• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu said:
Where did you get the idea mechanical engineering is not science? Engineers are real scientists.
Click to expand...
Engineering and science are highly related, but are not the same thing. Some scientists are engineers and some engineers are scientists. But it is WRONG to claim that engineers are scientists.


Pahu said:
When a scientist makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. Where should I publish it?” When an engineer makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. How can I make a buck with it?”
Click to expand...
Speaking as an engineer, this is the most insulting statement I've ever heard.
Engineers typically are driven to make things work. To improve the world around them. Economics is a part of it, but hardly the sole part.

Pahu said:
Engineers are scientists who use scientific knowledge to design products (or invent procedures) that are commercially profitable. Scientists may speculate about how planets are formed, but not one of them has ever actually made a planet. On the other hand, when engineers claim they know to how to build a space probe that can reach those planets, they actually have to build it. This means that engineers tend to be brought back to reality more often than college professors.
Click to expand...
Again, you fail. What do you think engineering professors are?

Anyway, your point is nonsensical. being an Engineer doesn't prevent one from being horribly terribly wrong. Bad designs exist. Flawed calculations abound. Poor assumptions are made. In other words, there are bad engineers.


Telling me that the arguments presented were made by an ME, only makes me question the quality of the ME's engineering work. It certainly doesn't provide any weight to the arguments at hand.
 
Pahu said:
[From "Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution" by Do-While Jones http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm]
Click to expand...

This is Amazing stuff, quick question, why don't they teach what the founders of that "real scientist" website believe in schools

its not because the directors of Science Against Evolution are all well known creationists is it ?

R. David Pogge, President
Andrew S. Ritchie, Vice President
Click to expand...

I'm also trying hard to find the "non creationist parts"
Any help with that, all I can find so far is a bunch of apologetics churned out by a bunch of scared Christians crapping themselves that they aren't immortal
:D

Pahu said:
Plate tectonics violate known laws of physics. For details, go here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you are referencing a religious site for details on a scientific proven fact, surely any mainstream encyclopedia would be better, heres wiki
Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building") (Little, Fowler & Coulson 1990)[1] is a scientific theory which describes the large scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The theory builds on the older concepts of continental drift, developed during the first decades of the 20th century and was accepted by the majority of the Geoscientific community when the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
oooh look thats one you got wrong
:p
 
Last edited:
Pahu said:
Plate tectonics violate known laws of physics. For details, go here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html
Click to expand...
If you don't have nothing to offer beyond posting a link to that website, then you have nothing to offer. The point is for you to discuss your ideas and present evidence, not just to spam somebody else's ideas. We can't have a conversation with somebody who is not here.
 
Pahu said:
It is my understanding that limestone is laid down by sorting during liquefaction. We saw that happen within hours of the explosion of Mt. St. Helens.
Click to expand...
And where was this limestone created by the explosion at Mt. St. helens?

Really.
During the flood, multiple layers of strata containing different minerals, was laid down in days. For details, go to: "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown and click on "Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep."
Click to expand...

Uh huh and how did these layers become rock, in 6,000 years, hmmm?
 
Last edited:
Pahu said:
Plate tectonics conflicts with known laws of physics. For details go to "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown and click on: "Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep."
Click to expand...

Perhaps your weakest argument yet, when you understand it enough to explain it, come back.
 
Perhaps some links for Pahu to go learn some actual science would be in order? It doesn't sound like he has read the very links he is posting if he can't defend them.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Walt Brown is a mechanical engineer. He has no credentials in the fields of biology, chemistry, geology astronomy etc. His claims in these fields are full of errors. And just because he borrowed parts of journal articles from a number of scientists it does not mean that those scientists or their work support Brown's theories.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe engineers are not scientists? Engineering is applied science. Walt Brown is also knowledgeable in the other fields you mention. Do you believe he is incapable of learning anything outside his chosen field? His conclusions are based on known laws of physics, confirmed by scientists, some of whom he quotes. What are his errors in the fields you mention?
 
John Jones said:
I have a degree in chemistry, and an (now outdated) MCSE. I have been published in a peer-review journal for my work in pesticide residue analysis. I concur that Walt Brown is wrong.
Click to expand...

The scientists Brown quotes confirming his conclusions come from their published works in peer reviewed science journals.

On what do you believe Brown is wrong, and why?
 
Pahu said:
His conclusions are based on known laws of physics, confirmed by scientists, some of whom he quotes. What are his errors in the fields you mention?
Click to expand...

Some of whom he quote mines, Pahu. That's a big difference. Quote mining, in case you don't know, is the art of taking parts of a statement out of its context, to make it appear someone said something that is contrary to what they really meant. This is, of course, highly dishonest.

So his "conclusions" are based on a form of lying. Why should we listen to someone who clearly lies? If you want to know what those scientists really said, look up the quotes in their full context, and see what they are actually saying.
 
Pahu said:
The information I am sharing is based on known laws of physics, not the Bible.
Click to expand...

There is a science subforum. You should discuss your ideas there. Maybe you can even request a thread move. ;)
 
Pahu said:
What evidence do you have that he is wrong?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but most functioning brains don't work this way. You don't start out just believing what anyone says unless it is proven wrong.

The default position to take for any statement is that it is false.

It would be virtually impossible to function in day to day life otherwise.
 
Not having read the book, it is a bit difficult to comment.

But, this part, raises my eyebrow.


14. Fossils are sorted vertically to some degree. Evolutionists attribute this to macroevolution. No known mechanism will cause macroevolution, and many evidences refute macroevolution. [See pages 6–22.] Liquefaction, an understood mechanism, would tend to sort animals and plants. If liquefaction occurred, one would expect some exceptions to this sorting order, but if macroevolution happened, no exceptions to the evolutionary order should be found. Many exceptions exist. [See “Out-of-Place Fossils” on page 12.]
Click to expand...

"Liquefaction, an understood mechanism, would tend to sort animals and plants"
Arguably, but then, wouldn't the denser artifact ends up at the bottom? And the lightest, more naturally buoyant ones at the top? So; human made metallic artifact at the bottom, would and stuff at the very top? So, very different from what is actually observed...

"No known mechanism will cause macroevolution" ?
Of course, known mechanisms will. I know that it is your job as a creationist to reject these, but mutation and natural selection are known mechanisms...
Furthermore, the use of the term "macroevolution" suggests he accepts micro evolution, does dear Mr. Brown offers a reason why many microevolutionary would not add up over time into macro-evolution?

"if macroevolution happened, no exceptions to the evolutionary order should be found. Many exceptions exist."
Actually, one could conceive a few exceptions due to abnormal events...



Anyway, the real reason I was posting is that pretty thorough refutation pf Brown's hydroplate theory...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom