• 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 joins the legions of woo woo believers who have tried to convince us that the eminent scientists are wrong. Hopefully after this experience he or she will learn the folly of their ways.

I do however say this with compassion. To see your fantasy world taken down by so many knowledgeable people must be a traumatic experience.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, there's also chemosynthetic and oolitic limestones, which are not composed of skeletal remains.

These still deposit at the rate of a few centimeteres per year.

As to why I believe it, because I've seen the evidence. I suggest Bogg's Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (I use the third edition) as a very good introduction to the subject.

The links are where the facts are. Why are facts a reason for ridicule?
Click to expand...
Because I have yet to see a "fact" supporting Creationism that was worth anything BUT ridicule. They're internally inconsistent, changing whenever Creationism demands they do so, and they contradict everything known about geology. I'll admit I'm wrong if someone can show that these do not do those things, but I don't see that as likely. If you actually had such data you'd present it at GSA, rather than JREF.
 
This is nothing. It's just Walt Brown's Hydroplate idea. I won't call it a theory as there are no facts for which it provides a model to explain (as opposed to the Theory of Gravity or Evolution). This nonsense was falsified years ago and is considered an embarrassment even among creationists.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, this unfortunately is a tangent of current Christianity, and as far as I'm concerned "muddies the water" (pun intended) of the Gospel. Bah!
 
Intelligent Design is one thing....but the Flood Story???

give me a break. its just a fairy tale, meant for kiddies at bed time.
 
Pahu said:
What you refer to as drivel are conclusions by a scientist (Walt Brown) based on known laws of physics confirmed by other scientists, such as:


Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Click to expand...

I was going to post a list of all of the scientists who believe that evolution is the most probable explanation, but I couldn't find a list of every biologist on planet earth.
 
Thunder said:
yeah, but at least it accepts SOME science. some Intelligent Designers even accept Evolution...only they believe "God" is the driving force behind all the mutations, not randomness.
Click to expand...
Both the Flood and Intelligent Design resort to "Goddidit" as the explanation, so I don't see the difference.
 
Pahu, if you are still here. It is hard to wrap your mind around evolution once you have been indoctrinated with Creationism. I used to be in the same boat as you. I actually thought that Duane Gish was a great scientist at one point. However, Walt Brown? He has a degree in Mechanical Engineering. He should stick to building engines, not explaining how geochemistry works.

It's easy to attach yourself to a few so-called experts or doctors that claim they have the right answer. However, how thoroughly have they tested their claims? If their claims are valid, then the main scientific world should be able to back the claim. The way I see it, Creations Scientists seem to be looking for an answer that will fit their theories before it can be proven wrong by other reliable scientists. Real scientists are expecting their theories to be tested and possibly be proven wrong. The areas that are proven wrong are usually picked apart and re-worked by the scientific community until the theory either passes or fails.
 
vitamin said:
I was going to post a list of all of the scientists who believe that evolution is the most probable explanation, but I couldn't find a list of every biologist on planet earth.
Click to expand...

:)May violate the JREF rules too.
I had not heard of Walt Brown, but he's been around for a while according to the Wiki article. He has a PhD in mech engineering from MIT! Went to West Point. I have an image in my mind of a very strange but smart old dude (83) who just couldn't get past his childhood religious indoctrination. We've all known a few.
 
Pahu said:
Shells on Mountains


Every major mountain range on earth contains fossilized sea life—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “shells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries (a).

An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote (b), under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted hundreds of years; besides, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains. Others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent sea bottoms (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained.
Edited by Tricky: 
Do not cut and paste large amounts of material from other sites. Do not post this material without providing a reference. Even members who cannot yet post links can provide references. In this case, here is one link:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.atheism/2008-03/msg00026.html
Click to expand...

Ever heard of plate tectonics? land masses move. Mountain ranges are produced either along plate subduction zones or by volcanic activity.
 
Pahu said:
What do you have against authority? Do you prefer ignorant opinions?
Click to expand...
The issue isn't Authority vs. ignorance.
the issue is authority is used as an avoidance in discussing the argument at hand.
There have been rather cogent counterarguments made against the argument made in the OP. At this point in the conversation, you are required to explain what those counterarguments are wrong or admit they invalidate the OP. If all you can say is, "Well these smart people say it's true so it must be true", that isn't very strong evidence.


Pahu said:
The links are where the facts are. Why are facts a reason for ridicule?
Click to expand...
Simply claiming they are "facts' Doesn't make it so. The veracity of your links have been challenged. You can either defend those arguments or admit they are false, or simply state that you are not capable of defending them. all of those responses would be acceptable and understandable. What isn't is acceptable is restating unsubstantiated claims such as "these links are facts".
 
Pahu said:
I am not allowed to include the link for this quote or the information I shared, most of which was snipped by someone who apparently does not want you to know the whole truth.
Click to expand...
I think it's good for our discussion that you understand the reason for the policies on this forum and not simply insinuate moderators are attempting to silence you.

While the site you linked to may have a blanket allowance of such reproduction, many other websites don't. As a means of preventing copyright infringement, this site will remove text when it was clearly lifted without reference. Remember, your original post did not link to the source. It isn't the Forum's responsibility to confirm copyright.

Further, The edit done by the moderator added the link to the source material. If there was some nefarious attempt at hiding "the whole truth", why would they provide the link?
 
Last edited:
Pahu said:
I am not allowed to include the link for this quote or the information I shared, most of which was snipped by someone who apparently does not want you to know the whole truth.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy Theory section is ------------------------>

poor...poor suffering servants for Christ. :p:p:p
 
Pahu said:
What you refer to as drivel are conclusions by a scientist (Walt Brown) based on known laws of physics confirmed by other scientists, such as:

[snipped]
Click to expand...

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.
 
I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering (Aerospace Concentration).

I say Walt Brown is wrong.

I refer you to the list of "Steves" mentioned earlier in this thread to see how many people agree with me.


According to the standards of logic you are employing, you should now be like the cat with toast (buttered side up) taped to its back.
Stuck in limbo, trying to decide which way up to land.
 
X said:
I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering (Aerospace Concentration).

I say Walt Brown is wrong.

I refer you to the list of "Steves" mentioned earlier in this thread to see how many people agree with me.


According to the standards of logic you are employing, you should now be like the cat with toast (buttered side up) taped to its back.
Stuck in limbo, trying to decide which way up to land.
Click to expand...

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.

Recursive Appeals to Authority are the most fun. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom