[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
First, the original goal wasn't to prove or disprove evolution, but to demonstrate that it is as much a faith as belief in creationism. If there's any doubt on that score, I'd be glad to begin again.

Second, reasons to believe in creation and reasons to believe in God are quite different areas of discussion (although belief in God should also signify a belief in creation). Again, my efforts haven't been focused on proof/disproof of either side. Greatly simplified, I look at both theories, determine what each predicts in the words, and then look at the world for what I actually see.

I have no problems to this point...

Originally posted by Krsqk:


What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it. There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link. The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution.

'Probability' is irrelevant. Proof is what matters, and it is lacking.

Originally posted by Krsqk:

Research into radio-polonium halos indicates the earth could never have been a molten mass. The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour. Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted. No Oort cloud has ever been found; it was based upon faulty calculations. Furthermore, it is supposed to be 50,000 AU from the sun; no telescope could pick up a comet-sized object at that range, rendering it unprovable. Fossil meteorites are rarely found in lower layers of the earth; if those layers were exposed for millions of years, there should be thousands or millions of meteorites found. Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago. Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now. The amount of He-4 in the atmosphere is several orders of magnitude below what it should be for an ancient earth. The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates. The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers." There is very little sediment on the ocean floor. The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years. Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica have a maximum depth of 14 thousand feet. Planes which crashed in Greenland in 1942 were found under 263 feet of ice. Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth. The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old. Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument. The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment. Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand.

Whoa! Whoa!

This is one huge mass of overly-quick conclusions. Just a few corrections/amplifications...

The earth's rotation is slowing because of the gravitational drag of the moon. It is slowing at a rate measured in hundredths of a second annually. It will be billions of years before the earth rotates at the same speed that the moon orbits, resulting in the same part of the earth always facing the moon. How does this relate to the Biblical time scale of ~4,000 years?

Winds, btw, are created by heat differences in the atmosphere, not the earth's rotation.

Jupiter is supposed to be radiating about twice as much energy as it receives, yes. Jupiter and Saturn (and to a lesser extent all the other gas giant planets) are generating energy by the simple mechanism of their huge bulk generating enough pressure and heat to cause a little bit of fusion. Jupiter is only a little bit too small to have become a star, you know. Planets about 4 times the size of Jupiter are called 'brown dwarfs' these days. It's also possible that the rocky cores of these planets have some heavy elements in them, just like earth, and there is some nuclear fission going on.

And speaking of the earth, there are lots of geological processes going on that build up the continents. Using scientific information about erosion to claim that they should have eroded away by now, while ignoring the other scientific information about the building processes, is disingenuous.

I don't know where you get the bit about oil strata cracking. Why would oil strata crack and not other strata? Why would any stata crack? Other than the usual fault lines cause by major movement, of course... In other words, what the farg are you talking about? This is gibberish.

No, the Sahara should not have engulfed all of Africa. A desert is not a living thing that grows and seeks out more space. It's simply an area where certain climate conditions exist. During the Last Ice Age the area now called 'the Sahara' was more like the Great Plains in the US with grasslands and rivers. Its current expansion is actually due to human activities like over-grazing.

Ice cores... this is more gibberish. Ice flows, it doesn't just sit there. The depth is determined by how much greater the rate of deposition is than the rate at which it can flow away. There are hundreds of thousands of tons of icebergs calving off of Greenland every year. Where are they coming from if the ice cap is static? You should know this if you know enough to learn about the depth of the ice cap. This is another clear case of disingenuousness.

There is a huge difference between proving that the scientific worldview is not an air-tight, accomplished fact and using half-truths and clever omissions to try to prove the literalist 'Creation' worldview.

Originally posted by Krsqk:

On the other hand, I would expect the fossil record to closely reflect our current speciation. I would expect hundreds of creation stories in different cultures. I would expect depictions of ancient humans coexisting with dinosaurs (see the Ica stones, for one massive example--how did they accurately depict dinosaurs in their art if they'd never seen one?) I would expect evidence of catastrophism in geology--and many geologists are returning to catastrophism. I would expect massive amounts of fossil fuels. I would expect a lack of ancient geological formations. I would expect many polystrate fossils (such as fossilized trees running vertically through "millions of years" of rock layers). I would expect to still see short-period comets. I would expect the moon to still have short-life isotopes like U-236 and Th-230.

[edit--typos]

I don't see any of these 'expectations' as supporting the 'young earth' (or 'young universe' as the case may be) hypothesis. Many of them are true, yes, but these require the same detailed reasoning to understand as the other phenomena you discussed too superficially. Catastrophism does not preclude long periods of relative calm. Short period comets are just long period comets that have been bumped to a shorter orbit by encounters with a planet. Etc... all these things are quite explainable with the scientific knowledge we have today. The problems only come when the 'scientific' types over-extend their theories in their partisan efforts to blot out all other world-views.

[ December 18, 2002, 21:13: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]