Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[shinbits]

.
The actual spin down rate of the earth is about 2 milliseconds per 100 years. 360,000 years ago the day was about 7 seconds shorter. Not a big deal.

I don't know......the sights I've went on have said something different.

http://earthsci.org/fossils/space/earth8/earth8.html

The earth's rotation on it's axis
The earth is revolving at 1665 km per hour (at the equator)
The tides have been slowing this down by 1/000th of a second per year.

I'm getting more and more confused now, because I thought all science sights were on the same page.

This is agrivating me.

http://earthsci.org/fossils/space/earth8/earth8.html

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

WHY is it wrong? What reason do u have for saying so? Just make absolute statements like that whithout saying why.



true. But the rate of sunlight entering earth's atmosphere is affected, and is another factor making carbon dating unreliable. And of course, not just this alone, but all the other factors TOGETHER that i've mentioned on this thread. These same factors would make life impossible a million years ago.

I suggest you read Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective to straighten out some of you misconceptions. Uncalibrated C14 dates are ineed a bit inaccurate. They underestimate the age of objects being which doesn't really help YEC now does it?

 

[shinbits]

Again, science sights are not on the same page. Here's what talk origins says:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year.

not every century, but per year.

Is my last link wrong? Is TalkOrigins wrong?

I am now ****ed off, because after all this time, all this typing and posting, science links aren't even unified on this.

This is all a waste of time.

 

[shinbits]

Debate is stupid. Nothing's reliable.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I don't know......the sights I've went on have said something different.

http://earthsci.org/fossils/space/earth8/earth8.html




I'm getting more and more confused now, because I thought all science sights were on the same page.

This is agrivating me.

http://earthsci.org/fossils/space/earth8/earth8.html

Well if the slowing rate is 1/1000 of a second per year, as your link states, that means its a thousand years before it slows by 1 second, so in 6000 years it has slowed by 6 seconds not the 7 seconds FB estimated, I think he was pretty close.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

not every century, but per year.

Not per year, but per year per year. Not the same. just as 32 metres per second is not the same as 32 metres per second per second.

Is my last link wrong? Is TalkOrigins wrong?.

Your maths is.

Ghost

Edit; Initialy I may have made it more confussing not less.

 

[OdwinOddball]

I don't know......the sights I've went on have said something different.

http://earthsci.org/fossils/space/earth8/earth8.html




I'm getting more and more confused now, because I thought all science sights were on the same page.

This is agrivating me.

Shin, are you even reading what you are linking? .0005 of a second is 1/1000th of a second rounded up. You linked to a basic site intended for educational puposes not for serious research. Their numbers do not differ, only their method of representation and level of accuracy.

Reading about science requires you to think while doing so, not just reading for highlights and quote mining.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Again, science sights are not on the same page. Here's what talk origins says:


not every century, but per year.

Is my last link wrong? Is TalkOrigins wrong?

I am now ****ed off, because after all this time, all this typing and posting, science links aren't even unified on this.

This is all a waste of time.

The talkorgins site give the slow down rate in per year/year not per day per year. That is where the difference comes from.

 

[Jacquo]

Hi all,

I've just managed to read all the posts since yesterday...
(on this thread)

Hmmmmm

Of 2 responses to my article I noticed the issue of the decay rate of the hymalaya mountain range. One relates that volcanic activity is not mentioned and the other that the earth's crust uplift is not taken into account (my words paraphrasing).

In fact my article clearly states:
"This erosion rate has taken into account the uplift of the mountains due to the continents colliding with each other on their tectonic plates"

As for volcanic activity please mention the name of one volcanic mountain in that range?

Since evolution is held up generally speaking as how we got here, it is consistent with that to incorporate abiogenesis in a general and simplified article. Therefore my arguments against abiogenesis apply within that view of evolution.

The axiom of a text out of context is a pretext is relevant.

I note C14 dating has been mentioned.
I went to a lecture by David Rohl (I think was his name) the archaeologist and he clearly stated how C14 was not relied upon anymore by his peers as reliable and often found faulty agaisnt hard finds like clay pots...

I trust this helps some.

Regards,

Jac

 

[futzman]

What's amazing is that you can claim this without being able to provide a working definition of "kind."

Why heck that's easy! Any critter, fossil or extant, is a "kind". Otherwise, it might be a transitional and that's not allowed in ID-Creationism.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Futz

 

[Jacquo]

btw

I have not produced a definition of a kind. I do not have one.

But a good article on this is on the answers in Genesis web site.
[until my 15th post I cannot link]

My appreciation of a kind is best understood by the example that all cats are 'a kind'. I think my use of the term holds withing that thinking.

Regards,

Jac

 

[Baggins]

Hi all,

I've just managed to read all the posts since yesterday...
(on this thread)

Hmmmmm

Of 2 responses to my article I noticed the issue of the decay rate of the hymalaya mountain range. One relates that volcanic activity is not mentioned and the other that the earth's crust uplift is not taken into account (my words paraphrasing).

In fact my article clearly states:
"This erosion rate has taken into account the uplift of the mountains due to the continents colliding with each other on their tectonic plates"


Jac

I see where your sites' problem lies, it assumes the mountains have always existed. They haven't they were formed by the collision of the indian plate with the asian plate roughly 100 ma, at 60ma the two plates welded and as the indian plate continued to move north at 2-3 cm per year the Himalayas began to be thrown up. For many millions of years afterwards their wouldn't have been the levels of erosion we see today. The levels of erosion on these mountains are also very high due to the fact that the range now lies in a monsoon region and is subject to heavy periods of prolonged rainfall. You wouldn't get the same results if you applied this technique to mountains in the high Andes desert for example.

So the argument is totally fallacious, in millions of years time the mountins will have been worn away like other examples of mountain building that are now worn down to their nubs such as ; the appalachians and caledonides in the UK.

I assume you have already accepted that all the other arguments were successfully refuted in the earlier posts ( of Mr Bandersnatch I believe ), I hope you will accept this as a refutation of your mountain erosion hypothesis.

 

[futzman]

btw

I have not produced a definition of a kind. I do not have one.

But a good article on this is on the answers in Genesis web site.
[until my 15th post I cannot link]

My appreciation of a kind is best understood by the example that all cats are 'a kind'. I think my use of the term holds withing that thinking.

Regards,

Jac

Like I said any critter, fossil or extant, is a "kind" otherwise it might be a transitional and that simply cannot be! Or to quote Napoleon Dynamite,

"Anything I want! What'd ya think!?!"




Futz

 

[notto]

Think for a moment: if hurricanes are directly related to the the earth's rotation, what would happen if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daytime, only 360,000 years ago?

That is what we are asking you. You have already claimed to know the answer but seem to be avoiding giving us any detail. What would be the affect on the winds? 10mph, 50mph, 100mph? You are making the claim?.What would be the effect? Why is it a problem? What would be the affect at a point halfway between the equator and the north pole?

Surely you can answer this. Your entire ad-hoc claim is dependent on YOU being able to provide some calculations and numbers.

You have failed to do so. You can't even answer your own question.
what would happen if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daytime,

What's your answer and how did you come to that conclusion? Where is your math and work? What units are you using and what numbers did you come up with?You are arguing from a lack of knowledge and expecting us to accept it.

 

[MewtwoX]

Since evolution is held up generally speaking as how we got here, it is consistent with that to incorporate abiogenesis in a general and simplified article. Therefore my arguments against abiogenesis apply within that view of evolution.

No, Evolution is a Theorem of Biology about the origin of species, not the origin of life. You wouldn't force Phrenology into Psychology, don't force Abiogenesis into Evolutionary Theory.

The axiom of a text out of context is a pretext is relevant.

...What?

I note C14 dating has been mentioned.
I went to a lecture by David Rohl (I think was his name) the archaeologist and he clearly stated how C14 was not relied upon anymore by his peers as reliable and often found faulty agaisnt hard finds like clay pots...

I trust this helps some.

Regards,

Jac

That's nice that one person thought that, but you need a little more evidence than that...

especially when it could be referring to the fact that C14 dating doesn't apply beyond a certain point.

 

[Asimov]

My appreciation of a kind is best understood by the example that all cats are 'a kind'. I think my use of the term holds withing that thinking.

Regards,

Jac

What do you mean all cats are a kind? All house cats? Or all members of the Cat family?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I have not produced a definition of a kind. I do not have one.

But a good article on this is on the answers in Genesis web site.

If it's the one that relies upon hybridization, don't bother. Hybridization criteria are useless on extinct organisms.

My appreciation of a kind is best understood by the example that all cats are 'a kind'. I think my use of the term holds withing that thinking.

You can't reverse-engineer a definition from an example.

A coffee mug is an instance of a schluff. What is a schluff?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

snip snip to address just a single point---

I note C14 dating has been mentioned.
I went to a lecture by David Rohl (I think was his name) the archaeologist and he clearly stated how C14 was not relied upon anymore by his peers as reliable and often found faulty agaisnt hard finds like clay pots...

I trust this helps some.

Regards,

Jac

what can be dated via C14?

It follows from this that any material which is composed of carbon may be dated.Herein lies the true advantage of the radiocarbon method, it is able to be uniformly applied throughout the world. Included below is an impressive list of some of the types of carbonaceous samples that have been commonly radiocarbon dated in the years since the inception of the method:
...
Pottery.

from: http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

i thought something had to have been alive to be C14 dating, apparently you can date pottery with organic pieces in it, not the clay of the pottery itself.

found David Rohl at:
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/rohl/index.htm

we need more about what he said exactly and in scientific terms to work with.

 

[rambot]

Sure, all "Cats are a kind"...but what does THAT mean?
Do they have to interbreed or do they have to "look kinda the same"?
If its the latter, than I gotta say that apes, chimps, and gorillas are all people....at least in terms of kind.

And if you are referring to evolution as the "the theory of the origins of life" then you MUST include abiogenesis. That said, abiogenesis is NOT crucial to the theory of evolution itself. (as metwork said).

The levels of erosion on these mountains are also very high due to the fact that the range now lies in a monsoon region and is subject to heavy periods of prolonged rainfall

I don't think there is much rain falling ON the Himalaya.... Maybe you're thinking of the Ghats (or specifically, the Western Ghats.
Well, I guess I should say there is limited rainfall on the flanks but those mountain would go SO much higher than monsoon clouds.

So the argument is totally fallacious, in millions of years time the mountins will have been worn away like other examples of mountain building that are now worn down to their nubs such as ; the appalachians and caledonides in the UK.

But this argument is totally misguided because it doesn't take into account that, not only HAVE the himalayans been created by pushing plates BUT these plates continue to be pushing together and making the mountains rise.
Fromt what i've read, himalayan erosion rates hover around a few millimeters per year....
But please feel free to correct me.

 

[Baggins]

I don't think there is much rain falling ON the Himalaya.... Maybe you're thinking of the Ghats (or specifically, the Western Ghats.
Well, I guess I should say there is limited rainfall on the flanks but those mountain would go SO much higher than monsoon clouds.
But this argument is totally misguided because it doesn't take into account that, not only HAVE the himalayans been created by pushing plates BUT these plates continue to be pushing together and making the mountains rise.
Fromt what i've read, himalayan erosion rates hover around a few millimeters per year....
But please feel free to correct me.

I was not arguing for the proposition rather against it.

Jacquo was arguing that there wasn't enough time for evolution to work because the Himalayas have not been worn down. But that presupposes that the himalayas have always existed which is obviously fallacious.

I was just pointing out that the southern flanks of the himalayas also get more rainfall than many other mountain ranges, but this was an aside to my point that the Himalayas were created from around 60 million years ago, they have not always existed and therefore any idea that the earth is younger than scientists say based on erosion rates of the himalayas is totally without merit.

I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in my original post