Re: Science Disproves Evolution

So you're just going to repost a debunked argument? And regurgitate
scientifically invalid dribble (and intentionally deceptive
propaganda) like "Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot
maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000
years old."?

There are three processes working against this proposed dating method:

* For smaller particles - the ones Slusher expected to decay
fastest - radiation pressure effects balance and overcome the Poynting-
Robertson Effect.
* As dust spirals past a planetary orbit, it can have its orbit
radically altered or be temporarily captured. There is no "uniform"
decay of orbit.
* Matter given off by comets and collisions of "minor planets" or
asteriods will replenish dust at an unknown (but probably significant)
rate. [Stassen, Talk Origins 1992]

The majority of the Pahu post relies on Slusher.. In his book Age of
the Cosmos, published in 1980, Harold Slusher devoted a chapter to the
amount of space dust raining down. He dwells on Pettersson's 1960
figure of 39,000 tons/day and even produces a 1967 figure which gives
a whopping 700,000 tons/day! Alan Hayward, a respected physicist and
Bible- believing Christian, felt it necessary to make the following
observation:

"To write like that in 1980 was inexcusable. The two sources he
quotes were dated 1960 and 1967--hopelessly out of date in a fast-
changing area of science. They merely provide estimates of what the
influx of meteoritic dust might possibly be.

But we no longer have to rely on estimates. A paper, published
four years before Slusher's book, described how the amount of
meteoritic dust in space has now been measured, with detectors mounted
on satellites."

And here Pahu continually uses sources from 1950, 1978, etc and relies
on Slusher who was by his own colleagues rebutted and rebuked for bad
science. Incidentally, Hayward was referring to an article by D. W.
Hughes, and further went on to destroy Slusher's other arguments on
cosmic dust.

To reiterate, it is hardly surprising that the inner solar system is
still a dusty place after all these billions of years--despite the
Poynting-Robertson effect. 1998 Science News attributed 25% to comets
and 75% to asteroid and interstellar collisions... either way, the
Pahu post is just one seeking to mislead in the effort to proselytize.
All the while professing a religion based on truth and honesty...

On Feb 27, 6:50 am, Pah...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Poynting-Robertson Effect

Dust particles larger than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in
diameter form a large disk-shaped cloud that orbits the Sun between
the orbits of Venus and the asteroid belt. This cloud produces
zodiacal light. Forces acting on these particles should spiral most of
them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. (This is called the
Poynting-Robertson effect.) Known forces and sources of replenishment
cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than
10,000 years old.

This is how the Poynting-Robertson effect works: Rain falling on a
speeding car tends to strike the front of the car and slow it down
slightly. Similarly, the Sun's rays that strike particles orbiting the
Sun tend to slow them down, causing them to spiral into the Sun. Thus,
the Sun's radiation and gravity act as a giant vacuum cleaner that
pulls in about 100,000 tons of nearby micrometeoroids per day.
Disintegrating comets and asteroids add dust at less than half the
rate at which it is being destroyed (a).

A disintegrating comet becomes a cluster of particles called a meteor
stream. The Poynting-Robertson effect causes smaller particles in a
meteor stream to spiral into the Sun more rapidly than larger
particles. After about 10,000 years, these orbits should be visibly
segregated by particle size. Because this segregation is generally not
seen, meteor streams are probably a recent phenomenon (b).

Huge quantities of microscopic dust particles also have been
discovered around some stars (c). Yet, according to the theory of
stellar evolution, those stars are many millions of years old, so that
dust should have been removed by stellar wind and the Poynting-
Robertson effect. Until some process is discovered that continually
resupplies vast amounts of dust, one should consider whether the
"millions of years" are imaginary.

a. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 60-61.

Harold S. Slusher and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar
System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and Extinction of
Interplanetary Dust, ICR Technical Monograph No. 6, revised edition
(El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

b. Stanley P. Wyatt Jr. and Fred L. Whipple, "The Poynting-Robertson
Effect on Meteor Orbits," The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 3, January
1950, pp. 134-141.

Ron Cowen, "Meteorites: To Stream or Not to Stream," Science News,
Vol. 142, 1 August 1992, p. 71.

c. David A. Weintraub, "Comets in Collision," Nature, Vol. 351, 6 June
1991, pp. 440-441.

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!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old
universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without
billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the "origins
question" behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of
evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our
media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost
unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky
assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most
people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe
are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at
least initially, when they see the evidence.

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

http://www.creationscience.com/

.

Loading