• 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:
The information I provided contained links I am unable to post. If you are interested, Google Walt Brown's "In the Beginning", then click on "Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep." You will find answers to your questions there.
Click to expand...

Ladewig said:
I think you mean here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Click to expand...

I have been reading your link and have discovered some errors. While discussing Carbon-14, W. Brown does correctly identify some problems with radio-carbon dating, but ignores the fact that these problems have since been accounted for. He is using grossly outdated information and thus has drawn very incorrect conclusions about the accuracy and usefulness of radio-carbon dating. There is overwhelming evidence that the dates scientists use here in the 21st century are correct.

Furthermore, W. Brown's claims about dendrochronology are simply false. He asserts that scientists do not understand that a tree may produce two rings or no ring at all in a given year. Botanists do understand the concept and have correctly accounted for it when producing continuous timelines going back over 7000 years. For more information why W. Brown's claim is incorrect, please see this web page.

I thought it appropriate to add actual evidence to a thread allegedly devoted to evidence. The scientific evidence available today, Pahu, does not lead where you think it leads.
 
Pahu said:
Why do you think it was stolen? Here is his quote: “Any portion of this book may be reproduced for teaching or classroom use. 
For all other uses, simply reference this book and Walt Brown as your source.

“There is no charge for reading or printing any or all portions of it.”

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.

P.S. I had to remove your link to give you this answer.
Click to expand...

Here you go check this out, it's been around for a while and most of it makes sense, especially the age of the ocean bottom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
 
AcesHigh said:
3 - some people use the rising sea level theories to explain Atlantis also. Its a good probability in fact, that the Atlantis myth HAS some truth in the background, and the deglaciation rising sea levels would explain it really well. A society as advanced as Ur, in Iraq, would look to be ULTRA advanced to other tribes, 10 thousand years ago, creating an oral myth passed down by generations.
Click to expand...

Thera/Knossoss go boom!
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
You should put a smiley in your posts or people might think you are serious when you say things like that.
Click to expand...

While the actual amount of added material depends on which study you look at, an estimated 10 to the 8th power kilograms of in-falling matter accumulates every day. That seemingly large amount, however, IS insignificant compared to the Earth's total mass of almost 10 to the 25th power kilograms.
Click to expand...

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae75.cfm

The increase now isn't as much as in the beginning of our solar system but it does get added to, at about 300,000 pounds per day.

If you believe that the earth was mostly covered by a shallow sea in the past then that other link makes some sense and they make some pretty good points.
 
John Jones said:
How can anyone argue against such Appeals To Authority?
Click to expand...
Appeal to Authority is not an error of logic. Appeal to false authority is a logical fallacy. But having a degree in paleobiology makes a reference a very credible reference. It doesn't make them right, but it is a much better appeal to authority than one to an engineer.
 
Tricky said:
Appeal to Authority is not an error of logic. Appeal to false authority is a logical fallacy. But having a degree in paleobiology makes a reference a very credible reference. It doesn't make them right, but it is a much better appeal to authority than one to an engineer.
Click to expand...

I thought the fallacy was that we were supposed to believe him/her/it BECAUSE they are an "authority", rather than on what they're actually saying. I'm an "authority" on WWII, according the National Archives and the Smithsonian, among others, but I would certainly hope you don't take my statements as "gospel" unless I provide means to independently verify them.
 
Tricky said:
Appeal to Authority is not an error of logic. Appeal to false authority is a logical fallacy. But having a degree in paleobiology makes a reference a very credible reference. It doesn't make them right, but it is a much better appeal to authority than one to an engineer.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with that, but the term "Appeal to False Authority" is not commonly seen.


I understand the concept. For example, citing Jimmy Carter as evidence that UFOs from outer space because PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter saw one once.
 
Walter Brown and the Age of the Earth

Pahu said:
What you refer to as drivel are conclusions by a scientist (Walt Brown) based on known laws of physics ...
Click to expand...
Brown is an engineer, not a scientist. I hope he is more competent as an engineer than he is a scientist. My experience is that he has been a complete failure in his "scientist" disguise. See my short article On Walter Brown and Plate Tectonics (1997). It's 13 years old now, but still quite applicable I think. Brown uses rock properties from his engineer's handbook to guess how rocks should behave under extreme conditions of temperature and pressure. Using the handbook might be a good idea when building things on the surface of the Earth, as engineers commonly do, but it is a really stupid thing for a "scientist" to do, when it is well known that rocks behave remarkably differently under extreme conditions. I also refer to Brown's poor understanding of plate tectonics in another equally old piece, On Creationism and Plate Tectonics.

Brown also screwed up remarkably on his assessment of the recession of the moon from Earth. Like other creationists, he uses a simplified formula that underestimates the age of the Earth-moon system by ignoring the effects of tidal dissipation; see my article The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System (1999, 2000) for details.

It has been 10 years and more since I wrote my critiques of Brown & other creationists, but they are still valid. Creationists seem to love really stupid ideas and never let go of them, even as their level of stupidity becomes increasingly evident. Walter Brown is incompetent as a "scientist", and his critique of the age of the Earth is just plain stupid.
 
Lucian said:
Well, okay, if that's the approach you want to take, here is a partial list of scientists who believe the evidence strongly supports evolution. And that's just the ones named "Steve."
Click to expand...

The NCSE, who compiles the list of Steves, estimates that among scientists approximately 1% are Steves. Your list, of some 88 scientists, includes just one Steve, which is about right with the NCSE's statistics. Interestingly, that name is Steven Hawking, who is also on the NCSE's list.

I've read considerably of Stephen Hawking, Bryan Sykes, Carl Sagan, Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Marcus Chown, Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Robert V. Gentry. Some, like Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, have odd theses that are questionable, but none-the-less scientific. Gentry is a died-in-the-wool creationist, who happened to snag a government contract once. None beside Gentry have ever uttered a word that would lead me to believe that they support a universal flood theory. I can only guess they were quote mined.
 
Tricky said:
Appeal to Authority is not an error of logic. Appeal to false authority is a logical fallacy. But having a degree in paleobiology makes a reference a very credible reference. It doesn't make them right, but it is a much better appeal to authority than one to an engineer.
Click to expand...

To clarify, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when it is argued that a statement is correct because the source is regarded as authoritative. Citing the credentials of one's source can help us weigh our decision to accept the assertion in the absence of further evidence, but ultimately, either an assertion is correct or it is not.

Here is the general structure of a fallacious appeal to authority:

1. Source A says that x is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, x is true.

With that said, arguments from authority are essential in situations of informal logic. Most people lack expertise in numerous fields, so we tend to rely on the judgments of experts in those fields. There is no fallacy in the proposition that an assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy comes about when one claims, or implies, that the cited authority is incapable of error in the subject under review, and is therefore immune to criticism.
 
Here's a post from a previous age-of-the-Earth thread (they do pop up with alarming regularity)


skeptical said:
You posers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis :)

For Avalon, there are literally mountains of evidence for an ancient earth, but I will give just 1 that is for me extremely convincing.

The hawaiian island chain extends for nearly 5000 miles from Kilauea to Suiko near Japan. (not all are visible above water). We can tell that all of these islands were formed from the same volcanic hotspot that is still actively making new islands based on a backwards extrapolation of the movement rates of the Pacific plate. Also, because all the islands were formed by volcanoes, this allows us to perform accurate K/Ar Radiometric dating of all of the islands in the chain.

Since we know accurately what the rate of drift of the Pacific plate is, we can plot the location of each island in the chain against the K/Ar radiometric dating and see if they agree and to what extent. I have done such a plot, it is shown below.

Since the date of the K/Ar agrees nearly perfectly with the expected age of each island based on the known drift rate of the Pacific plate, to me this is incredibly strong evidence of a minimum age of the earth of about 65 Million years. (please note that there are small error bars for both the dating and the drift rate, but the expected age based on the drift rate agrees very closely with the K/Ar dating and all fall within the error rates)

I can provide you the spreadsheet I used to create this graph and the source references to the K/Ar dating and the list of islands/atolls that are part of the chain if you so desire.

[qimg]http://i50.tinypic.com/bhlnyr.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Anyway, just some more evidence against the claim of a 7,000 year old Earth.
 
AcesHigh said:
there are two main histories to explain the myth of the global flood:

1 - pre-historic/ancient civilizations finding fossils of marine life on the top of mountains. We know NOW that, because of plate tectonics, somethings that nowadays are mountains, were once the bottom of sea floors. Back then, without such explanation, the most "obvious" thing to explain such findings would be that those mountains were once covered by water. And if they were covered by water, that means water was that height ALL around the world (not really all around, because I dont think they knew the world was a globe back in 2000 BC.

2 - rising sea levels after the last ice age. Humans LOVE their coastal cities. Not nice when in a relatively short period, the sea rises 50 meters and floods entire pre-historic civilizations/communities.

3 - some people use the rising sea level theories to explain Atlantis also. Its a good probability in fact, that the Atlantis myth HAS some truth in the background, and the deglaciation rising sea levels would explain it really well. A society as advanced as Ur, in Iraq, would look to be ULTRA advanced to other tribes, 10 thousand years ago, creating an oral myth passed down by generations.
Click to expand...

All of these are erroneous, the history of the Global flood myth is well understood. It never happened
 
Last edited:
Marduk said:
All of these are erroneous, the history of the Global flood myth is well understood. It never happened
Click to expand...

no kidding :rolleyes:

the GLOBAL flood never happened. But the MYTH most probably has origins in a real event (or series of events), obviously, a NATURAL event, with no intervention from any god/gods.

just like Troy. The war of Troy as depicted in Greek Mythology most probably never happened. But Troy existed, and was razed many times
 
Last edited:
Rincewind said:
About 70 million years ago, The Indo-Australian plate collided with the Eurasian Plate.

You may ask, why is this interesting? Well, it’s because sitting on top of the plate was/is India -- maybe with a few French Fries, and the whole mass was heading north.

What started happening then is that as the Indo-Australian Plate moved north - it’s still moving at about 67 mm per year - it’s forcing the other plate upwards.

So - the Himalayas (you know, the highest mountains on the Earth?) were created, and have been rising slowly (about 5mm per year presently) ever since.

As there was sea between India and Eurasia originally, that’s how shells, etc can be found throughout the Himalayas.

By the way - it took me about 10 minutes to find this in Wikipedia. I hope I’ve not summarised it too much! :)
Click to expand...

Nope, that's good.
 
AcesHigh said:
no kidding :rolleyes:

the GLOBAL flood never happened. But the MYTH most probably has origins in a real event (or series of events), obviously, a NATURAL event, with no intervention from any god/gods.

just like Troy. The war of Troy as depicted in Greek Mythology most probably never happened. But Troy existed, and was razed many times
Click to expand...

Just like Troy the global flood myth evolved as a myth from a smaller event, a river flood, but it evolved in words only, you don't need to look to the world around to explain a myth which originally was described as flooding a river in mesopotamia in its first telling and then the same words used again to describe a larger flood in mesopotamia. It wasn't until the story had changed several times over a 1500 year period before the Hebrews used it as a vehicle for their God that anyone ever claimed it was a global flood. So looking for a global flood or any smaller flood to explain it anywhere outside of mesopotamia is erroneous as I said.

Your post that I objected to began "there are two main histories" to explain the global flood, which was then followed with your own spurious claims
1. It wasn't until the modern era that people realiased there were sea shells on mountains
2. the ice age took thousands of years to end and the resulting flood wouldn't have overun an anthill
3. Atlantis never existed, it was created as a fiction by plato to explain "an ideal" society.

we had a recent thread on the biblical flood myth
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187077
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom