It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.
originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: MysterX
Even IF Sanskrit was unchanging, which it isnt, that would only be 4000 years unchanging. Not 200,000. I dont even think homo sapiens existed 200,000 yrs ago, but I could be wrong.
originally posted by: Verum1quaere
"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years.
How often do supernovae pop off in our galaxy? Using the European Space Agency's Integral satellite, an international team estimates that one of the Milky Way's massive stars explodes about every 50 years on average. This estimate agrees rather well with previous studies, but the earlier work relied on more indirect methods. - See more at: www.skyandtelescope.com...
originally posted by: Verum1quaereThe gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."
YECs claim that not as many SNRs are observed as would be expected in an old universe. Davies uses a value of one million years for the lower end of the typical visible lifetime of a SNR and assumes that all SNRs last this long. He gets this figure from Ilovaisky & Lequeux (1972b). However, on reading the original paper it is noticeable that this value is actually for the theoretical lifetime of the remnant, not the observable lifetime of the remnant. Why is there a difference? Quite simply, SNRs are actually hard to detect. Factors that seriously hinder our ability to detect SNRs (and which Davies almost completely ignores) are:
•SNRs can only be observed in a small proportion of our Galaxy - our view of most of the Galaxy is blocked by large amounts of dust and interstellar matter. Only some younger, radio emitting SNRs would be visible through this dust (Sramek et al. 1992; Gray 1994). This largely explains why there has been no observed Galactic supernovae in the last 300 or so years (Clark et al. 1981; Dawson & Johnson 1994; Hatano et al. 1997), even though we would have expected perhaps 5-10 to have occurred (McKee 2000).
•It is also difficult to identify much older remnants as they either have faded beyond our ability to detect them (they may have merged with the ISM), they have merged with other remnants, or they have faded into the general background "noise" (Nousek et al. 1981; Matthews et al. 1998; Braun et al. 1989; Landecker et al. 1990; Normandeau et al. 2000). Younger SNRs, or SNRs which are still interacting with gas expelled by their progenitors are much more likely to be detected (Jones et al. 1998; Slavin & Cox 1992). Shull et al. (1989) carried out a statistical analysis of SNRs, and found that with isolated SNRs, less than 1% last for longer than 100,000 years, and only 20% are still intact after 50,000 years.
•The make-up of the local ISM that the supernova occurs in is critical to the observability of the resulting SNR (Dohm-Palmer & Jones 1996). SNRs in regions where the density of the ISM is low (Henning & Wendker 1975; Gaensler & Johnson 1995b) or there is little ionised gas present (Heiles et al. 1980) may not be readily visible. Indeed, it may be the case that as few as 15-20% of supernova events cause observable SNRs (Clark & Stephenson 1977; Clark 1979; Kafatos et al. 1980).
•Some young SNRs can be intrinsically faint at radio wavelengths and thus unusually difficult to detect (Gray 1994; Duncan & Green 2000).
•SNRs are obscured by and can be indistinguishable from other interstellar emission nebulae, and their spectra can be similar to powerful distant radio galaxies and quasars (White & Becker 1990; Inglis & Kitchin 1990; Caswell & Stewart 1991, 1992; Williams et al. 2000). In other words, there is a lot of clutter out there, and finding SNRs is often a tricky and difficult task. Indeed, only a minority of SNRs are visible at optical wavelengths (Long et al. 1990).
•The limits of the equipment used to detect SNRs (usually radio telescopes) impinge upon our ability to observe supernova remnants (Green 1991; Kassim 1992; Frail et al. 1994). As this gets better in the future, the numbers of SNRs detected will rise. This can be illustrated by the way astronomers have detected more and more SNRs in our own galaxy over the last few decades - in 1984, there were only 174 Galactic SNRs known, and back in 1971, only 113 (Downes 1971).
•Not all the sky has been surveyed to the same degree - there are still large areas of the sky (mainly in the southern celestial hemisphere) waiting to be surveyed with more powerful instruments (Case & Bhattacharya 1998).
As a result, Davies vastly overestimates the actual number of observable SNRs. Berkhuijsen (1984) suggested that there might be 1,000 to 10,000 SNRs in our Galaxy (depending on the lifetime of SNRs), but this is the only estimate I'm aware of that provides a figure anywhere near Davies', but even then, Berkhuijsen's estimate is for the total number of SNRs, and not for the observable SNRs.