Macro evolution 5

I know I'm not supposed to verbally attack my opponents, and I hope you don't take offense to this, but I'm really getting tired of seeing recycled "Hovind" points that come from all sorts of questionable websites, translated to laymen's terms that elicit believers out of sheer confusion. I don't find any of your following points credible in any way, shape, or form, until you can provide documentation from an unbiased source, but I will respond to them. However, these facts that you have no doubt collected from the four corners of the internet amongst Creationist propaganda sites and shady conspiracy organizations are obscure, and I'll respond to them without searching on any science or response forum (I'm almost positive these are all addressed and refuted somewhere out there). Your argument about carbon dating. Carbon 14 dating involves the study of half-life reactions, and we know the half life of the atom because we've duplicated it on a smaller scale. We understand two things: the rate of the reaction and that the rate constant is predictable. We know this because it operates under a reaction law where the decay is exponential and there is an established decay constant. Thus, there is no mathematical error nor is there a flawed assumption at the foundation of carbon 14 dating. "1. The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out ." This is what I like to call "deliberate ambiguity and intentional deception". The site where you got this from probably didn't take into account the fact that what goes in, must come out. Also, the rate at which the sun "sucks in dust" cannot be constant. So the math is off that way as well. But then again, you are a believer that the sun was plopped, fully formed as it was, hanging in space. So your argument actually begs the question and violates the laws of logic. 2. ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it. Ok, I just violated my own promise, and for that, I'm sorry. I consulted a neutral source that gives voice to both creationist and evolutionist alike. Talk origins. Simply put, you're wrong. I had my doubts because the scale from billions of years to 6000 years would mean a substantial decrease in the speed of light. A decrease beyond absurdity. You're right, a scientific experiment has been conducted. And you're wrong. Please see last example on this page. http://www.talkorigins.org... 3. ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They evolved from apes. And 100,000 years ago, the atmosphere and space looked pretty much the way it does now. You're the one making a positive claim, so burden of proof falls on you. How do you know there were stars that filled the universe 100,000 years ago? 4. ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth. Again, "deliberate ambiguity and intentional deception". While Hovind's 4 function calculator worked quite well, his mind did not. The rate has changed. If the rate didn't change, it would violate the laws of physics. 5. next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was ï¿½ of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period. This piece of ... data ... is a bit too obscure for me. Please provide some sort of corresponding evidence, preferably peer reviewed and substantiated.