Science Disproves Evolution

I just find it amusing that the official creationist organization actually has a whole list of do-not-use arguments for their fellow creationists. Why? Because deep down inside they know that their army of creationists are composed largely of angry teenagers and crackpots.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Dr Adequate: We're just not sure whether you really know what all those big words mean.Pahu: I don’t. Do you? Does that change the value of the information I am sharing?Dr Adequate: It means that to you it is not information and has no value.Pahu: Are you saying that scientific facts are meaningless unless I understand all those big words? Most of the words are little words that I do understand, which makes the information meaningful to me, and I hope, to you. Occasionally I feel the need to look up a big word to help me understand the information.Dr Adequate: Why are you presenting us with "information" which, so far as you know, may be worthless or even meaningless?Pahu: Is there a connection there somewhere, or is this an example of your inability to think logically?

Pahu, please refer to my article on the subject that I wrote 18 years ago: MOON DUST at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html. Was 1990 before or very shortly after you were born? That should give you some idea of how old this and most other PRATTs are.Paul Ackerman, author of It’s a Young World After (please don't give me that blank stare; you did cite it as one of your "sources"), relied on work done by creationist Harold Slusher. My article deals with that work in which Slusher claimed to have calculated how much meteoric dust should be on the moon if it were actually 4.5 billion years old. Slusher cited his source thus:

quote:

---

The figures I am using below for the calculations come from Hawkins, G.S. ed., 1976. Meteor Orbits and Dust, Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics. Volume II, Smithsonian Institution and NASA, Washington, D.C. These collected papers are based on radar, rocket and satellite data well into the "space age".

---

Every creationist (with but a single exception) whom I've seen use Slusher's claim would cite that NASA document as their own source and most would also intone that same "well into the 'space age'" phrase -- though thankfully Ackerman did not, even though he himself also cited that NASA document.However, they had clearly never seen that document and I rather suspect that Slusher himself had never seen it. Because I have seen it and read what it said. That NASA document was actually published in 1967 from papers submitted at an August 1965 conference. Oh, and it was Volume Eleven (11), not two (II), something else that they all would have immediately seen. And Slusher ignored what that document said and he ignored the rules of mathematics in order to introduce two extraneous factors that inflated his results for the moon by a factor of ten thousand (10,000). Slusher claimed that an old moon should be covered in a dust layer 284.8 ft thick, but when we corrected it by removing his extraneous factors that dust layer becomes 1/3 inch thick.I first encountered it at a debate when Henry Morris of the ICR mentioned it to counter his opponent having pointed out quite correctly that creationists keep citing old sources and ignore more recent findings, which is exactly what you did in posting that tired old PRATT. Morris' emphasis was on the false claim that it was a "1976" document and he implied that the measurements were made directly from the moon's surface. When I found that document in the library and discovered the truth, I tried to inform Morris and Gish (who had supplied me with their full version of the claim) and Gish just kept denying the hard facts in front of him. A few years later, a creationist I had informed wrote to the ICR and a graduate student informed him that the ICR no longer used that claim. However, the ICR's books continued to carry that same claim and still carry it to this very day, over 15 years after they claimed to no longer use it.And as a result, kids like you come along and read those false claims and believe that they are still current.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Anglagard, I am aware of the information contained in your quote from AIG. I disagree with their cautionary conclusion. If you will take another look at what I shared on the subject, you may notice that the fears of a deep thickness of dust were only removed after instruments were sent to the moon to measure it, before the moon landing.The fact remains that scientists were concerned because they thought the universe was billions of years old, which would result in much more dust, given the measurements recording the annual dust entering the earth’s atmosphere. The fact that only a couple of inches of dust was found proves the moon and earth are much younger, since using the same measurements, that amount of dust would be expected to accumulate in no more than 10,000 years.Rather than making Creation scientists look foolish, these facts confirm their conclusions. Science disproves evolution.By the way, have you ever noticed how quickly dust accumulates on your furniture?

Hi Pahu,Almost all my posts to you in this thread have been requests to follow the Forum Guidelines, which you have so far failed to do. Participating in discussion primarily through the use of cut-n-pastes and links is strongly discouraged here. EvC Forum wishes for participants to compose their arguments in their own words, because this guarantees that members only participate in discussions about things they actually understand.I play two roles here at EvC Forum, one as a participant, and another as a moderator. As I am, unfortunately, also a participant in this thread I will not take any administration action here, but if you do not cease using a predominately cut-n-paste approach, and if you don't soon begin to seriously engage discussion, then I will request that other moderators examine your behavior in this thread to see if they think action is warranted.No more cut-n-pastes except short ones. No more links except as a reference to support your points. Just you writing your thoughts in your own words. Okay?--Percy

Pahu, you have been warned twice by the The Admin (Percy) to stop with the CnPs.Yet, once again, you have done nothing more than swipe from a creo site and dump it here wholesale.Are you trying to get suspended?Cause you will.Percy usually gives 3 warnings and then it's suspension time.ABE:Percy beat me to it.Edited by molbiogirl, : spEdited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

So, exactly how old do your clocks say the earth is?

Any such fears were pure speculation until actual evidence was obtained to support or contradict such an assertion. That is how science works. The answer is obvious. Despite having 1/6 the gravity of the earth, grain compaction would still exist, particularly given extensive lengths of time. So what is under such moon dust other than compacted moon dust? The metal dome of the moon people? Creation 'scientists' can't even agree on what constitutes an embarrassment and what constitutes simple ignorance of basic physics. Which is why 99.85% of all working geo and bio scientists in the US, the people who actually know what they are talking about, agree with the ToE. Obviously you are mistaken, a position even your fellow creationists at AIG agree with in regard to any 'moon dust' nonsense. The reason dust accumulates indoors here is because, unlike the moon, the earth has an atmosphere. Didn't you know even that?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Will you please do dwise1 the courtesy of reading his post before nattering on about moon dust?And is it too much to ask that you take a look at the link he provided?

Simply not true.The scientists were concerned because they did not know how thick the surface layer of the moon would be or the consistency of that surface. The age issue simply never entered the discussion because everyone knew the universe and moon were and ARE billions of years old.None of the scientists involved had any doubts about the age of the moon, just like none of the current NASA folk have any doubt the universe is billions of years old.Come on, it is only the snakeoil salesmen selling nonsense to ignorant gullible Christians that that think the universe is young. Well, actually the snakeoil salesmen know they are lying but then they also know gullible members of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Communion of Bobbleheads will believe all the lies and keep sending in the money.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Percy: No more cut-n-pastes except short ones. No more links except as a reference to support your points. Just you writing your thoughts in your own words. Okay?Pahu: Is this another way of saying you only want my ignorant opinions rather than facts from scientists that disprove evolution? I believe it makes more sense to share further facts as a response in most cases. If your rules cannot accept that, I’m sorry.It is not my intention to engage in endless quibbling. I could simply say I am right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and that settles it. Instead, I am sharing facts from scientists that disprove evolution? If you are unable to accept them, fine. Scientists disagree all the time and the free exchange of information and ideas tends to lead to a better understanding of reality.If you prefer to remain in a dogmatic belief in unsupportable, unrealistic, erroneous pre-conceptions, then by all means shut me up, and continue to enjoy your closed mutual admiration society.

Molbiogirl: Pahu, you have been warned twice by the The Admin (Percy) to stop with the CnPs. Yet, once again, you have done nothing more than swipe from a creo site and dump it here wholesale. Are you trying to get suspended? Cause you will.Pahu: It sounds like you would like nothing better. It is understandable that you would prefer to be free of scientific facts that disprove evolution. That is usually the response of those who don’t want their pet erroneous presuppositions threatened. So much for the free exchange of ideas, right?

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 occur to their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where gravity is greater, and 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.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!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.Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

Hmmm. Glenn Morton before he chased off his demon. That's very interesting.And you are cut-n-pasting again, Pahu. Don't act the martyr when you reap the consequences of your own actions.

The sooner the better.Buh bye!