Re: A new anti-evolution argument from True Origins?
- From: "Stuart" <bigdakine@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Jan 2006 12:52:55 -0800
Daniel Harper wrote:
> I'm now a member of the True Origins Yahoo group, so I get a lot of email
> from individuals about the site. One of the posters there put up a link to
> a new article from the True Origins website, and lo and behold, I think I
> have found an actually new claim that should be addressed in the Index.
> (At least, I can't find an easy rebuttal there, but I did a couple of
> keyword searches and that's it.)
>
> Here's the article:
>
> <http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp>
>
> I'm not going to quote from the article (for it is exceedingly
> poorly-written and difficult to quote from without including large swaths
> of needless text) but there are three claims that I feel are new, here,
> and wanted to point them out.
>
> 1. The age of the moon, planets, and other "hard bodies" in the solar
> system are based on estimates for the age of the Earth.
>
> My (relatively uninformed) response: We have taken samples from several
> solar bodies -- i.e. the Moon, Mars, meteorites -- and dated them with
> traditional radiometric means, and have found the data matches up quite
> nicely with a solar system that is approximately 4.5 billion years old. I
> believe some moon rocks have also been found to be somewhat geologically
> (selelogically? lunalogically) similar to rocks found on Earth, indicating
> a common origin.
Actually lunar rocks have significant differences. The dynamics and
chemistry of the Earth - Moon system is best explained by a a large
impact in the final stages of accretion.
>
> (If the Flood caused an increase in radioactivity, the flood must have
> also happened on the moon, then, right?)
>
> 2. The age of the sun is based on inferences from the age of the Earth.
>
> My (again, uninformed) response: The age of the sun can be independently
> determined by inference with the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, and by
> examination of astrophysical models which indicate where in its life-cycle
> the sun is.
That's true. But as stars with masses similar to our sun spend the bulk
of their lifetime on the main sequence, the estimate of age is not all
that precise.
It stands to reason (something creatobabblers abhor), that the sun
can't be younger than the Earth. So in the case (2) may well be true,
but so what?
Also, I'd imagine that spectral analysis of the composition of
> the sun (in comparison with spectral analysis of common solar cloud data)
> would give us an idea as to how long nuclear fusion has been going on in
> our neighborhood.
>
> (Note that these two arguments work by inference -- if scientists are
> mistaken about the age of the Earth because radiometric dating methods
> don't work, then they're equally wrong about the age of the solar system
> as a whole. But last I heard, geologists don't tell astrophysicists what
> to do, and any astronomer that discovered evidence that the sun is six
> thousand years old would win a Nobel Prize.)
>
> 3. The size of the universe is inferred from the age of the universe,
> which is inferred from the age of the Earth.
>
> My (once again, uninformed) response: The article goes to some length
> whining about "Hubble expansion" and the inferences and assumptions that
> are made to "make" the universe line up with "evolutionary timescales",
> but it seems to me that the size of the universe can be independently
> determined precisely by watching Hubble expansion.
Age of the universe estimates rely not all on estimates of the age of
the earth. This is known as "The Big Lie".
I was under the
> impression that Cepheid variable stars can also be used as indicators of
> distance, but I cannot remember the details presently.
Cepheid variable stars are used to calibrate the "standard candles"
used by cosmologists. However, they can't be used to meausre billion lt
yr distances. For that you need supernovas.
>
> (I'd also like to see how an anti-evolutionist is possibly going to fit
> all the observed universe into a sphere no more than six thousand light
> years across, but that's another matter.)
Well, these dupes never question themselves, Thats sacrelige
>
> Happy New Year, all. I'm not even (that) hungover.
Pity.
Stuart
.
- References:
- A new anti-evolution argument from True Origins?
- From: Daniel Harper
- A new anti-evolution argument from True Origins?
- Prev by Date: Re: Ed Conrad Puts Giant Petrified Tooth Up For Sale On Ebay
- Next by Date: Re: NYTimes: "In Evolution Debate, A Counterattack"
- Previous by thread: Re: A new anti-evolution argument from True Origins?
- Next by thread: Re: A new anti-evolution argument from True Origins?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
