I am not a professional astronomer. However, consider Dr. Hugh Ross. He’s a well-qualified professional astrophysicist. He’s also very confused about biology. He’s an Old Earth Creationsit. He appears to be trying to make a scientific model of Old Earth creationism, but he’s failing becasue of his lack of knowledge in biology. But he’s not a Young Earth creationist … becaase he knows too much about the evidence of an old Universe and Earth. His take on “Starlight and Time” is at The Unraveling of Starlight and Time.
Supernova 1987A is also of interest. The measured distance of about 170,000 light years does not depend on the speed of light, and therefore gives us a lower bound on the age of the Universe. Given that fact, the only way for the Universe to be younger is for the light to have been created in transit by a trickster who is deliberately trying to fool us. See The Distance to Supernova 1987a, The Age of the Universe and SN1987A. SN1987A also provides avidence of the constancy of radioactive decay rates over long times.
Untrue. “Buried” is not “fossilized”. “Covered with limestone” is not “fossilized”. There are no fossils at Mt. St. Helens. There are no fossilized hams, hats, or shoes. Fossil trees … yeah, we got those.
Which is exactly what the Big Bang model predicts. It does not predict a “centralized galaxy site”.
The population of the United States has not increased at a steady, unchanging rate, so why would you think the population of the world would do so, IGOTTHEANSWERS?
According to the Census Bureau’s figures, (you need Adobe Acrobat to look at them) the population of the US in 1930 was 123,202,624. In 1940, the population was 132,164,569. This represents a percentage change of only 7.3%, which happens to be the smallest percentage increase in American history* (which is why I selected it). Why did the population grow so little then? They don’t say, but a reasonable assumption would be The Depression. People weren’t having so many children and I think immigration was restricted then as well.
Things like economic slowdowns, epidemics, natural disasters and wars have the effect of slowing down population growth. Other factors can cause the population to have a growth spurt (Note the quick increase in the population between 1950 and 1960. This is part of “The Baby Boom,” which actually began in 1946.) Since these things cannot be anticipated, no mathematical model can predict with perfect accuracy how a population will grow or decrease.
*(The 2000 census figures are not on that page, they are here.)
Tell you what…go read this, then come back. It is clear that you not only do not now about how fossilization works, but you don’t even know what a fossil is.
**
Velociraptor and many other maniraptorans had breast bones. Mammals have breastbones. I don’t know where you learned your anatomy, but you’re mistaken. And no-one told me Archaeopteryx didn’t have feathers - what I said is that if it were found with no feathers, it would have been mistaken for a dinosaur. But it also had teeth and a reptilian tail, things which no modern bird has. You can contort the truth however you like, but it’s still a perfectly good example of an intermediate.
**
No, you’re saying that. tracer also mentioned Pikaia as an intermediate (of the fossilizaed variety). Amphioxus has all of the features that we would expect to find in a true intermediate; thus, while not being a said intermediate, it provides vital clues as to what it probably looked like (beyond the mere posssession of required characters), and how it probably lived. Get it?
**
And, as I, and others, stated earlier, you are wrong.
**
And, as I, and others, stated earlier, you are wrong.
**
You do know that Dante’s Inferno is fiction, right?
addednum
I see upon previewing that you’ve corrected your “breastbone” to “wishbone”:
**
Not that it helps your case any:
Not all birds have furcula (the anatomical term for a “wishbone”) - notably, they are absent in non-flightless forms. Most tetanuran dinosaurs (which include Velociraptor, Allosaurus and Oviraptor) have furcula. Gliding mammals (e.g., flying squirrels) have furcula. Just like Archaeopteryx.
So…uh…what was you point again?
Why? Niagra didn’t exist at the world’s creation. Earthquakes, continental shift, geological alterations, etc. caused it to appear.
Didja know that the life span of the average lake is only a couple million years? True 'dat, big guy. Only a fool would suggest that the Great Lakes have been where they are for four billion years.
Those aren’t fossils, pal. They’re considered “preserved”, since they’re cut off from most sources of bacteria and oxygen, and as such break down very, very slowly.
I thought it was obvious: You can produce a population growth curve that expands from 2 people in 4000 BC to 6 billion people in 2000 AD. However, that same population growth curve predicts that there would be a total of 19,684 people in 1446 BC, during the time of the Exodus. I thought it ironic that the Bible itself demonstrates that population arguement invalid because as Moses and others census the Israelites in Numbers, Chapter 1, the number 603,550 is given as the total number of male Israelites over the age of 20.
By claiming a population growth curve arguement to support a literal interpretation of one book of the Bible, you have contradicted another book of the Bible.
Huh? If this is the sum total of wisdom and maturity you have to offer us, are you sure your time is well-spent on this message board? Wouldn’t it be better spent making sure your statements are free of malice and spite? How exactly does the above statement contribute to the glory of God?
You are the only person I have ever heard claim that people have been around for 14 million years. As you can see in this link, some evolutionists claim up to about 2 million years as the age of humans, but no one I’m aware of goes as far as 14 million. What makes you think 14 million is conservative?
You may be unaware that the fact that not all offspring survive was one of the principles that led Darwin to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in the first place.
Well, now I have seen the writings of Russel Humpreys. I have to ask if you have, IGOTTHEANSWERS?
Well, one thing is certain IGOTTHEANSWERS, if you actually read this book yourself, you didn’t understand any of it, save one fact, he is apparently trying to create a scientific theory that supports young earth creationism.
A very key idea here is scientific theory… Scientific theories make predictions that can be tested against observable facts. His ideas lead to predictions that are absolutely false in very testable ways. In fact, what is contained in that book is SO bad I can hardly believe how it could be anything but a deliberate attempt to mislead.
The only thing this text is good for is to dazzle believers with “scientific sounding” jargon that they don’t understand, deluding them into thinking that there is solid scientific support for a young earth/universe.
Save yourself the embarrassment and don’t cite this book as reference anymore.
Well, scotth, Humphreys is pretty clearly another Nine-Commandment Christian. As we discovered when we examined his “evidence” regarding silt layers on the ocean floor, he is quite willing to take genuine evidence (Gordeyev’s sedimentation rate) and mix them with errors (Hays’s sedimentation subduction that was not correlated to Gordeyev’s figures) in order to proclaim a “Fact” for Creationism that is actually false.
Regarding the erosion of continents: I have not found any source foolish enough to quote Vandeman, but I have noticed that most Creationists that talk about a too-quick erosion of continents refer to Scientific Creationism, the 1974 work by H.M. Morris. There is a small problem with Morris’s attempt, however: Morris argued at one point that the amount of lava and ash spewed by volcanoes would have added so much material to the Earth’s surface that in 4 billion years, the continents should have been much higher. However, in just the next few pages he argued that erosion would have swept all the continents into the sea in the same period. (Somehow he (and all his successor quoters) seems to have missed the point that if two forces are working exactly opposite each other, they tend to cancel each other out.)
IGOTTHEANSWERS, if you’re still there, may I ask you to pop over and post something in this thread: Two questions for Creationists.
If you would like to post there, please pay special attention to the OP as I restated it (here) on page 3 of the thread.
In case you guys are interested, there’s an organization offering a bung-load of money to the first person that can demonstrate empirically how life can come from non-life. If you evos out there are interested, i’ll send you a copy.
can’t believe anybody would dregde up this sad thing.