Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Well I guess to get back on the topic of the OP. I saw articles where fossilized crinoids and sea creatures were found on top of Mount Everest. Now I am no geologist but does anyone have an explanation?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 01:33 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Well I guess to get back on the topic of the OP. I saw articles where fossilized crinoids and sea creatures were found on top of Mount Everest. Now I am no geologist but does anyone have an explanation?

What is now Everest used to be on the bottom of the sea. When the Indian sub-continent pushed up into Asia it formed the Himalayas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
24-11-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 01:32 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello again. Hug

Glad you're still about. Thumbsup

(24-11-2015 09:33 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  One of my favorite shows is ancient aliens. I find the ancient astronaut theories to be interesting.

(24-11-2015 11:04 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Okay, but you have to admit that it is probably the most logical explanation to explain a lot of things in the bible. Even if you don't believe in God, if you believe that the existence of advanced extraterrestrial life is plausible, it would explain a lot.

Okay, so to roll with this premise opened up with more and different problems.

1) Aliens came here... did stuff and then...? What? They ran out of frequent flier points? Why haven't they come back?

2) All the things they now might have supposed done/did both seem to fit with the knowledge/thinking of the time. As well as not imparting any knowledge/ways of thinking that would seem to be completely alien.

So... as for most of the whole 'Ancient aliens' stuff? Yah, pretty sure we've had threads where folks have provided links showing why it's all bunk.

I some times find it annoying that people today are so ignorant that, simply because they can't image doing something as complex as stacking bricks they then leap to the idea that our 'primitive' ancestors couldn't either.

Our so called 'primitive' ancestors when we only go back a couple of thousand years? They were 'Primitive' they were just 'Material science deficient'. Tongue

Look at this machine, for example.

http://stephenjressler.com/portfolio/the...-ballista/

It's a continuation of the development of the bolt/stone thrower.

For something made out of mostly wood? It's darn impressive.

Sorry to ramble... but there are so many different things I'd like to address both with the 'Ancient aliens' shtick as well as the 'Aliens are here now." thing.

We had another poster in another thread who seemed to have a complete brain melt down over this subject. I found their posts just got less coherent and understandable as their ideas about aliens (And te visiting etc) were questioned.

Am hoping our conversation keeps on a steady track. Smile

Much cheers to you and yours, best wishes jason_delisle
Thanks. I appreciate it. I find these topics to be fascinating. I was somewhat of a nerd as a kid. When most people were talking about sports and cartoon I was talking about this stuff. It's fun to say the least.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 01:41 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 01:37 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 01:33 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Well I guess to get back on the topic of the OP. I saw articles where fossilized crinoids and sea creatures were found on top of Mount Everest. Now I am no geologist but does anyone have an explanation?

What is now Everest used to be on the bottom of the sea. When the Indian sub-continent pushed up into Asia it formed the Himalayas.
I agree with that. The issue that scientists are trying to understand is that the type of creatures found are much younger than they ought to be. The only explanation for those specific fossilized creatures to be on the top of Mount Everest would be that the mountains are much younger that previously believed.

But like I said, I am no geologist. But if the geologist are having a hard time explaining it then it must be something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 01:41 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 01:37 PM)pablo Wrote:  What is now Everest used to be on the bottom of the sea. When the Indian sub-continent pushed up into Asia it formed the Himalayas.
I agree with that. The issue that scientists are trying to understand is that the type of creatures found are much younger than they ought to be. The only explanation for those specific fossilized creatures to be on the top of Mount Everest would be that the mountains are much younger that previously believed.

But like I said, I am no geologist. But if the geologist are having a hard time explaining it then it must be something.

Or, the creatures found lived much longer than previously thought.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
24-11-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 01:47 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 01:41 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I agree with that. The issue that scientists are trying to understand is that the type of creatures found are much younger than they ought to be. The only explanation for those specific fossilized creatures to be on the top of Mount Everest would be that the mountains are much younger that previously believed.

But like I said, I am no geologist. But if the geologist are having a hard time explaining it then it must be something.

Or, the creatures found lived much longer than previously thought.
Dodgy Yeah....I guess. Lol

Regardless, somebody messed up somewhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 01:41 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I agree with that. The issue that scientists are trying to understand is that the type of creatures found are much younger than they ought to be. The only explanation for those specific fossilized creatures to be on the top of Mount Everest would be that the mountains are much younger that previously believed.

But like I said, I am no geologist. But if the geologist are having a hard time explaining it then it must be something.

But.. they aren't having a hard time explaining it. Consider

Even though the 'age' (And I'm pretty sure we're still talking really big numbers here) are 'out' by a few what? Thousand? Million?

All it does is adjust things in our knowledge like,

1) The speed at which those mountains form/formed/ (Are still forming? Consider ).

2) The amount of time in the past when those mountains weren't there and the terrain was something else.

This whole "Oh scientists don't know everything!" some times annoys me. As the very wonderful Dara O'Brien makes the comment.

"Well, if science did know every thing... they'd stop..."

Much cheers to you and yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
24-11-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 01:51 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Dodgy Yeah....I guess. Lol

Regardless, somebody messed up somewhere.

No, they haven't 'Messed up'.

They looked at things.. Took measurement with the gear they had at the time. Formed a hypothesis. Compared the hypothesis to what was there and any new things they'd found. Worked something out that did a bang up job of making sense/explaining every thing they'd found.

And then they went back and looked again, or simply KEPT looking at things and found new things and then had more information to which they could adjust/fix/tinker with the ideas they have about what had, is and will be going on in said location.

In a way, I am really glad people didn't stop once Orville and Wilbur got off the beach, y'know? Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Peebothuhul's post
24-11-2015, 02:03 PM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2015 02:09 PM by jason_delisle.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
According to science daily, the fossils are 2-3 million years old. The Himalayas are thought to be 55-75 million years old. Now scientists are saying the Himalayas are 450-500 million years old. How did a 3 million year old creature end up on the top of Mount Everest? 3 million and 500 million is quite a time shift don't you think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  According to science daily, the fossils are 2-3 million years old. The Himalayas are thought to be 55-75 million years old. Now scientists are saying the Himalayas are 450-500 million years old. How did a 3 million year old creature end up on the top of Mount Everest? 4 million and 500 million is quite a time shift don't you think?

Okay... first, we agree than neither of us are geologists, nor paleontologists and that currently the conversation is going by really broad and random generalizations, yes?

So... the Geologists had an idea of,

"We think piles of rock get made by the Earth's crust movement of this much over time." *Holds hands 'X' amount distance apart*

Now.. they've gone back with more/better/different measuring 'Things' and looked at things and gone,

"We think piles of rock get made by the Earth's crust movement of this much." *Holds hands 'Y' amount distance apart*

SCIENCE! Big Grin

Paleontologists have wandered over said jumbled pile of Earth's crust and gone,

"Oh look! Something that's a rock, but at one time wasn't a rock! Yay!"

There's.. no actual mention of where on said pile of rock they found their special rock. "At the top" is being, maybe, a little silly, no?

That said is rock/once not rock are of a certain type of critter means that....

The place where said critter was before they got dead and randomly turned into rock was not a pile of rock.

That numbers can even be applied? Yah, I'll believe the people who are really good with numbers. (Hint, I don't even have laces in my boots.Tongue)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: