Science Disproves Evolution

JonF: Not properly accounting for the temperature dependence of viscosity is a fatal flaw. That claim is shredded.Pahu: Since you broke the rules by introducing outside information, we can only assume your assertion to be your opinion. Seriously, that’s a good point, although Venus and Mercury were also mentioned, plus the moon rocks were examined and, as quoted in my post, “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.’” Why did you leave out that information?Edited by Pahu, : No reason given.Edited by Pahu, : No reason given.

Ringo: Not even close. You have been asked to produce facts. For example, you have been asked repeatedly to present the creationist determination of the age of the earth. Do that.Pahu: Precisely what I am doing”in my humble opinion. Go back and study what I have shared.

Nobody cares about your opinion, as incredibly arrogant as it is. All you've "shared" is crap that even the creationists are embarassed about.What I've been asking you for is a list of creationist dating methods and the results they produce. You need to show how they all produce the same result, or they're of no value.Since you haven't done that, I'm guessing that you can't.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Pahu, I'm posting as Admin this time because this is really beyond the pale. If you're interested in discussing the topics you've introduced then please begin doing so. In the opinion of AdminNosy and myself, you are the only member violating Forum Guidelines in this thread, and you've been doing it persistently for a while now. Please follow these requests:

• Leave moderation issues to the moderators. If you do not understand the Forum Guidelines then you may inquire about them over at General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0. Your accusations that others are breaking the Forum Guidelines are strong indications that you do not understand them.
  ​
• Do not offer lengthy cut-n-pastes.
  ​
• Use links only as references.
  ​
• Make your arguments in your own words.
  ​
• Understand that replies such as, "They are wrong, I am right”in my humble opinion," and "They are not phony, they are accurate”in my humble opinion," are not discussion. You are expected to defend your position with evidence and argument.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Your opinion is worth nothing, Pahu. You have been given sources for age of the earth estimates that show that you claim is wrong. Something doubling every 15 years over 150 years is (it should be obvious ) is not the same as something changing at different rates at different times. In addition, you were shown that after the advent of good absolute dating techniques the estimate of the earth's age has remained rather stable.You have not done anything to show why you continue to hold your not-so-humble opinion in light of those facts.This is exactly what I mean about ignoring responses.This is your last warning.

Humble? Not hardly. Rather, extremely arrogant. And such arrogance is, as I recall having been taught, supposed to be contrary to Christian faith. The vast majority of that dust is of terrestrial origin and consists of what's being redistributed by the atmosphere as well as the organic debris sloughing off of all the inhabitants of the house, including yourself.An analogy would be the snow in a North Dakota winter. You get most of your snowfall in the beginning and the end of the winter when it's warm, but in the dead of winter it's too cold to snow, the air is just too cold to hold any moisture. And yet you have to shovel your walk and driveway almost constantly. Why should that be if it can't snow? Because the North Dakota wind just keeps redistributing the snow -- also mixing dirt in with it, producing what Nodaks call "snirt" and which produces some interesting little snow mesas during the spring melt.OK, in that analogy, falling snow would be equivalent to cosmic dust and redistributed blown snow would be what accumulates on your furniture. I guess the snirt part would be the mixing in of the organic crud that you produce.Now, that analogy also illustrates why scientists with their earth-bound means of measuring in influx of cosmic dust had such problems getting accurate measurements: because of contamination from the dust of terrestrial origin. Even Hans Pettersson's experient (as reported in Scientific American of Feb 1960 and misrepresented by Henry Morris and countless creationists who followed in order to support their bogus moon dust claims) was thrown off by heavy contamination from human industrial sources in the Far East, even though he had chosen the top of a mountain in Hawaii in order to avoid such contamination -- at that time, we did not realize how far the upper atmospheric winds will carry that stuff.In other words, you are dead wrong. Yet again.

---

{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)

I left out that information because it's irrelevant; the Lunar rock viscosity measurements were not done at Lunar temperatures. Ignoring the strong dependence of viscosity on temperature is a fatal flaw.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Since you have seen the evidence proving it to be a lie, you know that it is a ie, and we know that it's a lie, and you know that we know that it's a lie, and you know that we know that you know that it's a lie.So not only are you lying, but you're lying when it's certain that you're not fooling anyone. Which is stupid, don't you think? What do you hope to gain besides ensuring that everyone reading this thread knows that you are a liar?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Just noticed this old canard.The "doubling at a rate of once every 15 years" number is derived by dividing the change in the mainstream age of the Earth in the last 150 years by 150, That is, it assumes that the mainstream age of the Earth has changed linearly over the last 150 years. This is false, so the claim is sort of true but extremely misleading. With the discovery of radioactivity in 1896 and the first use of radioactivity for dating in 1905, this new and precise method was soon used to show that earlier estimates of the age of the Earth were way off, and there was an immediate jump in the mainstream estimate. With refined techniques and more samples the mainstream estimate rose until 1953, when the current age of 4.55 GA was obtained independently by Houterman and Holmes. That 4.55 GA number hasn't changed at all in 54 years; there have been many other studies but they all came up with the same answer.

Dr Adequate, you have this problem of going personal with your opponents insisting that they are liars. You need to understand that opinions of opponents are to be considered opinions unless you can substantiate that it is a deliberate lie. That is not easy to do. This is a violation of item 10 of Forum Guidelines and you will be suspended if this behavior continues to persist.Item 10, Forum Guidelines: If you have a problem with this action do not respond here but take it to the proper forum cited in my signature.

---

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

Yet your source says:

quote:

---

... And while the arguments over the creatures apelike characteristics are certain to rage on, Tobias argues that the bones will help solve the mystery of Leakey's Tanzanian imprints. "Little Foot could certainly have made the Laetoli footprints," he says ...

---

Which would make the owner clearly a preferential bipedal species by definition (no knuckle dragging and clear heel-toe depressions similar to those caused by weight shifts in modern footprints).Looking further I find this: Hominid Discovery, Archeology, A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America, Volume 52 Number 2, March/April 1999

quote:

---

"What is particularly interesting is just how primitive the specimen is," says Clarke, noting the flexibility of the joints in the skeleton's feet. "While we know that australopithecines were bipedal by this date," he adds, "the architecture of StW-573's feet suggests that this individual was also capable of grasping limbs and climbing trees like a chimpanzee."

---

Intermediate in form with chimps and still able to climb trees, while being adapted for bipedal locomotion, (a form of locomotion that is not inhibited in any way by either the toe or the hand structure of this specimen) ... just as would be expected in an intermediate form. The article goes on to say:

quote:

---

While taxonomic identification must await the full excavation of the skeleton,... the skeleton may be of the species Australopithecus afarensis, the same as the 3.2 million-year-old Lucy, ... and suggests it may have played a greater role in early hominid evolution than if it were geographically restricted.

​

If, on the other hand, the specimen belongs to Australopithecus africanus, ... like the 2.3-million-year-old Taung child and a 2.5-million-year-old male from a later stratum at Sterkfontein, it will be the oldest example found to date. A. africanus has been thought to have thrived between 2.5 and 3.0 million years ago.

---

The age of the specimen appears to be between 2.2 and 4.1 million years, and an accurate date is difficult due to the nature of the deposit.Then there is Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Journal of Anatomy, 2004 May; 204(5): 403-416. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00296.x.

quote:

---

There has been a considerable degree of debate surrounding locomotor affinities inferred from fossil hominin foot bones. It is well known that geologically more ”recent’ hominin species, such as Homo antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis and anatomically modern H. sapiens were fully bipedal (Trinkaus, 1983; Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999) (Fig. 1). Their feet reflect this bipedalism, although certain aspects of the pedal morphology of H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis differ from that of modern humans (Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999). The functional implications of these differences are currently unknown. Although there are no associated foot bones for one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, H. ergaster (c. 1.8 Ma) we do know from the rest of the postcranial skeleton that this taxon was also fully bipedal (Ruff & Walker, 1993). For other hominins, there is still a large degree of disagreement. The OH 8 H. habilis foot (at 1.8 Ma) was originally suggested to reflect a fully developed bipedal adaptation (Day & Napier, 1964; Leakey et al. 1964) but others have argued that it still retains evidence of an arboreal adaptation (Lewis, 1980b; Oxnard & Lisowski, 1980; Kidd et al. 1996; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999). This is consistent with some recent interpretations of other aspects of H. habilis skeletal morphology (e.g. Hartwig-Scherer & Martin, 1991; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999).

​

Similar controversy surrounds the Australopithecus afarensis foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia (c. 3.0-3.4 Ma) that are described by some as being compliant with full bipedal locomotion (Latimer & Lovejoy, 1982, 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Latimer et al. 1987), whereas others have suggested that the same fossils show traits that indicate a mosaic of terrestrial and arboreal locomotion (Susman & Stern, 1982, 1991;, 1983, 1991;, 1983; Susman et al. 1985; Duncan et al. 1994; Berillon, 1998 Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000). Both sides of this controversy can also be supported by the analysis of other aspects of postcranial anatomy (e.g. Stern & Susman, 1983; Lovejoy et al. 2002).

​

The issue is further complicated by the suggestion that the foot of the important ”Little Foot’ specimen (Stw 573), currently assigned to A. africanus, and possibly as old as 3.6 Ma, reflects mosaic locomotor affinities (Clarke & Tobias, 1995), however, there is no agreement as to the nature of this mosaic locomotor adaptation (e.g. Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000; Harcourt-Smith, 2002).

---

Again, a plethora of intermediate forms from ancient species to modern human type feet.But if you think "little foot" wais an unexpected find, then compare this 1935 prediction with "little foot" (same article):

quote:

---

---

A find that matches a prediction based on evolution.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : format

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In the late 1920s, evolutionists believed that the universe was 2 billion years (b.y.) old. Later, radiometric dating techniques gave much older ages for certain rocks on Earth (1). Obviously, a part of the universe cannot be older than the universe itself. This contradiction was soon removed by devising a rationale for increasing the age of the universe.Similar problems are now widely acknowledged. If a big bang occurred, it happened 13.7 b.y. ago. If stars evolved, some stars are 16 b.y. old, such as the stars in a globular cluster (2). Globular clusters are tight, spherical concentrations of 10,000-1,000,000 stars. One globular cluster, called M13, is about 22,000 light-years away. Obviously, stars cannot be older than the universe. Also, the Hubble Space Telescope has found distant galaxies whose age, based on big bang assumptions, exceeds the age of the universe (3).Here is a similar, but less widely known, problem. Let’s suppose that the universe is 13.7 b.y. old. That is not enough time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then transmit their light to Earth. A big bang would have produced only hydrogen, helium, and lithium”the three lightest chemical elements. Light from the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contain much heavier chemical elements such as carbon, iron, and lead”elements that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form after the big bang. Evolutionists, therefore, believe that the hundred or so heavier chemical elements (97% of all chemical elements) were produced either deep inside stars or when some stars exploded as supernovas. Much later, a second generation of stars supposedly formed with the heavy elements from that exploded debris.In other words, a big bang would produce only the three lightest chemical elements. Therefore, big bang advocates have struggled to explain the origin of the heavier chemical elements (carbon, oxygen, iron, lead etc.). To squeeze enough hydrogen nuclei together to form some heavier elements would require the high temperatures inside stars. Theoretically, to form elements heavier than iron requires something much hotter”a supernova.So, if a big bang happened, there would not be enough time afterward to:a. Form the first generation of stars out of hydrogen, helium, and lithium.
b. Have many of those stars quickly (4), pass through their complete life cycles then finally explode as supernovas to produce the heavier chemical elements.
c. Recollect, somehow, enough of that exploded debris to form the second generation of stars. (Some were quasars thought to be powered by black holes, billions of times more massive than our Sun!
d. Transmit the light from these heavy elements to Earth, immense distances away.New and sophisticated light-gathering instruments have enabled astronomers to discover heavy elements in many extremely distant galaxies(5) and quasars (6). One such galaxy has a quasar at its center (7). If the speed of light has been constant, its light has taken 94% of the age of the universe to reach us. This means that only the first 6% of the age of the universe would have been available for events a-c above. (Only 0.8 b.y. would be available in a 13.7-b.y.-old universe.) Few astronomers believe that such slow processes as a-c above, if they happened at all, could happen in 0.8 b.y (8).Evolutionists can undoubtedly resolve these time contradictions”but at the cost of rejecting some cherished belief. Perhaps they will accept the possibility that light traveled much faster in the past. Measurements exist which support this revolutionary idea. Maybe they will conclude that the big bang never occurred, or that heavy elements were somehow in the first and only generation of stars, or that stars degrade, but new stars don’t evolve. Much evidence supports each of these ideas, and all are consistent with a recent creation.Few evolutionists are aware of these contradictions. However, as more powerful telescopes begin peering even farther into space, these problems will worsen and more attention will be focused on them. If scientists find, as one might expect, even more distant stars and galaxies with heavy elements, problems with the claimed age of the universe will no longer be the secret of a few evolutionists (9).References and Notes 1.Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), pp. 102, 129.2. Ivan R. King, “Globular Clusters,” Scientific American, Vol. 252, June 1985, pp. 79-88.3. Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., “An Old Galaxy in a Young Universe,” Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 555-556.James Dunlop, “A 3.5-Gyr-Old Galaxy at Redshift 1.55,” Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 581-584.4. For this to happen quickly, evolutionists must assume that the first stars were giants, more than a hundred times larger than the Sun. (Theoretically, more massive stars would burn faster.) Thus, textbooks confidently say that the first stars were giants.No one knows that the first stars were giants. It’s a required assumption if stars evolved. In fact, characteristics of the light we should see from the first generation of evolved stars is missing. Nature, [/I] Vol. 440, 20 April 2006, pp. 1002-1003.5. James Glanz, “CO in the Early Universe Clouds Cosmologists’ Views,” Science, Vol. 273, 2 August 1996, p. 581.“The presence of these [25] elements, particularly those heavier than iron, in such a young [distant] galaxy is striking. Fundamentally, it seems to indicate that in the galaxies (or at least in this galaxy) that formed relatively shortly after the Big Bang, the onset of star formation and related element production was very rapid.” John Cowan, “Elements of Surprise,” Nature, Vol. 423, 1 May 2003, p. 29.Jason X. Prochaska et al., “The Elemental Abundance Pattern in a Galaxy at z=2.626,” Nature, Vol. 423, 1 May 2003, pp. 57-59.6. “According to standard models [all based on the big bang theory], the first stars needed at least 500 million years to begin lighting up and another 700 million to 1 billion years to manufacture heavy elements such as iron and spread them through space. [Wolfram] Freudling therefore expected that gas around the quasars, which were shining when the universe was just 900 million years old, would be metal-free. [Astronomers call the hundred or so heavier chemical elements “metals.”] Instead, he and his colleagues found the quasars are surrounded by copious amounts of iron.” Kathy A. Svitil, “Signs of Primordial Star Ignition Detected,” Discover, January 2004, p. 66.“... quasar environments are metal rich at all red shifts.” F. Hamann et al., “Quasar Elemental Abundances and Host Galaxy Evolution,” Origin and Evolution of the Elements, Vol. 4, editors A. McWilliam and M. Rauch (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 12.Ohta et al., “Detection of Molecular Gas in the Quasar BR 1202-0725 at Redshift z = 4.69,” Nature, Vol. 382, 1 August 1996, pp. 426-431. “First, the chemical composition of quasars hints at early enrichments, indicative of star formation. Emission lines in the quasar spectrum can be used to measure their abundance of heavy elements, or ”metallicity.’ Luminous, high-redshift quasars have roughly solar or higher metallicity, even at redshifts > 6, indicating that they existed in a metal-rich environment similar to that found in the centers of massive galaxies.” Xiaohui Fan, “Black Holes at the Cosmic Dawn,” Science, Vol. 300, 2 May 2003, p. 752.7. Fabian Walter et al., “Molecular Gas in the Host Galaxy of a Quasar at Redshift z=6.42,” Nature, Vol. 424, 24 July 2003, pp. 406-408.8. Jeff Kanipe, “Galaxies at the Confusion Limit,” Astronomy, December 1988, pp. 56-58.R. F. Carswell, “Distant Galaxy Observed,” Nature, Vol. 335, 8 September 1988, p. 119.9. Dietrick E. Thomsen, “Farthest Galaxy Is Cosmic Question,” Science News, Vol. 133, 23 April 1988, pp. 262-263.M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Farthest Galaxies: A New Champion,” Science, Vol. 241, 19 August 1988, p. 905.Dietrick E. Thomsen, “Galaxies in a Primitive State,” Science News, Vol. 133, 23 January 1988, p. 52.M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Pushing Back the Redshift Limit,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, pp. 727-728.In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes

Even if the Helium Diffusion dating method,or some other method in the future,Proved the earth was less than 10,000 years old it would only prove Darwinian evolution was wrong and prove the theory of Punctuated Equillibrium was right.It would never occur to them that Evolution was wrong.

I am going to infer from this post that what you think you know about PE is completely false. Please explain what you think it means then I will try to explain it. Please keep in mind that the VAST majority of creation literature outright lies about PE, giving a false definition and a false description of its place in biology.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

RAZD;Sorry for the misunderstanding that article is 12 years old.But it is the only one i know of that shows a partial reconstruction,although made from a Homo Erectus heel,and the rest of the foot is Australopithicine.Its toes clearly do not fit the laetoli foot prints.And there has never been an Australopithicine,that has been proven,that has any kind of a human foot.