By BGR. In a new paper published in the American Physical Society’s Physical Review Letters, researchers explain that, after experimenting with recreating the conditions of the core for years, they believe Earth’s core is quite a bit younger than previously thought. They now say that the core is likely somewhere between 1 billion and 1.3 billion years old. . .
Based on all the data they have at this point, the researchers are placing their estimate on the extreme lower end of the spectrum (1 billion to 1.3 billion years), whereas past estimates have suggested the core may be as old as over 4 billion years. Understanding the forces that formed our planet and are allowing us to maintain an existence here are obviously very important and could help us to better grasp how life could be possible on other worlds. (Read more from “Scientists Determine That the Earth’s Core Is Four-Times Younger Than Previously Thought; Evolutionary Timeline Impossible” HERE)
_________________________________________________
National Science Foundations Dramatically Revise Age of Earth’s Core
By UT News. By creating conditions akin to the center of the Earth inside a laboratory chamber, researchers have improved the estimate of the age of our planet’s solid inner core, putting it at 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old. . .
The Earth’s core is made mostly of iron, with the inner core being solid and the outer core being liquid. The effectiveness of the iron in transferring heat through conduction — known as thermal conductivity — is key to determining a number of other attributes about the core, including when the inner core formed. . .
The National Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China supported the research. (Read more from “National Science Foundations Dramatically Revise Age of Earth’s Core” HERE)
_________________________________________________
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
By Institute for Creation Research. [C]onsider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by [evolution]. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily “mutate” (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates “downward,” then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such “mutations,” each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then ½ to the 200th power, or one chance out of 10 to the 60th power. The number 10 to the 60th power, if written out, would be “one” followed by sixty “zeros.” In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular “parts.” (Read more from “The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution” HERE)
_________________________________________________
Evolution’s Time Problem
By Answers In Genesis. How do many scientists arrive at the age of 4½ billion years? They rely on radiometric dating, though the story is a bit more complicated than it sounds. Some rocks contain trace amounts of radioactive atoms. Those radioactive atoms decay into stable atoms over time. By knowing the decay rate and measuring the amount of both kinds of atoms in a rock, scientists can compute the amount of time it took to produce the stable atoms.
Some assumptions are involved, however. Were some of the stable atoms present in the rock to begin with? Did some of either type of atom leave or enter the rock during the time being measured for decay? To make matters worse, measuring the age of a rock by different kinds of radioactive atoms (such as uranium or rubidium) often yields very different ages. There are many examples of such discordant ages. . .
Today many scientists continue to believe in a 4½-billion-year-old earth, which evolution requires. They will continue to choose to believe that age, even though solid scientific reasons are available to doubt those dates. (Read more from “Evolution’s Time Problem” HERE)
Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE
