Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 13 February 2012, 14:53:38 pm *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 58
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 72201 times)
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #450 on: 01 August 2010, 22:10:50 pm »

No old meteors?
Most meteors are iron, or alloys of that metal with other metals. In a few years they rust away.
The balance is rocks. They look just like rocks, and blend in with all the other rocks. That is why you do not find them.
Many millions of tons of coal are mined each year. A large proportion is mined by machinery, put onto conveyor belts and ground to a powder before being burned in power stations. It is never looked at in detail.
Most of the rest is washed to remove as much of the ash , including stones and iron, as possible, then loaded into trucks and ships and sent all over the world. It is no wonder that meteors are not found
Logged
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« Reply #450 on: 01 August 2010, 22:10:50 pm »



 Logged
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #451 on: 04 August 2010, 3:38:08 am »

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 (a).

 a. Steveson, pp. 23–25.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences42.html#wp1260654
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #452 on: 06 August 2010, 1:13:11 am »

Google plate tectonics.
Logged
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #453 on: 06 August 2010, 1:15:43 am »

Nickel makes up 0.008 percent of the Earth's crust. When the Earth's core, which is composed primarily of iron and nickel is included, nickel ranks as the fifth most common element on our planet after iron, oxygen, silicon and magnesium.

but, of course, the earth is really flat, carried on the back of a giant turtle with a nickel shell.
Logged
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #454 on: 07 August 2010, 3:13:50 am »

Rapid Cooling

If Earth had initially been molten, 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 about the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth (a). The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.

a. Harold S. Slusher and Thomas P. Gamwell, Age of the Earth, ICR Technical Monograph No. 7 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

Leonard R. Ingersoll et al., Heat Conduction: With Engineering, Geological and Other Applications, revised edition (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), pp. 99–107.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences43.html#wp1260679
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #455 on: 10 August 2010, 0:31:12 am »

The creation research guys have their thermal conductivity data wrong.

Logged
Kubes.SG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2417



View Profile
« Reply #456 on: 14 August 2010, 1:16:26 am »

Logged

The object in life is not to be on the side of the Majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the Insane.
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #457 on: 14 August 2010, 3:30:22 am »

Moon Recession

As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first observed 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 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume. For details see: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html#wp1030385

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences44.html#wp1260699
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #458 on: 17 August 2010, 15:12:45 pm »


Written for the layperson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

Written for the scientist:

 C.D. Murray & S.F. Dermott (1999). Solar System Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. p. 184.
 Dickinson, Terence (1993). From the Big Bang to Planet X. Camden East, Ontario: Camden House. pp. 79–81. ISBN 0-921820-71-2.


Written for creationists:
http://www.vermilion-sands.com/rantlib/greencheese.html
Logged
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #459 on: 20 August 2010, 5:57:26 am »

Moon Dust and Debris

If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon.

a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:

“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.” Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.

Lyttleton felt that the dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.

Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]

Fears about the dust thickness were reduced when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences45.html#wp1350743

Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #460 on: 20 August 2010, 9:01:58 am »

All this, some from a science fiction writer, was before the moon landings.
Rocks brought back from the moon have been dated as up to 4.5 billion years old.
Logged
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #461 on: 24 August 2010, 5:19:45 am »

Crater Creep

A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps” in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.

Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should occur to their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where gravity is greater, and temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep,” these bodies seem to be relatively young.

a. Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock, “The Age of Lunar Craters,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, September 1983, pp. 105–108.

The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:
“The history of a circular crater in a highly viscous medium is derived from the hydrodynamic equations of motion by Z. F. Danes. The variation in shape of the crater in the course of time is expressed as a function of a time constant, T, that involves viscosity and density of the medium, acceleration of gravity, and radius of the crater lip. Correspondence between theoretical crater shapes and the observed ones is good. However the time constant, T, is surprisingly short if commonly accepted viscosity values are used.” Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-A (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. A 127.

  Since Danes work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall in the range of 10^21 to 10^22 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 10^21 to 10^22 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 10^4 to 10^7 years.”

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences46.html#wp3222860
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #462 on: 25 August 2010, 0:22:41 am »

" Calculations Show"
Those calculations, done by creationists, are clearly wrong. are clearly wrong.
Logged
Pahu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #463 on: 31 August 2010, 5:20:22 am »

Hot Moon

A surprising amount of heat is flowing out of the Moon from just below its surface, and yet the Moon’s interior is relatively cold (a). Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon is much younger than most people had guessed, or relatively recent events have altered the Moon’s heat flow (b)— or both.

a. “ [The following is] a somewhat surprising outcome considering the size of the Moon and the assumption that most of its heat energy had been lost....These unexpectedly high lunar [heat flow] values seem to indicate the Moon’s interior is much hotter than most thermal models had anticipated. If the temperature gradient in the lower regolith is extrapolated to great depths, the lunar interior would appear to be at least partly molten—a condition contradicted by other evidence.” Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p. 184.

b. The unexpectedly large heat flow may be a consequence of large impacts occurring on the lunar surface at the time of Earth’s global flood. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets3.html#wp13476412.]

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences47.html#wp1260820
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Old Mike
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3999


View Profile
« Reply #464 on: 31 August 2010, 6:41:58 am »

The scientific paper is from 1975. More than a quarter of a centure ago.
For up to date scientific information visit

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19342-shrinking-moon-may-explain-lunar-quakes.html

and

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 58
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines