Young Earth Evidence

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Paveza

unread,
Jun 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/3/99
to
Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
billion years old.
Young Universe Evidence
1) Insufficient number of supernovas / rate at which they occur. A new
supernova event is observed about every 30 years, and we see only a few
thousand in existence.
2) Absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it would seem that
some galaxies would not be gravitationally bound and would just spread out
in a "field".
3) Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of different ages. If a
star cluster is gravitationally bound, under stellar evolution theory one
would expect all the stars would be the same age.
Young Solar System Evidence
1) Rate of bombardment of meteoritic dust / amount of dust measured on the
moon. Should be several hundred feet of dust on the moon. Several years ago
this creationist argument was dismissed, and many creationists themselves
stopped using it. However, in light of the latest scientific research, this
argument has been revived.
2) Existence of short-period comets. They can only last a maximum of several
thousand years because they give off copious material each orbit.
3) Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of the
Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect should sweep the solar
system clean of small particles.
4) Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not
stable and will not last.
5) Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io. Inadequate heat sources
for a small moon so far from the sun to still be geologically active.
6) Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury,
Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal
dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field
around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of
existence if they ever had any.
7) Rock flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have eliminated old
craters on the moon.
8) Recession of the moon from the earth. Moon is moving away from the earth
gradually due to tidal activity. Movement is too fast for earth-moon system
to be 4.6 billion years old.
9) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't
extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's
environment.
10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core
should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number
of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued
that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would
imply a young sun.
11) Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended time
period.
12) High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have decayed.
13) High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have decayed.
Young Earth Evidence
1) Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field (half-life of 1400-2000
years). This half-life cannot be extrapolated back more than about 10,000
years without the field becoming intolerably powerful. Creationists have
been criticized for taking the original work on this matter out of context
and failing to show that the magnetic field is cyclic (decaying then
strengthening). However, it is the old earth believers that have concocted
this data in an imaginary hypothetical cyclic extrapolation. It is the
creationist who has used only the empirical evidence, to devise a theory
that truly explains that data now available to us.
2) Insufficient mass of helium in earth's atmosphere to account for 4.6
billion years of radioactive decay. Helium is a by-product of radioactive
decay of some elements. It is a noble gas which doesn't combine with any
other element, but there is not enough of it to account for the radioactive
decay which should have occurred in an old-earth scenario.
3) Despite inferior medical and nutritional practices, evidence indicates
that the human species should have populated the earth much more quickly if
they had been around for millions of years.
4) Earliest known human civilizations are only a few thousand years old.
5) Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, cannot be traced
back more than several thousand years.
6) Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few
thousand years old.
7) Dating of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of sediment
accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old.
8) Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should reach
equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't
reached that point yet.
9) Erosion rate of the continents. Continental mass divided by net erosion
rate (that is, despite accretion due to volcanism, tectonic activity, and
geosyncline) would wash all of the continents into the ocean in about 14
million years.
10) Amount of salts in the ocean divided by rate of influx. This is actually
many dating methods - one for each salt which can be measured. For example,
all the sodium chloride in the ocean would have been ashed in about 62
million years, if the ocean was pure water to begin with.
11) Amount of water on earth's surface / rate at which it is expelled from
below ground. Enough water is expelled from deep below the earth via
volcanoes, etc. to rapidly produce more than all the water on the earth's
surface.
12) No plausible explanation for the pressure in oil reservoirs remaining so
high for millions of years.
13) Existence of uranium halos.
14) Existence of polonium halos. Some believe that the polonium halos
disqualify radiometric dating as a reliable dating method because they may
indicate that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant throughout
history. Others feel these halos indicate a rapid (instant) creation of the
earth.

-Polonium Halos from www.halos.com-

"Etched within Earth's foundation rocks--the granites--are beautiful
microspheres of coloration

produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to
have only a fleeting

existence. A simple analogy shows, on one hand, how these polonium
microspheres--or halos--contradict

the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over
millions of years. On the

other hand, it demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of
an almost instantaneous

creation of granites: A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared
with an Alka-Seltzer dropped

into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the
moment that polonium atoms began

to emit radioactive particles.

In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as
quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were
instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos
could have formed only if specks of polonium had been instantly encased in
solid rock. An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in
granites around the world. Just as the frozen bubbles would be clear
evidence of quick-freezing of water, so are polonium halos undeniable
evidence that many rapidly 'effervescing' specks of created polonium
interacted with a sea of primordial matter which was directly 'frozen' as
solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly
implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony
with the biblical record of creation."

"Evidence for a Rapidly Formed Geologic Column"

The geologic column (representing all the earth's observed sedimentary rock)
in classical geology represents hundreds of millions of years of
evolutionary history. Evidence that this column formed rapidly rather than
over millions of years is therefore evidence for a young geologic column and
a young earth. It should be noted that the "geologic column" is purely
hypothetical and cannot be found in a complete form anywhere on earth other
than in a textbook.

1) Lack of meteorites in the geologic column. If the geologic column is
billions of years old one would expect to find meteorites throughout.
2) Ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary rocks. This
implies very rapid burial and hardening because these fragile features could
not survive even trivial erosion.
3) Polystrate fossils. These are fossils which cut across multiple geologic
layers that were supposedly laid down millions of years apart. Fossilized
trees and animals are often found in tact and spanning supposedly millions
of years of geologic layers.
4) Regional deposition. Current known geologic processes don't account for
regional deposits (covering multiple U.S. states, for example). This applies
to certain types of rocks, as well as coal and oil reserves.
5) Deformation of strata implies it was soft when deformed and hadn't
hardened into rock.
6) Absence of bioturbation in the geologic column. Biological activity soon
disturbs sedimentary deposits formed by modern catastrophes (hurricanes and
floods) but is not evidenced in the geologic column. This implies that the
geologic column was buried very deeply and rapidly.
7) Lack of recognizable soil layers in the geologic column. Soil material is
seldom found in the geologic column. One would think that the earth had soil
layers in the past, and if it was slowly buried, some would be preserved.
8) Undisturbed bedding planes. Different geologic rock layers often show
sharp, knife-edge breaks between layers, with no evidence of erosion
between. This is not realistic if the layers formed over long periods of
time.
9) Clastic dikes. Clastic dikes are formed from soft sand squeezed up
through newer layers of rock. This implies that the sandy older (lower)
layer was still soft enough to squeeze sand up (like squeezing a toothpaste
tube) through the younger upper layers.

The Earth's Magnetic Field

The earth's magnetic field is a powerful witness for a world much younger
than the billions of years required by evolutionary theories. Let's start
the story with the most prominent feature of the field today--its very rapid
decay.

"The Field Is Decaying Rapidly"

The average 'intensity' of the earth's magnetic field has decreased
exponentially by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829. The
field's intensity includes components of strength and direction and tells us
the amount of force turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the
field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate
the total electrical "energy" stored in the field. Such calculations show
that the total energy in the field has decreased by about 14% since 1829.
This rapid decay of both energy and intensity was not widely known, even
among scientists, until Dr. Thomas Barnes, a reationist physicist, began
publicizing it in 1971. He pointed out that such a decay would occur very
naturally if the electrical current producing the field were slowly losing
energy because of the electrical resistance of the core. This theory is
called 'free decay.' The observed decay rate is exactly what one would
expect from the electrical properties of the materials most likely to be in
the core.

"Evolutionary Theories Haven't Worked"

The free-decay theory contradicts the evolutionary "dynamo" theories, which
claim that complex processes in the earth's core have converted heat energy
into electrical energy, much like an electric generator, maintaining the
field for billions of years. Many intelligent scientists have been working
on dynamo theories for over four decades without great success. Furthermore,
recent measurements of electric currents in the sea floor weigh heavily
against the most popular class of dynamo theories.
Thus evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the
rapid decay of the field, whereas the free-decay theory does. However, our
historical data on the intensity of the field only goes back to 1829. Was
the field decaying before that? Fortunately, there is a scientific way to
answer that question.

"Archaeomagnetism" is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery,
campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists.
Iron oxides in those objects retain a record of the strength and direction
of the earth's magnetic field at the time they last cooled to normal
temperatures. Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity
of the earth's magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is
today, and that it has declined steadily since then.
Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of
years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the
past in order for it to still exist today. Creationists of the 1970s
extrapolated today's decay back into the past, showing that the field could
not be more than about 10,000 years old, assuming a constant decay of
intensity."

"The Field's 'Energy' Has Always Decreased"

According to the dynamic-decay theory, the 'energy' in the field has always
decreased rapidly. In fact, the energy loss during reversals and
fluctuations would have been even faster than today's rate. This information
allows us to estimate the age of the field.
The data and the dynamic-decay theory imply that, ever since creation, the
field has always lost at least half its energy every 700 years. Figure 2
illustrates the factors involved. The maximum energy in the figure comes
from another theory I proposed about the nature of the field when God
created the earth, a theory which successfully predicted space probe
measurements of planetary magnetic fields. Extrapolating today's energy
decay rate back (along the dotted straight line labeled 'free decay') to
that limit yields a maximum age of 8700 years. According to the
dynamic-decay theory, the true age would be less than that because of extra
losses during the reversals and fluctuations. The solid line (labeled
'dynamic decay') shows that with a significant loss of energy during the
Genesis flood, the age of the field would be about 6000 years.

Conclusion

At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid
reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory-a theory that fits
all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the
earth's magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely
less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical
age of 6,000 years.


Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.

unread,
Jun 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/3/99
to
Ugh........ I'm way too lazy to formulate my own responses, but I'm pretty
sure I heard these before.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html

Boikat

unread,
Jun 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/3/99
to
Robert Paveza wrote:
>
> Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
> billion years old.
> Young Universe Evidence
> 1) Insufficient number of supernovas / rate at which they occur. A new
> supernova event is observed about every 30 years, and we see only a few
> thousand in existence.

What does that have to do with the age of the
earth? Besides, we do not have the ability to
cover every square arc second of sky. Also,
what's your source that claims that "x" number of
SN should be occurring, and also in what frame of
reference? Last I read the rate for *our* galaxy
was around one pr century or so.

> 2) Absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it would seem that
> some galaxies would not be gravitationally bound and would just spread out
> in a "field".

Ever heard of "gravity"?

> 3) Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of different ages. If a
> star cluster is gravitationally bound, under stellar evolution theory one
> would expect all the stars would be the same age.

That was the "old theory".


> Young Solar System Evidence
> 1) Rate of bombardment of meteoritic dust / amount of dust measured on the
> moon. Should be several hundred feet of dust on the moon. Several years ago
> this creationist argument was dismissed, and many creationists themselves
> stopped using it. However, in light of the latest scientific research, this
> argument has been revived.

And still not valid.


> 2) Existence of short-period comets. They can only last a maximum of several
> thousand years because they give off copious material each orbit.

Ever heard of the Kuiper Belt? It's full of
cometary bodies, and the HST has imaged several of
them.

> 3) Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of the
> Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect should sweep the solar
> system clean of small particles.

And minor collisions and impacts with asteroids
will replenish them.

> 4) Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not
> stable and will not last.

So what? Who says that saturn has always had a
ring system like we see today?

> 5) Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io. Inadequate heat sources
> for a small moon so far from the sun to still be geologically active.

Ever heard of "tidal stress"? Obviously not.

> 6) Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury,
> Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal
> dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field
> around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of
> existence if they ever had any.

Do you assume that we know everything there is to
know about those bodies at this time?

> 7) Rock flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have eliminated old
> craters on the moon.

"Rock flow"? Bwahahahahah! Besides of which, the
gravity is much weaker on the moon, so any
degradation to "rock flow" would be minor.

> 8) Recession of the moon from the earth. Moon is moving away from the earth
> gradually due to tidal activity. Movement is too fast for earth-moon system
> to be 4.6 billion years old.

Ho Hum. Old as dino dung. The moon is moving
away only a few CM per year, and not at a constant
rate. The recession changes in proportion to
distance and is effected by mutual interaction
with the tidal bulge. By the way, have you ever
actually figured out how far the moon's orbit has
supposedly changed?

> 9) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't
> extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's
> environment.

The sun is not shrinking.

> 10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core
> should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number
> of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued
> that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would
> imply a young sun.

It could also mean that we do not have all the
answers. And is that "Neutrinos" or "Neutrons"?

> 11) Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended time
> period.

Why not?

> 12) High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have decayed.

Why?

> 13) High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have decayed.

It's a decay product. None of it would be there
if something else had not decayed. Do you know
what that parent element is? No? Why don't you
go look it up?

> Young Earth Evidence
> 1) Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field (half-life of 1400-2000
> years). This half-life cannot be extrapolated back more than about 10,000
> years without the field becoming intolerably powerful. Creationists have
> been criticized for taking the original work on this matter out of context
> and failing to show that the magnetic field is cyclic (decaying then
> strengthening). However, it is the old earth believers that have concocted
> this data in an imaginary hypothetical cyclic extrapolation. It is the
> creationist who has used only the empirical evidence, to devise a theory
> that truly explains that data now available to us.

Another oldie but goody. BTW, the cyclic strength
of the magnetic field is recorded in the magnetic
banding that lay on either side of tectonic
spreading zones, IIRC.

> 2) Insufficient mass of helium in earth's atmosphere to account for 4.6
> billion years of radioactive decay. Helium is a by-product of radioactive
> decay of some elements. It is a noble gas which doesn't combine with any
> other element, but there is not enough of it to account for the radioactive
> decay which should have occurred in an old-earth scenario.

Helium, being a very light element, and can be
stripped from the upper atmosphere by ionization
and the solar wind.

> 3) Despite inferior medical and nutritional practices, evidence indicates
> that the human species should have populated the earth much more quickly if
> they had been around for millions of years.

Only if you ignore factors that slow population
growth, such as wars famines, natural disasters
plagues....

> 4) Earliest known human civilizations are only a few thousand years old.

Had to start some time.

> 5) Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, cannot be traced
> back more than several thousand years.

Bwahahahahah! Why don't you *research* this
crap? By the same token, the world is only twenty
or so years old because that's the oldest tree in
my back yard!


> 6) Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few
> thousand years old.

So what?

> 7) Dating of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of sediment
> accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old.

So what?

> 8) Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should reach
> equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't
> reached that point yet.

That's because the rate C-14 decays is different
than the rate it is generated, which varies over
time, slightly.

> 9) Erosion rate of the continents. Continental mass divided by net erosion
> rate (that is, despite accretion due to volcanism, tectonic activity, and
> geosyncline) would wash all of the continents into the ocean in about 14
> million years.

Ignores mountain building, and tectonic activity.
Ho hum.

> 10) Amount of salts in the ocean divided by rate of influx. This is actually
> many dating methods - one for each salt which can be measured. For example,
> all the sodium chloride in the ocean would have been ashed in about 62
> million years, if the ocean was pure water to begin with.

Ignores removal methods such as salt flats, and
that chlorine evaporates out.

> 11) Amount of water on earth's surface / rate at which it is expelled from
> below ground. Enough water is expelled from deep below the earth via
> volcanoes, etc. to rapidly produce more than all the water on the earth's
> surface.

It's recycled water through fractures in the
bedrock. Sheesh!

> 12) No plausible explanation for the pressure in oil reservoirs remaining so
> high for millions of years.

Non porous cap rock.

> 13) Existence of uranium halos.

How is that a problem?

> 14) Existence of polonium halos. Some believe that the polonium halos
> disqualify radiometric dating as a reliable dating method because they may
> indicate that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant throughout
> history. Others feel these halos indicate a rapid (instant) creation of the
> earth.

They are wrong. Polonium is a daughter element of
a whole chain of decay products.

[snip same old poop.]

> "Evidence for a Rapidly Formed Geologic Column"
>
> The geologic column (representing all the earth's observed sedimentary rock)
> in classical geology represents hundreds of millions of years of
> evolutionary history. Evidence that this column formed rapidly rather than
> over millions of years is therefore evidence for a young geologic column and
> a young earth. It should be noted that the "geologic column" is purely
> hypothetical and cannot be found in a complete form anywhere on earth other
> than in a textbook.

Is there *any* geological reference book that says
that the *complete* uninterrupted geological
column is *supposed* to be present somewhere?

>
> 1) Lack of meteorites in the geologic column. If the geologic column is
> billions of years old one would expect to find meteorites throughout.

There have been some found. It's rare enough to
find one "now" on the surface, much less to find
one entombed in sedimentary rock.

> 2) Ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary rocks. This
> implies very rapid burial and hardening because these fragile features could
> not survive even trivial erosion.

Nope. Besides, what are they doing scattered
throughout the geologic column?

> 3) Polystrate fossils. These are fossils which cut across multiple geologic
> layers that were supposedly laid down millions of years apart. Fossilized
> trees and animals are often found in tact and spanning supposedly millions
> of years of geologic layers.

Ever heard of volcanos? Ash falls? local river
floods?

> 4) Regional deposition. Current known geologic processes don't account for
> regional deposits (covering multiple U.S. states, for example). This applies
> to certain types of rocks, as well as coal and oil reserves.

What?

> 5) Deformation of strata implies it was soft when deformed and hadn't
> hardened into rock.

Or that it was under a tremendous amount of
pressure. Limestone slugs have been compressed
like marshmallows in the lab under hydraulic
pressure.

> 6) Absence of bioturbation in the geologic column. Biological activity soon
> disturbs sedimentary deposits formed by modern catastrophes (hurricanes and
> floods) but is not evidenced in the geologic column. This implies that the
> geologic column was buried very deeply and rapidly.

Nope.

> 7) Lack of recognizable soil layers in the geologic column. Soil material is
> seldom found in the geologic column. One would think that the earth had soil
> layers in the past, and if it was slowly buried, some would be preserved.

Wrong.

> 8) Undisturbed bedding planes. Different geologic rock layers often show
> sharp, knife-edge breaks between layers, with no evidence of erosion
> between. This is not realistic if the layers formed over long periods of
> time.

Not a problem, but what happened to that ol' #
"6" make up your mind, was the flood violent or
calm as a mirror?

> 9) Clastic dikes. Clastic dikes are formed from soft sand squeezed up
> through newer layers of rock. This implies that the sandy older (lower)
> layer was still soft enough to squeeze sand up (like squeezing a toothpaste
> tube) through the younger upper layers.

And usually found in relation to fault zones, and
areas prone to volcanism, right?

>
> The Earth's Magnetic Field

See above.

[snip]

>
> "The Field's 'Energy' Has Always Decreased"
>
> According to the dynamic-decay theory, the 'energy' in the field has always
> decreased rapidly. In fact, the energy loss during reversals and
> fluctuations would have been even faster than today's rate. This information
> allows us to estimate the age of the field.

Quickly in geological terms.

> The data and the dynamic-decay theory imply that, ever since creation, the
> field has always lost at least half its energy every 700 years. Figure 2
> illustrates the factors involved.

"figure 2"? Is this a simple "cut and paste"
parrot post?

> The maximum energy in the figure comes
> from another theory I proposed about the nature of the field when God
> created the earth, a theory which successfully predicted space probe
> measurements of planetary magnetic fields. Extrapolating today's energy
> decay rate back (along the dotted straight line labeled 'free decay') to
> that limit yields a maximum age of 8700 years. According to the
> dynamic-decay theory, the true age would be less than that because of extra
> losses during the reversals and fluctuations. The solid line (labeled
> 'dynamic decay') shows that with a significant loss of energy during the
> Genesis flood, the age of the field would be about 6000 years.

Anyone can make up pictures using selective data
points.

>
> Conclusion
>
> At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid
> reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory-a theory that fits
> all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the
> earth's magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely
> less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical
> age of 6,000 years.

Too bad the "problems" are not "problems".

Boikat


UR32212451

unread,
Jun 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/3/99
to
"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote

>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY be 4.6
billion years old.

Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
effort toward rebuttal.

Bdiller's post merely references a T.O. FAQ which touches
only on a few of your evidences, and some of these are
inconclusive and/or speculative.


raven1

unread,
Jun 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/3/99
to
On 3 Jun 1999 22:51:15 -0400, ur322...@aol.com (UR32212451) wrote:

>"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote


>
>>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY be 4.6
>billion years old.
>

>Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
>of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
>effort toward rebuttal.

Specifically?

Boikat

unread,
Jun 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/3/99
to
UR32212451 wrote:
>
> "Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote
>
> >Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY be 4.6
> billion years old.
>
> Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
> of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
> effort toward rebuttal.

Yah, right. Two ignorant twits pat each other on
the back, Big whoopy!


>
> Bdiller's post merely references a T.O. FAQ which touches
> only on a few of your evidences, and some of these are
> inconclusive and/or speculative.

In other words, you didn't understand/read the
Merrit article?

Boikat


ZenIsWhen

unread,
Jun 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/3/99
to
In article <001f402332303...@email.msn.com>, "Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
>billion years old.

And here we have a repeat of just about every creationist fantasy theory that
has been presented in T.O. within the past year .... and been soundly refuted
by real, scientific evidence.

Lots of "It seems", "not likely", "it couldn't" "I can't understand" type of
crap ..
and no real evidence or facts - just the same old assertions.


ZenIsWhen

unread,
Jun 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/3/99
to
In article <19990603225014...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, ur322...@aol.com (UR32212451) wrote:
>"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote
>
>>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY be 4.6
>billion years old.
>
>Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
>of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
>effort toward rebuttal.
>
>Bdiller's post merely references a T.O. FAQ which touches
>only on a few of your evidences, and some of these are
>inconclusive and/or speculative.
>

All of this crap has been posted before - and soundly refuted.
Why keep answering, in detail, the same crap lies over and over again?

If T.O. FAQ doesn't cover it (and I'm sure they cover more than you indicate -
and in more and real detail than you want to admit) - try doing a search in
Deja News for ALL of the past posts on most of the exact same topics.

As far as being "inconclusive and / or speculative" ... show any point in that
whole post where Robert offered anything more than just uneducated assertions.


Kevin R. Henke

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to

Robert Paveza wrote in message
<001f402332303...@email.msn.com>...

KRH: No. The sun's radiation pushes some of the particles back.
Other particles are trapped indefinitely between gravitation pulls of
planets. See Strahler, 1987, p. 145.

Strahler, A. N., 1987, Science and Earth History: The
Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus, Buffalo, NY.

4) Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are
not
stable and will not last.

KRH: Wrong again. See Strahler, 1987, p. 145-146


5) Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io. Inadequate heat
sources
for a small moon so far from the sun to still be geologically active.

KRH: Jupiter's powerful gravitational field is the cause.


6) Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury,
Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal
dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic
field
around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of
existence if they ever had any.
7) Rock flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have eliminated old
craters on the moon.

KRH: Glenn Morton was one of the guys that came up with this idea. He
no longer believes it. Glenn and his coauthors of this Creation
Research Society Quarterly article used unrealistic viscosity values
for the rocks. Glenn told me that if this paper was true, glass
knives in ancient Egyptian tombs would have flowed and lost their
sharp edges by now.


8) Recession of the moon from the earth. Moon is moving away from the
earth
gradually due to tidal activity. Movement is too fast for earth-moon
system
to be 4.6 billion years old.

KRH: Brown's false argument. Refuted many times on Talkorigins. See
if the rebuttal is in the FAQs.

9) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't
extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting
earth's
environment.

KRH: Not even creationist Ackerman believes this claim. It was
totally refuted by a chapter in Van Till et al, 1988.

See:

Van Till, H. J., Young, D. A., and Menninga, C., 1988, Science Held
Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism,
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.

Ackerman, P. D., 1986, It's a Young World after All, Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, MI.


10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's
core
should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate
number
of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have
argued
that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this
would
imply a young sun.

KRH: If the creationists were right, there wouldn't be any neutrinos
at all. But some have been detected. Also it takes a few million
years for radiation to migrate from the sun's core to the surface.
See:

Noyes, Robert W., 1982, The Sun, Our Star, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.

So the sun can't be only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The H/He ratio of
the sun also indicates that it's about 5-6 billion years old. Not bad
and fairly consistent with the 4.6 billion year old dates given by
meteorites. See:

Krauskopf, Konrad B., 1979 (1995 with Bird), Introduction to
Geochemistry, McGraw-Hill, New York.

11) Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended time
period.
12) High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have
decayed.

KRH: U-236 is regenerated by slow neutron capture in uranium ores,
Strahler, 1987, p. 135.

13) High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have
decayed.

KRH: Np-237 is regenerated by cosmic rays on the moon. Check
Strahler, 1987, p. 134-135. I think you got the wrong isotope.
Either way, you're mistaken.


Young Earth Evidence
1) Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field (half-life of
1400-2000
years). This half-life cannot be extrapolated back more than about
10,000
years without the field becoming intolerably powerful. Creationists
have
been criticized for taking the original work on this matter out of
context
and failing to show that the magnetic field is cyclic (decaying then
strengthening). However, it is the old earth believers that have
concocted
this data in an imaginary hypothetical cyclic extrapolation. It is the
creationist who has used only the empirical evidence, to devise a
theory
that truly explains that data now available to us.

KRH: You're wrong. More disinformation from creationist Barnes.
Magnetic studies on pottery and volcanics show that the Earth's
magnetic dipole fluctuates over time. Up to about 2000 years ago, it
was INCREASING. Even creationist Humphreys admits this. You can even
find this evidence by looking through creationist Barnes' references.
For the truth, see:

Brush, Stephen G., 1983, "Finding the Age of the Earth: By Physics or
By Faith", p. 296f, in Zetterberg, J. P., (Ed.), Evolution versus
Creationism: The Public Education Controversy, Oryx Press.

Young, Davis A., 1982, Christianity and the Age of the Earth,
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.


2) Insufficient mass of helium in earth's atmosphere to account for
4.6
billion years of radioactive decay. Helium is a by-product of
radioactive
decay of some elements. It is a noble gas which doesn't combine with
any
other element, but there is not enough of it to account for the
radioactive
decay which should have occurred in an old-earth scenario.

KRH: Contrary to Vardiman's claims, helium leaks from the atmosphere.
See:

Dalrymple, G. B., 1984, "How Old is the Earth?: A Reply to
`Scientific' Creationism," in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting
of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of
Science, vol. 1, pt. 3, Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (Eds).


3) Despite inferior medical and nutritional practices, evidence
indicates
that the human species should have populated the earth much more
quickly if
they had been around for millions of years.

KRH: Wrong. The 14th century plagues wiped out 50% to 75% of the
population of Europe. Until the development of modern medicine, human
population growth was surpressed by disease and accidents.


4) Earliest known human civilizations are only a few thousand years
old.

KRH: That has NOTHING to do with the age of the Earth.


5) Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, cannot be
traced
back more than several thousand years.

KRH: Wrong. Tree ring data, including rings in dead trees, have a
continuous record going back 9,000 years. Varve records go back even
further.


6) Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only
a few
thousand years old.

KRH: Niagara Falls formed after the end of the last ice age, about
9,000 years ago. This has NOTHING to due with the age of the Earth.

7) Dating of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of
sediment
accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old.

KRH: Wrong. The Mississippi delta is millions of years old and
stretches up to Tennessee. See: Strahler, 1987, p. 286-289.


8) Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should
reach
equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it
hasn't
reached that point yet.

KRH: More creationist disinformation. See Strahler, 1987, p. 157-158
for details.

9) Erosion rate of the continents. Continental mass divided by net
erosion
rate (that is, despite accretion due to volcanism, tectonic activity,
and
geosyncline) would wash all of the continents into the ocean in about
14
million years.

KRH: Denudation rates are not well measured. However, plate tectonic
forces and volcanism DO offset denudation. See Strahler, 1987,
chapter 29.


10) Amount of salts in the ocean divided by rate of influx. This is
actually
many dating methods - one for each salt which can be measured. For
example,
all the sodium chloride in the ocean would have been ashed in about 62
million years, if the ocean was pure water to begin with.

KRH: Creationist Austin is confusing residence times with dating
methods. Sodium will eventually sorb onto sea clays and chloride
evaporates from sea spray.


11) Amount of water on earth's surface / rate at which it is expelled
from
below ground. Enough water is expelled from deep below the earth via
volcanoes, etc. to rapidly produce more than all the water on the
earth's
surface.


KRH: The creationist arguments were made before plate tectonics. We
now know that water recycles through subducting marine sediments and
then erupts in lavas.


12) No plausible explanation for the pressure in oil reservoirs
remaining so
high for millions of years.

KRH: Wrong. Keith Littleton recently gave a brillant explanation of
this creationist misconception at Talkorigins.

13) Existence of uranium halos.
14) Existence of polonium halos. Some believe that the polonium halos
disqualify radiometric dating as a reliable dating method because they
may
indicate that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant
throughout
history.

KRH: Refuted by Brush, 1983 in the above reference. Gentry's halos
are debunked by this reference:

Odom, A. Leroy and William J. Rink, "Giant Radiation-induced Color
Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, vol. 246, October,
1989, p. 107-109.

-Polonium Halos from www.halos.com-

to emit radioactive particles.

KRH: Wakefield has also thoroughly refuted Gentry's Kindergarten
geology:

Wakefield, J. R., "Gentry's Tiny Mystery - Unsupported by Geology,"
Creation/Evolution Journal, Issue XXII, 1988a, p. 13f.

Wakefield, J. R., "Shadowing Walter Brown in Ontario,"
Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Jan. and Feb., 1988b, p. 8f.

Wakefield, J. R., The Continuing Saga of the Po Halo "Mystery,"
unpublished paper, available from National Center for Science
Education, Inc., P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA, 94709-0477, October,
1988c (criticizes statements made by Gentry in the 1988 edition of his
book: Creation's Tiny Mystery).


"Evidence for a Rapidly Formed Geologic Column"

The geologic column (representing all the earth's observed sedimentary
rock)
in classical geology represents hundreds of millions of years of
evolutionary history. Evidence that this column formed rapidly rather
than
over millions of years is therefore evidence for a young geologic
column and
a young earth. It should be noted that the "geologic column" is purely
hypothetical and cannot be found in a complete form anywhere on earth
other
than in a textbook.

KRH: Creationist Woodmorappe has identified at least 10 locations,
including western North Dakota and parts of Poland, that have all 10
geologic periods (always in the correct order).


1) Lack of meteorites in the geologic column. If the geologic column
is
billions of years old one would expect to find meteorites throughout.

KRH: No. Meteorite impacts are common in the geologic record,
including the Pennsylvanian of western North Dakota. Meteorites and
tektites are found in the geologic record. Tektites have been
recently discussed on Talkorigins.

2) Ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary rocks.
This
implies very rapid burial and hardening because these fragile features
could
not survive even trivial erosion.

KRH: Not necessarily. However, rapid deposition has long been
recognized by geologists. It's obvious that earthquakes, mudslides,
hurricanes, etc. have been impacting and influencing the geologic
record for billions of years. The geologic record is a product of
both slow and gradual change (like evaporating sea water and
glaciations) and NATURAL catastrophes, such as local floods,
earthquakes, mudslides, and hurricanes.

For information on sedimentation and sedimentary rock formation, see:

Blatt, H., G. Middleton, and R. Murray, 1980, Origin of Sedimentary
Rocks, second edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632.


3) Polystrate fossils. These are fossils which cut across multiple
geologic
layers that were supposedly laid down millions of years apart.
Fossilized
trees and animals are often found in tact and spanning supposedly
millions
of years of geologic layers.

KRH: No! Geologists do NOT believe that all rocks were deposited
slowly. Polystrate trees form when mudslides or floods bury trees
(sometimes in minutes, like at Mt. St. Helens) or from sedimentation
in swampy areas over several decades.

4) Regional deposition. Current known geologic processes don't account
for
regional deposits (covering multiple U.S. states, for example). This
applies
to certain types of rocks, as well as coal and oil reserves.

KRH: False. Nice future coal deposits are now forming in northern
Minnesota and Upper Michigan.


5) Deformation of strata implies it was soft when deformed and hadn't
hardened into rock.

KRH: J. Morris forgets that calcite cement may dissolve and sediment
may not become well lithified for ten's of millions of years until
silica cement develops. Look at the poorly lithified Tertiary
sediments in western Nebraska or the Dakotas.


6) Absence of bioturbation in the geologic column. Biological activity
soon
disturbs sedimentary deposits formed by modern catastrophes
(hurricanes and
floods) but is not evidenced in the geologic column. This implies that
the
geologic column was buried very deeply and rapidly.

KRH; Actual bioturbation in rocks at the Grand Canyon refutes Austin
et al.'s flood geology claims for those rocks.


7) Lack of recognizable soil layers in the geologic column. Soil
material is
seldom found in the geologic column. One would think that the earth
had soil
layers in the past, and if it was slowly buried, some would be
preserved.

KRH: Wrong. Again. Soils are very common in rocks of all ages.
Here's some examples:

Rye, R. and H.D. Holland, 1998, “Paleosols and the Evolution of
Atmospheric Oxygen: A Critical Review,” American Journal of Science,
v. 298, October, p. 621-672.

Ancient soils with good horizons could not have formed during a
"Flood" and often not even in 10,000 years. As examples, Meyer (1997,
p. 120) lists several paleosols and other soil phenomena that would
exceed YEC time frames. Specifically, a one meter alterite in India
is estimated to have taken 55,000 years to develop. Silcrete takes
100,000 to 1 million years to form. An iron-rich bauxite in Hawaii
formed over a period of 10,000 years. A complex iron-rich duricrust
in Senegal took 6 million years to form. A one meter thick calcrete
with good drainage typically takes about 1 million years to develop.

In other examples, Retallack (1986) describes a Precambrian paleosol
in a complex series of metamorphosed sedimentary rocks and basalts.
Retallack (1986) estimated that the one soil, alone, took 7,000 years
to form.


Meyer, R., 1997, “Paleoalterites and Paleosols: Imprints of
Terrestrial Processes in Sedimentary Rocks,” A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Retallack, G., 1986, “Reappraisal of a 2200 Ma-Old Paleosol near
Waterval Onder, South Africa,” Precambrian Research, v. 32, p.
195-232.


8) Undisturbed bedding planes. Different geologic rock layers often
show
sharp, knife-edge breaks between layers, with no evidence of erosion
between. This is not realistic if the layers formed over long periods
of
time.

KRH: Natural turbidites will do this. No Noah's Flood is needed. See
the above reference, Blatt et al. (1980).


9) Clastic dikes. Clastic dikes are formed from soft sand squeezed up
through newer layers of rock. This implies that the sandy older
(lower)
layer was still soft enough to squeeze sand up (like squeezing a
toothpaste
tube) through the younger upper layers.

KRH: Clastic dikes are rare, but can easily form in sediments that are
Tertiary and younger and that have little or no silica cement.

KRH: Barnes' arguments are so bad that not even creationist Humphreys
believes him. See Brush, 1983 and Young, 1982, above.

KRH: See the above references by Brush, 1983 and Young, 1982. The
dipole field fluctuates. Even creationist Humphreys knows better.

Conclusion


KRH: Again, your arguments are outdated. The dynamo hypothesis has
good paleomagnetic support. Read Young, 1982 and Brush, 1983.


Rydain Darkstar

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
UR32212451 wrote:

> "Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote
>


> >Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY be 4.6
> billion years old.
>

> Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
> of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
> effort toward rebuttal.

Why should Boikat bother answering, in detail, the same creationist
regurgibullshit that gets foisted upon this newsgroup all too often when said
regurgibullshit has already been soundly refuted a gazillion times over?

> Bdiller's post merely references a T.O. FAQ which touches
> only on a few of your evidences, and some of these are
> inconclusive and/or speculative.

Why should Bdiller bother answering, in detail, the same creationist
regurgibullshit that gets foisted upon this newsgroup all too often when said
regurgibullshit has already been soundly refuted a gazillion times over?

-Rydain D.

--

http://www.personal.psu.edu/gak139
WARNING: This site is not likely to be of any educational value whatsoever!!! :D

"If you were canoeing in the desert and a wheel fell off, how many pancakes would
it take to reshingle a doghouse?"
-Anonymous comment card, Redifer Dining Commons, PSU Main Campus

"What?"
-Reply to said anonymous comment card

Rydain Darkstar

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
> <parroted ICR garbage snipped>

It astounds me that the creationists who post this outdated drivel act like it's
the first time we've ever seen it. You'd think that if the earth really WERE
10,000 years old, they'd have real evidence instead of easily refuted bullshit.

Dick C.

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
In article <7j7hvv$g2c$0...@208.231.48.17>, Zen_I...@yahoo.com (ZenIsWhen) wrote:
>In article <001f402332303...@email.msn.com>, "Robert Paveza"
> <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
>>billion years old.
>
>And here we have a repeat of just about every creationist fantasy theory that
>has been presented in T.O. within the past year .... and been soundly refuted
>by real, scientific evidence.
>
>Lots of "It seems", "not likely", "it couldn't" "I can't understand" type of
>crap ..
>and no real evidence or facts - just the same old assertions.
>

Which is, of course, the only method of arguementation that most of the
fundies comprehend. They get it in the sermons in church, when they pick up
a book that supports creationism they get the same thing. Critical thinking is
a skill that is defintely discouraged.

Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/


Thomas Scharle

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
+ 497491 Young Earth Evidence [260] Robert Paveza
In article <001f402332303...@email.msn.com>, "Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> writes:
|> Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
|> billion years old.

To begin with, please note that this is, by the assertion of
the poster, "reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
billion years old."

That is, *none* of this is evidence *for* a young earth, *even
if* any of this is correct.

And, by the way, let me make a guess. I guess that you didn't
construct this list on your own. I guess that you substantially
lifted this from another source, a source that you trust, but that
you don't want to tell us about. Perhaps identifying your souce
would be embarrassing to you?

The technical expression from logic describing this is "non
sequitur", just simply that your conclusion does not follow from
your assertions.

As is typical for "creationists", they have nothing to affirm,
but only rely upon "maybe, possibly, perhaps, there is something
wrong somewhere".

I'll just take one of these as an example.

[...snip...]


|> 10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core
|> should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number
|> of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued
|> that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would
|> imply a young sun.

[...snip...]

Aside from the fact that there are recent studies which show
that there are transitions between different kinds of neutrinos,
so that there is an explanation for why, when looking for
neutrino type X, some of those have transformed to type Y, so
that the count will be low ...

Let's see the "creationist" argument about how "gravity and not
fusion" explains why there are *any* solar neutrinos at all. Or
any of a load of the other details which point to fusion as the
energy source of the sun.

It isn't just enough to say, `I don't know the details of
the solar neutrino deficit, therefore the world is 10,000 years
old'.

How do you go from the number of solar neutrinos to the
earth being 1 billion, 1 million or 1 thousand years old?

That's the old "creationist" ploy, isn't it? `I don't know
everything about everything, therefore creationism must be true.'
It might have some plausibility as a ploy, *if* there were an
alternative "theory of creationism". *If* you could show some
connection between "creationism" and "the number of observed
solar neutrinos". Or even if there were some connection between
"creationism" and gravity as a source of solar heat; or between
gravity and neutrinos; or if there were any prospect of
"creationism" even attempting to explain anything.

|> At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid
|> reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory-a theory that fits
|> all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the
|> earth's magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely
|> less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical
|> age of 6,000 years.

Oh? I have *never* seen a "creationist theory", much less a
creationist "theory that fits all the data".

Could you tell me about this "creationist theory"?

--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"


Clark Dorman

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to

"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> writes:

> Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot
> POSSIBLY be 4.6 billion years old.

How many of these reasons do we have to refute before you begin
to think that maybe your sources are a little off?

I ask because each of them has been discussed and refuted
multiple times on this newsgroup. When a creationists is
presented with a refutation of a particular point, the tendency
seems to be for them to say "what about these other ones". Those
get refuted and then the creationist says "what about _these_
other ones." The problem from the point of view of those that
want to explain the generally accepted view of cosmology is that
crap is far, far easier to post (namely, the list below) and it
takes a while refute it.

Let's take two (related ones) in particular:

> 9) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each
> year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very far
> without effecting earth's environment.

> 10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the
> sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not
> detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known
> problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar
> heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a
> young sun.

Both of these argument has been refuted many times. The original
suggestion came (IIRC) from a short article that discussed the
measure of the sun's radius over historical time. The error bars
are huge. The present evidence, based on real astronomy, is that
the sun is not shrinking, but that it oscillates in interesting
ways (See, for example, the book "A Positron Named Pricilla").

In addition, you give us absolutely no numbers and no references.
You apparently either read this or heard this and are just
parrotting what you think are devastating arguments against solar
physics. What, you think that all those scientists are just
sitting around doing nothing? Do you not realize that there are
people writing PhD dissertations, running computer models, doing
analyses and calculations, and actually doing something that
would tell us something about the sun? Do you think that somehow
these scientists are just ignoring these problems? No, you are
just parrotting and have no idea if there is anything to these
arguments.

Finally, the Homestake, Kamiokande, SAGE, and GALLEX experiments
most definitely did and are measuring neutrinos coming from the
sun. There are fewer measured than would be expected from
standard soloar models, by about half. First, what is the
gravitational explanation for the presence of neutrinos? Second,
the MSW hypothesis is that there are matter-induced oscillations
that are converting electron neutrinos into muon neutrinos, and
the preliminary evidence is that it is correct. Third, please,
please, please calculate the change in the size of the sun that
we would see if the energy being produced by the sun is due to
gravitational contraction. Please point me to a calculation by
anyone to that effect. The energy and the size change are off by
orders of magnitude.

Please see attached posts. I can only conclude that you don't
have any idea what you are talking about and think that nobody
else does either.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


The Solar Neutrino Problem
and the Age of the Sun

1. The Standard Solar Model(s)
2. The Solar Neutrino Problem
3. Recent Evidence on Neutrinos
4. Hope for a Solution to SNP
5. The Solar Radius, Kelvin's Argument, and the Gravity Solution
6. Conclusion


1. The Standard Solar Model(s)

The sun (and other stars) works by fusion. Most basically, protons in
the core fuse, creating deuterium and releasing energy. Deuterium combines
with another proton to make light Helium. Other reactions follow and in the
process release energy and create heavier elements. In a standard solar model
(SSM), this process is modeled by representing the sun's layers, computing
pressures, temperatures, densities, and calculating the resulting nuclear
reactions. The amounts of the elements on the sun's surface can be calculated
or determined through astrophysics and observations and are used in the models
(see Taylor, 1970 for a relatively simple description). The amount of helium
is not particularly well known and is one of the assumptions of the SSM.
Different initial amounts of helium produce slightly different models that can
be fitted to all the known observations of the sun (except for one, to be
discussed in 2.)

The SSM has proven to be extremely useful in understanding the
way that stars work. The amount of evidence that backs it up is very
large. The SSM and the related solar modeling efforts explain the
evolution of stars, how they ignite, why the elements that exist in
the universe are in the proportions that they are, how novas and
supernovas occur and why most stars become white dwarfs, why the solar
spectrum is the way that it is, and why the distribution of stars
along the main sequence of stars is what it is. From the SSM, we
calculate that the sun "burns" about 600 million tons of hydrogen
every second. (For the creationists, it is important to point out
that the energy that is created in the core takes several tens of
thousands of years to reach the surface.) According to the SSM, the
sun has been operating for about 5 billion years, and has another 5
billion to go (Taylor, 1970; Zirin, 1988).

The most important reactions in the sun for our purposes are:

2 +
I. p + p --> H + e + nu (<0.420 MeV)

2 3
II. H + p --> He + gamma

3 3
III. He + He --> alpha + 2 p

2 3
where p=proton, H = deuterium (a proton and neutron), He=light
+
helium (two protons and a neutron), e = positron, gamma=gamma-ray,
alpha=normal helium (two protons, two neutrons), and nu=electron
neutrino (Bahcall, 1990; Taylor, 1970). Since we are discussing the
solar neutrino problem, we are also interested in the following
reactions:

3 7
IV. He + alpha --> Be + gamma

7 - 7
V. Be + e --> Li + nu (0.861 or 0.383 MeV)

7
VI. Li + p --> 2 alpha

7 8
VII. Be + p --> B + gamma

8 8 +
VIII. B --> Be + e + nu (<15 MeV)

8
IX. Be --> 2 alpha


where Be=beryllium, Li=lithium, B=boron. The numbers on the right
side of equations I, V, and VIII are the energy of the neutrinos that
are produced. Two more reactions also produce neutrinos, but at
lower rates:
- 2
X. p + p + e --> H + nu (1.442 MeV)

3 +
XI. He + p --> alpha + e + nu (9.625 MeV)

Because of the large amount of time that it takes for the
energy from the core of the sun to reach the surface, the light that
we see is due to core events from a long time ago. The light is also
greatly modified by the journey. Neutrinos react so poorly with
matter that the neutrinos that are released in the above reactions
travel straight through the sun, through space, and through the earth.
Thus, detecting neutrinos is a particularly good way to examine what
is happening in the core of the sun now. The neutrinos travel at or
near the speed of light (an important issue discussed later), so like
light, take just over 8 minutes to reach the earth. For fundamental
physics, the sun is a very convenient producer of neutrinos, as they
are difficult to produce otherwise. For the standard electroweak
theory, all neutrinos have zero rest mass. For various grand unified
theories that try to combine the electromagnetic and weak forces with
strong nuclear force, neutrinos have non-zero rest mass.


2. The Solar Neutrino Problem.

Dr. Raymond Davis Jr. and colleaques developed/built a
neutrino detector in the early 1970s. It consists of a large pool
(100,000 gallons) of perchloroethylene in the Homestake Gold Mine in
Lead, South Dakota. Below, it is referred to as Homestake. Depending
upon the specific SSM that is being used, we should expect a rate of
about 8 solar neutrino units (SNU) to be detected. Rather, in the
first two decades of using Homestake, a rate of 2.2 SNU was detected.
This difference is called the Solar Neutrino Problem (SNP) (Cherry et
al, 1985).

The Homestake detector is based on the reaction of neutrinos with
chlorine. Occasionally, a neutrino will react with the chlorine in a
perchloroethylene (cleaning fluid) molecule. This produces an electron and a
radioactive Argon atom (37Ar). Every couple of months, the researchers clean
all of the argon out of the tank resulting in about 15 total argon atoms out
of the 10^30 total atoms in the tank. Experiments have confirmed that the
extraction process gets about 90% of the argon atoms that are present.
Because of the process that produces the argon, only the 7Be and 8B neutrinos
are energetic enough to be detected, from equations V and VIII above
(Abdurashitov et al, 1994).

A second detector was built to study the problem. It is the
Kamiokande detector, jointly developed by Japan and the United States
and built in a mine in the Japanese Alps. It consists of 2,140 tons
of purified water. It detected approximately 45% of the expected
number of neutrinos, but this detector is only sensitive to the 8B
neutrinos. The Cherenkov detectors used in the experiment work by
detecting light that is emmited by electrons that are pushed forward
by the neutrinos. An important result of this experiment is that the
neutrinos that are being detected are in fact coming from the sun, as
opposed to other sources. In addition, unlike the Homestake
experiment, the Kamiokande experiment does not have a several month
time delay and is able to determine the timing and direction of the
neutrinos.

The discrepency between the expected and detected number of
neutrinos is the one "big problem" with solar astrophysics. Just
about everything else about the sun and models of it has been
confirmed, so the SNP sticks out like a sore thumb. In addition,
while the size of the errors is expected in both the estimated number
of neutrinos and the actual number detected are fairly large (as
physics goes), the uncertainties do not overlap (Hata, 1994).


3. Recent Evidence on Neutrinos

Because of the lower than expected number of neutrinos
detected by the two detectors above, more recent experiments have been
developed. In particular, the Homestake and Kamiokande experiments
are largely sensitive to high-energy 8B solar neutrinos, whose
production rate depends critically (proportional to T^18 [!]) on the
core temp of sun. Therefore, recent experiments have been designed to
capture other neutrinos. The two that have produced recent results
are the SAGE and GALLEX experiments.

SAGE uses a Gallium--Germanium Neutrino Telescope to measure
the integral flux of solar neutrinos. It is in Baksan Neutrino
Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Northern
Caucasus Mountains. The main experimental area is in a chamber 60m
long, 10m wide, and 12m high. The Ga is held in 8 Teflon lined
reactors, 2 cubic meters each, holding about 7t of metallic gallium.
At first, 30 tons of gallium were used, and now the full experiment is
using 57 tons. The experiment uses the neutrino reacting with 71Ga to
produce 71Ge. As in the Homestake experiment, the amount of Ge is
measured after an extended exposure time, in this case of about 4
weeks. The Ga-Ge reaction is sensitive to the pp, 7Be, and 8B neutrinos
(~55%, ~25%, ~10%, resp.) (Abdurashitov, 1994).

GALLEX also uses Gallium as well but the form that the gallium
is in is different. (I do not have a paper specifically discussing
the GALLEX experiment so I do not know how the SAGE and GALLEX
experiments differ. Sorry) In any case, the SAGE and GALLEX
experiments have been producing approximately the same results. The
following is from Hata and Langacker (1994) and sums the most recent
experiments, and combines the SAGE and GALLEX experiments:

Experiment Element Used Expected(1) Expected(2) Actual %
---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----
Homestake Chlorine 8+-1 6.4 +- 1.4 2.32+-0.23 (29%)
Kamiokande Water 1+-.14 0.77+-.19 0.51+-0.07 (51%)
SAGE gallium \__
GALLEX gallium / 131.5+-7 122.5+-7 81+-13 (62%)

1. Bahcall and Pinsonneault model (BP SSM)
2. Turck-Chieze and Lopez model (TCL SSM)

Clearly, the SNP is still present. While the SAGE and GALLEX
experiments are detecting a higher percentage of the neutrinos
expected, the error ranges still do not overlap (Hata, 1994).


4. Hope for a Solution to SNP

The scientific solutions that have been suggested for the SNP
have fallen into two categories: First, an astrophysical change that
will result in a lower number of neutrinos expected; or second, a
change in neutrino physics that will explain why the neutrinos
produced are either not making it to earth or are not being detected.

The SNP is not expected to be due to an astrophysical mistake
because of the relative results of the experiments. The correlations
of the fluxes and the fact that astrophysical processes do not distort
neutrino spectrum, rules out most astrophysical explanations for the
SNP. Basically, the different experiments agree on the ratios of the
neutrinos being detected and these agree with the standard SSMs.

Further, all non-standard models have had difficulty producing
detected number of neutrinos without conflicting with other observed
sun properties. From above, a reduction in the core temperature of
the sun should reduce the number of neutrinos. Thus, non-standard
models have tried to reduce the core temperature by using: heavy
elements, high magnetic fields, turbuelent diffusion, continuous
mixing, rapidly rotation or burned-out helium cores, convective mixing
of hydrogen into the core, and new equations of state. But, the
problems that each of these solutions produces is far greater than the
neutrino problem that it solves (Abdurashitov, 1994).

The physics solution that has the best chance of being correct is
called the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) solution. The MSW scenario
is that neutrinos have mass and that matter-induced oscillations convert
the electron neutrinos into other neutrino types, for example muon
neutrinos, to which the detectors above are less sensitive or insensitive.
This is why the issue of the rest-mass (and hence whether they travel at
the speed of light or not) of neutrinos is fairly important, as the MSW
solution requires a non-zero rest mass. However, based on further
theoretical work, the MSW solution would explain the above data and would
result in a fairly minimal change of standard neutrino physics. MSW
permits neutrino oscillations to occur in two disjointed regions of
parameter space, these being called the "small and large mixing angle
solutions to the SNP" (Hata, 1994).

(Note: I do not pretend to understand the physics involved (nor the
math behind the physics). I'm just repeating what I've read in the
astrophysics journals.)

There are three important future experiments that are going to
shed some light on the issues: SuperKamiokande, SNO, and Borexino.
SNO and SuperKamiokande will measure the 8B neutrino energy spectrum.
The shape of the neutrino spectrum is determined by nuclear processes
only, independent of the solar model. So, any spectral distortion
will be due to unconventional neutrino properties which will affect
MSW. SNO will also detect solar neutrinos through both a charged
current reaction and a neutral current reaction. The ratio will be
independent of the solar model and will also test unconventional
neutrino properties. Finally, SuperKam and SNO (charge currect
detector) together should be able to detect the presence of muon
neutrinos.

Borexino will measure with improved accuracy the 7Be neutrino
line. This, combined with 8B neutrino from SuperKam and SNO, and the
pp, 7Be, 8B from GALLEX and SAGE should determine the components of
the neutrino flux. Together, these will produce a good test of the
Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) solution to the SNP.

If, for some reason, the detectors above have difficulties,
other detectors could use 81Br, 115In, and 127I as they may have
significant sensitivity to neutrinos from the decay of 7Be. Use of
these in experiments would further examine the problem (Fiorentini
et al, 1994; Hata et al, 1994) and perhaps shed light on further
issues raised in the SuperKam, SNO, and Borexino experiments.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that the standard
solar models do an excellent job at describing the activity of the sun
and other stars in almost all ways. The Solar Neutrino Problem is a
serious problem in that something unknown is occuring that cannot be
explained using normal astrophysics or standard neutrino physics.
Recent detectors have produced results that are within a factor of two
of the theoretical number of neutrinos which provides us with great
confidence that there is fusion occuring and that we are largely along
the right track. However, the differences in the the experimental
measurements and the theoretical calculations, along with confidence
that the errors associated with them, shows that there is a
fundamental process that is not fully understood. This provides us
with an opportunity to test advanced neutrino physics and develop a
better understanding of the sun. However, the presence of the Solar
Neutrino Problem is not sufficient justification to reject the
standard solar model which has been verified in many other ways.


5. The Solar Radius, Kelvin's Argument, and the Gravity Solution

Creationists have used the solar neutrion problem as a reason
to reject the standard solar models in toto. Rather, they fall back
to the argument that the energy output of the sun is due to the
gravitational contraction of the mass of the sun. For example,
examine Hilton Hinderliter "The Shrinking Sun: A Creationist's
Prediction, Its Verification, and the Resulting Implications for
Theories of Origins." Scientific arguments and proposals regarding
the source for the energy of the sun go back to Helmholtz and Kelvin
and is very interesting from a history of science point of view. As
we will see though, recent information does not provide a good reason
for returning to these idea.

As an example of the creationist approach, here is a section
cut from another talk.origins FAQ regarding the "shrinking sun", along
with the FAQ's response:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> # 7. Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal
> # Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made
> # direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the
> # sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5
> # feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate
> # that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past
> # 400 years.
> #
> # Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational
> # collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about
> # 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must
> # conclude that had the sun existed one million years ago, it would
> # have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much
> # that life could not have survived.
> #
> # Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present
> # forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed
> # their "evolution" that began 200 million years ago.
>
> More evidence that "no error favorable to creationism ever dies." And
> this one is an error. The Greenwich Observatory scientsts calculated a
> decrease in solar diameter of 0.008 percent over the last 300 years,
> with a standard error of 0.007 percent. This amount is negligible, and
> the data further indicates that the diameter oscillates with a period
> of about 80 years and an amplitude of 0.025 percent. [8]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

During the early 1800's, the output of the sun was a difficult
topic, as it was unclear what how the sun was able to continuously
produce the huge amount of energy that was observed. The concepts of
a burning mass or other chemical reaction had been rejected as being
insufficient to continue at the rate that they had been seen during
recorded history.

Based on earlier work by Helmholtz, Lord Kelvin produced
calculations (which unfortunately I have not had opportunity to
actually read) that determined the amount of energy, its distribution,
and history that could be produced by the sun based on gravitational
contraction. The data produced was used along with his geological
arguments to argue that the planet could not have been around long
enough for non-directed evolution to have occured. Kelvin's
calculations placed what geologists (and biologists) considered far
too short a time for the history of the sun : "it is around
100,000,000 years and on no account can be more than 500,000,000". It
should be pointed out that this provides no support for the claim for
a young earth on the order of 10,000 years. In addition, it assumes a
history of the solar system that is inconsistent with ex nihilio
creation.

The radius of the sun has been measured since at least the
17th century. The question is then whether or not the sun has been
decreasing or increasing in radius and by how much. Eddy and
Boornazian delivered a paper to the American Astronomical Society in
1979 using meridian circle observations that purported to show a
decrease in the solar radius by approximately 1 arc second per
century, which was a completely unexpected result. Unfortunately, I
do not have a copy of the paper, as I cannot find where it was
published. The usual citation of the paper is:

Eddy, J. A. and Boornazian, A. A. "Secular decrease in the solar
diameter, 1863-1953". Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
Volume 11, p 473.

Unfortunately, this is just the abstract of the paper. I would be
very grateful for for a copy of the actual paper.

A reduction of this magnitude in the solar radius would pose a
problem for standard solar models. Standard solar models predict an
undetectable increase in the radius of the sun on the order of
3.3x10-6 arc seconds per century. However, a couple of points should
be made:

1. the historical data are not clear and there are contradictory
reports based on the same data and on other data (see below)

2. the presence of a decrease in radius does not mean that fusion
is not occuring in the sun. For example, if fusion was not
occuring, where are the neutrinos that _are_ detected coming
from (especially since they are coming from the direction of
the sun)?

3. Kelvin-Helmholtz theory implies that the decrease in the solar
radius should be 0.004 arc seconds per century, which is well
within the noise of the historical measurements.

In a counter-paper published in Nature (Parkinson, et al.
1980), evidence is presented that the sun has kept a constant radius
(within errors) for the past 250 years. The data that was used was
the same as in the Eddy and Boornazian paper, but a different subset
of the data was used. This is an important point, as it turns out
that everybody that has studied this issue has thrown out many of the
measurements performed prior to the 1940's as being unreliable.
Parkinson et al argue that there were significant changes in
instrumentation, personnel, and techniques during the time that the
measurements occured to argue that certain data should be used and
others should not. They point to sudden changes in the values
measured when these variables changed.

Parkinson et al also consider solar radius measurements based
on the transit times of Mercury and the data from solar eclipses.
These data are quite noisy but they seem to support the claim that the
solar radius has decreased by 0.14 arc seconds per century (Mercury
transit data) or 0.08 arc seconds per century (eclipse data).
However, Shapiro (1980) also uses Mercury transit data and determines
an _increase_ in radius of 0.05 arc seconds per century. Again, the
researchers were using subsets of the entire data.

Dunham et al (1980) use eclipse data to show support for the
claim that the solar radius has decreased .34 arc seconds since 1715
(or 0.129 arc seconds per century). However, this data only consists
of three data points and conflicts with Parkinson et al.

In yet another paper, Gilliland (1981) discusses and combines
all of the above data and derives the following conclusion: the
_average_ solar radius may have decreased by 0.1 arc seconds per
century since the 1700's. However, he also concludes that there is a
cyclical variation in the solar radius that is negatively correlated
with sun spots and their 11 year cycle. In particular, there is a
variation of with an half-amplitude of 0.1 arc seconds every 11 years
with the peak occuring when sun spots are at their minimum. He also
finds evidence for a 76 year cycle with an half-amplitude of 0.23 arc
seconds. This cycle is in phase with the "Gleissberg cycle" of
approximately 80 years that modulates the 11 year sunspot cycle. The
idea of negatively correlated sun spot activity and radius goes all
the way back to 1872 and was proposed by Secchi. Gilliland also
determines the standard deviation for these data and comes up with an
average s.d. of .2 arc seconds. Compared to the size of the change in
the radius, the data are quite noisy. See in particular his figure 1
and table 1.

Much of the discussion about the historical data has been over
what types and what size the errors were. Brooks (1988) discusses,
for example, how changes in the micrometers that were used (where they
were with regard to focal plane, screw errors in pitch, etc.) changed
over time and how they could cause systematic errors, and how they
would cause an overestimation. He in particular discusses the
measurements of Picard in the second half of the 17th century were
wrong and, hence, why the claim by Ribes (1987) is incorrect that
Picard measured the sun to be 3 arc seconds larger than now.

The issue of a secular decrease in the solar radius is
presently unsettled. For more information, see Strahler (1987). The
data are contradictory and filled with noise and errors. If the sun
is in fact decreasing in radius, it is important to understand why and
what the effects would be. However, the size of the decrease in
radius proposed by several researchers is far too _large_ to account
for in terms of gravitational contraction in the Kelvin model.
According to Gilliland, Kelvin's model predicts 0.004 arc second per
century decrease, which is too small to be measurable within the
noise.

Using Kelvin's theory to explain the sun creates more problems
than it causes. It does not explain the neutrinos that are detected,
it does not explain the observed distribution of stars, it does not
explain novas and super novas, and is inconsistent (based on the
above) with the disputed contractions of the sun discussed above. An
alternative theory, that combines gravitational contraction and
nuclear processes could be considered. According to Gilliland, the
evidence seems to suggest oscillations in radius of several different
cycles. However, I do not know of any theoretical studies of the
issue. The more important point is that even with using gravitational
contraction to explain the solar neutrino problem, this does not imply
a young sun. Kelvin's calculations themselves estimate a sun of over
100,000,000 years. Combining nuclear processes and gravitational
contraction also does not produce a young-sun.

It is interesting to note that the shrinking sun argument has
been criticized by creationists themselves, see DeYoung and Rush
(1989). However, as frequently is the case, the contradiction of an
argument by the creationists' own "research" sources does not lead to
general knowledge of the contradiction, so it continues to appear in
talk.origins.


6. Conclusion

The solar neutrino problem is a well recognized, serious issue
for solar astrophysics. In the past several years, the detected
number of neutrinos has increased and is now approximately 60% of the
expected number. A theory has been proposed to explain the difference
between detected and predicted, and this theory will be tested in the
next decade or two. In the mean time, the standard solar model
continues to explain a vast array of solar (and other star) data.

The possible change in the radius of the sun is another issue
that may have to be dealt with. The data are not clear, and the noise
is extremely large for the historical measurements. The continued
accurate measurements done in the astronomical and astrophysical
communities will, over the next decades, provide a much better
determination of the radius of the sun and its fluctuations.

Possible changes in the solar radius do not support Kelvin's
theory of gravitational contraction as the source of energy of the
sun. Even if it did, the use of Kelvin's theory does not support the
idea of a young earth. First, Kelvin's own theory predicts an old sun
(>100,000,000) by young earth creationist's standards although
considerably less than the accepted age (~5 billion). Second, the
gravitational theory does not explain the observed properties of the
sun and other stars. Combining nuclear and gravitational processes
does not produce a young sun. Finally, Kelvin's theory predicts a
change of the radius of the sun that we would not be able to determine
from the historical data. Changes on the order of .1 to 1 arc second
per century are far too large to account for using Kelvin's theory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abdurashitov, J.N. et al. Results from SAGE (The Russian-American
Gallium solar neutrino Experiment). In: Physics letters. [part b].
MAY 26 1994 v 328 n 1 / 2 Page: 234

Austin, Sam M. Anantaraman, N. Love, W.G. Charge exchange
reactions and the efficiency of solar neutrino detectors. In:
Physical review letters. JUL 04 1994 v 73 n 1 Page: 30

Bahcall, John N. Where Are the Solar Neutrinos? How something as
elusive as the neutrino can stand astronomy and physics on its head.
In: Astronomy. MAR 01 1990 v 18 n 3 Page: 40

Brooks, R. C. (1988). Errors in measurement of the solar diameter in
the seventeenth and eighteen centuries. Journal for the History of
Astronomy, Vol 19, #4, p.239-255.

Cherry, M.L., K. Lande, and W.A. Fowler (eds.). Solar neutrinos and
neutrino astronomy : (Homestake, 1984) New York : American Institute
of Physics, 1985.

DeYoung, Don B. and Rush, David E. (1989) "Is the Sun an Age
Indicator?" _Creation Research Society Quarterly_
26(September):49-53.

Dunham, D. W., Sofia, S., Fiala, A. D., Herald, D., Muller, P.M.
(1980), Science, 210, p. 1244.

Eddy, J. A. and Boornazian, A. A. "Secular decrease in the solar
diameter, 1863-1953". Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
Volume 11, p 473.

Fiorentini, G., Lissia, M., and Mezzorani, G. Solar neutrino
experiments and determination of the neutrino oscillation parameters.
In: Physical review d: particles, fields, gravitat JUN 15 1994 v 49 n
12 Page: 6298

Gilliland, R. L. (1981). Solar Radius Variations over the past 265
years. The Astrophysical Journal, vol 248, 1144-1155.

Hata, Naoya, and Langacker, Paul. Solar model uncertainties, MSW
analysis, and future solar neutrino experiments. In: Physical review
d: particles, fields, gravitat JUL 15 1994 v 50 n 2 Page: 632

Parkinson, J.H., Morrison, L.V., and Stephenson, F.R. "The constancy
of the solar diameter over the past 250 years," Nature, 288, 1980,
p.548-551.

Shapiro, I. I. (1980). Science, 208, p. 51

Strahler, Arthur N., Science and Earth History; New York: Prometheus
Books, 1987

Taylor, R. J. The Stars: Their Structure and Evolution. Springer -
Verlag, New York, 1970.

Zirin, Harold. Astrophysics of the sun / Harold Zirin. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1988.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hahn@newshost (Karl Hahn)
Subject: Re: Proof of the World not being too old
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Sender: ne...@lds.loral.com
Reply-To: ha...@lds.loral.com
Organization: Loral Data Systems

> >3. The sun is shrinking at 1% every 1000 years, and if you went back
> >far enough in time, it would literally be touching the earth, therefore,
> >the sun must have been made at the same time as the earth, and couldn't
> >be created too long ago

The physics of how much energy is released by the gravitational shrinkage
of an object is well known. If the sun were shrinking at the rate you
say it is, it would have to be putting out nearly 200 times as much
energy as it is (calculations included as an appendix to this post).
We would all fry.

By whose measurement is the sun shrinking at the rate you say it is?
In addition, 1000 years ago humans were not able to measure the diameter
of the sun to 1% accuracy. A century ago humans were not able to
measure it to 0.1% accuracy. How is this data arrived at?

To anyone who, like Diana, is willing to believe philisophical
statements supposedly based upon science without first understanding
some science (and the math that goes with it), you are as vulnerable
to liars and charlatans who wish only to further their own dogma
as sheep are to a pack of wolves.

Make the investment. Learn the science. Learn it well. Knowledge,
besides being power, is its own reward.

>>><<<

Appendix: If the sun were uniform density (which it isn't), its
gravitational binding energy would be

E = 3/5 * G * m^2 / r [derivation available upon request]

where E is the binding energy, G is the universal gravitational constant,
m is the mass of the sun, and r is its radius.

G = 6.7e-11 newton meters^2 / kg^2

mass of sun = 2.0e30 kg

radius of sun = 6.9e8 meters

Since the sun is denser at the center than at the outside, the actual
binding energy is even more, so the formula above gives a lower bound
to E.

By taking the derivative of the above formula, we get a bound on how
much energy the sun must give up to shrink by one meter:

dE/dr = -(3/5) * G * m^2 / r^2


dE/dr = -3.4e32 Joules per meter

So, for each meter the sun shrinks, it must give up 3.4e32 Joules to
its surroundings. Diana has proposed that the sun shrank 1% in 1000
years. 1% of the suns radius is

delta_r = 6.9e6 meters

So the energy released is:

delta_E = -delta_r * dE/dr = 2.3e39 Joules

1000 years is 3.1e10 seconds, so this amounts to a power output of

P = delta_E / t = 7.4e28 Joules per second (i.e. watts)

where t is the time elapsed in seconds.

The measured output of the sun is 3.9e26 watts. So the lower bound of
the sun's power output as predicted by Diana's statement is about 190
times the observed power output of the sun.

Clearly Diana's number was misquoted, mismeasured, or made up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Clark


Dick C.

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
In article <001f402332303...@email.msn.com>,

"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY
be 4.6
> billion years old.

Thank you, I guess, for posting all of these tired and oft refuted
arguements in one long post.
I won't bother responding to them as several others already have, and
refutations can be found at the talk.origins faq site. Or by applying a
bit of knowledge and some critical thinking.
But I do have a question, in all these supposed aruguements/evidences
for a young earth, where is the evidence of a young earth? They are all
arguements against an old earth or universe. None are for a young earth.
When a scientist lists evidence for a theory, the evidence actually
provides positive support for the theory, not attacks on some other
theory.
He may argue that a particular piece of evidence is better support for
his theory than some other, but all of his arguements are of the type
that support his theory.
Where are the postive arguements in this mish mash?

--


Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.


Chris C.

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to


This reminds me of a part of the movie "Twelve Angry Men" where the guy goes
forget all that other stuff you can throw it all out.

Shane D. Killian

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
Robert Paveza wrote:
>
> Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be
> 4.6 billion years old.
> Young Universe Evidence
> 1) Insufficient number of supernovas / rate at which they occur. A new
> supernova event is observed about every 30 years, and we see only a few
> thousand in existence.
>
So? This happens only after the star has been burning for millions if
not billions of years anyway, so it is decidedly *not* evidence for a
young earth or against an old universe.

> 2) Absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it would seem that
> some galaxies would not be gravitationally bound and would just spread
> out in a "field".
>

What the smeg are yout alking about? And what does it have to do with a
young or old earth?

> 3) Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of different ages. If
> a star cluster is gravitationally bound, under stellar evolution theory
> one would expect all the stars would be the same age.
>

Why? What would preclude the formation of stars from nebulous material?

> Young Solar System Evidence
> 1) Rate of bombardment of meteoritic dust / amount of dust measured on
> the moon. Should be several hundred feet of dust on the moon.
>

Wrong. It should be a couple of inches. And it is.

> 2) Existence of short-period comets. They can only last a maximum of
> several thousand years because they give off copious material each
> orbit.
>

And the problem with this is...?

> 3) Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of the
> Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect should sweep the
> solar system clean of small particles.
>

Well, eventually, it will. How many billions of years do you want to
wait to find out?

> 4) Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not
> stable and will not last.
>

And the evidence for this is? And please explain why they are not held
in place by tractor moons, as has been observed.

> 5) Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io. Inadequate heat
> sources for a small moon so far from the sun to still be geologically
> active.
>

Massive tidal forces from the largest planet in the solar system is, by
you, inadequate? What the smeg *would* you consider adequate???

> 6) Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury,
> Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal
> dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field
> around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of
> existence if they ever had any.
>

Except, of course, for just about all of quantum mechanics.

> 7) Rock flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have eliminated old
> craters on the moon.
>

Yeah, from all that lava that's up there. Sheesh...

> 8) Recession of the moon from the earth. Moon is moving away from the
> earth gradually due to tidal activity. Movement is too fast for
> earth-moon system to be 4.6 billion years old.
>

Huh? I'm going to have to ask for a source on this.

> 9) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't
> extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting
> earth's environment.
>

Whoever said the earth's environment was unchanged?

> 10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's
> core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an
> adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem.
>

Not to anyone who's measured stellar neutrinos.

> Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to
> gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun.
>

Then please explain the existance of heavier elements.

> 11) Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended time
> period.
>

Yeah, only 10 or 20 billion years.

> 12) High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have decayed.
>

Source?

> 13) High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have decayed.
>

Source?

> Young Earth Evidence
> 1) Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field (half-life of
> 1400-2000 years).
>

Sorce?

> 2) Insufficient mass of helium in earth's atmosphere to account for 4.6
> billion years of radioactive decay. Helium is a by-product of
> radioactive decay of some elements. It is a noble gas which doesn't
> combine with any other element, but there is not enough of it to account
> for the radioactive decay which should have occurred in an old-earth
> scenario.
>

Probably because most of it's leaked out into space. Duh!!!

> 3) Despite inferior medical and nutritional practices, evidence
> indicates that the human species should have populated the earth much
> more quickly if they had been around for millions of years.
>

Why?

> 4) Earliest known human civilizations are only a few thousand years old.
>

So?

> 5) Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, cannot be
> traced back more than several thousand years.
>

Tree rings have been tracked more than 15,000 years, far, far older than
YEC's claim is the age of the earth.

> 6) Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only a
> few thousand years old.
>

Source? And relevance?

> 7) Dating of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of
> sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old.
>

Ditto.

> 8) Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should
> reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but
> it hasn't reached that point yet.
>

Yeah, because we've got all these pesky plants and the sun making more
C-14.

> 9) Erosion rate of the continents. Continental mass divided by net
> erosion rate (that is, despite accretion due to volcanism, tectonic
> activity, and geosyncline) would wash all of the continents into the
> ocean in about 14 million years.
>

And, of course,t here's absolutely no method for returning this sediment
to the continents. Right.

> 10) Amount of salts in the ocean divided by rate of influx. This is
> actually many dating methods - one for each salt which can be measured.
> For example, all the sodium chloride in the ocean would have been ashed
> in about 62 million years, if the ocean was pure water to begin with.
>

And, of course, there are no water cycles. Water stays in the ocean
forever.

> 11) Amount of water on earth's surface / rate at which it is expelled
> from below ground. Enough water is expelled from deep below the earth
> via volcanoes, etc. to rapidly produce more than all the water on the
> earth's surface.
>

And this water comes from....?

> 12) No plausible explanation for the pressure in oil reservoirs
> remaining so high for millions of years.
>

Unless you count gravity, that is.

> 13) Existence of uranium halos.
>

Why is this a problem?

> 14) Existence of polonium halos. Some believe that the polonium halos
> disqualify radiometric dating as a reliable dating method because they
> may indicate that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant
> throughout history. Others feel these halos indicate a rapid (instant)
> creation of the earth.
>

But these people, of course, are clueless and haven't the slightest idea
how radiation works.

> 1) Lack of meteorites in the geologic column. If the geologic column is
> billions of years old one would expect to find meteorites throughout.
>

Post a source saying there are no meteorites in the geologic column.
Seems I remember one from Mars being dug up awhile back...

I'm not going to do any more...It's monotonous, the rest of this is so
idiotic.

--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98


Jim Phillips

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
On 3 Jun 1999, Robert Paveza wrote:

> Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
> billion years old.
> Young Universe Evidence
> 1) Insufficient number of supernovas / rate at which they occur. A new
> supernova event is observed about every 30 years, and we see only a few
> thousand in existence.

???
Supernovas don't last very long--they brighten in a few days, then
fade away over weeks/months. Thus, there can't be "thousands in existence".
Also, *why* would the number of supernovas be "insufficient"?

> 2) Absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it would seem that
> some galaxies would not be gravitationally bound and would just spread out
> in a "field".

???
Could you cite the paper or textbook that talks about "field
galaxies"? I received a Bachelor degree in astronomy 12 years ago, and
I've tried to keep up with the literature, but I've never run across
"field galaxies" before. I can't even figure out exactly what it's
supposed to be based on what you wrote above.

> 3) Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of different ages. If a
> star cluster is gravitationally bound, under stellar evolution theory one
> would expect all the stars would be the same age.

No, it doesn't. Also, you do realize that the "stellar evolution
theory" you mention measures the age of star clusters in millions of years,
not to mention billions of years for individual stars?

> Young Solar System Evidence
> 1) Rate of bombardment of meteoritic dust / amount of dust measured on the
> moon. Should be several hundred feet of dust on the moon. Several years ago
> this creationist argument was dismissed, and many creationists themselves
> stopped using it. However, in light of the latest scientific research, this
> argument has been revived.

Refuted by the talk.origins FAQ (you didn't read it, did you?).

> 2) Existence of short-period comets. They can only last a maximum of several
> thousand years because they give off copious material each orbit.

Regenerated by the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt.

> 3) Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of the
> Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect should sweep the solar
> system clean of small particles.

Unless of course there's a continual source for those small
meteorites. Remember those short-period comets you mentioned, that
"give off copious material each orbit"? I do appreciate you giving
the answer to point #3 in point #2.

> 4) Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not
> stable and will not last.

By this reasoning, sandy beaches can't last either.

> 5) Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io. Inadequate heat sources
> for a small moon so far from the sun to still be geologically active.

Tidal friction from Jupiter and its other moons.

> 6) Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury,
> Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal
> dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field
> around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of
> existence if they ever had any.

This is just plain wrong. If it isn't, please cite the technical
paper or textbook that makes this claim.

> 7) Rock flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have eliminated old
> craters on the moon.

Why? Pleas be specific.

> 8) Recession of the moon from the earth. Moon is moving away from the earth
> gradually due to tidal activity. Movement is too fast for earth-moon system
> to be 4.6 billion years old.

Nonsense--do the math (not to mention the fact that the recession
rate has changed over time).

> 9) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't
> extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's
> environment.

I note the "may be shrinking" - that's hardly evidence if you have
to couch it in such terms.

> 10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core
> should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number
> of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued
> that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would
> imply a young sun.

See the recent book "The Case Of The Missing Neutrinos" by John
Gribbin. Good reading, and it's non-technical in nature.

> 11) Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended time
> period.

Says who?

> 12) High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have decayed.

Unless of course there's an outside source for it, right?

> 13) High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have decayed.
> Young Earth Evidence

See #12.

> 1) Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field (half-life of 1400-2000
> years). This half-life cannot be extrapolated back more than about 10,000
> years without the field becoming intolerably powerful. Creationists have
> been criticized for taking the original work on this matter out of context
> and failing to show that the magnetic field is cyclic (decaying then
> strengthening). However, it is the old earth believers that have concocted
> this data in an imaginary hypothetical cyclic extrapolation. It is the
> creationist who has used only the empirical evidence, to devise a theory
> that truly explains that data now available to us.

Please cite the papers from the scientific peer-reviewed journals
that indicate an "exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field". A
website is not adequate, as I could most likely find a flat-earth website
to "prove" the earth is flat.

> 2) Insufficient mass of helium in earth's atmosphere to account for 4.6
> billion years of radioactive decay. Helium is a by-product of radioactive
> decay of some elements. It is a noble gas which doesn't combine with any
> other element, but there is not enough of it to account for the radioactive
> decay which should have occurred in an old-earth scenario.

Helium is light enough to escape from the Earth's gravitational
field, given enough time.

> 3) Despite inferior medical and nutritional practices, evidence indicates
> that the human species should have populated the earth much more quickly if
> they had been around for millions of years.

Please cite this "evidence", preferably from the peer-reviewed
scientific literature.

> 4) Earliest known human civilizations are only a few thousand years old.

So? Oldest human remains are 100,000+ years old.

> 5) Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, cannot be traced
> back more than several thousand years.

Incorrect.

> 6) Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few
> thousand years old.

So?

> 7) Dating of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of sediment
> accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old.

Cite evidence (again, peer-reviewed scientific literature, please).

> 8) Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should reach
> equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't
> reached that point yet.

Cite evidence (peer-reviewed, as usual).

> 9) Erosion rate of the continents. Continental mass divided by net erosion
> rate (that is, despite accretion due to volcanism, tectonic activity, and
> geosyncline) would wash all of the continents into the ocean in about 14
> million years.

No, they don't.

> 10) Amount of salts in the ocean divided by rate of influx. This is actually
> many dating methods - one for each salt which can be measured. For example,
> all the sodium chloride in the ocean would have been ashed in about 62
> million years, if the ocean was pure water to begin with.

So, you're saying that there's no way for these salts to leave the
ocean once they get there?

> 11) Amount of water on earth's surface / rate at which it is expelled from
> below ground. Enough water is expelled from deep below the earth via
> volcanoes, etc. to rapidly produce more than all the water on the earth's
> surface.

So, there's no way such water came from, say, the ocean?

> 12) No plausible explanation for the pressure in oil reservoirs remaining so
> high for millions of years.

Yes, there is, you just haven't read it/refuse to read it.

> 13) Existence of uranium halos.

Explained adequately--see the FAQ.

> 14) Existence of polonium halos. Some believe that the polonium halos
> disqualify radiometric dating as a reliable dating method because they may
> indicate that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant throughout
> history. Others feel these halos indicate a rapid (instant) creation of the
> earth.

See talk.origins FAQ (if you dare).

Rest snipped.

--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net
A man asked the Universe, "Sir, why am I here?"
"None of your business," replied the Universe.


Jim Phillips

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
On 3 Jun 1999, UR32212451 wrote:

> "Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote
>

> >Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY be 4.6
> billion years old.
>

> Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
> of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
> effort toward rebuttal.
>

> Bdiller's post merely references a T.O. FAQ which touches
> only on a few of your evidences, and some of these are
> inconclusive and/or speculative.

Please comment on my reply, which covered all of his points with
only a few references to the talk.origins FAQ.

Will Pratt

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to

Shane D. Killian wrote in message <375834F1...@vnet.net>...
>Robert Paveza wrote:


<snip>

>> 6) Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only a
>> few thousand years old.
>>
>Source? And relevance?

<snip>

The Great Lakes are a Late Wisconsin-Holocene phenomenon, which did not
exist prior to the Pleistocene glaciations (and there dosen't seem to be any
evidence for their existence during interglacials, so far as my admittedly
elderly sources here in my office go). Prior to about (very roughly) 8,500
yr bp the present areas of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario were a single lake
basin and the area of the present Niagara River was under water. As the
postglacial lake level fell, the divide between the Erie and Ontario basins
was exposed, the Niagara river developed, and cutting of the gorge began.
Incidentally, this antedates the supposed creation date for a young earth by
2500 years.

Will

--
William L. Pratt, Ph.D., Curator of Invertebrates, Barrick Museum
Mail Stop 4012, Univ. Nevada, Las Vegas 89154-4012
(702) 895-1403; Fax (702) 895-3094; pra...@nevada.edu


Dave Woetzel

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to

UR32212451 wrote in message
<19990603225014...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote

>
>>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY be
4.6
>billion years old.
>
>Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
>of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
>effort toward rebuttal.
>
Boikat is a good, old-fashioned skeptic. More to the point is Henke's
material. As he points out, some of Robert's stuff is dated. IMHO, the
strongest of it is ocean salinity, atmospheric helium, erosion & marine
deposition. Although, I am surprised Henke could not do better on the
dendrochronology, comets, galaxy stuff, and magnetic fields around solar
system bodies. Those may be stronger than I thought.

Dave


Boikat

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
Dave Woetzel wrote:
>
> UR32212451 wrote in message
> <19990603225014...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
> >"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote
> >
> >>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY be
> 4.6
> >billion years old.
> >
> >Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
> >of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
> >effort toward rebuttal.
> >
> Boikat is a good, old-fashioned skeptic.

Thank you. :}

> More to the point is Henke's
> material. As he points out, some of Robert's stuff is dated. IMHO, the
> strongest of it is ocean salinity, atmospheric helium, erosion & marine
> deposition. Although, I am surprised Henke could not do better on the
> dendrochronology, comets, galaxy stuff, and magnetic fields around solar
> system bodies. Those may be stronger than I thought.

No, they are covered in the FAQ's, but if that's
not good enough, there is a easy way to verify or
refute the claims. Do a search on the net.

Dendrochronology: How long does wood last in the
open environment? Why are bristle cone pines more
durable, both as a living tree, and as dead wood?
Also, dendrochronology is an ongoing field of
investigation. Stay tuned.

Comets were covered quite well. The Oort and
Kuiper belt are a source in deep freeze out beyond
pluto, and objects from the kuiper belt have been
directly imaged by the Hubble space telescope.
The Kuiper Belt is real, it exists.

"Field Galaxies" Ever see the HST "Deep Sky"
image?

Also, as in the case of the magnetic fields,
since the planets in question are not exact
replicas of earth, it's reasonable that they would
have some variation when compared with the earth's
magnetic field, and how it's generated.

Those creationist argument are just a weak as the
rest of them.

Boikat


Tedd Hadley

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> writes:


|>Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
|>of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
|>effort toward rebuttal.
|>

|Boikat is a good, old-fashioned skeptic. More to the point is Henke's


|material. As he points out, some of Robert's stuff is dated. IMHO, the
|strongest of it is ocean salinity, atmospheric helium, erosion & marine
|deposition. Although, I am surprised Henke could not do better on the
|dendrochronology, comets, galaxy stuff, and magnetic fields around solar
|system bodies. Those may be stronger than I thought.

If this isn't email accidently posted, it sounds vaguely like
taunting. I believe all of the areas you mentioned are old
creationist arguments and refuted many times over. Do you really
find ocean salinity, atmospheric helium, and the erosion arguments
strong? In what way?


Kevin R. Henke

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to

Robert Paveza wrote in message
<001f402332303...@email.msn.com>...
Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY
be 4.6
billion years old.
Young Universe Evidence

[snip]

2) Existence of short-period comets. They can only last a maximum of
several
thousand years because they give off copious material each orbit.

KRH: The following article shows how comets are consistent with a 4.6
billion year old solar system:

Wyckoff, Susan, "Comets: Clues to the Early History of the Solar
System," 1991, Earth-Science Reviews, v. 30, p. 125-174.

KRH: The Kuiper belt, a source of some comets, was predicted and then
found in 1992. Search the web for the details. The discovery of the
Kuiper belt is an example of good science making accurate predictions.


[snip] [discussed earlier]

Dave Woetzel

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to

Boikat wrote in message <37585008...@bellsouth.net>...

>Dave Woetzel wrote:
>>
>> UR32212451 wrote in message
>> <19990603225014...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>> >"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote
>> >
>> >>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY
be
>> 4.6
>> >billion years old.
>> >
>> >Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
>> >of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
>> >effort toward rebuttal.
>> >
>> Boikat is a good, old-fashioned skeptic.
>
>Thank you. :}


Hey, you occupy an *important* place in the fulfillment of prophecy.

>> More to the point is Henke's
>> material. As he points out, some of Robert's stuff is dated. IMHO, the
>> strongest of it is ocean salinity, atmospheric helium, erosion & marine
>> deposition. Although, I am surprised Henke could not do better on the
>> dendrochronology, comets, galaxy stuff, and magnetic fields around solar
>> system bodies. Those may be stronger than I thought.
>

>No, they are covered in the FAQ's, but if that's
>not good enough, there is a easy way to verify or
>refute the claims. Do a search on the net.
>
>Dendrochronology: How long does wood last in the
>open environment? Why are bristle cone pines more
>durable, both as a living tree, and as dead wood?
>Also, dendrochronology is an ongoing field of
>investigation. Stay tuned.


Yes, it is ongoing. However, are you aware of anything that has passed the
10,000 year wall?

>Comets were covered quite well. The Oort and
>Kuiper belt are a source in deep freeze out beyond
>pluto, and objects from the kuiper belt have been
>directly imaged by the Hubble space telescope.
>The Kuiper Belt is real, it exists.


You mean, as compared to the Oort cloud?

>"Field Galaxies" Ever see the HST "Deep Sky"
>image?
>
> Also, as in the case of the magnetic fields,
>since the planets in question are not exact
>replicas of earth, it's reasonable that they would
>have some variation when compared with the earth's
>magnetic field, and how it's generated.


Speculation.

>Those creationist argument are just a weak as the
>rest of them.


No, Boikat. Unlike what some imply on T.O. Creationists *do* 'fess up to
hard evidence that outdates an argument. That may be the case for shrinking
sun and moon dust, but is *not* true of the others.

Dave

Dave Woetzel

unread,
Jun 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/4/99
to

Boikat wrote in message <37585008...@bellsouth.net>...
>Dave Woetzel wrote:
>>
>> UR32212451 wrote in message
>> <19990603225014...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>> >"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote
>> >
>> >>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY
be
>> 4.6
>> >billion years old.
>> >
>> >Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
>> >of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
>> >effort toward rebuttal.
>> >
>> Boikat is a good, old-fashioned skeptic.
>
>Thank you. :}


Hey, you occupy an important place in fulfilled prophecy!

>> More to the point is Henke's
>> material. As he points out, some of Robert's stuff is dated. IMHO, the
>> strongest of it is ocean salinity, atmospheric helium, erosion & marine
>> deposition. Although, I am surprised Henke could not do better on the
>> dendrochronology, comets, galaxy stuff, and magnetic fields around solar
>> system bodies. Those may be stronger than I thought.
>
>No, they are covered in the FAQ's, but if that's
>not good enough, there is a easy way to verify or
>refute the claims. Do a search on the net.
>
>Dendrochronology: How long does wood last in the
>open environment? Why are bristle cone pines more
>durable, both as a living tree, and as dead wood?
>Also, dendrochronology is an ongoing field of
>investigation. Stay tuned.


Yes. It is ongoing. However, are you aware of any finds that break the
10,000 year barrier?

>Comets were covered quite well. The Oort and
>Kuiper belt are a source in deep freeze out beyond
>pluto, and objects from the kuiper belt have been
>directly imaged by the Hubble space telescope.
>The Kuiper Belt is real, it exists.


You mean, as compared to the Oort cloud?

>"Field Galaxies" Ever see the HST "Deep Sky"
>image?
>
> Also, as in the case of the magnetic fields,
>since the planets in question are not exact
>replicas of earth, it's reasonable that they would
>have some variation when compared with the earth's
>magnetic field, and how it's generated.


Speculation.

>Those creationist argument are just a weak as the
>rest of them.
>

Boikat, you know that creationists have 'fessed up when hard evidences
outdates an argument like shrinking sun and moon dust (despite what some may
claim on T.O.). However, this does not apply to all the others that were
cited above.

Dave

hrgr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
In article <06871270002...@csi.com>,

"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Boikat wrote in message <37585008...@bellsouth.net>...
> >Dave Woetzel wrote:
> >>
> >> UR32212451 wrote in message
> >> <19990603225014...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
> >> >"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> >>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot
>POSSIBLY
> be
> >> 4.6
> >> >billion years old.

<snip>

> >Comets were covered quite well. The Oort and
> >Kuiper belt are a source in deep freeze out beyond
> >pluto, and objects from the kuiper belt have been
> >directly imaged by the Hubble space telescope.
> >The Kuiper Belt is real, it exists.
>
> You mean, as compared to the Oort cloud?

But in order to use the comet argument against an Earth age in
gigayears, you have to present evidence that there is *no source* for
comets. Just claiming that the Oort cloud is speculation is not
sufficient.

(The argument only makes sense in the other direction: we have so many
consistent indications of an old Earth, thus there has to be an Oort
cloud. We observe it by the comets it emits).

Regards,
HRG.

<snip>

Roberta Waddle

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
Robert Paveza wrote:
>
> Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
> billion years old.

You obviously parroted this nonsense out of some cretinist book or website without making
even minimal effort to determine its validity. Had you taken the time to check it in the
Talk.Origins Archives or even lurked this ng a week or two you could have avoided exposing
your credulity and extreme ignorance pertaining to that which you posted. I am not going to
comment on most of your claims since others have already done so. But there are two in
particular that I want to explain so that you may understand the considerable dishonesty of
whomever wrote that which you parroted.

> 2) Ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary rocks. This
> implies very rapid burial and hardening because these fragile features could
> not survive even trivial erosion.

There are large numbers of ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks (and sun cracks) in
the geologic record. Over 500 animal trackways have been found in the Western US alone.
These trackways are in sediments ranging from late Paleozoic to Recent with most of them
being in sediments creationists attribute to Noah's flood. It does not take much
intelligence to understand that if these sediments truly were laid down by the flood, it
would have washed away any footprints that were laid down. But there should have been few,
if any footprints laid down anyway since the sediments should have been laid down mostly
under water after the animals were drowned. Moreover, there are dinosaur nesting sites near
the top of the Mesozoic sediments. Most of what creationists claim is flood sediment lies
below them. And above the nesting sites is the world-wide iridium layer that marks the end of
the Mesozoic. And above that is far too much sediment to have been laid down by natural
processes in a mere 10,000 years.

Thus in reality, trace fossils disprove the claim of a world-wide flood and verify the
reality of an old earth. That the creationists should use them to "prove" a young earth only
proves their willingness to make selective use of facts to create to create a false
impression

> 3) Polystrate fossils. These are fossils which cut across multiple geologic
> layers that were supposedly laid down millions of years apart. Fossilized
> trees and animals are often found in tact and spanning supposedly millions
> of years of geologic layers.

As you would have found had you checked the Talk.Origins Archives, this claim is pure
creationist nonsense. The "polystrate trees" of Nova Scotia aren't even trees. What your
cretinist source does not tell you is that they are filled in stumpholes - and, of course,
holes cannot be deposited in the middle of a flood. Neither does it tell you that they were
determined to be stumpholes back in the late 1800's, i.e., long before the creationist claim
was even made. The creationists knew their claim was false, but they made it anyway.

By repeating lies such as these, you align yourself with unethical people. Why would you do
that?

Floyd

<rest snipped>


Mark Isaak

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
In article <001f402332303...@email.msn.com>,

Robert Paveza <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
>billion years old.

What you have posted is a list of evidences that creationists can't
think. To give just one example (picked arbirarily):

>2) Insufficient mass of helium in earth's atmosphere to account for 4.6
>billion years of radioactive decay. Helium is a by-product of radioactive
>decay of some elements. It is a noble gas which doesn't combine with any
>other element, but there is not enough of it to account for the radioactive
>decay which should have occurred in an old-earth scenario.

This assumes, contrary to evidence, that helium doesn't escape the
atmosphere.

Most of the other examples assume that non-uniform processes are uniform
from the beginning of time. Really stupid.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek


DrFidelius

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
Robert Paveza wrote:

>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
>billion years old.

I am going to do a lot of snippage, and try to answer those points to which I
have an answer. Others I may ask for further information.

>1) Insufficient number of supernovas / rate at which they occur. A new
>supernova event is observed about every 30 years, and we see only a few
>thousand in existence

As I understand it, supernova debris is pretty dark and thus hard to see in
space. Also, the debris is recycled into dust clouds and then into new stars,
such as we see in the Pleiades (sp.). These "observed supernova events" you
reference, are you including supernovae in other galaxies in this 30-year
figure?


>2) Absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it would seem that
>some galaxies would not be gravitationally bound and would just spread out
>in a "field".

I ask "Why would it seem so?" in an attempt to gain further information.

>3) Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of different ages. If a
>star cluster is gravitationally bound, under stellar evolution theory one
>would expect all the stars would be the same age.

Again, why? Stars are continually being born and dying. Larger stars tend to
live shorter lives and their remnants are turned into new stars. A cluster
would be expected to show stars in all stages of growth, unless they were all
created simultaneously by Divine fiat.

>Young Solar System Evidence
>1) Rate of bombardment of meteoritic dust / amount of dust measured on the
>moon. Should be several hundred feet of dust on the moon. Several years ago
>this creationist argument was dismissed, and many creationists themselves
>stopped using it. However, in light of the latest scientific research, this
>argument has been revived.

Please cite "the latest scientific research." Last I heard, orbiting devices
measured the influx of interplanetary dust. This matched with the measured
thickness of the dust layer on the Moon to a high degree of accuracy. The
amount of dust was not what was ESTIMATED it should have been before we could
measure it in space, but estimates are always being abandoned when accurate
observations are made.

>2) Existence of short-period comets. They can only last a maximum of several
>thousand years because they give off copious material each orbit.

Yes, but Kuiper Belt objects have been observed by the Hubble telescope. This
gives a source for new comets.


>3) Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of the
>Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect should sweep the solar
>system clean of small particles.

I am not familiar with the Poynting/Robertson effect. What kind of time scale
do they propose for the complete elimination of small interplanetary objects?

>4) Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not
>stable and will not last.

The harmonics observed in the rings of Saturn suggest that the particles have
had a lot of time to fall into meta-stable orbits. But no, I don't think
they'll last more than ten or twelve billion years more even if we don't mine
them.

>5) Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io. Inadequate heat sources
>for a small moon so far from the sun to still be geologically active.

Tidal forces are more than adequate to keep Io active. Show your equations
that this is an inadequate heat source and I'll show you my equations.

>6) Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury,
>Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal
>dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field
>around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of
>existence if they ever had any.

Yup, we still gotta work on this one. However, I am not the brightest light on
the tree when it comes to planetary science. Maybe someone else can help here.

>7) Rock flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have eliminated old
>craters on the moon.

What rock flow? The Moon is geologically inactive, tidal forces from the
Earth's gravity are insufficient to keep it going in the way Jupiter fuels Io.

>8) Recession of the moon from the earth. Moon is moving away from the earth
>gradually due to tidal activity. Movement is too fast for earth-moon system

>to be 4.6 billion years old.

Show your work.

>9) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't
>extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's
>environment.

Sun also may not be shrinking, in fact it pretty darn sure isn't.

>10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core
>should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number
>of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued
>that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would
>imply a young sun.

The neutrino problem was solved just a year or so ago. Neutrinos have a little
mass and change from one type to another in the time it takes to come from the
Sun to here. Is a gravitationally fueled Sun consistent with the supernovae
you referenced at the start of this post?

>11) Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended time
>period.

How long an "extended time period"? And how is fusion an inadequate mechanism
for this?

>12) High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have decayed.

>13) High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have decayed.

I do not know anything about radioisotope dating of Moon rocks...

>Young Earth Evidence


>1) Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field (half-life of 1400-2000
>years). This half-life cannot be extrapolated back more than about 10,000
>years without the field becoming intolerably powerful. Creationists have
>been criticized for taking the original work on this matter out of context
>and failing to show that the magnetic field is cyclic (decaying then
>strengthening). However, it is the old earth believers that have concocted
>this data in an imaginary hypothetical cyclic extrapolation. It is the
>creationist who has used only the empirical evidence, to devise a theory
>that truly explains that data now available to us.

The cyclic extrapolation is well established from the fossil magnetism in sea
floor rocks.

>2) Insufficient mass of helium in earth's atmosphere to account for 4.6
>billion years of radioactive decay. Helium is a by-product of radioactive
>decay of some elements. It is a noble gas which doesn't combine with any
>other element, but there is not enough of it to account for the radioactive
>decay which should have occurred in an old-earth scenario.

Helium is also the second-lightest gas and has a habit of floating out of a
little gravity well like the Earth's.

>3) Despite inferior medical and nutritional practices, evidence indicates
>that the human species should have populated the earth much more quickly if
>they had been around for millions of years.

What evidence? Extrapolation based on present day population growth doesn't
cut it. If we use the population curve of rabbits, they were created in the
late 1970s.


>4) Earliest known human civilizations are only a few thousand years old.

Yes, so?


>5) Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, cannot be traced
>back more than several thousand years.

The use of entire forests has extended the time-line back very far, I am sure
one of our dendrochronology experts will give you the details.

>6) Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few
>thousand years old.

>7) Dating of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of sediment

>accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old.

Yes, both of these features were formed after the last Ice Age, about ten
thousand years ago.
I have been on-line for a while now, I may come back and answer a few more
later.

Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason."


Mike

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
UR32212451 <ur322...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990603225014...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> "Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote

>
> >Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY be
4.6
> billion years old.
>
> Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
> of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
> effort toward rebuttal.

I would say "pot, kettle, black" but I don't think Boikat would classify as
a kettle. But, if you can justify your claim, please critique Boikat's
points. Otherwise you are guilty of "special pleading and pooh poohing


rather than any kind of effort toward rebuttal."

Mike

Sverker Johansson

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to

Dave Woetzel wrote:

> Boikat wrote in message <37585008...@bellsouth.net>...
> >Dave Woetzel wrote:
> >>
> >> UR32212451 wrote in message
> >> <19990603225014...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...

> >> >"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> >>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot >POSSIBLY
> be
> >> 4.6
> >> >billion years old.
> >> >
> >> >Excellent post Robert. Boikats response appears to be a host
> >> >of special pleading and pooh poohing rather than any kind of
> >> >effort toward rebuttal.

When the same debunked arguments return for the nth time,
pooh-poohing is rather understandable.

> >> Boikat is a good, old-fashioned skeptic.
> >
> >Thank you. :}
>
> Hey, you occupy an important place in fulfilled prophecy!
>
> >> More to the point is Henke's
> >> material. As he points out, some of Robert's stuff is dated. IMHO, the
> >> strongest of it is ocean salinity, atmospheric helium, erosion & marine
> >> deposition.

And since that is trivially debunked, we can then assume that the rest
is even weaker?

> >> Although, I am surprised Henke could not do better on the
> >> dendrochronology, comets, galaxy stuff, and magnetic fields around solar
> >> system bodies. Those may be stronger than I thought.

Have you considered that field galaxies may not be Henke's field?

[snip]

> >Also, dendrochronology is an ongoing field of
> >investigation. Stay tuned.
>
> Yes. It is ongoing. However, are you aware of any finds that break the
> 10,000 year barrier?

It used to be a 4004 BC barrier. When that was decisively broken,
it became a 10,000-year barrier. Where will the goalposts go
next time? You might wish to have a look at:

Kitagawa, H & van der Plicth, J (1998) 'Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration
to 45,000 yr BP: late glacial fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production',
Science 279:1187-1190

[snip]

--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Claiming that there are no transitional fossils,
makes you into a counter-example.

Dave Woetzel

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to

Sverker Johansson wrote in message <375904BF...@no.hlk.spam.hj.se>...
<snip>

You caught my interest with this statement. Where was this barrier 6004 ya
cited? Can you give me a couple references? I am only aware of the appx.
10,000 ya date.

Thanks,

Dave


Sverker Johansson

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
"Shane D. Killian" wrote:

> Robert Paveza wrote:
> >
> > Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be
> > 4.6 billion years old.
> > Young Universe Evidence
> > 1) Insufficient number of supernovas / rate at which they occur. A new
> > supernova event is observed about every 30 years, and we see only a few
> > thousand in existence.
> >
> So? This happens only after the star has been burning for millions if
> not billions of years anyway, so it is decidedly *not* evidence for a
> young earth or against an old universe.

Can be less than a million for SN type II. But SN Ia takes at least a
billion or so, and we see plenty of those.

> > 2) Absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it would seem that
> > some galaxies would not be gravitationally bound and would just spread
> > out in a "field".
> >
> What the smeg are yout alking about? And what does it have to do with a
> young or old earth?

This is probably a distorted echo of the dark matter problem.
One of the reason we postulate dark matter is that galaxies wouldn't
be gravitationally bound in clusters otherwise.

> > 3) Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of different ages. If
> > a star cluster is gravitationally bound, under stellar evolution theory
> > one would expect all the stars would be the same age.
> >
> Why? What would preclude the formation of stars from nebulous material?

More to the point, the majority of stars in a cluster generally _are_ the
same age. The minority that aren't are consistent with field stars
wandering in.

> > 3) Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of the
> > Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect should sweep the
> > solar system clean of small particles.
> >
> Well, eventually, it will. How many billions of years do you want to
> wait to find out?

P-R can be pretty quick. But the stuff is replenished from among other
sources the abovementioned comets.

Incidentally, the really fine dust would be swept out much faster than
6000 years, if it weren't replenished. So the 4004BC date isn't
tenable either....

> > 6) Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury,
> > Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal
> > dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field
> > around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of
> > existence if they ever had any.
> >
> Except, of course, for just about all of quantum mechanics.

QM has not a lot to do with it.

But the fact that all of the above have (or possibly have had)
conducting fluids in or around them does.

> > 9) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't
> > extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting
> > earth's environment.
> >
> Whoever said the earth's environment was unchanged?

Life's continuous existence for 4 billion years says the
envirnoment hasn't changed too much. The argument
from shrinkage is still bunk, though, but for
other reasons. See my Solar FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html

> > 10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's
> > core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an
> > adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem.
> >
> Not to anyone who's measured stellar neutrinos.

I've measured a few stellar neutrinos, but I doubt if you have.
It IS a well-known problem, though it also has solutions.
See the solar FAQ again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html


> > Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to
> > gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun.
> >
> Then please explain the existance of heavier elements.
>
> > 11) Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended time
> > period.
> >
> Yeah, only 10 or 20 billion years.
>
> > 12) High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have decayed.
>
> Source?
>
> > 13) High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have decayed.
>
> Source?

Both are produced in cosmic-ray interactions, the moon's surface not being
shielded by an atmosphere.

Sorry, Shane. You and I are on the same side, but I doubt if our cause is
helped by factually incorrect "debunking".

Sverker Johansson

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
Dave Woetzel wrote:

Ussher (1650) "Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti"

Did you check the Kitagawa reference yet?

Keith Littleton

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
In Message-ID: <001f402332303...@email.msn.com>,
"Robert Paveza" <Ref...@email.msn.com> wrote:

>Here you go, everybody. Some reasons that the earth
>cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6 billion years old.

.... creationist silliness deleted ...

>Young Earth Evidence

.... creationist silliness deleted ...

What I would like a plausible explanation for is why
creationists fail to research the material they post as
evidence for a young Earth. For example, the below
claim.

>12) No plausible explanation for the pressure in oil
>reservoirs remaining so high for millions of years.

Contrary to what Young Earth creationists, like you
claim, a vast number of oil and gas fields exhibit
pressures that are consistent with the hydrostatic
pressure at the depth which it has been found. In such
fields, the pressure of the oil in the field, and the
formation water surrounding it are the same as the
hydrostatic gradient. Untapped by oil wells, the pressure
in these oil fields will not bleed off as long as they
remain buried at the same depth. The pressure will
decrease only as the strata above the oil field is eroded
off and, thus, reducing the hydrostatic head. The pressure
of the oil field will increase if it is buried deeper. As
long as the burial depth remains the same, the pressure of
a normally pressured oil reservoir will remain the same.
To say that the pressure of these oil fields will bleed
over any period of time is simply nonsense.

The pressure of the oil and gas in such a field represents
the normal weight of water in the strata overlying the
oil-bearing layer that forms the oil field. In the Gulf
of Mexico region, for example, a reservoir pressure of
about 5,000 pounds per square inch (PSI) at 11,000 ft.
(2.1 miles) is expected for reservoir pressure. Since
this pressure results from the static weight of the
overlying water-saturated strata, this part of a
reservoir's pressure is not contained by the overlying
strata will never bleed off as claimed. The oil can be
be contained by a relatively impermeable layer of rock
but the pressure is not.

When a oil boring is opened to oil-bearing strata, the
oil flows or bleeds into the hole because the mile or
two of mud in the hole exerts less pressure than the
mile or two of hydrostatic pressure exerted on the fluids
in the reservoir. As a result, the pressure of the
reservoir rock around the hole is depleted as oil, often
with lots of water, flows into it. In response to the
loss of pressure, more fluid from higher pressure flows
through the pores to the hole. If the well is abandoned
and plugged with bentonite and concrete, then the original
pressure of the reservoir strata will eventually be
restored over a very long period of time. The pressure
can bleed off only as long as the oil well is open. If
the well wasn't there the pressure of the reservoir would
remain the same for millions of years.

Overpressured (geopressured) reservoirs, where by
definition, the pressure of the hydrocarbons exceeds the
pressure that would be created by the overlying strata
and water column within them. What Young Earth
creationists fail to realize is that formation waters
above and below the oil reservoir are also overpressured.

There are various processes which creates overpressure.
In the Gulf of Mexico the overpressure results from the
strata compacting faster than water can be expelled from
it towards the surface. When this happens, any of the
fluids in strata, whether it be oil or water, are required
to support the overburden pressure. This pressure will
continue to be generated in areas of rapid sedimentation
This and a number of mechanisms for generating
overpressures are discussed in great detail by Parker
(1991) and Osborne and Swarbrick (1997).

In specific cases, i.e. Gulf of Mexico, once sedimentation
has ceased, overpressures should dissipate as water is
expelled from sedimentary strata as it compacts. However,
as in case of the Gulf of Mexico the shear volume of water
that has to be moved, the very low permeabilities of clayey
strata, and the vast thickness of strata through which the
water has to pass through, often laterally instead of
vertically, requires millions and even tens of millions
of years for this happen. Creationist claims that
pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a
few thousand years is refuted by innumerable geotechical
and geologic research. Such research can be found in the
references listed below.

I would recommend for for further reading on this topic
the articles which are listed below.

References Cited

Bitzer, K (1999) Discussion and Replies: Mechanisms for
generating overpressures in sedimentary basins. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists. vol. 83, no. 5,
pp. 798-799.

Bradley, J. S. (1975) Abnormal formation pressure.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists. vol. 59,
pp. 957-973.

Osborne, M. J., and R. E. Swarbrick (1997) Mechanisms for
generating overpressures in sedimentary basins. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists. vol. 81, no. 6,
pp. 1023-1041.

Parker, C. A. (1991) Geopressures and Hydrodynamics in the
Gulf Coast Tertiary. In D. Goldwaithe, ed., An Introduction
to Central Gulf Coast Geology. New Orleans Geological
Society, New Orleans, LA, pp. 151-162.

.... rest of creationsit nonsence deleted ...

Yours

Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA

Read a first-hand description of the Ongoing Pogrom
in Kosovo in the "Diary From Kosovo" at:
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/Nightline/nl_kosovardiary990528.html

For how a person can help do something about the horrific
suffering, a person can go to:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/iframes/Kosovo_relief.asp

For recent information about the Kosovo crisis, go to:

1.http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/
2. Catholic Relief Services - http://www.catholicrelief.org
3. InterAction - http://www.interaction.org
4. U.S. Committe for Refugees - http://www.refugees.org
5. UNHCR - http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/welcome.htm
6. Albanian Immigrant and Cultural Resource - http://www.frosina.org
(http://www.frosina.org/NRKitsKosa.htm)
7. DHHS/ORR - http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/orr/


Shane D. Killian

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
Dave Woetzel wrote:
>
> >Dendrochronology: How long does wood last in the
> >open environment? Why are bristle cone pines more
> >durable, both as a living tree, and as dead wood?
> >Also, dendrochronology is an ongoing field of
> >investigation. Stay tuned.
>
> Yes. It is ongoing. However, are you aware of any finds that break the
> 10,000 year barrier?
>
There's a pine somewhere in Australia dated (IIRC) 43,000 years.


> >Comets were covered quite well. The Oort and
> >Kuiper belt are a source in deep freeze out beyond
> >pluto, and objects from the kuiper belt have been
> >directly imaged by the Hubble space telescope.
> >The Kuiper Belt is real, it exists.
>
> You mean, as compared to the Oort cloud?
>
We have indirect evidence of the Oort Cloud, and direct evidence of the
Kuiper Belt.

Besides, if this comet thing were true, the solar system could only be
as old as the youngest short-period comet, which would make it about 150
years old.

Shane D. Killian

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99
to
Dave Woetzel wrote:
>
> You caught my interest with this statement. Where was this barrier 6004
> ya cited?
>
Bushop Usher, who traced back the geneology of the Bible and came up
with a start date of 4004 BCE. Of course, to do it, he had to make the
average human age over 400 years...

Shane D. Killian

unread,
Jun 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/5/99