/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2325818]

evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

[Anonymous No.2325826]

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.2
2. Too few supernova remnants.

Crab Nebula (photo courtesy of NASA)

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

[sage No.2325834]

>>2325818
NICE TROLLIN BRO!
AWESOME POINTLESS COPYPASTA!

FEED THE TROLL /SCI/!
FEED THE FUCKIN TROLL! NOW!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.2325835]

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

[Anonymous No.2325836]

You know what, OP?

There are perfectly good interpretations of the Bible that allow the Earth and the universe to be billions of years old.

The extent of human civilization is harder to reconcile.

[Anonymous No.2325841]

>>2325818
Evolution does not include the origin of the universe, the galaxies, stars, planets, etc. Just how has life changed on our planet over its course.

Oh, I forgot: 1/10.

[Anonymous No.2325844]

hi aether

[sage No.2325845]

>>2325818

[Anonymous No.2325846]

>>2325834
Looks like someone is scared of contrary evidence.I thought I could just havce a discussion with people well versed in science about the validity of these ideas. Sad you are scared of opposing ideas, but that is on you man

[sage No.2325852]

AWESOME ALL YOU FAGGOTS ARE FEEDING THE TROLL!

KEEP IT GOING! FEED THE TROLL!
DO IT MOTHERFUCKERS!

[Anonymous No.2325860]

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Pic related
Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.2325861]

>>2325852
You seem upset.

[Anonymous No.2325864]

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

[Anonymous No.2325866]

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15

[Anonymous No.2325883]

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

[Anonymous No.2325890]

U Mad Atheists fags? religion has science now

[sage No.2325895]

>>2325818
FEED THE TROLL /SCI/
FEED THE TROLL NOW!

[Anonymous No.2325903]

Hello Conservapedia.

[sage No.2325906]

>>2325890
FEED THE TROLLS! YOU FUCKIN DIRTY JEW NIGGERS! FEED THE TROLLS NOW!

YOUR BOARD IS FUCKIN SHIT /SCI/!

[Anonymous No.2325912]

>>2325866

physics likes half lives of carbon atoms that say otherwise.
how in the fuck can you pleasure one part of physics and dismiss the other?

[Anonymous No.2325928]

>>2325890

I like how every argument presented is so clearly a religious-minded thought process. Wow look at these estimates! Since we can't come up with any other way to explain these estimates, they must be wrong!

Science doesn't work with your speculative bullshit, and neither does incomplete understanding of malformed and most probably irrelevant bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2325939]

Feeding the troll.

[sage No.2325948]

>>2325939
YES FEED THE TROLL YOU DIRTY BASTERDS!

FEED THE FUCKING TROLL!

I COMMAND YOU!

FEED HIM NOW!

[Anonymous No.2325951]

>1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

This one is true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy

Origin of the spiral structure

The pioneer of studies of the rotation of the Galaxy and the formation of the spiral arms was Bertil Lindblad in 1925. He realized that the idea of stars arranged permanently in a spiral shape was untenable due to the "winding dilemma". Since the angular speed of rotation of the galactic disk varies with distance from the centre of the galaxy (via a standard solar system type of gravitational model), a radial arm (like a spoke) would quickly become curved as the galaxy rotates. The arm would, after a few galactic rotations, become increasingly curved and wind around the galaxy ever tighter. This is called the winding problem. Measurements in the late 1960s showed that the orbital velocity of stars in spiral galaxies with respect to their distance from the galactic center is indeed higher than expected from Newtonian dynamics but still cannot explain the stability of the spiral structure.
There are two leading hypotheses or models for the spiral structures of galaxies:
Star formation caused by density waves in the galactic disk of the galaxy.
The SSPSF model - Star formation caused by shock waves in the interstellar medium.
These different hypotheses do not have to be mutually exclusive, as they may explain different types of spiral arms.

[Anonymous No.2325957]

>>2325951
Also this is where the copypasta came from

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

[Anonymous No.2326013]

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.