evolution unravled

i study on that topic for a long im not saying i know all but people in general like to spin off in lies and if i dont know enough about it i would believe them but here more proof The Birth of Planets

The cover of the May 4, 1998, issue of Newsweek says, "Scientists Discover New Solar Systems …and rethink the Odds of Life Beyond Earth" Of course, if you read the article you will find that scientists haven't really discovered a new solar system. But people who just see the Newsweek cover and don't buy the magazine probably think that a new solar system has been discovered. According to Newsweek,

For the first time since man began looking to the heavens for hints of our past and future, sky watchers had spied a planetary construction zone, a disc of dust condensing into solid little spheres in exactly the process that apparently formed Earth and the other planets of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago. "We have caught this disc in the act!" said Jayawardhana after his team announced the discovery last week. "We've never done that before. It suggests the formation of planetary systems is pretty common."1

If you have a star that's not too old and not too young, not too big and not too small, not too hot and not too cold, then it is practically inevitable that planets form around such a Goldilocks star.2

But the disc is shaped more lake a bagel than a pancake. It's the invisible stuff-the hole-that got everyone excited. … they believe that planets are forming, or may have already formed, in the dark, seemingly empty region. "The reason for the hole could be that the gravity of one or more inner planets has [pulled] out the leftover dust."3

The fact that there doesn't appear to be anything there is used as evidence that there are planets there. This reminds us of the evolutionists' argument that the lack of fossils showing the gradual evolution of species is evidence that evolution happened quickly.

Using the same argument one could claim that we have caught moons being formed in the act just because we've seen a ring around Saturn. The hole between the ring and Saturn could be there because moons are forming right now in the hole. In fact, there is no more reason to believe the ring around Saturn is turning into moons than there is to believe that Saturn's moons collided, causing a ring of dust and debris. The blur that appears to be dust around HR 4796A might just be dust that never was, and never will be, a planetary system.

We believe there are planets around other stars, but none have been discovered yet. We object to controversial speculation about the cause for oscillating Doppler shifts, or holes in dust clouds, being presented as proof of the existence of planets. We appreciate Newsweek's need to sell more magazines, but that doesn't justify presenting speculation as fact.

Sensational announcements of discoveries of planets encouraging people to "rethink the odds of life beyond Earth" are misleading. If people are told enough times that planets have been found, and that they probably have life on them, many people will believe scientists have found life on other planets, even though there is no valid scientific evidence to support it. Many people already believe that species evolved into other species for the same reason. Don't be fooled. Read the articles about such discoveries carefully. here one more you can see for yourselves

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

here for creationism that Q wanted to c this is only part of what i got encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia-761580511/creationism.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jesus Freak,
what is your view about the possibility of planets around other stars.
a) There are no planets around other stars.
b) There might be planets around other stars.
c) There are definitely planets around other stars.
d) Other.

If d) what is your view. If a), b) or c) expand as you see fit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

c is my answer

 

planets orbit stars that how i know stars are by planets

 

This sentence does not make any sense. Is English your second language?

If you accept that other stars have planets why do you dispute the findings of scientists in this matter? They appear to be confirming what you believe to be true.

 

Isnt it funny how even the very best arguments against evolution all seem to sound like they were penned by grumpy hormonal teenager with a poor grasp of the English language.

Ironic perhaps that in this case its actually true.

 

That was s so-so argument.

The best argument is the simplest - that there is no proof of it.

I would give it an estimation of 50% likelihood and i find it difficult to believe somthing i have not witnessed.

If we were to overlook gaping holes and say: "well some things have evolved over time" then i find this acceptable.

 

I didn't witness much argument there - just lots of unproven / unreferenced / un-evidenced assertions

If I was a teacher at some bible school where the kids' parents were cousins before they married then I'd give it a D- for failing to present any proper arguments, at an actual school where the kids where expected to learn to think for themseles it would be an unmitigated F-

 

There are many alternative creation dogmas that peg the world at different ages. Maybe the baptist-run intelligent design movement says it's 6000, but they make up but a small fraction of the world's superstitious population.

Mainstream science does not say that the universe was created from nothing- the origins of the Big Bang are to this day unknown, and any speculation of any sort on this issue is useless at this time.

Since there is more than one creation dogma, this point is nullified. You can postulate that Peter Pan created the universe and still tweak it in a way to not disagree with scientific evidence.

The age of the universe is not an assumption. It's calculated based on literally millions of different pieces of evidence found here on earth and in the detailed analysis of starlight. The only assumption we make is that the evidence, when reproduced on a consistent basis, is reliable. Just like we assume apples will fall down from the trees and not up into the sky because this is what we've seen throughout recorded history.

Wrong, creation relies on "long ago" and "far away", otherwise we'd be seeing and recording miracles on a near daily basis. Instead we're told to accept that a bunch of supernatural stuff supposedly happened a few thousand years ago because that's what some old book says. Scientists can't get an intuitive grasp of what a billion years is like, but that doesn't stop them from describing it perfectly well with mathematics and physical evidence.

What do you expect from them? A lecture in tensor calculus and general relativity? Why don't you take it upon yourself to learn this stuff first and then explain where it goes wrong and why. An easy answer to your question is that spacetime itself exploded, but that wouldn't make any sense to you since you probably don't know what spacetime is.

When an evolutionist tells you they don't know where the Big Bang came from, that's literally what they mean. So when you ask them whether it's easier to believe the first thing to exist was "God" or if they find it easier to believe the first thing was "dirt", they will reply with "none of the above".

Kind of like how Bin Laden pretends he's trying to "compromise" with America.

If something happens to be true, what's the harm in questioning it? Would questioning and interrogation somehow change the underlying truth? Trying to shut down intellectual thought and skepticism indicates you have something to hide. On that note, there's nothing wrong with interpreting the Bible literally, as long as you believe the world around us is a big lie designed to trick us.

A word of advice, you should really try to learn something about the science of evolution before you try to use science to debunk it. If creatures were able to reproduce uncontrollably and indefinitely, evolution as we know it would have never occurred. You see there's this thing called food, and there's only so much of it that can be grown and produced at any given time here on this lovely planet. When a population gets too big and the inevitable resource crunch hits, creatures start dying off, survival of the fittest takes over and, wonder of wonders, this is when natural selection operates to produce evolution.

Weather patterns change over time, it's not like the Sahara was always exposed to the conditions we see today. Plus there are life forms that can grow in the desert and encroach on it, so the point is baseless.

The Earth's magnetic field operates on a cycle. It is getting weaker now, is expected to virtually disappear for a bit and then eventually it will come back and start gaining strength again. Point nullified.

That's why multiple methods of dating are used, of which carbon dating is only one. These methods are used independently of each other to serve as a means of double checking and they are, in general, highly effective. Besides, new technology means carbon dating can now be used to date things much older than a few thousand yars.

Your calculation assumes both that the Earth took 24hours to complete a rotation 5 billion years ago, and that its rotation slowed at this constant rate the whole way through. These are much, much dodgier assumptions to make than any of the scientific assumptions you've criticized so far.

No, scientists believe in evolution because that's what their experiments have indicated to date. You and millions of fellow christian creationists have been trying to poke holes in scientific research, specifically because of how it contradicts multiple statements in the Bible. Now you're doing an about face and saying the research is legitimate, and that it agrees with the Bible. I don't get it.

If you're going to accuse scientists of systematically lying about their research, you should have no trouble coming up with actual scientific criticisms of their methodology. But you and your creationist friends have neglected to do that, it's just been finger pointing and cross burning to date.

They look like randomly oriented rocks resulting from the gravitational pancaking of a gas if you ask me, but go on...

So you're saying the Earth stays a constant fixed distance from the sun? Because it certainly doesn't. Guess you've never heard of an elliptical orbit before.

That's like saying it's impossible to win the lottery, because the odds of any individual person winning it are ridiculously small. When you factor in the odds of a person winning the lottery on a given day, after having eaten a given piece of toast at a specific table with a specific quantity of orange juice in a specific glass, the odds are astoundingly small. And yet people win the lottery all the time. The universe is big, many possibilities abound. If things were changed a bit and we weren't here, another civilization could pop up somewhere else in the universe and be asking the same questions we ask about our own existence. We got lucky, so what? If enough stars and planets exist and time is allowed to flow long enough, there's nothing in science that says a lifeform can't come into being at some point on one or many of these planets.

Actually, my understanding is that the early universe was too hot for light as we know it to form. There was energy, tons of it, but not in a form we could see with our eyes. Doesn't sound like the Bible at all to me. Plus the Bible doesn't get into specifics, and as we all know detail is important. How much light did God start with? At what frequencies? What speed did it travel? What was the spatial distribution of this light? If I say "stuff exists", that statement is itself in perfect agreement with science. Should I get a Nobel prize for it?

I like how you attempt to make a bunch of detailed arguments and then at the end it's like "oh yeah and plus something can't come from nothing." Again, as we have said over and over, noone knows what started the Big Bang or where it came from. In theory, time as we know it began at the Big Bang, which means we don't even know if there was a "before" the Big Bang or what "before" even means in this context. Maybe more advanced physics theories will shed light on this question, maybe not, but it's quite clear your answers are just random white noise which serves to confuse the issue for those who are genuinely curious. I hope for your sake that your paper was judged on grammar and not scientific merit.

 

Your whole paper is incorrect due to this incorrect premise. Evolution is a process whereby organic machines that collect energy and persist adapt to their environment.

Consequently, there isn't a single cosmological theory that I am aware of that says the universe came from "nothing". Quite frankly the concept of "nothing" doesn't correspond to anything real... in other words "nothing" (i.e. an absence of everything / anything) doesn't exist. Go ahead, try to show me an instance of "nothing"... bet you a gazillion dollars you cant.

 

Indeed - it's a "worldview" only in those parts of the US where parents are generally very closely related before they get married - you know the parts I'm talking about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

this what i meant to your answer Ophiolite Planets orbit stars because of gravity. Gravity is the force that pulls you to a planet. Gravity shapes the orbits of planets. The gravity of stars pulls on nearby planets. do u believe that everything you see came from nothing if you agree then if you look at darkness that something what does darkness come from same thang with Light corrrect so where did it come from and if you have an answer for that what did that come from then you will end up with no answer so that makes it nothing look at a rock what does a rock come from explore what everything comes from and you end up in the same place. and are you aware how complicated your body is and here just DNA by Do-While Jones
The DNA Dilemma
Evolutionists thought that when the DNA code was unraveled, it would clearly show the path of evolution. By comparing differences in DNA, they thought they would be able to see the sequence of modifications in the DNA code that produced each species in turn. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, it hasn’t worked out that way. Studies of DNA are raising some questions that evolutionists are finding hard to answer.
Instructions and the Result
In order to understand the DNA dilemma, you must understand the relationship between a blueprint and the thing built--between the instructions and the result. Let’s do this using a simple analogy.

Suppose I give you instructions how to get to a shopping center. I might tell you to start from the intersection of Ridgecrest and China Lake boulevards. Go north on China Lake until you get to Drummond. Turn east on Drummond and go about 500 feet, then turn right. If you do this, you will find yourself at the Rite Aide shopping center.

Now, suppose I give you just slightly different instructions. Suppose I tell you to start from the intersection of Ridgecrest and China Lake boulevards. Go north on China Lake until you get to Drummond. Turn east on Drummond and go about 500 feet, then turn left. If you do this, you will find yourself at the K-Mart shopping center.

K-Mart is on the northeast corner of Drummond and China Lake. Rite Aide is on the southeast corner. Since the instructions are nearly identical, you wind up at nearly the same place.

This is true of DNA as well. DNA contains the instructions for building a critter. If the DNA is nearly identical, it will build nearly the same critter.

Suppose I tell you to start from the intersection of Ridgecrest and China Lake boulevards. Go west on Ridgecrest until you get to Norma. Turn north on Norma and go to Ward. Turn east on Ward and go to China Lake. Turn south on China Lake and go about 500 feet past Drummond and turn right. These instructions are nothing like the instructions in the previous paragraphs. But, if you follow these instructions you will wind up at the Midway shopping center, right across the street from Rite Aide. It is possible to arrive at nearly the same place by entirely different routes.

This is true of DNA as well. If two critters are nearly identical they might not necessarily have nearly identical DNA. It is possible that two very different sets of instructions might build two very similar critters.

Let’s concoct a truly ridiculous theory of how business evolved in Ridgecrest to see how an analysis of instructions can shed light on a theory.

Suppose we’ve been taught that from the founding of Crumville1, people used to travel north along China Lake boulevard until they got to Drummond where they turned east, went about 500 feet, and turned right, where the Rite Aide drug store (the oldest business in Ridgecrest) was.

We find this hard to believe, because Rite Aide is obviously a very new store. But they say that Rite Aide has evolved and remodeled many times since it was founded, so the modern Rite Aide drug store doesn’t look much like the original Rite Aide drug store that was there 50 years ago. Everybody else believes it, so it must be true.

Then, as the story goes, one day some people accidentally turned left instead of right. When the K-Mart corporation saw all these people milling around in the vacant building that just happened to be there, they decided to fill it with K-mart merchandise. Since there were so many people going there by mistake, the K-Mart flourished.

We wonder why there was an empty building there, but we are told that empty buildings happen. After all, we are told that mutations create genes with no immediate purpose, but generations later turn out to be useful. Everybody believes that story. It is no sillier than the idea that empty buildings sit around waiting for business.

Finally, as the story goes, the instruction to turn east on Drummond was mistakenly written as “make a U-turn at Drummond”, so people started going to the southwest corner of Drummond and China Lake, and someone built the Midway shopping center there to accommodate them.

Granted this is a silly, absurd analogy--but it has to be. It has to be analogous to the silly, absurd theory of evolution.

Even though everyone believes this story, we decide to investigate it. Did business really develop in Ridgecrest that way? How can we tell? If it is true that business really developed as the result of mistakes in directions, the way to confirm or deny it would be to find the original directions. Did a right turn become a left turn to send traffic to K-Mart? Did a right turn become a U-turn to send traffic to the Midway shopping center?

Suppose we find the actual instructions of how to get to Rite Aide and Midway shopping centers as presented at the beginning of this essay. The directions are entirely different. Clearly traffic to Midway didn’t result from mistakes in the directions to Rite Aide.
The Dilemma
This is the problem that the evolutionists have. Some critters that they think evolved from the same ancestor have very different DNA sequences. Their DNA is more like other critters that traditionally have been thought to have evolved from a much different ancestor. Given these large differences in DNA, it is difficult to support the idea that some similar critters were really built from slightly different corruptions of a single original set of instructions.
Recent Headlines
Let’s look at some of the headlines (and subheadings) in mainstream scientific journals in the last 12 months. This will give you an overall indication of the turmoil in the scientific community. Then we will look at what some of these articles say in detail. Here are the headlines, in chronological order:

7 August 1998 (Science page 774) “New Views of the Origins of Mammals--Paleontologists and molecular biologists take different approaches to questions of evolution and often come to different conclusions”

27 November 1998 (Science page 1653) “The Abominable Mystery”. The caption under two alleged evolutionary trees says, “In this analysis, Gnetales are more closely related to other gymnosperms than to the angiosperms.”

5 December 1998 (Science News page 358) “Turtle Genes Upset Reptilian Family Tree”. The caption under the photo of a turtle says, “Turtles: An evolutionary enigma”.

6 February 1999 (Science News page 88) “DNA’s Evolutionary Dilemma--Genetic studies collide with the mystery of human evolution”.

26 February 1999 (Science page 1310) “Evolutionary and Preservational Constraints on Origins of Biologic Groups: Divergence Times of Eutherian Mammals--Some molecular clock estimates of divergence times of taxonomic groups undergoing evolutionary radiation are much older than the groups’ first observed fossil record”.

5 March 1999 (Science page 1435) “Can Mitochondrial Clocks Keep Time?”.

6 March 1999 (Science News page 159) “Turtles and Crocs: Strange Relations”.

21 May 1999 (Science page 1305) “Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?--More genomes have only further blurred the branching pattern of life. Some blame shanghaied genes; others say the tree is wrong”.
Two “Related” Problems
Evolutionists believe that a common ancestor had descendants that evolved into two different species. In each of those two groups of descendants, certain ancestors had descendants that evolved into two other different species. This happened countless times, producing all the species we see today. Evolutionists have been telling school children for decades which species came from a common ancestor, and when the bloodlines diverged. They expected the DNA analysis to confirm which species are “brother and sister” and how long ago the species diverged from each other.

The headlines above deal with two related problems. The first is that the DNA evidence is contradicting the presumed relationships. The second is that the DNA evidence is contradicting the presumed time when those relationships split apart. Evolutionists are trying hard to reconcile their interpretation of the DNA evidence with their interpretation of the ages of the fossils and their supposed family tree. They aren’t being very successful.
The Genealogical Problem

A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes [DNA] from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life’s early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn’t clarify the picture of how life’s major groupings evolved, they confused it (Science, 1 May 1998, p. 672). And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing--so confusing that some biologists are ready to replace what has become the standard history with something new. 2

In other words, the more DNA analysis they do, the less it agrees with what one would expect if life evolved the way evolutionists think it did.

Advances in molecular systematics have provided new data that, in theory, have the potential to unravel relationships that are opaque because of apparently intractable morphological variation, or convergence. And breakthroughs in software make it possible to analyze large data sets quickly and accurately. The torrent of analyses, instead of providing clarity, has often yielded conflicting hypotheses of phylogeny. 3

There are some relationships that evolutionists have a difficult time explaining because they are “opaque” (hard to see through). The problem is that the “morphology” (the way they appear) is difficult to explain. Take the duck-billed platypus, for example. Did it evolve from a beaver, or a kangaroo, or a duck? It is hard for evolutionists to tell because it is so like many different species, but very different from them, too. The usual explanation is “convergence” (the evolution of the same feature, such as the duck’s bill, in un-related species).

Phylogeny is a big word that means “evolutionary relationship”. Evolutionists thought that DNA analysis would have to show the evolutionary path in these difficult cases. But it didn’t. It just produced even more contradictions.

For example, there is a problem with turtles.

Paleontologists have long viewed turtles as evolutionary slowpokes, the sole survivors of an ancient group that later gave rise to other reptiles, birds, and mammals. A new genetic analysis, however, dramatically redraws the evolutionary tree of vertebrates and challenges the conventional wisdom on turtle origins.
…
According to the standard evolutionary story, turtles retain some characteristics of the ancient anapsids. As such, biologists have regarded them as an example of the stock from which reptiles, birds, and mammals later evolved.

Zardoya and Meyer explored this hypothesis by comparing the sequences of two mitochondrial genes from turtles to those of iguanas, tuataras, alligators, chickens, and mammals. Turtles fell squarely within the modern diapsids rather than in their expected position on a branch outside the group. 4

Turtles aren’t the only misfits in the evolutionary view of reptiles.

Paleontologists will find other aspects of the genetic results perhaps even more disturbing than the news regarding turtles. Hedges and Poling provide some of the first DNA analysis of tuataras, a group of four-legged reptiles that look superficially like lizards and are regarded as their closest living relatives. The analysis by Hedges and Poling, however, places tuataras nearer to crocodiles than to lizards. “From a paleontological point of view, I cannot even begin to imagine how a tuatara could not be [closely] related to lizards and snakes,” says Rieppel. 5

The problem isn’t confined to reptiles. There is trouble in the plant world, too. A technical (and not very quotable) article3 in Science describes the problem of classifying flowering plants. Outward appearance and common sense would indicate that angiosperms and gnetales are more closely related to each other then they are to cycads, ginkgo, and conifers. But DNA analysis places angiosperms and gnetales at opposite ends of the flower family tree, with cycads, ginkgo, and conifers between them.
The Time Problem
DNA analysis is not only supposed to tell what different kinds of critters are related to each other, it is also supposed to tell when they split apart. Those analyses aren’t helping evolutionists, either.

Fossils and molecules are also at odds over when most modern orders of birds and mammals appeared. Paleontologists haven't generally found them before about 65 million years ago, after the great Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction wiped out the dinosaurs. But molecular studies using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA conclude that many living species diverged much earlier, up to 130 million years ago. …

The long-standing view from the fossil record is that mammals first appeared 225 million years ago as small, shrewlike creatures and that only after a mass extinction 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period killed off the dinosaurs were mammals able to evolve into everything from primates to rodents to carnivores. But in this week’s issue of Nature, a pair of researchers compared genes from hundreds of vertebrate species and used the differences as a molecular clock to date when animal lineages originated. The molecules show, they say, that the modern orders of mammals go back well into the Cretaceous period, in some cases to more than 100 million years ago. 6

Evolutionists believe that there are so many mutation opportunities that one can use statistics to predict how many mutations will occur over a given time interval. Therefore, they can use the number of mutations as way to determine how much time has elapsed. They think that certain similar critters must have shared a common ancestor, and therefore had common DNA. They think that the number of differences in their DNA is the result of mutations at a particular rate, which can be used to tell how long ago the two species diverged.

When they compare the DNA from species (various mammals, for example) that they are sure diverged at a particular time, they don’t get the expected results. Since there are more differences than they expect, they either have to believe that the split occurred longer ago, or that mutations happened faster in the past than they do now.

Since they believe “the present is the key to the past”, many evolutionists are reluctant to assume that the past rates were appreciably faster than present rates. There is no evidence to support the faster rate, other than the large differences in the DNA of “closely related species.” This forces them to believe that the species diverged sooner than they used to believe. That’s why some evolutionists now believe that mammals evolved before dinosaurs became extinct.
Another Possibility
Of course, there is another possibility. The DNA of “closely related species” might be very different because the species are not really related at all. They were all created separately and distinctly. They just happen to bear a superficial resemblance which mislead people into thinking that they evolved from a common ancestor. The DNA analysis might not show the expected evolutionary development because evolution didn’t happen. synthesizer-patel see what you dont answer this is called proof see ok for instance do u believe in dark matter of the moon and if you do here proof for it Decades ago, song writers used to write sappy love songs rhyming June, Moon, tune, and croon. June still brings out some lunacy.

A paper presented at the Meeting of Division of Particle and Field 2004, American Physical Society, by Hongjun Pan, Department of Chemistry, University of North Texas, has just been brought to our attention. The title of this paper is, “The evolution of the Earth-Moon system based on the dark matter field fluid model.” Hongjon Pan himself sent the link to his paper 1 because it relates to our analysis of the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and implications for the time available for evolution to have occurred.

For those of you who tuned in late, here’s the basic problem for evolutionists. The Moon is slowly getting farther away from Earth. This was known from radar measurements even before the Apollo astronauts placed a laser reflector on the Moon, allowing even more precise measurements. Millions of years from now, the Moon will be farther away from Earth than it is now. But that means millions of years ago the Moon must have been closer to the Earth than it is now. Many people (including us) have done the calculations and discovered that the Moon’s orbit would have equaled the Earth’s radius less than 3 billion years ago. 2 It would have been difficult, to say the least, for life to evolve with the Moon rolling around on the surface of the Earth.

With that background, here is what Pan’s paper says.

The popular theory is that the tidal friction causes all those changes [in the distance between the Earth and the Moon]. However, based on tidal friction model and the current Moon-Earth system data, the tidal friction should be stronger and the recessional rate of the Moon should be greater in the past because the Moon was closer, the distance of the Moon would quickly fall inside the Roche's limit (for earth, 15500 km) in which the Moon would be torn apart by gravity in 1 to 2 billion years ago. This, however, never happened. Furthermore, geological evidence indicates that the recession of the Moon in the past was slower than the present rate, i.e., the recession has been accelerating with time. Based on tidal friction models, it must be concluded that tidal friction was very much less in the remote past than we would deduce on the basis of present-day observations (Stacey 1977). This was called “geological time scale difficulty” or “Lunar crisis” and is one of main arguments by creationists against the tidal friction theory (Brush 1983). Various models were proposed in the past to describe the evolution of the Earth-Moon system based on tidal friction mechanism to avoid this difficulty and put the Moon at quite a comfortable distance from Earth at 4.5 billion years ago (Hansen 1982, Kagan and Maslova 1994, Ray et al. 1999, Slichter 1963). The tidal friction theories explain that the present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of ocean (Brush 1983). Kagan gave a detailed review about those tidal friction models (Kagan 1997). However, all those models are based on many assumptions about geological (continental position and drifting) and physical conditions in the past, and many parameters (such as phase lag angle, multi-mode approximation with time-dependent frequencies of the resonance modes, etc.) have to be introduced and carefully adjusted to make their predictions close to the geological evidence. Therefore, they are not so convincing, and are still challenged by creationists. In the Meeting of Division of Particle and Field 2004, American Physical Society, University of California at Riverside, the author proposed a dark matter field fluid model (Pan 2005), the current Moon and Earth data agree with this model very well. This paper will demonstrate that the past evolution of Moon-Earth system can be described by the dark matter field fluid model without any assumptions about past geological and physical conditions. Although the subject of the evolution of the Earth-Moon system has been extensively studied analytically or numerically, to the author’s knowledge, there are no theories similar or equivalent to this model. It should be noted that the proposed dark matter field fluid is more like the cosmic fluid in distinguishing to the galactic halo or clump type of the dark matter in current cosmological theories. 3

Let’s summarize what he had to say.

First, he talks about the Roche Limit. We didn’t discuss this in our analysis because it unnecessarily complicates the problem. We simply computed how long ago the Moon’s distance would have been equal to the radius of the Earth, but catastrophic things happen when the Moon is closer to the Earth than the Roche Limit. This makes the time available for evolution even shorter. Without resorting to mathematics, here is a simple explanation of the Roche Limit.

Imagine two satellites orbiting the Earth in the same direction, but at different altitudes. Suppose that one satellite is initially directly above the other. After one orbit, the lower satellite will be ahead of the higher satellite. There are two reasons for this. First, the circumference of the lower orbit is shorter. Second, the velocity of the lower satellite must be faster to maintain that lower orbit. Since the lower satellite has to go a shorter distance, and is going at a faster rate, it will quickly get ahead of the higher satellite.

Imagine that those two satellites are connected by a rubber band. As the lower satellite gets farther and farther ahead, the rubber band will stretch. At some point, depending upon the strength of the rubber band, it will break.

Now, suppose that the two satellites represent points on the near side and far side of the Moon. The point on the near side of the Moon tries to orbit the Earth faster than the point on the far side does, causing a strain. The Moon, of course, is so far away that the speed difference and orbital circumference difference of the near side and the far side are small. Furthermore, the Moon is stronger than a rubber band, so it doesn’t stretch or break as easily. But if the Moon got very close to the Earth, the Moon would break just like a rubber band. The distance at which this would happen is the Roche Limit.

Pan says that, if tidal interaction between the Earth and the Moon has always been the same, then the Moon could not have been orbiting the Earth for more than 1 or 2 billion years, because 1 or 2 billion years ago the Moon would have been closer to the Earth than the Roche Limit. This is consistent with our calculations.

Pan missed the point when he said, “This was called ‘geological time scale difficulty’ or ‘Lunar crisis’ and is one of [the] main arguments by creationists against the tidal friction theory.” Creationists don’t say the tidal friction theory is wrong! Creationists say the tidal friction theory is absolutely correct. It is based on sound physics. It is a scientific fact that the Moon’s gravity does cause the tides. It is a scientific fact that the tides work against the Earth’s rotation, causing the Earth to spin slower. Conservation of angular momentum explains why the Moon has to move farther from the Earth as the Earth slows down. All the momentum and energy equations work out perfectly. There is nothing wrong with the tidal friction theory.

Because the calculations are incompatible with an old Earth, evolutionists have tried to fudge the numbers to make them work out to their satisfaction. Pan cites several studies from 1963 to 1999 that attempt to explain how the Moon could still have been a “comfortable distance” away 4.5 billion years ago. Remember, he said, “all those models are based on many assumptions about geological (continental position and drifting) and physical conditions in the past, and many parameters (such as phase lag angle, multi-mode approximation with time-dependent frequencies of the resonance modes, etc.) have to be introduced and carefully adjusted to make their predictions close to the geological evidence.”

If only crackpot creationists who don’t know anything about math or physics had done the studies, then creationists could simply be silenced by showing that they used the wrong equations, or made arithmetic errors. But the problem is that when “real scientists” do the math, they come up with the same conclusion. If the present truly is the key to the past, then the Moon could not have been circling the Earth for anywhere close to 4.5 billion years. The only way for the Moon to have circled the Earth for so long is for things to have been different in the past. Evolutionists have to assume that “the present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high,” and concoct some imaginary reason for why it was lower in the past.

Pan has examined these attempts to explain away the obvious conclusion and has found them unsatisfactory. Therefore, he is faced with two choices. Either the Earth isn’t nearly as old as he believes, or the whole notion of tidal friction is wrong. Since the first choice is absolutely unacceptable, he must take the second.
The Dark Side of the Force

If classical Newtonian physics don’t give the desired answer, then one must search for a non-Newtonian solution. Pan goes over to the dark side and finds his salvation in “dark matter.”

You’ve probably heard about dark matter before in the context of the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory predicts that there should be a certain amount of matter in the Universe. When astronomers estimate the mass of all the stars and other visible objects in the sky, they come up short. They come up very short. There isn’t nearly enough matter in the universe as the theory predicts.

In most cases, when measurements disagree with the theory, scientists discard the theory. When it comes to the Big Bang, astronomers have chosen to keep the theory and discard the measurements. They claim that 2% of the matter in the universe is ordinary matter, but 98% of the matter in the universe is undetectable “dark matter.” (Some more conservative astronomers say that 10% is ordinary matter, and just 90% is dark matter. ) They can’t see the dark matter, but it must be there because, if not, the theory is wrong.

So, one must accept, by faith, that dark matter exists. Having done this, Pan makes some assumptions.

In this proposed model, it is assumed that:

1. A celestial body rotates and moves in the space, which, for simplicity, is uniformly filled with the dark matter which is in quiescent state relative to the motion of the celestial body. The dark matter possesses a field property and a fluid property; it can interact with the celestial body with its fluid and field properties; therefore, it can have energy exchange with the celestial body, and affect the motion of the celestial body.

2. The fluid property follows the general principle of fluid mechanics. The dark matter field fluid particles may be so small that they can easily permeate into ordinary “baryonic” matter; i.e., ordinary matter objects could be saturated with such dark matter field fluid. Thus, the whole celestial body interacts with the dark matter field fluid, in the manner of a sponge moving thru water. The nature of the field property of the dark matter field fluid is unknown. It is here assumed that the interaction of the field associated with the dark matter field fluid with the celestial body is proportional to the mass of the celestial body. The dark matter field fluid is assumed to have a repulsive force against the gravitational force towards baryonic matter. The nature and mechanism of such repulsive force is unknown. 4

After several pages of calculations based on his fanciful assumptions he says,

From the above results, one can see that the current Earth-Moon data and the geological and fossil data agree with the model very well and the past evolution of the Earth-Moon system can be described by the model without introducing any additional parameters; this model reveals the interesting relationship between the rotation and receding (Eq. 17 and Eq. 18) of the same celestial body or different celestial bodies in the same gravitational system, such relationship is not known before. 5

If you just throw out Newtonian physics, and assume that dark matter has some unknown field properties, including anti-gravity, then “the geological and fossil data agree with the model very well!” That’s comforting. Not only that, the model reveals an unexpected and unobserved relationship between rotation and recession.

Since Mars is also moving through this dark matter field fluid, it will affect the rotation of Mars, too.

We shall feel confident that the reliable data about the angular rotation acceleration of the Mars will be available in the near future which will provide a vital test for the predication of this model. However, there are also other factors which may affect the Mars rotation rate such as mass redistribution due to season change, winds, possible volcano eruptions and Mars quakes. Therefore the data has to be carefully analyzed. 6

In other words, future data about Mars will confirm the accuracy of the model—unless it doesn’t!

Oh, the lunacy people will go to, just to believe the moon is billions of years old! dont take my sarcasm to seriously now

 

Now would you like to answer my question. If you accept that other stars have planets why do you dispute the findings of scientists in this matter? They appear to be confirming what you believe to be true.

I should also like to know if English is your second language.

And finally a new question. Is there a good reason you ignored my two previous questions and launched into a massive copy and paste job?

 

because they like to play this game its like me giving you fool gold and telling you its gold even there research proves them selves wrong look in there 90 text books look at the data it doesnt match up what they say but know bec they are geting caught in lies they have to fool you with fake data and know english is my first i just shorten a lot of my sentences when im typing no i just was reading everybody comments and i must a forgot to answer your other questions srry for that

 

1990s text books

 

Nice job with the logical fallacy- this is typical of many evolutionists "ad hominem" - you attack the person instead of the argument because you have none.

 

Spidergoat

If my argument is flawed and contradicted by many examples then just share them instead of hurling elephants.

 

What has evolved overtime? What empirical evidence is there for evolution? When did anyone observe evolution taking place. Please do not resort to fallacies by saying bacteria became resistant, people getting taller, etc. We are discussing goo to man evolution not micro evolution. Loosing genes and data is not the same as a rock or inorganic material becoming more complicated and gaining new additional information.

 

Try again later please.