Evolution/geology

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Get off your high horse…this isnt a doctoral thesis…I was just saving time.

By the way, I will note that you did that in more than one post. You sure are in a hurry a lot of the time.

Peace

Tim

 

[rheins2000]

The Pope commonly tells us it is ok to believe something that is not true!

Thats a lie. Once again, now you are a liar.

Name them. In his infallible teachings, name one(1) thing ever a Pope has said that is not true, and prove it.

This is just a generalized statement from someone who is more ignorant of the Church than he is of what truth even is.

And that is what people like you have to resort to when you’re losing an arguement.

 

[rossum]

rheins2000:

It was an honest mistake.

Fine. Be more careful in future.

rheins2000:

As you can see from my posts, I have provided sources for my posts.

Not for your post #66 you didn’t. It is not enough to provide sources sometimes, you have to do it every time. If not then you leave yourself open to criticism.

rheins2000:

When you get in a hurry, things like that can sometimes happen.

Then I suggest that you slow down your posting rate. Take more time over each post and check for obvious errors. Quality is usually better than quantity.

Don’t try to answer every point in every post, you will never keep up. Pick selected points where you think you can make a good argument. For example it seems to me that you do not have a great deal of background knowledge in geology. It might be a good idea not to try to argue geology with someone like Orogeny who obviously does have the background knowledge. If you have no real understanding of the subject area you need either to learn it very quickly or to pick a different topic where you do have some knowledge. I avoid discussion of Catholic theology and Church doctrine because I do not have the background knowledge in that area. Nobody can be an expert in everything.

While I am giving advice you would also do well to take the time to check what your creationist sites are saying because not all creationist sites are scientifically reliable. I pointed out the howler about assuming that early bacteria used sexual reproduction, just one example of bad science from a creationist site.

rheins2000:

Next time just tell me to give you the source if I forget, instead of writing out a doctoral thesis on what plagiarism is.

If there is a next time then I will not accept the “honest mistake” excuse, that only works once. You have to make sure that there is no next time. Just take the time to give the source every time you copy something. You have found out the hard way that not giving sources gives your opponent an easy point to score.

rossum

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

Oh Please! This “result” has been handled already in the discussion by Henke and links contained therein…

Oh Please! Henke is regurgitating the same things he always does, and every evolutionist does. Although he leaves it to others to do it for him mostly, as far as this article goes.

Here is some excerpts from his article:

"The ‘research’ efforts of Austin and his colleagues and their ‘expertise’ in radiometric dating have been widely criticized."

Thats his proof. Yes, I repeat, his proof that the creation scientist was wrong in taking samples from the same rock and getting ridiculous variences in them…Uh Oh, WIDELY CRITICIZED MEANS TRUTH. THEN WE BETTER START CALCULATING HOW FAST THAT SUN IS MOVING AROUND THAT EARTH.

Henke gives the same circular reasoning he always does. No proof…only his continual assertation that most scientists are on his side.

"Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony."

AND HERES THE WINNER!!! This logic defies every known law in the Universe. This is his logic:

IF: If forensic science can send people to jail without seeing the crime…

THEN: Evolutionists can determine what exactly happened 4 billion years ago.

This guy should catch the next train to Potato Town, because his brain must be filled with them. Maybe someone should explain to him what logical conclusions are. Maybe someone should tell him that his side makes a gross assumption when they simply ASSUME the rocks they test had no radiogenic argon in them when they formed. But they always just slide past this and go right to reliability of the method(by reliability, I mean, comparing it to how old they already “know” the rock to be. Case in point is in the next paragraph of Dr. Henke’s trip into Fantasy Land…

"To be exact, even without any radiometric dates, stratigraphic, fossil, and/or paleomagnetic data usually give geologists at least a rough idea of the ages of their samples."

Well Doctor, which is it, is it your reliable dating methods, or comparison to things that were measured in age by those same reliable dating methods. He claims it isnt circular reasoning, but Ill let my 5 year old child take a look…Yup…he says its circular, too.

Here it is from your talkorigins.org: "Gechronologists do not claim that radiometric dating is foolproof (no scientific method is), but it does work reliably for most samples."

How do you know its reliable…Ill tell you…it fits whatever you’ve already decided it must fit into…if it doesnt…it must be a bad sample…throw it out until we get one that fits.

Ahhh, and then the claim with no proof behind it…this is the end of this evolutionists Introductory…(this is not Henke speaking, but one Mr. Andrew McRae from talkorigins.com)

"not to mention the need(for creationists) to falsify huge amounts of evidence from other techniques."

Oh, really…thats a bold statement…wait let me read his proof…oh there is none. He just goes on from there. Well then I guess I can make the same claim, if no proof is needed.

zian:

Read them all; it is really a nice, measured discussion. If you take a sample badly, or take a good sample and process it badly, or if you send it to a lab that tells you up front it cannot analyse certain types of samples, but you send it to them anyway, is it really a surprise when you get results that are all over the map? Hopefully, this is a rhetorical question…

I read it all. Its not nice…Its the same circular garbage this guy pukes up all over his literature.

If you take a sample badly…known only of course if you get a date that doesnt fit what you already “know” it to be.

If you take a good sample and process it badly badly…known only of course if you get a date that doesnt fit what you already “know” it to be

AND NO ITS NO SUPRISE THE ENORMOUS VARIENCE OF DATES YOU GET FROM THAT METHOD…THAT WAS MY POINT.

zian:

Were you there?

Exactly. Now you’re understanding. I knew it wouldnt take long

zian:

How do you know it becomes a “best fit”?

Ummm, a scientific theory becomes a best fit when the evidence points more to it than to another. I would think you would know that. And, of course, each side is going to use the evidence to fit their theory.

And I know its a best fit, because 1) MATTER CANNOT START FROM MATTER…and 2) MATTER DOES NOT PRODUCE LIFE. Show me some proof of this from your evolutionists. CRACKPOT SCIENCE STARTS RIGHT DOWN THAT ALLEY

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

I don’t see where the bio’s indicate that any of these three, especially John D. Morris, were former evolutionists, who “switched sides”. If you have additional documentation, please enlighten me.

Obviously they had to come to creation scince, being that every single child is taught evolution in the schools. And no I dont have documentation, and with all these posts to go, it really doent matter…you have not yet or ever addressed any of the points to my posts…you just pick and run. I wont waste my time. Address all my plagiarized points please.

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

Do you have any references and calculations to back up these wild assertions, or are you just spinning whole cloth?.

Just spinning, like you.

Yeah here are some calculations:

of times matter has produced matter: 0​

of times life has spontaneously generated in a lab full of scientists whose sole purpose in life is to do just that: 0​

of rational people that can follow the logic of NOTHING becoming SOMETHING: 0​

zian:

btw - you might get more traction around here if you didn’t resort to personal name calling and stuck with reasoned, referenced discussion of the issues at hand. Thx.

By the way, you might get some traction around here if you actually used logic and reason, instead of question posing things that dont make sense, and then, after making no discernable point, going right to the liberal right and attacking the person not the logical arguement. And if someone is lying, they are a liar…get over it. Im not here to hurt feelings.

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Thats a lie. Once again, now you are a liar.

Name them. In his infallible teachings, name one(1) thing ever a Pope has said that is not true, and prove it.

This is just a generalized statement from someone who is more ignorant of the Church than he is of what truth even is.

And that is what people like you have to resort to when you’re losing an arguement.

Ahem, that was sarcasm. I should have known better than to expect you to get that.

Peace

Tim

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

Your source does not provide any references (not a single one) for any of the contentions that he makes on the web page you have listed. Do you have a site with references that can be reviewed and evaluated?

It is his THEORY…do you understand what a theory is? It is a possible explanation for all of the plate tectonic behavior, polarization of the continents, interbedding of volcanic and sedimentary rock, massive organic deposits, etc.

Funny, I would think you would know all these things.

And by a site to review his material…what are you talking about…you mean provide you with a rebuttal to my contention. Thats your job…you cant be serious.

 

[rheins2000]

rossum:

Yes they have. As Leonardo da Vinci noticed, they do not support a global floodIf the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.The evidence here does not support a global flood…

Really, DaVinci?..ok…Im afraid his conclusions and his observations are just wrong…grouped deposits would easily be explained by concentrations of plants/animals in their habitats, and ungrouped deposits are found all over.

from: answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/plesiosaur.asp

"If there really was a global Flood, just as the Bible says, then what would we expect to find? We would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. The fossilized land and sea animals all over Queensland are exactly what we would expect from the global Flood described in the Bible.4 Their bones are an outstanding testimony to the reality of that event."

The following is from icr.org…I lost the link…if someone really needs it, I will have to go find it before the plagiarism police strike…obviously this is not my writing…

First note that very few fossils are forming today and then only in the case of rapid burial by water. For instance what happens to a fish when it dies? It either floats to the surface or sinks to the bottom where it decays and is eaten by scavengers. Yet many fish fossils are so exquisitely preserved that even the scales and organs are preserved. Obviously there was no time for decay and bacterial action. We can certainly say that something extraordinary happened to form the fossils.
Furthermore, most fossils occur in huge fossil graveyards where things from different habitats are mixed together in a watery grave. The predominant type of fossil is that of marine invertebrates but these are found on the continents within catastrophically deposited rock units.

Of the several different kinds of fossils, each one requires rapid burial and circumstances which are seldom, if ever, at work today. Processes of fossilization include:

Mineralization: This happens by partial or entire replacement of an organism by minerals, usually one molecule at a time as the organism decays. Time is involved but not time before burial. Petrification occurs when the replacing mineral is silica.

Carbonization: Living things consist of high carbon content, and under extraordinary circumstances only the carbon remains. This includes the thick coal bands as well as thin carbon residues left in the host rock. Rapid isolation and heating is required.

Impressions: These common fossils occur when the entire organism is replaced by the same material as the host rock leaving only the form of an organism. The detail preserved indicates no time for decay.

Ephemeral markings: These common markings include worm burrows, animal tracks, coprolites, and rain-drop impressions. All are extremely fragile and need rapid lithification to be preserved.

Hard parts: Bones and shells are found but these are usually broken. For instance, limbs ripped from dinosaurs, found in fossil graveyards, are the rule.

Soft parts: Obviously these will only last for a very short time without rapid burial. These include flesh, feathers, skin, scales, plant tissue, color, and even smell.

Frozen parts: These imply extremely low temperatures which trapped and froze the organisms quickly. Certainly this is not happening now on any scale.

These fossil types (and other subcategories could be mentioned) require extraordinary circumstances of a rapid and catastrophic nature. The great Flood of Noah’s day which destroyed a world full of life is the best explanation.

 

[zian]

Ok. Maybe I try again.

In post #9, rheins2000 made a claim of finding human artifacts in-situ with coal deposits. I have not seen any supporting evidence of this contention in any of your replies, rheins2000. The George Hill article seems to discuss only the rapid artificial formation of coal. Where is the evidence of human artifacts? If you have any, please provide a citation or citations.

For reference. Your post #9 was made on 28 January at 0100 hrs. My reply (above in italics) was post #58 on 29 January at 1830 hrs.

So, do you have a citation or citations for your assertion about human artifacts in coal? You said you would look for it. I’d be interested to read it. Thx.

 

[PhilVaz]

OK, let’s clear this up. If what I said about human beings evolving from Chicken Noodle, and the Catholic Church supposedly teaching that, was meant to be taken seriously, then I am a liar since I know that’s not true Catholic teaching. If what I said about human beings evolving from Chicken Noodle, and the Catholic Church teaching that, was not meant to be taken seriously, then I have made a bad attempt at humor.

And Rossum will tell you: there are no Chickens to be found in Cambrian or pre-cambrian rocks, nor are there Sheep found in Cambrian or pre-cambrian rocks. So we couldn’t have come from Chicken Noodle Soup. But Split Pea, that’s another issue.

Rheins hasn’t yet clearly defined what a “scientific theory” is. If you use the Wikipedia or online dictionaries as you have and as I have also, you must come to the conclusion that Creationism (of whatever form) is not a “scientific theory.” It does not fit any of those definitions, except the one about “hunch” or “guess” or “speculation.” It is a “theory” in that sense (hunch, guess, speculation), but not a scientific theory.

And Orogeny made a good point. Creation by God (not Creationism mind you, but Creation by God) to a Catholic is a FACT, since God is ultimately the Creator or Source of all matter (Genesis 1; Col 1:15ff; Psalm 19; John 1:1-3; Hebrews 3:3-6).

But Creationism is not a scientific theory. We know this from the words of the founders of modern-day Creationism (Henry Morris, Duane Gish), and the definition of what a scientific theory is. What Rheins needs to do is show why the founders of modern-day Creationism are wrong when they state explicitly that Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. All his other points about “science” or “data” are irrelevant to that issue. If there is no scientific theory to defend, then there cannot be any science or data in support of it either. There I hope I was logical…

Phil P

 

[rheins2000]

rossum:

Your source may possibly be correct about trees, but there are older living things than trees. There is a Creosote bush in California that is over 11,000 years old and there is a bush in Tasmania that has been measured at over 40,000 years old, see here. The evidence here does not support a global flood.

My source is correct…and your bush is not 11,000 or 40,000 years old. Do you not even see how they dated that tree in your article!!!

From your article:
"A fossil of an identical specimen was found near the same mountainside site. Its age at over 40,000 years was determined using conventional dating techniques, leading the scientists to conclude that their find was not only astounding but legitimate."

HAHAHA…nice try. Yeah, they didnt even date the tree. YOU ARE WRONG. THE OLDEST KNOWN LIVING PLANT IS AROUND 5,000 YEARS OLD. Thats how your scientists work…they search the ground until they find a fossil, then they date that fossil with their bogus techniques, and APPLY IT TO THE TREE!!!..thats quite a jump.

Your evidence is made up and just simply false.

rossum:

I do not think that the Yellow River in China is “near” Ararat, nor is the Indus River in India, nor is the Nile in Egypt. .

What?!

rossum:

We even have written records from China and Egypt dating back before the usual dates for the flood and neither mention such an event…the Biblical flood story is a reworking of an old Sumerian flood story. The evidence here does not support a global flood…

Written records from BEFORE the flood dont mention the flood?..Wow, thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. OF COURSE THEY DONT

And hardly a reworking, when its the same flood. Nice conclusion drawing there.

Your evidence does not support evolution.

from: christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html:
The most documented Biblical event is the world-wide flood described in Genesis 6-9. A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same flood.


Ancient tablet listing the Sumerian kings
More information]
The Sumerian King List (pictured here), for example, lists kings who reigned for long periods of time. Then a great flood came. Following the flood, Sumerian kings ruled for much shorter periods of time. This is the same pattern found in the Bible. Men had long life spans before the flood and shorter life spans after the flood. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of an ark, animals taken on the ark, birds sent out during the course of the flood, the ark landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice offered after the ark landed.

rossum:

A flood is not the only way to make sedimentary rock…

Really, its not…wow thanks Bill Nye.

rossum:

Most sedimentary deposits are laid down under oceans, which accounts for the marine shells that you and Leonardo mentioned. One problem with building up a lot of rock in a short one year flood is all the non-sedimentary rock that has to be produced as well…

You need to read creationist theory before you comment on it.

One problem with your theory there, is that your evolutionary scientists dont even agree with you. Maybe you ought to read how fossils are formed. Slow sedimentation deposits over millions of years DO NOT PRODUCE FOSSILS. It takes a catastrophic event or a rapid burial of the creature/plant.

And how does rapid stratification keep non-sedimentary rock forming?

By the way, you do know that Creationists dont contend that all rock on earth was created by the flood? Please tell me you do.

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

was not meant to be taken seriously, then I have made a bad attempt at humor.

Well, sorry then, I was under a very different understanding.

PhilVaz:

Rheins hasn’t yet clearly defined what a “scientific theory” is. If you use the Wikipedia or online dictionaries as you have and as I have also, you must come to the conclusion that Creationism (of whatever form) is not a “scientific theory.” It does not fit any of those definitions, except the one about “hunch” or “guess” or “speculation.” It is a “theory” in that sense (hunch, guess, speculation), but not a scientific theory.

Sure, I’ll use their definition for theory…and you are just BLATANTLY WRONG in saying that Creationism isn’t a scientific theory.

"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."

Lets itemize:

Logically Self Consistent: Well that would throw out evolution, because nowhere in logic can you find this arguement:

1)We know matter exists.
2)We know matter had to come from somewhere

 ........Therefore, matter must have come from nothing

Creationism follows this arguement(along the lines of Thomas Aquinas)

1)We know matter exists.
2)We know matter had to come from somewhere

.........Therefore, matter must have been created by something other than matter

model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon:

Evolution: People have observed the existence of matter, life, intelligence, stratification, coal deposits, fossils, geography, plants, animals, people, etc…and have created a model(Evolution from nothing) for explaining these phenomena

Creation: People have observed the existence of matter, life, intelligence, stratification, coal deposits, fossils, geography, plants, animals, people, etc…and have created a model(Creation by a higher power)

thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method).****

Evolution: dating methods, dating methods, dating methods

Creation: Experimental Evidence…here are just a slight few…

**icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=302, icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=114, **
icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=473

predictive

Evolution: Whatever you predict…ill take a guess…
1)God will never help you because he doesnt
exist(only non-theistic evolutionists apply)
2)Eventually, you will observe macro-evolution
3)You will find macro-transitional fossils

Creation: 1)You will never observe macro-evolution
2)You will never produce a true human or animal macro
-transitional fossil.
3)There will be God at the end of all this to explain
all of this.(non-theistic only, again)

never been falsified.

I contend many of evolutionists claims have been very falsified…era stratification, lack of transitional fossils(there should be billions, not zero, matter cannot create matter, life cannot be created from nothing.

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

No. You made a statement that there were human artifacts inside coal seams. You linked a site that repeated some material from an incorrect calculation done by Walter Brown. I provided you with links to sites that had actual references attached, with scientific journal citations that anyone could go to and evaluate for themselves. I think it is fair for you to do the same.

If you do not have any evidence to present, then please just say so..

Sure, here’s some evidence. But you wont accept it…

Ill beat you to the punch…you say they are frauds…Others say they are not…you dont know…I dont know…but according to some of your sources, they claim that the iron pot was left there by a worker a short time back and due to coal processing, it found its way into the deposit…Good idea, but the pot looks a little older than 1948.

And, of course scientific journals will not put this in, because they say its a fraud(only use the evidence that supports you), but they had no problem putting in Piltdown man, Sarah, and the like.

creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/museum_tour/ironpot/ironpot.html

homestead.com/davidgoliathministries/Thegeologiccolumndebunked.html

This sounds just like the response I got from abcdefg when I asked him to provide evidence of his assertions in several other threads. He did not have any evidence either.

Funny, again, I was thinking the same thing about you

Any evidence for transitional species yet? Thought not.

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

Diamonds can also be made commercially (that is, artificially) using high pressure. This does not mean that an exactly similar process (in terms of time scale) also occurs in nature.

Doesnt mean that they dont…you prove nothing…

 

[zian]

rheins2000:

It is his THEORY…do you understand what a theory is? It is a possible explanation for all of the plate tectonic behavior, polarization of the continents, interbedding of volcanic and sedimentary rock, massive organic deposits, etc. …

And by a site to review his material…what are you talking about…you mean provide you with a rebuttal to my contention. Thats your job…you cant be serious.

Oh, I’m quite serious.

If by “his” you apparently mean evanwiggs, since that is the site that you linked - the site with NO references. I was the one who pointed out to you that this was material from Walter Brown; evanwiggs merely copied it down, without attribution.

Incidentally, when I go the Walter Brown’s site now, I am not able to locate his page containing this material on the impossibility of subduction. The topic is still listed in the table of contents, however. So I can’t point you to the original page where this calculation was at some point in time listed.

And since this (Walter Brown’s page at creationscience.com) was a YEC site, I would have been doing you a favor. Go figure.

Since the point of my reply to you was the question of subduction as addressed at the evanwiggs site, let’s stick to that for the moment. The link I gave you was here. The three site hyperlinks here are all outdated, but the discussion and the print references are relevant. Especially note -

Next, consider whether or not it is fair to say that subduction is an “observed” phenomenon. It is, and the key lies in the observations that density variations in the mantle, implied by seismic velocities, show us the subducting plates in a manner vary similar to that in which an X-ray shows up the bones of a skeleton, and that double planed earthquake zones not only outline the subducting plates, but also indicate differing earthquake mechanisms above and below the plate, as one would expect (McGuire & Wiens, 1995; Compte & Suarez, 1994; Prevot et al., 1994; Wiens, McGuire & Shore, 1993). Note also that deep focus earthquakes occur only in subduction zones, and that earthquakes of all varieties are strongly concentrated at plate boundaries. …(quote continued …)

 

[zian]

… continued …
Brown’s specific criticism of van der Hilst, Widiyantoro & Engdahl, 1997, that the subducted slabs are not where they are supposed to be, or not where one might expect them, is also easily falsified. As the plates plunge downward (i.e., subduct), the continents continue their lateral motion and override the subducting slab. This is very well illustrated by Wen & Anderson, 1995. Although pre-dating the van der Hilst et al. paper by two years, Wen & Anderson figures 1 & 3 nicely predict the arrangement of deep subducted plates observed by van der Hilst at al., and in their figures 1c & 1d. Agreement here is quite pronounced for the Americas, Indonesia, and the area east of Australia. Furthermore, Brown seems to ignore altogether the dramatic demonstration in van der Hilst et al., figure 5a, which certainly appears to show a subducting slab beneath central America. Christensen, 1996, also discusses the general topic of the effect of plate motion on subduction.

The combination of tomography, double seismic zones, the distribution of tensional & compressional earthquake mechanisms, and the fact that deep focus earthquakes occur only in subduction zones, makes it very difficult to avoid the conclusion that subduction is an observed process.
References cited

* Compte, D. & G. Suarez. "An Inverted Double Seismic Zone in Chile - Evidence of Phase Transformation in the Subducted Slab." Science, 263:(212-215), 14 January 1994
* Christensen, Ulrich R. "The influence of plate migration on slab penetration into the lower mantle." Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 140:(27-39), 1996
* McGuire, J.J.& D.A. Wiens. "A Double Seismic Zone in New Britain and the Morphology of the Solomon Plate at Intermediate Depths." Geophysical Research Letters, 22:(1965-1968), 1 August 1995
* Prevot, R.; J.L. Chatelain, S.W. Roecker & J.R. Grasso. "A Shallow Double Seismic Zone Beneath the Central New Hebrides (Vanuatu) - Evidence for Fragmentation and Accretion of the Descending Plate." Geophysical Research Letters, 21:(2159-2162), 15 September 1994
* van der Hilst, R.D.; S. Widiyantoro & E.R. Engdahl. "Evidence for deep mantle circulation from global tomography." Nature, 386:(578-584), 10 April 1997
* Wen, Lianxing & Don L. Anderson "The fate of slabs inferred from seismic tomography and 130 million years of subduction." Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 133:(185-198), 1995
* Wiens, D.A.; J.J. McGuire & P.J. Shore "Evidence for transformational faulting from a deep double seismic zone in Tonga." Nature, 364:(790-793), 26 August 1993

There is additional discussion in the top half of this page by Tim Thompson.

These references from Thompson all support the expectations from plate tectonics theory and subducting continental plates. Brown is wrong. Subduction is not impossible.

Glenn Morton provides some additional comment on Brown’s hydroplate theory here.

 

[zian]

rheins2000:

Funny, again, I was thinking the same thing about you

Any evidence for transitional species yet? Thought not.

This is a geology thread. The supposed lack of "transitional species’ has been dealt with in several threads over the last 4 months.

Try the search feature.

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

This is getting a little ridiculous, like the “abcdefg” threads a month ago. I guess I am wrong to assume the massive evidence I see for an ancient earth and evolution is enough to convince most reasonable people. I am definitely wrong there, and it is depressing and frustrating.

No, whats frustrating is where you still think evolution is a FACT, and not a theory. I have given MASSIVE evidence, of which only a few have been even attempted to be answered, of the great possiblity of creation and the great flaws of evolution.

ENOUGH TO CONVINCE REASONABLE PEOPLE?!?!

I wouldnt think it would be that hard to convince reasonable people that matter can not come from nothing, and life cannot come from matter only. I guess Im wrong about that.

PhilVaz:

It has nothing to do with science…

What an ignorant response. I will only address things 5 times. Thats my limit. You answer my scientific evidence, or stop making this claim.

By the way, you keep quoting Catholic sources to dispute me. My view is allowed by the Catholic Church. Learn what it teaches before you quote drop Church leaders not even knowing the Faith

PhilVaz:

"The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’

Yeah, thats why youve been able to address all my evidence…because it is so opposed to reason.

MATTER FROM MATTER MY FRIEND…You’re the one abandoning reasoning

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

This is a geology thread. The supposed lack of "transitional species’ has been dealt with in several threads over the last 4 months.

Try the search feature.

It really doesnt matter to me what propaganda you have been spreading in other threads.

The fact is you should have billions of transitional fossils if your theory is correct. YET YOU STILL HAVE TO CLING TO 2 or 3 FRAUDS