Well, at least look at the site before saying it's loony. A lot of it makes sense, at least to me. It also answers most of your questions.

As for the dust, the best estimate is that less than half the dust destroyed is being replenished. And the Pyonting-Robertson effect should make the smaler particles spiral in faster than the larger ones. If that's true, then there should be a visible segregation between the sizes of the particles, which is generally not the case. Check out Ron Cowen, "Meteorites: To Stream or Not to Stream", Science News, Vol. 142, 1 August 1992, p. 71.

What I believe in is what I believe in. I've gotten into these arguments many a time, and it frustrated me. I've read both scientific material as well as Creationist material, and I can't tell you how many times the creationist (I dare say propaganda) either lied, used very old data, or just 'forgot' about certain facts in proving their side.

Now, if that didn't happen, I'd be more inclined to understanding the literal creationist point of view, but its difficult. Personally, I believe the two are one and the same, and, if you read up on Discover Magazine, you'll remember and article about where God comes into the whole picture.

But this is my first and last post here. Good luck to both sides.

Personally, all this is making my head bleed. Exactly HOW tough are your physics exams anyway?

------------------
Headmaster suspended for using big-faced boy as satellite-dish
-The Day Today

------------------
"I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God."
--Q to Picard, "Tapestry".

Somebody break out the champagne!

Oh, and the grapejuice (for those who do not indulge).

------------------
It's perfectly logical. Except for this little bit right here.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Sol:

I say again, the questions you raised about neutrino detectors not detecting neutrinos can be answered on autodynamics.org. You shouldn't ignore it without even reading it. And it isn't new. It's been around for fifty years. It also uses a few of Einstein's equations.

Age:

15 (I think):

Computer simulations of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable. They chould completely change shape in far less than several trillion years. David Fleischer, "The Galaxy Maker", Science Digest, October 1981, Vol. 89, pp. 12, 116.

16:

Meteoric dust is accumulating on Earth at a rate which should place about 16' of dust on Earth in 4 billion years. This dust is high in nickel, and no high concentrations of nickel have been found anywhere.

Omega, pardon me for jumping onboard the other side... must be very lonely arguing against so many of us

In any case, if the Earth is 6003 years old, unless light moves at a different rate to what we've managed to clock it to now, there is no star more than 6003 light years away... indeed, literature has recorded stars in the sky dating back most of that time anyway, so does that mean the stars are all less than 1000ly or so away? Or is that pesky lumiferous aether slowing down light?

------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.

Light? slowing down? Gee, that would play havoc with all the things we know to be true about electromagnetism, not to mention making us all blind, since our eyes can only see in a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. Microwaves, X-Rays, radios, and television sets wouldn't work, either.

At any rate, I believe this argument has come close to its end. We are not debating creation vs. evolution. Omega, you seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that if one bit of evolutionary theory is false, that confirms the truth of a spontaneous creation by God. That is not so. You have failed to present any evidence in support of such a creation. All of your points have attacked rather specific parts of certain scientifc points. But even if you were to somehow prove that ALL of the evidence in favor of evolution is somehow falsified, you would be no closer to proving creation, because you haven't presented any evidence specifically demanding a spontaneous creation by God for it to exist. The idea that this is an either/or argument is false. Assuming that I did not have any evidence in favor of evolution, and could prove creation false, that wouldn't make evolution true either. You cannot prove something by attacking what is perceived to be its opposite.

Having said that, your point 15 ignores any of the evidence for dark matter that has cropped up in the 19 years since your article was published. And point 16 assumes that A.) There is some uniform conformity present in interplanetary debris, and B.) That all the dust would somehow stay in one place and be immune to the scattering forces of erosion. If that dust had all been laid down at once, you might have something.

On the contrary. I'm having fun over here. There's actually some pretty good evidence that the speed of light is decreasing.

Stopped laughing yet? Good. There have been over 150 published measurements of the speed of light over the past 300 years. See Trever Norman and Barry Setterfield, "The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time", self-published, 1987. In the seven instances where the same scientists used the same equipment to measure the speed of light years later, there was always a decrease, which was often several times greater that experimental error could possibly account for. M.E.J. Gheury de Bray published a paper in '27, one in '31, and one in '34. In the second, he stated that there were 22 coincidences that favor the speed of light decreasing, and not one against it. V.S. Troitskii believes that background radiation and most redshift is attributed to the decrease in the speed of light ("Physical Constants and the Evolution of the Universe", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 139, No. 2, December 1987, pp. 389-411). Setterfield came to the same conclusion via a completely different method.

There's also the problem that atomic clocks are slowing relative to orbital clocks (T.C. Van Flandern, "Is the Gravitational Constant Changing?", The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 248, 1 September 1981, pp. 813-816). Van Flandern showed that if atomic clocks are correct, then the orbital speeds of Mercury, Venus, and Mars are increasing and the gravitational constant should be changing (which observation does not support), but if orbital clocks are correct, then atomic vibration is decreasing, along with the speed of light. If a planets orbital speed increased while all other parameters remained the same (as appears to be happening), then the law of mass-energy conservation would be violated. Also, if atomic decay is slowing, then radiometric dating would be much closer to other dating methods.

Before anyone brings up the fact that nobody's noticed a decrease in c since the sixties, that's when people started measuring with atomic clocks. If the rate of atomic vibration and c are changing at the same rate, then no change would be observed. And as for Einstein, he said that the speed of light is the same at all points in space, not time.

The method to test whether c is decreasing is to look at something a great distance away and see if it is traveling in slow motion (a binary star, for example).

1of2:

Could you elaborate a little? I can't tell if anything in that post made sense.

Sol:

Well, you're correct. I am assuming that you haven't gone to the site. You just say that the site is loony, not why it's loony. If I'd said that Evolution is wacko all this time, and not presented any evidence against it, you'd probably think I didn't know a thing about it.

"But even if you were to somehow prove that ALL of the evidence in favor of evolution is somehow falsified..."

You have yet to present any evidence in favor of Evolution. Even if Archaeopteryx isn't a hoax, for all you know it could just be a creature that God created that's extinct now. There are stranger things still alive (duck-billed platypus, for example), after all. And before someone brings up those fossils found in China, to which the same statements could apply, could someone please point me to a web reference, so I'll know what I'm fighting?

"Omega, you seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that if one bit of evolutionary theory is false, that confirms the truth of a spontaneous creation by God."

Seem to be? I've said it, flat out. My logic goes like this: there are two possibilities for the universe's existance: random chance (RC) and intelligent design (and thus a designer, God). If I can proove that the universe could not have come about by random chance, then I will have prooved that the universe had to come about by intelligent design, by virtue of the fact that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbible, must be the truth. Then I must set about prooving that God created the universe spontaneously, and not through the same sequence of events from the RC theory (which seems to be what most people here believe). The best way to do this is to show that the universe has not existed sufficiently long enough for the RC sequence to take place.

I'm not attacking the opposite. I'm attacking the only alternative.

You're right, though. This isn't just intelligent design versus RC anymore. It's RC sequence versus spontaneous creation.

As for your rebuttals:

What evidence for dark matter? I haven't heard of any, anywhere. Source?

Your statements about 16 are correct, however. I concede the point.

Out of all that I read, I never saw so many flaws and sometimes flat out lies in the creationist research. In many of them, the creationist 'researchers' would use old, outdated data, not mention valid data that would prove contrary to their point, or even flat out lie about it. For a time, I became very upset that these people would take science and twist it into a sort of pseudo-science. From there, I could no longer believe in the literal translation of the Bible. I still believe in it, in God too, but most of it as metaphor. And evolution has more scientific stability than literal creation.

So if you can, please present any scientific proof of literal creation, something that doesn't use the above stated techniques of propaganda.

------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.