The following comments are an attempt to answer the points raised in Jimmy Brashear's opening statement "If not God then whom?" In order to achieve this I have broken his statement down into what I feel are the salient points, reorganised them and dealt with them in as logical a fashion as I can.
The law of "The Conservation of Angular Momentum" dictates that when objects are thrown from a spinning object (as the mass of the universe is claimed to have been thrown out from the "Big-Bang") will retain the same spin as their parent body. Many celestial bodies have spins that go in opposite directions to others thus proving that the universe cannot have been formed from a "big-bang". (Angular Momentum)
The total angular momentum of a system is conserved if there are no external torque's acting upon the system (torque is a rotational force). But even if there are no external torque's acting upon a system, this says nothing about the angular momentum of bodies within the system. A body in such a system may experience a change in angular momentum as long as the rest of the system experiences an equal and opposite change in angular momentum.
The coalescing spheres of material that would eventually form Venus and Uranus may have been given retrograde rotations through collisions or near collisions with other bodies whose angular momentum's were similarly affected and the likely mechanism by this might occur is known as "magnetic braking". Wagner (1991) hypothesised that the Sun, during the early stages of the solar system's formation, pulled ionised atoms along with it so that the atoms accelerated whilst the suns rotation slowed.
To put it simply ... when the "big bang" occurred and material was "thrown" outwards that material did not exist in isolation. Had it done so nothing could have condensed into planets, systems & galaxies. All materials exhibit gravitational attraction so, given time, galaxies, systems and planets (over many billions of years) coalesced, each interacting with other and imparting some of their spin to them. The result is a universe filled with a diversity of celestial objects, none of which exhibit exactly the same spin, as any other
There is no evidence that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. (The Age Of The Universe, Earth & Moon)
Yes there is. Please refer to my earlier posting EVO-STORM-01 Section 2.
The moon is evidence that the universe was formed within the last 10,000 years ... if it was billions of years old there would be a deep layer of dust on the surface but when Apollo 11 landed there was only a few centimetre (enough for a mere 8000 years). (The Age Of The Universe, Earth & Moon)
"The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used!" Matson (1994). This argument is based on evidence obsolete for the last 25 years. First highlighted by creationists in "Scientific Creationism" (Morris, 1974) it quoted estimates from a Scientific American article (H. Petterson, 1960) in which the author measured the influx of cosmic dust collected at the top of Mauna Loa on the Island of Hawaii (39,150 tons/day). According to Morris (1974) "The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year." What Morris failed to mention was that this figure was the upper estimate and that Petterson actually favoured a figure about a third of that value. Further he (Petterson) warned that his calculations be treated with caution as they might be too high. In actuality the quoted figure by Morris represented what Petterson would have considered an absolute upper limit to the cosmic dust accumulation on the Earth.
Today, however, we no longer have to rely on estimates but use instead data gained from space-bourne satellites. Four years before "Age of the Cosmos" (Slusher, 1980) devoted an entire chapter to the subject (quoting a massive 700,000 tons/day) a paper was published detailing how cosmic dust had been measured from satellites and giving a figure of 48 tons/day. This figure, a factor of 3 less than originally quoted, totally destroyed Petterson's work and Morris's & Slusher's claims. Recent figures (1990) from the LDEF satellite show this figure to be slightly higher at 40,000 metric tons/year (121 tons/day) for the entire surface of the Earth. Morris continued to claim (though without quoted source) figures as high as 200,000 tons/day and has been stated as being "... incorrectly cited, outdated, from a non-referenced symposium publication, based on unreliable data" (Matson, 1994).
Dohnanyi (1972), basing his figures on data from satellite-borne detectors estimated cosmic dust on the moon to be (2 x 10^-9 grams/square centimetre/year or 2.3 tons/day). So in the 4½ billion years since the Earth's formation a layer of about one and a half inches of cosmic dust would accumulate on the moon (approximately the level that was found by the Apollo crews).
Despite such data being thoroughly "debunked" creation "scientists" such as Mr. Kent Hovind continue to claim cosmic dust should (if the Earth were really 4½ billion years old) be around 182 feet deep (based on an accumulation of 1 inch every 10,000 years). His claims look even more ludicrous in light of the fact that, had he checked his figures properly, the quoted rates and depths represent two very different rates of accumulation.
It is also surprising that Mr. Hovind and others continue to use this argument since, in a recent creationist "technical" paper (Snelling and Rush, 1993) it was admitted that the depth of dust on the moon was in line with mainstream scientific beliefs. "It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."
Commonly evolutionists respond to the "Lunar Dust" question with "We don't know how the moon is formed". (The Age Of The Universe, Earth & Moon)
The intelligent evolutionist tends to research his or her response carefully and will use scientifically derived data & logic to defeat such argument. Please supply evidence to justify your statement.
God divinely created the world-6,000 - 10,000 years ago. (Divine Creation)
There is no evidence to support the existence of such a deity or the claim that it created the world recently or at all.
There exists significant evidence for the evolution of man extending back over 5 million year (and further to man's ancestors) most of which is based on fossil remains, the geological layer in which the remains were found, and fossils of other species found around them. The fossil record shows a steady development towards modern man and the following is paraphrased directly from Jim Foley's excellent "Hominid Species" (1997):
Ardipithecus ramidus Dated at 4.4 million years this is the oldest of the known hominid species (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). Most of the remains are skull fragments but indirect evidence suggests that it may have been bipedal and around 122 cm (4'0") tall. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. (White et al. have since discovered a skeleton which is 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)
Australopithecus anamensis Named in 1995 these consist of 9 fossils found in Allia Bay, Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995). Anamensis is between 3.9 and 4.2 million years old and has a mixture of primitive features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedality, and a lower humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike.
Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus afarensis, between 3.0 and 3.9 million years old, had an apelike face with a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and no chin. They had protruding jaws with large back teeth. Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 550 cc. And the skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee, except for the more humanlike teeth (canines are much smaller than those of modern apes but larger & more pointed than those of humans and shape of the jaw is shaped part-way between ape and human. However their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man leaving no doubt that they were bipedal (pref. walking). The finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey 1981). Most scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage.
Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus africanus, 2 to 3 million years old is similar to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech. The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis. Although the teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey 1981). The shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced compared to afarensis.
Note: Australopithecus afarensis and africanus are known as gracile australopithecine's, because of their relatively lighter build, especially in the skull and teeth. Despite this, they were still more robust than modern humans.
Australopithecus aethiopicus Australopithecus aethiopicus, 2.3 to 2.6 million years old, is known from one major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker, and a few other minor specimens which are thought to belong to the same species. Aethiopicus may be an ancestor of robustus and boisei and its brain size is very small, at 410 cc. Parts of the skull, particularly the hind portions, are primitive and resemble afarensis but others (massive face, the jaws and single tooth found and the largest sagittal crest in any known hominid) are more reminiscent of Australopithecus boisei (Leakey and Lewin 1992).
Australopithecus robustus Similar to A. africanus, A. robustus had larger and more robust skull and teeth. It existed between 1.5 and 2 million years ago. The massive face is flat or dished, with no forehead and large brow ridges. It has relatively small front teeth, but massive grinding teeth in a large lower jaw. The average brain size is about 530 cc. Bones excavated with robustus skeletons indicate that they may have been used as digging tools.
Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei) Australopithecus boisei, 1.1 to 2.1 million years old, was similar to robustus, but the face and cheek teeth were even more massive, some molars being up to 2 cm across. The brain size (530 cc) is very similar to robustus and a few experts consider boisei and robustus to be variants of the same species.
Note: Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust australopithecine's, because their skulls in particular are more heavily built.
Homo habilis ("Handy Man") Homo habilis, 1.15 to 2.4 million years old, has been found with evidence of tools. It is very similar to the australopithecine's in many ways e.g. a primitive face but projecting less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc (varies between 500 and 800 cc), is considerably larger than in australopithecine's and is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb.) in weight, although females may have been smaller.
Note: Habilis has been a controversial species. Some scientists have not accepted it, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecine's or Homo erectus. Many now believe that habilis combines specimens from at least two different Homo species.
Homo erectus Homo erectus, 300,000 to 1.8 million years old, has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, a long low skull and a significantly larger brain (early specimens averaging around 900 cc, late around 1100 cc - Leakey 1994). Some (Asian) have a sagittal crest and the skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary, the Turkana Boy being tall and slender (like modern humans from the same area) whilst the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy indicates that Homo erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). The evidence indicates that Homo habilis and the australopithecines all lived in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging (Africa, Asia, and Europe). There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.
Homo sapiens (archaic) Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago and are so termed because the skulls are diverse and have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth tend to be less robust than erectus but more so than modern humans with many still featuring large brow ridges, receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 200,000 and 500,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (was Homo neanderthalensis) Neanderthal man, between 30,000 and 230,000 years old, has an average brain size slightly larger than that of modern humans (about 1450 cc) but it was probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull and, like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak and the mid-facial area protrudes (a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens) which may have been an adaptation to cold. Neanderthals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs (males averaged about 168 cm in height). Their bones are thick & heavy, showing signs of powerful muscle attachments, and Neanderthals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards ... their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, indicating greater advancement than Homo erectus. Neanderthals were formidable hunters, and are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East and Western European Neanderthals usually have a more robust form: "classic Neanderthals" (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992; Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Gore 1996).
Homo sapiens sapiens (modern) Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 120,000 years ago (some scientists argue it is more recent).
Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994)
Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Palaeolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection that has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983).
Radiometric dating, the geologic column and the fossil record. See EVO-STORM-01 Sections 3, 4C, 7 & 8, EVO-STORM-02 Sections 2 & 3 and EVO-STORM-03 Sections 3 & 4.
Critical work (1970) and more intensive scientific studies in recent years, have convincingly refuted the "man track" claims, and led to their abandonment even by most creationists. The following is a list of "man-tracks" sites that creationists have erroneously claimed indicate man existed side by side with dinosaurs. It is worth noting that many past "man track" advocates had applied water, oil, or other substances to the markings to encourage the appearance of human shapes; however, without selective highlighting none show clear human features.
State Park Ledge: natural irregularities and features caused by erosion of the substrate.
The Taylor Site (the Paluxy site most often claimed to contain human tracks): thorough analyses indicate that the alleged human tracks here are elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks made by dinosaurs that, at least at times, impressed their soles and heels as they walked. When the digit marks of such tracks (common in the Paluxy Riverbed) are subdued by one or more factors (erosion, sediment infilling, or mud-collapse), they often resemble giant human prints. Most of the tracks on the Taylor Site are largely infilled with a secondary sediment which hardened into the original track depressions. When the tracksite surface is well cleaned, at least some tracks in each trail show shallow tridactyl (three-toed) digit impressions indicating dinosaurian origin, as well as colour and texture distinctions corresponding to the infilled material and further confirming the dinosaurian nature of the tracks. Recent claims that some of these tracks have human prints within them have been shown to be as baseless as the original claims.
The Baugh/McFall Sites: acknowledged by creationists to consist of eroded, elongate dinosaur tracks. Since 1982 several other sites along this ledge have been excavated by Carl Baugh and associates, who claimed many other "man tracks" there but rigorous studies have failed to support such claims. The alleged human tracks on these sites involve several phenomena, including elongate dinosaur tracks and parts thereof; indistinct elongate marks of unknown origin that were not in striding trails; shallow, vague markings in the rock surface or overlying marl; invertebrate trace patterns, and some markings with evidence of deliberate alteration.
Alleged Human and Cat tracks loose rocks: Some loose blocks of rock with human or cat-like prints, reputed to have come from Glen, first appeared during the late 1930's. These tracks were promoted as genuine by some creationists however, anatomic problems with the prints, knowledge of past carving practices in Glen Rose, and problematic cross-sectional features, lead most researchers to reject their authenticity.
Other Loose Fossils and Artifacts: other objects claimed by a few to represent "out-of-order" fossils are an alleged "human tooth," "trilobite," and a hammer. The tooth, found in the Paluxy in 1987, has been conclusively shown to be a fish tooth. The trilobite, reportedly found decades ago in the Paluxy, was not documented in place, and cannot be linked reliably to the riverbed strata. The hammer, reportedly from a Palaeozoic formation near London, Texas, is encased in a concretion and thus may be unrelated to the age of the host rock. Other Texas artefacts have also been claimed by some to be "out-of-order" fossils, but also are not well supported.
In conclusion, although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including erosional features, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings.
The carbon dating method is inaccurate when dealing with samples that are recent ("NOT millions of years old"). Radiometric dating methods work on ridiculous assumptions when in theory it is possible the earth is only thousands of years old. (Radiometric Dating)
Despite creationist claims to the contrary, radio-isotopic dating methods are accurate to within acceptable limits. The most common claim (aside from references to experiments where a given dating method was demonstrated as fallible) is that a given method's assumptions may have been violated. Typically these revolve around the constancy of decay rates and claims that contamination may have occurred.
The rate of decay for any given isotope is considered to be fundamental and significant changes in any isotopic decay rate have never been observed (to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year). However, in order to explain flood-based geology, the rate of decay of such elements would need to be in the order of six to ten times as high as have been noted. Exactly how much higher would depend upon whether age is measured from the flood itself or across the entire Young Earth scenario.
If the rate of decay were not as currently specified (as high as creationists suggest) there would be a number of fundamental changes in the universe around us, for example:
Whilst not immediately apparent the strength of interaction (which governs beta decay) within molecules would have different effects on binding energies and thus the gravitational attraction for any given element. Likewise this would affect orbital motion and the spectra emitted from stars.
Current evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below those required accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth time-scale (by means of accelerated decay).
Radiometric observations are a mixture of sensitive, short time-scale, tests (near past but accurate) and astronomical observations (distant past, less precise). Contamination is an issue for Carbon 14 and Potassium-Argon dating methods however criticism of such methods fail to take into account that data from these nearly always agrees with current expectations for old-Earth dating. Any single experimental result may be subject to criticism but an entire battery of tests, each of which tends to support the data from others, is not easy to refute.
Creationists have (accurate?) chronologies (from the Bible) dating back to the Old Testament. (The Reign of Man)
Whilst there are, no doubt, parallels between the bible and other religious/historical texts of the time (though exactly what time is unclear) e.g. major historical characters and events, there is no evidence to support the claim that the bible is accurate in other ways. There is no evidence to support the claim that it was written at (or even near) the times that events depicted within are claimed to have occurred.
The Bible is the Word of God, entirely inspired by God and written down by men (except for the 10 commandments) (The Bible)
There is no evidence to support such a claim.
The Bible should be used as a manual for our daily life. (The Bible)
Why? Does it tell me how to clean my teeth? Does it tell me how to drive my car? Does it tell me how to program using my computer? In what way does it form a "manual"? Why would I want to accept the advice of a book which advocates atrocities as a method of dealing with relatively insignificant problems (see EVO-STORM-01 Section 4)? The bible is so confusingly worded (particularly the King James Version) and so vague in its statements that it is possible to (mis)interpret it as saying almost anything an interpreter wishes.
These and the fact that the bible contains so many absurdities and contradictions makes it difficult to use the book in the manner suggested.
God's word is infallible (Evidence of Divinity)
There is no reliable evidence to support such a claim.
Jesus was the Son of God. (Evidence of Divinity)
There is no reliable evidence to support such a claim.
"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, Part 1B" Kathleen Hunt (1994)
"How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims" Dave E. Matson (1994)
"The General Anti-Creationism FAQ: Age" Jim Meritt
Man Tracks? A Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy Glen J. Kuban (1992)
The "Burdick Print" Glen J. Kuban (1989-96)
"Evolution of Man" (Author Unknown).
"Hominid Species" Jim Foley (1997)