Proof that at least one of two (evolution, ice age) key theories is false

official school material ^ | 04/05/21 | self

[Truth666]

These are three of the dogmas which we are endoctrinated nowadays in school : #1 - origins of the current forms life forms: by evolution from previous forms #2 - appearance of Homo Sapiens (from encarta): The oldest known fossils that possess skeletal features typical of modern humans date from between 130,000 and 90,000 years ago. #3 - last ice age (from encarta): the most recent ice age, the Pleistocene Epoch, lasted from about 1.6 million years to 10,000 years before present ... when temperatures were 5° to 7° C cooler than today.

#1 and #2 are part of current evolution theory; #3 is part of current ice age theory.

There can be no doubts that no other theory has so much impact on modern society as evolution theory. In view of the signs of climate change from the last years, ice age theory is impacting society more by the day.

From these dogmas we immediately can take the following conclusion : homo sapiens has already experienced an ice age.

Now hold on to your seat : relying solely on the assumptions of both theories, there's plenty of evidence that AT LEAST one of these theories is false ! In other words : these theories are incompatible.

Let's take one piece of evidence that any high school student can understand.

Lord Howe Island - living proof

This is not just another coral reef. This is Lord Howe Island, by far the southern-most coral reef in the world. Its existance is only possible due to particular climate conditions that affect an area of the world where no other land rises even remotely near sea level. In fact there's nothing but deep ocean until Port Macquarie, on the NSW coast, 550 kms away.

This wonder of the world would be immediately destroyed, if the ocean temperature would drop just one degree Celsius. If the temperature would drop 5°C both endemic unmistakable palms (including the most popular indoor palm of the world, howea forsteriana) would also perish. So, just to take these two examples, both the coral and the howea would have had to have developed from scratch during the last 10,000 years. A claim that nobody would dare to make.

[Truth666]

"You want evidence of the last ice age? Fly over Minnesota sometime and see all of the lakes.
Wrong - again see the post above to Cobra Scott.

[Truth666]

You also have one wrong comment too (at least in the interpretation of what I said about how unique Lord Howe is) here :
right in the middle of a warm current. And it's so unique - I mean, we don't have any other examples of an area at higher latitudes being warmed by an ocean current. Other than Europe. Oh, yeah, and we can't forget Bermuda - and gee, Bermuda has coral reefs also.

I think I was clearly referring to the Southwestern Pacific, since I said that there's no land rising from the ocean until Port Macquarie, NSW.
What you point out is true - besides Lord Howe there are only two other high latitude coral reefs : Bermuda (Northern Atlantic) and northern Red Sea (until Eilat, Israel).
BTW, considering the diffence of temperature for subtropical latitudes between the Northern (much warmer) and souhtern hemisphere, also in this point, like in any other, Lord Howe Island is the superlative

[Truth666]

"Whilst Lord Howe is located in cooler waters at latitude 31 south, it has a remarkable mix of tropical as well as temperate marine life. The larvae of tropical species, including corals, are swept south by the warm East Australia Current which flows past the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland before swirling out into the north Tasman sea" - Well, there goes your coral theory

Double-header ( Coris bulbifrons ), endemic in the Lord Howe reef - a pretty large fish ...

Do I need to get into the discussion if coral larvae can colonise an island more than 550 km away ? - BTW, this is something for what there's no proof, I would never use it as an argument, but that's a personal decision ...

Or into smaller sized evidence, like all the endemic corals of Lord Howe's reef ?

[Physicist]

Does that mean that you agree with me in that students are being told lies ?

If the point of your exercise was to show that in teaching to students, the science often gets dumbed down, you could have picked a thousand better examples. As it turns out, you've only put your own misunderstanding on display.

[Physicist]

Do I need to get into the discussion if coral larvae can colonise an island more than 550 km away ?

Since your entire argument crumbles into nothing if they can, you have no alternative but to present compelling evidence, if not ironclad proof, that they cannot.

[Truth666]

You are right on this one! Since I used the expression "from scratch" for the coral reef example. So to avoid discussing "if it is possible for coral larvae to colonise an island more than 550 km away" let's add "endemic" to it.

[Truth666]

here is the revised (restricted) version of the last part of the introductory article :
So, just to take these two examples, both the endemic coral reef ecosystem (corals, anemones, coral fish, etc ) and the howea would have had to have developed from scratch during the last 10,000 years. A claim that nobody would dare to make.

[Physicist]

What do you mean by "endemic"?

[Physicist]

And what do you mean by "scratch"?

[dirtboy]

How to sell big lie based constructs - Technique #1 - downplay key evidence

You're the only I see doing that.

[Truth666]

sorry, I forgot to delete "from scratch" from the expression above.

[dirtboy]

You absolutely must address it. Christian dogma insists that this island was submerged for, what, 266 days about 4000 years ago. If you accept that mythology, you are faced with exactly the same (indeed, a worse) problem than the one you just laid at the feet of evolution.

That one's gonna leave a mark.

[Truth666]

actually I would only delete "from scratch" if theory of evolution as taught in schools claims that there was evolution in the last 10,000 years, what I don't think is the case. Can someone inform me on that ?

[Truth666]

I mean endemic almost in the same extreme sense as the Lord Howe palms, which, before reaching adult age, can only survive in the Lord Howe cloud forest.
This fish apparently can also survive in the adjoining Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs, the only other reef areas of the world with the same water temperatures.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This comes from creationist theory?

[Physicist]

actually I would only delete "from scratch"

Again: what do you mean by "from scratch"?

if theory of evolution as taught in schools

Again with the schools! Do you judge American history on the basis of what's taught in the schools?

claims that there was evolution in the last 10,000 years, what I don't think is the case.

Of course there was evolution in the last 10,000 years. There is evolution demonstrably going on now.

[Physicist]

This fish

What's this about fish? You said you were sticking to coral, having given up the palms as a bad deal.

[Truth666]

It's not in the Bible. It's not incompatible with the Bible either.

[Truth666]

please see my #127, where I reformulated one statement, to keep the discussion "can coral larvae colonise an island more than 550 km away?" away from this thread.

[Truth666]

"from scratch" (for evolution theory) would mean the same they did for homo sapiens : finding, among the species that could have survived the last ice age in Lord Howe, which looks more credible to illustrate a possible evolution (apes, in the case of homo sapiens) ...
But this is where my anwered question to evolution experts comes back again : does evolution theory claim any case of evolution in the last 10,000 years ?