Evolution or Creation?

[JHermes]

Beliving in a created world forces you to believe in a Creator, and believing in a creator forces you to acknowledege his infinite superiority and power over his creation, including you. And many find evolution better than submission.

 

[Lost-Lamb]

Just like many find life after death better than oblivion

 

[Aratek]

Just like many find life after death better than oblivion

Sometimes I think about that.  I mean, wouldn't you get bored after a while? Lol.

 

[Ancientwanker]

Just as many prefer to think whatever mom and dad told them and not give it much more thought.  Thats why religions all over the world have a steady geographic presence.  People like easy answers and arent that interested in looking around.

Beliving in a created world forces you to believe in a Creator, and believing in a creator forces you to acknowledege his infinite superiority and power over his creation, including you. And many find evolution better than submission.

But there are two issues here, as I said. Creationism, which is idiotic. Then the idea of a creator or multiple creators which is uncertain at best.  Thats why they call it faith and not certainty.

 

[leprechaun]

The Earth was at this time just a barren rocky planet like Mars, but it started to rain (where'd the water come from?), and the rock and water reacted to form a soup.  In this soup, a small microorganism formed (wow, that hardly ever happens).  Two microorganisms, in fact.  Two microorganisms that just happened to be of the same type, and at the same place (Do I need to go into odds, here?).  And the two microorganisms were the first living things, and soon there was daddy microorganism, mommy microorganism, and baby microorganism.  So the microorganisms grew and reproduced and got more complex.  Soon, the was a worm.  Then one day a worm had a baby snake.  Then the snake had a baby lizard.  And so on, evolving into ever-more-complicated creatures.  Wow.  Why doesn't that happen today?  Now after all that tongue-in-cheek poking at that ridiculous theory, to Creation.

Sorry, GS, I'm gonna have to pull the plug on this one. Let's go from the beginning of that part of your post, about the rain and the soup. You have a seriously skewed version of what we really think. Here's what the actual theory is:
We're not entirely certain which gases formed the early atmosphere. Some scientists believe they were mainly carbon dioxide and steam, plus smaller amounts of methane, ammonia, sulphur dioxide and other gases. Some think there was much more carbon monoxide than carbon dioxide. Some think there was lots of nitrogen. But they all agree that there was little or no free oxygen.
When the temperature dropped below 100 degrees celsius, the steam cooled and condensed, forming the predecessors of today's oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolved in the falling rain, making it acidic. This attacked minerals in the Earth's crust, forming carbonates that were washed into the ocean. Other gases and minerals dissolved too. This made the oceans hot and salty.
Then, around 3500 million years ago, primitive life appeared (we admit we are not entirely sure how). It may have started in rock pools, with lightning possibly (we have, as you know, been as of yet unable to give proof of what the catalyst was) providing the spark, so to speak. We believe that reactions between the dissolved compounds formed amino acids, which slowly polymerised to form proteins, which gradually formed units that could reproduce themselves.
The first living things were simply bacteria. Nitrifying bacteria fed on ammonia, producing nitrates which then formed proteins. Denitrifying bacteria also fed on ammonia, releasing nitrogen into the atmosphere. Other bacteria fed on sulphur compounds.
Then, around 2200 million years ago, the first green plants started to appear. Photosynthesis began. It used up carbon dioxide and produced oxygen.
The first oxygen reacted fiercely with the elements on the Earth's surface, forming oxides. But eventually it started to build up in the atmosphere. It poisoned most of the organisms that feed on other gases. Their descendants, anaerobic bacteria, are now found only in places where there is little or no oxygen (for example, in waterlogged soil or by volcanic vents on the ocean floor).
Once oxygen began to collect in the atmosphere, the protective layer of ozone began to form (ozone is 03).
Then, around 600 million years ago, when their was enough oxygen and protective ozone, the first simple animals developed.
Around 1-2 million years ago, our ancestors appeared - over 4 billion years after the Earth was formed.

And we've covered Kent Hovind already, mate. And I've covered the flood and Noah's Ark. No chance, I'm afraid. It's a way back in the topic, but I quoted it about five times because DaLagga kept ignoring it because he couldn't come up with a return. He tried a video claiming to prove all his claims, which took all of five minutes for me, a fifteen-year-old schoolboy, to rubbish.
As for fossils on Mt. Everest? We can explain that easily. Mount Everest was once under water. The continental plates haven't always been where they are now. Refer back to Ingolifs' post on plate tectonics, I thnk it's on page 51/2 or around there.

How about, guys, seeing as he's fifteen like me, you cut him a little slack?

Nothing else new for me to cover here, I'm afraid.

 

[Kissaki]

Read just about any science book from the late 1980s to mid 1990s.  You'll see where I come from.  That's another thing.  Evolutionists are changing their theories so often.  The earth has doubled its age every two years for the last decade according to evolutionists.

"The earth has doubled its age every two years for the last decade according to evolutionists"? Where do you get this from? I have an Atlas from 1963 saying the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Now, assuming that figure stayed at 4.5 billion until ten years ago, that would mean evolutionists today believe the earth to be... 142 billion years old!!! According to you, that is. Now, fess up: you learned about evolution from creationists, didn't you?

 

[Kissaki]

Beliving in a created world forces you to believe in a Creator,

What if I don't believe in a created world? Why must it have been created?

and believing in a creator forces you to acknowledege his infinite superiority and power over his creation, including you.

Why? It is fully possible to create something beyond one's control. I could, for example, build an airplane I'd be unable to control, or compose music I'd be unable to play, or make food that would kill me. Things can blow up in the chemistry lab, you know. And remember Frankenstein.

And many find evolution better than submission.

Personally, I find evolution better than guessing. If you brought a stone age man to our time, he'd think electricity too amazing to be manmade. Unless we explained to him how we could create light at the flick of a switch, he might leap to the conclusion that it was "magic" or some sort of "act of God". Leaping to such conclusions spares him of a headache from wondering too much. The same is true for us. By saying "God did it", we don't have to think any further. It's a comfortable refuge for all questions we cannot answer.

 

[Aratek]

Read just about any science book from the late 1980s to mid 1990s.  You'll see where I come from.  That's another thing.  Evolutionists are changing their theories so often.  The earth has doubled its age every two years for the last decade according to evolutionists.

"The earth has doubled its age every two years for the last decade according to evolutionists"? Where do you get this from? I have an Atlas from 1963 saying the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Now, assuming that figure stayed at 4.5 billion until ten years ago, that would mean evolutionists today believe the earth to be... 142 billion years old!!! According to you, that is. Now, fess up: you learned about evolution from creationists, didn't you?

Alright, to clear this up, here's my thoughts about the earth's age.

Evidence from the stars:

1 - Star clusters. One type of galaxy in outer space is the star cluster. There are many of them; and, within each one, are billions of stars. Some of these clusters are moving so rapidly, that it would be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.

2 - Large stars. Some stars are so large, and radiate energy so rapidly, that they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be too immense.

3 - High-energy stars. Four types of stars radiate energy too rapidly to have existed longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.

4 - Binary stars. Most stars in the disk of galaxies are binary stars (two stars revolving about one another); yet, frequently, one is classified as very old and the other very young. This cannot be.

5 - Hydrogen in the universe. Hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it; therefore, if the universe were as old as the theory requires, there would now be very little hydrogen in the universe.

Evidence from out solar system:

1 - Solar collapse. Our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate. It is occurring fast enough that, as little as 50,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. In far less time in the past (25,000 years or so), all life on earth would have ceased to exist.

2 - Solar neutrinos. The sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This, coupled with the fact that the sun is shrinking, points to a recently created sun.

3 - Comets. Comets circle the sun and are assumed to be as old as our solar system. Since they are continually disintegrating, and a number are known to have broken up, evidently all of them self-destruct within a relatively short time period. It is estimated that the comets cannot be over 10,000 years old.

4 - Comet water. Comets are primarily composed of water. So many small comets strike the earth that, if our planet were billions of years old, our oceans would be filled several times over with water.

5 - Solar wind. The sun's radiation blows very small particles in space outward. All particles smaller than a certain size should, millions of years ago, have been blown out of the solar system. Yet these micro-particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is quite young.

6 - Solar drag. Small and medium rocks circling the sun are gradually drawn by gravity into the sun. Careful analysis reveals that most would have been gone within 10,000 years, and all within 50,000 years. There is no known source of rock or particle replenishment.

Evidence from other planets:

1 - Temperature and erosion on Venus. High surface temperatures on Venus (900 degree F [482 degree C]), combined with other of its surface features, support a young age for Venus. If the planet were 4 billion years old, as taught by the theory, its dense atmosphere should long ago have worn away all the craters.

2 - Erosion and water on Mars. Only a few thousand years of the type of harsh dust storm weather occurring on Mars should have seriously eroded its many craters and volcanoes. Long-term erosion should also have obliterated the strong color differences on the surface. The small amount of water on Mars should long ago have been split apart into hydrogen and oxygen by solar ultraviolet rays. The hydrogen should have escaped and the oxygen should be in the atmosphere, but this is not so.

3 - Composition of Saturn's rings. Trillions of particles in Saturn's rings are mainly solid ammonia. Because of its high vapor pressure, it could not survive long without vaporizing into outer space.

4 - Bombardment of Saturn's rings. Meteroids bombarding Saturn's rings would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years.

5 - More ring problems. Rings found on Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune indicate that they too have a very young age.

6 - Jupiter's moons. One of Jupiter's largest moons, Io, ejects large amounts of material through volcanoes. Although quite small, it has the most active volcanoes we know of, and must be quite youthful.

Evidence from our own moon:

1 - Moon dust. Ultraviolet light changes moon rocks into dust. It had long been predicted that a thick layer of dust (20-60 miles [32-96.5 km], caused by ultraviolet radiation on the moon's 4-billion-year-old surface, must cover the moon's surface. But scientists were astonished to learn that there is not over 2-3 inches [5.08-7.62 cm] of dust—just the amount expected if the moon were only a few thousand years old.

2 - Lunar soil. The dirt on the moon's surface does not show the amount of soil mixing it should have, if the moon were very old.—p. 17. 3 - Lunar isotopes. Short-term radioactive isotopes (uranium 236 and thorium 230) have been found in the collected moon rocks. These isotopes do not last long and rather quickly turn into lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. The moon cannot be older than several thousand years.

4 - Lunar radioactive heat. Moon rocks have relatively high radioactivity, indicating a young moon, because of the large amount of heat generated.

5 - Lunar gases. Small amounts of several inert gases have been found on the moon. At today's intensity of solar wind, the amount of inert gases found on the moon would reach their full amount in less than 10,000 years—and no longer.

6 - Lunar phenomena. Transient lunar activity data (moonquakes, lava flows, gas emissions, etc.) reveals the moon is still remarkably active, showing it is quite young.

7 - Lunar recession. The moon is already far too close to the earth. It is now know that, due to tidal friction, it is gradually moving farther away from us. Based on the rate of recession, the moon cannot be very old. If it were even 20,000 to 30,000 years old, it would at some earlier time have been so close—it would have fallen into our planet!

Evidence from our earth's atmosphere:

1 - Atmospheric helium. Our helium comes from three sources: Radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. Helium spewed out by the sun, is pulled in by earth's gravity. Helium is also produced in the upper atmosphere. All of that helium is accumulating, since helium is not able to reach escape velocity and go into outer space. But the amount of helium we have is too small if our world has existed for long ages. Based on all three helium producers, earth's atmospheric age cannot be over 10,000 years.

2 - Carbon 14 disintegration. The present worldwide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would have produced all the world's radiocarbon in only several thousand years. Based on this, earth's age is estimated at 8,000 years.

Evidence from meteorites:

1 - Meteor dust. Micrometeors, composed of iron, nickel, and silicate compounds that are continually entering our atmosphere, adds 25 tons [22.7 mt] to the earth daily. Based on the amount here, earth's age should be in the thousands, not millions of years. Regarding nickel content, the amount in the oceans could have been carried there from land in 9,000 years (or half that time, if nickel had already been there).

2 - Meteor craters. Meteor craters are never found in the rock strata! Yet they would be found there, if millions of years were required to lay down that sedimentary strata. Meteor craters always lie close to or on the earth's surface. Thus, all the meteors which have struck the earth—have hit it within the last few thousand years.

3 - Meteor rocks. When meteors strike the earth, they are called meteorites. Supposedly, this has happened for millions of years, yet the meteorites are only found at, or close to, the earth's surface. None are ever found in the deeper sedimentary strata. Therefore, the earth is young and the strata was quickly laid down not too long ago.

4 - Tektites. Tektites are a special type of glassy meteorite. They are especially found in large areas, called strewn fields. Each shower lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth were billions of years old, they should be found in all the strata. They never show more than a few thousand years of weathering. Carbon-14 tests show them to be no older than 6,500 years.

Chew on that for a while.

I'll post more after school.

 

[Archonsod]

1 - Star clusters. One type of galaxy in outer space is the star cluster. There are many of them; and, within each one, are billions of stars. Some of these clusters are moving so rapidly, that it would be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.

Not true. Firstly, your ignoring the law of gravity. Secondly "rapidly" for a galaxy is "mind boggingly slow" to a human.

2 - Large stars. Some stars are so large, and radiate energy so rapidly, that they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be too immense.

Since we don't know how much Hydrogen is present in the universe, it's impossible to say whether this is true or not. Furthermore, we have plenty of dead stars floating in space too. Our own sun is relatively young as far as stars go. Not all of the stars in existence today were in existence at the beggining of the universe (indeed, we can't see many younger stars today, and some which we can see are already dead).

3 - High-energy stars. Four types of stars radiate energy too rapidly to have existed longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.

Energy has been known to spontaneously appear within space - cf Quantum mechanics

4 - Binary stars. Most stars in the disk of galaxies are binary stars (two stars revolving about one another); yet, frequently, one is classified as very old and the other very young. This cannot be.

The reverse is actually the case - if the stars which form a binary system formed at the same time, you would have a single large star rather than two seperate ones.

5 - Hydrogen in the universe. Hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it; therefore, if the universe were as old as the theory requires, there would now be very little hydrogen in the universe.

See my answer to 2 - for all we know, Hydrogen may be the most common element in the universe.

1 - Solar collapse. Our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate.

Funny. NASA and most astrophysicists are under the impression that stars, including our sun, fluctuate in size throughout their lifecycle.

2 - Solar neutrinos. The sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This, coupled with the fact that the sun is shrinking, points to a recently created sun.

Our sun is fairly young. But again, our sun hasn't been around since the creation of the universe 

3 - Comets. Comets circle the sun and are assumed to be as old as our solar system. Since they are continually disintegrating, and a number are known to have broken up, evidently all of them self-destruct within a relatively short time period. It is estimated that the comets cannot be over 10,000 years old.

We just had the opportunity to watch a freshly made comet. Links earlier in the thread, suffice to say this is moot - comets are constantly being created.

4 - Comet water. Comets are primarily composed of water. So many small comets strike the earth that, if our planet were billions of years old, our oceans would be filled several times over with water.

Comets are formed of ice. Not all ice is H20. Furthermore, comet strikes on our planet are incredibly rare (I believe the current total stands at two or three). Comets actually striking the planet when it had an atmosphere (so the water wouldn't simply float off back into space) are unknown - we still don't know if the comet would survive the atmosphere or explode when it touched it.

5 - Solar wind. The sun's radiation blows very small particles in space outward. All particles smaller than a certain size should, millions of years ago, have been blown out of the solar system. Yet these micro-particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is quite young.

The suns gravity also sucks many micro particles inwards. Once again your pointing out something we already know - our solar system is a fairly recent event within the universe

6 - Solar drag. Small and medium rocks circling the sun are gradually drawn by gravity into the sun. Careful analysis reveals that most would have been gone within 10,000 years, and all within 50,000 years. There is no known source of rock or particle replenishment.

That's the same logic that states the moon will eventually leave Earth's orbit, and completely wrong. It fails to account for the other bodies in the Solar system.


That's all I'll post for the nonce. Got to go to work.

 

[leprechaun]

EDIT: Damn you, Arch!

I've boldened my answers in yours to save time and space.

Alright, to clear this up, here's my thoughts about the earth's age.

Evidence from the stars:

1 - Star clusters. One type of galaxy in outer space is the star cluster. There are many of them; and, within each one, are billions of stars. Some of these clusters are moving so rapidly, that it would be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old. A point, but the distances involved are so huge that the human mind cannot in fact comprehend them. So yes, although the stars are moving fast, it's nothing compared to the distance they have to travel to make an appreciable difference.

2 - Large stars. Some stars are so large, and radiate energy so rapidly, that they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be too immense. New stars are being created all the time. The huge stars are newer that the medium-sized stars, for the most part, and will burn out sooner.

3 - High-energy stars. Four types of stars radiate energy too rapidly to have existed longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years. See above.

4 - Binary stars. Most stars in the disk of galaxies are binary stars (two stars revolving about one another); yet, frequently, one is classified as very old and the other very young. This cannot be. Most? Can we have a source for that? And binary stars can be old and young - it is possible that an old star could move into the path of a new star, or vice versa, and if they were very, VERY lucky would not collide due to the gravity, but settle into a stable enough orbit that they don't collide for millions of years.

5 - Hydrogen in the universe. Hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it; therefore, if the universe were as old as the theory requires, there would now be very little hydrogen in the universe.
Not necessarily. For a start, I don't think we know exactly how much hydrogen there was to begin with. Then, there is free-floating hydrogen in nebulae. After that we have the stars that are largely made up of hydrogen, which is being used up. Then we have hydrogen in compunds like water.

Evidence from out solar system:

1 - Solar collapse. Our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate. It is occurring fast enough that, as little as 50,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. In far less time in the past (25,000 years or so), all life on earth would have ceased to exist. Ah, but you have to assume that it has always been shrinking at that rate for that figure to be accurate. I also hadn't heard that it was shrinking before. Can you provide a source - I'd like to read that.

2 - Solar neutrinos. The sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This, coupled with the fact that the sun is shrinking, points to a recently created sun. Don't know enough about this one, will have to do some research.

3 - Comets. Comets circle the sun and are assumed to be as old as our solar system. Since they are continually disintegrating, and a number are known to have broken up, evidently all of them self-destruct within a relatively short time period. It is estimated that the comets cannot be over 10,000 years old.
There are untold billions of comets in the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt. We have an almost unlimited supply.

4 - Comet water. Comets are primarily composed of water. So many small comets strike the earth that, if our planet were billions of years old, our oceans would be filled several times over with water. Many evaporate in the upper atmosphere, and not all the foreign bodies hitting the planet's atmosphere are made of water. A lot of it is dirt. Water is one of the things, but Jupiter absorbs most of the comets and meteors, and the rest that hit us are almost always too small to make any difference.

5 - Solar wind. The sun's radiation blows very small particles in space outward. All particles smaller than a certain size should, millions of years ago, have been blown out of the solar system. Yet these micro-particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is quite young. The Sun loses some particles, and as things like comets go into close orbit around the Sun they lose a lot of matter, which then becomes part of this field of particles.

6 - Solar drag. Small and medium rocks circling the sun are gradually drawn by gravity into the sun. Careful analysis reveals that most would have been gone within 10,000 years, and all within 50,000 years. There is no known source of rock or particle replenishment.
Oort cloud, asteroid belt, Kuiper belt.

Evidence from other planets:

1 - Temperature and erosion on Venus. High surface temperatures on Venus (900 degree F [482 degree C]), combined with other of its surface features, support a young age for Venus. If the planet were 4 billion years old, as taught by the theory, its dense atmosphere should long ago have worn away all the craters.
Unless a) new craters are being formed by impacts, or b) the other theory about Venus' atmosphere is correct, and it was not always like that. Some scientists think it's a runaway Greenhouse effect that's done it - water evaporates in the heat, trapping more sunlight so even more water evaporates, trapping even more sunlight, so even more evaporates... And look beneath our own seas. The oceans are more dense than Venus' atmosphere. There are craters down there millions of years old that haven't worn away yet.

2 - Erosion and water on Mars. Only a few thousand years of the type of harsh dust storm weather occurring on Mars should have seriously eroded its many craters and volcanoes. Long-term erosion should also have obliterated the strong color differences on the surface. The small amount of water on Mars should long ago have been split apart into hydrogen and oxygen by solar ultraviolet rays. The hydrogen should have escaped and the oxygen should be in the atmosphere, but this is not so.
Mars' atmosphere is thin and therefore meteorites don't burn up as fast, so Mars gets hit by more crater-causing impacts. As for colour differences, different minerals in different places mean that that's not necessarily true. If the vein/patch is several miles deep, 6000 years of erosion won't touch them.

3 - Composition of Saturn's rings. Trillions of particles in Saturn's rings are mainly solid ammonia. Because of its high vapor pressure, it could not survive long without vaporizing into outer space.
In space, ammonia is a solid, so it can't vaporise without a large external input of energy.

4 - Bombardment of Saturn's rings. Meteroids bombarding Saturn's rings would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years.
But as meteors hit them, parts of the meteors break off, filling the gap. Also, space isn't empty. Tiny particles can and will drift into Saturn's rings.

5 - More ring problems. Rings found on Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune indicate that they too have a very young age. Same as above.

6 - Jupiter's moons. One of Jupiter's largest moons, Io, ejects large amounts of material through volcanoes. Although quite small, it has the most active volcanoes we know of, and must be quite youthful.
Yes? So one of Jupiter's moons is young? What does that prove? Hawaii is very volcanically active. Hawaii is young, because it's moving and forming.

Evidence from our own moon:

1 - Moon dust. Ultraviolet light changes moon rocks into dust. It had long been predicted that a thick layer of dust (20-60 miles [32-96.5 km], caused by ultraviolet radiation on the moon's 4-billion-year-old surface, must cover the moon's surface. But scientists were astonished to learn that there is not over 2-3 inches [5.08-7.62 cm] of dust—just the amount expected if the moon were only a few thousand years old.  How does UV light break up rock?

2 - Lunar soil. The dirt on the moon's surface does not show the amount of soil mixing it should have, if the moon were very old.—p. 17. 3 - Lunar isotopes. Short-term radioactive isotopes (uranium 236 and thorium 230) have been found in the collected moon rocks. These isotopes do not last long and rather quickly turn into lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. The moon cannot be older than several thousand years.
I don't know much about radioactive materials and their decay, sorry. I'll leave this one to omeone who knows what they're talking about.

4 - Lunar radioactive heat. Moon rocks have relatively high radioactivity, indicating a young moon, because of the large amount of heat generated. Many scientists think that the Moon was either once part of the Earth or is from outside the Solar System, so either way it could be young without affecting the overall age of the Universe.

5 - Lunar gases. Small amounts of several inert gases have been found on the moon. At today's intensity of solar wind, the amount of inert gases found on the moon would reach their full amount in less than 10,000 years—and no longer. Why? The Moon's gravity is so low that inert gases such as helium will simply drift away. The Earth's atmostphere, to the best of my knowledge, contains little or no free hydrogen because that was too light for our gravity to hold.

6 - Lunar phenomena. Transient lunar activity data (moonquakes, lava flows, gas emissions, etc.) reveals the moon is still remarkably active, showing it is quite young. See not the one above, but the one above that.

7 - Lunar recession. The moon is already far too close to the earth. It is now know that, due to tidal friction, it is gradually moving farther away from us. Based on the rate of recession, the moon cannot be very old. If it were even 20,000 to 30,000 years old, it would at some earlier time have been so close—it would have fallen into our planet! But we don't know that the Moon has always been a planetoid in its own rights.

Evidence from our earth's atmosphere:

1 - Atmospheric helium. Our helium comes from three sources: Radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. Helium spewed out by the sun, is pulled in by earth's gravity. Helium is also produced in the upper atmosphere. All of that helium is accumulating, since helium is not able to reach escape velocity and go into outer space. But the amount of helium we have is too small if our world has existed for long ages. Based on all three helium producers, earth's atmospheric age cannot be over 10,000 years.
Helium isn't pulled in that much by Earth's atmosphere. There was never much of it to begin with.

2 - Carbon 14 disintegration. The present worldwide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would have produced all the world's radiocarbon in only several thousand years. Based on this, earth's age is estimated at 8,000 years. But, carbon 14 decays, yes, but correct me if I'm wrong but new carbon 14 is formed all the time as well.

Evidence from meteorites:

1 - Meteor dust. Micrometeors, composed of iron, nickel, and silicate compounds that are continually entering our atmosphere, adds 25 tons [22.7 mt] to the earth daily. Based on the amount here, earth's age should be in the thousands, not millions of years. Regarding nickel content, the amount in the oceans could have been carried there from land in 9,000 years (or half that time, if nickel had already been there).

2 - Meteor craters. Meteor craters are never found in the rock strata! Yet they would be found there, if millions of years were required to lay down that sedimentary strata. Meteor craters always lie close to or on the earth's surface. Thus, all the meteors which have struck the earth—have hit it within the last few thousand years.

3 - Meteor rocks. When meteors strike the earth, they are called meteorites. Supposedly, this has happened for millions of years, yet the meteorites are only found at, or close to, the earth's surface. None are ever found in the deeper sedimentary strata. Therefore, the earth is young and the strata was quickly laid down not too long ago. To 1,2, and 3, how do we know there aren't any craters in the substrata? We haven't seen and studied every cubic mile of it, have we? We've barely taken samples, to be honest. Look at the size of the Earth and tell me that the samples we've taken of the substrata are an absolute definition of what the Earth is like all the way through. And also, as new layers settle on top of the craters, the pressure over time will kinda smoothe the wrinkles out, kinda like ironing something flat.

4 - Tektites. Tektites are a special type of glassy meteorite. They are especially found in large areas, called strewn fields. Each shower lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth were billions of years old, they should be found in all the strata. They never show more than a few thousand years of weathering. Carbon-14 tests show them to be no older than 6,500 years. Don't know anything about this.

Chew on that for a while.

I'll post more after school.

 

[Yoshiboy]

Why give these people the honer of a reply when they follow a book that says this:

# God makes "a great fish" to swallow Jonah. And Jonah stayed in the fish's belly for three days and three nights. 1:17

# Jonah says a little prayer from the fish's belly. 2:1

# God talks to the fish, and it vomits out Jonah upon dry land. 2:10

and the belive it.

 

[Kissaki]

4 - Tektites. Tektites are a special type of glassy meteorite. They are especially found in large areas, called strewn fields. Each shower lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth were billions of years old, they should be found in all the strata. They never show more than a few thousand years of weathering. Carbon-14 tests show them to be no older than 6,500 years. Don't know anything about this.

Nor do I, but a quick search on the net tells me the claim is questionable at best. According to wiki, at least, a moldovite tektite was determined to be 14 million years old by radiometric dating. Some found in North America in the Chesapeake Bay crater have similarly been estimated at 34 million years. The youngest mentioned in wiki is from Ghana, dated as one million years old.

 

[Smoson]

Aratek - We can't really prove or disprove anything with cosmic 'evidence' because we know so little about anything outside of our own planet (which we know little about as well). Most of the points you have made are merely theoretical and quite frankly haven't had the time (It would probably take millions of years to see what happens to a star in it's lifetime) or actual solid evidence (Going out into space and seeing these things in action firsthand). What I'm saying is the best way to learn is to observe and we have not had the ability to do so in such detail for anywhere near long enough.
Yoshiboy - People can believe what they want without fear or expectation that they will be mocked. For shaaame!!!
Archonsod -

That's all I'll post for the nonce. Got to go to work.

WTF???

 

[leprechaun]

Means "That's all I'll post for now. Got to go to work.

 

[Smoson]

Means "That's all I'll post for now. Got to go to work.

Why "nonce" though! Sounded to me like he was calling Aratek a pedo!

 

[Yoshiboy]

Yoshiboy - People can believe what they want without fear or expectation that they will be mocked. For shaaame!!!

Huh? Mocking? I simply pointed out the absurdity of his belief. I won't let any christian engage me in a reasable debate taking into account science, maths and logic until they explain that one for me first in a similar nature.

You don't understand how much it scares me that there are 35 people on this forum that belive in creationism.

If i said i'd lived in a giant fish for 3 days and nights with the power of god to keep me going....I think i would be mocked a little, even by christians.

 

[Kissaki]

Means "That's all I'll post for now. Got to go to work.

Why "nonce" though! Sounded to me like he was calling Aratek a pedo!

nonce
    n  : the present occasion; "for the nonce"
        [syn: time being]

 

[Smoson]

You don't understand how much it scares me that there are 35 people on this forum that belive in creationism.

Nah, I just don't see why

nonce
    n  : the present occasion; "for the nonce"
         [syn: time being]

That has to be the funniest turn of phrase I've heard in so long!!!

 

[Yoshiboy]

1.  nonce 

(UK) Slang for paedophile.

"That Gary Glitter bloke, he's a right nonce."

 

[Smoson]

My point exactly!

So elegantly put as well

"That Gary Glitter bloke, he's a right nonce."