• 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

Giggywig said:
This is called an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

What do you have against authority? Do you prefer ignorant opinions?


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.
Click to expand...

The links are where the facts are. Why are facts a reason for ridicule?
 
Gawdzilla said:
Limestone is laid down a few inches per thousand years, tops. There are thousands of feet of it here in MISSOURI. How did that happen, Pahu?
Click to expand...

Why do you believe it took that long to be laid down?
 
Pahu said:
Why do you believe it took that long to be laid down?
Click to expand...
Chemistry, physics and geology. Oh, and some simple arithmetic.

It has already been observed that it takes a year to lay down one layer of some sedimentary deposits, and that each layer is only a fraction of an inch thick. So let's go with a simplified example in a hypothetical location. Let's say it lays down one fine deposit per year, say 10 per inch. Geological observation at that point shows thousands of feet thick of such layers - let's say 1000 feet. So that's 1000 feet at 12 inches per foot and 10 years per inch. That's a total of 120,000 years of deposits. Agreed? You understand how that works?

OK, now let's look at a real live example: Green River formation in Utah. And what do we find? Exactly that.
Each pair of layers is called a varve and represents one year. The sediments of the Green River Formation present a continuous record of six million years. The mean thickness of a varve here is 0.18 mm, with a minimum thickness of 0.014 mm and maximum of 9.8 mm.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

Now you need to explain rationally to the world how the so-called "flood creation" produced these formations. And I will emphasise the word "rationally". Away you go.
 
Last edited:
Pahu said:
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.
Click to expand...

:spam1
 
Pahu:

Your thread title is dishonest; science has done no such thing.
 
Ladewig said:
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.



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."
Click to expand...
I think what he is saying is that Walt Brown cited those scientists in those journals when stating his conclusion, not that Walt Brown was cited in them.
 
it,
Pahu said:
from those unwilling to accept facts that threaten what they want to believe.
Click to expand...

I can show you posts that I have made on this board where I have admitted I was wrong. I can find posts by other people in this thread where they have admitted they were wrong. Because I do not define myself by my beliefs, I have no problems changing my viewpoint when presented with reliable evidence.

Pahu said:
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 acquainted 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
Click to expand...

I want to make my position crystal clear. If you have evidence to disprove a widely-held, but apparently controversial theory, then you will be listened to (there will be the occasional mocker, but if you are seriously considering the evidence for and against, the majority of posters will not mock you). BUT if you are here to speak but not listen, to assert but not understand, and to pontificate but not discuss, THEN you will be mocked.
 
Robin said:
I think what he is saying is that Walt Brown cited those scientists in those journals when stating his conclusion, not that Walt Brown was cited in them.
Click to expand...

I thought it was that each of those scientists has at one time or another been quoted in at least one of those journals. I assumed that if they were quoted then it might have had absolutely nothing to do with W. Brown's theories or qualifications.

Bottom line, the original claim is so confusing that it does not provide support for the claim that W. Brown knows what he is talking about.
 
Pahu said:
What do you have against authority? Do you prefer ignorant opinions?
Click to expand...

An appeal to authority is fine so long as it's an authority due to appropriate knowledge or expertise, and not just someone with a high reputation in an unrelated subject.
 
Pahu said:
That link takes you to the home page where you can then click onto the Part II link I recommended.
Click to expand...

Which represents a huge difference between our site and many other sites on the internet. If someone says, I have a relevant link but cannot post it, the other posters at our board will ensure that your link appears in the thread.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Pahu has an alternative model of how limestone can form.

And perhaps not. But, yanno, we ought to ask.

Pahu?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom