14 reasons not to believe in Macro-Evolution

[spiritman]

Well. . .this conversation about coral reefs began with a reply to your comment that someone not being able to convince you of an old earth without using radiometric dating resulted in the score of

"Evolutionists 1

Creationists 13"

So I guess by that logic the score would now be:

Evolutionists & Geologists: 2

Creationists: 12

Lurker

I guess my point is; please explain how drlling for coral has anything to do with proving an OEC

[spiritman]

I guess my point is; please explain how drlling for coral has anything to do with proving an OEC

Coral only grows a fraction of an inch a year, so a reef that's over 4,000 feet thick couldn't have formed within 6,000 years.

Lurker

As Paul harvey used to say so many years ago; " And now the rest of the story" Click here

[spiritman]

"Evolutionists 1

Creationists 13"

So I guess by that logic the score would now be:

Evolutionists & Geologists: 1

Creationists: 13

[Fez]

I work in a World heritage site. It has a 320km long coastline bordering the terrestrial part of the park. It has coral reefs (look up Sodwana Bay, one of the best dive sites in the world, and one of the busiest). Within the marine protected area is a coral reef known as Leadsman Shoal (so named after the leadsman on old sailing vessels, who used to throw a lead weight with a wax core to the bottom to ascertain depth, and shout "by the mark 6!") Telling the captain that they were in 6 fathoms of water. The wax was to pick up bottom substrate to ascertain the make up of the bottom, mud, gravel, coral, etc.

I have had the privilege of diving on this reef (it is closed to the public) for over 25 years, and know it like the back of my hand.

In 1984 we had a cyclone (Demonia - it can be found in the Storm Weather Underground - wonderful weather site - archives). Demonia caused huge damage, flooding during which I was stranded for two weeks on the high ground my house was on, and was air dropped food from a helicopter, etc. The surf at the time exceeded 15 ft and it destroyed beaches, washed away dunes, etc. The first opportunity I got I launched my surf boat and went out to sea. Six kilometers out I got off my boat and walked on floating islands of vegetation mats!

So it was a big cyclone. When the water had cleared of debris and muddy water, we went back to Leadsman and dived the coral. It was a mess! Plate corals had turned over and smashed through delicate stag horn coral, etc. It looked like a gravel pit, not a coral reef.

We studied this reef damage (we have recorded 119 species of coral and 1,200 fish species over the years), for a period of two years. In this time plate corals regrew at a phenomenal rate, until they were 30 cm high. The stag horn was also quick (given that it grows in close knit colonies), and within a year was over 6 - 10cm high (it does not grow like plate coral, (which almost looks like a table, with a stem and a flat top), nor as high.

So fraction of an inch a year coral growth, not where I am. No. I have seen, studied, and photographed it for 25 years, and have over 600 hours logged underwater on this one reef alone.

We now believe that cyclones every 10 to 15 years equate to fires in grasslands (in which moribund grass is burned to allow new growth), and that coral reefs actually need these episodic events as growth enhancers. (just like big trees in forests fall to allow light in, and new seedlings to grow?)

Blessings

[spiritman]

That's one big issue I have with the evolutionists evidence; most of the time they like to present some of the evidence, and give you just enough to make you believe their side of the story; leaving out the part, that would show that their evidence is presumption, and not fact.

[wyguy]

That's one big issue I have with the evolutionists evidence; most of the time they like to present some of the evidence, and give you just enough to make you believe their side of the story; leaving out the part, that would show that their evidence is presumption, and not fact.

Try getting them to explain the origin of the universe or biological life! They love to say, "evolution doesn't deal with origins!" They say that because they have no idea how a universe could create itself from nothing or how life could create itself from dead matter.

[MorningGlory]

That's one big issue I have with the evolutionists evidence; most of the time they like to present some of the evidence, and give you just enough to make you believe their side of the story; leaving out the part, that would show that their evidence is presumption, and not fact.

Try getting them to explain the origin of the universe or biological life! They love to say, "evolution doesn't deal with origins!" They say that because they have no idea how a universe could create itself from nothing or how life could create itself from dead matter.

I've noticed that....it's all spin. If you don't know the answer you say that isn't the question and move on.

[wyguy]

Try getting them to explain the origin of the universe or biological life! They love to say, "evolution doesn't deal with origins!" They say that because they have no idea how a universe could create itself from nothing or how life could create itself from dead matter.

Evolution doesn't deal with origins. If you must criticize evolution it's always a good idea to criticize what it actually claims instead of stuff other people who disagree with it have simply made up.

Lurker

Evolution does indeed deal with origins. The problem being, evolutionists are at a loss to explain the origin of matter and energy or how life originated from dead matter. They have zero proof that the universe created itself from nothingness, and that life created itself from non-living matter. And thus, the easiest way out is the path you have also chosen - to deny evolution deals with origins. Cosmic and biological origins are a part of evolutionary thought - ya gotta start somewhere - and to claim the foundation of evolutionary progress is not a part of that process, is to be ignorant of the basic theory.

[spiritman]

As Paul harvey used to say so many years ago; " And now the rest of the story" Click here

Remember in an earlier discussion on radiometric dating how I gave you a little grief over citing your sources, this is an excellent example of why that's important. The AIG article you blindly linked to essentially claims that because coral can grow up to 414 mm. per year the entire Eniwetok formation could have formed in <3500 years. You'll notice that they provide a single reference for this claim which is a study done by J. Verstelle in 1932. . .yes, that's right 1932. Is this seriously the best data we can find on coral growth rates? A study from over 70 years ago? Is there a reason more recent studies that look at indicators such as growth rings are completely ignored? Certainly none of the problems mentioned earlier in the article would significantly affect it other than the fact that it yields growth rates of 0.7 to 3.3 mm per year which is too slow for a young earth.

Lurker

I

s there a reason more recent studies that look at indicators such as growth rings are completely ignored?

Yes there is a reason; We don't trust the evolutionary scientists conclusions; at least in my case for one reason.

1. Their findings have to agree with evolution, if not they will get kicked out of their jobs ( The Love of Money is the root of all evil) .

Remember the news articles I gave you some time back, about what happened to well educated scientists with PHD's by their names, if they refuse to come up with in their prospective fields anything but conclusions that agree with evolution?

You people are told what to think, how to think it, if not you lose your jobs, your paycheck, your creditability. Think I'm wrong Lurker, prove me wrong, go into your school tomorrow, and tell your students that Evolution is just a theory, and that creation science should be considered as well. Let's see how long you keep your job.

[spiritman]

You'll notice that they provide a single reference for this claim which is a study done by J. Verstelle in 1932. . .yes, that's right 1932. Is this seriously the best data we can find on coral growth rates? A study from over 70 years ago?

Luker, if you're going to ridicule my evidence and sources at least get it right ok. anyone who reads the AIG article, can see you haven't listed all the information so I'll do it for you.

References

C.G. Weber,