young universe

[the_cloaked_crusader]

Here are some evidences for the "Young Universe" view. Can you rebut them?

1. Moon dust. This is a big one, which has had many arguments brought against it. It is based on the amount of cosmic dust in the solar system, which, over billions of years (assumedly) has been accumulating on earth and the moon (and the other planets, too, but they aren't relevant here). According to the supposed billions of years in which the moon and Earth has been picking up dust, there should be hundreds of feet of space dust on both bodies. Now, the lack of dust on earth has been explained by erosion of water and wind (it is thought that we will eventually find these billions of years worth of space dust in the bottom of the oceanic basins). But no such factors exist on the moon; therefore, a nearly undisturbed supply of space dust should be found there, anywhere from 80 to 130 feet deep; and yet upon arrival on the moon, we found only an inch or two of accumulation. What do the evolutionists say to this?

2. Short Period comets. On our solar system are dozens of Comets, known as Short Period Comets because they come within sight of earth every few hundred years or so (as opposed to every few billion years, as the Long Period Comets must). These comets, made up of ice, rock, and a gasseous covering which we see, shrink a little every time they come near the Sun, and it has been observed that they eventually split or disappear. The question is, why are there any Short Period comets left in the solar system, if they have been slowly shrinking in size and decreasing in number for billions of years? There are two explanations. One, there is a source of such comets (volcanoes, for instance, or distant asteroids breaking into pieces--neither of which really makes sense); or they haven't been shrinking/growing fewer for billions of years after all.

2. Volcanoes on Io. The Old Universe hypothesis would suggest that the moons in our solar system are billions of years old, and basically dead since they are so small: all volcanic activity on the moons should have stopped long ago. And yet in 1979 a volcanic eruption was observed on Io; closer examination showed that this moon is more active, volcanically speaking, than our earth. Apparently, Io isn't so old and dead after all.

3. Cool Moon. Our moon has been found to be quite radioactive--radioactive enough that some scientists have been lead to wonder why it isn't quite hot, or even melting, from the cumulative effect of the radioactivity over billions of years. Also: short-lived isotopes (U-236 and Th-230, to be precise) have been found in the moon's crust; if the moon were billions of years old, as evolution suggests, then these isotopes should have decayed and disappeared long ago.

4. Moon craters. It has been established that solids, like liquids, eventually "flow" into a state of uniformity (i.e., a stone statue, if given enough time, will eventually become a puddle of marble.) (If anyone needs them, I can cite examples.) Therefore, if the meteoric craters on the surface of the moon were formed billions of years ago (before life began to evolve on earth), then these craters should long since have disappeared. They haven't, obviously.

More later, I really have no time.

Best of regards,
the_cloaked_crusader

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The whole moon dust arguement has been so well debunked that the YEC organisation "Answers In Genesis" itself dismisses it (check out answersingenesis.com under the "dont use" list of arguements).

The reason that Io has active volcanoes is exaclty the same reason as why playing with plasticine will make it more pliable and soft. The huge tidal forces created by Jupiter actually "massage" the interior of Io - heating it from within due to friction. Io is the closest major moon to Jupiter and experiences the greatest tidal forces. Moons like Callisto and Ganymede are cold and dead since they are far enough away to lose all their heat. Friction inside of Io causes so much heat that it melts under the surface, and that heat has to escape - hence volcanoes. Europa, which is the second in distance also experiences tidal forces - but not to the extreme of Io. In Europa, the tidal forces melt the water underneath the icy crust.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Here are some evidences for the "Young Universe" view. Can you rebut them?

1. Moon dust. This is a big one, which has had many arguments brought against it.

It has, hasn't it. Even Answers in Genesis admits there's no case to answer on this one.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moondust.asp

2. Short Period comets. On our solar system are dozens of Comets, known as Short Period Comets because they come within sight of earth every few hundred years or so (as opposed to every few billion years, as the Long Period Comets must). These comets, made up of ice, rock, and a gasseous covering which we see, shrink a little every time they come near the Sun, and it has been observed that they eventually split or disappear. The question is, why are there any Short Period comets left in the solar system, if they have been slowly shrinking in size and decreasing in number for billions of years? There are two explanations. One, there is a source of such comets (volcanoes, for instance, or distant asteroids breaking into pieces--neither of which really makes sense); or they haven't been shrinking/growing fewer for billions of years after all.

The Kuiper belt offers origins for new short period comets. No longer mere hypothesis, it has been directly observed. - http://www.noao.edu/outreach/current/kbohilite.html

2. Volcanoes on Io. The Old Universe hypothesis would suggest that the moons in our solar system are billions of years old, and basically dead since they are so small: all volcanic activity on the moons should have stopped long ago. And yet in 1979 a volcanic eruption was observed on Io; closer examination showed that this moon is more active, volcanically speaking, than our earth. Apparently, Io isn't so old and dead after all.

It is. Its heat derives from tidal heating. http://www.planetaryexploration.net/jupiter/io/tidal_heating.html

3. Cool Moon. Our moon has been found to be quite radioactive--radioactive enough that some scientists have been lead to wonder why it isn't quite hot, or even melting, from the cumulative effect of the radioactivity over billions of years. Also: short-lived isotopes (U-236 and Th-230, to be precise) have been found in the moon's crust; if the moon were billions of years old, as evolution suggests, then these isotopes should have decayed and disappeared long ago.

As explained here, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_isotopes.html, U-236 is produced continuously by reactions in Uranium ores; Th-230 is in the decay chain of U-238, so will constantly be produced whilst there is U-238 still around.

4. Moon craters. It has been established that solids, like liquids, eventually "flow" into a state of uniformity (i.e., a stone statue, if given enough time, will eventually become a puddle of marble.) (If anyone needs them, I can cite examples.)

I'd love to see these! Certainly this is true of some super-cooled liquids, but most solids are stable.

Therefore, if the meteoric craters on the surface of the moon were formed billions of years ago (before life began to evolve on earth), then these craters should long since have disappeared. They haven't, obviously.

What makes you think that meteoric bombardment ceased billions of years ago anyway?

More later, I really have no time.

Best of regards,
the_cloaked_crusader

Make them better than this selection of useless out of date PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times), won't you?

 

[lucaspa]

Here are some evidences for the "Young Universe" view. Can you rebut them?

It's not the "evidence for" that counts, but rather the evidence against. If you ONLY look for evidence for ANY theory, you will find it. What really counts is evidence that falsifies a theory. The evidence that caused a young earth (and universe) to be falsified by 1831 is still there. There's no way to overcome that falsifying evidence to reinstill a young earth and universe.

2. Short Period comets. On our solar system are dozens of Comets, known as Short Period Comets because they come within sight of earth every few hundred years or so (as opposed to every few billion years, as the Long Period Comets must). These comets, made up of ice, rock, and a gasseous covering which we see, shrink a little every time they come near the Sun, and it has been observed that they eventually split or disappear. The question is, why are there any Short Period comets left in the solar system, if they have been slowly shrinking in size and decreasing in number for billions of years?

Because there is a vast source of comets in wide orbits around the sun in the Kuiper belt outside Pluto. Every now and then gravitational combinations alters the orbit of one of these comets and sends it into the inner solar system.

3. Cool Moon. Our moon has been found to be quite radioactive--radioactive enough that some scientists have been lead to wonder why it isn't quite hot, or even melting, from the cumulative effect of the radioactivity over billions of years. Also: short-lived isotopes (U-236 and Th-230, to be precise) have been found in the moon's crust;

Both of the isotopes are formed from the decay of longer-lived isotopes. Can you cite us the scientific paper on the scientists wondering that the amount of radioactivity would provide heat to the moon?

4. Moon craters. It has been established that solids, like liquids, eventually "flow" into a state of uniformity (i.e., a stone statue, if given enough time, will eventually become a puddle of marble.) (If anyone needs them, I can cite examples.)

Yes, please cite examples, and the time frames involved. I suspect the stone statue would take several billion years to "flow" into a puddle of marble. Longer than the time available here.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

How come nobody ever uses the following arguement anymore, it goes something like this:

THe arms of spiral glaxies would wrap around themselves after only a few thousand years of galactic spinning(like the arms of a straight jacket), thereby proving the universe is young!

I always found that one highly amusing, its a shame nobody uses it anymore

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I suppose the parthenon is only a couple of centuries old then?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

1. Moon dust. This is a big one, which has had many arguments brought against it. It is based on the amount of cosmic dust in the solar system, which, over billions of years (assumedly) has been accumulating on earth and the moon (and the other planets, too, but they aren't relevant here). According to the supposed billions of years in which the moon and Earth has been picking up dust, there should be hundreds of feet of space dust on both bodies. Now, the lack of dust on earth has been explained by erosion of water and wind (it is thought that we will eventually find these billions of years worth of space dust in the bottom of the oceanic basins). But no such factors exist on the moon; therefore, a nearly undisturbed supply of space dust should be found there, anywhere from 80 to 130 feet deep; and yet upon arrival on the moon, we found only an inch or two of accumulation. What do the evolutionists say to this?

We say that rather than evidence for a young earth, interplanetary dust accretion actually is evidence for an ancient earth and falsifies the young earth.

See
A Dusty Young-Earth Argument Backfires

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/idp.htm

However, it is should be further recognized that the IDP flux rates determined from analyses of Cretaceous and younger deep sea sediment cores are in excellent agreement with the modern flux, as determined from satellite and other other data. The simplest explanation of this fact is that a) the ET flux rate has remained relatively constant, and b) the sedimentation rates determined for deep sea cores by radiometric data, from one to a few mm per 1000 years, are accurate. This of course contradicts both Young-Earthism and Flood Geology. Thus, the argument from interplanetary dust accretion not only fails to support YEC, it provides compelling evidence against YEC.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

Just to note, most of the young universe arguments are only about this good.

as you can see, it didnt take long for someone to post the refutation to all of them, I doubt you will have much luck with others.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Just to note, most of the young universe arguments are only about this good.

as you can see, it didnt take long for someone to post the refutation to all of them, I doubt you will have much luck with others.

Yes, and we see that dust accumulation is actually evidence for an old earth rather than a young earth. That is why these types of arguments are often referred to as members of the PRATT list for Points Refuted A Thousand Times. I wonder if it really surprises YECS who are new these board that we see all their arguments soundly refuted many many times before.

Tim Thompson has refuted a bunch of them here

http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html

and Matson's list has already been referred to I think.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

The biggest important thing, isnt the Many many times, its the almost 8 years ago time stamps on many of the Tim Thomson arguments.

Then that brings up the question, if these things have been refuted 8 years ago, why arent the creationists taking them down from their sites, like honest scientists?

 

[JohnR7]

Here are some evidences for the "Young Universe" view. Can you rebut them?

1. Moon dust. This is a big one,

You can not really go by the condition of the moon. Chances are, before Adam and Eve fell into sin, the moon had life on it. As well as the other planets. When the earth is restored, the whole solar system will be restored and once again there will be life of some sort on the moon. It will not be a desolate place like it is now.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You can not really go by the condition of the moon. Chances are, before Adam and Eve fell into sin, the moon had life on it. As well as the other planets. When the earth is restored, the whole solar system will be restored and once again there will be life of some sort on the moon. It will not be a desolate place like it is now.

What???????? In the imortal words of Bob Dylan, "I gotta think you're really weird!"

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

lucapsa: why hsould "evidences for an old universe" count any more than "evidences against an old universe"? and what are these evidences against the young universe? so far, I've heard: distant light. (I still haven't heard the "speed of time" explanation rebutted.) anything else?

sorry about the moondust, I hadn't seen that on AIG.

As to the comets--the book I'm taking from is a little old. Which is part of the reason I'm bringing this "proof" to you all, so I can learn what has potential and what doesnt.

Also, could I have second opinions on these links? Something from major, at least partially unbiased magazines/journals would be helpful. and also, if you can tell me where you're looking (google? or what?) to find these things, I'd like to do a little research myself (so's not to be too much trouble).

The Cool Moon: all I saw there was an explanation for the continued radioactivity. How about the cumulative heat?
Lucapsa: it, among other matters, was discussed at the Fourth Lunar Science Conference. how it was resolved I don't know.

As to flowing rocks: Hang on, I'll post a link as soon as I find one. (I'm Offline as I write this) But in the meantime, flow deformation of windows, and of granite tombstones, have been observed. And scientists have discovered that long, slender bars of granite, when weighted at the ends and hung horizontally, will slowly bend--and granite is one of the least "fluid" substances on earth.
The amount of meteoric bombardment evidenced by the moon's many huge craters would have served to make earth uninhabitable. That is, unless I'm missing something.

late cretaceous--sry, but I only use the theories that seem to make sense to me. I'm not a scientist, and when someone blows my theories out of hte water, I don't bring them up again. and I haven't read every one of hte past depbates; therefore, I can't recognize a PRATT when I see one. please bear with me.
assuming that your assertion about hte parthanon is in reference to the fluidity of solids: yes, the relative solidity of the parthanon's pillars and other arcitectural features shows that the "melting" process must be very long, and very slow. I never said it wasn't. your point was . . . ?

Best of regards,
the_cloaked_crusader

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

John, I think you kinda missed my point. :-] sry, but I wasn't talking about the lifeless state of hte moon, but about the amount of dust thereon . . .

best of regards,
the_cloaked_crusader

 

[MartinM]

lucapsa: why hsould "evidences for an old universe" count any more than "evidences against an old universe"?

They don't. If there was any evidence that falsified an old Universe, the old Universe would be falsified, regardless of how much evidence was consistent with it. Of course, there isn't any evidence that falsifies and old Universe, so the point is moot.

and what are these evidences against the young universe? so far, I've heard: distant light. (I still haven't heard the "speed of time" explanation rebutted.) anything else?

Distant light's a good start. Uhh...is everything we know about cosmology enough? Then there's all the various terrestrial dating methods - an old Earth clearly falsifies a young Universe, after all.

 

[JohnR7]

What???????? In the imortal words of Bob Dylan, "I gotta think you're really weird!"

Not if you really understood God and the nature of God.

 

[JohnR7]

They don't. If there was any evidence that falsified an old Universe, the old Universe would be falsified, regardless of how much evidence was consistent with it.

Of course there is evidence, if the earth had traveled around the sun that many times, it would be wore down to nothing by now. (joking guys, just joking)

 

[MartinM]

Well, it's as good as any other young Earth 'proof'.

 

[Arikay]

John, You should submit that to DrDino. He would probably use it.

 

[Taffsadar]

The Cool Moon: all I saw there was an explanation for the continued radioactivity. How about the cumulative heat?
Lucapsa: it, among other matters, was discussed at the Fourth Lunar Science Conference. how it was resolved I don't know.

To take the oversimplified version. It's sent out into space due to I think it's the 2nd law of thermodynamics (The heat in two enlcosed objects in contact with eachother will gett the same temperature). The Swedish schools doesn't put much emphasis on names, we just learn how it works and why so I'm not sure on the name.

As to flowing rocks: Hang on, I'll post a link as soon as I find one. (I'm Offline as I write this) But in the meantime, flow deformation of windows, and of granite tombstones, have been observed. And scientists have discovered that long, slender bars of granite, when weighted at the ends and hung horizontally, will slowly bend--and granite is one of the least "fluid" substances on earth.
The amount of meteoric bombardment evidenced by the moon's many huge craters would have served to make earth uninhabitable. That is, unless I'm missing something.

Well this is advanced moleculogy (english name please?) but basicly the moons gravity and other external factors aren't strong enough to deform the stone.