Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Water above Mountains?


Is there enough water to cover all the earth’s pre-flood mountains in a global flood? Most people do not realize that the volume of water on earth is ten times greater than the volume of all land above sea level.

Most of the earth’s mountains consist of tipped and buckled sedimentary layers. Because these sediments were initially laid down through water as nearly horizontal layers, those mountains must have been pushed up after the sediments were deposited. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1197621]

If the effects of compressing the continents and buckling up mountains were reversed, the oceans would again flood the entire earth. Therefore, the earth has enough water to cover the smaller mountains that existed before the flood. (If the solid earth were perfectly smooth, the water depth would be about 9,000 feet everywhere.)

The Seemingly Impossible Events of a Worldwide Flood Are Credible, If Examined Closely.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1016369

[Tiggy]

Water above Mountains?


Is there enough water to cover all the earth’s pre-flood mountains in a global flood? Most people do not realize that the volume of water on earth is ten times greater than the volume of all land above sea level.

Most of the earth’s mountains consist of tipped and buckled sedimentary layers. Because these sediments were initially laid down through water as nearly horizontal layers, those mountains must have been pushed up after the sediments were deposited. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1197621]

If the effects of compressing the continents and buckling up mountains were reversed, the oceans would again flood the entire earth. Therefore, the earth has enough water to cover the smaller mountains that existed before the flood. (If the solid earth were perfectly smooth, the water depth would be about 9,000 feet everywhere.)

The Seemingly Impossible Events of a Worldwide Flood Are Credible, If Examined Closely.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1016369

LOL! The return of Wally "Hydropants" Brown! Or at least one of his disciples.

All you need to do now Pahu is show that the Earth was perfectly smooth 4500 years ago, and come up with a mechanism to explain how it got from that to the present state in such a short time.

In your own words please, no more just C&Ping whole posts from Wacky Wally's Wonder World.

This should be good for a chuckle or five.

- T

[Tiggy]

BTW Pahu, didn't you learn your lesson the last time you got smacked down for too much C&P in the last "Science Disproves Evolution" thread you started?

Apparently not.

- T

[wattsr1]

Most of the earth’s mountains consist of tipped and buckled sedimentary layers. Because these sediments were initially laid down through water as nearly horizontal layers, those mountains must have been pushed up after the sediments were deposited.

[yec] How do you know those rocks are sedimentary? Were you there to observe them being made? How do you distinguish them from rocks that were made on the day of creation? [/yec]


You do realize that your thread starter is nothing about biology? Rather it's about geology?



Regards, Roland

[magellan004]

[yec] How do you know those rocks are sedimentary? Were you there to observe them being made? How do you distinguish them from rocks that were made on the day of creation? [/yec]


You do realize that your thread starter is nothing about biology? Rather it's about geology? Roland

Those comments of Pahu were not about creation, but a Flood.

Magellan

[Tiggy]

Those comments of Pahu were not about creation, but a Flood.

Magellan

He titled the thread "Science Disproves Evolution", then talked about geology, not biological evolution.

- T

[phaedrus]

He also won't return. He does this fly by thing every few months.

[wattsr1]

Those comments of Pahu were not about creation, but a Flood.

Magellan

No kidding Mags.

My question still stands because I am asking him about sedimentary rocks. I presume you understand enough of your own "creation science" to know where sedimentary rocks were supposed to have formed? And I presume you understand enough of the "philosophy" behind "creation science" to understand my quip about direct observation?

I get an impression that not only do many YECs not understand mainstream science, but they don't understand their own "creation science" as well. Do you fall into that category?



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

I get an impression that not only do many YECs not understand mainstream science, but they don't understand their own "creation science" as well. Do you fall into that category?



Regards, Roland

An' not only that, I might even be better at religious history than you:-

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/on...?hpid=talkbox1


So maybe it's about time you spent less time babbling and more time listening.





Regards, Roland

[magellan004]

An' not only that, I might even be better at religious history than you:-

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/on...?hpid=talkbox1


So maybe it's about time you spent less time babbling and more time listening.

Regards, Roland

May I interrupt Rolnd talking to Roland yet again?
Your question stands when you address the question facing evolutionists - How did life begin?

If you want me to explain why you are begging that question - please ask.

Magellan

[wattsr1]

May I interrupt Rolnd talking to Roland yet again? ...
Magellan

Yes, Mags, but it was meant for you, even though I replied back to myself.

And guess what?


























You responded.














See?


















It works.



Regards, Roland


PS Would you be interested in some of the latest research on OOL?

I've done another essay on the evolution of a molecular machine, based on some very recent findings. I shall be posting that soonish too. I do hope you have a good read Mags.

[rogue06]

Water above Mountains?


Is there enough water to cover all the earth’s pre-flood mountains in a global flood? Most people do not realize that the volume of water on earth is ten times greater than the volume of all land above sea level.

Most of the earth’s mountains consist of tipped and buckled sedimentary layers. Because these sediments were initially laid down through water as nearly horizontal layers, those mountains must have been pushed up after the sediments were deposited. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1197621]

If the effects of compressing the continents and buckling up mountains were reversed, the oceans would again flood the entire earth. Therefore, the earth has enough water to cover the smaller mountains that existed before the flood. (If the solid earth were perfectly smooth, the water depth would be about 9,000 feet everywhere.)

The Seemingly Impossible Events of a Worldwide Flood Are Credible, If Examined Closely.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1016369

Three quick questions...

How do you explain away the vast amount of evidence for slow-motion tectonic forces taking millions of years to uplift mountains from the ocean floor?

How do you explain away the vast amounts of heat produced from this model?

What does any of this have to do with evolution?

[Pahu]

LOL! The return of Wally "Hydropants" Brown! Or at least one of his disciples.

All you need to do now Pahu is show that the Earth was perfectly smooth 4500 years ago, and come up with a mechanism to explain how it got from that to the present state in such a short time.

In your own words please, no more just C&Ping whole posts from Wacky Wally's Wonder World.

This should be good for a chuckle or five.

- T

You will find answers to your questions in the link I provided.

[Pahu]

BTW Pahu, didn't you learn your lesson the last time you got smacked down for too much C&P in the last "Science Disproves Evolution" thread you started?

Yes. The lesson I learned is some who can't accept facts that threaten their erroneous preconceptions will respond by silencing the messenger. They are not interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. They don't want God to exist so they deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. They deny conventions of logic.

They pretend skepticism of any evidence demonstrating creation, and adhere to any and all unscientific absurdities and impossibilities as long they support their erroneous worldview.

Some of them try to explain the universe as causeless because some schools of quantum theory interpret certain phenomena as popping into existence without a cause, even though none of these phenomena are fully understood or observable, nor could any of them take place without the experiments causing them to take place.

Apparently they don't really care. Epistemological truth is inconsequential to them. Apparently their purpose here has nothing to do with any serious discussion. They only feign interest in an attempt to entrap anyone foolish enough to think they are interested in serious discussion.

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They’ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

[Pahu]

He titled the thread "Science Disproves Evolution", then talked about geology, not biological evolution.

- T

Evolution is:

1 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.

2 the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form

The first is organic evolution. The second is Cosmic evolution, which is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. While engaging the time-honored queries of who we are and whence we came, this interdisciplinary subject attempts to unify the sciences within the entirety of natural history—a single broad scientific narrative of a possible origin and evolution of all material things, from an inferred big bang to humankind. (Closely related subjects include epic of evolution, big history, and astrobiology). It makes use of ideas of information theory, chaos theory, complexity, systems, and emergence.

The flood addresses the second definition.