Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kingdomovehearts · 01-02-2004, 01:09 AM

I think this has something to do with creatism so Ill post it here, can anyone disprove hovinds stuff against a 4.5billion year old earth? I could only disprove 5 of them, I wont show them, so here:

The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are shortlived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old.

The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed.

The existence of short-period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.

Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young.

There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly.

Space dust would be vacuumed out of our solar system by the Poynting-Robertson effect in a few thousand years. Since that is not the case, the earth is very young.

At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years.

Saturn's rings are unstable which indicates that they are less than millions of years old.

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. Since they still give off internal heat, they cannot be billions of years old.

Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old.

If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

The amount of helium in the atmosphere divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years.

Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 10^9 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 10^15 tons.)

Topsoil takes only a few thousand years to form. The present thickness of topsoil indicates a young earth.

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.

Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 10^9 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 10^15 tons. That yields 30 million years.)

there.

Sven · 01-02-2004, 02:41 AM

www.talkorigins.org

just search for Hovind...

Duvenoy · 01-02-2004, 02:42 AM

Much of this can be found here:

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

Quite a bit more resides at Talk Origins.

That a large number people blindly believe the teachings of this outrageous charlatan make me fear for the future of my species.

doov

lpetrich · 01-02-2004, 03:01 AM

First, does Kent Hovind give any sources for his assertions?

Kingdomovehearts:

The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are shortlived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old.

The Moon does contain some short-liked isotopes due to cosmic-ray bombardment, but I've never seen any serious claims of quantities too large to be accounted for by that source.

The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed.

Demonstrably false. Extrapolating the present rate of recession means that the Moon would be close to the Earth a few billion years ago. Also, the Moon's rate of recession depends on the shape of the ocean basins, which governs how much tidal sloshing can happen.

The existence of short-period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.

However, there are large numbers of comets in the outer Solar System, which occasionally pass near some giant planet like Jupiter and get perturbed into a short-period orbit.

Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young.

That claim is thoroughly discredited, and Anwers in Genesis warns creationists not to use that argument.

There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly.

Demonstrably false. Fossil meteorites are known to exist, though they may not look very outwardly different from other stray rocks.

Space dust would be vacuumed out of our solar system by the Poynting-Robertson effect in a few thousand years. Since that is not the case, the earth is very young.

Except that it's continually resupplied by disintegrating comets.

At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years.

The mainstream astronomical literature contains no mention of this alleged phenomenon.

Saturn's rings are unstable which indicates that they are less than millions of years old.

Even if they are transitory, that only means that we are lucky to be around while they are present.

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. Since they still give off internal heat, they cannot be billions of years old.

I've made crude estimates of their cooling times for these objects' excess luminosities, and they do not require unreasonably high core temperatures, only a few tens of thousands of degrees K

Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

Except that it isn't.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old.

What is he counting as lava? Everything that's on the Earth's surface and not eroded away?

If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

That's the turnover time; minerals are removed from the oceans by various processes.

The amount of helium in the atmosphere divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years.

Except that helium is a very light gas that easily evaporates into outer space.

Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 10^9 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 10^15 tons.)

However, more continent is continually being thrust upward.

Topsoil takes only a few thousand years to form. The present thickness of topsoil indicates a young earth.

It can erode away.

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

Bull feces. An oil-proof rock formation will stay oil-proof.

The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.

Except that it is not slowing down that fast.

Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 10^9 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 10^15 tons. That yields 30 million years.)

Most of it ends up on the continental shelves, not the ocean floors.

Bookwyrm · 01-02-2004, 03:55 AM

A talkorigins article addressing Hovind's claims

RufusAtticus · 01-02-2004, 04:29 AM

Am I the only one who checked Kingdomovehearts' profile?

Dark Jedi · 01-02-2004, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Am I the only one who checked Kingdomovehearts' profile?

Are you seeing something as a moderator that the rest of us can't?

tommyc · 01-02-2004, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Am I the only one who checked Kingdomovehearts' profile?

If you are commenting on the fact he is an atheist, then please note he is posting Ken Hovind's "arguments" in the hope of finding out some rebuttals to them, with LPetrich has since done.

Ellis14 · 01-02-2004, 06:47 AM

The burden of proof is on Kent Hovind to show that the entire scientific community is wrong about a 4 billion year old earth. I don't think he can or will be able to do this.

His assertions are just speculation.

variant 13 · 01-02-2004, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

Except that it isn't.

wait I thought that the strength of earth's magnetic field was getting lower

?

That we could be in for a reversal of poles in the next few thousand years or so?

01-02-2004, 01:09 AM	#1
Kingdomovehearts Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: houston Posts: 46	Kent Hovinds evidence against a 4billion year old earth I think this has something to do with creatism so Ill post it here, can anyone disprove hovinds stuff against a 4.5billion year old earth? I could only disprove 5 of them, I wont show them, so here: The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are shortlived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old. The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed. The existence of short-period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind. Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young. There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly. Space dust would be vacuumed out of our solar system by the Poynting-Robertson effect in a few thousand years. Since that is not the case, the earth is very young. At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years. Saturn's rings are unstable which indicates that they are less than millions of years old. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. Since they still give off internal heat, they cannot be billions of years old. Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old. If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young. The amount of helium in the atmosphere divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years. Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 10^9 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 10^15 tons.) Topsoil takes only a few thousand years to form. The present thickness of topsoil indicates a young earth. The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.) The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years. Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 10^9 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 10^15 tons. That yields 30 million years.) there.

01-02-2004, 02:41 AM	#2
Sven Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here Posts: 10,987	Why doesn't everybody know this URL? www.talkorigins.org just search for Hovind...

01-02-2004, 03:01 AM	#4
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Re: Kent Hovinds evidence against a 4billion year old earth First, does Kent Hovind give any sources for his assertions? Kingdomovehearts: The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are shortlived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old. The Moon does contain some short-liked isotopes due to cosmic-ray bombardment, but I've never seen any serious claims of quantities too large to be accounted for by that source. The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed. Demonstrably false. Extrapolating the present rate of recession means that the Moon would be close to the Earth a few billion years ago. Also, the Moon's rate of recession depends on the shape of the ocean basins, which governs how much tidal sloshing can happen. The existence of short-period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind. However, there are large numbers of comets in the outer Solar System, which occasionally pass near some giant planet like Jupiter and get perturbed into a short-period orbit. Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young. That claim is thoroughly discredited, and Anwers in Genesis warns creationists not to use that argument. There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly. Demonstrably false. Fossil meteorites are known to exist, though they may not look very outwardly different from other stray rocks. Space dust would be vacuumed out of our solar system by the Poynting-Robertson effect in a few thousand years. Since that is not the case, the earth is very young. Except that it's continually resupplied by disintegrating comets. At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years. The mainstream astronomical literature contains no mention of this alleged phenomenon. Saturn's rings are unstable which indicates that they are less than millions of years old. Even if they are transitory, that only means that we are lucky to be around while they are present. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. Since they still give off internal heat, they cannot be billions of years old. I've made crude estimates of their cooling times for these objects' excess luminosities, and they do not require unreasonably high core temperatures, only a few tens of thousands of degrees K Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old. Except that it isn't. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old. What is he counting as lava? Everything that's on the Earth's surface and not eroded away? If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young. That's the turnover time; minerals are removed from the oceans by various processes. The amount of helium in the atmosphere divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years. Except that helium is a very light gas that easily evaporates into outer space. Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 10^9 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 10^15 tons.) However, more continent is continually being thrust upward. Topsoil takes only a few thousand years to form. The present thickness of topsoil indicates a young earth. It can erode away. The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.) Bull feces. An oil-proof rock formation will stay oil-proof. The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years. Except that it is not slowing down that fast. Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 10^9 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 10^15 tons. That yields 30 million years.) Most of it ends up on the continental shelves, not the ocean floors.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-02-2004, 02:42 AM	#3
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Much of this can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/ Quite a bit more resides at Talk Origins. That a large number people blindly believe the teachings of this outrageous charlatan make me fear for the future of my species. doov

01-02-2004, 03:55 AM	#5
Bookwyrm Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: L-Space Posts: 73	A talkorigins article addressing Hovind's claims

01-02-2004, 04:29 AM	#6
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Am I the only one who checked Kingdomovehearts' profile?

01-02-2004, 06:47 AM	#9
Ellis14 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: England Posts: 3,934	The burden of proof is on Kent Hovind to show that the entire scientific community is wrong about a 4 billion year old earth. I don't think he can or will be able to do this. His assertions are just speculation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.