Yeah, that pesky Evolution keeps getting in the way.

Do you really expect a 10th grade book to go into as much depth as say a college book?

responses to the points listed in the video

1) Does not take into account

i) Capture of the alpha(helium) particles within the elements that release alpha particles by radioactive decay, especially considering the necessity of a positively ionized element to acqure electrons, and alpha particles are easily stopped by a sheet of paper.

ii) Capture within the same non permeable rock as natural gas.

iii) Blow off of the upper layers of the atmosphere by Solar Wind, where most of the helium and hydrogen in the atmosphere is located.

2) Fails to take into account plate tectonics forcing material into the mantle

3) Fails to account for plate tectonics forcing the mountains into the air, as well as misjudging the rate at which erosion occurs.

4) Same as number 2, and even provides a way for the sediments from #2 to make it into the ocean where they can be inserted into the mantle

5) Does not take into account the fact that up until recently, most artesian aquifers could not be tapped, and the ones that flowed naturally were also replenished at a rate equal to if not greater than the flow of water from the aquifer. Mineral oil and natural gas also were not tapped until recent technological advances created a significant demand for them, so the natural wells that threw oil into the environment provided more than enough for those nations that utilized it. In addition, mineral oil found from naturally flowing wells was supplemented by the usage of whale oil

6) Basic chemistry principle of precipitation. Water does not provide enough lift to counter the force of gravity, so all of the elements listed, after reaching the solubility equilibrium of the solvent, in this case water, precipitate out, to the riverbed or ocean floor.

7) Ignores the fact that most of the Earth is water. Also didn't make the logical leap that the erosion mentioned in point 3 also effects the micrometeroic dust forced most of it into the ocean and thus into the mantle with plate tectonics.

8) Ignores the incredible heat generated during the formation of the star system, which the heavier elements conducted, and could not radiate off prior to the coalescenece of the planets. Those smaller than Venus did not retain enough heat to create the convection currents and maintain the tectonic activity needed to keep them warm.

9) Neglects the effects of heat radiation and that the moon has no atmosphere to keep the heat being re-radiated near the surface.

10) Neglects the effect of solar gravity.

11) Ignores the speed of light, and the size of the Milky Way compared to the distance from earth to the next nearest galaxy, Andromeda. The Milky Way is only 100,000Ly across, which means that, AT MOST, something happening on the far side, were we able to see it through the Galactic Core, would have happened 100,000 years ago. Unless of course you reject the speed of light is contant. Also ignores the fact that Supernovae provide the building blocks for star systems, and it should not be unexpected that those that we might be able see within our own galaxy, have already started condensing into star systems.

12) Just because things appear connected does not mean they are. In any of the cases (of which he provides none) where one can see a red shift of one intensity near or superimposed on a red shift of another intensity simply means that those astronomical structures are traveling away from the point of observation at different speeds in the same general direction.

Carbon dating scepticism) Making a wild assumption of 25lbs (11339.81 grams) of bone material, and assuming a bone composition of a standard mix of carbon isotope found in nature or 99% C12(11226.402 grams), 1% C13(113.3981 grams) and 0.0000000001% C14(one part per trillion)(0.000001133981 grams), it is very easy to determine a date on a skeleton. If, using the above measurements I find that the bones I just dug up from the middle of africa have a composition of 11226.402 grams of C12, 113.3981 grams of C13, 0.00000003248855565 grams of C14, and 0.00000110149244435 grams of N14, I can do some basic calculations to determine the number of half lives of 5730 years the Carbon-14 has gone through to get the years since the bone stopped replenishing its C14 and purging the N14, in this case 35 half lives or 200,550 years.

I also encourage you to read up on radioactive decay and how if you know the decay chain for an element, and the amount of stable isotopes your sample radioactve material decayed into, you can accurately determine the time the radioactive isotope was formed.

Everything? Including flora and fauna which are reborn every year?

I don't know what your textbooks taught at your schools, but I am using Richard Dakwins definition.

Judging from your comments on the subject I don't think it is inconceivable that you have been taught complete nonsense or never paid much attention to your teachers when they did teach evolution correctly.

Fact is that there is no known mechanism that could stop two populations of life becoming two completely distinct species. Unless such a mechanism is found, evolution has not been proven wrong and hence should be taught in science class.

 

It can't.

And such "truth" is hence useless for science. Science needs theories that can be proven wrong, theories that make statements about not only what is possible but also what is impossible. With the "truth" you cannot make predictions. Everything is possible with Creationism, everything. It's useless to science.

 

I do not remember a theory of evolution that classifies certain genetic information as "higher" than other genetic information.

Where did you read your definition???

 

In a 10th grade book.

Ok, I missed this part because I was busy writing rebuttals to the points in the youtube video, the population of humans on Earth has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the planet. Saying that because the population of humanity on Earth at any given point in time proves that the Earth is less than 4.5 billion years old is the same as saying that the population of bacteria in a petri dish at any given point in time proves the petri dish is younger than the date of manufacture. It makes no logical sense.

Applicable broadly, as it happens.

lula 49

Infidel posts:

I expect that ALL textbooks will teach true science, not myths masqueraded as fact. Evolution, according to this definition, is a myth that is being taught as fact.

leauki posts:

Beside school textbooks, most dictionaries also confirm this same definition. The World Book Dictionary Volume One A-K has on page 737 the definition of Evolution as: something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile and ultimately all forms are traced back to to a simple, perhaps single celled, organism.

(here the textbook definition of evolution fits with the World Book Dictionary definition…the mammal has new, higher genetic information that is gained which was not possessed by the mammals's supposed ancestor, a reptile). The short lesson here is mammals evolved from reptiles.

The textbook goes on to claim that you and I are descendants of ape-like ancesters and that they in turn “evolved” from still more primitive animals. And here again, we understand from the textbook definition that Humans new, higher genetic information that was gained which was not possessed by their ape-like ancestors….

 

Some textbooks include this picture of ape-to man ‘evolution” :   

http://www.freeclipartnow.com/history/world-history/ape-man-evolution-larger.jpg.html

 

Doombringer 90 posts:

 

OK, let's look at world population from the Evolutionist's timeframe. They claim humans have been here for 1 million years. So then, in a million years, with a modest estimate of 2.2 children per average family, the world population would have grown to 10 to the 2070 power. That's one with 2070 zeros after it. That number has no name and is so large that our entire universe could contain only a small fraction of people. This is according to Ian Taylor, "In the Minds of Men", 1991, page 338.

 

 

 

 

Doombringer90 posts:

I know that scientists and teachers tell their students that radioactive dating has proved the earth is 4.5 billions years old and that's what bothers me most.

I have read about radioactive decay and turns out dating rocks is tricky.

On the sample rock, how does one determine how much Uranium 238 (radioactive material) was in the rock in the first place? No one saw the rock formed...so who can say there was only Uranium 238 in the rock? If we can't absolutely determine this, then we can't determine for sure how much has decayed into non-radioactive material.

Another question with measuring radioactive decay is: How can we tell if a rock sample has been polluted by water or melting of the rock material?

And who can say for sure that Uranium has always broken down into Lead at the same speed?

Do you know that scientists have done radioactive dating on rocks of known age and come up with dates millions of years off?

Are you aware that scientists keep changing the dates of the age of the earth? In 1862, it was 20 million years old...in 1897 it was 40 million...in 1899 it was 90 million....in 1921 it was 1 billion...in 1932 it was 1.6 billion....in 1947 it was 3.35 billion...in 1956 it was 4.5 billion...and now my daughter's biology textbook states, "the traces of radioactive isotopes enable scientists to calculate the actual age of a sample, a process known as radioactive dating. The evidence provided by radioactive dating along with observations of long-term geological processes, has enabled geologists to compile a remarkably accurate history of life on our planet. Using these data, scientists have determined that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old."

In fact, there is no proof beyond doubt that the earth is "about" any number of millions or billions of years old and that's what these science textbooks should say. All I'm asking is that students are taught true science.

 

Again, where do you get "higher"?

We do not contain "higher" genetic information than our ancestors. The very idea of rating genetic information on a scale doesn't make sense, accoding to evolutionary theory.

Yes, our descendants were ape-like. We are ape-like too. In fact, we are apes. We are members of the family Hominidea which includes orangutans and of the sub-family Homininae which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, and us. I wouldn't be surprised if our common ancestor were similar to all four species named above. To us he would probably seem like an orangutan.

But our genetic information is not "higher" than the genetic information of that ancestor, it is merely newer. As new as that of modern-day chimpanzees and cockroaches to be exact.

The only ranking evolution knows for genetic information is fitness for a given environment. But this cannot be compared over time since there is no cut-off point at which we can differentiate between species over time.

If A and B are two populations of the same species and A(0) and B(0) are the first generation and A(n) and B(n) the current generation than the following holds true:

1. A(0) and B(0) are of the same species.

2. A(n-1) and A(n) are of the same species.

3. B(n-1) and B(n) are of the same species.

4. A(n) and B(n) might not be of the same species.

5. A(n+1) and B(n+1) are less likely to be of the same species than A(n) and B(n), idealised.

But at no point do populations A or B "change species" or acquire "higher" genetic information. The level of the genetic information on any ranking except fitness is always undefined. It's like asking whether d flat is more red than d sharp or whether red is bigger than green.

 

That's true.

But it's a hell of a lot easier than any other method.




No, we can't.

And as soon as someone can provide a better method we will use and teach it. For the moment it seems most likely that all rocks contain ultimately the same amount of U238, taken over a few thousand samples. Maybe there are freak rocks that contained more or less but have no evidence for those rocks appearing often enough to make our calculations useless.




 We don't have to. Pollution by water of melting wouldn't have an impact on the U238 contents, if I recall correctly.




Nobody. But unless you can give a reason for why it wouldn't, it's safest to assume that it always did.




Yes.




Scientists don't change the age of the earth, they are just getting progressively closer to the real age. It's like running a census. After ten days, you have counted one city, after two months you might have counted ten cities are are closer to a real and useful result.




I'm afraid that guesswork is true science.

That's what science is: the study of ever-changing methods to explain, predict, and estimate facts. That's exactly what is being taught to students, which is why I know this.

Science is not what can't be disproven, science is what can be disproven. Give me an explanation for a fact that can be disproven, and you have a scientific theory. Give me an explanation for a fact that cannot be disproven, and you have faith.

A car moves.

1. There is a thing called "engine" that makes it move.

2. G-d moved it.

The first can easily be disproven. I remove the engine and see if the car still moves. Hence it is science, although simple such.

The second cannot be disproven at all. If I remove the engine and the car doesn't move, G-d might have decided not to move it. In fact He might reconsider later and move it anyway. That's faith, not science.

And even though the second explanation is bullet-proof (it cannot be disproven) or rather because it is so it isn't science.

The more easy it is to disprove a theory the more scietific is that theory.

Students either understand that or not.

It is obvious that you just haven't paid much attention at school. I understand that. I was a lazy student myself, more interested in playing cards in class and ignoring homework than real study.