A serious scientific attack on the theory of evolution

[macma]

The latest geological conception of the genesis of karst terrains, published in respected Springer's journal Carbonates and Evaporites, suggests that the entire Earth's surface was covered with water about 5,000 years ago. The conclusion is derived based on the the analysis of depth of micro karst landforms (karren), which are by this concept, the only karst features formed under atmospheric conditions, i.e. by diluent effect of rain waters. The results represent a serious attack on scientific theory of evolution, which certainly could not happen within 5,000 years.

 

 

Links of articles are:

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13146-012-0125-2

 

http://geologyresearch.me/pdf/Radulovic_M_Milan_Karst_landforms_submerge_evolution.pdf

[Phi for All]

This seems more like you're using the Springer study, which only suggests that there is some doubt about current explanations for how karst landforms develop, to lend credence to your claims that the Earth somehow magically had enough water to cover the entire surface a mere 5000 years ago. I don't consider this attack serious at all, and there is ample evidence there was never a time when all land masses were submerged. How could they be, where did the water go?

 

In fact, this seems more like a creationist attack on evolution using a trivially refutable argument. It's speculation at best, and certainly doesn't deserve to be considered Science News.

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

[imatfaal]

I have been to several places and seen artifacts which continuous human history (and a myriad of archaelogical and scientific methods) show to be over 5000 years old

[krash661]

IMO, this appears to be leading to religion of some sort.

that 5k years is common in religious thought's.

 

but, i'm probably wrong.

Edited April 25, 2013 by krash661

[Ophiolite]

There are several - I am tempted to say numerous - non sequiturs in the reasoning presented by the author of the second paper. There are also some instances of serious misinterpretation of the facts, or cynical manipulation of them. The two approachs are often indistinguishable.

 

Macma, I suspect your post is what is sometimes known as a Drive-by. You post with no intention of returning to discuss or debate the issue, thus avoiding the risk that faced with a reasoned argument you might come to your senses. If I am mistaken I would be happy to elaborate on the shortcomings of the argument. Your choice.

[ydoaPs]

There are several - I am tempted to say numerous - non sequiturs in the reasoning presented by the author of the second paper. There are also some instances of serious misinterpretation of the facts, or cynical manipulation of them. The two approachs are often indistinguishable.

They're papers by a civil engineer talking about geology; what did you expect?

[Ringer]

They're papers by a civil engineer talking about geology; what did you expect?

Wait, are you trying to say that having PhD at the end of your name doesn't mean you are qualified in every area? Blasphemy I say!

 

[edit]

 

I should probably mention that even if the Earth was only 5,000 years old that wouldn't be enough to show evolution is false. If that were true the best explanation for the evidence seen is that evolution happened extremely rapidly for most of history and the rate has declined rapidly. This is because regardless of geology, evolution has an ungodly amount of supporting evidence

 

[/edit]

Edited April 26, 2013 by Ringer

[John Cuthber]

5000 years?

You can count tree rings twice as far back as that,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

so it's plainly wrong.

What I wonder is why would anyone publish such obvious nonsense.