Kent Hovinds evidence against a 4billion year old earth

[Kingdomovehearts]

I think this has something to do with creatism so Ill post it here, can anyone disprove hovinds stuff against a 4.5billion year old earth? I could only disprove 5 of them, I wont show them, so here:

The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are shortlived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old.

The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed.

The existence of short-period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.

Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young.

There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly.


Space dust would be vacuumed out of our solar system by the Poynting-Robertson effect in a few thousand years. Since that is not the case, the earth is very young.

At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years.

Saturn's rings are unstable which indicates that they are less than millions of years old.

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. Since they still give off internal heat, they cannot be billions of years old.

Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old.

If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

The amount of helium in the atmosphere divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years.

Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 10^9 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 10^15 tons.)

Topsoil takes only a few thousand years to form. The present thickness of topsoil indicates a young earth.

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.


Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 10^9 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 10^15 tons. That yields 30 million years.)




there.

[Sven]

www.talkorigins.org

just search for Hovind...

[Duvenoy]

Much of this can be found here:

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

Quite a bit more resides at Talk Origins.

That a large number people blindly believe the teachings of this outrageous charlatan make me fear for the future of my species.

doov

[lpetrich]

First, does Kent Hovind give any sources for his assertions?

Kingdomovehearts:

The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are shortlived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old.

The Moon does contain some short-liked isotopes due to cosmic-ray bombardment, but I've never seen any serious claims of quantities too large to be accounted for by that source.

The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed.

Demonstrably false. Extrapolating the present rate of recession means that the Moon would be close to the Earth a few billion years ago. Also, the Moon's rate of recession depends on the shape of the ocean basins, which governs how much tidal sloshing can happen.

The existence of short-period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.

However, there are large numbers of comets in the outer Solar System, which occasionally pass near some giant planet like Jupiter and get perturbed into a short-period orbit.

Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young.

That claim is thoroughly discredited, and Anwers in Genesis warns creationists not to use that argument.

There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly.

Demonstrably false. Fossil meteorites are known to exist, though they may not look very outwardly different from other stray rocks.

Space dust would be vacuumed out of our solar system by the Poynting-Robertson effect in a few thousand years. Since that is not the case, the earth is very young.

Except that it's continually resupplied by disintegrating comets.

At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for more than a few thousand years.

The mainstream astronomical literature contains no mention of this alleged phenomenon.

Saturn's rings are unstable which indicates that they are less than millions of years old.

Even if they are transitory, that only means that we are lucky to be around while they are present.

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. Since they still give off internal heat, they cannot be billions of years old.

I've made crude estimates of their cooling times for these objects' excess luminosities, and they do not require unreasonably high core temperatures, only a few tens of thousands of degrees K

Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

Except that it isn't.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old.

What is he counting as lava? Everything that's on the Earth's surface and not eroded away?

If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

That's the turnover time; minerals are removed from the oceans by various processes.

The amount of helium in the atmosphere divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years.

Except that helium is a very light gas that easily evaporates into outer space.

Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 10^9 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 10^15 tons.)

However, more continent is continually being thrust upward.

Topsoil takes only a few thousand years to form. The present thickness of topsoil indicates a young earth.

It can erode away.

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

Bull feces. An oil-proof rock formation will stay oil-proof.

The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.

Except that it is not slowing down that fast.

Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 10^9 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 10^15 tons. That yields 30 million years.)

Most of it ends up on the continental shelves, not the ocean floors.

[Bookwyrm]

A talkorigins article addressing Hovind's claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html)

[RufusAtticus]

Am I the only one who checked Kingdomovehearts' (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=14320) profile?

[Dark Jedi]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Am I the only one who checked Kingdomovehearts' (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=14320) profile?

Are you seeing something as a moderator that the rest of us can't?

[tommyc]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Am I the only one who checked Kingdomovehearts' (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=14320) profile?
If you are commenting on the fact he is an atheist, then please note he is posting Ken Hovind's "arguments" in the hope of finding out some rebuttals to them, with LPetrich has since done.

[Ellis14]

The burden of proof is on Kent Hovind to show that the entire scientific community is wrong about a 4 billion year old earth. I don't think he can or will be able to do this.

His assertions are just speculation.

[variant 13]

Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

Except that it isn't.

wait I thought that the strength of earth's magnetic field was getting lower:confused: ?

That we could be in for a reversal of poles in the next few thousand years or so?

[tommyc]

Originally posted by Jmebob
wait I thought that the strength of earth's magnetic field was getting lower:confused: ?

That we could be in for a reversal of poles in the next few thousand years or so?
Taking this to be the case though, it would merely demonstrate an ongoing fluctuation from pole to pole, not a linear loss of strength in the magnetic field as Honvind suggests.

[Coragyps]

Jmebob: The Earth's dipole field is currently in decline, heading, probably, for another reversal, but the Hovindistas say that it was strong enough to support Ice in Space 6000 years ago and has been on a steady falloff since.

[variant 13]

Right, thought lpetrich was saying that it wasn't occuring (looks like he/she is).

[Aravnah Ornan]

I understood lpetrich's comment as saying that the earth's magnetic field isn't exponentially decaying, which it isn't. The earth's magnetic filed has flipped several times, as evidenced by magnetic rocks on the ocean floor. Such flipping does not prove exponential decay and in fact is quite different from exponential decay.

[tommyc]

Originally posted by Aravnah Ornan
I understood lpetrich's comment as saying that the earth's magnetic field isn't exponentially decaying, which it isn't. The earth's magnetic filed has flipped several times, as evidenced by magnetic rocks on the ocean floor. Such flipping does not prove exponential decay and in fact is quite different from exponential decay.
Whoops, well spotted, I didn't even see that Hovind had used to term exponential. As you say, that makes it even more of an opposite view to the poles-flipping theory. On the subject, is this flipping a proven occurence, or just an idea at this stage?

[NottyImp]

A recent news report here about the Earth's magnetic field:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3359555.stm

[tommyc]

Originally posted by NottyImp
A recent news report here about the Earth's magnetic field:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3359555.stm
Many thanks Notty.

Can't get enough of that BBCi!

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by Ellis10
The burden of proof is on Kent Hovind to show that the entire scientific community is wrong about a 4 billion year old earth. I don't think he can or will be able to do this.

His assertions are just speculation.

Be very careful about this kind of argument. It can backfire as:

"The burden of proof is on the atheist to show that the majority of the world is wrong about a god's non-existance. I don't think he can or will be able to do this."

The essential difference is that the appeal to authority is NOT fallacious when the authority actually is authoritative. Argument ad populum doesn't have that benefit.

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Angrillori
Be very careful about this kind of argument. It can backfire as:

"The burden of proof is on the atheist to show that the majority of the world is wrong about a god's non-existance. I don't think he can or will be able to do this."

The essential difference is that the appeal to authority is NOT fallacious when the authority actually is authoritative. Argument ad populum doesn't have that benefit.

No that's not what I was saying. Scientists use methods and techniques to arrive at the conclusion of a 4 billion year old earth. If Hovind is using his own scientific methods and techniques to arrive at different results then he must prove that established scientific methods and techniques, i.e.: the ones used by the entire scientific community, are flawed.

It could be that the entire scientific community is wrong or deluded, but given that the opposition comes from one man determined to shoe-horn the facts to suit his dogmatic theories, it is more likely that he is wrong or deluded.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by tommyc
(Earth's magnetic reversals)... On the subject, is this flipping a proven occurence, or just an idea at this stage? Yes, that's very well-established. Here is a nice article on the subject of the Earth's magnetism (http://www.es.ucl.ac.uk/research/planetaryweb/undergraduate/dom/magrev/earthmag.htm), with links to articles on the magnetism of other Solar-System objects.

Note: the magnetic field does not tip over; it goes down to nearly zero and a more complicated shape, then restarts in the opposite direction.

[RBH]

Originally posted by tommyc
Whoops, well spotted, I didn't even see that Hovind had used to term exponential. As you say, that makes it even more of an opposite view to the poles-flipping theory. On the subject, is this flipping a proven occurence, or just an idea at this stage? The origin of the "exponential" decay claim is Barnes, in 1973 (Barnes, T. G. (1973). Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field. San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers.) As usual, talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html) has a useful analysis of this specific claim. One thing the TO analysis doesn't mention is that the author of the paper containing the original data that Barnes used modeled the data as a linear decay. The "exponential" was Barnes's gratuitous alteration. (I can't now find that original reference. Rats. Too many operating systems ago, I guess.)

RBH

[Roller]

Let's entertain the thought that these "arguments" are valid. What kind of conclusion could we draw from them?

Hovind is a YEC, almost all of the dating here contradicts young earth. But this data seems to be internally inconsistent. If the Earth is 6000 years old, than Hovind has some serious problems with his arguments. For example this:

Originally posted by Kingdomovehearts
Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

Contradicts this:

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years.


Then this:

If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

Contradicts this:

The amount of helium in the atmosphere divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years.

And then this:

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

Contradicts this:

The earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning that the earth can't be older than a few million years.

So, is the Earth few millions, couple of hundreds of thousands, or just a couple of thousands of years old?

Hovind is truly the master of cognitive dissonance.

[Kingdomovehearts]

I was told I might be able to get a better answer here:

What came first? DNA? Or the proteins needed for DNA that can only be produced by DNA?"

[Rhaedas]

Originally posted by Kingdomovehearts
Saturn's rings are unstable which indicates that they are less than millions of years old.

I think this is one question that Voyager II raises and left unanswered, with the discovery of the shepherd moons, and Cassini will hopefully give more data on. Even if Saturn is a unique situation, to find out that its rings are naturally rebuilding themselves would hurt this particular argument.

I'd like to see how a YEC could use this same argument, without demonstrating that such a ring formation could form within 6000 years (without a goddidit wildcard).

[Dr.GH]

Originally posted by Kingdomovehearts
I was told I might be able to get a better answer here:

What came first? DNA? Or the proteins needed for DNA that can only be produced by DNA?"

Tee Hee.

For those proteins that are uniquely coded by DNA, then DNA was clearly first.

But these are hardly all proteins, or enzymes, or ogliomers.

Try some science instead of creationist's claptrap. I think that you can get all these from the internet for free.

Huber, Claudia, Gunter Wächtershäuser
1997 “Activated Acetic Acid by Carbon Fixation on (Fe,Ni)S Under Primordial Conditions” Science v. 276: 245-247

This sets up the next article:

Huber, Claudia, Gunter Wächtershäuser
1998 “Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life” Science v.281: 670-672

Imai, E., Honda, H., Hatori, K., Brack, A. and Matsuno, K.
1999 “Elongation of oligopeptides in a simulated submarine hydrothermal system“ Science 283(5403):831–833.

AiG's Jon Sarfati wrote a criticism of Imai et al here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4170.asp

My responce to Sarfati is here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/sarfati_on_imai_gh.htm

Joyce, Gerald F.
2002 The antiquity of RNA-based evolution Nature 418, 214 - 221 (11 July) Insight

Lazcano, Antonio, Stanley L. Miller
1996 “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World, and Time” Cell vol 85:793-798

Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR,
1997 Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature, 390: 591-4,

These should do for your first week.

The literature on self catalytic systems, and early membranes will wait until next week.

[Dr.GH]

I just re-read my last post, and it seems a bit dismissive. Not really my intent.

[lpetrich]

Roller:
Hovind is a YEC, almost all of the dating here contradicts young earth. But this data seems to be internally inconsistent. If the Earth is 6000 years old, than Hovind has some serious problems with his arguments.

Actually, Mr. Hovind's figures may be interpreted as upper limits.

[Kingdomovehearts]

That guy showed me the link where he got that DNA stuff from

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/1016/1016%5F01.asp

[lpetrich]

Kingdomovehearts:
What came first? DNA? Or the proteins needed for DNA that can only be produced by DNA?

That is certainly an important problem, and the most plausible solution so far is the "RNA world".

Among present-day organisms, DNA serves as a master-copy molecule. To make a protein, a gene region of DNA is copied onto a close chemical relative, RNA. This in turn is used to assemble a protein, with three RNA building blocks mapping onto one protein building block.

These assembled proteins then do a variety of tasks, like assist the copying of DNA and RNA onto each other. Proteins that perform chemical-reaction tasks, such as molecule assembly and disassembly, are called "enzymes", and they are usually named <action>-ase.

RNA also appears in some other contexts, including some surprising ones like energy metabolism. Also, DNA's building blocks are made from RNA ones.

This suggests that DNA was invented as a modification of RNA, and that some early organisms had RNA genomes instead of DNA ones.

We've gone from DNA-RNA-protein to RNA-protein; can we go any further?

YES. RNA molecules can act as enzymes ("ribozymes"), and several of them them have been discovered in the wild. It's possible to produce DNA enzymes ("deoxyribozymes") in the lab, but none have been found in the wild -- which is consistent with DNA being a relative latecomer.

The "RNA world" hypothesis proposes that some early organisms were essentially collections of self-replicating RNA enzymes.

That has the problem of the origin of the RNA, but there is a much simpler system to account for.

[Roller]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Actually, Mr. Hovind's figures may be interpreted as upper limits. [/B]

But still, I don't think that millions of years as an upper limit servers his cause. Actually... Maybe not in front of a crowd which is scientifically literate, but than again, I doubt he ever targets such crowd.