Science Disproves Evolution

[Marduk]

When someone asks a question, I assume they want the best answer I can come up with, so I refer them to those who can answer their question rather than giving them my ignorant opinion. What is wrong with that?

Heres whats wrong with that
heres some truth about Walt Brown

In Brown's In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood he suggests evidence against evolution and for creation science and flood geology (including hydroplates). It is divided into three sections, the first of which explores discoveries made by scientists that Brown says do not fit the theory of evolution.[5] The second section outlines various alternate explanations to geological and astronomical subjects such as the mid-oceanic ridge and comets, which Brown asserts modern science cannot explain. The final section presents a variety of other questions encountered in the creation-evolution controversy.

In 1989, the Creation/Evolution journal of the National Center for Science Education published a critique of Brown's theory. Jim Lippard, graduate student of philosophy begins with a criticism focusing primarily on fossil evidence of human evolution.[6] Brown addressed several of Lippard's points in his response,[7] and three further articles were printed: Lippard,[8] Brown,[9] and ending with Lippard, where he asserts that Brown made serious errors, including using "mistaken claims about what others have written."[10] The series of articles does not discuss Brown's Hydroplate Theory, apart from Brown's claim that Lippard "dismisses or ignores the bulk of the book and specifically addresses only a very small fraction of its substance."[9]

Philosopher Robert T. Pennock describes Brown's position as being typical, other than the unique feature of his hydroplates hypothesis, of young-earth creationists in desiring to explain all major terrestrial features in terms of a catastrophic Biblical flood.[11]

TalkOrigins reports that Walt Brown has had contentious relations with other creationist organizations.[12][13] Answers in Genesis has a standing offer to Brown to publish some of his material in their journals[14] but Brown has declined.[13] The old earth creationist organization Answers in Creation has published material rebutting Brown's hydroplate theory.[15] The Christian American Scientific Affiliation website features a debunking of Brown's video "God's Power and Scriptures Authority" by Steven H. Schimmrich of Kutztown University.[16]

Brown also has repeatedly claimed that no "evolutionist" will engage in a written debate with him,[17] but has been accused of discouraging or avoiding such debates.[13][18][19] An abortive attempt at such a debate was held in 1989 and 1990 in the pages of Creation/Evolution, the National Center for Science Education journal, before Brown refused to continue.[10] Joe Meert of Gondwana Research, a journal promoting research related to the origin and evolution of continents, had a supposed signed contract for such a debate with Walter Brown in 2000. It has been said Brown disputed the terms of the signed contract and it did not take place.[20] Brown has mentioned on his website that the actual reason for the debate not taking place was that the debater wanted to add religion and since Dr. Brown is not a theologian, he wanted the debate to be strictly science.[21] According to Georgia State University biology professor Fred K. Parrish, who was "tricked" into an April 1985 public debate with Brown, Brown debates around the U.S. and has a set of preconditions (such as Brown speaks first, the debate moderator sits on his side, etc.).[22]

Its ok though, this is from an unbiased source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)

 

[Dancing David]

What evidence do you have that he is wrong?

Um, excuse me, why don't you start with what you think he has right? I mean really, you can't evene xplain what you advocate and hide behind his ideas, without understanding them?
So how does the liquifaction of soils make a quartz strata? Hmmmm? You threw out there, now explain it.

 

[Pahu]

Some of whom he quote mines, Pahu. That's a big difference. Quote mining, in case you don't know, is the art of taking parts of a statement out of its context, to make it appear someone said something that is contrary to what they really meant. This is, of course, highly dishonest.

So his "conclusions" are based on a form of lying. Why should we listen to someone who clearly lies? If you want to know what those scientists really said, look up the quotes in their full context, and see what they are actually saying.

I agree. I have been sharing Brown's information for several years and that knee-jerk accusation is quite common, but I have yet to see any evidence that the quotes in any way alter the meaning of the contexts. Can you show us a quote that has altered the meaning of the context?

 

[Dancing David]

The scientists Brown quotes confirming his conclusions come from their published works in peer reviewed science journals.

Then give those quotes, seriously, you are just spinning words, back them up. What expert said what where to support Brown?

On what do you believe Brown is wrong, and why?

You tell us what you believe he has right.

 

[Pahu]

Sorry, but most functioning brains don't work this way. You don't start out just believing what anyone says unless it is proven wrong.

The default position to take for any statement is that it is false.

It would be virtually impossible to function in day to day life otherwise.

Are we to take that default position in the assertions you just made?

 

[Dancing David]

I agree. I have been sharing Brown's information for several years and that knee-jerk accusation is quite common, but I have yet to see any evidence that the quotes in any way alter the meaning of the contexts. Can you show us a quote that has altered the meaning of the context?

Why don't you give us the specific quotes that support his ideas?

 

[Dancing David]

When someone asks a question, I assume they want the best answer I can come up with, so I refer them to those who can answer their question rather than giving them my ignorant opinion. What is wrong with that?

Wrong bulletin board dude, you present ideas you better understand them well enough to explain them.

 

[Pahu]

Sorry, but most functioning brains don't work this way. You don't start out just believing what anyone says unless it is proven wrong.

Are you saying you believe only those statements that are proven wrong?

The default position to take for any statement is that it is false.

It would be virtually impossible to function in day to day life otherwise.

Are we to take that default position in the assertions you just made?

 

[Dancing David]

Is that assertion your authoritative statement? Why do you reject information from those who have information?

Hi Pahu, welcome to the JREF, we are here to discuss ideas critically, that means that the person who makes a claim, in this case you, has the burden to explain the diea and how teh data and evidence support it. Appeal to authority is not critical thinking.

I have to explain my ideas and defend them just like everybody else, that is what makes this place run. We are not here to discuss factoids out of place, but present ideas and then defend them.


So choose an idea of your person and present it, explain it and the data that supports it, such as 'How does liquifaction of soils explain a large starta of quartz?"

 

[Marduk]

I agree. I have been sharing Brown's information for several years and that knee-jerk accusation is quite common, but I have yet to see any evidence that the quotes in any way alter the meaning of the contexts. Can you show us a quote that has altered the meaning of the context?

You can find what youre looking for here
http://ncse.com/cej/9/1/examination-research-creationist-walter-brown

 

[Pahu]

Not having read the book, it is a bit difficult to comment.

But, this part, raises my eyebrow.




"Liquefaction, an understood mechanism, would tend to sort animals and plants"
Arguably, but then, wouldn't the denser artifact ends up at the bottom? And the lightest, more naturally buoyant ones at the top? So; human made metallic artifact at the bottom, would and stuff at the very top? So, very different from what is actually observed...

"No known mechanism will cause macroevolution" ?
Of course, known mechanisms will. I know that it is your job as a creationist to reject these, but mutation and natural selection are known mechanisms...
Furthermore, the use of the term "macroevolution" suggests he accepts micro evolution, does dear Mr. Brown offers a reason why many microevolutionary would not add up over time into macro-evolution?

Yes he does here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html#wp2752687

"if macroevolution happened, no exceptions to the evolutionary order should be found. Many exceptions exist."
Actually, one could conceive a few exceptions due to abnormal events...



Anyway, the real reason I was posting is that pretty thorough refutation pf Brown's hydroplate theory...

 

[Marduk]

Yes he does here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html#wp2752687

I liked this bit

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

Pahu, is Dr Brown unaware of the large amount of transitional fossils (what Brown calls "intermediates") that now exist in our "fossil museums" which prove Macroevolution ?

how about you Pahu, can you give us some examples of non existent transitional fossils or not ?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview3.html

The portion in the Atlantic Ocean is called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Is it just a coincidence that it splits the Atlantic from north to south and is generally perpendicular to and bisected by the equator?

See , this here , there is no such thing as ‘generally perpendicular’, that crack of a mid-atlantic ridge, is mostly NOT perpendicular to the equator. In fact you would really be hard pressed to pretend that the word perpendicular is being used in a relationship to math.

Seriously take a look at this thing
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mid-Atlantic_Ridge

How on earth is that ‘perpendicular’, for the vast majority of the ridge , especially at a scale larger than this one, it is anything but perpendicular! I would imagine that in fact if you chose one hundred miles segments and measured their angle top the equator, it would not be 90^o, you would find that less than 10% of the ridge is perpendicular to the equator.

So this if from an engineer who knows the definition of perpendicular and abuses it.

 

[Vortigern99]

Have you ever compared evolution with the fundamental laws of physics?

Have you ever read beyond this long-ago debunked canard? Have you endeavored to understand the claims your creationist sources are using? Do you have any comprehension of physics, or are you simply repeating without having examined the objections of ill-informed and undereducated young-earth creationists?

The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down.

The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one, or equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of unusable energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

Source.

The law of causality tells us that every effect is caused, so what caused the universe to begin?

Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973).

Source.

Organic evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth in conflict with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and for which there is no observable evidence.

Speciation has been observed and documented many, many times in numerous species of plants, animals and bacteria. Here's one:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. The overwhelming evidence supports the Creationist view.

There are many mutually exclusive models of creation. Biblical creationism alone includes geocentrism, young-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and more. And then there are hundreds of very different varieties of creation from other religions and cultures. Some of the harshest criticism of creation models comes from creationists who believe other models.

Also, creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist in models such as theistic evolution.

Source.

 

[Marduk]

are you going to answer my posts Pahu
or
are you incapable of answering my posts Pahu

shall we draw our own conclusions ?

 

[Jeff Corey]

You people are so patient with this one. You know, as much as I respect Phil, I think that there is a point when the "Don't be a dick" rule could be suspended.
Or just go away and let her or him wallow in their own ignorance.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Plate tectonics conflicts with known laws of physics. For details go to "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown and click on: "Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep."

Which ones?

What joobz said: which laws of physics?

You will find your answer here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

If you don't understand the argument well enough to make a general summary of it in your own words, then you don't understand it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The law of causality tells us that every effect is caused, so what caused the universe to begin?

That eliminates the possibility of any god(s) then, since theists usually say that god(s) are uncaused. So what do you believe now that your science has also eliminated god(s) along with evolution?

 

[joobz]

Have you ever compared evolution with the fundamental laws of physics?

Yes. It does very well.

The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down.

This is mostly correct.

The law of causality tells us that every effect is caused, so what caused the universe to begin?

I suggest you look into quantum fluctuations.

Organic evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth in conflict with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and for which there is no observable evidence.

As you stated correctly, The universe seems to be a closed system. However, "Life on earth" isn't. Therefore, evolution does not violate the laws.

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. The overwhelming evidence supports the Creationist view.

This is an assertion and not an argument.
1.) there is no evidence supporting creationism.
2.) there is no evidence for such a thing as "supernatural"

 

[PixyMisa]

Have you ever compared evolution with the fundamental laws of physics? The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down.

Yes, and living creatures are as good an example of this as anything else. There is nothing at all in life or in evolution that contradicts the laws of thermodynamics in any way.

The law of causality tells us that every effect is caused, so what caused the universe to begin?

The problem there is that this is not true; our Universe is not strictly causal. Depending on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you subscribe to, some events are acausal or even retrocausal.

[qupte]Organic evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth in conflict with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and for which there is no observable evidence.[/quote]
There are entirely literal mountains of evidence for evolution, and no conflict at all with any of the laws of thermodynamics. You'll have to try harder than that.

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. The overwhelming evidence supports the Creationist view.

No.