Even if that were true (and it's not), you'd still be one chromosome short, at 47, not 48
Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?
- Thread starter Vulcan Logician
- Start date
So, one can't be an evolutionist (aka "Darwinist") and a geologist? is that what you're saying?
What's with the word games?
Stripe wrote: We know. Darwinists can't agree on a mechanism [regarding plate tectonics].
I wrote: You don't appear to know which branch of science studies plate tectonics.
That is what I was saying.
Stuart
iouae
Well-known member
Maybe you can answer this...
Why are YEC's so averse to plate tectonics?
You could always make the case that the continents rushed apart during the flood, and have slowed down to a snails pace today?
HPT explains what (Catastrophic) PT cannot.
Plate tectonics cannot explain the average of a mile deep sediments across the globe.
PT cannot explain seashells on top of mountains.
PT cannot explain asteroids, meteorites, meteors, comets, water on Mars, etc.
PT cannot explain why the near side of the moon looks like it's been pummeled, whereas the far side is fairly clean in comparison.
PT cannot explain why 90% of Earth's radioactivity is in the continental crust of the earth.
And it's not for lack of trying, it's just not possible to explain those things with PT.
But it is with HPT:
Mile deep sediments across the globe? Seashells on the tops of mountains? result of a global flood.
Origin of asteroids, meteorites, meteors, comets, water on Mars, etc.? Result of the "Fountains of the Great Deep breaking forth."
Near side of the moon pummeled? debris launched from the "Fountains of the Great Deep impacted the moon on the near side, and debris that couldn't escape Earth's orbit came back and hit the far side of the moon, though doing much less damage.
Radioactivity in the crust? http://kgov.com/origin-of-earths-radioactivity
Jose Fly
New member
Well that was stupid. But then it's a Stripe post, so I'm being redundant.
I guess from now on, whenever we see Stripe moan and groan about "discussing the evidence", we should keep in mind that this is what he thinks that means.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
New member
:rotfl:
I guess this explains why you ignore questions so often, and even when you do answer it's usually just a link with no other content.
Last edited:
Typical evolutionist. They ask for evidence, then when it is presented, they treat it as a proof.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Evidence. :up:
But you're not interested.
We know. Darwinists don't recognize evidence because they're so used to using it as proof.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Hilarious. The 'new research' promised in the title consists of a single article in a creationist journal, Answers Research Journal, a publication that seems to allow anonymous authorship, has no credible peer review process, and requires its content to conform to the following criteria:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively [sic] positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?
The content of the paper itself is creationist noise.
Stuart
iouae
Well-known member
Thank you JR for the explanation of the hydroplate (HP) theory.
I did actually watch (much of) the video, so I recognise that your description comes from the hydroplate guy, who you tell me is a Phd and an engineer.
I want to tell you why the theory just will not fly, is a damp squib, and why the guy is an idiot, so that you can move on to believing something more possible and FACTual.
At the heart of the HP theory is the idea that there was water in the earth, and earth convulsed and squeezed this water out of the crust at escape velocity, so that water (and rock) shot up with such force that it escaped earth's gravity, still had enough velocity to keep on going and throw rocks on the moon such that they formed craters on the near side of the moon. Have I got the theory right?
Here are the problems with the theory...
To escape earth's pull, each drop and rock has to be ejected at the escape velocity from Earth which is about 11.186 km/s (6.951 mi/s; 40,270 km/h; 25,020 mph) at the surface. This is mach 33.
A water jet cutter can, with all its technology get a jet of water up to mach 4 only.
And even if you pointed a water jet cutter up to the sky, the drops would not go far because they would bleed off momentum so quickly due to air friction. Water under this pressure and speed would be hot and would vaporise. If water ever reached space, it would evaporate in the vacuum of space.
And with all this high pressure ejection, poor Noah and the animals would be subjected to the tidal waves, and debris falling back which does not make it into space.
There is no chance that water or even rocks ejected from earth could make it to the moon, and then, slow down and fall back on the far side. To do so they would have to have been ejected at escape velocity plus plus - which even the explosion from a super volcano cannot do. And a super volcano would destroy most life on earth and the tidal waves would sink the ark.
This is a half-baked, pie-in-the-sky piece of non-science, you would do well to reject.
Alright, now you have a basic (if flawed) understanding of the HPT.
Now, here is the full theory:
"In the Beginning" by Dr. Walt Brown (full online book)
It explains the theory in detail.
Holy false dichotomies Batman!
I think you need to look up what "False dichotomy" means before using such big words.
He didn't present an "either/or" situation, He presented what evolutionists claim about neandertals, and for each point he gave what science actually says about neandertals.