REPLY #20c TO
"EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM"
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
This is the last of a three-part reply.
(R) Even evolutionists agree that comets last only an estimated 10,000 years.
(MB) Why should the lifetime of a small, volatile object like a comet have any
bearing on the age of the Earth? Is there any reason to believe that every
single object which populates the Oort Cloud, Hills Cloud or Kuiper Belt is
currently orbiting in a manner which will bring it close enough to the Sun to
cause its eventual destruction in the recent future?
(R) Why do you think Mr. Oort invented this.
(MB) Because he could properly do the math and interpret the orbital data for
the comets in his study.
(R) It's explained at the end of the excerpt. He knew, that the age of the
comets were a problem for evolutionists who believe that comets were formed with
the inception of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago.
(MB) The life and times of comets are not a matter which is any part of
evolution. It falls into the realm of astrophysics. His study was meant to
explain the cometary data, not to bolster evolution.
(R) He knew that if you took the time away from the comets there wouldn't be
enough time for everything to evolve. Everything that evolutionists date revolve
around the assumed course of evolution on earth. Everything is dated with this
presupposition strictly in mind. It totally contradicts the evolutionary belief
(MB) You'll need to explain the actual evidence (rather than positing the
Creationist delusions) in order to justify the "age of comets" fairy tale.
You'll also need to explain how the age of anything not of this Earth has any
impact on the process of evolution. Finally, if the supposedly "young" age of
comets "disproves" the timeline of evolution, why doesn't the vast age of
quasars provide conclusive support for it?
(R) If the moon isn't leaving at two inches per year then how much is it?
(MB) The current rate is two inches per year. That rate has not been the same
in the past (as shown in my previous reply). Creationist argument requires that
the current rate must have been unchanged throughout the existence of the
(R) How do you know the lost energy of the earth is used by the moon?
(MB) Because it can't be otherwise (according to the Law of Conservation of
(R) Here's another moon matter: Did you know the moon is slowly accumulating
cosmic dust? It is. Since the moon has no erosion but is also accumulating
cosmic dust at a regular rate we should discover something.
(MB) What we discover is another Creationist mangling of the facts -- as you
will demonstrate in your next argument...
(R) At present rates NASA experts were expecting a tremendous layer of dust on
the moon due to its 4.5 to 5 billion year supposed age. The most conservative
estimates were expecting 54 feet of dust on the moon! Can you imagine landing in
a flower sack that deep?
(MB) Actually, that's not true. This Creationist argument was first put forth
by Morris in "Scientific Creationism" (1974). It draws upon a 1960 study by H.
Petterson who said that his figure provided an *upper* limit (not Morris' "lower
limit") for the accumulation of cosmic dust. Petterson's article also cautioned
that his results may be way too high and that he personally preferred a figure
less than 1/3 that amount. Morris, however, ignored that caveat and jumped all
over the upper limit to make his claims. Morris also conveniently ignored the
results of further studies published in 1963 and 1965 which concluded that there
was no extensive dust layer on the surface of the Moon and which were proven by
the Surveyor landing in 1966. Therefore, Morris based his calculations on data
which had been obsolete for a decade prior to the publication of his book! Yet,
Creationists still trumpet it as "proof" of their ideas. Why?
(R) What a surprise when men did finally land on the moon. It was actually hard
for them to put in the American flag. They found only an eighth of an inch to
three inches of dust! That would have taken fewer than 8,000 years to stack up!
They wasted millions of dollars building these giant legs for the lunar lander
all for nothing.
(MB) The legs of the lunar lander are hardly "giant". They were only as long as
they were so that they would extend past the bottom of the rocket cone under the
lower stage of the lander. There was absolutely no concern about the lander
sinking into a deep layer of lunar dust.
(R) You say no plants or trees show signs of a catastrophic flood. I never said
I thought any plant survived the flood. I don't think it would be able to.
Earth's oldest living plants and trees probably sprouted some time after the
(MB) That's not even the case by Creationist figuring. Creationists admit to a
5,000 year age for the oldest trees, but the Flood couldn't have happened more
than about 4,400 years ago (by Biblical chronology).
(R) You also said, basically, that you thought trees had life spans of no more
than several thousand years. If this were the case then do you expect the
redwoods, bristle cones, sequoias and other old trees to topple down or become
(MB) What I said was that there is conclusive evidence that the oldest trees
predate the supposed Noachian Flood and that this fact disproves Creationist
As to the non-sequitur portion of your paragraph, trees die all the time and
do not have to live to reach the maximum possible age. Also, while some will
die, others are continually growing to replace them or are continuing to thrive.
(R) Another thing you said was that trees are almost always older because of
missing tree rings. Explain to me how you know that? If there are rings on a
tree that are missing how would anyone know that? If they aren't there you can't
see them and therefore nobody can know.
(MB) This is determined by examining the rings of numerous trees in the same
location and matching them up. Obviously, there is no way to find a "missing
ring" by looking at only one tree.
(R) You stated that if the sun is shrinking it would leave scientists with "an
(MB) Where did I say that? Wasn't that your (actually Russell Akridge's)
premise? Scientists don't buy the Creationist "sun is shrinking" idea.
(R) If you think bout it, it's only impossible if you believe in the old earth.
(MB) It's only impossible if you don't use proper data and mathematics.
(R) You also said that there were errors in the calculations of the sun's
shrinkage. May I ask what errors you're referring to?
(MB) One such documentation of these errors is contained within the Gemini
article I referred to in my first reply about this and details data gathered
since 1715 which shows no evidence of any continual shrinking of the Sun.
(R) If you're right about the sun's supposed "80 day oscillation cycle" then why
didn't researchers notice this cycle during the last hundred years?
(MB) They have. Remember that your argument is based upon the invalid
extrapolation of bad data by Akridge. He totally ignores the physics of a
star's normal life cycle in the course of concocting his fairy tale.
(R) Let me say that all of the fossil "proof" for evolving apes wouldn't be able
to fill a regular coffin. For those of you who are reading this, and don't know,
the evolutionary chain for ape evolving into man is mainly built around a few
bones. It's true!
(MB) No, it's not true. Apes did not evolve into Man. Man and apes descended
from a common ancestor. The Creationists' inability to understand this simple
and basic point invalidates any other arguments they make about the subject.
(R) Artists draw entire pictures, to the slightest detail, out of bone
fragments. You'd never think, from the artist's conception, that they never
really had anything to work with! I'd like to hear your response on this.
(MB) The evidence for the evolution of Man and Ape from a common ancestor fills
museums and laboratories around the world. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
(R) This one's been bugging me. You basically said, in a section of your last
reply to me, that the chances of life forming from dead matter at one point is
infinitely higher than erosion causing face patterns resembling dead presidents
on the side of the mountain. You really need a lot of faith to believe that!
Life is infinitely more complex than rock formations.
(MB) Do you understand about how living organisms are created by a limited set
of actions of self-ordering parts while erosion is a random process with an
essentially infinite number of possibilities? It takes no "faith" whatsoever to
realize that a finite possibility drawn from a limited set is infinitely more
likely to occur than is a random possibility drawn from a near-infinite set.
This is basic mathematics.
(R) My other example was a computer appearing by chance. You're absolutely
right, a computer is vastly inferior to a living being. But you must think this
through. You believe people came from dead matter at one point. Life from
non-life, by chance, correct? It's illogical!
(MB) How? It's only illogical if you believe that living organisms aren't made
of the same basic elements and processes that make everything else in the
universe -- and that is clear nonsense. Once you understand that elementary
point, you can begin to understand how living organisms are formed.
(R) Here's an example: In the past, people had recipes for making mice. They
believed if you took a sweaty shirt, a few grains of wheat and left them outside
for a few days there would be mice. Most people literally believed they could
make mice! The majority of people believed in this spontaneous generation until
the 19th century. Obviously that isn't true since life only comes from life; it
would break the scientific law of biogenesis. Although, if you believe in life
just happening to form by nothing, this scientific law would have had to have
been broken. You believe that law must been leapt over at some point in time.
(MB) So, the nonsense believed by the scientifically-illiterate peasants of
the past is proof of Creationism? Also, you are mistakenly attempting to
parallel the old silly belief in spontaneous generation with the chemistry of
how the organic building blocks of life are produced. There is no real science
being violated here.
(R) That's one.
(MB) Don't you mean "that's another one"? Another debunked one, that is?
(R) Another law evolution breaks is the second law of thermodynamics.
(MB) ***YAWN*** This is so old and throughly refuted that even most
Creationists don't bother with it any longer. But, if we must.......
(R) The second law of thermodynamics states that the energy in the universe is
going from a higher state of order to a lower state of order. Or you could say
that the energy in the universe is being continually wasted or unused. The
scientific measurement of the amount of unusable energy in a system is called
the system's entropy.
(MB) This isn't correct. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the total
amount of disorder must increase in any system to which no energy is input.
Local increases in order are permissable so long as the total overall disorder
of the system increases. For example, this is why living things can grow by
eating food. Most of the energy of the food is converted into disordered forms
(such as heat) while a small amount contributes towards the growth (or increase
in local order) of the individual living thing. Therefore, the living thing
grows while overall disorder increases. In other words, entropy always
(R) Then why is it that evolution starts at dead matter and continues through
time until people show up.
(MB) Because the processes involved create small amounts of local order at the
cost of increased overall disorder -- just as the 2nd Law demands.
(R) You believe everything's becoming better and more orderly, am I right?
(MB) No, I believe that "everything" is progressing more and more towards an
eventual state of maximum disorder. Small and insignificant local exceptions,
such as the evolution of life on Earth, don't change the overall state of
things and don't invalidate the 2nd Law in any way.
(R) Evolution is opposed to the second law of thermodynamics.
(MB) Nope, it is in perfect accord with that law -- as is every other physical
process in the universe. On the contrary, it would seem to be the special
creation of heaven and Earth from a void -- the claim of the Creationists --
that would violate the 2nd Law.
(R) That's two.
(MB) Indeed, the score is mounting against the Creationists...
(R) Yet another scientific law you have to break is the law of cause and effect.
For every cause there's an effect and vice versa. One can't go without the
(MB) Again, this is not true. If you understand anything about quantum
mechanics, you will understand this basic fact. If there was no such thing as
uncaused effects, there would be no such thing as radioactive decay and the Sun
would not be able to shine.
(R) But your belief doesn't work with this law either, does it? You believe
there was an effect before a cause. I can't stress enough what an impossibility
(MB) This only proves that you don't properly understand basic physics or
quantum mechanics. BTW, doesn't the proposed existence of God violate your
belief that causes must precede effects?
(R) That's three.
(MB) Yep. Three swings, three misses, and Creationism strikes out yet again.
(R) Can you really believe what you believe is true if it contradicts at least
three scientific laws?
(MB) No, I couldn't. But, since what I believe contradicts no laws of science,
I have no problems with which to contend. On the contrary, it is Creationism
that has some serious issues to resolve in respect to the operation of these
laws and to everything else that you have brought up in the course of your
arguments so far. Tell us how Creationism can possibly be true if the laws of
science are to be respected.