The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
[In my humble opinion, the real difficulty in the earth age dilemma is placing the origin of Adam and Eve, the two sole parents of the human species, in humanity’s time frame. The difficulty is that none of modern scientists observed the beginning of either earth or of human beings.
That’s manageable. No modern scientist has seen a graviton either, but we postulate them. Physics hasn’t fallen apart because we can’t observe gravitons. Geology needn’t fall apart because we can’t see Pangaea, and biology needn’t fall apart even if we haven’t yet observed much speciation.
[/quote]
 
That’s manageable. No modern scientist has seen a graviton either, but we postulate them. Physics hasn’t fallen apart because we can’t observe gravitons. Geology needn’t fall apart because we can’t see Pangaea, and biology needn’t fall apart even if we haven’t yet observed much speciation.
Just like I said in an earlier post, there is no reason that these and other sciences will be trashed because one species, the human one, has two sole parents, Adam and Eve.
 
Just like I said in an earlier post, there is no reason that these and other sciences will be trashed because one species, the human one, has two sole parents, Adam and Eve.
The demonstrate how that is possible.
 
I believe it has something to do with the birds and the bees. 😉
Demonstrate how Adam and Eve can pass on a genome to their progeny that appears to carry the genetic diversity of 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs of humans. I suppose God might be a trickster who installed that range of genetic diversity, just like he created glaciers that appear to be 100,000 years old, and galaxies that appear to be billions of light years away.

StAnastasia
 
The reference I have for the explosion of Mt. St. Helens and the subsequent lava build up from 1980 to 1986 ranged from 300,000 to 2,700,000 years before the present depending on which mineral was used to date the lava by K/Ar dating. Uhm! Anomalous ages?
Scientific reference please.
Explosions in New Zealand about 50 years ago were dated in the range of many 100’s of thousands years ago also by the same technique. Uhm! Anomalous ages?
Scientific reference please. I am inclined to suspect a xenolith, but I will need the reference to confirm my suspicion. A xenolith does not date the current eruption but is a bit of solid lava left over from a previous eruption and expelled long after it solidified.
COMMENT: So techtites all over SE Asia, reportedly formed fwhen a huge asteroid impact occurred only 6000-7000 years ago NOT 800,000 years. Darwinism and Lyellian geology can lead to huge misunderstandings of our planet’s history and a very dangerous to understanding
This paper reviews the evidence and concludes that the microtektites are indeed part of the Australasian strewn field and that the occurrence of australites in what are apparently late Pleistocene to post-Pleistocene deposits indicates that they were probably eroded and redeposited at this time.
  • Source: Glass, (1978) Australasian microtektites and the stratigraphic age of the australites.
    Since you are the one who is often saying “date the fossils” it is surprising that you are using the low dates for the tektites, which are due to dating the sediments the tektites are found in, not the tektites themselves. You are not being consistent here. These are old tektites (as shown by the K/Ar dates you quote) eroded and redeposited in later sediments, as shown by the C-14 dates you quote.
It is worth noting that all your quoted references (for which thank you) are earlier than Glass. This has the look of an interesting scientific problem noticed in the 60’s and early 70’s which was resolved by looking at the data and the geology more closely. The problem has been resolved, which is why you can show no scientific research on the issue after 1980. It is a puzzle to me that young earth creationists continue to use such obviously weak support for their position. Is this really the best that they can find?
So you see believing in long age dating methods is very dangerous to the health and welfare of our planet and its inhabitants.
So, you see trusting in creationist websites will lead you into error.

rossum
 
Demonstrate how Adam and Eve can pass on a genome to their progeny that appears to carry the genetic diversity of 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs of humans. I suppose God might be a trickster who installed that range of genetic diversity, just like he created glaciers that appear to be 100,000 years old, and galaxies that appear to be billions of light years away.

StAnastasia
I am sure you are aware of the Human Genome Project. I have researched GenBank in general due to a research paper I was reading. This project is fascinating.

The folloing is from Wikipedia: "The Human Genome Project was an international project with a primary goal to determine the sequence of chemical base pairs which make up DNA and to identify and map the approximately 20,000–25,000 genes of the human genome from both a physical and functional standpoint.

"All humans have unique gene sequences. Therefore the data published by the Human Genome Project does not represent the exact sequence of each and every individual’s genome. It is the combined genome of a small number of anonymous donors. The HGP genome is a scaffold for future work in identifying differences among individuals. Most of the current effort in identifying differences among individuals involves single-nucleotide polymorphisms and the HapMap.

The Human Genome project did not study the entire DNA found in human cells. At the time of the Wikipedia entry, about 8% of the total genome remained un-sequenced.

I truly doubt that Adam contributed to
 
No, all the sciences you mention have merely strengthened the evolutionary perspective on the world. Evolution is more coherent and global in its explanatory power than it was in 1859 – that’s why working biologists and geologists use it!
Quite the contrary if you don’t ignore the laws of nature and modern scientific discoveries.

Let’s review briefly whata these sciences say along with a few of the many references:

Sedimentolgy
 
Demonstrate how Adam and Eve can pass on a genome to their progeny that appears to carry the genetic diversity of 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs of humans. I suppose God might be a trickster who installed that range of genetic diversity, just like he created glaciers that appear to be 100,000 years old, and galaxies that appear to be billions of light years away.

StAnastasia
Adam and Eve as well as all living organisms have the genetic ability to produce variable offspring. It is inherent in the core.
 
Quite the contrary if you don’t ignore the laws of nature and modern scientific discoveries.
Yes, modern scientific discoveries continue to support the theory that the universe is ancient, dynamic, and evolving.
 
Yes, modern scientific discoveries continue to support the theory that the universe is ancient, dynamic, and evolving.
No, all the sciences you mention have merely strengthened the evolutionary perspective on the world. Evolution is more coherent and global in its explanatory power than it was in 1859 – that’s why working biologists and geologists use it!
Quite the contrary but since you ignore the laws of nature and modern scientific discoveries I’ll do my best to educate. Sooooooooo

Let’s review briefly what these sciences say along with a few of the many references:

Sedimentology:

The theory of evolution formulated by Darwin claims the fossil record shows that organisms have transformed into different species over the long periods of time expressed in the geological time-scale. This scale, however, is based upon the interpretations of stratified sedimentary rock formations by naturalist Nicolas Stenon published in his book in 1667. He wrote “superposed strata are ancient sedimentary layers” which statement defines of the principle of superposition. It was only relatively recently that the sedimentation process could be observed and Stenon’s interpretations tested. As they had not been tested before, I decided to do so.

Science being founded upon facts, I first examined the reports of deep-sea drilling projects and Hjulström’s research on fluviatile sediments. This was followed by my fundamental experiments laboratory experiments in stratification. The latter showed that laminae or thin strata result from segregation of particles in dry conditions, a vacuum or still water. Two reports were published in 1986 and 1988 by the French Academy of Sciences.

In 1991, I supervised experiments to obtain larger strata under the direction of Pierre Julien, Professor of hydrology and sedimentology at the University of Colorado (USA). These demonstrated that a turbulent current creates strata prograding together laterally and vertically as a result of variations in current velocity. A report was published in 1993 by the Geological Society of France. The experiments showed that neither the lamination nor the stratification produced could be explained by the principle of superposition. The experimental data revealed by this research has yet to be incorporated into present-day geology and sedimentology. A similar situation arose in sequence stratigraphy developed by Golovkinsky in 1868 and Walther in 1894 providing data that was not taken into account in geology until eventually adopted by the Exxon Group in 1977. It showed that systems tracts consisting of superposed strata are isochronous, i.e. the strata formed simultaneously as is demonstrated by our experiments in Colorado.

Nicolas Stenon and his successors having overlooked the current as an agent of sedimentation, it was necessary to conduct experiments in the laboratory and paleohydraulic analyses on the terrain of existing stratified sedimentary rocks to demonstrate the omission. The latter analyses were performed to relate sedimentary particles according to their size with current velocity at the successive stages of erosion, transport and deposition. The relationship applies to the lithology of sequences from conglomerates to small particles. Their application was developed in my 2002 publication Analysis of the Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data in the journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

A team of Russian sedimentologists directed by Alexander Lalomov (Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Ore Deposits) applied paleohydraulic analyses to geological formations in Russia (examples are the Crimean Peninsular and the North-West Russian Platform). In the case of the Platform it is shown that the time taken for the sediments to deposit would have been no more that 0.01% of that ascribed to them by the geological time-scale. This demonstrated the lesson taught by geology historian Gabriel Gohau that “time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis of biological revolutions.” Evolution cannot, therefore, occur in such a short time.

Mr. Guy Berthault is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, France, a member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists. His experiments have been published by the French Academy of Sciences, the Journal of the Geological Society of France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences journal “Lithology and Mineral Resources.”

From the above I repeat the important section that applies my contention that the strata is NOT a measure of time. This requires a restudy of the geologic column by C-14 dating of the fossils where possible which is slwly getting started by direct dating of dinosaur bones, and many other fossils. And I proposed: A comparative study of direct dating of the fossils the C-14 vs. old earth dating methods.

***In the case of the Platform it is shown that the time taken for the sediments to deposit would have been no more that 0.01% of that ascribed to them by the geological time-scale. This demonstrated the lesson taught by geology historian Gabriel Gohau that “time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis of biological revolutions.” Evolution cannot, therefore, occur in such a short time. ***🙂
 
Mr. Guy Berthault is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, France, a member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists. His experiments have been published by the French Academy of Sciences, the Journal of the Geological Society of France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences journal “Lithology and Mineral Resources.”
Guy Berthault and his ilk are (mostly) harmless cranks:

“Guy Berthault (1) is an outspoken critic of the conclusions that practically every professional geologist accepts about the chronology for the laying down of the sediments in the geological record. Monsieur Berthault claims to have demonstrated that all the strata in the geological record could have been laid down rapidly, that his findings revolutionise geology, and that a young earth can be supported by the science. Berthault is a Young Earth Creationist who is an adviser to the Kolbe Center (2), an ultra-conservative traditional Roman Catholic creationist propaganda group (Kolbe Center’s “advisers” also include Bob Sungenis (3) whose absurd geocentrist ideas I address here). Unusually for Young Earth Creationist apologetics, Berthault bases his claims on work that he has published in peer reviewed scientific journals (4), (5), (6) and this fact has been gleefully trumpeted by other religiously motivated Young Earth Creationists. So, does he represent a real challenge to the entire professional geological community? In this article, I show that he does not.”

evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
 
Yes, modern scientific discoveries continue to support the theory that the universe is ancient, dynamic, and evolving.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics Excludes Evolution
Dr. Thomas Seiler, Ph.D., University of Munich
Abstract
Physicists recognize that the whole natural world operates according to the “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” which states that for isolated systems entropy, which is a measure of probability, will always increase. Entropy determines the direction in which all processes in nature proceed: from less probable distributions to more probable distributions, from ordered structures to disordered ones and never vice versa.

An example of the operation of entropy is genetic degeneration of a biological species due to negative mutations: for instance, on some windy islands, certain flies have entirely lost their wings. This is explained by the advantage of staying on the ground in an environment where strong winds can carry flying insects far out to sea. A succession of micro-variations that leads to the destruction of complex organs is a natural process of increasing entropy. The opposite—a succession of small genetic variations leading by natural selection to the construction of a completely new organ—is an excluded process of decreasing entropy.

An objection to the above premise is that the constraints of thermodynamics are not valid for biological structures because they exist in open systems. “Open” means that matter and especially energy can be exchanged with the surroundings. In order to test the validity of this objection, we must examine in detail what is possible in open systems.

The limits of an open system can be illustrated by the example of machines that reduce entropy such as refrigerators. They transfer heat from a cold volume (the inside space) to a warm volume (the surrounding room). This highly improbable phenomenon, however, can only be achieved because a complex mechanism that can automatically perform the cooling cycles exists already. Such entropy reducing machines are also found in the chloroplasts of plants. A further example of order increasing in open systems is observable in the formation of crystals, e.g. snow-flakes. When heat is removed, a phase-transition leads to the appearance of macroscopic regularity. Molecules which have slowed down during cooling can condense. It becomes energetically more favourable to arrange them in a crystal configuration than in a random orientation—a typical energy downhill process.

The reason why the proposed evolution of biological organs does not belong to such kinds of processes is that these processes are the physical ways in which a pre-existing order is transferred from one level to another. No really new order or information is generated in any of these open-systems. Either the information content was already present in a complex machine like a refrigerator or the chloroplasts, or it already existed in the symmetry of the underlying molecules, i.e. the directed inter-atomic electromagnetic forces. A further such category would be the feedback mechanism of a so-called “dissipative structure.” Nothing improbable happens in all these cases. It is always an energetic necessity that the pre-programmed ordered structures appear. Therefore, open systems do not create order. They only make hidden order visible.

On the other hand, the bodies of living creatures represent new information. It is not pre-contained in the molecular structure of constituent chemical elements nor is there a machine which is programmed to produce it. There is no physical arrangement which contains the information which is necessary to built up life from non-life or complex creatures from simpler creatures. It is excluded by the second law of thermodynamics because it does not belong to those pre-programmed structures which open systems can create! It follows that the evolution of man from molecules is precluded by the fundamental laws of nature.

Dr. Thomas Seiler has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich.

Dr. Sanford of Cornell University also has written a book entitled Genetic Entropy which appears to confirm what a Germany researcher has pointed out above.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top