Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[Wiccan_Child]

Is there any evidence that the Universe was created by a divine entity? Is there any evidence that this is the same Divinity as a particular terrestrial monotheism, namely Christianity?

As a side note, I read in another thread that 'The Big Bang and Evolution hypotheses fail terribly" in terms of evidence. Where do either fail? We have doppler shift, background microwave radiation, the fossil record, pæleogeographical and geological dating evidences, etc etc.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I see the creationists are tripping over themselves in thier haste to answer.

Ghost

 

[Dannager]

Haha, give 'em a day. Who knows, maybe someone will give us something to refute.

 

[Jacquo]

Hi WC,

I'm surprised you mention the fossil record as evidence for evolution when the reverse is the case.

Perhaps you are also unaware of the many historical pointers to dinos co-existing with man (as opposed to the 'teaching they became extinct 65 million years ago): cave drawings, stone depictions in Peruvian burial sites, clay figurines of them in Mexico, and so on.

I can't recall the rule on outside urls but if someone give me a quick answer to the rule I will gladly give the url to an article I wrote a few years ago "The impossibility of evolution".

Regards,

Jac

 

[Dannager]

I'm surprised you mention the fossil record as evidence for evolution when the reverse is the case.

No, it isn't. The fossil record supports only evolutionary theory as far as we know. Feel like providing us with examples of fossil record support for creationism?

Perhaps you are also unaware of the many historical pointers to dinos co-existing with man (as opposed to the 'teaching they became extinct 65 million years ago): cave drawings, stone depictions in Peruvian burial sites, clay figurines of them in Mexico, and so on.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

If you'd like to support your arguments, using fraudulent discoveries is not a wonderful way to go about it. Try again.

I can't recall the rule on outside urls but if someone give me a quick answer to the rule I will gladly give the url to an article I wrote a few years ago "The impossibility of evolution".

You don't have enough posts to provide links, I believe. If you feel the need to do so, type it out and format it (by inserting spaces, for instance) so that it doesn't display as a link.

 

[Jacquo]

Hi Dannager,

All the 'creationist' standpoint requires in the fossil record to support it is gaps between all the major kinds. This is in fact so.

You are correct I am unable to provide an outside link.

But anyone looking at my profile can see the url for my homepage and the article is called "The impossiblity of evolution". Perhaps saying this is outside the 'spirit' of the rule though...

Regards,

Jac

 

[Dannager]

Hi Dannager,

All the 'creationist' standpoint requires in the fossil record to support it is gaps between all the major kinds. This is in fact so.

I'd be happy to show you how the fossil record is more or less continuous (and the small gaps that exist are to be expected given how paleontology works). Could you first please define the word "kind" in biological terms so that I know the "gaps" that need to be filled?

But anyone looking at my profile can see the url for my homepage and the article is called "The impossiblity of evolution". Perhaps saying this is outside the 'spirit' of the rule though...

I'll take a look and post a refutation here when I finish.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Hi WC,

I'm surprised you mention the fossil record as evidence for evolution when the reverse is the case.

Perhaps you are also unaware of the many historical pointers to dinos co-existing with man (as opposed to the 'teaching they became extinct 65 million years ago): cave drawings, stone depictions in Peruvian burial sites, clay figurines of them in Mexico, and so on.

I can't recall the rule on outside urls but if someone give me a quick answer to the rule I will gladly give the url to an article I wrote a few years ago "The impossibility of evolution".

Regards,

Jac

Since your trip to Mexico ended in a disaster, would you care to give us other evidence of human/dinosaur coexistence?

Also, I'd like to point out that even if somebody would disprove evolution - extremely unlikely, but possible- it still isn't evidence that an extradimensional being called Jehovah did it instead.

 

[LittleNipper]

We do not know how many of these majestic creatures (dinosaurs) existed. We do not know how long they're lifespan was. We do not imagine that humans and dinosaurs cohabitated. We do not have a clue as to the numbers of humans that esisted on the earth prior to the FLOOD. There could have been mere hundreds, a few thousand, or a few million. My guess is there were not that many humans around in Noah's time. My guess is that there were not that many dinosaurs. The evolutionist assumes that the fossils he finds represent a small percentage of all the animals alive at a given time. My feelings are that the fossils may represent a high percentage of certain type of living things then others. Example: large dinosaurs likely all left a fossil of one sort or another, even if it was only a bone. Birds would leave hardly any fossils because they are so fragile and light. Some may not have left any. Insects would leave fossils because they exist in large numbers and exist seemingly everywhere. What both evolutionists and creationists work from are hypothesis. An evolutionist is limited in scope to what he imagines and thinks he sees. The Creationist has some information revealed to him and so he uses that as his springboard.

 

[llDayo]

All the 'creationist' standpoint requires in the fossil record to support it is gaps between all the major kinds. This is in fact so.

Describe these gaps and what a kind is (already requested of you). There's a gap between you and your grandfather. Is your father required in order to bridge that gap? If not, what other way could we determine your relation to your grandfather?

 

[llDayo]

A scientists is limited in scope to what he sees and is already known. The Creationist believes he has some information revealed to him and so he uses that as his springboard to the shallow end of the ignorance pool.

Fixed this part.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

An evolutionist is limited in scope to what he imagines and thinks he sees. The Creationist has some information revealed to him and so he uses that as his springboard.

You didn't have anything revealed to you, you follow others who claim that they had.

 

[Dannager]

Here we go.

What is evolution?

It is an idea known as a theory

Yes, it is. Just checking, before we really begin: do you understand what it means for something to be a scientific theory?

that all biological life came from simpler biological ancestors over a long time

Mmmm, not a perfect definition but it will do for now.

by chance molecules came together to begin biological life

Woah, woah, woah, stop right there. Evolutionary theory is not the same as abiogenesis, the idea that life arose through natural processes. Evolution does not require abiogenesis to function. The two are separate. Let's not lump them together.

and these living entities went on to develop and change into all the life forms known today.

Yup.

This is what is taught in schools, books, films, etc and is attributed as scientific fact. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Wrong. Shall we continue?

Irreducible Complexity makes evolution an impossibility

Oh, this section ought to be entertaining.

The thing about life is that no matter how small or simple, it needs food to survive. So that not only does a being need to be there, but its food.

Er, alright...

Now this life needs a mechanism in place for its food to be ingested. So to live there needs to be the food, the means to ingest this food, as well as the being.

Yep.

Now this food's purpose is to provide energy for this life or material from which to allow growth. So that there needs to be a mechanism in place - a digestive system [or a conversion system: for single cell life-forms] - to convert this food into energy or useful building material. So there is food, this being, this 'in-gestive' mechanism and this digestive or conversion mechanism.

Uh-huh.

To grow or reproduce, since this is a facet of all life, this digested material then needs to be ordered in a manner to replicate part or all of the living being. So there is the food, the being's body (it's physical outer limits), its 'in-gestive' system, its digestive system and its reproductive system.

Sure.

Now for a reproductive system to function there needs to be information internally contained to indicate the order in which the building blocks obtained from the food can be put together. So we have food, a being's body, its 'in-gestive' system, its digestive system, its reproductive system and its information system.

I'm sorry, its what? I don't believe any medical or biological research group recognizes that biological organisms possess information systems. You're not making this up, are you? Oh, by the way, while you're at it how about defining "information" for us in biological terms. That'd be super.

I could go on...

Oh, heck, so could I. Let's see...most life requires a method of distributing energy throughout the organism, so we're going to need a circulatory system. Oh, and a respiratory system for all the breathers, because the circulatory system needs oxygen molecules to attach to. And how about an endocrinary system to facilitate chemical balance since we know that chemical overabundance or deficiency can be fatal. And let's not forget the muscular system, or atleast some form of locomotive system for non-stationary organisms. Gosh, that looks like a pretty huge list, huh?

The point is that any life form requires all of these things to exist and to function from the moment it exists to survive.

Those few basics? Sure. Well, to be fair, it doesn't need a reproductive system to survive - just to reproduce. And, of course, the disgestive and ingestive systems are one and the same in a lot of primitive organisms.

Any missing part and it dies.

Nope, I'm afraid that's not true.

These are scientifically observed facts.

No, they aren't. You have yet to provide any reference of observation in support of your claims of irreducible complexity. But just to stave you off, how about some pre-emptive refutation?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

It is thereby incongruous to suggest evolution from non-life into life is a reasonable theory or belief.

Wait, what? First off, irredicuble complexity has nothing to do with non-life. All your arguments were based on systems that exist for living creatures. None of them are contingent upon a non-abiogenesis origin event. Second, why are you arguing against abiogenesis? I thought you were trying to debunk evolutionary theory. They aren't the same thing, remember.

It is impossible.

No, it isn't, and you've failed rather miserably at establishing your point.

Everything needs to be in place from the beginning.

No, it doesn't.

There are so many irreducible complexity combinations within living organisms let alone eco-systems all over the world, that it is a wonder these are ignored.

They aren't. They're refuted all the time. Wait for the next sentence, I've got a shock in store for you.

Whether it is the sonar systems of dolphins, the blood circulatory system of a giraffe, the blood clotting mechanism itself

I'm glad you mentioned the blood clotting mechanism. This has been one of the cornerstones of Behe's irredicuble complexity argument - that the blood clotting mechanism is irreducibly complex. Take away one element and you're left with a non-functioning mechanism that serves no purpose at all, right? Wrong. You see, as it turns out, human beings do require all the different parts of our blood clotting mechanism to clot blood. Sea-faring mammals (dolphins, for instance) don't. They are missing the Hagemann factor, one of the parts included in Behe's argument for irreducible complexity. The puffer fish and zebrafish are missing others. Let's continue.

or, a multitude of others, the analogy holds that the working watch found on the sandy deserted beach indicates not just that it was designed by an intelligent mind, nor just that it was put together by intricate means and capabilities, but also that it belongs to someone.

Ewww, the watchmaker analogy. Go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.html and stop using that argument. It's old, tired and long since put to rest.

Irreducible complexity makes evolution an impossibility.

Except that I just showed one of your examples of irreducible complexity to be not irreducibly complex. I'd be happy to do a few more - they're just as easy. You'll have to promise me first that you'll drop the argument after a certain number of refutations, though. I don't have the time to provide an evolutionary pathway for every biological mechanism that's ever existed.

Probability makes evolution an impossibility

I haven't read the rest of this section yet, but I'm going to go ahead and predict that by the end of my refutation I'm going to be pointing out that you are using an argument-from-incredulity fallacy. Just watch.

What about the likelihood that there is any real possibility that the basic materials for life came together by chance over a very long period of time? What is the chance of that?

Again, this is abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory. Please do not conflate the two. Evolutionary theory is not dependant on abiogenesis.

Alright, I just read the rest of that section and it's entirely about abiogenesis. Not only that, but you do use the argument-from-incredulity fallacy. For instance:

This is just one example of many relating to mathematical probability. An area of science which governs insurance in the commercial world and determines the premiums people pay for cover. The odds here would not produce a backer in the real world. Probability makes evolution an impossibility.

You didn't show evolution to be impossible. You showed abiogenesis to be improbable. As long as there is any possibility of abiogenesis occuring (and your own calculations admit an extremely small chance) it remains possible, however unlikely. Calling it impossible would be a lie.

Not just here on earth but anywhere in the universe.

Hahaha

The length of time for earth's existence makes evolution an impossibility

Okay, let's see why you think this is.

I have wondered about which example to give to best demonstrate the age of the earth in terms of thousands of years rather than millions. However the evolutionist common teaching found of 4.5 billion years only requires me to show an age of a few million years based on current available scientific data to show the nonsense of the common evolutionist timetable.

I'm sorry, I couldn't understand any of that. No offense intended, but is English a second language for you? I did see some links in German on that website, I believe.

1,500 million years - the beginning of the universe
4,600 million years - formation of earth
3,800 million years - earth crust solidifies
3,500 to 2,800 million years - single cell organisms develop
1,500 to 600 million years - multi cell organisms develop
545 million years - hard bodied organisms
500 to 450 million years - first fish
420 million years - first land animals
350 to 300 million years - rise of the amphibians
250 million years - dinosaurs appear
200 million years - appearance of mammals
65 million years - age of dinosaurs ends
20 to 12 million years - chimpanzees and hominids develop
1.6 million years to present - Homo series develops

I think you missed a 0 at the beginning of that list. I bolded it for you. The universe began 15,000 mya, not 1,500 mya. Let's hope that wasn't a significant element in your calculations. The rest looks roughly accurate.

For any of this to be true for the 'evolution' of water organisms to land organisms then the land areas and the mountain ranges that make up the significant mass of land above sea level need to have been around for at least hundreds of millions of years. Since land needs to be there for land creatures to exist. Now the tallest mountain range on earth is the Himalayas with Mount Everest (Chomolangma in Tibet and Sagamartha in Nepal) as the tallest at 8,850 metres: 8.85 km (29,035 feet).

Oh dear.

The current observed erosion rate of this range of mountains is "height - 2-4 km (or more) of rock is removed from the surface of the Himalayas every 1 million years"4. So taking 3 km per million years as a reasonable rate from this, there will be no mountains there in 3 million years time: 3 km X 3 million years = 9 km erosion of more than the present height of the world's tallest mountain range. This erosion rate has taken into account the uplift of the mountains due to the continents colliding with each other on their tectonic plates: the plates that are understood to carry the major land masses as the surface of the earth.

Your erosion rate doesn't take into account volcanic activity, which produces new mountain ranges. Congratulations, all of your calculations are now worthless. Honestly, this is one of the worst researched "serious" arguments I've ever seen. You bothered to compile all this information on mountains and land mass erosion and completely missed volcanic activity?

I'm skipping the next paragraph because it is huge and furthers the erroneous erosion argument.

However by radiometric dating techniques the earth is said to be millions of years old by the examination and testing of rocks or fossils.

Yep, that's correct.

But radiometric dating methods are flawed by their inherent un-provable assumptions within the calculating formulas, and time and again when checked against known historical data have proved to be in error.

Oh please. Refutation here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html. In depth explanation of exactly how radiometric dating formulae and methods are calibrated for the uninformed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html. Let's move on.

I challenge any serious media organisation to obtain rocks from Mount Vesuvius, Krakatau and Mount St Helens, all of which are volcanoes with historically recorded eruptions, and sending these to labs of their choice (without mentioning their source of course), and then not see that the figures returned will be in the millions of years as opposed to the actual fraction known.

I'm not sure why you're challenging serious media organizations here.

Such things have already been demonstrated.

Have they? Where? Why hasn't the scientific community been informed that their most reliable methods of dating are invalid?

--Continued in following post--

 

[TeddyKGB]

All the 'creationist' standpoint requires in the fossil record to support it is gaps between all the major kinds. This is in fact so.

What's amazing is that you can claim this without being able to provide a working definition of "kind."

 

[Baggins]

The Creationist has some information revealed to him and so he uses that as his springboard.

Beaten by a better man with the same idea.

It was a metaphor to good not to extend

I bow to you llDayo

 

[Dannager]

-- Continued from previous post --

In starting this section I mentioned that I was wondering which example to highlight as a means of demonstrating that the earth is young.

And watch the refutations fly, ladies and gentlemen.

A few other pointers to a young earth are as follows: comets disintegrate too quickly since there should be none if they and the solar system are as old as predicted by evolutionists, yet they are still here.

The refutation is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html. Don't forget about the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.

There is not enough mud on the sea floor which is a parallel issue to the erosion of the mountains.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html. Rapid-fire claims get you rapid-fire refutations.

There is not enough sodium (salt) in the sea.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html.

The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html.

Many strata are too tightly bent [the whole topic of (the) Flood Geology better explains this].

Too tightly bent? I'm not even sure what that means. Could you elaborate?

Helium is in the wrong places due to the natural radioactive decay of various rocks.

See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html and here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html.

There are not enough stone age skeletons.

Haha, oh really? How many do you think there should be, and why do you think that is a reasonable number?

And others still.

You haven't got any! They've all been refuted. You need some new arguments, I'm afraid, because you're now fresh out.

So in this section we see that the age of land and the earth thereby is inconsistent with evolution and makes evolution as taught an impossibility.

Except that I refuted your arguments. I'm afraid this section is done for too.

The mechanics of the biological genes of life make evolution an impossibility

Oooh, does this mean we'll get into mutation and natural selection finally? You mean you'll actually start arguing against evolutionary theory? Hooray!

The information contained in the DNA of every cell determines the order in which new cells are formed and their function. Evolution is also defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. An allele is an inherited gene. This is instantly recognised as untrue in terms of the fact that evolution is taught universally as an increase in the changes of alleles in a population thus adapting that population to suit the world better wherein it lives: new information is required for new mechanisms to be formed in any living population of a biological life. The change therefore is of an increase in DNA encoding in the gene pool.

I've bolded the words that you need to define in biological terms for your argument to have meaning. Get back to me on that. It sounds like you're just regurgitating Information Theory nonsense used by other creationists, though. For an explanation of why it's bogus, go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html.

For brevity's sake I'm skipping the next two paragraphs. They're just more Information Theory drivel. Moving on.

To summarise the above:

Irreducible complexity makes evolution an impossibility
Probability makes evolution an impossibility
The age of the mountains make evolution an impossibility
The mechanics of genes makes evolution an impossibility​

Oh, this is rich. Irreducible complexity (which doesn't exist and had one of its examples completely destroyed earlier) shows evolutionary theory to be false? Probability (which shows that abiogenesis [note you didn't even argue against evolution in this section] is improbable but not impossible) shows evolutionary theory to be false? The age of mountains (in which you basically forgot about one of the most important mechanisms in geology - volcanic activity - consequently killing your argument before it got off the ground) shows evolutionary theory to be false? The mechanics of genes (which are based on the meaningless argument of information) shows evolutionary theory to be false?

Yikes. You've got a heck of an argument going for you so far.

The dinosaurs

AWESOME.

Often when the issue of a young earth is discussed or that evolution is untrue, a question is asked about the dinosaurs. What is not so well known but is well documented is the evidence for man having co-existed with dinosaurs.

Please note the Genesis Park link for added comedy. Refutation to this nonsense here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html.

A plesiosaurus is said to be 180 million years old. But on the 10th April 1977 the Japanese ship the Zuiyo Maru caught one in its fishing net and they photographed it and took samples from it. In inauguration of this event later that year a Japanese postage stamp was printed depicting a plesiosaurus.

Ohhh, you mean the basking shark? Read about the actual conclusions drawn from the carcass here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html.

The Paluxi river bed in Texas has been a great source of footprints of dinosaurs encased in stone. But on the same strata has been found human footprints in cretaceous rock.

This is a claim that even most creationists won't make. Refutation here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html. I'd suggest not repeating this argument if you want to hold onto any credibility.

There are cave drawings of dinosaurs, one of the earliest discovered in 1879 by E.L Doheny was of a dinosaur in the Grand Canyon and documented by a scientific expedition in 1924 with Dr Charles W. Gilmore curator of the Vertebrate Palaeontology U.S. National Museum.

I'm afraid that completely ambiguous cave drawings are no match for empirical evidence. For reference, guys, the drawings look like this:

There's no way that could be anything but a living dinosaur living contemporaneously with primitive man!

There are thousands of clay figurines of animals made by the pre-classical Chupicauro Indians in Mexico (800BC to 200AD) and about 1 in 14 of these are of dinosaurs all found at Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico.

That are all fraudulent. I already explained this one in a previous post but here's the refutation again: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html.

The next paragraph contains the same problems as the previous ones. For space considerations I'll skip it.

So there is ample evidence to show that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I wrote to the Natural History Museum, London last year and was told the age of a dinosaur is known from the age of the strata in which the bones are dug up. But, later in the correspondence I was then told that "[a strata's age] is characterised by their associated fossils in sedimentary rock". Strange how the fossil's age is determined by the strata's assumed age which in turn is recognised by the type of fossil found in it!

The geological column was formulated before evolutionary theory existed. Way to misinterpret the meaning of a letter from London's Natural History Museum. See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html and ere: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html (again).

The light and stars

Physics and cosmology now?

The other question that often crops up is if the universe is so young, then how come the light from the stars has taken millions of years to get here?

Yeah, that is a really good question!

This is a good question since we know the speed of light and though experiment has enabled scientists to slow light down it has not been observed to go faster. Indeed it is claimed to be the fastest travelling entity in the universe, except of course that gravity is observed as operating faster. But I am side-tracking now.

Great points, though. There's no way the universe can be younger than the number of years it takes for light to reach the furthest star we can see.

If the earth and the heavens were made in six days as explicit in the bible,

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day . . .

Exodus 20:11​

Does this really need to go to scripture? I thought you were arguing against evolution. Why now are you trying to justify creation?

And, if as the genealogies in the bible indicate all this occurred less than 10,000 years ago then, the distance of the stars and the time the light takes to get here would indicate this is not so, at first glance. One solution to this has been to say that God made the light from the stars as well as the stars so far away. This implies that God wrote a history of what we see out there and equally suggests that He is then hiding the truth about the stars and what we see coming from them. What we see is false and never happened in this scenario.

And this is faulty because it makes the Christian God out to be deceptive.

However the bible says much more about this aspect of creation. It mentions that God is He "Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain" (Psalm 104:2).

Again, oh dear.

Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out . . .

Isaiah 42:5
(See also Isaiah 44:24 and 45:12)​

More scriptural rationalization.

In this view then we find God not only made the stars and positioned them as if the heavens were a curtain all folded up and thus very close to the earth, and our seeing them was the light emitting from them. The sun's light takes 7 minutes to reach the earth. It may be these stars and their light took several hours to reach earth but this was on the day they were created. Here-after the Lord is described as stretching out the heavens like a curtain. With everything in place but then distanced to their later homes as witnessed by the light reaching earth today. What we then see actually happened, but it is not millions of years ago but at a fraction of that due to the stretching out of outer space, 'the heavens'.

So what your view boils down to is that nothing travels faster than light, except maybe the miracle that God used to make the universe expand (for some unknown purpose) faster than the speed of light. You can try to rationalize scripture to fit the evidence all you like, but this is not the most parsimonious way to go about it and is thus probably not correct. It's far more likely that God created the universe through the process known as the Big Bang (which is evidenced), that life arose (whether by chance or divine hand) and that life evolved naturally (again, evidenced).

It's worth noting that nothing in this section deals with evolution - why is it here? Your article is about the impossibility of evolution, right? Why this section at the end about scriptural rationalization - especially about astronomy and physics, which have zero pertinence to any discussion on evolutionary theory.

That's the end of the article, folks. All told nothing really exciting. I was hoping that a new argument would be presented somewhere in there that couldn't just be blown out of the water with a refutation that's been used a thousand times over.

Jacquo, let me know what you think. Your article needs some rather drastic changes made to it.

 

[Baggins]

There is a much stronger refutation of the mountain erosion fallacy than just volcanic activity.

Volcanic activity is important in mountain ranges above subduction zones, such as the Andes.

Of equal or more importance are mountain ranges thrown up by continental collision, e.g the chain of mountains running from alps to the himalayas.

He actually uses the Himalayas to make a point about how quickly they should erode, but he doesn't even know that due to the continuing movement north of India into Asia the Himalayas are in fact getting higher.

 

[Dannager]

There is a much stronger refutation of the mountain erosion fallacy than just volcanic activity.

Volcanic activity is important in mountain ranges above subduction zones, such as the Andes.

Of equal or more importance are mountain ranges thrown up by continental collision, e.g the chain of mountains running from alps to the himalayas.

He actually uses the Himalayas to make a point about how quickly they should erode, but he doesn't even know that due to the continuing movement north of India into Asia the Himalayas are in fact getting higher.

Ah, good point. I just picked up on the conspicuous absence of any mention of volcanic activity and stopped there. This makes his argument look even more half-baked.

 

[Jacquo]

Hi all,

I'm briefly here. I see there is a lot of response. I'm afraid I cannot do it credit today and may not be back until tomorrow sometime...

I trust you can be patient enough to wait until then.

Regards to ye all,

Jac

 

[LittleNipper]

You didn't have anything revealed to you, you follow others who claim that they had.

The Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of the Bible to me because I 'm a saved and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I follow GOD's WORD and I do not follow people. The Bible is GOD manuel and love letter to me.