Macro evolution 2

Sorry in advance this is going to be quazi-angry debate mode. =) On to your arguments line by line. "First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are........" >>Do you have any idea what carbon dating is?! Carbon dating is based off of the isotope of carbon , carbon-14. This isotope is unstable and goes through radioactive beta decay. Which results in a half life of every 5730 years. Carbon-14 like any other gaseous element (isotope in this case) spreads evenly throughout the atmosphere and results in the composition of carbon-14 being constant throughout the atmosphere and environment. The constant being set at 1 part carbon-14 per trillion. This means that in every mole of anything on earth ,that has an interaction with the atmosphere, that there are 600 billion atoms of carbon-14 per every 6023 x 10^23 atoms of everything else. Every organism that lives is therefor exchanging this constant of carbon-14 with its environment up to the day it dies. At which point the exchange stops and carbon-14 slowly turns into nitrogen-14 through beta decay. So what does this mean exactly? This means that when you die you will have roughly 600 billion atoms of carbon-14 in your for every mole. After 5730 years there will only be 300 billion left per mole. This is a half-life and is good up to 60,000 years with precision. Onto your next arguments. Which I am going to label by the numbers you offered me. 1. Where did you come up with this!? Source please. This is called the Poynting-Robertson effect and yes it definitely does pull dust into the sun. But it can also have the opposite effect of pushing dust away from the sun. Also its effect on dust is relative: Fpr = Wv/C^2 = ((R^2)/4C^2)(((GMsLs^2)/R^5))^(1/2) where W is the power of the incoming radiation, v is the grain's velocity, c is the speed of light, r the object's radius, G is the universal gravitational constant, Ms the Sun's mass, Ls is the solar luminosity and R the object's orbital radius. My main argument is however 1). you seem to be under the impression that this results in it pulling in 100,000 tons a day constantly. No this is relative to the formula. 2. You seem to be under the impression that our solar system only has so much dust. 3. When a particle of dust is vaporized by the sun it doesn't disappear it only breaks down into smaller particles. Once small enough the same force you claim responsible for sucking them in, Poynting-Robertson effect, will actually force particles back out into the solar system by bouncing "sunlight" off of them. At this point the particles are free to react with others and become dust all over again. Thus we have a solar recycling system. yay.... also "Every star generates a stellar wind of particles that causes a continual outflow of gas into space. The Sun loses 10-14 solar masses every year" -Wiki Our sun is actually getting slowly smaller and smaller because it is losing mass to the solar system. 2. ....You have just informed me that the speed of light is in fact not a constant.... The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second. The speed of light outside of a vacuum can move slower than this however it does not, probably will not(until proven otherwise) , and has not moved faster than this. For those of you who do not understand what a vacuum is I will paraphrase it as being somewhere where no outside force will have an effect on an object. Thus the object is free to go as fast as it wants. Secondly you tell me if god made the universe he could make light wherever he wanted. Sure but to do so it would require him going against the own physics that he created. Making him a hypocrite. =) By the way I disregard your god point until you can prove me he exists and that he actually did this if he does exist. 3. This is not true at all. When stars are formed they have about 23-28% helium within them and the rest of the star is mostly hydrogen. As time goes on however a star gains more helium in its core and in order to keep up nuclear fusion it must compensate by burning more hydrogen. This actually results in a star burning brighter and brighter as time goes on. "The Sun, for example, is estimated to have increased in luminosity by about 40% since it reached the main sequence 4.6 billion years ago." -Wiki Cross apply my point from (1.) that says the sun is slowly losing mass. 0.01% of mass per year to be exact. Thus suns would not have filled our galaxy back then or resulted in needed cataclysmic amounts of sunscreen for monkeys. -.- 4. "Gravitational coupling between the Moon and the oceans affects the orbit of the Moon. From the Moon's point of view, the tidal bulges are carried ahead by the rotation of the Earth, so that they don't point directly toward the Moon. The gravitational coupling drains kinetic energy and angular momentum from the Earth's rotation. In turn, angular momentum is added to the Moon's orbit. Somewhat counterintuitively, this moves the Moon to a higher orbit with a longer period. This results in a 3.8 cm yearly increase in the distance between the two bodies.[53] The Moon will continue to move slowly away from the Earth until the tidal effects between the two are no longer of significance, whereupon the Moon's orbit will stabilize." - Wiki What does this mean? The moon is slowly moving away from the earth 3.8 cms yearly. However this rate is not a set constant it is dependent on the tidal bulges. Thus in the past the moon could have been moving away, towards or not at all in relation to the earth depending on the tides. Also if we look to the the generally accepted theory of how the moon was formed, "Giant impact theory", we can see that the proto-earth that was impacted would have taken many years for water to reform if it had had water in the first place. Not to mention an atmosphere. If you really want to prove your point tell me when the earth reformed after the Giant Impact, when water began to mass after that point and then prove that the force from the tides has remained the same constant on the moon. Then tie those all together and show me how the moon according to this theory should actually be many miles farther from the earth than it is today. Good luck. 5. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that moon should have 6 feet of dust on the surface. Nor do I know where you came up with the notion that 1/4 of an inch correlates to 6,000-10,000 years. Under standard mathematics if 6 feet = 4.5 billion years then 1/4 an inch should be 15,625,000 years. Which still doesn't correspond to your 6,000 - 10,000 years. So first off I would like to see your evidence on every claim you make here. Secondly.... if the eagle truly was designed to land on 6 feet of moon dust and your ideas are all correct. Then I would like to congratulate the eagle for it obviously succeeded in its job. Obviously it did not sink 6 feet into the moon and instead landed on the top 1/4 an inch. Good job eagle! So now my conclusion. Being you sight all these examples for why the earth is obviously only 6000-10,000 years old (which aren't supported by any evidence) but you never actually attack what I said. Specifically you never attack the fact that macroevolution does not need 10,000 years to occur. It could feasibly occur at any point through genetic mutations. Therefor even if my voter would like to agree with all 5 of my opponents points I still urge for a Pro vote. Thanks. P.S Sorry this is so long.