Page 36 of 63 FirstFirst ... 263031323334353637383940414246 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 720 of 1258

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #701
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    789

    Corals and Caves


    Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on “clocks” that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years (a). A similar comment can be made for growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites in caves (b).


    Figure 135: Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico. “... one of the most controversial points is how long it takes for a cave such as S.P. [Kartchner Caverns in Arizona] to form. What geologists used to believe was fact, in terms of dating a cave, now is speculation, [cave expert, Jerry] Trout says. ... From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor’s sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. ... In 1988, the sign was changed to read 7 to 10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone. In short, he says, geologists don’t know how long cave development takes. And, while some believe that cave decorations such as S.P.’s beautiful icicle-looking stalactites take years to form, Trout says that through photo-monitoring, he has watched a stalactite grow several inches in a matter of days.”


    Figure 27: Stalagmites. Water from an underground spring was channeled to this spot on a river bank for only one year. In that time, limestone built up around sticks lying on the bank. Limestone deposits can form rapidly if the groundwater’s chemistry is favorable. Just because stalactites and stalagmites are growing slowly today does not mean they must be millions of years old. As we will see in Part II, conditions after the flood provided the ideal chemistry for rapidly forming such features.

    a. Ariel A. Roth, “Coral Reef G
    rowth,” Origins, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979, pp. 88–95.

    J. Th. Verstelle, “The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch East Indian Archipelago,” Treubia, Vol. 14, 1932, pp. 117–126.

    b. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1984), pp. 335–336.

    Larry S. Helmick, Joseph Rohde, and Amy Ross, “Rapid Growth of Dripstone Observed,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, June 1977, pp. 13–17.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  2. #702
    Join Date
    Jan 25 2002
    Location
    Shinso no umi
    Posts
    13,174
    Pahu, have you ever read any other books besides "in the Beginning" by Walt Brown, published by LULU?
    Ok, lets assume you've read the Bible too.

    Anything else?

  3. #703
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm Wright View Post
    The flood is not a proven historical event. There is NO evidence that it occurred 5000 years ago, and NO evidence that powerful electrical activity took place during said mythical event, even of such activity could alter radioactivity decay rates significantly (which it can't).

    I personally believe there is sufficient evidence in the lore of scores of cultures around the globe to suspect a cataclysmic flood did indeed take place at some point in human pre-history, but that should have nothing to do with your desires undermine everything remotely related to evolution theory, Pahu.

    M.
    Actually, there is a great deal of evidence for a recent global flood:


    New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under the earth’s crust. Standard “textbook” explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Later chapters are devoted to topics italicized below.
    The Grand Canyon (pages 199–231)
    Mid-Oceanic Ridge
    Earth’s Major Components
    Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 150–183)
    Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
    Submarine Canyons
    Coal and Oil
    Methane Hydrates
    Ice Age
    Frozen Mammoths (pages 246–276)
    Major Mountain Ranges
    Overthrusts
    Volcanoes and Lava
    Geothermal Heat
    Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 186–197)
    Limestone (pages 238–243)
    Metamorphic Rock
    Plateaus
    The Moho and Black Smokers
    Salt Domes
    Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
    Changing Axis Tilt
    Comets (pages 280–311)
    Asteroids and Meteoroids (pages 314–335)
    Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 339–384)
    Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.1 The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.
    But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under the earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain to a great extent why the earth looks as it does.

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp11672561
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  4. #704
    Join Date
    May 08 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    182
    The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.
    tries to flick to the end of the chapter with no success....

  5. #705
    Join Date
    Jan 25 2002
    Location
    Shinso no umi
    Posts
    13,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Actually, there is a great deal of evidence for a recent global flood:
    If you reread my post, you will see that I too believe there is plenty of evidence of a cataclysmic flooding event (how recent it was is difficult to determine). Why are you behaving as if I don't agree there is evidence?

    Evidence or no, it remains true that:

    "The flood is not a proven historical event. There is NO evidence that it occurred 5000 years ago, and NO evidence that powerful electrical activity took place during said mythical event, even of such activity could alter radioactivity decay rates significantly (which it can't)."

    Were you aware of ignoring most of my post? Are you able to address the ridiculous claims your second bible, "In the beginning", makes of enormous electrical activity drastically affecting the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes used in dating techniques?

    M

  6. #706
    Join Date
    May 08 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm Wright View Post
    Evidence or no, it remains true that:

    "The flood is not a proven historical event. There is NO evidence that it occurred 5000 years ago, and NO evidence that powerful electrical activity took place during said mythical event, even of such activity could alter radioactivity decay rates significantly (which it can't)."
    M
    Tries to assist Malcolm and avoid repitition by pointing out I'm sure I heard Malcolm say "The Flood, not "A" Flood... I'm sure it was in the tone

  7. #707
    Join Date
    Mar 31 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    232
    If you melted enough Popsicles you could have a tasty flood.

  8. #708
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratbag View Post
    tries to flick to the end of the chapter with no success....
    If you hit the link and then hit "the next page", you can read the whole chapter.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  9. #709
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm Wright View Post
    If you reread my post, you will see that I too believe there is plenty of evidence of a cataclysmic flooding event (how recent it was is difficult to determine). Why are you behaving as if I don't agree there is evidence?

    Evidence or no, it remains true that:

    "The flood is not a proven historical event. There is NO evidence that it occurred 5000 years ago, and NO evidence that powerful electrical activity took place during said mythical event, even of such activity could alter radioactivity decay rates significantly (which it can't)."
    I would think the evidence would be helpful. You need to read the whole chapter and notes to understand his conclusions.

    Were you aware of ignoring most of my post? Are you able to address the ridiculous claims your second bible, "In the beginning", makes of enormous electrical activity drastically affecting the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes used in dating techniques?

    M
    After you have read the whole chapter and notes, get back to me.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  10. #710
    Join Date
    Jan 25 2002
    Location
    Shinso no umi
    Posts
    13,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    I would think the evidence would be helpful. You need to read the whole chapter and notes to understand his conclusions.

    After you have read the whole chapter and notes, get back to me.
    I speed-read it before posting.
    The rest of the chapter does not explain why the isotopes used in in radioactive dating would dramatically change decay rates.

    The theory put forth is beyond my ability to evaluate in its entirety, however it is significant that it appears to not be peer-reviewed, and is remarkably self-serving in that it unashamedly purports to uphold creationist doctrine. That's not how science works: we're not supposed to come up with theories to bolster the way we want the world to be: it skews our judgement.

    M.

  11. #711
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    789

    Index Fossils 1


    In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above other types of fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood. [For an explanation, see pages 186-197 ]

    Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. [See Figure 28 ] Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content (a), which, as stated above, assumes evolution.

    a. “Ever since William Smith [the founder of the index fossil technique] at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur....Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.” Derek V. Ager, “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, Vol. 100, 10 November 1983, p. 425.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  12. #712
    Join Date
    Jan 25 2002
    Location
    Shinso no umi
    Posts
    13,174
    Quote Originally Posted by trgfbv View Post
    If you melted enough Popsicles you could have a tasty flood.
    What a great way to go!

  13. #713
    Join Date
    Jan 25 2002
    Location
    Shinso no umi
    Posts
    13,174
    Does it not bother you, Pahu, that the theories you are quoting are not peer reviewed? Yet you call them science, and trumpet them above theory which has been reviewed by thousands for the last 150 years?

  14. #714
    Misteria is offline DA Figment of imagination Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jun 02 2004
    Location
    nonofurbznss.
    Posts
    12,614
    Popsicle flooding ....now thats a dream I would enjoy as a kid...

  15. #715
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    789

    Index Fossils 2


    Evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular (b), many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected. [See "Out-of-Sequence Fossils" on page 12 ]

    b. “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.” R. H. Rastall, “Geology,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, 1954, p. 168.

    “Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?” Larry Azar, “Biologists, Help!” BioScience, Vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714.

    “A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it? “... the fossils do not form the kind of pattern that would be predicted using a simple NeoDarwinian model.” Thomas S. Kemp, “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist, Vol. 108, 5 December 1985, p. 66.

    “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.” J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47.

    “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” Ibid., p. 53.

    Although O’Rourke attempts to justify the practices of stratigraphers, he recognizes the inherent problems associated with such circular reasoning.

    “But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.” Kitts, p. 466.

    “It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology.” Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993), p. 98.

    “The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity.” David M. Raup, “Geology and Creationism,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 21.

    In a taped, transcribed, and approved 1979 interview with Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland asked Fisher how he dated certain fossils. Answer: “By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found.” When Sunderland asked if this was not circular reasoning, Fisher replied, “Of course; how else are you going to do it?” “The Geologic Column: Its Basis and Who Constructed It,” Bible-Science News Letter, December 1986, p. 6.

    “The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity.” Bobb Schaeffer, Max K. Hecht, and Niles Eldredge, “Phylogeny and Paleontology,” Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1972), p. 39.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  16. #716
    Join Date
    Jan 25 2002
    Location
    Shinso no umi
    Posts
    13,174
    Pahu, are you Walt Brown? Is that why, for 36 pages, you have posted material only from his book?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Br...creationist%29

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Brown also has repeatedly claimed that no "evolutionist" will engage in a written debate with him, but has been accused of discouraging or avoiding such debates.
    Sounds like Pahu to me...

    M.

  17. #717
    Join Date
    Dec 07 2010
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm Wright View Post
    Pahu, are you Walt Brown? Is that why, for 36 pages, you have posted material only from his book?
    I am not Walt Brown. The reason I post material from his book is it is the best and most concise treatment of evolution I have found.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  18. #718
    Join Date
    Jan 25 2002
    Location
    Shinso no umi
    Posts
    13,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    I am not Walt Brown. The reason I post material from his book is it is the best and most concise treatment of evolution I have found.
    Has it been peer reviewed?

    M.

  19. #719
    Join Date
    May 08 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    182
    I am not Walt Brown. The reason I post material from his book is it is the best and most concise treatment of evolution I have found.
    Ok but what do YOU think... isn't there SOME thing you've seen somewhere else that maybe he might have missed? Or feel differently about? Or sum it up as you see things. It's very hard to see it as your own personal veiw when you just copy and paste thing that other people claim As I am trying to currently teach my children "So... tell us in your own words...." breif synopsis, cause it took me ages to even work out the point you were trying to get across with all that info to wade through....

    *gets to work on a popsicle stick raft *

  20. #720
    Join Date
    Jan 25 2002
    Location
    Shinso no umi
    Posts
    13,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratbag View Post
    Ok but what do YOU think... isn't there SOME thing you've seen somewhere else that maybe he might have missed? Or feel differently about? Or sum it up as you see things. It's very hard to see it as your own personal veiw when you just copy and paste thing that other people claim As I am trying to currently teach my children "So... tell us in your own words...." breif synopsis, cause it took me ages to even work out the point you were trying to get across with all that info to wade through....

    *gets to work on a popsicle stick raft *
    Very well said Ratbag. It is sadly a prominent feature in religious zealots to seek one source of truth to the exclusion of all others. An irrational quest which kills any chance at science, since it poses powerful preconditions on the perception of reality.

    Pahu/Brown exhibit this trait in two undeniable ways. First, they use creationism and the Bible as the starting point of their 'scientific voyage'. They first fulfill their need for a pure source of all truth by embracing a sacred text. Then they try to use the methods of science to validate that text's most unbelievable premises. To most people, this is a blatantly absurd exercise and it is more than a little sad that Brown/Pahu devote so much of their energies towards it.

    Second, Pahu has latched on to this one contemporary book as the source of all truth concerning our origins and evolution. A book which appears to be devoid of peer review. How in his mind can such a choice be deemed scientifically sound? I don't know. It just goes to show just how far reason can be bent over backwards in the psyche of the religious zealot.

    I mean surely in the mind of a sane person, there would be something worth quoting from one or two other sources? Why the need to have just one perfect handbook in life? It is a strange thing indeed. A thing Pahu would do well to ponder - the search for truth starts with knowing oneself, and Pahu has some powerful biases to work through before he has a chance at perceiving the world clearly.

    As for popsicle rafts - they would probably fare very well in a flood scenario. Made to let waves crash over the vehicle and seep away through the gaps - the boat would never need draining. And as the video I posted of the popsicle bridge attests, extremely strong structures can be built from popsicle sticks!

    M

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •