Science Disproves Evolution

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's fairly obvious that if the Earth were perfectly smooth then it would be entirely under water. (Rocks sink).

Rocks sink if there is nothing under them. The only thing under the Himalayas is the planet.

But, to follow this absurd thought just a bit farther, where did the mountains come from after the flood? Popped up like corks did they?

 

[Cainkane1]

If you go to youtube and watch a creationist video one thing you'll notice is as often as not they have the comments turned off or comments subject to approval or whatever. Creationists don't want to hear the truth.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you go to youtube and watch a creationist video one thing you'll notice is as often as not they have the comments turned off or comments subject to approval or whatever. Creationists don't want to hear the truth.

One-way communication.

God/me/you sinners.

Arrogant at minimum.

 

[Dinwar]

Rocks sink if there is nothing under them. The only thing under the Himalayas is the planet.

I think what's being said is that if you had a sphere of rock that's more or less perfectly smooth, and you put the amount of water the Earth currently has onto that sphere, you'd end up with a water-covered sphere.

Doesn't account for how mountains arose, though, you're right. Either the mountain that crashed the Arc lept up a few million times faster than any mountain range in history (and all the OTHER ones somehow were depressed into the mantle), or only that one mountain existed anywhere on Earth during the flood (in which case all the other mountains shot up a few million times faster than any mountain range in history).

I don't get the internal logical inconsistencies. I mean yeah, ignoring geology agravates me, but these people ignore THEMSELVES. Or at least don't/won't/can't extend their logic past the specific words they use to describe their ideas.

 

[Delvo]

It's not just smaller mountains that would be needed. The continents would all need to be lowered as well, and the sea floors raised. Basically, the entire surface of the earth would need to be smoothed out.

the only way there would be enough water would be to render mountains into molehills. But then the water would be covering molehills, not mountains.

And then the world being flooded would not be something new that happened in a temporary catastrophe; it would be the way it always was and had always been... unless the world's surface had previously been un-smooth like it is now, then gotten smoothed out, then gotten de-smoothed again. But then, there's no need for water to come from the sky.

 

[DC]

so either the bible lied about the global flood or lied about mountains.

And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep

 

[Giggywig]

so either the bible lied about the global flood or lied about mountains.

Maybe "high" meant something different back then. I mean, if the whole world is flattened out to what this guy thinks then a pretty modest mound would seem high.

 

[DC]

Maybe "high" meant something different back then. I mean, if the whole world is flattened out to what this guy thinks then a pretty modest mound would seem high.

i am pretty sure back then the mountains were high and also the inventors of god were high.

 

[Beerina]

What's this have to do with Evolution, a theory that explains BIOLOGICAL processes?

Don't you think it's rather silly of God to create a whole planet, then let it be populated, evolutionarily, with animals, then people, and then wipe it all out with a flood, risking it all on a handful of shlubs?

 

[Beerina]

From: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences15.html

I have had to substantially edit your post since it was simply a copy taken from the above link, this was a breach of your Membership Agreement. Please re-read your Membership Agreement and this explanatory note: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5669795#post5669795

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Actually, your Bible describes the Earth as a hole hogged out in the waters of chaos ("Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.")

Ya, those waters. They existed. God floated over them. This was even before God said, "Let there be light!"


So God hogs out a hole in these waters. The lower half is land, holding back the waters below, and the upper half, a bowl-shaped "firm"-ament, holding back the waters above.


For the flood, God "opened up" openings in the vault above, and "broke up the fonts" as in fountain, below. Thus the waters that surround us were free to deluge us.



When you say there's 10x the surface water in underground water, you're using a cosmology incompatible with the Bible. There's a lot more than 10x down there. And up there.

 

[Pahu]

Well I'm convinced. Just two questions, how long did it take for all the mountains to rise? And what did this have to do with evolution?

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.

 

[Pahu]

Either way, unless Pahu can demonstrate that hes actually Dr. Walt Brown its quite clear that he has stolen his post from here

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.

 

[Ladewig]

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.

I think you mean here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Please correct me if this is not the link you intended.


Pahu, W. Brown has made a great number of scientific errors in creating his theory. If you are interested in learning the truth, we can talk to you about each one of those errors and why it does not support the global flood hypothesis. If, however, you are not interested in a discussion and merely want to spam our forum with links to your favorite websites, then prepared to be mocked for the spam troll that you might be. The choice is yours - choose wisely.

 

[Pahu]

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.

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

 

[Pahu]

Maybe "high" meant something different back then. I mean, if the whole world is flattened out to what this guy thinks then a pretty modest mound would seem high.

You have a point. A few miles from where I live there is something called Bok Tower, which is built on a hill 298 feet above sea level. It is the highest point in Florida. I get nose bleed every time I go up there (just kidding).

 

[Ladewig]

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.

My first question is what are the areas of expertise for all these scientists. A biologist trying to confirm W. Brown's interpretation of the laws of physics is hardly inspiring.

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

Again, a list of journals by itself is virtually worthless. Are you saying that all the scientists that were quoted in these peer-reviewed articles were talking about W. Brown's Flood theories? If not, then my response is: so what?

ETA: I just read the small print. These scientists "were quoted in the following science journals." Yeah, that's meaningless. When claiming how prestigious Dr. XYZ is because he was quoted in a journal, one has to remember the quote could have been from someone saying "when Dr. XYZ says, 'here is my scientific proof that mountains have risen to their current heights in the past 4000 years,' it is obvious that he hasn't the least understanding of science."

 

[Giggywig]

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.

I would suggest you head over to humor and burn off a few posts so that you can post links and actually answer questions with relevant quotations.

 

[Pahu]

I think you mean here: [link removed so I can answer]
Please correct me if this is not the link you intended.


Pahu, W. Brown has made a great number of scientific errors in creating his theory. If you are interested in learning the truth, we can talk to you about each one of those errors and why it does not support the global flood hypothesis. If, however, you are not interested in a discussion and merely want to spam our forum with links to your favorite websites, then prepared to be mocked for the spam troll that you might be. The choice is yours - choose wisely.

That link takes you to the home page where you can then click onto the Part II link I recommended.

Thanks for your opinions. I disagree, not because I am a scientist, but because Walt Brown is and he bases his conclusions on known laws of physics, confirmed by other scientists, some of whom he quotes.

I have shared the facts of science that disprove evolution on several websites, as some of my respondents have pointed out, and I am well aquatinted with the kind of mockery you predict, along with denial, name calling, cursing, foul language, false accusations, etc., which they consider to be refutation. That just goes with the territory, and I am used to it, from those unwilling to accept facts that threaten what they want to believe.

 

[Giggywig]

Thanks for your opinions. I disagree, not because I am a scientist, but because Walt Brown is and he bases his conclusions on known laws of physics, confirmed by other scientists, some of whom he quotes.

This is called an appeal to authority.

I have shared the facts of science that disprove evolution on several websites, as some of my respondents have pointed out, and I am well aquatinted with the kind of mockery you predict, along with denial, name calling, cursing, foul language, false accusations, etc., which they consider to be refutation. That just goes with the territory, and I am used to it, from those unwilling to accept facts that threaten what they want to believe.

The thing is, if you remain unwilling to engage in any meaningful discourse beyond "go read my link" there is nothing to do but ridicule you.

 

[Pahu]

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