Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Latest post of the previous page:

Yes, I am sure nothing existed before the universe because that is logical based on observation and experience.

Why?

Think!

[Dave B]

Re Carl Sagan and organics in comets, this might be of interest.

So, is CS saying that comets did create life on Earth or just provide some of the building blocks nature needed, over billions of years, to produce billions of combinations of compounds in the primordial gloop - until some of them started self-replicating? Anyway, where were Adam and Eve at this time?

Some postulate that all the water on Earth came from comets, if so it was bound to contain all those nice chemicals and compounds. There are loads of "organic" chemicals out there, in clouds between the stars. Given enough time, all the natural elements, enough energy and the biggest possible mixing bowl any possible compound can be made (and probably has).

Scientists will offer ideas, even ones counter to their beliefs, if they think it may advance knowledge - as opposed to baseless superstition.

[Dave B]

Yes, I am sure nothing existed before the universe because that is logical based on observation and experience.

Why?

Think!

[Pahu]

Sagan's name was found in the article "The Origin of Comets" where there is this statement: Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth,” and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.”2 Endnote 2 has this quote from Sagan:

“We know that it is hard to find a comet without the spectral features of C2, C3, and CN in their comas. Huggins was struck by the fact that the material in the comets was similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth. Many scientists cautiously concluded that the carbon compounds found by Huggins [in 1868] in the comas of comets were, as one of his contemporaries wrote, ‘the result of the decomposition of organic bodies.’ ” [emphasis in original] Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), p. 148.

Seriously?

Yes. Here is more information on that subject:

[Edited by Admin to delete unnecessary text and large graphics.

Pahu: if you want to refer to something someone else has said, please just provide a link and a short summary of it or tell us in your own words what it says.]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... wp29036497

[Dave B]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
More popcorn needed I think.

[Pahu]

Re Carl Sagan and organics in comets, this might be of interest.

So, is CS saying that comets did create life on Earth or just provide some of the building blocks nature needed, over billions of years, to produce billions of combinations of compounds in the primordial gloop - until some of them started self-replicating? Anyway, where were Adam and Eve at this time?

Some postulate that all the water on Earth came from comets, if so it was bound to contain all those nice chemicals and compounds. There are loads of "organic" chemicals out there, in clouds between the stars. Given enough time, all the natural elements, enough energy and the biggest possible mixing bowl any possible compound can be made (and probably has).

Scientists will offer ideas, even ones counter to their beliefs, if they think it may advance knowledge - as opposed to baseless superstition.

The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that known to be on or within any other planet in the solar system. Liquid water, which is essential for life, has unique and amazing properties; it covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Where did all Earth’s water come from?

If the Earth and solar system evolved from a swirling cloud of dust and gas, almost no water should reside near Earth—or within 5 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun. (1 AU is the average Earth-Sun distance.) Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system,a as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.

Did comets, asteroids, or meteorites deliver Earth’s water? Although comets contain considerable water,b comets did not provide much of Earth’s water, because comet water contains too much heavy hydrogen, relatively rare in Earth’s oceans. Comets also contain too much argon. If comets provided only 1% of Earth’s water, then our atmosphere should have 400 times more argon than it does.c Meteorites that contain water also have too much heavy hydrogen.d [Pages 295–364 [ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1069425] explain why comets, asteroids, and some types of meteorites contain so much water and heavy hydrogen. Pages 371–422
[ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp7826136] explain why comets have so much argon. Heavy hydrogen is described on page 304. [ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... wp20598339]

These observations have caused some to conclude that water was transported from the outer solar system to Earth by objects that no longer exist.e If so, many of these “water tankers” should have collided with the other inner planets (Mercury, Venus, and Mars) as well. Actually, their water characteristics are not like those of Earth. If Instead of imagining “water tankers” that conveniently disappeared, perhaps we should ask if the Earth was created with its water already present.

a . “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.” Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?” Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.

b . The water content of Comet Tempel 1 was 38% by mass. [See Endnote 5 on page 319.]

c . “Hence, if comets like Hale-Bopp brought in the Earth’s water, they would have brought in a factor of 40,000 times more argon than is presently in the atmosphere.” T. D. Swindle and D. A. Kring, “Implications of Noble Gas Budgets for the Origin of Water on Earth and Mars,” Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference, Abstract No. 3785 (Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 20–24 May 2001). [To learn how comets probably collected argon, see Endnote 33 on page 322.]

d . “Oxygen, D/H and Os [osmium] isotopic ratios all ... rule out extant meteoritic material as sources of the Earth’s water.” Michael J. Drake and Kevin Righter, “Determining the Composition of the Earth,” Nature, Vol. 416, 7 March 2002, p. 42.

D/H is the ratio of heavy hydrogen (also called deuterium, or D) to normal hydrogen (H). Drake and Righter give other reasons meteorites could not have provided much of Earth’s water.

e . “Earth is thought to have formed dry owing to its location inside the ‘snow line,’ which is the distance from the Sun [5 AU] within which it was too warm for water vapour in the nascent Solar System to condense as ice and be swept up into forming planetesimals. Therefore, the water that now fills our oceans and makes life possible must have been delivered to Earth from outside the snow line, perhaps by impacting asteroids and comets.” Henry H. Hsieh, “A Frosty Finding,” Nature, Vol. 464, 29 April 2010, p. 1287.

u “If existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog, Drake and Righter argue.” Harder, p. 185.

f . “If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found.” Ibid.

After reading pages 295–364, you will see that the water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids—as well as some water detected elsewhere in the inner solar system—came primarily from the subterranean water chambers. During the flood, this subterranean water mixed with Earth’s surface water, giving our surface water different isotope characteristics from water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids.

“The carrier’s [the tanker’s] elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system. ... it doesn’t seem geochemically plausible ...” Ibid., p. 186.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp7274294

[Alan H]

Yes, I am sure nothing existed before the universe because that is logical based on observation and experience.

Why?

Think!

I'm asking you why you are sure of that. Can you answer without any using any logical fallacies?

[Dave B]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear

(Oops, accidental early launch there!)

And, for exoplanets.

Water comprises of hydrogen and oxygen. The first is the fundamental buildings block for all other elements, as its atoms are smashed together in the cores of stars to form helium and oodles of energy at 15 million degrees and, though its gravity is a mere 28 times that of Earth, the pressures are fantastic. Those condition smash the helium together to form heavier compounds and so on.

Oxygen is not so simple, it is one of the most reactive gases, happily forming oxides with multitudes of other elements and compounds - Mars may have loads of it locked into surface rocks.

But, at some point in star formarion all those elenents, including hydrogen and oxygen, got together and formed compounds, including water. Once formed water is not that easy to split, though you can do it in you own kitchen if you fancy burning the house down! Some say that every drop of water we have today goes back to the very beginings of Earth, there are no natural forces here that can dissociate or electrolyse any significant amount of it. In any event the separated H and O get back together at the flimsiest excuse. That also means there is a fair chance that every molecule has passed through the "digestive system" of some organism, from bacteria through plants to blue whales. It just gets recycled over and over again.

Some say...

So, marvelous, life giving stuff that water is it is possibly not exactly super rare, sparse and well separated, like all matter given the "volume" of the Universe. [On reflection I have deleted a sentence that could be a speculation too far, the honest thing to admit and do.]

Lots of "possiblies" "probablies" and so forth there, but we just don't really know it all do we? Those who claim they fo are probably talking a lot of hot air.

[jdc]

A wall of text, a list of journals, and a list of names. Given that you thought the rationalwiki wiki page (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible) confirmed the scientific accuracy of the bible, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that all of the names and all of the journals listed actually support anything you've said. You suggested that if people want more information they can find it on the internet, which is not particularly helpful.

Show me where the information on that site is wrong.

The problem isn't that the information on that site is wrong, the problem is that the information on that site debunks your arguments rather than supporting the claims you that make.

Please show me where the information on that site debunks my arguments rather than supporting the claims that I make.

The entire page debunks your arguments. It is the purpose of the page. The site lists 12 arguments that science confirms the bible and then, in 12 numbered sections, debunks those arguments one by one. I can't believe that you still haven't read the page that you mistakenly cited in support of your arguments. Why not try it now?

If I see you cite an article that disagrees with you, it makes me wonder about your other citations and whether they actually support your claims. That's why I'd like to see them for myself. That's why I asked you to provide me with the Sagan paper that disproves evolution - "Instead of listing names and journals, please provide a proper reference to the material that you claim backs up your views. You can start with the paper Sagan published in whichever one of those journals it was of those you listed."

Sagan's name was found in the article "The Origin of Comets" where there is this statement: Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth,” and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.”2 Endnote 2 has this quote from Sagan:

“We know that it is hard to find a comet without the spectral features of C2, C3, and CN in their comas. Huggins was struck by the fact that the material in the comets was similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth. Many scientists cautiously concluded that the carbon compounds found by Huggins [in 1868] in the comas of comets were, as one of his contemporaries wrote, ‘the result of the decomposition of organic bodies.’ ” [emphasis in original] Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), p. 148.

That's not from one of the journals in your list and it doesn't disprove evolution.

[Pahu]

Why?

Think!

I'm asking you why you are sure of that. Can you answer without any using any logical fallacies?

Because that is logical based on observation and experience.

[Tetenterre]

Rapid Cooling

If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years.
This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth.

That is quite simply not true. Kelvin's 1862 calculations clearly demonstrate that, without radiative heating, the minimum time for Earth to cool from molten to its present-day temperature is 20 million years.

The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.

Again, this is simply not true. YECs also, in this context, have the problem of how plate tectonics started and has been maintained, as well as the resulting fossil distribution in the modern world.

On reviewing this thread, I also came across:

As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected 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 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than evolutionists assume.

How fast is the moon receding?

It is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.

Yes, it is receding at that rate now, but it has not always done so. This was demonstrated by Kirk Hansen over 30 years ago!

and...

Meteoritic Dust

Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young.

I have, on my desk in front of me, a fragment of the Sikhote-Alin meteorite. This is typical of the iron meteorites in that it contains about 6% Nickel. However, iron meteorites comprise less than 6% of meteorite falls, so we would expect approximately 0.36% of meteoric fall to consist of nickel. Meteoric dust would not accumulate to 16', or anything like it, in 4.5 billion years - in case you hadn't noticed, transport, erosion and weathering occurs on Earth's surface.

You also have another problem: If Earth is as young as you pretend, it would have differentiated within your time-scale. So where did the heavy elements in Earth's crust come from?
(Clue: They would have sunk to the core as Earth differentiated; they only exist in the crust now due to delivery during the Late Heavy Bombardment.)

[Pahu]

Show me where the information on that site is wrong.

The problem isn't that the information on that site is wrong, the problem is that the information on that site debunks your arguments rather than supporting the claims you that make.

Please show me where the information on that site debunks my arguments rather than supporting the claims that I make.

The entire page debunks your arguments. It is the purpose of the page. The site lists 12 arguments that science confirms the bible and then, in 12 numbered sections, debunks those arguments one by one. I can't believe that you still haven't read the page that you mistakenly cited in support of your arguments. Why not try it now?

I see what you are referring to. Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions. For more information, go here: http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/index.html

If I see you cite an article that disagrees with you, it makes me wonder about your other citations and whether they actually support your claims. That's why I'd like to see them for myself. That's why I asked you to provide me with the Sagan paper that disproves evolution - "Instead of listing names and journals, please provide a proper reference to the material that you claim backs up your views. You can start with the paper Sagan published in whichever one of those journals it was of those you listed."

Sagan's name was found in the article "The Origin of Comets" where there is this statement: Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth,” and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.”2 Endnote 2 has this quote from Sagan:

“We know that it is hard to find a comet without the spectral features of C2, C3, and CN in their comas. Huggins was struck by the fact that the material in the comets was similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth. Many scientists cautiously concluded that the carbon compounds found by Huggins [in 1868] in the comas of comets were, as one of his contemporaries wrote, ‘the result of the decomposition of organic bodies.’ ” [emphasis in original] Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), p. 148.

That's not from one of the journals in your list and it doesn't disprove evolution.

True. Sagan is included because in an earlier edition a quote was in the journal Science. It has been removed from the current edition. It proves comets came from earth, disproving the evolution idea of the origin of comets.

[Dave B]

Because that is logical based on observation and experience.

Now, Pahu, apply that thinking to the theory of God.

Please list the observations and the experiences that do not apply to individuals, prone as we humans are to delusion, halucination, hysteria etc. Concentrate on those, in the real world, that any person can point to and find absolute proof that it has no possible earthly cause, from science through natural phenomena to pure coincidence. Something that only the supernatural could be the cause of.

[Alan H]

Think!

I'm asking you why you are sure of that. Can you answer without any using any logical fallacies?

Because that is logical based on observation and experience.

Tsk, tsk.

[Alan H]

Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions.

[Dave B]

Pahu wrote:
Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions.

Ah, now we come to my favourite tale of one John Baumgardner. John was interviewed by New Scientust about his beliefs and his science, particularly radio-isotope dating of rocks and the Young Earth therory. It is a great pity that I cannot access his actual words in answer to this but, basically, his answer was that God fiddled around with time for his own purposes that we cannot fathom.

So, score one for a once good scientist trying to change reality to accord with his beliefs. I very, very much doubt he is the only one!

Now, the Wiki entry is so bland he probably wrote it himself. This however is a little more illustrative of this fine creationalist scientist. But, Pahu, I cannot see you accepting evidence from Christians with enough brains to accept the theory of evolution.

[Dave B]

Apart from the above the religious community have a fine record of bending the contents of the Bible to their own ends and ambitions. Betcha every priest who rapes a girl or buggers a boy finds a holy justification for his act in his own mind.

[Alan H]

Pahu wrote:
Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions.

Ah, now we come to my favourite tale of one John Baumgardner. John was interviewed by New Scientust about his beliefs and his science, particularly radio-isotope dating of rocks and the Young Earth therory. It is a great pity that I cannot access his actual words in answer to this but, basically, his answer was that God fiddled around with time for his own purposes that we cannot fathom.

So, score one for a once good scientist trying to change reality to accord with his beliefs. I very, very much doubt he is the only one!

Now, the Wiki entry is so bland he probably wrote it himself. This however is a little more illustrative of this fine creationalist scientist. But, Pahu, I cannot see you accepting evidence from Christians with enough brains to accept the theory of evolution.

Lone voices special_ God said, let the dry land appear _ New Scientist.pdf

(1.42 MiB) Downloaded 73 times

[Pahu]

Because that is logical based on observation and experience.

Now, Pahu, apply that thinking to the theory of God.

Please list the observations and the experiences that do not apply to individuals, prone as we humans are to delusion, halucination, hysteria etc. Concentrate on those, in the real world, that any person can point to and find absolute proof that it has no possible earthly cause, from science through natural phenomena to pure coincidence. Something that only the supernatural could be the cause of.

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

[Pahu]

Pahu wrote:
Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions.

Ah, now we come to my favourite tale of one John Baumgardner. John was interviewed by New Scientust about his beliefs and his science, particularly radio-isotope dating of rocks and the Young Earth therory. It is a great pity that I cannot access his actual words in answer to this but, basically, his answer was that God fiddled around with time for his own purposes that we cannot fathom.

So, score one for a once good scientist trying to change reality to accord with his beliefs. I very, very much doubt he is the only one!

Now, the Wiki entry is so bland he probably wrote it himself. This however is a little more illustrative of this fine creationalist scientist. But, Pahu, I cannot see you accepting evidence from Christians with enough brains to accept the theory of evolution.

No one with the ability to think accepts the scientifically disproved hypothesis of evolution.

[Dave B]

No one with the ability to think accepts the scientifically disproved hypothesis of evolution.

[my bold] Oh! When was it demoted from a theory then, Pahu? Does your belief in your supernatural entity qualify you to decide such?

So, according to you, a person who believes in things that have no absolutely no concrete evidence to support them, there are a large number of very qualified people with a great deal of experience and libraries full of logical conclusions who cannot think?