Debate on evolution

[standalone09]

Ask Questions Share Facts and mostly discuss them NICE AND CULTURAL im Sure both sides have there own view of eroding mountains population changes over the ages and for example the age of the earth itself etc. :wink:

 

 

So...

 

If mountains are eroding wouldnt the earth be flat as paris hilton´s chest after billions of years?

 

Now...

 

Please Respect the Rules given [RULESHERERULES] :smile:

Hope we can have a nice cultural debate about this stuff. :smile:

 

 

I am unable to change the name of this thread. However I closed it up as post invite a religious debate. There is to be no talk about religion in this topic AT ALL....not even in theory or a theory. As long as this happens I will reopen the thread. Otherwise I will close it again. OP please remove any references that may cause a debate on a religious topic. Thank you.~Lisnpuppy

 

Name changed. ~Z

Edited May 1, 2014 by Zaldiir

[FiftyTifty]

Erosion is a very slow process. By "very slow", we're talking about millions of years for, say, a tiny river to form or a cliff to be ever so slightly smoothed.

 

You're also ignoring extraterrestial impacts (meteors, asteroids, etc.), earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, continental drift, gravity and the like.

 

Your second point is a non sequitur. Yes, there is a surge of people whom are trying to believe what has been proven to be true, rather than what they are told to be true. It's not because it's "cool". It's because that's how you become more knowledgable.

 

And on the subject of Creationism, if evolution is false, creationism is not automatically true. Besides, there is no evidence for Creationism (what some book says about it does not make it true), whereas there is much evidence for evolution. Por Ejemplo, we can trace back the evolution of the modern dairy cow to it's auroch ancestor. The same can be done with the banana and plantains (take that, Ray Comfort).

[standalone09]

Well in American we have a degradation rate of 6,1cm per 1000 years now taking a look at the average height of continents today which is 623m it would "only" take us 10milion years to basically have no continents. :smile:

 

Obviously we dont have everywhere the same degradation rates/heights like Mount Rainier for example has a degradation rate of 1000cm in 1000 years so it really depends i´d say. :D

Edited April 29, 2014 by standalone09

[HeyYou]

Not to mention that the tectonic plates are still moving, so, mountain building, etc. is still happening even today. The 'flat earthers' in this case, are running under the assumption that the earth is a static system. It is not.

[standalone09]

Of course its happening the rocky mountains have an average growth rate between 100cm to 1000cm per 1000 years for the himalaya its around 500cm every 1000 years i think which basically would mean that we should not find rhino fossiles up there like we do these days^^ now considering the rate of erosion too the himalayas should have mountains of approx 40km height today, after millions years of course. :smile:

Edited April 29, 2014 by standalone09

[Beriallord]

I'm open to the possibility that it might have been a little bit of both. Meaning most species on Earth are products entirely of evolution, but maybe something manipulated the DNA of one of our hominid ancestors that happened to have evolved normally up to that point. But even if that did happen, it would probably be impossible to prove.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Beriallord

[FiftyTifty]

@Standalone: You do know that the climate changes, right? And that there will be environmental events, such as the ones I mentioned in my first post, that can severely affect the geography of particular areas.

 

Of course, you could be getting your figures from a biased source; you know those people that were talking out of their ass about moon dust? Your current arguments are beginning to sound rather similar.

 

But I fail to see how any of this proves creationism. So far, you're just perpetuating the argument from ignorance.

[Beriallord]

Of course its happening the rocky mountains have an average growth rate between 100cm to 1000cm per 1000 years for the himalaya its around 500cm every 1000 years i think which basically would mean that we should not find rhino fossiles up there like we do these days^^ now considering the rate of erosion too the himalayas should have mountains of approx 40km height today, after millions years of course. :smile:

You're forgetting about other variables like rock slides, or earthquakes that can take a whole side off a mountain in an instant. Also glacial erosion.

[standalone09]

@FiftyTifty Evolutionism is basically bashing itself with statements like "yeah you know if earth created itself the electromagnetic field around it did too" So to speak Electromagnetism alone is an enigma enough for every geology professor or scientist that claims to live on a 4.5bilion year old planet. So you have much more with ignorance in common then you think. :smile:

Edited April 29, 2014 by standalone09

[HeyYou]

@FiftyTifty Evolutionism is basically bashing itself with statements like "yeah you know if earth created itself the electromagnetic field around it did too" So to speak Electromagnetism alone is an enigma enough for every geology professor or scientist that claims to live on a 4.5bilion year old planet. So you have much more with ignorance in common then you think. :smile:

Erm, what ya tryin' ta say here? Electromagnetism is a property of metallic mass.... no mystery there.