Universe is old, Earth is old and we Evolved.

[BigFatAl]

Since it seems like none of the religious people want to read things I post or go to the links I post and actually read those, I decided the information must need its own new thread. Please read these links and do a lilttle exploring on the sites. These are all links that do not do any religion bashing.

From the USGS on how they determine the age of the earth.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

This explains how radiometric dating is used and how accurate it is.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html#table

This is from a fairly recent NASA mission that was able to date the universe very accurately.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html

This is actually a site for teachers to help them teach evolution. The information is simplified and uses short paragraphs to convey the information. There are a lot of links and a lot of answers to typical questions/misconceptions.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Hopefully you will notice I am not trying to bash religion. I am trying to give some information that most religious people will not look for on their own. If you have questions, let me know and I will try to answer them.

[.Kiw.Da.Wabbit.]

I am not religious at all, but the fact is that science changes. This will be the main argument.

1,000 years ago, we "knew" the Earth was flat, the center of the universe, and that humans came from Adam and Eve.

Today, we "know" the approximate age of the universe, the approximate age of Earth, and that humans came from monkeys.

What will we "know" 1,000 years from now?

[Carmack]

With better technology, we discover more things. Evolution is fact. Genes in populations change and vary, we've observed this. The evidence for evolution gets stronger everyday. The research methods we currently have are very effective in addressing dating and evolutionary processes.

Science and religion both change. Now most people don't believe in a literal Bible. With evidence we know that there wasn't a global flood, the Earth isn't flat and we're not the center of the universe.

[wade1226]

Hate to break this to you, Al, but the people who don't want to believe what you've posted will continue to believe what they want. And they'll point to the answers in Genesis site, or wherever, because as long as someone is publicizing bad science that corresponds with what some want to believe, some people won't bother to check and see if it's real science.

[javierruizleon]

MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

FOSSIL RECORD
Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found.

SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

[pusherman]

MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

FOSSIL RECORD
Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found.

SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

Why do you choose to believe false science over real science?

[Carmack]

MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

FOSSIL RECORD
Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

There are two different lines of argument concerning a shrinking sun. The first one refers directly to the classical Kelvin-Helmholtz theory of the sun shining through gravitational contraction. The second line is based on a supposed change in the measured diameter of the sun.

The gravitational-contraction theory was perfectly respectable mainstream science, in the 19th century. As described in the historical section above, it was abandoned in the early part of the 20th century, for good scientific reasons that had nothing to do with creationism. Some creationists, notably Barnes (1974), appear to be unaware of developments in science beyond 1895 or so, and continue to invoke Kelvin's arguments as if they were still valid. But even if we didn't know anything about nuclear fusion (or if fusion for some reason didn't work in the sun), Eddington's (1920; 1924) refutation of the gravitational-contraction theory would still remain solid. This directly contradicts the claims of Akridge (1980), that the theory was abandoned solely because evolution required more time: "Scientists have not always attributed the energy source of the sun to thermonuclear fusion. Prior to the discovery of thermonuclear fusion, Helmholtz predicted that the energy of the sun was supplied by the gravitational collapse of the sun. This model was accepted until the theory of evolution began to dominate the scientific scene. Then Helmholtz's explanation was discarded because it did not provide the vast time span demanded by the theory of organic evolution on the earth. The substitute theory was introduced by Bethe in the 1930's precisely because thermonuclear fusion was the only known energy source that would last over the vast times required by evolution. Science may now be on the verge of disproving the substitute evolutionary model of the sun." (ibid, p 3). Akridge's last sentence is also misleading, in that the standard model of the sun isn't "evolutionary" in any sense connected with the Darwinian evolution that he's referring to elsewhere in the quote (and of course also misleading in that science is nowhere near disproving it).
Other Links:

The Legend of the Shrinking Sun
A detailed history of the creationists claiming the sun is shrinking.

Akridge (1980) is also the primary source for the other line of argument, claiming that the shrinking of the sun has been measured. He bases this claim entirely on the results of Eddy & Boornazian (1979). Remarkably enough, it nevertheless appears as if he hasn't even read their paper – he does not refer directly to it, but only to a popularization (Lubkin 1980, see ref in Akridge 1980). It is also interesting to note that Akridge implies that E&B observed 400 years of shrinking, whereas the title of the E&B paper is 'Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953', with only a 90-year period. Despite these (and other) obvious flaws, Akridge's claim has nevertheless become standard creationist fare, repeated in numerous creationist publications, from Brown (1995) to Molén (1991).

Strahler (1987) reviews the data available at the time of Akridge's writing, and contrasts it with Akridge's (1980) presentation. He notes that

1. Eddy & Boornazian (1979) themselves do not interpret their result as evidence of an ongoing change. Their interpretation of their own data is dismissed out of hand by Akridge (1980).
2. Other measurements, not showing any significant shrinking, were available in 1980, but were completely ignored by Akridge (1980).
3. Subsequent measurements, published between 1980 and 1987, do not support Akridge's claim.

The issue of the solar diameter has become of some interest recently, with the arrival of precise helioseismological data. Eddington's (1920) argument against gravitational contraction, from the frequency stability of variable stars, applies with a vengeance to helioseismology, which is much more precise. Helioseismology is so precise today, that comparison between theoretical calculations and measurements require a better knowledge of the solar radius than is currently available. Furthermore, as the sun is not a solid body, it does not have a well-defined surface at which to measure the radius (Castellani & Degl'Innocenti & Fiorentini 1998). The difference between different definitions amounts to a century's worth of Akridge-shrinking, making it plausible that the apparent shrinking reported by Eddy & Boornazian (1979) might well be due to systematic errors when comparing data taken over long periods of time by different observers using different instruments and, quite possibly, different definitions.

A recent measurement of the solar diameter is that of Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998). From data taken over the period 1981-1988, they report a radius of 695,508 ± 26 km, with no evidence of change over time. The issue of surface definition is discussed at some length, leading to the conclusion that their definition is about 500 km smaller than that used in most previous estimates. Even over such a short period of time, their time series is sufficient to exclude an ongoing shrinking at the Akridge rate of five feet per hour, albeit at a modest statistical confidence level. I extracted the data from figure 2 in Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) and did some line fitting, finding that the best fit to the data is a slight, statistically insignificant, growth of the diameter of the sun. No support whatsoever for shrinkage.

For a slightly longer time base, I'll use the value from Allen (1973), cited by both Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) and Castellani & Degl'Innocenti & Fiorentini (1998) as the standard reference value before the 1990s. Working from Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998), I have re-calculated both their measurement, and that of Allen (1973) to what I believe is the same surface definition, obtaining a value for the angular diameter of the sun of 1919.31 ± 0.19 arcseconds in 1973, and 1919.359 ± 0.018 arcseconds on average 1981-1988. Akridge's alleged shrinkage corresponds to about 0.25 arcseconds over the same length of time, no trace of which is visible. It appears that the sun has stopped shrinking.

[Carmack]

EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

20. Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year (Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982, p.19). At least Dr. Hovind doesn't use the horrendous rate of 1 second per year which Dr. Walter Brown employed as a result of a total misunderstanding of time keeping. I believe that Dr. Brown discarded that argument upon realizing his error, but don't expect it to disappear from the creationist literature. Only a towering optimist could expect that!

The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.

Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:

((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year
= (21.4 days)/Year

Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.

The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.

(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day

If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science. Indeed, the present rate may be too high:

...the correct present rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is excessively high, because the present rate of spin is in a resonance mode with the back-and-forth

motion of the oceans' waters in the ocean basins. In past ages when the rotation rate was faster, the resonance was much less or nonexistent, resulting in a much more gradual slowing of the rotation rate. The most recent calculations indicate that the earth could be 4 to 5 billion years old and not have been spinning excessively fast or requiring the moon to be any closer to the earth than 225,000 kilometers (140,000 miles).

(Sonleitner, 1991, file=MOVIE2.WP)

A study of rugose corals from the Devonian (370 million years ago), initiated by John W. Wells of Cornell University in 1963, indicated that the year then had 400 days of about 22 hours each. For a discussion of coral clocks see Dott & Batten (1976, pp.248-249). Subsequent work with corals of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and modern origin have produced highly revealing, if approximate, results.

Determinations of the same kind were made for algal deposits (stromatolites) of the Upper Cambrian (-510 m.y.) (Pannella et al., 1968). Plots of the collected data for the entire time span from Recent back through the Paleozoic Era showed a nonuniform increase in days per month going back in time, and from this it is inferred that tidal friction has not been uniform in that period.

(Strahler, 1987, p.147)

Studies of the chambered nautilus, for a time, was also proposed as a geologic clock by Kahn and Pompea. However, that effort ran into problems. Creationists still cite it in their efforts to discredit the coral clocks. Each case, of course, has to be judged on its own merits. The nautilus is not a coral, and the coral clocks are good enough to destroy the young-earth claims.

From the present slowing down of the earth's spin we get a day of 22.7 hours 370 million years ago; 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of those rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. In this example we have a remarkable, if rough, agreement between two, diverse dating methods.

These facts spell "Old Earth."

[javierruizleon]

Evolution is fact.

When was it proven?

[.Kiw.Da.Wabbit.]

When was it proven?

Right here, today, in this thread. We made history.

[BigFatAl]

When was it proven?

It seems obvious that you haven't read the website on Evolution that I posted.

I will take it that you mean "evidence" not "proof/proven" since about the only field with "proof" is math (and even that's debatable).

"At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story."

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml

Go read!

[javierruizleon]

It must be upsetting to scientists that after all these years after Darwins theory, its still just a theory. No missing link yet.

[wade1226]

It must be upsetting to scientists that after all these years after Darwins theory, its still just a theory. No missing link yet.

Actually, I think what is most upsetting to scientists is the fact that people still confuse the layperson's term of 'theory' with a scientific theory.

[pusherman]

It must be upsetting to scientists that after all these years after Darwins theory, its still just a theory. No missing link yet.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Read, Learn.

[BigFatAl]

It must be upsetting to scientists that after all these years after Darwins theory, its still just a theory. No missing link yet.

Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.”

Response: Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory—a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution.

From: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...sttheory.shtml

Yes, it is a theory. What is upsetting is that pseudoscience and ignorance abound in our world.

[.Kiw.Da.Wabbit.]

Once again (seems like we cover this every other day here), "theory" is one of the most misused words in the English language.

In scientific terms, a theory is a model devised to explain or describe a set of facts.

Look it up in any dictionary.

[.Kiw.Da.Wabbit.]

Haha...woah.

[javierruizleon]

In scientific terms, has evolution been proven as fact?

[javierruizleon]

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Read, Learn.

From that website "Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced." How convenient.

[wade1226]

From that website "Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced." How convenient.

Yes, how dare we update our theories to reflect new data. Truly prepostorous indeed.

[honeybbqgrundle]

I am not religious at all, but the fact is that science changes. This will be the main argument.

1,000 years ago, we "knew" the Earth was flat, the center of the universe, and that humans came from Adam and Eve.

Theories and ideas may change with the times, but the scientific method is fixed and can be applied to evolution with excellent results.

Btw, the Greeks (and maybe others) knew the earth wasn't flat. Educated people in the Middle Ages also knew, which is why it's ridiculous for our retarded school system to tell kids that Columbus thought the Earth was flat. Only uneducated people thought it was flat; the same kinds of people who say evolution is "just a theory".

[pusherman]

From that website "Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced." How convenient.

Yes, that's right. Is there a problem?

[javierruizleon]

Enought talk. Show us the pictures of the fossils of evolving creatures. No more talking or article or links, if this is a proven fact, show us the pictures.

[pusherman]

Enought talk. Show us the pictures of the fossils of evolving creatures. No more talking or article or links, if this is a proven fact, show us the pictures.

LOL

Who's this 'us' you speak of? You seem to be the only one lost in a fog of lies and misconceptions. Without an article explaining the picture, then the picture is pointless. And without a link I can't show you either! Sorry, can't help you.

edit: JAV your post reminded me of myself when I was kid.

Mommy I don't understand all those big words, go get my picture book!

[honeybbqgrundle]

I'm sure there are many books at your local library with all the pictures you could want. Why do you want people on a message board to convince you?

[bluesky3]

Enought talk. Show us the pictures of the fossils of evolving creatures. No more talking or article or links, if this is a proven fact, show us the pictures.

Umm... you didnt read BigFatAls link.
hehe But sorry javierruizleon, evolutionary biology isnt as easy as looking at pictures. You can get a great understanding of the topic, however, by reading this:

This is actually a site for teachers to help them teach evolution. The information is simplified and uses short paragraphs to convey the information. There are a lot of links and a lot of answers to typical questions/misconceptions.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[javierruizleon]

No pics huh? Some proof!

[Diesel66]

Theories and ideas may change with the times, but the scientific method is fixed and can be applied to evolution with excellent results.

Btw, the Greeks (and maybe others) knew the earth wasn't flat. Educated people in the Middle Ages also knew, which is why it's ridiculous for our retarded school system to tell kids that Columbus thought the Earth was flat. Only uneducated people thought it was flat; the same kinds of people who say evolution is "just a theory".

Yet the science of the day said the world was the center of the universe.

In scientific terms, has evolution been proven as fact?

Evolution, creation or any other theory on how everything came to be can never be a fact.

[KhanPaulsen]

Where's a convincing abiogenesis proof, or a convincing proof on whether or not the foundation of science...matter actually exists?

It's amazing we can formulate all kinds of proof, but we'll be darned if we can even prove the most basic of things, the very things the fate of these theories rest on.

[HalleluYAH]

Since it seems like none of the religious people want to read things I post or go to the links I post and actually read those, I decided the information must need its own new thread. Please read these links and do a lilttle exploring on the sites. These are all links that do not do any religion bashing.

From the USGS on how they determine the age of the earth.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

This explains how radiometric dating is used and how accurate it is.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html#table

This is from a fairly recent NASA mission that was able to date the universe very accurately.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html

This is actually a site for teachers to help them teach evolution. The information is simplified and uses short paragraphs to convey the information. There are a lot of links and a lot of answers to typical questions/misconceptions.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Hopefully you will notice I am not trying to bash religion. I am trying to give some information that most religious people will not look for on their own. If you have questions, let me know and I will try to answer them.

It says nowhere in the bible that the earth is not made up of old elements etc. For all we know the asteroid belt currently revolving around our sun, is the remnant of the original orbit of planet earth prior to it's collision with another life givine planet in orbit aroudn our sun. Who knows for sure? And, what does it matter? YAHWEH created the earth, and how he did, or how long it took him etc etc, makes no matter to me. Why does everyone think they can 'idsprove' the bible with these vain attmpets to find loopholoes in it? Are you all trying to kill the faith of the believers???? The VERY ELECT can NOT be deceived, so why waste your time? Oh, what's that? You are trying to convince your own soul that HE does not exist by trying to disprove things that really don't matter in attempt to find excuse for your rebellion and denial of the Messiah's blood. Oh, okay, now I understand.

BTW, regardless of where the earth came from etc etc; I believe CHRIST rose from the dead and in HIM will I trust for my eternal existence.