Evolution? How?

I don't know about Chumly, but my motivation is to correct any errors and misconceptions that you, RL, personally make.

Real life

Now would you please answer my second question; how old do you think the earth is?

What is the source for your answer?

I seem to find a lot more truth from the Bible and not what a bunch of scientists tell me. come on seriously how believable is all the "scientific" stuff they say is right. a monkey turning in to a man? A big bang and the world was formed? How did the stuff that collided get formed?

Welcome, Mister666--what a name thing you have there.

In the more than 1000 pages of this thead, we've examined most of those topics, and guess what? The bible-thumpers show up to bring them up again. I enjoyed your remarks about Noah, though, i must say. I like to imagine the old fart (in excess of a hundred years old) running around burying fossils in the sediment.

How many sauropds do you suppose one can fit on a vessel that size?

bible thumpers should receive a good thumping with a very large bible. Might knock some sense into them.

mister666 wrote:

bible thumpers should receive a good thumping with a very large bible. Might knock some sense into them.

Doubtful ... biblethumping appears to be largely a terminal condition; most aflictees die with it.

Rapid burial yes but I think it takes a lot of time to turn it into rock. It has to be buried under high pressure and emerge again from erosion of overlaying strata. That's why I laugh at the Noah's Flood story creationist toss out. They say the limestone atop Mt. Everest is proof of the flood covering the entire planet. That limestone, with fossils, was produced during the Flood. Yet no creationist who fancies himself a scientist has ever been able to produce limestone in a 4-6 month period. You can't make rock in that short of time. Perhaps fm can shed some light on this.

Another problem you have with your creationism and young earth is the lack of fossil mix. No humans with dinosaurs, for example. If the earth was populated with all the animals of the world at the same time it should show in the fossil record. It doesn't.

Lastly, your clueless as to when the earth was formed. You throw out and arbitrary date of thousands of years but have no idea what that thousands of years is based on, except something about a young sun. The sun is not young.

You trash evolution because you claim there are gaps in its knowledge. It can't prove this or that. But you state you don't know the age of the earth and hold your ignorance about its creation above all accumulated knowledge of many different fields of science that place the age of the earth in the billions of years. You say science is wrong but you don't know why you think your right.

How Long Would It Take the Moon to Recede from Earth to Its Present Position?
Evolutionists believe (1) the Earth and Moon are 4.5 billion years old, and (2) with enough time bacteria will change into people. We have all heard some evolutionists say, "Given enough time, anything can happen." This simplistic attitude overlooks two things. First, most conceivable events will not happen, because they would violate well-established laws of science.1 Second, if 4.5 billion years have elapsed, many things should have occurred that obviously have not. Rather than "time being the hero of the plot," as one prominent evolutionist stated,2 immense amounts of time cause problems for evolution, as you will now see.

Most dating techniques, including the majority that indicate young ages, make the three basic assumptions given on page 31. The following dating technique has few, if any, major assumptions. It relies basically on only the law of gravity and one undisputed and frequently repeated measurement. We will look at the forces causing the Moon to spiral farther and farther away from Earth. Then we will see that this spiraling action could not have been happening for the length of time evolutionists say the Earth and Moon have been around.

It will be shown that if the Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, it would move to its present position in only 1.2 billion years. Stated another way, if we could run the clock backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that ocean tides would sweep over all mountains. Astronomers who are aware of this problem call it "the lunar crisis."3 Notice that this conclusion does not say that the Earth-Moon system is 1.2 billion years old; it only says that the Earth-Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. Had the Moon begun orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moon's present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists' belief that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old.......

Most people, even scientists, do not appreciate the difficulty of placing a satellite in a nearly circular orbit. For an artificial satellite to achieve such an orbit, several "burns" are required at just the right time, in just the right direction, and with just the right thrust. Most planets and many moons have nearly circular orbits. How could this have happened?

Deceleration of Earth by Tidal Friction [DB 1507 (39); OAB 60] It is claimed that tidal interactions between the Earth and the Moon are causing the Moon to move away from the Earth, and the Earth to rotate more slowly. This much is true, and in fact paleontological studies of ancient corals and stromatolites has confirmed that the Earth did rotate faster in the past, resulting in more than 365 days in a year. It is also true that such a faster rotation would have caused a much greater equatorial bulge in the past than currently exists. The fallacy is the assumption that such a bulge would have remained for us to observe today. The Earth's mantle, made up of rock subjected to high temperatures and pressures, acts like a fluid over long time periods -- it does not hold its shape over billions of years. The current equatorial bulge is very close to what you would expect to be produced by the current rotation rate, although it is slightly larger because the Earth has not completely relaxed from previous times when it rotated faster.

A related question concerns the rate at which the Moon is receding from the Earth. If you simply extrapolate the Moon's orbit backwards in time, assuming that the rate at which it is currently receding has not changed, you find that the Moon would have been close enough for the Earth's gravity to pull it apart only 2 billion years ago. However, K.S. Hansen described a very plausible answer to this question (Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, v.20, no.3, pp.457-480 (1982)). He pointed out that the current Earth-Moon configuration contains a resonance which increases the efficiency of the tidal interactions that are causing the Moon to recede, and that therefore the Moon is currently receding faster than usual. In his computer models, by carefully keeping track of the changing tidal parameters as the Moon spirals away from the Earth, Hansen determined that the Moon would have been at an acceptable distance from the Earth 4.5 billion years ago (for a more detailed discussion, including more recent research based on Hansen's breakthrough, see Thompson (1999),
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html).

Most people, even scientists, do not appreciate the difficulty of placing a satellite in a nearly circular orbit. For an artificial satellite to achieve such an orbit, several "burns" are required at just the right time, in just the right direction, and with just the right thrust. Most planets and many moons have nearly circular orbits. How could this have happened?