1 a is incorrect because you don’t allow for the natural radioactivity that generates heat.
1 b is incorrect because the density and therefore the pressure of the atmosphere decreases with height. Gravity does a very good job of retaining the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure at the boundary with space is much less than 1 bar.
2 a is incorrect because that is not how rock layers are dated.
I believe all of these “problems” don’t in fact exist, and I am pretty sure this has been pointed out to you in the past.
Yes, Nelson does describe himself as a Young Earth Creationist. He won’t specify exactly how old the Earth, the universe or life is, but he says his ‘theological beliefs’ run counter to current scientific understanding; that they would appear to differ significantly. However, he realizes that scientifically, the Young Earth position is hard to maintain. That’s why he describes the Young Earth view as his theological understanding or belief.
There is an interesting discussion between Nelson and Ronald Numbers from 2009 accessible through the way-back machine.
The Evoskepsis article seems wholly unaware of any of the geology of plate tectonics. The article looks like a careless cut-and-paste from some very early creationist argument that even creationists themselves have moved on from. Is it possible that its author - or Dr DeJong - has really never heard of it? If he knows anything about it, he will have to refute it before resorting to the rather naive conclusions from rather simplistic assertions that Evoskepsis relies on.
I would like to invite you to an exciting and dangerous mind experiment.
MIND EXPERIMENT
Imagine that you have never heard of the theory of evolution; this will be hard for you to do, but try for about 5 minutes!
Imagine that you are an unbiased empirical scientist.
Take notice of the following empirical facts:
The Earth is in fact a sphere of liquid rock covered with a thin crust, and would have cooled down completely after billions of years.
The atmosphere of the earth is in open interaction with the hostile, icy vacuum of the universe; the atmosphere is thrown away into space by the rotation of the earth, and constantly bombarded by high-energy particles that push away the atmospheric molecules; the pressure difference of 1 Bar between the earth and the vacuum of the universe sucks out the atmosphere into space. Over billions of years, the pressure difference would have evened out and the atmosphere would have disappeared.
There is hardly any dust of meteorites on earth.
There is little leach of salts in the oceans.
There is little sediment in the oceans.
Due to wind and weather erosion of 0.1 mm per year, in only 100 million years all mountains would have been eroded away. Instead, the peaks of most mountains are not worn, but sharp and pointed.
The spinning of the earth is slowing down. Therefore, 25 times between 1972 and 2015 an extra second has been added to the official time. Counting back, 15 million years ago the earth must have been spinning 100 times faster than now, making it impossible for the life that we know today to exist.
The magnetic field of the earth is decreasing. Since 1830, the field has diminished in strength by 10%. Counting back, 10 million years ago the magnetic field of the earth would have been 100 times stronger as now, making it impossible for the life that we know today to exist.
As an unbiased empirical scientist, you find it evident that at least one (!) of the eight empirical facts above contradict the theory that the earth is billions of years old. According to the playing rules of empirical science, you therefore reject the theory that the earth is billions of years old.
After 5 minutes, you can stop to be an unbiased empirical scientist. You may turn back to your normal life as a believer in fairy tales. No problem.
But do not claim that empirical science supports your faith that the earth is billions of years old, or that a mechanism that produces cancer can improve the DNA and can build DNA mutation repair systems.
As soon as you supply some facts I will play your silly game but these are not facts they are the imaginations of someone who doesn’t understand basic physics. I have already pointed out how several of these are wrong. I could point out why all of them are wrong but why bother.
BTW, the theory of evolution would have no impact on these. Or are you saying that scientists lie about the physical universe just to support that old Eviloution?
And can you explain why geologists 100 years before the TOE started to realize the earth was much older than once thought? In fact these geologists were for the most part Christian.
I’m not Bill, George or Argon, but I’m imagining. . .
Okay, I’ve done that. And now I’m imagining that I know something about radioactive decay, and that that process generates a large amount of energy within the Earth, and that any calculation of the Earth’s cooling that doesn’t take it into account will be hopelessly wrong.
I’ve imagined that. Now I’m also imagining the actual Earth, rather than the imaginary one. The actual Earth has scientists on it who have calculated how much atmosphere the Earth loses from these processes, and it isn’t much. [quote=“WilliamDJ, post:46, topic:35581”]
3. There is hardly any dust of meteorites on earth.
[/quote]
This is too vague a statement to even imagine. Hardly any compared to what? Measured how?
Now I’m imagining an Earth with vast salt deposits scattered around the globe, preserving evidence of repeated deposition of salt from the oceans, and wondering why the questioner doesn’t know about them.
At this point I stopped imagining, and stopped reading. If someone is going to ask me to think like an unbiased empirical scientist, they should deal in science. These arguments almost totally neglect vast swathes of well-established science. What’s the point in trying to make scientific arguments while ignoring the actual results of science?
Oh, dear me. When you first posted, I began to compile a detailed rebuttal of every single one of your “empirical facts”, but decided not to bother, as my fellow scientists already know, and I’m not at all sure that you want to. Briefly however,
Not one of your facts is either empirical or true. The earth is certainly not a sphere of liquid rock, and your statement that it “would have” done something is not an empirical fact but an inference drawn from the most minimal of evidence. Your speculation about the atmosphere is not an empirical fact but a far-fetched guess. Again, your “would have” is a hazy inference drawn from minimal evidence. Your empirical facts 3, 4 and 5 are wholly subjective. How much meteoritic dust is there? Not “hardly any” or “quite a lot” but an empirical fact? What does “little” mean, in the context of the leach of salts or the amount of sediment in the sea? What makes you think it is “little”? Your empirical facts 5, 6 and 7 are not facts at all. They are naive arithmetical extrapolations, when the most cursory inspection of the evidence upon which they are based suggests an exponential curve of some kind.[quote=“WilliamDJ, post:46, topic:35581”]
As an unbiased empirical scientist, you find it evident that at least one (!) of the eight empirical facts above contradict the theory that the earth is billions of years old. According to the playing rules of empirical science, you therefore reject the theory that the earth is billions of years old.
[/quote]
I am an unbiased empirical scientist, and it is transparently obvious that your list of “empirical facts” is nothing of the kind. It is so naive that I do not believe that you believe any of them yourself, let alone that you expect anyone else to. Are you drawing a stalking horse across our trail to see what emerges from the undergrowth?
If you look at this “high view” of Earth’s history …
.
.
.
.
You can see that from 4,560 million years ago, until the Cambrian period began and multi-cellular life emerged - - 542 million years ago - - the Earth spent more than 4 billion years just sitting around maturing and settling down.
That’s 88% of Earth’s entire life span… with nothing but tiny specs of quasi-life drifting through the waters …
You make the emergence of complex life sound like something that happened over night !
The litmus test for a theory to be scientific, is that it must be falsifiable and therefore it must be testable. Your theory is not. It is a belief. Please accept the playing rules of empirical science. (In addition, notice that fossils are dated with earth layers, and earth layers are dated with fossils; and also notice that dating based on radioactive decay is dependent upon the assumptions on the amount of radioactive material that was present initially).
The earth is a sphere of liquid rock covered with a thin crust. It would have been cooled down completely after billions of years. This is a scientific fact, because cooling down processes are fully understood by empirical science. Empirical scientist also know for sure that the earth is not a nuclear reactor in action, because the radiation from such a gigantic nuclear reactor underneath our feet would be measurable and would make life on the surface of the earth impossible. Notice that underneath the crushed nuclear plant of Tsjernobyl, the rocks did not became fluid, despite the intensity of the radiation.
The convection of liquid rock below the thin crust of the earth, drives plate tectonics and the magnetic field of the earth. Pushing plates up or under other plates costs energy. Due to the dissipation of energy, the convection flows slows down and the magnetic field decreases. Dissipation processes are fully understood by empirical science. You can test them yourself in your kitchen by stirring in pan of soup. If you stop stirring when you get tired by the dissipation of your energy, the speed of the flows in your pan of soup slows down within seconds. Hereafter, the flows keep moving some time at a much lower decreasing speed and finally stop.
The spinning of the earth is slowed down by forces of resistance in the atmosphere and by the internal friction of convection flows inside the earth. Empirical science fully understands the slowing down of spinning objects when they meet forces of resistance. You can test slowing down processes yourself in your car. If you stop pushing down the accelerator pedal, your speed quickly decreases. Hereafter you keep rolling some time at a much lower speed. Your speed keeps dropping and finally you stop.
Only in fairy tales, people can live on a gigantic nuclear power plant that turns rocks into liquid.
Only in fairy tales, flows of liquid rock do not dissipate energy and keep moving for billions of years. In reality the magnetic field, which is caused by the flows of liquid rock around an iron kernel, has diminished with 10% since 1830. Counting back 10 million of years, the magnetic field must have been at least 100 times stronger. Life would have been impossible.
Only in fairy tales spinning objects do not slow down and keep moving for billions of years. In reality, 25 times between 1972 and 2015 an extra second has been attached to the official time, to correct the slowing down of the spinning of the earth. Counting back 15 million years, the earth must have been spinning at least 100 times faster than today. Life would have been impossible.
The claim that the earth is billions of years old, is only a secondary problem in current evolutionary theory. Core problem is that a mechanism that produces cancer cannot improve the DNA and cannot build mutation repair systems. Also see ‘Problems in Evolutionary Theory: Seven core problems and twelve secondary problems’ at http://evoskepsis.nl/english/problems.html .
Your link offers a whole catalog of rather stunning statements of falsehood (listed at bottom):
And I think I can guarantee that you don’t have a single peer-reviewed article that supports any of them.
Examples:
A) Whether or not dividing change into 2 groups (variation within a species and variation that creates species) is a useful concept, there is nothing confused about them. Nor are there different mechanisms. It is one mechanism of change (mutation) and one mechanism of generational transmission: reproductive compatibility under constant pressure from natural selection.
B) Evolution is any change: good, bad, neutral, etc. Only Creationists say Evolution is “continual improvement”.
C) Your distinction regarding the Variation Engine vs. the Innovation Engine is mythical; it doesn’t apply to the real world of genetic variation within populations.
D) Your claim that natural processes are of “decay” only clearly misunderstands how even something as simple as gravitational aggregation can cause a giant cosmic cloud of hydrogen to eventually create a Sun, organized as a Fusion Reactor. And that Fusion Reactors produce new elements in predictable sequences… carbon before gold, nitrogen before silver. So much for your sweeping generalization.
E) Alchemical metaphysics has more in common with Lamarck: “Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed, in his Philosophie Zoologique of 1809, a theory of the Transmutation of Species (“transformisme”). Lamarck did not believe that all living things shared a common ancestor but rather that simple forms of life were created continuously by spontaneous generation.” Obviously, he was in error.
F) Why you think Evolution cannot explain the existence of mutation repair mechanisms is well beyond even my wild imagination. Just typing the allegation can make a person shake his or her head.
As for your secondary issues, produce a peer-reviewed article on how the Earth is not billions of years old. I don’t think you can. The final objection: “12. The theory of evolution has difficulty to meet the standards for scientific theories.” is flatly incorrect. Evolution has independently corroborated by as many as a dozen scientific disciplines, all intersecting into consistent agreement that given enough time, speciation is inevitable and identifiable.
Primary Problems in the theory of evolution
Two completely different types of change (variation and innovation) are confused
Two completely different mechanisms of change are confused
Changes in the DNA cause cancer and genetic diseases, not continual improvement
The empirical evidence for evolution by the variation engine are used as proof for the functioning of the innovation engine
Natural processes are processes of decay and cannot innovate
An alchemistic view of matter lays at the basis of the theory of evolution
The theory of evolution can not explain the existence of mutation repair mechanisms
Secondary problems
There are numerous indications that the earth is not billions of years old
The dating of the layers of the earth is unreliable
Sunshine does not cause a natural process in which molecules are becoming increasingly complex
The billions of tons of primordial soup could never have existed
Putting organisms in a family tree does not prove that they are originated from each other by natural processes
Putting organs in a family tree does not prove that they have originated from one another by natural processes
Putting processes or molecules in a family tree does not prove that they have originated form one another by natural processes
The decrease of order elsewhere in the universe can not provide an increase of order on earth
The order of the human DNA is not comparable to the order of a crystal structure
Within living nature, numerous “irreducible complex” systems are present
Claiming that mutations can cause mutation repair is nonsense
The theory of evolution has difficulty to meet the standards for scientific theories
[End Of Extract]
@WilliamDJ This is such a farrago of nonsense, repeated, without any empirical justification, for the third time, in spite of serious scientific incredulity, that you make it very difficult for us to believe you have any idea what ‘empirical’ science is, let alone what it has observed over the last couple of hundred years. Please, I respectfully ask, instead of merely repeating it again, or referring us simply to the article wherein you found it, provide some empirical evidence that any of it is true.
But even if the Earth was originally a ball of liquid, this does not give us an age of 10,000 years!
In an wiki article, we read about Lord Kelvin’s calculations on just this matter:
"Based on calculations of Earth’s cooling rate, which assumed constant conductivity in the Earth’s interior, in 1862 William Thomson (later made Lord Kelvin) estimated the age of the Earth at 98 million years,[6] which contrasts with the age of 4.5 billion years obtained in the 20th century by radiometric dating.[7] "
Footnotes:
[6] Thomson, William. (1864). On the secular cooling of the earth, read 28 April 1862. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 23, 157–170.
[7] Taylor, S. R. (2007). .1 The Formation of the Earth and Moon. Developments in Precambrian Geology, 15, 21–30.
33 years after Kelvin’s conclusion, new ideas were explored:
“As pointed out by John Perry in 1895[8] a variable conductivity in the Earth’s interior could expand the computed age of the Earth to billions of years, as later confirmed by radiometric dating.”
Footnote 8: England, P., Molnar, P., Richter, F. (2007). John Perry’s neglected critique of Kelvin’s age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics. 4 JANUARY 2007, GSA Today : v. 17, no. 1, doi: 10.1130/GSAT01701A.1
And ultimately, once an outer mantle is formed around the core, “mantle convection alters how heat is transported within the Earth, invalidating Kelvin’s assumption of purely conductive cooling.”
You are quite entitled to invent whatever definitions of science and honesty you choose, of course. They are different from those held by all the scientists investigating pre-history, and rather put you out on an intellectual limb, but if you feel it worthwhile, please explain how any investigation of historical events is scientifically possible, or do you think that archaeology, palaeontology and related studies are on a par with astrology and tasseography?
OK, agree. I was thinking about poly sci, climatology (because climate is chaotic), archaeologists, and such. Statistical analysis and probability are tools of science but are not “scientific.” Many “popular” scientists have forgotten basic statistics and probability.
I think you will find that climatology is on the other end from Political Science, because Political Science is virtually nothing but human psychology…
… Compared to Climatology which allows all sorts of non-human investigation and testing:
A) How high was the ocean 1 million years ago? We have ways to measure that.
B) How high was the CO2 concentration 700,000 years ago? We have ways to measure that.
C) What kind of pollen existed 500,000? We have ways to measure that.
D) What phase was the Milankovitch Cycle 250,000 years ago? We have ways to calculculate that.
And as far as “chaotic” goes … 8 times out of 8 - - in 800,000 years - - the atmosphere has cycled between 280 ppm of CO2 to 180 ppm… back and forth like the swinging of the pendulum. And each swing yielded effects the same as the last swing.
The only thing chaotic about Climatology is the human reaction to the findings.
Water gushing at high speeds through a pipe is chaotic (turbulent), but that doesn’t mean we can’t do the science to know within reasonable precision how fast it will fill a bucket. What makes you think scientists are not using their knowledge of statistics and probability? Those mathematical skills are the running currency for much of it.
