• 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

If I were a geologist I think I would be most offended that this troll thinks he's attacking evolution with his drivel.
 
thaiboxerken said:
What's this have to do with Evolution, a theory that explains BIOLOGICAL processes?
Click to expand...

Jack by the hedge said:
If I were a geologist I think I would be most offended that this troll thinks he's attacking evolution with his drivel.
Click to expand...


It appears from reading more of the site the opening post was copied from that it is entirely incoherent and hasn't an understanding of well, any subject: for example: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html


...snip...

If a culture ignored, for any reason, a past event as cataclysmic as a global flood, major errors or misunderstandings would creep into science and society. One of the first would be the explanation for fossils. Typically, Fossil A lies below Fossil B, which lies below Fossil C, etc. If flood explanations were weak or disallowed, then evolution would provide an answer: Organism A evolved into B, which later evolved into C. Fossil layers would represent vast amounts of time. Other geologic features could then be easily fit into that time frame. With so much time available, possible explanations multiply—explanations not easily tested in less than a million years. A century after Darwin, evolutionary explanations would be given for the universe, chemical elements, heavenly bodies, earth, and life. Part I of this book shows that these ideas are false.


...snip....
Click to expand...
 
Jack by the hedge said:
If I were a geologist I think I would be most offended that this troll thinks he's attacking evolution with his drivel.
Click to expand...
Check out Walt Brown's In The Beginning, it's positively overflowing with this sort of drivel. Brown has a doctorate in mechanical engineering and he uses this to put "Walt Brown Ph.D." on the front to assure his scientifically ignorant target audience that he's super smart and knows what he's talking about.
 
This appears to be one of the truest examples of fractal wrongness we've ever been blessed with. Thanks for the laugh, Mr. Drive-by!
 
I've seen one of those science-y movie clips about 'snowball earth' where the entire planet was covered with frozen water. So I believe it. Because, you know, those things are vetted and checked.

It's really pretty simple though. If you put a rock (land) in water (flood) it sinks. The water covers it up. I've seen this myself.
 
Pahu, are you fulfilling the requirements of a homework assignment with this post? If so, you have not met the spirit of the assignment because you haven't engaged us with any substantive content. Your OP will not be enough to satisfy the professor dude teaching you about the Bible.

You might as well bite the bullet and dive in head first.
 
As always, the only value in such an OP is that the responses may help clarify the errors for onlookers. To that extent, I think deleting most of the OP is counter productive in this case, though I see that it violates the MA .
 
Jack by the hedge said:
If I were a geologist I think I would be most offended that this troll thinks he's attacking evolution with his drivel.
Click to expand...

Just to play devil's advocate. In the mind of the fundamentalist, showing the Flood leads to showing a 6000 year old Earth which leads to an impossible situation for Darwinists - all scientists agree that evolution producing different Families, Orders, and Classes is impossible in 6000 years.

Unfortunately, our OPer has not proved the Flood so the counterclaim is stillborn.
 
Ladewig said:
Just to play devil's advocate. In the mind of the fundamentalist, showing the Flood leads to showing a 6000 year old Earth which leads to an impossible situation for Darwinists - all scientists agree that evolution producing different Families, Orders, and Classes is impossible in 6000 years.

Unfortunately, our OPer has not proved the Flood so the counterclaim is stillborn.
Click to expand...

I hope that just a small amount of logical thinking will seep into the OP's brain by sticking around and reading his thread. One can only hope though.
 
I haz no maffs, so help, please.

Water to the depth to cover Mt. Everest, over the whole planet (as water seeks it own level) would be how many cubic miles of water? And how much would it weigh?
 
To a young earth creationist, anything in science that contradicts the book of Genesis is "evolution".

And anything incorrect or ambiguous in science proves the Bible is true from cover to cover.
 
Gawdzilla said:
I haz no maffs, so help, please.

Water to the depth to cover Mt. Everest, over the whole planet (as water seeks it own level) would be how many cubic miles of water? And how much would it weigh?
Click to expand...

A bunch. Any more questions?:D
Tough crowd.
 
Ladewig said:
Just to play devil's advocate. In the mind of the fundamentalist, showing the Flood leads to showing a 6000 year old Earth which leads to an impossible situation for Darwinists
Click to expand...

Oh, for sure. But it must rankle with the geologists when folk of his ilk handwave away their entire field of study and replace it with made-up gibberish merely as a staging post in their would-be attack on evolution.

I just wonder why it is that fundies get all boiled up over evolution specifically, and pretty well seem to ignore geology. After all, the geologists can produce a whole lot more physical evidence to blow a young earth out of the water. There are an awful lot more rocks than fossils.
 
Oh trust me, it does! :mad: And I'm the calm one in my marriage--I'm married to a physicist/geologist. Ever see what happens when a Creationist tries to explain entropy to someone who actually knows what they're talking about? (on a side note, there are standing orders on my wife's side of the family to not let me, my wife, and certain family members unsupervised for more than a few minutes--not after the near fist-fight a few years ago [and it wasn't us that were about to throw the punches :D ])

A few facts that this guy has ignored:

1) Mafic oceanic crust is more dense than felsic continental crust. Think of marshmellows and grahm crackers floating in chocolate fondue (an actual demonstration my wife used to explain this process)--it doesn't matter how much you push on the marshmellow, it'll always bob to the top. And it'd take a LOT to push the continents down enough to raise the seas to the point where they'll flood the continents. I'm fairly certain that the force it'd take would be enough to destroy the rock you're trying to push down.

2) Mountains aren't surficial features. They extend below the surface at least as much as they extend above it. So you're trying to move a truly enormous volume of rock.

3) While the mantle is plastic, it's still a solid (mostly). So you're trying to push granite through garnite, olivine, etc.

4) STRATIGRAPHERS KNOW WHAT FLOOD DEPOSITS LOOK LIKE. Sorry for the caps, but this is the single most irritating part of the whole Flood myth to me. We've seen huge floods. We've got the stratigraphy of what happens when entire seas flood at a rapid rate. And there's absolutely NOTHING in the stratigraphic record that even comes close to a world-wide flood deposit. We've got individual flood deposits all over the world, but those are anual events on the scale that we can see today, or basin-wide events that may cover a few hundred miles--certainly not a global event. So even if these obviously fictional events COULD occur we know that they DIDN'T occur, because there's simply no evidence of it.

5) The fossil record. Just....all of it. He completely ignored paleontology. Entirely.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
....
I just wonder why it is that fundies get all boiled up over evolution specifically,....
Click to expand...
I do believe it is because the entire premise of Jesus depends on the Biblical Creation story where the original sin and therefore the whole purpose of the illogical Jesus story begins.
 
I Am The Scum said:
If I were to take a wooden sphere, about the size of a basketball, I could coat it with a layer of latex paint. The paint (liquid) has much less volume than the ball (land), and yet it still manages to coat it. So your appeal to some sort of vague possibility doesn't really make any sense. Did you spend a whole lot of time thinking about this?
Click to expand...

It boils down to "There's enough water to cover all the mountains if they weren't actually mountains". It's fairly obvious that if the Earth were perfectly smooth then it would be entirely under water. (Rocks sink). It's simply replacing one insuperable question ("Where did all the water come from?") with a different one ("Where did all the mountains go?").
 
How did Noah feed the Nylon eating bacteria?

btw: PhenomFangX, is that you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom