I will give my best shot at debunking evolution and taking away the time factor because if there not enough time then evolution would look silly
1 evolution (abiogenesis) is very unlikely
Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible
2 there is not enough mud on the sea floor to support the idea that the world is billions of years old Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
3 the sun causes a problem for abiogenesis.
The brighter the sun the hotter it is the colder the sun the fainter it is 3.5 billion years ago when we were supposedly evolving in the primordial soup the sun was 25% fainter than it is today that means it was 17 degrees colder than today thats below freezing which means that most of the earth’s liquids would be frozen.
4. Uranium and thorium contained in rocks produce a lot of helium atoms these helium atoms in the rock readily leak they leak so fast that there should be no helium atoms in the rocks in the last 3 billion years my question is why is there still helium atoms in the rocks? Also they have measured how long this has been leaking and found it to be leaking for only 6000 years.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well, I didn't pay much attention to your arguments as soon as you lumped evolution and abiogenesis together as one.
Either a troll or a genuine young earther.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
Either way, it is what the informed and intelligent say that matters. The rest must follow - eventually.
Jam Jam - "evolution (abiogenesis) is very unlikely"
Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing, so you are beating a dead horse before you even started the race.
----------------------------
Jam Jam - "an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion"
Please show how you derived this result, in detail.
----------------------------
Jam Jam - "the sun 25% fainter than it is today that means it was 17 degrees colder"
News flash: the temperature of the Earth is a function of more than just solar output. You might have noticed this in your daily life since the solar output is essentially constant over your lifetime, but the temperature is not.
----------------------------
Jam Jam - "Uranium and thorium contained in rocks produce a lot of helium atoms these helium atoms in the rock readily leak they leak so fast that there should be no helium atoms in the rocks in the last 3 billion years my question is why is there still helium atoms in the rocks?"
In the same sentence you tell us uranium produces helium, then wonder why there is helium (hint: because there is still uranium).
There is no uranium or thorium left in the rocks uranium and thorium make helium but there is no trace of uranium or thorium in the rocks.
Also I got that number for the abiogenesis from here www.science20.com and www.icr.org
Next we can tell when the sun is dimmer there is less heat waves comming from the sun that proves that the dimmer it is the colder it is
Also you never mentioned the mud on the sea floor lots of people have trouble with that one
I got another question for you there is oil under the rocks this oil is under 20000 psi of pressure scientists say the rocks cant take this pressure for more than 10000 years so why is the rocks still under pressure?
Jam Jam - "There is no uranium or thorium left in the rocks"
Where do you think people get uranium from? Yeah; they get it from rocks. So your idea that there is no uranium in rocks is very troubling.
------------------------------
Jam Jam - "Also you never mentioned the mud on the sea floor lots of people have trouble with that one "
It is also non-sense. The rate of accumulation is not constant, and the depth is not constant, so you can not treat it as a constant to estimate time.
--------------------------------
Jam Jam - "Next we can tell when the sun is dimmer there is less heat waves comming from the sun that proves that the dimmer it is the colder it is"
The surface temperature of the Earth is not a function of a single variable. Therefore you can not use a single variable to estimate that temperature.
--------------------------------
Got anything peer reviewed for that calculation of abiogenesis?
The dirt on the sea floor is a problem for evolution there is only 12 million years worth of dirt on the sea floor even if it wasn't constant there should be more dirt if the world is billions of years old.
Also you didnt answer my question
With the oil
Ill throw another one at you the magnetic field is decaying. 10% in the last hundred years and 40% in the last thousand years that we can trace that back and its only 20000 thousand years that proves there is a problem with evolution
And also they food soft tissue in fossils how can you explain that?
Next if radio carbon lasts only 100000 years why do they find radio cabon in fossils and diamonds?
Jam Jam - "if radio carbon lasts only 100000 years"
Who told you that? Radio active elements don't have a set times they last; they have half lives. If you understood the difference, you would realize how ridiculous your question is.
---------------------------------
Jam Jam - "Ill throw another one at you "
This is indicative of the problem. You 'throw' shitty argument 1, when that does not stick you throw shitty argument 2. Eventually no one will address you shitty argument X, then you will inevitably claim 'victory'.
If you want me to continue addressing your future arguments, you need to properly dispose of your previous ones. Let's start with the uranium one. Please address the previously noted problems with your argument, or retract it.
Radio cabon can only last a hundred thousand years look it up
Why are you swearing at me what did I do to annoy you
You admit that there should more dirt on the sea floor which you know there should be then we will talk about the uranium and you wouldnt beable to explain that they trace how long its been leaking and its only 6000 years
You are having trouble with the oil question and the magnetic field question and the radio carbon question and the soft tissue question if they shitty why cant you aswer them
Let's see, so far you have either stated or at least implied:
1:The temperature of the Earth is a function of the single variable (sun luminosity).
2:Rocks don't contain uranium.
3:Ocean mud depth is a function of the single variable (time).
4:Evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing.
5:Radio carbon lasts 100,000 years.
6:Earth's magnetic field is in exponential decay, (it isn't, it is periodic).
7:Some claim about oil pressure which I can't make heads or tails out of it (but I'm confident there is crazy hidden in there too, should you ever actually explain your argument).
The only real question I can see is: how much scientifically illiterate material will you post before you disappear?
JamJam : "The dirt on the sea floor is a problem for evolution there is only 12 million years worth of dirt on the sea floor even if it wasn't constant there should be more dirt if the world is billions of years old."
Do you think the sea floor is a constant ? For your concerns about mud accumulation to be valid it would have to be. Imagine the disturbances to the sea floor when Nuna drifted apart to form Rodinia which drifted apart to form Pannotia and then Pangaea which later drifted apart to form our current land formations? Even if the current sea floor were a constant we would only need 175 million years after Pangaea to gather dust. But it is not a constant even to this day.
OK Jam Jam....
You present a series of unsubstantiated claims..... if you truly want them explained ...show us your references...... otherwise its just you ...whistling in the dark......(who says the sea floor sediments don't add up....where is the data ?)
lets cut to the chase.... we are not going to chase down all your re-hashed young earth creationist garbage.... so here ,just to speed things up a bit , are the standard rebuttals.....
you can go away and find someone who can read them to you....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof21
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
First you didnt answer my questions and the one you answered you answer it wrong there is 12 million years worth of mud on the sea floor there should be more if the world is billions of years old and you know that. Plus watch brother hovinds seminars they're really good.
None of our oceans is billions of years old. Oceans are relatively young compared to solid materials. Grab a clue, get a real education by real educators.
Hovind is a liar, a scam artist, a criminal, a tax evader...shall I go on?
Kent Hovind is an amusement park operator and a graduate of a diploma mill bible college. Not a scientist.
Jam Jam : If you are getting your data from "Brother" Hovind your argument reflects Hovinds scientific illiteracy. May I suggest a simple book by Bill Nye : "Undeniable" .
Jam Jam,
I'll shortly answer your first four riddles which pose no problem at all for an ancient Earth.
As for Kent Hovind, I've actually attended some of his debates and looked at some of his material. He's a skilled debater but a scientific zero.
For anyone who is interested:
Af = Ai * (1/2)^(t/h)
Af = Amount final, we will use 1 atom
Ai = Amount initial, unknown # atoms
t = time (years), per claim above: 100,000 years
h = half-life (years), for carbon 14 it is about 5730 years.
1 ≈ Ai * (1/2)^(100000/5730)
Ai ≈ 1/[(1/2)^(17.452)]
Ai ≈ 1/0.000005577
Ai ≈ 179298 atoms
So if you start with about 180,000 atoms of carbon 14, it will last about 100,000 years. Otherwise it will last a very different length of time. This is why the claim that is lasts ANY fixed amount of time is ludicrous, since it is sensitive to how much you started with.
Nyarlathotep,
Technically you are right as the mathematics clearly show. However, the point at which one might consider it "gone" would be the level at which detection can no longer be measured by reasonable means. That level would (probably) be a percentage of the block. That is, the C14 would be diluted to a point where it could no longer be measured in a practical sense. A bigger starting block would wind up with more C14, but the dilution would be the same.
The real problem with this young-earth argument is the claim that C14 was found inside diamonds and inside fossils (presumably older than 100,000 years). In the latter case there is always the possibility of contamination from ground solutions, and contamination when exposed to air. Without careful documentation, this young-earth argument doesn't mean diddly-squat! By the way, anthracite coal (because of its great age) has essentially zero carbon-14 in it as expected. In fact, it is used to help calibrate the instruments for the zero setting. Funny, that doesn't seem to square with Jam Jam's claims. Time for him to fess up about their sources.
I've wondered about your Egyptian name. Is there a story there?
More pseudo-science, this time it's an attack on geology and the science of geology. None of these young earthers really know what they are talking about. They are just repeating what they have been told by pseudo-scientist. It's bullshit and there is no need to even talk with these fools. What we can do is apply the same pseudo-science (voodoo) to cure them when they get sick or injured. Maybe then they will wake up....but I doubt it.
Right, I try not to get too personal in these things; I try to remember they are just repeating what they are being told. I'm not always successful though. I'm sorry I used the term "shitty argument", perhaps "the ridiculous argument you repeated" would have been better?
An additional digression for anyone who is interested. This is a common young Earth tactic:
1: Pick a data point in the present
2: Pick another data point in the recent past
3: Calculate the slope between those points (the rate of change)
4: Apply this to a distant time (typically the past) to try to find an absurdity
There are many problems with this idea. It assume the rate of change in the past/future will remain the current rate. It also assumes that the data points themselves is simply a function of time (meaning that you only need to know the time to make predictions). Let me give a funny (hopefully) example with real data:
On Saturday at 6pm there were 3 people in my house. On Sunday at 6pm there were 12 people in my house. So the rate of change is 9 people per day. Therefore (at 6 pm) there must of been 3 - 9 = -6 people in my house on Friday and 12 + 9 = 21 people in my house on Monday! Of course both predictions are wrong, simply because the rate of change of people in my house is not constant, and the number of people in my house is not a function of just time.
This is also why radiometric dating is so powerful, because as I showed in an earlier post: radioactive decay is just a function of time, half-life, amount of initial material, and the amount of starting material. Since we know the function exactly, if you know 3 of those 4, you can calculate the remaining one with confidence. Restated: the reason it is so successful is because the function is extremely simple and exactly known. Most things in nature are significantly more complicated.
Hey im a Christian and my goal was to show you the holes in evolution not fight like animals in the comment section I think we should be friends and have a nice debate.
Heres a few arguments against evolution.
1 too few supernova remnants
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas. Which proves the worlds not billions of years old which debunks evolution.
Jam Jam - "about one supernova ... every 25 years"
Jam Jam - "Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova"
Jam Jam - "That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas"
Let's assume all of your numbers are true. Do you not see the problem contained within:
200*25 = 5000
5000/7000 ≈ 0.71
So by your numbers, 71% of the galaxy is "nearby parts of our galaxy".
Why isn't there more dead stars hmm? You didnt answer my question my friend
You also didnt answer my question to the soft tissue in fossils there shouldnt be soft tissue in fossils after a certain amount of time.
Anyway
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape its present spiral shape. Proves its not billions of years old
Jam Jam - "You also didnt answer my question to the soft tissue in fossils"
It is rare but not unheard of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerst%C3%A4tte
Jam Jam,
You are assuming that the stars actually define the arms of a galaxy and rotate as a kind of unit except that different parts go at different rates. Not true! Galaxy mechanics is far more subtle that you realize. Please consult a modern, astronomy textbook. And, consign that argument to the junk heap.
One's intuitive feeling might be that soft tissues can't survive as fossils for long, and under normal conditions that would certainly be the case. But where is the hard argument? If preservation is near perfect why shouldn't that be possible? You're running on speculation and that's not science.
Nyarlathotep,
Nice catch! Young-earth creationist mathematics are often a source of amusement!
Jam Jam,
Are you going to give us a source on that or are we supposed to assume that your interpretation and presentation of it is accurate and complete? I've seen enough creationist arguments to know better than to make that assumption. By the way, how do you account for the collision of galaxies? A collision takes about 200 million years minimum. And, some of those old supernova clouds are way older than 6000 years!
I'm sure Jam Jam is long gone, but apologists often argue that god created the universe with false age. Forgetting what this would imply about god's personality (making him the biggest liar/con artist of all time); it bring up the notion that maybe the universe was created 5 minutes ago with false age? I mean why not, I see no reason that is any less likely than ~6000 years ago with false age; since there is absolutely no way to tell them apart (once you embrace creation with false age).
I'm sure Jam Jam is long gone, but apologists often argue that god created the universe with false age. Forgetting what this would imply about god's personality (making him the biggest liar/con artist of all time); it bring up the notion that maybe the universe was created 5 minutes ago with false age? I mean why not, I see no reason that is any less likely than ~6000 years ago with false age; since there is absolutely no way to tell them apart (once you embrace creation with false age). -- Nyarlathotep
Exactly! And, we can go the other way too! Maybe the universe is really 100 billion years old but was created to look like it's 13 billion years old. We thus have an "argument" that supports every possible age from near 0 to whatever age you care to choose. It supports every age and, therefore, cannot be used to single out a particular age! Isn't that just the same as taking a wild guess? Apologists who use that "argument" have never properly exercised their brains. It's not a young-earth argument at all!
Also with the radio carbon if lots of time has pasted eventually there will be no carbon 14 left in the fossil or diamond if you believe carbon 14 can last a billion years in diamond or fossils then your making stuff up to fit your theory.
Thats very troubling to me. God bless.
Pages