sixth-grade science textbook Observing God's World, published by A Beka Book Publications in 1978, made use of the cosmic dust argument! (Van Till et al, 1988, p.78). It was probably written for one of those private, "Christian" schools which don't teach evolution. I certainly hope that none of our public schools have sunk that low! There's something rotten about foisting such sleazy garbage on children who look to their teachers for knowledge.

For an excellent study of this moon dust argument, read Clarence Menninga (Van Till et al, 1988, pp.67-82). If you do, you will find that there are still more blunders associated with this infamous creationist argument!
There are just as many quotes that say otherwise.

To be honest I am willing to accept this new evidence and will refrain from using moon dust as a weapon to prove the earth is not 4 billion years old. Something the short fused narrow minded Atheist wont do.

In fact a Creation website has accepted the new evidence.

Moon-dust argument no longer useful

First published:
Creation 15(4):22
September 1993
For years, a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation was to use uniformitarian assumptions to argue that the amount of dust on the moon was less than 10,000 years’ worth.
In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp) from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for Creation Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all the evidence relating to this argument.1 They have shown that:

The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.
Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.
Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

Interestingly, Snelling and Rush’s research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which err greatly in the opposite direction.
For example, theistic evolutionists from Calvin College, after scathingly critiquing creationists for alleged erroneous handling of data, do precisely that and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted. 2
The moon-dust argument was easy to understand and explain. Nevertheless, as we have indicated before, creationists as well as evolutionists need to be prepared to re-examine arguments as new and better data emerges. :tu

A few young-earth creationists do show signs of acute embarrassment, and in them there is some light at the end of a long, dark tunnel. Some of them are trying to set up a review process to weed out errors in the creationist literature. However, I'm afraid that when the last of the bath water is thrown out, no baby will be found!But in the water itself is the very germ needed to start evolution all over again so the baby is actually in the water it just needs 4 billion years to show up.

-------------------------------------------------------

Should I keep going? I can do this all damn day if you want. :wakeupI rather you post your personal opinions rather than hunt the www for Debunk Dr, Hovind websites.

You still haven't proved to me the earth is [b]4 Billion[/b/ years old........

FaithInOne

05-28-2009, 11:05 AM

http://msp264.photobucket.com/albums/ii166/zombs/monkey.jpg

Jesus is my friend!

05-28-2009, 11:21 AM

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/ART/blake-talking.gif

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 11:24 AM

damn it, there I go again.

Blake

05-28-2009, 11:33 AM

I have no idea and in all honesty that has never been a big issue for me.

that's a shame.

I hate contradictions myself which is why I have so many issued with the Old Testament.

Blake

05-28-2009, 11:37 AM

I rather you post your personal opinions rather than hunt the www for Debunk Dr, Hovind websites.

I'd rather see scientific evidence and testing through solid research than your opinions.

You still haven't proved to me the earth is [b]4 Billion[/b/ years old........

You dismissing the proof doesn't mean it hasn't been provided already.

How old do you think the earth is?

z0sa

05-28-2009, 11:39 AM

BTW, z0sa, dont think I am trying to "set you up" or anything with my line of questioning. I dont have the patience, time or cunning for such games. I am truly just trying to grasp your position here.

Appreciated that we can simply have a discussion without setting each other up to look a fool.

If you reject common scientific understanding (age of Earth, carbon dating, evolution, etc), then my question is, what is your position exactly?

"I dont know" is not an acceptable answer, to me and me alone. Because thousands of people dedicate their lives, studies, paychecks, grants, education and personal worth on the scientific work you so easily trounce as untrue and patently false.

The problem is that scientists are humans. Incredibly often, they completely disregard results that do not correlate with their own personal convictions. These possible "anti-naturalist" evidences are buried or reinterpreted to fit an unprovable theory. Examples of this are rampant in the ape/man links they have attempted to sell us before, which is why I question every single shred of evidence concerning "Ida."

About these great scientists, much of their work is accurate and truly beneficial for mankind. Problem is, much evidence in this "area" of science (encompassing multiple fields) is very much subjectively interpreted. It is clear simply by the extremely low standards the scientific community adopted for "accurately" dating fossils - it is 100% opinion how old any fossil is.

Basically, what makes you and mouse so incredibly smarter and more informed than the Universities from here to Japan and beyond that all offer undergrad/postgrad curriculum in the fields of study you so easily dismiss?

I don't easily dismiss them. In fact, like I said, microevolution is documented. Problem is, microevolution is not "true" evolution. Birds changing beaks and colors do not become dinosaurs or vice versa.

Youre either incredibly brilliant, blinded by bias or contradictory for contradictions sake.

I don't know a whole lot, but I've read on this subject for several years now. I was originally an atheist and completely bought all evolution had to give me. I was confused many times as to sources of information and true evidence supporting many purported "facts" concerning the theory, which is why I started looking for answers. Two of my professors eventually advised me to "forget about understanding it because scientists don't even agree on most things." To me, that was the final red flag. Too much opinion and exaggerations happens when humans can't agree on what actually happened.

Jesus is my friend!

05-28-2009, 11:42 AM

I'd rather see scientific evidence and testing through solid research than your opinions.

Then go watch the discovery channel, web forums are for individuals who have opinions

You dismissing the proof doesn't mean it hasn't been provided already.

psssst! where is it?

How old do you think the earth is?

no more than 50 thousand years. look around you .

you actually think all this water and air could survive 4 billion years? :lmao

phyzik

05-28-2009, 11:55 AM

I dont have time to respond to everything, going to lunch in a few minutes.

Then according to your own words the earth should be as thick as the Sun given it had 4 Billion years to get thicker. You see how the 4 Billion fantasy comes back to bite that ass?

are you serious? obviously what I said went over your head. The earth recycles itself. You claimed erosion, which I didnt disagree with, I just pointed out that while the earth is doing all this eroding it can also renew what has been eroded away. While it has grown a bit that doesnt mean it will continue to grow at that rate. You seem to think everything is doing something at a constant rate. I hate to break it to you, but there is nothing constant about nature.

Dude 4 billion years is not enough time? How much time you need?

Did you not read what I said? IT DOES LEAK OUT!!! I never said it stays underground forever. In fact I agreed with you that it has to come out. It does. Its been known to happen. It doesnt stay underground forever. It escapes. There's proof. What more do you want me to say? you seem to think that if its underground it must stay there for 4 billion years but it cant because the pressure is to great so the earth cant be 4 billion years old. Well, it does escape so that is no way to judge the earths age.

Show me how 4 Billion years at 0.005 seconds per year is not a contradiction in itself. Do the math. And who is to say 0.005 is correct?

Also....as the earth’s rotation is slowing down, the moon is gradually receding from earth about 2 inches a year. At that rate, 1 million years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that it would have fallen into our planet because of the gravitational pull. Also the moon would have been so close that the tides on earth would have been much higher, and would have eroded away the continents and destroyed life.

We can measure the time of day against an atomic clock. That's how we know its slowing down by that amount. Let me guess, your going to discredit an atomic clock somehow.

Also, the moon isnt moving 2 inches a year but thats close enough, its more like 1.5 inches. Again though, your assuming that the moon has ALWAYS been moving away at that speed.

The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon’s gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth’s rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth’s rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth’s rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.

The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirty-eight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).

(Brush, 1983, p.78)

Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush’s figure. Thus, the “problem” disappears!

4 Billion years of people having sex show me the people? You have no solid evidence.

This is the reason why I will no longer debate with you. Its clear you are just arguing to argue now. You cannot seriously believe humans have lived on the planet for 4 billion years and frolicked happily with the Dinosaurs. Anyway, time for lunch.

Blake

05-28-2009, 12:08 PM

Then go watch the discovery channel, web forums are for individuals who have opinions

I have. they agree with the rest of the scientific community that the earth is more than 4 billion years old.

You ask for proof and opinions at the same time. Make up your mind, troll.

psssst! where is it?

It's been posted ad nauseum in this forum time and again, much less this thread.

You dismissing it time and again does not mean it hasn't been provided.

no more than 50 thousand years. look around you .

pssst! where is your proof?

you actually think all this water and air could survive 4 billion years? :lmao

pssst! water and air is not an issue in regards to the age of the earth.

Blake

05-28-2009, 12:12 PM

This is the reason why I will no longer debate with you. Its clear you are just arguing to argue now. You cannot seriously believe humans have lived on the planet for 4 billion years and frolicked happily with the Dinosaurs. Anyway, time for lunch.

It's pretty much like this in any debate with mouse and the trolls.

:lol

z0sa

05-28-2009, 12:15 PM

The Power Hour.

05-28-2009, 12:33 PM

I dont have time to respond to everything, going to lunch in a few minutes.

Tell me how the crow burgers taste! :toast

are you serious? obviously what I said went over your head.

And the head on my shoulders.:lol

The earth recycles itself. You claimed erosion, which I didnt disagree with, I just pointed out that while the earth is doing all this eroding it can also renew what has been eroded away. While it has grown a bit that doesnt mean it will continue to grow at that rate. You seem to think everything is doing something at a constant rate. I hate to break it to you, but there is nothing constant about nature.

I will go reread most of it i was in a hurry and just figured you disagreed with everything I said so I responded in a hasty fashion, I apologize but to be fare this Blake fella and all his Troll talk threw my game off a tad.

Did you not read what I said? IT DOES LEAK OUT!!! I never said it stays underground forever. In fact I agreed with you that it has to come out. It does. Its been known to happen. It doesnt stay underground forever. It escapes. There's proof. What more do you want me to say? you seem to think that if its underground it must stay there for 4 billion years but it cant because the pressure is to great so the earth cant be 4 billion years old. Well, it does escape so that is no way to judge the earths age.

That is true but what makes you think anything can stay in place and stay fresh for a billion years? Don't you see the lack of common sense to think any liquid matter can just be present after Millions of years and you want 4 billion? If you could only drop the Billion talk you may sound like there is hope for mankind. Why go by what some scientist say (in the last 200 years) as gospel? Have an open mind even Jesus and Einstein are quoted as making mistakes also.

We can measure the time of day against an atomic clock. That's how we know its slowing down by that amount. Let me guess, your going to discredit an atomic clock somehow.

Also, the moon isnt moving 2 inches a year but thats close enough, its more like 1.5 inches. Again though, your assuming that the moon has ALWAYS been moving away at that speed.

The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon’s gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth’s rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth’s rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth’s rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.

The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirty-eight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).

(Brush, 1983, p.78)

Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush’s figure. Thus, the “problem” disappears!

That is still a theory you have to at least admit the jury is still out on this one topic.

This is the reason why I will no longer debate with you. Its clear you are just arguing to argue now.

pot meet kettle.

You drew first blood by saying I was silly and mocking Dr Hovind don't fall off that high horse your on and trey and look like your only post quotes you like to hit below the belt also.
But you can bail if you want.. I figure you know whats coming a 2000 plus word of quotes of me debunking your half ass theories you scoop up off Google and you rather not be part of it, that's cool you can leave,(smart move) as long as Blake is still around we will still have all the shit we can handle.

You cannot seriously believe humans have lived on the planet for 4 billion years and frolicked happily with the Dinosaurs.

When did i ever say man and dino shared the earth?
the dinosaurs were 90 billion years ago man was only 600 billion years on this one trillion year old planet. did you not see the latest carbon 18 test results yet?

Anyway, time for lunch.

Don't forget to pray first! :tu

Phenomanul

05-28-2009, 01:22 PM

people posting talkorigins bullshit while discrediting creationist websites are huge hypocrites. Talkorigins is completely biased for evolution, and many of its arguments are opinionated, outdated, and nothing more than a biased or "evolution in the gaps" based. Why doesn't talkorigins answer some of the problems with evolution, because there are NONE?

:lmao at idiots thinking there are NO problems with this theory and its predictions - so much is unexplained on the planet, yet we're 100% sure Ida is 47 million years old with food in her bony belly still? For real? There's no other explanation possible, huh, even using evolution's standards? That's highly unlikely.

Actually I wish they would care to explain how the Hadrosaurs that was found in the Hell Creek Formation Badlands of North Dakota back in 1999 could still retain its soft tissues, skin, muscles, blood vessels, ligaments, nerves, spinal discs and tendons... after 65-67 million years!!!

The prevailing 'rapid mineralization' theory doesn't really explain how an organism of that size can be preserved for such a staggering amount of time... especially when its proteins and genetic material managed to remain well preserved as well...

Blake

05-28-2009, 01:42 PM

people posting talkorigins bullshit while discrediting creationist websites are huge hypocrites. Talkorigins is completely biased for evolution. and many of its arguments are opinionated, outdated, and nothing more than a biased or "evolution in the gaps" based. Why doesn't talkorigins answer some of the problems with evolution, because there are NONE?

I agree. I don't like that website.

Their aim seems to be more at bashing creationists than to discuss theories of the universe.

:lmao at idiots thinking there are NO problems with this theory and its predictions - so much is unexplained on the planet, yet we're 100% sure Ida is 47 million years old with food in her bony belly still? For real? There's no other explanation possible, huh, even using evolution's standards? That's highly unlikely.

there are some problems with evolution, but there are more problems with the book of Genesis being the source of someone's science.

Blake

05-28-2009, 01:47 PM

Actually I wish they would care to explain how the Hadrosaurs that was found in the Hell Creek Formation Badlands of North Dakota back in 1999 could still retain its soft tissues, skin, muscles, blood vessels, ligaments, nerves, spinal discs and tendons... after 65-67 million years!!!

The prevailing 'rapid mineralization' theory doesn't really explain how an organism of that size can be preserved for such a staggering amount of time... especially when its proteins and genetic material managed to remain well preserved as well...

how long do you think the hadrosaurs were there for?

how long should it have taken for the skin etc to deteriorate?

Blake

05-28-2009, 01:50 PM

I will go reread most of it i was in a hurry and just figured you disagreed with everything I said so I responded in a hasty fashion, I apologize but to be fare this Blake fella and all his Troll talk threw my game off a tad.

:lol if all it took for you have your game "thrown off" was for me to call out your trolls, then you had no game to begin with.

Have an open mind even Jesus and Einstein are quoted as making mistakes also.

what mistake did Jesus make?

You drew first blood by saying I was silly and mocking Dr Hovind don't fall off that high horse your on and trey and look like your only post quotes you like to hit below the belt also.
But you can bail if you want.. I figure you know whats coming a 2000 plus word of quotes of me debunking your half ass theories you scoop up off Google and you rather not be part of it, that's cool you can leave,(smart move) as long as Blake is still around we will still have all the shit we can handle.

do honestly wonder why nobody takes you seriously?

:lol

Phenomanul

05-28-2009, 01:57 PM

sure, if you base your reasoning on known facts.

++++ The Sun is expending mass to fuel its nuclear reactions: FACT
++++ As the Sun's mass diminishes it's gravitational field also diminishes: FACT
++++ As the Sun's gravitational field diminishes its fusion rate deccelerates: FACT
++++ As the fusion rate deccelerates, the hydrogen consumption rate diminishes: FACT
++++ As the Sun's gravitation field diminishes the rate of radial shrinkage also slows down because the sun's mass isn't held (compressed) as tightly: FACT
++++ Solar flares expel significant quantities of solar mass and energy away from the Sun; such events also contribute to the above process as well.

That is what we do know about studying solar dynamics today. That is what my observations were based on... Again, I felt no need to link that line of reasoning to some other source when it can easily be derived.

so all of the scientists in the last few hundred years that have refuted young earth theories all have agendas?

Umm the most outspoken ones do... The other ones tag along with the "collective consensus" although no "collective" examination of the data ever really occurs...

and no, today's consumption rates do not bear any relevance to the past.

Actually, I pointed out that said rates weren't constant. Saying that they have no relevance to the past however, is ignorant. Today's consumption rates serve as a reference point... the Sun's hydrogen consumption rates had to be higher in the past than they are today due to the Sun's noted dynamics above. They are relevant no matter what you say to the contrary.

just how old do you think the earth, sun, solar system and universe are?

IMO <100,000 years

boutons_deux

05-28-2009, 02:05 PM

"IMO <100,000 years"

:lol :lol :lol :lol

You outsmart and self-congratulate yourself. How much is the Creation Inst paying to troll your ignorance here?

Phenomanul

05-28-2009, 02:07 PM

how long do you think the hadrosaurs were there for?

how long should it have taken for the skin etc to deteriorate?

According to you, Science has all the answers... you tell me.

Just know this, the Egyptian mumification process is rarely as proficient.

Mumification of the bodies in Guanajuato Mexico... should also serve as a reference point...

(quick, go and Google it... that's why I hate internet debates, people try and come off as smarter than they really are because they can go 'look up' some
sort of comeback)...

The denaturalization tendencies of DNA at temperature and pressure extremes should also not be overlooked. DNA is easily hydrolyzed by water, weak organic acids and weak organic bases... So even if mineral dirts do chemically bind these agents, the salts produced by their reactions are still corrosive to the genetic material and other "soft proteins"... so how is it they managed to stand the test of time?

Phenomanul

05-28-2009, 02:14 PM

"IMO <100,000 years"

:lol :lol :lol :lol

You outsmart and self-congratulate yourself. How much is the Creation Inst paying to troll your ignorance here?

Simmer down... It's only my opinion...

Bottom line, I believe everything was Created. Likewise, I believe that the timing for that supernatural event is not nearly as important as acknowledging that it is the work of the Almighty Creator...

Furthermore, I have always contended that the supernatural isn't bound to leaving natural evidence. That's what makes it supernatural to begin with...

BacktoBasics

05-28-2009, 02:19 PM

IMO <100,000 years
So light years and the vast solar system are out in your scenario?

BTW there wasn't technically soft tissue in that dinosaur fossil you mentioned above. I don't have time to look but if I recall it was a fossilized skeleton that was likened to mummification which is why there was so much available to study.

I remember quite the uproar over the way it was presented on the History Channel or National Geographic or one of those channels.

Col. Sam Daniels

05-28-2009, 02:23 PM

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:23 PM

++++ The Sun is expending mass to fuel its nuclear reactions: FACT
++++ As the Sun's mass diminishes it's gravitational field also diminishes: FACT
++++ As the Sun's gravitational field diminishes its fusion rate deccelerates: FACT
++++ As the fusion rate deccelerates, the hydrogen consumption rate diminishes: FACT
++++ As the Sun's gravitation field diminishes the rate of radial shrinkage also slows down because the sun's mass isn't held (compressed) as tightly: FACT
++++ Solar flares expel significant quantities of solar mass and energy away from the Sun; such events also contribute to the above process as well.

That is what we do know about studying solar dynamics today. That is what my observations were based on... Again, I felt no need to link that line of reasoning to some other source when it can easily be derived.

the sun shrinking and "expending mass" is not a fact.

It's probably why you felt no need to link a source.

Umm the most outspoken ones do... The other ones tag along with the "collective consensus" although no "collective" examination of the data ever really occurs...

umm, whatr scientists exactly are you referring to?

I'm sure you again feel no need to link a source.

Actually, I pointed out that said rates weren't constant. Saying that they have no relevance to the past however, is ignorant. Today's consumption rates serve as a reference point... the Sun's hydrogen consumption rates had to be higher in the past than they are today due to the Sun's noted dynamics above. They are relevant no matter what you say to the contrary.

since there is no proven constant rate of consumption or shrinkage, there is no reference point to use, no matter how relevant you and other young earth theorists try to make it.

IMO <100,000 years

it's a proven fact that the universe is expanding.

I feel the need to source it for you:

The expansion or contraction of the universe depends on its content and past history. With enough matter, the expansion will slow or even become a contraction. On the other hand, dark energy drives the universe towards increasing rates of expansion. The current rate of expansion is usually expressed as the Hubble Constant (in units of kilometers per second per Megaparsec, or just per second).

Hubble found that the universe was not static, but rather was expanding!

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html

It's really not hard to do the math and come to the conclusion that the universe is easily several billion years old........let alone more than a few hundred thousand years.....

Did Hubble have an agenda?

Phenomanul

05-28-2009, 02:25 PM

So light years and the vast solar system are out in your scenario?

If the Creator stretched out his creation to form the universe, like a big blob of clay.... couldn't He have done so at trillions of times the speed of light...?? would that necessarily leave a trace???

Again, I don't believe the supernatural is bound by the natural laws and constants that govern everything else.

BTW there wasn't technically soft tissue in that dinosaur fossil you mentioned above. I don't have time to look but if I recall it was a fossilized skeleton that was likened to mummification which is why there was so much available to study.

I remember quite the uproar over the way it was presented on the History Channel or National Geographic or one of those channels.

Blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, muscles, skin, nerves, bone marrow... are not considered soft tissues?

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:26 PM

Phenomanul (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=104) 4

Blake 2

BacktoBasics (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7874) 3

z0sa (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2052) 4

phyzik 4

The Power Hour. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14133) 3

scores may be subject to change.........

B2B, here's a mouse troll hunting lesson for you:

when you see a troll keeping score and the person that he doesn't like is losing, then you can tell it's usually mouse.

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 02:28 PM

I watch NatGeo, Discovery and the History Channel all the time. I love that kind of stuff. The Hubble, space, archeology and all that stuff fascinates me. :tu But I'm far to simple minded to understand all this stuff you've all been posting.
I do believe though the Earth is much more older than thousands of years but hey...I could be wrong and as much as science knows or thinks it knows...nobody really knows.

The Final Countdown

05-28-2009, 02:29 PM

the sun shrinking and "expending mass" is not a fact.

It's probably why you felt no need to link a source.

Your so right!! The sun is an endless ball of energy and as long as it stays connected to the 2200000 volt power supply it will heat up for another 20 Billion years. or until God trips over the cord. :lmao

Dam Blake everyone knows the Sun loses mass each day did you fall asleep in Science class that day?

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:31 PM

According to you, Science has all the answers... you tell me.

I never said science has all the answers.

I'm sure you don't feel the need to source where I said that.

Just know this, the Egyptian mumification process is rarely as proficient.

Mumification of the bodies in Guanajuato Mexico... should also serve as a reference point...

(quick, go and Google it... that's why I hate internet debates, people try and come off as smarter than they really are because they can go 'look up' some
sort of comeback)...

The denaturalization tendencies of DNA at temperature and pressure extremes should also not be overlooked. DNA is easily hydrolyzed by water, weak organic acids and weak organic bases... So even if mineral dirts do chemically bind these agents, the salts produced by their reactions are still corrosive to the genetic material and other "soft proteins"... so how is it they managed to stand the test of time?

so how long should it have taken for the skin etc to start to decay?

BacktoBasics

05-28-2009, 02:33 PM

Blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, muscles, skin, nerves, bone marrow... are not considered soft tissues?I'm going off what I remember. I'll do a search later but again I'll state that ligaments, tendons, muscles and skin... we found to be some kind of fossilized mummy. We're not talking about soft rubbery bendable tissue. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm just going off what I remember. Wait for it...here it comes...I have no source. So link me up if you got something. I'd love to read it.

Phenomanul

05-28-2009, 02:34 PM

the sun shrinking and "expending mass" is not a fact.

It's probably why you felt no need to link a source.

:lmao Now your lack of comprehension is bursting through that bubble of yours...

I don't need to link a source to validate generally known facts about our Sun because I know exactly what I'm talking about...

If the Sun wasn't expending mass to fuel its nuclear reactions then it wouldn't be bound by the First Law of Thermodynamics...

You know...

Mass is neither created nor destroyed (only transformed through Einstein's general law of relativity E=mc2)

So the gargantuan amounts of energy that emanate from the Sun come from where exactly?

Do you even understand what nuclear fusion is???

BacktoBasics

05-28-2009, 02:37 PM

If the Creator stretched out his creation to form the universe, like a big blob of clay.... couldn't He have done so at trillions of times the speed of light...?? would that necessarily leave a trace???

Again, I don't believe the supernatural is bound by the natural laws and constants that govern everything else.

Lets say he stretched this thing out like a blob of clay then. Wouldn't the measurement of the further points based on light years still be subject to real time recordings. So the starting point may be different but the measurement still holds true since we in fact have a basis for the speed of light.

Tree hugger

05-28-2009, 02:41 PM

:lmao Now your lack of comprehension is bursting through that bubble of yours...

That's what happens when you debate with Blake he distorts the truth to further serve his pagan master. He may be another mouse troll!:wow

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:43 PM

Your so right!! The sun is an endless ball of energy and as long as it stays connected to the 2200000 volt power supply it will heat up for another 20 Billion years. or until God trips over the cord. :lmao

Dam Blake everyone knows the Sun loses mass each day did you fall asleep in Science class that day?

if I misspoke about the loss of mass, I apologize. Let me clarify:

losing mass does not equal shrinking sun size.

hopefully that clears it up for you and any other of your trolls that stay awake during Sunday School class.

911

05-28-2009, 02:45 PM

Phenomanul (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=104) 4

Blake 2

BacktoBasics (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7874) 3

z0sa (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2052) 4

phyzik 4

The Power Hour. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14133) 3

scores may be subject to change.........

Shouldn't Blake lose a point after that last ass waxing he just got from Phenomanul?

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:46 PM

:lmao Now your lack of comprehension is bursting through that bubble of yours...

I don't need to link a source to validate generally known facts about our Sun because I know exactly what I'm talking about...

you mean like how the universe is < 100,000 years old based on what we all know about the sun?

Do you even understand what nuclear fusion is???

enough to get by in a discussion like this.

do you know how to calculate expansion rates of the universe?

apparently not.

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:47 PM

Shouldn't Blake lose a point after that last ass waxing he just got from Phenomanul?

I'm surprised you gave me any points at all.

pat yourselves on the back, mouse.

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:49 PM

Bottom line, I believe everything was Created. Likewise, I believe that the timing for that supernatural event is not nearly as important as acknowledging that it is the work of the Almighty Creator...

Furthermore, I have always contended that the supernatural isn't bound to leaving natural evidence. That's what makes it supernatural to begin with...

just curious, do you believe that an almighty creator made the Bible to be the undeniable, unmistakeable word of God?

Laker Lanny

05-28-2009, 02:49 PM

if I misspoke about the loss of mass, I apologize.

oh shit it finally happened!! :lmao

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/flyingpig-2795-20090429-370.gif

Jesus

05-28-2009, 02:51 PM

:lmao at this thread.

Word!

05-28-2009, 02:51 PM

pat yourselves on the back, mouse.

Which screen names are mouse?

:wakeup

anonymous_fan

05-28-2009, 02:52 PM

Shouldn't Blake lose a point after that last ass waxing he just got from Phenomanul?
I AGREE WITH 911.:tu

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:53 PM

oh shit it finally happened!! :lmao

I'm still waiting for your evidence that the earth is 50,000 years old, mouse.

U.S.A.F.

05-28-2009, 02:54 PM

Well we know for sure mouse can't be Laker Lanny or Jesus they posted at the same time. Or should we wait for Blake's carbon 15 test? :lol

lint

05-28-2009, 02:55 PM

Which screen names are mouse?

:wakeup

An easier question is which ones are not. :lol

Blake

05-28-2009, 02:55 PM

Which screen names are mouse?

:wakeup

Don't really care which ones belong to mouse, chalupa or bigzak.

They are all equally worthless and provide nothing to the discussion.

Phenomanul

05-28-2009, 02:57 PM

Lets say he stretched this thing out like a blob of clay then. Wouldn't the measurement of the further points based on light years still be subject to real time recordings. So the starting point may be different but the measurement still holds true since we in fact have a basis for the speed of light.

The speed of light is a natural constant (among 15 or so other constants which govern the universe)... it doesn't change... mass cannot supercede the speed of light without becoming energy... nothing is moving away from us at a speed greater than this velocity constraint... or else we wouldn't be able to see it.

What I'm suggesting is that the initial bang that produced the universe occurred outside of these constraints... two star clusters could have been pulled apart by billions of light years in less than a micro second... a fact which could lend credence to the notion that millions of years were required to attain that distance between the two... when in fact that time requirement would not necessarily apply...

BacktoBasics

05-28-2009, 02:58 PM

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 02:58 PM

Blake....there you go again.

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 02:59 PM

Don't really care which ones belong to mouse, chalupa or bigzak.

They are all equally worthless and provide nothing to the discussion.

That could be said about some of your own posts.

Earth

05-28-2009, 03:00 PM

Don't really care which ones belong to mouse, chalupa or bigzak.

They are all equally worthless and provide nothing to the discussion.

Give them time to adapt to the topic, after all you waited 24 Billion years to post at the club whats another 39 minutes?

pickle girl

05-28-2009, 03:00 PM

Blake sure is one sour pickle when gets pwned.

BacktoBasics

05-28-2009, 03:01 PM

The speed of light is a natural constant (among 15 or so other constants which govern the universe)... it doesn't change... mass cannot supercede the speed of light without becoming energy... nothing is moving away from us at a speed greater than this velocity constraint... or else we wouldn't be able to see it.

What I'm suggesting is that the initial bang that produced the universe occurred outside of these constraints... two star clusters could have been pulled apart by billions of light years in less than a micro second... a fact which could lend credence to the notion that millions of years were required to attain that distance between the two... when in fact that time requirement would not necessarily apply...I'll argue just about anything but I'm not feeling this one.

Light whether put there from moment one is still measurable. Is it not?

Transporter

05-28-2009, 03:04 PM

Blake sure is one sour pickle when gets pwned.

Rule #65 Blake is a hard headed tool

Exaggerator

05-28-2009, 03:07 PM

I'd say Earth is at least a few trillion years old and I should know since I have a few dozen PHD's in and quite a few BS's.

GeorgeCostanza

05-28-2009, 03:10 PM

Blake sure is one sour pickle when gets pwned.

I hate the Blake!!

Blake

05-28-2009, 03:21 PM

That could be said about some of your own posts.

It could be, but it rarely ever is.

but if I provide a worthless post, feel free to point it out.

Phenomanul

05-28-2009, 03:23 PM

I'll argue just about anything but I'm not feeling this one.

Light whether put there from moment one is still measurable. Is it not?

Let's just put it this way... the singularity that produced the Big Bang... contained the entire mass of the universe and all of it's energy... yet it probably fit into a dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

The moment it "banged" it did so as a burst of pure energy... one which couldn't have been constrained by the "speed of light" otherwise it would have crunched within a matter of micro seconds... I mean if light can't even escape the gravitational clutches of your run-o-the-mill black hole... it definitely would not have escaped from the gravitational clutches produced by the agglomeration of the Universe's entire mass.

The Big Bang event therefore had to violate the 'speed of light' constraint. Furthermore, if it did so excessively quarks, protons, neutron, electrons and eventually atoms would have failed to condense out of that energy cloud... without them hydrogen, and hence stars would have failed to form... in fact, stars couldn't have formed until that initial wave managed to slow down to a velocity below the speed of light otherwise any aglomeration of hydrogen gas would have reverted back to its energy state (since mass particles cannot exceed the speed of light)... Without stars, none of the heavier elements would even exist...

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 03:25 PM

It could be, but it rarely ever is.

but if I provide a worthless post, feel free to point it out.

Same goes for me too.

Blake

05-28-2009, 03:25 PM

Blake....there you go again.

:lol 4 posts with my name in it in the last few minutes....

there go the butthurt trolls again.

Blake

05-28-2009, 03:28 PM

The speed of light is a natural constant (among 15 or so other constants which govern the universe)... it doesn't change... mass cannot supercede the speed of light without becoming energy... nothing is moving away from us at a speed greater than this velocity constraint... or else we wouldn't be able to see it.

What I'm suggesting is that the initial bang that produced the universe occurred outside of these constraints... two star clusters could have been pulled apart by billions of light years in less than a micro second... a fact which could lend credence to the notion that millions of years were required to attain that distance between the two... when in fact that time requirement would not necessarily apply...

just curious, do you believe that an almighty creator made the Bible to be the undeniable, unmistakeable word of God?

Re-Animator

05-28-2009, 03:28 PM

I'm still waiting for your evidence that the earth is 50,000 years old, mouse.

Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment accumulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years.

The largest stalactites and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years.

The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old .

The oldest tree in the world is 4300 years old .

The oldest historical records go back less than 6000 years .

The existence of short period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.

There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old.

If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

Modern textbooks, in effect, tell us that FROGS+TIME = PRINCE.

Evolution is merely a theory.

Evolution is a religion, not part of science.

Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one of the above arguments and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong.
If the universe is not billions of years old, then we need not bother with the other arguments supporting evolution.

:wakeup

Phenomanul

05-28-2009, 03:28 PM

I have to step out....

Later peeps...

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 03:31 PM

:lol 4 posts with my name in it in the last few minutes....

there go the butthurt trolls again.

Hey, keep your sex life out of this. That brings nothing to the discussion.

Blake

05-28-2009, 03:31 PM

in fact, stars couldn't have formed until that initial wave managed to slow down to a velocity below the speed of light otherwise any aglomeration of hydrogen gas would have reverted back to its energy state (since mass particles cannot exceed the speed of light)...

problem with your theory is that it is a fact that the speed that the universe is expanding at is increasing.

just curious, do you believe that an almighty creator made the Bible to be the undeniable, unmistakeable word of God?

Re-Animator

05-28-2009, 03:33 PM

I have to step out....

Later peeps...

Now Blake can say what ever sounds good in his warped mind, you wont be here to correct him.

z0sa

05-28-2009, 03:34 PM

are you serious? obviously what I said went over your head. The earth recycles itself. You claimed erosion, which I didnt disagree with, I just pointed out that while the earth is doing all this eroding it can also renew what has been eroded away. While it has grown a bit that doesnt mean it will continue to grow at that rate. You seem to think everything is doing something at a constant rate. I hate to break it to you, but there is nothing constant about nature.

The methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."

My oh my, and do any of you wonder why we have 3 billion year old rocks?

Before Stephen Jay Gould, prominent evolutionary biologist, published his first paper about uniformitarianism, it was assumed that the natural processes of the earth were all obeying the laws of Lyell's Uniformitarianism - "that all things continue as they were from the beginning" (wikipedia). However, scientists were quickly finding out that if these laws held true, there was an impossibly high amount of evidence stacking up against an old earth theory - and therefore, against how science perceived evolution. This is part of the reason Gould published his paper allowing for different rates in the past (circular reasoning), and several years later followed it up with a theory on how species could quickly change, thus negating the need for 'deep time': Punctuated Equilibrium.

The symposium focused its attention on how modern microevolutionary studies could revitalize various aspects of paleontology and macroevolution. Tom Schopf, who organized that year's meeting, assigned Gould the topic of speciation. Gould recalls that "Eldredge's 1971 publication [on Paleozoic trilobites] had presented the only new and interesting ideas on the paleontological implications of the subject—so I asked Schopf if we could present the paper jointly."[4]

It's not hard to picture an agenda here. Rather than rely on earth's natural processes being constant as has been proven time and time again, humanity just gave ourselves the green light to interpret the evidence however we see fit, objectiveness be damned.

And here is where we get the story of this thread. In 1965, Gould told us the if we couldn't explain it using heads instead of our hearts, we could just go ahead and use our hearts anyway and call it science. Based completely in circular reasoning, this is why geologist can "factually" say the earth was originally in an order they preordain; this is why the evolutionary biologist can study DNA and instead of seeing a complex coded language of information, they see life as a result of random processes - such beauty, created by randomness. The thought is saddening.

While today we continue to follow the two assumptions set down by Gould in modern sciences, it must be also assumed that inaccuracy, while perhaps not constant, abounds.

Blake

05-28-2009, 03:35 PM

Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment accumulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years.

The largest stalactites and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years.

The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old .

The oldest tree in the world is 4300 years old .

The oldest historical records go back less than 6000 years .

The existence of short period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.

There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old.

If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

Modern textbooks, in effect, tell us that FROGS+TIME = PRINCE.

Evolution is merely a theory.

Evolution is a religion, not part of science.

Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one of the above arguments and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong.
If the universe is not billions of years old, then we need not bother with the other arguments supporting evolution.

:wakeup

copying and pasting arguments from creation biased websites is not proof no matter how many times you post them.

I thought we already went over this.

Blake

05-28-2009, 03:37 PM

Now Blake can say what ever sounds good in his warped mind, you wont be here to correct him.

Me being here to correct you hasn't stopped you from saying whatever sounds hilarious to you in your warped mind.

BacktoBasics

05-28-2009, 03:41 PM

Let's just put it this way... the singularity that produced the Big Bang... contained the entire mass of the universe and all of it's energy... yet it probably fit into a dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

The moment it "banged" it did so as a burst of pure energy... one which couldn't have been constrained by the "speed of light" otherwise it would have crunched within a matter of micro seconds... I mean if light can't even escape the gravitational clutches of your run-o-the-mill black hole... it definitely would not have escaped from the gravitational clutches produced by the agglomeration of the Universe's entire mass.

The Big Bang event therefore had to violate the 'speed of light' constraint. Furthermore, if it did so excessively quarks, protons, neutron, electrons and eventually atoms would have failed to condense out of that energy cloud... without them hydrogen, and hence stars would have failed to form... in fact, stars couldn't have formed until that initial wave managed to slow down to a velocity below the speed of light otherwise any aglomeration of hydrogen gas would have reverted back to its energy state (since mass particles cannot exceed the speed of light)... Without stars, none of the heavier elements would even exist...Even though it violated the speed of light at that moment the speed of light is still measurable now. So you're telling me that the current standard of measurement doesn't matter? I'm talking after the fact not at the moment of birth.

Laker Lover!

05-28-2009, 03:43 PM

copying and pasting arguments from creation biased websites is not proof no matter how many times you post them.

I thought we already went over this.

Now you want personal responses? You just said show the proof and when someone goes to a site that has the proof you want personal speculations?

I think you need open a window in that single wide trailer and maybe weed eat around one of those rusty cars you have parked in your front lawn , maybe empty the water in one of those many spare tires help control the mosquito populations for the rest of the trailer trash.
Come back after your dad comes back from the plasma center and maybe Phenomanul will be back to continue waxing your lame ass. :lmao

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 03:46 PM

copying and pasting arguments from creation biased websites is not proof no matter how many times you post them.

I thought we already went over this.

I concur. That is not proof of anything.

Blake

05-28-2009, 03:55 PM

Now you want personal responses? You just said show the proof and when someone goes to a site that has the proof you want personal speculations?

A creation biased website has no such proof.

I think you need open a window in that single wide trailer and maybe weed eat around one of those rusty cars you have parked in your front lawn , maybe empty the water in one of those many spare tires help control the mosquito populations for the rest of the trailer trash.
Come back after your dad comes back from the plasma center and maybe Phenomanul will be back to continue waxing your lame ass. :lmao

did you just high five laker lanny and alex jones?

Blue Jew

05-28-2009, 04:40 PM

I concur. That is not proof of anything.

Are you sure?

http://kevinpierpont.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/usmc-ega.jpg

Quotes about Marines
Want to help with this project? Click here. (http://4mermarine.com/USMC/help.html)

A special thank you to Teena Hubbard and Marianne Knight, Marines, for many of the quotes.

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.
Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share.
Ned Dolan I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all.

Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
Hell, these are Marines. Men like them held Guadalcanal and took Iwo Jima. Bagdad ain't shit.
Marine Major General John F. Kelly We signed up knowing the risk. Those innocent people in New York didn't go to work thinking there was any kind of risk.
Pvt. Mike Armendariz-Clark, USMC; Afghanastan, 20 September 2001
As reported on page 1 of the New York Times The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight!
MGen. Frank E. Lowe, USA; Korea, 26 January 1952 Marines know how to use their bayonets. Army bayonets may as well be paper-weights.
Navy Times; November 1994 Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918 The United States Marine Corps, with its fiercely proud tradition of excellence in combat, its hallowed rituals, and its unbending code of honor, is part of the fabric of American myth.
Thomas E. Ricks; Making the Corps, 1997 For all of those that have son's or daughter's at bootcamp let me pass on what I found. Let me give you a little back ground first. When my son left home he had no motivation, he was lazy, slobby, no pride, no self worth. This is the boy that got off the bus March 18th at Parris Island. The man that I met on Thursday for parents day is AWESOME. There is no way I can describe to you all the difference. He looks different, he walks different, he talks different, he has such a sense of bearing and pride all I could do was look at him in awe. Oh yes, the training is hard, what he went through is unimaginable to any one that has not been there. They are definitely taught to be Warriors. Let me tell you the surprise of what else they are taught. My Marine son has better values, better morals, better manners than any one I know. It is so much more than Yes Sir, Yes Mam...so much more. He cares about how he looks, he cares about what he does, and its not a boastful, bad ass thing. He is a true gentleman. I saw patience, and a calmness in him that I have never seen. I could never express my gratitude enough to the Marine Corps for what they have given my son. I know this, I have an 11 year old Devil pup still at home. When the time comes for his turn if I had to I would take him kicking and screaming all the way. Although I'm sure that will not happen. The hero worship I see in my younger sons eyes for his Marine brother tells me I will have two Marines in the family, and I will be one very proud mother.
"Cybil", Mother of a Marine writing to the myMarine (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mymarine/message/53) Group The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years.
James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy; 23 February 1945
(the flag-raising on Iwo Jima had been immortalized in a photograph by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal) I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!
General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur; Korea, 21 September 1950 We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?
Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., USA, Chairman of the the Joint Chiefs of Staff
during the assault on Grenada, 1983 The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!
Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945 Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States; 1985 Marines I see as two breeds, Rottweilers or Dobermans, because Marines come in two varieties, big and mean, or skinny and mean. They're aggressive on the attack and tenacious on defense. They've got really short hair and they always go for the throat.
RAdm. "Jay" R. Stark, USN; 10 November 1995 They told (us) to open up the Embassy, or "we'll blow you away." And then they looked up and saw the Marines on the roof with these really big guns, and they said in Somali, "Igaralli ahow," which means "Excuse me, I didn't mean it, my mistake".
Karen Aquilar, in the U.S. Embassy; Mogadishu, Somalia, 1991 For over 221 years our Corps has done two things for this great Nation. We make Marines, and we win battles.
Gen. Charles C. Krulak, USMC (CMC); 5 May 1997 Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever?
GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly, USMC
near Lucy-`le-Bocage as he led the 5th Marines' attack into Belleau Wood, 6 June 1918 Gone to Florida to fight the Indians. Will be back when the war is over.
Colonel Commandant Archibald Henderson, USMC
in a note pinned to his office door, 1836 Don't you forget that you're First Marines! Not all the communists in Hell can overrun you!
Col. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC
rallying his First Marine Regiment near Chosin Reservoir, Korea, December 1950 Marines die, that's what we're here for. But the Marine Corps lives forever. And that means YOU live forever.
the mythical GySgt. Hartman, USMC; portrayed by GySgt. R. Lee Ermey, a Marine Corps Drill Instructor using his own choice of words in Full Metal Jacket, 1987 You'll never get a Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole! Follow me!
Capt. Henry P. Crowe, USMC; Guadalcanal, 13 January 1943 We are United States Marines, and for two and a quarter centuries we have defined the standards of courage, esprit, and military prowess.
Gen. James L. Jones, USMC (CMC); 10 November 2000 There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.
Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share.
Ned Dolan I love the Corps for those intangible possessions that cannot be issued: pride, honor, integrity, and being able to carry on the traditions for generations of warriors past.
Cpl. Jeff Sornig, USMC; in Navy Times, November 1994 I have only two men out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold.
1stLt. Clifton B. Cates, USMC
in Belleau Wood, 19 July 1918 Courage is endurance for one moment more…
Unknown Marine Second Lieutenant in Vietnam My only answer as to why the Marines get the toughest jobs is because the average Leatherneck is a much better fighter. He has far more guts, courage, and better officers... These boys out here have a pride in the Marine Corps and will fight to the end no matter what the cost.
2nd Lt. Richard C. Kennard, Peleliu, World War II A Marine should be sworn to the patient endurance of hardships, like the ancient knights; and it is not the least of these necessary hardships to have to serve with sailors.
Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery Lying offshore, ready to act, the presence of ships and Marines sometimes means much more than just having air power or ship's fire, when it comes to deterring a crisis. And the ships and Marines may not have to do anything but lie offshore. It is hard to lie offshore with a C-141 or C-130 full of airborne troops.
Gen. Colin Powell, U. S. Army
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
During Operation Desert Storm This was the first time that the Marines of the two nations had fought side by side since the defence of the Peking Legations in 1900. Let it be said that the admiration of all ranks of 41 Commando for their brothers in arms was and is unbounded. They fought like tigers and their morale and esprit de corps is second to none.
Lt Col. D.B. Drysdale, Commanding
41 Commando, Chosen Reservoir, on the 1st Marine Division Division The wonderful love of a beautiful maid,
The love of a staunch true man,
The love of a baby, unafraid,
Have existed since time began.

But the greatest of loves, The quintessence of loves.
even greater than that of a mother,
Is the tender, passionate, infinite love,
of one drunken Marine for another.

"Semper Fidelis"
General Louis H. Wilson
Commandant of the Marine Corps
Toast given at 203rd Marine Corps Birthday Ball
Camp Lejueune, N.C. 1978 You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth- and the amusing thing about it is that they are.
Father Kevin Keaney
1st Marine Division Chaplain
Korean War There was always talk of espirit de corps, of being gung ho, and that must have been a part of it. Better, tougher training, more marksmanship on the firing range, the instant obedience to orders seared into men in boot camp.
James Brady, columnist, novelist,
press secretary to President Reagan, television personality and
Marine The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps.
General Alexander A. Vandergrift, USMC
to the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, 5 May 1946 By their victory, the 3rd, 4th and 5th Marine Divisions and other units of the Fifth Amphibious Corps have made an accounting to their country which only history will be able to value fully. Among the Americans who served on Iwo Island, uncommon valor was a common virtue.
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, U.S. Navy Being ready is not what matters. What matters is winning after you get there.
LtGen Victor H. Krulak, USMC
April 1965 The Marine Corps has just been called by the New York Times, 'The elite of this country.' I think it is the elite of the world.
Admiral William Halsey, U.S. Navy I still need Marines who can shoot and salute. But I need Marines who can fix jet engines and man sophisticated radar sets, as well.
General Robert E. Cushman, Jr., USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 17 May 1974 I can't say enough about the two Marine divisions. If I use words like 'brilliant,' it would really be an under description of the absolutely superb job that they did in breaching the so-called 'impenetrable barrier.' It was a classic- absolutely classic- military breaching of a very very tough minefield, barbed wire, fire trenches-type barrier.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, U. S. Army
Commander, Operation Desert Storm, February 1991 I am convinced that there is no smarter, handier, or more adaptable body of troops in the world.
Prime Minister of Britain, Sir Winston Churchhill The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle.
Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing, U.S. Army
Commander of American Forces in World War I Do not attack the First Marine Division. Leave the yellowlegs alone. Strike the American Army.
Orders given to Communist troops in the Korean War;
shortly afterward, the Marines were ordered
to not wear their khaki leggings. The American Marines have it [pride], and benefit from it. They are tough, cocky, sure of themselves and their buddies. They can fight and they know it.
General Mark Clark, U.S. Army They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943 I've always been proud of being a Marine. I won't hesitate to defend the Corps.
Jonathan Winters, comic and Marine Every Marine is, first and foremost, a rifleman. All other conditions are secondary.
Gen. A. M. Gray, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps A Ship without Marines is like a garment without buttons.
Adm. David Dixon Porter, USN in a letter to
Colonel Commandant John Harris, USMC, 1863
The Marines have landed and the situation is well in hand.
Attributed to Richard Harding Davis (1864-1916) If I had one more division like this First Marine Division I could win this war.
General of the Armies Douglas McArthur in Korea,
overheard and reported by Marine Staff Sergeant Bill Houghton, Weapons/2/5

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 04:47 PM

I was referring to this thread.

Semper Fi!!!!

wrench

05-28-2009, 05:17 PM

I was referring to this thread.

Semper Fi!!!!

So your a flip flopper like Blake?

Blake posts quotes its proof.

You post quotes? it's a lazy way to try and not answer the questions.

Blake does a copying and paste? It's evidence of proving he is right.

You copy and paste? Your a loser that knows nothing about the topic and is wasting his time.

I think people with 20/20 vision and at least a 7th grade education can see the facts and can see that Blake got his ass handed to him two pages ago.

JoeChalupa

05-28-2009, 05:21 PM

So your a flip flopper like Blake?

Blake posts quotes its proof.

You post quotes? it's a lazy way to try and not answer the questions.

Blake does a copying and paste? It's evidence of proving he is right.

You copy and paste? Your a loser that knows nothing about the topic and is wasting his time.

I think people with 20/20 vision and at least a 7th grade education can see the facts and can see that Blake got his ass handed to him two pages ago.

You just don't get it. I was referring that your cutting and posting from that site is NOT proof of anything.

I never said Blake's cut and pasting was right either. None of this can be proven because we just don't know.

Your drama never stops. :lmao

Jame Gumb

05-28-2009, 05:22 PM

Update

Phenomanul 6

Blake 1

BacktoBasics 4

z0sa 5

phyzik 4

The Power Hour. 3

scores may be subject to change.........