Science Disproves Evolution

[tumbleweed41]

And picture Noah landing on one of the first mountains to ever exist.

"Whoa!!!! Where did this come from!! Don't look down, don't look down.....crap, I looked down...."(worlds first attack of vertigo)

 

[AxisMundi]

Was There Room?

Could the Ark have held all the animals? Easily. A few humans, some perhaps hired by others, could build a boat (a) large enough to hold representatives of every air-breathing land animal—perhaps 16,000 animals in all. (Of course, sea creatures did not need to be on the Ark. Nor did insects or amphibians. Only mammals, birds, reptiles, and humans. Much plant life survived the flood in a surprisingly simple way (b)). The Ark, having at least 1,500,000 cubic feet of space, was adequate to hold these animals, their provisions, and all their other needs for one year (c).

Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a pair of wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.) Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.

The Ark is frequently depicted as a small boat by those who have not bothered to check its dimensions. It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall. While there were several ancient cubits (generally the distance from a man’s elbow to the extended fingers), a cubit was typically 1.5 feet or slightly longer. The 500-foot-long Ark would snugly fit in a football stadium and would be taller than a four-story building.

The Ark did not look like a boat. It had a flat bottom, was not streamlined, and had windows in its top. The flat bottom would have made loading on dry land possible. Streamlined shapes are important only for ships designed for speed and fuel efficiency—neither of which applied to the Ark. Windows in the side might be nice for the passengers (or for the proverbial giraffes to stick their necks out), but side windows limit the depth of submergence and the maximum load. Riding low in the water gives a boat great stability.

a. Actually, the Hebrew word for Ark (tebah) does not mean boat. It means “box,” “chest,” or “coffin.” In the Bible, tebah occurs in only one other context besides the flood. (The “ark of the covenant” is a different Hebrew word.) Moses was saved as a baby in a pitch-covered ark, tebah (Exodus 2:3,5). Sometimes tebah is translated into a different English word, such as basket. Moses, perhaps acting as an editor, wrote the flood account. Do you suppose that Moses had a special interest in describing how a few people, his ancestors and ours, were saved in a tebah—as he was?

b. At the onset of the flood, the powerful fountains of the great deep scattered seeds and spores throughout and even above the atmosphere. They undoubtedly settled through the atmosphere for many months afterward. Fortunately, the 46,000-mile-long fountains were at almost all latitudes. Had they followed an east-west (latitudinal) path, such as along the preflood equator, many plants we now have would have become extinct.

c. The most detailed study of the many logistical requirements for the Ark and the number of animals on board is by John Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

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

[From “in the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Just as lame as your OP.

Firstly, there isn't enough water on, or in, the planet to compeltely inundate the surface. There are no massive "lakes" of water below the surface, magma and water aren't on speaking terms. Even if both ice caps completely melted, we would only witness a rise in sea levels of app 300 ft.

Secondly, IF said flood was to occur, fish and marine animals would certainly need to hitch a ride as the water's PH and salinity content would be too far out of norm for them to survive, not to mention the deadly cocktail the water would become as everything on the planet died and decomposed. And said cocktail of death would hardly be potable, and absolutely undesirable for even washing the decks.

Thirdly, no, a million and a half cubic feet ISN'T enough, especially when one takes into consideration internal bracing, stalls, decks, and more importantly the huge amount of ballast that such an ungainly craft would need to keep from barrelrolling at the first wave. That is also ignoring the simple structural impossibility of a wooden craft that size.

Fourthly, neither you nor the author has any idea how much feed, or fresh water, an animal requires daily. Even for the rediculious number of 16,000, you are talking hundreds of thousands of tons of fresh food over the course of a year, and millions of gallons of fresh water. Not to mention the inherent problems of housing carnivors with other animals, or the simple fact that movement and excersise is vital to an animals health. And let's not forget bedding either. Did all the passengers not poop for a year?

Fifth, Seeds drown in a matter of days, so you might as well include the packing of millions of tons of plant seeds on the ark as well to reforest the planet.

In summation, plain critical thinking negates any possibility of said mythical flood. The complete lack of any evidence of said flood simply disproves the myth as well. There is no massive layer of calcium and fossils showing a massive die off of nearly everything on the planet, nor are their marine fossils on any mountain range that was once not a sea bed, as the Rockies were. There is also the Minimal Population Viability factor ignored by most. Two, or even seven, of any species will not maintain that species, all would be extinct, including Noah and family, within generations due to severe inbreeding.

 

[Pahu]

Just as lame as your OP.

Firstly, there isn't enough water on, or in, the planet to compeltely inundate the surface. There are no massive "lakes" of water below the surface, magma and water aren't on speaking terms. Even if both ice caps completely melted, we would only witness a rise in sea levels of app 300 ft.

The amount of water on earth would cover it to a depth of 9000 feet if it were level.

Secondly, IF said flood was to occur, fish and marine animals would certainly need to hitch a ride as the water's PH and salinity content would be too far out of norm for them to survive, not to mention the deadly cocktail the water would become as everything on the planet died and decomposed. And said cocktail of death would hardly be potable, and absolutely undesirable for even washing the decks.

Liquefaction quickly buried vegetable and animal life creating the fossils. For an explanation of survival in salt water go to: "In the Beginning" by Walt brown, click on "index" and click on "saltwater fish."

Thirdly, no, a million and a half cubic feet ISN'T enough, especially when one takes into consideration internal bracing, stalls, decks, and more importantly the huge amount of ballast that such an ungainly craft would need to keep from barrelrolling at the first wave. That is also ignoring the simple structural impossibility of a wooden craft that size.

As explained, the size was more than enough for all the life aboard. The flat bottom made for easier loading on land and the lack of side windows allowed the boat to ride deep in the water, giving it maximum stability.

Fourthly, neither you nor the author has any idea how much feed, or fresh water, an animal requires daily. Even for the rediculious number of 16,000, you are talking hundreds of thousands of tons of fresh food over the course of a year, and millions of gallons of fresh water. Not to mention the inherent problems of housing carnivors with other animals, or the simple fact that movement and excersise is vital to an animals health. And let's not forget bedding either. Did all the passengers not poop for a year?

Fifth, Seeds drown in a matter of days, so you might as well include the packing of millions of tons of plant seeds on the ark as well to reforest the planet.

In summation, plain critical thinking negates any possibility of said mythical flood. The complete lack of any evidence of said flood simply disproves the myth as well. There is no massive layer of calcium and fossils showing a massive die off of nearly everything on the planet, nor are their marine fossils on any mountain range that was once not a sea bed, as the Rockies were. There is also the Minimal Population Viability factor ignored by most. Two, or even seven, of any species will not maintain that species, all would be extinct, including Noah and family, within generations due to severe inbreeding.

Marine fossils are found on all major mountain ranges because they were all under water for about a year before they were pushed up by the forces associated with the Flood. There is much more physical evidence of a worldwide Flood. To see it, go to: In the Beginning" by Walt brown, click on "index" and click on "flood, features caused by."

Other problems based on naturalistic thinking ignore the fact that the whole Flood scenario was caused and guided by God, and therefore you cannot rule out the supernatural aspect. Apparently, after the Flood, God replenished the earth. One clue is the olive branch brought back to the ark after a year of the flood. No vegetation could have survived that long under water.

 

[Pahu]

The Law of Biogenesis


Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Ibid., p. 48.

What Wald did not appreciate in 1954 (before, as just one example, the genetic code was discovered) was how the complexity in life is vastly greater than anyone at that time could have imagined. So, today, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. But unfortunately, several generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our universities that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists thought showed increasing time.

Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

 

[Skwim]

Walt Brown. Nothing like a mechanical engineer expounding on biology. What next, a pharmacist explaining the geological mechanisms of rapid mountain formation?

 

[AxisMundi]

The amount of water on earth would cover it to a depth of 9000 feet if it were level.

Key words, IF it were flat. Unfortunatly for your fantasy, the earth is not a flat, featureless marble. We ahve sea beds miles deep, lake beds, river beds, platues and other elevations, mountain ranges, etc.

As I stated, there isn't enough water on the planet to compeltly inundate the surface.

Liquefaction quickly buried vegetable and animal life creating the fossils. For an explanation of survival in salt water go to: "In the Beginning" by Walt brown, click on "index" and click on "saltwater fish."

Never been near a major flood, have you? Walt Brown is a YECer asshat would coulnd't find his own *** with both hands and a flashlight. None of his "theories" pass simple peer review, and do not come close to resembling science in the least. His "hydroplaning continents" is particularly amusing. Might I suggest you read up on amterial from real scientists and not some YECer pseudoscientist?

As explained, the size was more than enough for all the life aboard. The flat bottom made for easier loading on land and the lack of side windows allowed the boat to ride deep in the water, giving it maximum stability.

You can reapeat wrong all you wish, it is still wrong. Go to your local zoo and ask the experts if that is enough room. Make sure you subtract space for decking, bracing (it would need a lot considering the dimensions are far beyond the structural capacity of wood) food and water storage, etc.

Marine fossils are found on all major mountain ranges because they were all under water for about a year before they were pushed up by the forces associated with the Flood. There is much more physical evidence of a worldwide Flood. To see it, go to: In the Beginning" by Walt brown, click on "index" and click on "flood, features caused by."

Wonrg again. Only in the Rockie are they found, and we know it was once an inland sea bed.

Other problems based on naturalistic thinking ignore the fact that the whole Flood scenario was caused and guided by God, and therefore you cannot rule out the supernatural aspect. Apparently, after the Flood, God replenished the earth. One clue is the olive branch brought back to the ark after a year of the flood. No vegetation could have survived that long under water.

There is no proof of your god, and science, real science and not the garbage Walt promotes, disproves your bible time and time again.

 

[AxisMundi]

Walt Brown. Nothing like a mechanical engineer expounding on biology. What next, a pharmacist explaining the geological mechanisms of rapid mountain formation?

I noticed his continuing reliance on Walt's "work" as well.

At elast other fictional writers don;t pretend their work is real.

 

[Gunfingers]

So i went to this book and opened it up to a random page. This one. One quote stood out to me.

It’s (the Colorado River Delta) not there. Nor can geologists find it anywhere else. Where did all the dirt—800 cubic miles of it—go?

No Colorado River delta, huh? I didn't know that, i'll google it and see if i can find a geological explanation for why that is. So i find the Colorado River's wikipedia entry and ctrl+f "delta". This brings me to the "see also" section containing a link to "Colorado River Delta". Huh, this missing delta must be a big mystery in geology to warrant its own article. Well let's see what it has to say about the missing delta. So i go to this page and read what it has to say.

Significant quantities of nourishing silt from throughout the Colorado River Basin were carried downstream, creating the vast Colorado River Delta.

So, as it turns out this missing delta that scientists can't find is, in fact, a huge river delta containing vast amounts of silt and perfectly in keeping with the idea of the Grand Canyon being formed by erosion. Something Walt Brown has no qualms about lying through his teeth about.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Since we're talking about the Flood math, I would like to ask Pahu if he can provide a legitimate answer to this problem:

Let's take a look at a few numbers. The Earth is nearly spherical--not perfectly so, but close enough for our example. Now the Bible says that at their peak, the floodwaters covered the mountains by more than 20 feet, which we'll take to be Mount Everest at 29,029 feet, for a total of 29,049 feet. That's 348,348 inches. Since that height is a relatively tiny fraction of Earth's radius of nearly 4000 miles, we don't have to take the curvature of the Earth into effect for calculating how much water piled up; we can just imagine a measuring stick going nearly 30,000 feet down.

The other key figure is the time: 40 days, 40 nights. Rainfall is measured in height per hour--in other words, if the rain stuck to the ground like snow (or a Noah's Flood), whatever it's measured in inches is how high it would be. In our case, there are 960 hours in 40 days, so we get a result of 362.9 inches per hour. Let me explain what that number means. If you ever get a forecast for one inch of rain per hour, that's almost a guaranteed recipe for flash flooding. Three or more inches per hour is likely going to break the record books and cause catastrophic flooding if it continues for any length of time. In fact, this is about as high as even the most intense rainfalls ever recorded have reached.

But 362.9 inches of rain in one hour? How?? That's six inches a minute! Even a bathtub can't fill up that fast--and a bathtub holds significantly less water than a planet does! Where is the scientific mechanism for this? If Noah's Flood was a real, live, actual event, then there must exist some sort of natural explanation for how all that water could have come in so fast. What is this scientifically-verifiable explanation??

Pahu, I am waiting for you to provide a scientifically-verifiable explanation for this.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Other problems based on naturalistic thinking ignore the fact that the whole Flood scenario was caused and guided by God, and therefore you cannot rule out the supernatural aspect. Apparently, after the Flood, God replenished the earth. One clue is the olive branch brought back to the ark after a year of the flood. No vegetation could have survived that long under water.

Ah, Goddidit. Well that explains everything.
If it cannot be explained through a warping of science, just point to God.

Honestly Pahu, you are embarrassing yourself and providing a poor witness for Christianity by pushing blatantly dishonest pseudoscience and ignoring the natural answers for life that are all around us.

 

[AxisMundi]

So i went to this book and opened it up to a random page. This one. One quote stood out to me.

No Colorado River delta, huh? I didn't know that, i'll google it and see if i can find a geological explanation for why that is. So i find the Colorado River's wikipedia entry and ctrl+f "delta". This brings me to the "see also" section containing a link to "Colorado River Delta". Huh, this missing delta must be a big mystery in geology to warrant its own article. Well let's see what it has to say about the missing delta. So i go to this page and read what it has to say.

So, as it turns out this missing delta that scientists can't find is, in fact, a huge river delta containing vast amounts of silt and perfectly in keeping with the idea of the Grand Canyon being formed by erosion. Something Walt Brown has no qualms about lying through his teeth about.

Welcome to Creation Science, the oxymoron celebrated by morons everywhere.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Why do you believe that? Doesn't the Ark explain the survival of animals? Each kind survived, which carried the genes for micro-evolution variety.

How is it that according to you, micro-evolution is true, but evolution is false?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Pahu is providing a perfect example of this....

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...699-how-creationism-damages-christianity.html

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

[youtube]I225Vcs3X0g[/youtube]
YouTube - Atheist Comedy - The Great Flood

 

[Dirty Penguin]

[youtube]I225Vcs3X0g[/youtube]
YouTube - Atheist Comedy - The Great Flood

Great stuff. I'm hooked now. The Atheist Comedy - Intelijunt Dezine skit was hilarious. At about 3:20 into is the funniest part to me..... LOL...!!!:biglaugh:

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Great stuff. I'm hooked now. The Atheist Comedy - Intelijunt Dezine skit was hilarious. At about 3:20 into is the funniest part to me..... LOL...!!!:biglaugh:

I have to agree with you. You take all these biblical stories to their logical conclusion and end up with nonsense.

 

[Pahu]

Acquired Characteristics


Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Do you have anything of your own to say Pahu.

And how about a link to where you cut and paste this stuff from.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you have anything of your own to say Pahu.
And how about a link to where you cut and paste this stuff from.

Moreover, we demand cartoons now too.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Moreover, we demand cartoons now too.

But make sure you provide a link to your cartoons. We wouldn't want you plagiarising.

-Q