INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#81 Post by Dave B » May 11th, 2016, 7:17 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Hebrews 13:8 KJV
That's what we used to say when viewing the offerings in most RAF airman's messes!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#82 Post by Pahu » May 18th, 2016, 6:55 pm

Moon Recession

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.  [For details, see pages 571–574.]

Image
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.

[ From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#83 Post by Nick » May 18th, 2016, 7:06 pm

I have no idea about where the moon should be, but it has nothing to do with evolution. So I kinda have my doubts about the accuracy of this piece.... :rolleyes:

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#84 Post by Pahu » May 18th, 2016, 7:53 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution
#83 Unread postby Nick » 42 minutes ago

I have no idea about where the moon should be, but it has nothing to do with evolution. So I kinda have my doubts about the accuracy of this piece.... :rolleyes:

Pahu: It does away with the notion that the world is billions of years old and therefor evolution cannot be true since it allegedly takes that much time.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#85 Post by Alan H » May 18th, 2016, 11:17 pm

Pahu wrote: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?

But I haven't forgotten your previous unanswered questions - have you?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#86 Post by Pahu » May 19th, 2016, 4:42 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote: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.
But I haven't forgotten your previous unanswered questions - have you?
Yes.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#87 Post by Alan H » May 19th, 2016, 4:51 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote: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.
So, please provide your calculations.
But I haven't forgotten your previous unanswered questions - have you?
Yes.
Pity.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#88 Post by Pahu » May 19th, 2016, 5:01 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:How fast is the moon receding?
It is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.
So, please provide your calculations.
I do not have any. They are provided by scientists. Look it up.
But I haven't forgotten your previous unanswered questions - have you?
Yes.
Pity.[/quote]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#89 Post by Alan H » May 19th, 2016, 5:10 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
It is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.
So, please provide your calculations.
I do not have any. They are provided by scientists. Look it up.
It's not up to me to verify your claim. You made the claim, you provide the evidence - that's the way it goes. Haven't you verified your source is correct?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#90 Post by Dave B » May 19th, 2016, 6:00 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:So, please provide your calculations.
I do not have any. They are provided by scientists. Look it up.
It's not up to me to verify your claim. You made the claim, you provide the evidence - that's the way it goes. Haven't you verified your source is correct?
+1

Pahu, if you cannot support what you say with fact - not faith, hope, belief etc - then it it merely opinion, guesswork, conjecture, or something of that ilk. If you have used an original source - that's a scientist, not a supernatural entity - then it is good manners to credit that source. If that original source is supported by subsequent research it is a good idea to cite that as well in support of your argument.

Happy to condider at theory, even conjecture, from xources honest enough to admit such, but only as a preludevto discussion and argument as to its veracity.

So, make a statement and quote a reliable source or be prepared to defend your ideas and beliefs, with verifiable supporting evidence, when challenged.

Oh, sorry, you guys fon't like your beliefs challenged do you? Nothing to support them outside of your own heads or the writings of those who have the same beliefs?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#91 Post by Dave B » May 20th, 2016, 6:36 pm

Looking through some stuff from when I was co-ordinator of our village historical society the similatities in structure between the "old" histories and later ones (and that of "pre-methodological" science compared to "post-methodological") and the Bible and subsequent theological thinking truck me.

Before the "historians" stood back and took a look at history objectively most "histories" were reiterations (even plagiarisms), reassemplies or collections of previous histories - with evident intention to present tgeir work as truth.

You can trace the process right back to documents such as tge Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (written long after the events by monks and heavily biased towards the then political colour, leaving out important people and events) and such as the Venerable Bede before that.

So, all based on previous stories, which were themselves based on even earlier stories (Brutus, Joseph of Arimathea, the Holy Grail etc etc) regardless of provable veracity, presented as fact rather than opinion or anecdote and going back to, basically, folk tales.

Stories of King Arthur etc make as much sense. Oh, perhaps Arthur, a post-Romano-British "strong man" or chieftan may have a more solid historical pedigree . . . Except he probably was not called Arthur.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#92 Post by Pahu » May 20th, 2016, 7:22 pm

Dave B wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
I do not have any. They are provided by scientists. Look it up.
It's not up to me to verify your claim. You made the claim, you provide the evidence - that's the way it goes. Haven't you verified your source is correct?
+1

Pahu, if you cannot support what you say with fact - not faith, hope, belief etc - then it it merely opinion, guesswork, conjecture, or something of that ilk. If you have used an original source - that's a scientist, not a supernatural entity - then it is good manners to credit that source. If that original source is supported by subsequent research it is a good idea to cite that as well in support of your argument.

Happy to condider at theory, even conjecture, from xources honest enough to admit such, but only as a preludevto discussion and argument as to its veracity.

So, make a statement and quote a reliable source or be prepared to defend your ideas and beliefs, with verifiable supporting evidence, when challenged.

Oh, sorry, you guys fon't like your beliefs challenged do you? Nothing to support them outside of your own heads or the writings of those who have the same beliefs?
My purpose is to share scientific information that disproves evolution. I am not a scientist, so I must rely on scientists for that information in order to make my point.

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that’s fine. I believe the free exchange of ideas based on facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with known laws of physics and biology confirmed by the scientists being quoted, not me.

I provide links to all my posts. The information in them is confirmed by scientists in the end notes. Here are most of them:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

If someone is really interested in more information they can probably find it on the internet. There are some who are not really interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. They don't want God to exist so they deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. They deny conventions of logic.

They pretend skepticism of any evidence demonstrating creation, and adhere to any and all unscientific absurdities and impossibilities as long they support their erroneous worldview.

Apparently they don't really care. Epistemological truth is inconsequential to them. Apparently their purpose here has nothing to do with any serious discussion. They only feign interest in an attempt to entrap anyone foolish enough to think they are interested in serious discussion.

Usually, all I have found here is a nauseatingly endless series of conflicting absurdities and irrational arguments, which in their own cognitive dissonance they oddly believe to be logical, clever and reasonable.

If reason truly does champion truth, whatever school of reason that belongs to is completely absent with them.

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They’ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#93 Post by Alan H » May 20th, 2016, 8:20 pm

Pahu wrote:I am not a scientist
...

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information
Fortunately, your second statement demonstrates your first. Science is all about 'quibbling'. It's only by questioning things, finding flaws, refining theories that knowledge progresses. That is, in a nutshell, the scientific process. Simply providing information and accepting it as gospel [sic] gets us no where. It is the willingness to be proven wrong and to be corrected that allows you and I here today punching keys on a keyboard.
I provide links to all my posts. The information in them is confirmed by scientists in the end notes. Here are most of them:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward...
Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal...
Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
If someone is really interested in more information they can probably find it on the internet.
Seriously? That's your argument. Have you actually tried searching the Internet for anything?
There are some who are not really interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. They don't want God to exist so they deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. They deny conventions of logic.
First, show us some logic and evidence...

The rest of what you wrote isn't even worth commenting on.

Now, let's get back to the 'evidence you gave about the moon receding...

Your claim was that the earth can't be old because the moon is receding at 37.8 mm a year. The moon is currently somewhere around 384,400 km from earth. Now, what do those two numbers tell you?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#94 Post by Dave B » May 20th, 2016, 10:22 pm

Pahu wrote:
There are some who are not really interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. They don't want God to exist so they deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. They deny conventions of logic.
You realise, surely, that this also applies to yourself?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#95 Post by Dave B » May 21st, 2016, 12:35 pm

I would also like to reinforce that which has been said many times on this forum: the whole essence of science is that every theory is open to challenge - and that the proponents of those theories often welcome such challenges . . . Even when their pet idea is found wanting if they are honest people with integrity.

So, reading that the esteamed Professor Plum-Duff has written an "anti-theory" about the evolution of apple crumble may not necessarily mean that he thinks that the theory is wholly crap, but maybe he wants to illustrate that it has bits in it that are not well chosen, prepared and cooked. He has to recook the whole theory according to his recipe and present it on the correct kind of plate in the right restaurant for others to sample.

If the recipe needs modifying, so be it, that way science gets closer to the perfect product. To refuse to change causes stagnation

That reminds me, it's lunchtime!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#96 Post by Pahu » May 21st, 2016, 6:07 pm

Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.

Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?

There are some who are not really interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. They don't want God to exist so they deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. They deny conventions of logic.
First, show us some logic and evidence...
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.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71
http://www.apologeticspress.ws/articles/1762
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-c ... ument.html
http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
Now, let's get back to the 'evidence you gave about the moon receding...

Your claim was that the earth can't be old because the moon is receding at 37.8 mm a year. The moon is currently somewhere around 384,400 km from earth. Now, what do those two numbers tell you?
That it used to be closer to Earth than it is now. Here are some details:

[center]Young Age for the Moon and Earth[/center]

Receding Moon

It takes but one proof of a young age for the moon or the earth to completely refute the doctrine of evolution. Based upon reasonable postulates, great scope of observational data, and fundamental laws of physics there is proof that the moon and the earth are too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place.

There is an easily understood physical proof that the moon is too young for the presumed evolutionary age. From the laws of physics one can show that the moon should be receding from the earth. From the same laws one can show that the moon would have never survived a nearness to the earth of less than 11,500 miles. That distance is known as the Roche limit.1 The tidal forces of the earth on a satellite of the moon's dimensions would break up the satellite into something like the rings of Saturn. Hence the receding moon was never that close to the earth.

The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the age demanded by the doctrine of evolution. There is as yet no tenable alternative explanation that will yield an evolutionary age of 4 billion years or more for the moon. Here is as simple a proof as science can provide that the moon is not as old as claimed.

How does an evolutionist reconcile this proof that the moon is too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place? This known dynamical limit in the earth-moon system is a great problem to knowledgeable evolutionists. Robert C. Humes in his book Introduction to Space Science (John Wiley, 1971) acknowledges the problem and states that "The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative." Dr. Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology treats this problem in great detail and concludes that "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem."2

It turns out that the earth-moon tidal friction causes the earth's spin rate to be slowing down. Lord Kelvin used that changing spin rate, assumed an initial molten earth, and proved that the earth could not be a billion years old, or the earth's present shape would be different.3

Hence from theoretical and observational considerations there are two proofs that the earth-moon system can not be as old as a billion years.

1) The earth-moon spacing and recession rate refutes that long age.
2) The shape of the earth refutes that long age.
Radiometric Evidence of Rapid Creation

Dr. Robert V. Gentry has radiometric evidence that the basement rock of the earth was formed in a cool state, not in a molten condition. A cool initial state of the earth gives support to a young age for the earth. His research involves the study of pleochroic halos (colored spheres) produced by the radioactive decay of Polonium 218. He analyzed over one hundred thousand of these halos in granitic rocks which had been taken from considerable depths below land surface and in all parts of the world.

Two very important conclusions were drawn from this research 1) The Polonium 218 was primordial, that is to say, this radioactive element was in the original granite. 2) Because the halos can only be formed in the crystals of the granite, and the Polonium 218 half-life is only 3 minutes, the granite had to be cool and crystallized originally. The Polonium 218 would have been gone before molten granite could have cooled. It would take a very long time for a molten earth to cool.

The final conclusion can be summarized in this brief quote from one of Gentry's technical papers: "The simple evidence of the halos is that the basement rocks of the earth were formed solid." "Halos in other minerals can be shown to give equally startling evidence of a young earth."4 One needs to read some of Gentry's technical articles to see how clearly he established his conclusion that the Polonium 218 was primordial. That in itself presents problems to conventional radiometric dating. The conventional radiometric dating postulates would not jibe with this initial state which Gentry has identified.

Magnetic Evidence of a Young Earth

The known decay in the earth's magnetic field and the inexorable depletion of its energy clearly point to an imminent and inevitable end of the earth's magnetic field. A Department of Commerce publication lists evaluations of the strength of the earth's dipole magnet (its main magnet) since Karl Gauss made the first evaluation in the 1830's. It states that the rate of decrease is about 5% per hundred years. It then states that if the decay continues the magnetic field will "vanish in A.D. 3391."5

This decay has some harmful environmental effects. The earth's magnetic field extends into the space around the earth. This provides a protective shield against cosmic rays and solar wind. The half-life of this decaying magnetic field is 1400 years (meaning that every 1400 years its strength is cut in half). The field strength is now only about one third as strong as it was at the time of Christ. More harmful radiation is penetrating down to the surface of the earth. This is an irreversible degradation of our environment.

Horace Lamb predicted this decay in an 1883 theoretical paper on the source of the earth's magnetic field. Looking backward in time, in the light of his theory and the present known decay rate, and assuming the maximum plausible initial strength, puts an age limit on the earth's magnet of only a few thousand years.6

Evolutionary geologists assume that there is some type of dynamo mechanism sustaining the earth's magnet. No one has yet come up with an acceptable theory for such a dynamo. That mechanism is supposed to be able to reverse the direction of the earth's magnet. They assume that this magnet has not been decaying continually but has reversed back and forth many times for billions of years. They must hold to a long age or it is the death knell for the whole theory of evolution. Reversal phenomena are "read" into the magnetization of accessible rocks in the crust of the earth. The literature shows real problems and some self-contradictions with those interpretations.7

Conclusion

The age of the earth and moon can not be as old as required in the doctrine of evolution, as has been shown when the great laws of physics are applied to observed large scale phenomena such as:

1) The recession rate of the moon and the Roche limit.
2) The faster earth spin rate in the past.
3) The decay of the earth's magnetic field.
4) The pleochroic halos in the earth's basement rock.

http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#97 Post by Alan H » May 21st, 2016, 6:10 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.

Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?
Now, just where did I do that? After you've answered that, please try to answer my question.
There are some who are not really interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter.
How true...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#98 Post by Pahu » May 21st, 2016, 6:20 pm

Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.

Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?
Now, just where did I do that?
Review your two assertions above where you say scientists and science journals are irrelevant.
After you've answered that, please try to answer my question.
Done! See above.

There are some who are not really interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter.
How true...
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#99 Post by Alan H » May 21st, 2016, 6:56 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.

Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?
You need to read what I say more carefully. I have not rejected any facts. If you think I have, please detail them and where I rejected them.
Now, just where did I do that?
Review your two assertions above where you say scientists and science journals are irrelevant.
I'll repeat myself: You need to read what I say more carefully. If you have trouble understanding what i was saying, please let me know and I'll try to explain it to you again.
After you've answered that, please try to answer my question.
Done! See above.[/quote]No you didn't. In reply to my question:
Your claim was that the earth can't be old because the moon is receding at 37.8 mm a year. The moon is currently somewhere around 384,400 km from earth. Now, what do those two numbers tell you?
You replied:
That it used to be closer to Earth than it is now. Here are some details:
... followed by a copy and paste from somewhere. I want you to show me you understand what those number mean. Can you do that?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#100 Post by Pahu » May 21st, 2016, 7:32 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote: Utterly irrelevant: if they are wrong, then they are wrong and it matters not a jot what their names are, who they are, how old they are, what professorship they hold, their inside leg measurement or their shoe size. Even a list of Nobel prize winners advances your position not a micron if what they say is wrong.

Again, what matters is the probity and correctness of the information, not where it's published: many 'prestigious' journals have published rubbish and have to withdraw papers for a variety of reasons. What matters - and only what matters - are the data.
Since you reject the facts of science given by scientists in science journals, does that mean we have to rely on your opinions for correct information?
You need to read what I say more carefully. I have not rejected any facts. If you think I have, please detail them and where I rejected them.
Now, just where did I do that?
Review your two assertions above where you say scientists and science journals are irrelevant.
I'll repeat myself: You need to read what I say more carefully. If you have trouble understanding what i was saying, please let me know and I'll try to explain it to you again.
After you've answered that, please try to answer my question.
Done! See above.
No you didn't. In reply to my question:
Your claim was that the earth can't be old because the moon is receding at 37.8 mm a year. The moon is currently somewhere around 384,400 km from earth. Now, what do those two numbers tell you?
You replied:
That it used to be closer to Earth than it is now. Here are some details:
... followed by a copy and paste from somewhere. I want you to show me you understand what those number mean. Can you do that?[/quote]

I have adequately answered your question.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#101 Post by Alan H » May 21st, 2016, 7:52 pm

Pahu wrote:I have adequately answered your question.
Sorry, you may think so, but it's not in the least bit adequate. How about trying to show me how you'd do the sums to demonstrate your claim?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply