Re: Just a few small questions I hope.
- From: "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Apr 2007 09:09:20 -0700
Dana Tweedy wrote:
<Zuca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:460f64b1$0$17049$bf4948fe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've been reading through what creationists call "the evolution cruncher"
which is found on here : http://tinyurl.com/2mnsdc
Now most things are so easily refuted that even I can do it.. But I have a
few I really dont know anything about and couldnt really find any answer
to either.. I'm going to post those here and I hope that someone here can
give me a good explenation as to why the assumptions made on that site are
false.
Thank you in advance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE-According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen
is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen
cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a
leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big
Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would
all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal
an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be
youthful.
The simplest explanation for this is (assuming that Hoyle is not being
misrepresented) is that Hoyle was wrong. Ironically, Hoyle IIRC, argued
for a "steady state" universe, which would have been much older than Big
Bang models. Stars fuse locally available hydrogen, they don't constantly
"suck in" more hydrogen from other sources.
I'm not clear that the claim makes sense at all. The Big Bang
universe starts out with a certain amount of hydrogen. Later, it has
less hydrogen. I don't see that today we should be in "no hydrogen at
all".
An individual star "burns" its hydrogen - or rather, fuses protons in
the plasma state - until there isn't enough hydrogen left to sustain
the reaction.
The composition of different generations of stars - loosely speaking -
is discussed at,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity
Incidentally, the "Evolution Cruncher" seems to be too widely
published to be a hoax. For instance, Amazon has the book on sale nd
also there is a free download PDF - according to Google. I suppose
Google isn't above hoaxing.
9 - COMET WATER-It has only been in recent years that scientists have
discovered that comets are primarily composed of water, and that many
small comets are continually striking the earth. Yet each strike adds more
water to our planet. Scientific evidence indicates that, if the earth was
billions of years old, our oceans would be filled several times over with
water.
Perhaps the writer of this didn't notice that our oceans are filled with
water..?
I dispute that our oceans are filled with water! The bible declares
that the waters retreated! Show me this so-called water!
(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere
surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in
radioactive minerals.
Why would it have done that? Atmospheric conditions don't change
radioactive decay rates.
Yeah... atoms are too small for air to get into them.
Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons
enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at
speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several
hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530 yards] into the ocean
depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet
[104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some
earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it
would produce a major change-from the present rate,-in the atomic clocks
within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a
much greater amount of water in the air.
this assumes conditions not in evidence. There is no evidence of a "flood",
and if the atmosphere contained greater amount of water, enough to
precipiate a "flood" of Biblilcal proportions, it would not have been able
to support life as we know it.
Thats it really for now.
I'm also discussing with a creationists who keeps repeating that there was
never enough time to evolve from single celled organism to a full human..
(I managed to convince here that apes are humans, and humans are apes, and
that there are positive mutations that add data, so she doesnt seem to be
a lost case)
On what does your correspondent base that claim?
How could I best explain that evolution can explain the whole path that
leads up to the human life, I want to be as clear as possible and at the
same time as simple as possible, she's not stupid and knows some
scientific words and the meaning of a lot of terms..
Any help would be humongously appreciated.
First of all, humans are not the "top" of the ladder. We are just another
twig on the bush of diversity. Humans aren't the end point in evolution.
The "tree of life project" would be good place to start.
http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html
Try slime moulds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mould
Put too simply, this life-form alternates single-cell behaviour with
multi-cellular behaviour. I don't think it's a missing link(?) but
perhaps it suggests what a transitional form looks like.
.
- References:
- Just a few small questions I hope.
- From: Zuca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Just a few small questions I hope.
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Just a few small questions I hope.
- Prev by Date: Re: Dolphins ;.o\
- Next by Date: Re: Materialist Evolutionists
- Previous by thread: Re: Just a few small questions I hope.
- Next by thread: Re: Just a few small questions I hope.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
