Science Disproves Evolution
First Prev
of 19
Next Last

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#365 May 23, 2012
Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins? 1
[continued]

d.“Fragments of 16S ribosomal RNA genes were detected by polymerase chain reaction amplification of DNA extracted from halite [salt, NaCl] samples ranging in age from 11 to 425 Myr (millions of years).” Steven A. Fish et al.,“Recovery of 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene Fragments from Ancient Halite,” Nature, Vol. 417, 23 May 2002, p. 432.

e. Eske Willerslev et al.,“Diverse Plant and Animal Genetic Records from Holocene and Pleistocene Sediments,” Science, Vol. 300, 2 May 2003, pp. 791–795.

f. Hoppe, p. 281.

Virginia Morell,“30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, p. 1862.

g.“Under physiological conditions, it would be extremely rare to find preserved DNA that was tens of thousands of years old.” Scott R. Woodward et al.,“DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments,” Science, Vol. 266, 18 November 1994, p. 1229.

Some have charged that the DNA Woodward recovered from a large Cretaceous bone in Utah was contaminated with human, or perhaps mammal, DNA. Several of their arguments are based on evolutionary presuppositions. Woodward rebuts those claims in “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” Science, Vol. 268, 26 May 1995, pp. 1191–1194.

h. Hendrick N. Poinar et al.,“DNA from an Extinct Plant,” Nature, Vol. 363, 24 June 1993, p. 677.

Rob DeSalle et al.,“DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications,” Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, pp. 1933–1936.

Raúl J. Cano et al.,“Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil,” Nature, Vol. 363, 10 June 1993, pp. 536–538.

i. Tomas Lindahl is a recognized expert on DNA and its rapid disintegration. He tried to solve this problem of “old” DNA by claiming that all such discoveries resulted from contamination and poor measurement techniques. He wrote,“The apparent observation that fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20 million years is incompatible with the known properties of the chemical structure of DNA.”[See Tomas Lindahl,“Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA,” Nature, Vol. 362, 22 April 1993, p. 714.] His claims of contamination are effectively rebutted in many of the papers listed above and by:

George O. Poinar Jr., in “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” Nature, Vol. 365, 21 October 1993, p. 700.(The work of George Poinar and others was a major inspiration for the book and film, Jurassic Park.)

Edward M. Golenberg,“Antediluvian DNA Research,” Nature, Vol. 367, 24 February 1994, p. 692.

The measurement procedures of Poinar and others were far better controlled than Lindahl realized. That is, modern DNA did not contaminate the fossil. However, Lindahl is probably correct in saying that DNA cannot last much longer than 10,000 years. All points of view are consistent when one concludes that these old ages are wrong.

j.“We know from chemical experiments that it [DNA] degrades and how fast it degrades. After 25 million years, there shouldn’t be any DNA left at all.” Rebecca L. Cann, as quoted by Morell, p. 1862.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#366 May 24, 2012
Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 2

Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber (k). The same bacteria, Bacillus, are found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650 million years old (l). Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old (m). Anyone who accepts such old ages for these rocks must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion.(Because these “old” bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)

Proteins and Soft Tissue. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins (n), soft tissue (o), and blood compounds (p) preserved in dinosaur bones (q) and a large marine reptile (r). As with DNA, these remains should not last 65–150 million years, as is ridiculously claimed (s).

k. Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki,“Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber,” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060–1064.

Many tests were preformed to rule out contamination.[See also F. G. Priest, Andrew T. Beckenbach, and Raúl J. Cano,“Age of Bacteria from Amber,” Science, Vol. 270, 22 December 1995, pp. 2015–2017.]

“When you look at them they don’t look any different from the modern ones, but these bacteria are ancient [supposedly 25–40 million years ancient] and they’re alive!” Joshua Fischman,“Have 25-Million-Year-Old Bacteria Returned to Life?” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, p. 977.

l.“There is also the question of how bacterial biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in dormant bacteria; or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long period.” R. John Parkes,“A Case of Bacterial Immortality?” Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844–845.

Russell H. Vreeland et al.,“Isolation of a 250 Million-Year-Old Halotolerant Bacterium from a Primary Salt Crystal,” Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 897–900.

Other tests have confirmed Vreeland’s discover described above.[See Cindy L. Satterfield et al.,“New Evidence for 250 Ma Age of Halotolerant Bacterium from a Permian Salt Crystal,” Geology, Vol. 33, April 2005, pp. 265–268.]

m. See Endnote 81.

n. Richard Monastersky,“Protein Identified in Dinosaur Fossils,” Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213.

Gerard Muyzer et al.,“Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs,” Geology, Vol. 20, October 1992, pp. 871–874.

o.“‘I got goose bumps,’ recalls [Mary] Schweitzer.‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” Virginia Morell, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science, Vol. 261, 9 July 1993, p. 160.

“Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels ...” Mary H. Schweitzer et al.,“Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex,” Science, Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.

“‘I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren’t supposed to be there, but there they are,’ said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper.‘I was pretty shocked.’” Evelyn Boswell,“Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur Paleontology,” Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005, p. 1.

[continue]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#367 May 24, 2012
Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 2
[continued]

Mary H. Schweitzer made these discoveries while completing her doctor’s degree under John “Jack” R. Horner, one of the world’s leading dinosaur researchers. Horner is the Curator of Paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies, and was a technical advisor for the film Jurassic Park.

When Schweitzer reported her discovery to Horner, he replied,“Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you.” Schweitzer replied,“Jack, its your dinosaur.”[See Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Penguin Group, 2009), pp. 80–81.

p. Mary H. Schweitzer et al.,“Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 94, June 1997, pp. 6291–6296.

q.“We present multiple lines of evidence [from multiple independent institutions] that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis.... Transparent, flexible vessels were observed; some contained spherical microstructures, whereas others contained an amorphous red substance that is superficially similar to degraded blood products in vessels recovered from extant bone.” Mary H. Schweitzer et al.,“Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequence of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis,” Science, Vol. 324, 1 May 2009, p. 626.

r.“Here we report on an exceptionally complete specimen (LACM 128319) of the moderately derived genus Platecarpus that preserves soft tissues and anatomical details....” Johan Lindgren et al.,“Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur,” PloS ONE, 5(8) e11998, 2010.

s.“There is still so much about ancient soft tissues that we do not understand. Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?” Mary H. Schweitzer,“Blood from Stone,” Scientific American, Vol. 303, December 2010, p. 69.

Schweitzer and the Scientific American editors give no answer, but think blood comes from 67-million-year-old stone. The answer is simple; the soft tissue and blood found is less than 1/10,000th of the age they assumed. They don’t understand the flood and the origin of earth’s radioactivity.[See pages 108–384.]

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#368 May 29, 2012
Parallel Layers

Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in Earth’s sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly.(An unconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (called conformities) imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities are simply local phenomena (a), one can trace continuous paths, which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit (b).

Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion.[For an explanation of how conformable layers can have such different fossils, see pages 186–197] Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top![See "Out-of-Sequence Fossils"] Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory (c).

a. Geologists have known this for many years.[See Archibald Geikie, Text-Book of Geology (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1882), p. 602.]

b. Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, General Edition (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 113.

c.“Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on.” William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219.

George McCready Price, The New Geology, 2nd edition (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1923), pp. 486, 500, 504, 506, 543, 620–627.

George McCready Price, Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1926), pp. 90–104.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

[From "in the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#369 May 30, 2012
A Young Universe?

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

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

Helium

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

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

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

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

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

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#370 Jun 4, 2012
Excess Fluid Pressure

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

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

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

Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, p. 341.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#371 Jun 12, 2012
Shallow Meteorites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#372 Jun 18, 2012
Moon Recession

As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth.(Edmond Halley first observed this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume.[For details, see pages 501–504]

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#373 Jun 20, 2012
Moon Dust and Debris

If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness.a This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67 of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon.[For more details, see pages 510–513.]

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

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


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



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



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



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



Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.



For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!



Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.



[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#374 Jun 24, 2012
Crater Creep

A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure,“creeps” in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.
Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should reach their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years.a Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep,” these bodies seem to be relatively young.

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

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

The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:

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

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

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#375 Jun 26, 2012
Hot Moon

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

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

b. The unexpectedly large heat flow may be a consequence of large impacts occurring on the lunar surface at the time of Earth’s global flood.[See Figure 153 on page 282.]

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#376 Jul 4, 2012
Young Comets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#377 Jul 5, 2012
Small Comets

Photographs taken from Earth-orbiting satellites show small, ice-filled comets striking Earth’s upper atmosphere at an average rate of one every three seconds.a [See Figure 33.] Each comet adds 20–40 tons of water to Earth’s atmosphere. If this influx began when evolutionists say the Earth started to evolve, all our oceans would have come from small comets. Actually, impact rates were undoubtedly greater in the past, because the planets have swept many of these comets from the solar system. Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young.[See also pages 287 and 295.]

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

a. Louis A. Frank with Patrick Huyghe, The Big Splash (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990).
Richard Monastersky,“Comet Controversy Caught on Film,” Science News, Vol. 133, 28 May 1988, p. 340.

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

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

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

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

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

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#378 Jul 9, 2012
Hot Planets

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

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

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

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

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

b. Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#379 Jul 10, 2012
Solar Wind

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

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

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

Large lunar impacts are continually churning up and overturning the lunar surface. Therefore, for these micrometeorite impacts to blanket the surface so completely, they must have been recent. For more details, see Figure 155 on page 283.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#380 Jul 11, 2012
Poynting-Robertson Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#381 Jul 12, 2012
Supernova Remnants

In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so.a These explosions, calledsupernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen.b So, the Milky Way looks young.

Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

Thanks to radio telescopes, most of these remnants should be visible for a million years. At the rate supernovas are occurring in galaxies like ours, we have only about 7,000 years’ worth of remnants.

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

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

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

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

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#382 Jul 18, 2012
Galaxy Clusters

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

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

These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass—called dark matter—is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, about 80% of the mass in the universe must be invisible—and hidden in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass” does not exist (c). Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe.[See "Missing Mass" on page 34.]

[continue]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#383 Jul 18, 2012
[Galaxy Clusters continued]

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

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

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

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

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

Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 188–191.

Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

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

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

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

Nadia Drake,“Dark Matter, Where Art Thou?” Science News, Vol. 181, 19 May 2012, pp. 5–6.

Conclusion

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

This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#384 Aug 15, 2012
You Christians that argue about science with the edifice of science need a reality check. You should probably know that secularists don't accept scientific opinions from theists - just from the consensus of experts in good standing in the relevant scientific fields. If the experts say that the theory of evolution is sound and valid science, then the issue is settled until and unless they say otherwise. Tell him, Buck.

But don't go feeling picked on! It's not just theists that the scientists ignore. If rodeo clowns were to say that "a mutation has never been observed in nature that unambiguously CREATED information," nobody would bat an eye at that, right? So why would it be different when you theists say it?

Likewise, if a consortium of crack whores were to publish a position paper making similar claims, nobody would care about that, either. Can you see why that makes sense? It's not just you.

And it's not just you clowns, theists, and whores that are being excluded from the debate. Nobody cares what NAMBLA, Domino's Pizza, or the NFL have to say about evolution, either. Not a one of them has a say or gets a vote on what constitutes good science.

If it comforts you any to know, my lay opinion doesn't matter either. The experts really don't care that I happen to agree with them any more than they do that you don't.

By the way, where do you think that the opinions of you theists rank relative to the clowns, pedophiles, pizza delivery boys, and whores? Actually, it's beneath all of them.

Whereas crack whores and rodeo clowns are merely unqualified to contradict the experts, you theists actually have an agenda to subvert science, and are well known for lying about it, as you have done above.

So your religious opinions on science are valued just a notch less.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 19
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Safety Harbor Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Tarpon Springs a good place to live? (Mar '08) Nov 28 tdot 49
United Travel Schools (Jan '06) Nov 22 scapers 98
News 'He was enraged!': Gay university student drown... Nov 17 clay bell 2
Looking for personal loan of $5000? (Jul '13) Nov 16 Chrissybot 27
Which is best, quickest, and easiest online pay... (May '13) Nov 16 Chrissybot 5
Pain management Dr's Nov 16 Hurtinsouth 1
News ECHO Realty is spending $600,000 to rebrand Par... Nov 14 fred 1

Safety Harbor Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Safety Harbor Mortgages