Science Disproves Evolution

[John Jones]

Someone needs to read Stephan Hawkin's latest Book "The Grand Design". It will become very clear to you early on that Stephan Hawkin in no way shape or form endorses the Great Flood idea (note I did not say theory as it doesn't qualify as one) or a young universe. He would probably be amused (in a dark way) that he's being used to justify creationism.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Dinwar]

Oooo ouch. Having a similar upbringing I can imagine.

Eh. It's all right. I enjoyed annoying the teachers by knowing more about science in the 6th and 7th grade than they did. And on friday nights Dad and us kids would listen to Black Sabath. My dad went to a seminary, oddly enough....

Near the end of the flood, the compression event crushed and fractured rock, producing additional electrical discharges. Hot SCW (held in the spongelike voids in the lower crust) and 222Rn (an inert gas produced in plasma channels) were forced up through these channels and fractures. As the mineral-rich water rose hours and days later, its pressure and temperature dropped, so minerals such as biotite and fluorite began forming in the channels. Wormlike myrmekite also formed as quartz and feldspars precipitated in the thin, threadlike channels “drilled” by the powerful electrical discharges and by SCW (a penetrating solvent).

Hm....I suppose we're to ignore the fact that biotite isn't generally formed via precipitation from aquious solutions (it's more commonly weathering product of feldspars), and that such electrical discharges are (as far as I know, and I'd know) completely unknown in geology, and that the lower portions of the crust are anything BUT sponge-like (groundwater volume decreases with depth), and that no "wormlike" structures are found in the majority of sedimentary rocks, and there's no evidence for the lightning (vitrification, or other high-temperature-low-pressure phases in sed rocks), and that such "penetrating solvent"s are not found in fluid inclusions in, well, ANY sedimentary rocks, and....

Before the flood, SCW dissolved granite’s more soluble components, such as quartz and feldspars,

Check out Bowen's Reaction Series. It's false (it's an over-simplified version of a phase diagram), but it's one of those useful lies we use to teach freshmen in "rocks for jocks" classes about mineral precipitation. Sure, quartz can disolve, fairly easily in some cases--but it's HARDLY the "more soluble component" of granit.

As the hydrothermal fluids rose, their pressures and temperatures dropped, so quartz and feldspars came out of solution and sometimes grew large crystals called pegmatites.

Pegmatites don't grow that way. They grow (simplified, of course) as part of the final stages of an igneous intrusion, when the amount of water reaches a certain point and the geochemistry goes crazy (not a geochemist, so I don't get it--it's all just "low sensitivity igneous facies" to me, but this is the gist of it [ETA: by "go crazy" I mean "alter from what we typically consider the 'normal' state", not "violates the laws of physics/chemistry or anything so stupid"]). There's precisely ZERO evidence for these hydrothermal channels Brown hypothesizes.

You want to argue otherwise? Okay. Go to Ruby Mountain in Colorado. Go north 2 or 3 km. There's a number of pegmatitic formations in that area--quarz and feldspar, primarily. Find evidence of such hydrothermal activity. This area is VERY well surveyed, and any such information would be of incalculable value to geology. Should be easy enough to find the literature on the geochemistry of the area (I found it in all of twenty minutes five or six years ago). Yeah, I picked somewhere I've been--but someone has to check your work.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Not in the sense of saying "I support this conclusion." The quoted scientists have made discoveries that support Brown's conclusions.

Which ones and how do those discoveries support Brown's conclusions? In your own words, please.

...You are also incorrect where you say there would only be 16000 animals on the ark. There are over 10000 species of birds, over 5000 species of mammals, millions of species of insects and 50,000ish arachnids.

Not to mention all the new species we keep discovering in the ocean, like the thermal vent tubeworms. Of course, I suppose they could have just kept going on the volcanic energy during the flood. But the point is, as you are saying, there are way too many animals to have two of each on some boat.

And if you didn't take the insects, some of them, like moths and butterflies, would drown.

Finally, Pahu, how did the koalas and kangaroos get to Australia from Turkey? How did the lemurs make it to Madagascar? What about the giant sloths - how did they get to South America? And the bison to North America?

 

[devnull]

You expect an answer Elizabeth?

 

[DC]

, how did the koalas and kangaroos get to Australia from Turkey?

When you believe in a fantasy creature that can create a whole Universe and flood the whole planet, bringing some Koalas and Kangaroos to Australia sounds like an easy task for the omnipotent

 

[DC]

just cam across a relevant sub-theory of Flood "geology" about the Dinosaurs.

 

[Craig4]

Pahu,

Why not simply change your beliefs to incorporate the new data? We can safely say the flood didn't happen at this point. We can also dispenses with a 6000 year old universe and creationism too. Why not simply drop your demonstrably incorrect ideas? It would be a lot easier than trying to jam the square peg of your beliefs into the round hole of reality.

 

[Elizabeth I]

You expect an answer Elizabeth?

Oh, hell, no. Just a few more pins in the already flat balloon.

When you believe in a fantasy creature that can create a whole Universe and flood the whole planet, bringing some Koalas and Kangaroos to Australia sounds like an easy task for the omnipotent

I know, but you know what? I can never get any of the flood-believers to say so in so many words.

 

[Ladewig]

Pahu,

Why not simply change your beliefs to incorporate the new data? We can safely say the flood didn't happen at this point. We can also dispenses with a 6000 year old universe and creationism too. Why not simply drop your demonstrably incorrect ideas? It would be a lot easier than trying to jam the square peg of your beliefs into the round hole of reality.

There are, after all, hundreds of millions of Christians who believe that Jesus Christ provided salvation from sin AND that the world is billions of years old. Think about it, Pahu, you can accept science and Christianity.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are, after all, hundreds of millions of Christians who believe that Jesus Christ provided salvation from sin AND that the world is billions of years old. Think about it, Pahu, you can accept science and Christianity.

And reeeeeeel him in.

 

[Craig4]

Seriously, this is beyond silly. It's perfectly obvious that your beliefs are wrong. I don't mean like morally wrong or anything, just incorrect. Why cling to that which is demonstrably false? What do you get out of not accepting the blatantly obvious?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Glenn R. Morton has a long history of making and repeating fallacious arguments against creationist scientists.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp

At least Morton isn't duplicitous enough to hide behind a pen name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodmorappe

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Of course, sea creatures did not need to be on the Ark. Nor did insects or amphibians. Only mammals, birds, reptiles, and humans.

Why not insects or amphibians? Don't they breathe air?

Much plant life survived the flood in a surprisingly simple way...

Which was? And what about Fungi?

Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark.

I love this lack of self-awareness on the part of Creationists. They think it's unpossible that an ape can develop bipedalism and increase it's brain size in 6 million years, but they think that 1300 species of mouse from a "mouse kind" in 4,000 years is no biggie.

For example, a pair of wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.)

Why do they stick with horsey and moo-cow taxa? Why don't they mention marsupials or reptiles or pinnipeds?

Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.

More ad hoc.

 

[Dinwar]

Why do they stick with horsey and moo-cow taxa? Why don't they mention marsupials or reptiles or pinnipeds?

Not to mention:
1) the biological species concept ("species" defined as any populations of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding organisms) is highly flawed
2) We've seen speciation (based on the biological species concept)
3) Creationists basically pulled their definition of "macroevolution" from somewhere brown and smelly

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Accepting the flood also poses a few minor questions about human nature.
After all, the good book claims that humans only dispersed from the middle east post babylon.
At this point they had the knowledge of bronze working, possessed sheep/cows/horses and at least knew how to cultivate grain.
Yet once they dispersed they forgot to take all those things with them to the america's and australia. They also only took some things to the far east.
Conversely, those evil emigrants stole all of our tomatoes, potatoes, maize, cocoa beans and most spices and put them out of reach for millennia.

Why is this never mentioned in the bible? We had things that were REALLY edible and useful, but they took em all!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Pahu was spamming TheologyWeb forums with this same garbage and cut and pasted so much copywritten material they suspended him.

Not to mention:
1) the biological species concept ("species" defined as any populations of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding organisms) is highly flawed
2) We've seen speciation (based on the biological species concept)
3) Creationists basically pulled their definition of "macroevolution" from somewhere brown and smelly

I've repeatedly posted lists of relatively well known animals that aren't of the barnyard or See-n-Say variety, asking what kind they belonged to. Not one of them has stepped up to the plate.

 

[Dinwar]

How about Moropus elatus? I've always wanted to hear a Creationist explain that one to me.

 

[Pahu]

Lets play with these numbers, why don't we.

So 16,000 animals means 8000 pairs. Lets keep it simple and on the conservative side and say Noah only had to travel on average 100 miles total to retrieve the animals. And in the interest of keeping it simple, lets say he can pick up more than one pair on each of these, on average, 100 mile journeys. Lets say he gets 16 pairs per trip. 8000 pairs at 16 pairs a trip leaves 500 trips, which at 100 miles a trip totals 50,000 miles to travel. Lets say for whatever reason he's able to make these trips at a average pace of 5 miles an hour (slightly faster than the average human gate). 50,000 miles at 5 miles an hour gives us 10,000 hours of travel time, or about a year and two months just to gather the animals.

You overlook the fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, loaded them and the people, and shut the door.

If it took on average one minute to feed the animals, it would take 5 and a half days to put food in each of the 8000 pens.

If each animal had an average daily bowel movement of 4 cubic inches (do i really need to say where i pulled this number from?), that would make 37 cubic feet of poop every day.

Yeah, this would have been better with more examples, but my head hurts, so come up with your own if you want.

Again, you overlook the fact that the flood, ark, saving some people and animals was all set in motion and guided by God. All the details you list and more are covered by His involvement from beginning to end.

 

[Pahu]

Pahu, for the sake of understanding, please define "entropy".

A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. In other words, the observed process of everything moving from a higher state to a lower state, or running down, like a wound up clock.

 

[DC]

You overlook the fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, loaded them and the people, and shut the door.



Again, you overlook the fact that the flood, ark, saving some people and animals was all set in motion and guided by God. All the details you list and more are covered by His involvement from beginning to end.

thats the cool thing about that god, he just can do about everything. Or at least he did a long time ago, today he does nothing, he became a lazy ass.
or is he creating more galaxies in case we take another deep space picture?