Jack the Bodiless

Randman:

You have repeatedly claimed that you ceased to believe in evolution because of "evolutionist lies". Furthermore, you seem to be working from a definition of an "evolutionist lie" as "any scientific claim ever made, at any time, by any believer in evolution, which has since been shown to be any less than 100% correct".

As a result of this dissatisfaction with evolution, you have apparently embraced "creation science", probably the largest body of lies and misinformation current in the Western world.

Here are a few creationist claims which fit your own definition of "lies":

#1: The sun is shrinking at 5 feet/hour which limits the earth-sun relationship to less than 5 million years.

#2: 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.

#3: 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.

#4: 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.

#5: 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).

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

#7: 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.

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

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

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

#11: 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.

#12: 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.

#13: 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.

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

#15: 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 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)

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

#17: Erosion rates limit Niagara Falls to an age of less than 10,000 years. Therefore, the earth is young.

#18: 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.)

#19: The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment accumulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years.

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

#21: 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 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)

#22: The largest stalactites and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years.

#23: The Sahara desert is expanding; it can only be a few thousand years old.

#24: Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old.

#25: The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!

#26: The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old.

#27: The oldest tree in the world is 4300 years old.

#28: The oldest historical records go back less than 6000 years.

#29: The dates in the Bible add up to about 6000 years.

#30: Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past. This is because the earth really is young.

All of these arguments are taken from Dave Matson's <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html" target="_blank">How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?</a>, which gives further explanations and refutations of them.

There are, of course, many more bogus creationist arguments that could be added to this list. These range from initially genuine mistakes still uncorrected by creationists decades later, to outright hoaxes, frauds and lies like the "Hovind Mammoth".

Therefore my invitation to you is this:

I hereby invite you, Randman, to renounce creationism.

It is a pack of lies. Perhaps you already know this: perhaps you don't. This remains unclear.

If you still wish to express your doubts about evolution, then by all means continue to do so on other threads. But, on this thread, I would like you to either publicly renounce creationism or provide a full defense of your decision to remain a creationist.

MrDarwin

Might want to add the creationist claims about human and dinosaur footprints occurring together. Would those claims be lies, hoaxes, or misunderstandings?

Automaton

What about the hilariously false claim that there are no beneficial mutations?

MrDarwin

Jack, it might be worth noting that randman claims he's not a YEC. I assume that means he considers himself an OEC, so he may think the YEC arguments don't necessarily affect him. The only problem with this is that he keeps quoting from YEC websites, so their accuracy and truthfulness (or lack thereof) does indeed reflect on his arguments, just as he keeps claiming that inaccurate representations of science in the popular press reflect badly on the science of evolutionary biology.

I've already tried to point this out to him with regard to his claims on Pakicetus and Nebraska Man, but although we've caught him in some major bloopers he just doesn't seem to get how badly he is undermining his own position when he keeps making these claims.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, I've considered the possibility that he isn't a YEC, but simply uses YEC material (though I missed his actual denial of being YEC).

But, as you say, it reflects on his arguments. He believes that evolution is "lies" because of Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man (primarily: he seems somewhat confused about "recapitulation" also, believing it to be a "lie" even though considerable embryonic recapitulation does indeed occur, constitutes strong evidence for evolution, and deserves to be mentioned in biology textbooks).

Using exactly the same "guilt by association" argument, he should reject creationism altogether if he wants to be consistent. OEC's use fewer lies than YEC's, but it's all bunk nonetheless. By accepting Old-Earth Creationism, he's been led astray by his failure to apply his own "this bit isn't true, therefore it's all baloney" reasoning to both evolution AND creationism in a consistent fashion.

randman

I don't have much time for awhile now, but suffice to say is that the errors of evolution were passed on for decades often longer than they should have and backed up by a full array of sources such as textbooks, etc,..If creationist errors had been taught in textbooks, and so forth paid for by public dollars, then you might have a point.
As you merely reference fairly poorly funded webn-sites, I don't see the comparison. I also do not know the veracity of the arguments you listed. Most of those arguments I had never heard before. Some did seem plausible though, but the fact I never heard of them is anecdotal evidence that evolutionists enjoy a near monopoly, and are able to silence dissent except in places like the internet.
I also want to point out that the manner in which evolutionists have evaded the impact of their errors also leads me to think this is not real science going on, at least in the way evolution is presented to the public.

Dark Jedi

That has got to be the longest winded "I know you are, but what am I" that I have ever seen.

Jack the Bodiless

...Which errors? This certainly doesn't apply to Nebraska Man, which was corrected almost immediately. And your mistake regarding "recapitulation" has already been pointed out. There might be some old textbooks including Piltdown Man (they'd have to be very old by now), but textbooks don't just evaporate or correct themselves when errors are corrected. If Piltdown Man appears in textbooks published well after the fraud was exposed, or was still being taught from older books (rather than simply being still present in reference books not yet removed from school libraries), then you'd have good reason to be annoyed.

As for Neanderthal man: well, Neanerthals have the misfortune of looking rather like ape-men, despite their large brains. As they're an offshoot of our line, their exact relationship to us isn't of critical importance, but their state of social and technological advncement has been undergoing review recently enough for a lot of old stuff to still be present in school libraries. But are kids being taught incorrect stuff about Neanderthals?
These quotes are from the biggest and best-funded creationists in the business. And evolutionists enjoy a "near-monopoly" because evolution is true. I think you'll find that round-Earthers enjoy an even bigger monopoly than evolutionists, however. Flat-Earthers exist on the Internet, but they're not easy to find even there.
Piltdown Man is the most famous hoax in ANY branch of science. In no way have "evolutionists evaded the impact of their errors".

However, my central question remains. As old scientific claims are refined or replaced by newer claims based on better evidence (and no creationist has ever contributed to this process): why did you become a creationist? "Evolutionist" theories have never been replaced by anything except better "evolutionist" theories, as scientific knowledge continues to advance.

You have chosen to reject those who are still coming up with better and better answers, in favor of those who have never succeeded in coming up with ANY answers. No creationist claim has EVER proved to be valid. Without exception, all have proved to be either factually incorrect, or irrelevant to the issue (because they don't contradict evolution).

Why did you choose to back the perpetual losers, Randman?

hezekiah jones

Holy Crap! Can you say, "delusions of grandeur"?

randman

Maybe ya'll can take it easier from one of your own. Read this.

<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp</a>