Why Evolution Is Wrong

[Zylark]

Please, do come up with a reference to a serious scientific study that have observed starligh older than the universe itself. Please!

The oldest light that's ever been seen is approx. 13.3 billion lightyears away. And that's a fact, not something I made up out of the top of my head.

I can say that is a fact, due to it having been verified by several independent researchers. And if I had the right equiptment (and education =P) I could verify that myself. Just as with any other scientific result. That is the trick of science. Everything can be testet and verified by anyone who cares to. If it cannot be tested it isn't science. And if it isn't sience, it's not knowledge, and it sure isn't fact.

The discovery of Evolution, like all real science, startet with a question: "Why all this diversity, and how did it come to be?". Through carefull observation they came out with an answer and a model of how it worked in its general form. Also known as the theory of Evolution. Later that theory have been refined. Details ironed out. And all of it have been supported by ever growing sheer bulk of evidence. When the theory of evolution came, little things like DNA was still unknown. The discovery of DNA analyzis alone did more than just verify Evolution. Through direct examination of and comparing DNA from different species, and how it changes over passing generations, it's made Evolution a science fact, to the same degree that the theory of gravity and electro magnetism is a fact.

And all other evidence backs up Evolution and an old Universe.

Creationism on the other hand, started life as a preconceived assumption. The assumption that the bible is literarily correct in everything. And thus, the earth is quite young, and all life was created as it is today. And everything was done within 6 days by a supernatural beeing of some sort. Now, where is the evidence for this? Or more correctly, how the hell are they gonna prove that? A supernatural beeing did it! Well, that explains a lot, doesn't it.

Well, that was a rhetorical question. It doesn't. It doesn't explain black holes. Background radiation. It doesn't explain anything. It's just like saying why bother. Just live it up, and don't be so curious about why things work as they do, just as long as they work. Well, that attitude sure didn't give us Computers or Moonlandings. It did not give us vital medicines and treatments. Not cars and not airplanes.

Fact is, not a single serious independent scientific study have ever come even remotely near confirming any piece of the Creationists claims. None. Absolutely all scientific study, have supportet old universe and evolution. Biology, Bio-Chemistry, Astronomy, Astro-Physics, Paleontology, Geology and countless other scientific disciplines are all in total agreement. So I repeat again, there is no scientific doubt or even discussion regarding the the principles of evolution both of life and the universe itself. They might have heated discusiions over details in the jigzaw, but they all agree that the general picture is correct. Put this is what drives science forward and ensures progress. In diametrical opposition to Creationism static thinking that they already have all the answers: Goddidit!

The only ones pushing creationism are, as I said earlier, non-scientists with an agenda. That agenda is to sneak religion into schools. And they will and do use any and all sleazy tricks to do it. Rabid misquotations, misusing statistics, low-belt debating techniques, twisting data and just generally beeing outright intellectually dishonest.

So again, please, do give me one example of a serious scientific study coming up with starlight older than the universe.

And instead of feeble flawed attempts at trying to disprove Evolution, do me a favour, try and come up with some actual proofs for Creatonism. And good luck on that btw.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Everything can be testet and verified by anyone who cares to. If it cannot be tested it isn't science.

.

Test and verify evolution for me then. Go ahead. Give me one example where someone saw something evolve. Give me one example where someone tested and verified that life came from some crap floating around in an organic pool somewhere. They haven't been able to recreate it in a laboratory, there's never been one instance where any aspect of evolution has been verified or proven.

It takes a gain in DNA to make a more complex organism - why has this never been observed to happen? There would be many half-way fossils of creatures who died because they weren't fully evolved. Where are they?

Geology proves a global flood more than it does evolution. I've given scientific evidence of this in this thread. The dating methods are flawed - I've given examples of this. Our universe is highly complex, but it came this way from an explosion? Really? That's a contridiction of the second law of thermodynamics because the universe by definition is a closed system, and everything left in a closed system goes from order to disorder.

Archeology again proves more from the Bible than it does evolution.

Sorry man, but I've given far more proof on the subject than you're giving me credit for. I think you need to take some time and seriously re-read this thread.

EDIT: And whoever said that a global flood wouldn't cause mountains and trenches and canyons doesn't know very much about what water can do.

[Zylark]

Once again you show your true ignorance of what science portrays. Evolution does not explain how life started, it desribes the process of evolution of life into diverse and ever more advanced species after the first self replicating organism came to be.

Just as Astro-Physics doesn't explain how the universe started, but the process of how the universe evolves and behaves after the singularity that caused the Big Bang.

And you're still skirting the issue here. You haven't given any proof of Creationism. You've merely tried to discredit Evolution. And did you ever stop to think that even if by some miracle you managed to disprove evolution, that that would make creationism the one only truth by default? By disproving the one, you do not automatically prove another. You've merely ruled out the possibility for the one.

But let's start the rebuttal

Don't you realize we've seen evolution happen countless times? What do you think the common cold, AIDS virus or Ebola is doing when new forms occur constantly that proves immune to previous treatment and vaccinations? It evolves. To ensure it's survival as the enviroment changes. Virus are quick to evolve and adapt, since they are simple creatures. More complex creatures obviously take longer to evolve and adapt, if for no other reason than that the generational cycle is much longer. We've even seen speciation in lab-experiments. Hell, here's an excerpt from a creationist site that you might find interesting:

" Claim - ‘No new species have been produced.’ - This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp

(Notice the clever half-acceptance of observed speciation by the way. In one sentence they admit to it beeing true. Then follows an assertion of Creationist belief, and then the restriction of that belief projected onto the first sentence as well as the second.)

And your assertion that net-gain of DNA material have not been observed, is just flat out wrong. Quite often actually do genes make double copies of themselves, instead of just the one that is normal in a cell-division. Thus increasing the DNA that goes into a cell, facilitating that cell's ancestors to inherit even more advanced features due to it's rizing complexity given the extra "DNA-memory-space".

And no halfway-fossils? Inaccurate dating techniques? Abusing and misunderstanding the second law of thermo-dynamics. Can you even recite the second law of dynamics for me?

Where do you get your information from? Not scientific papers at least.

There are tons of "half-way" fossils. Overwhelming amounts of it. I'll provide a few links for your enjoyment:

***Between Fish and Amphibian***
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/U...i/140.860.html

***Between Amphibian and Reptile***
http://encarta.msn.com/media_4615514...Seymouria.html

***Between Reptile and Mammal***
http://www.prehistory.com/dimetrod.htm
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/U...a/410.300.html
http://digimorph.org/specimens/Probainognathus_sp/

***Between Reptile and Birds***
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

Moving on to dating techniques beeing flawed: No they're not. But each dating technique got their own set of application. You dragged up an example of C14 testing beeing done on a living entity, showing it was several thousand years old. Well duh! Anyone with half a clue on C14 dating knows that it cannot be used on living tissue for the very simple fact that only at death does the intake of new carbon stop, and the process of C14 decay can be accurately measured. Using C14 dating on living tissue is just as wrong as using mercury thermometers to measure temperatures above the boiling point of mercury. No matter how hot it would get, the mercury would not rize above 356'C. But for measurements below 356'C mercury thermometers are entirely accurate (assuming constant atmospheric pressure). Same with C14 dating on dead things younger than 50.000 years. But yet Creationists love to flaunt this argument to an unsuspecting public, eventhough it's been pointed out to them the error of their ways ever since they started to use this argument. But this is business as usual for Creationists.

It is worth noting also that the maximum error in C14 dating is only a few thousand years. Since the experimental limit on carbon-14 dating is 50.000 years, even the worst kind of error on samples in the older range does not leave room for the 6.000 year-old earth desired by young-earth creationists.

Geology for one thing absolutely ensures an old earth. And absolutely no part of established geology even hints about a global flood. Claiming that is just a lie against all better knowledge. Please do lead me to an actual, serious scientific geology article that concludes with a young earth and global flood beeing probable and supported with actual evidence. I'd love to see it.

And again with the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics regurgitation. Please read up on thermo-dynamics. Maybe then you'll appreciate what it says. And more importantly what it doesn't say. Don't just copy paste some crap from a Creationist site, but try to read it and understand it. I've tried to explain it to you before, but obviously I did not do a good enough job. I'll give it a last shot though.

And I do have to arrest you on a couple of unfounded assumptions and obvious contradictions in your belief system when abusing the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics.:

-You assume

the universe by definition is a closed system

...

Do you know that for a fact? I sure don't. Neither does science provide an answer. What scientists have done though is theorize on the probability of the universe beeing a closed system or not, and thus far, the jury is still out. No evidence really points to or denies the one or the other.

Secondly, and this is a bit ironic. If you truly believe the universe is a closed system, you cannot possibly believe in god. A closed system is a system without *any* outside influence and transfer of energy into it. But what is then god, if not an "out of this universe" external entity that is supposed to have an influence on all that is existence in that universe? hmm? To be a theist is by definition the same as believing in a universe beeing part of an open system, with outside influence from a supernatural beeing not bound by the laws of the universe. That Creationists use the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics with the assertion that the universe is a closed system therefore boggles my mind.

And before you refute with "Exactly, God isn't bound by the laws of the universe, and thus not bound by the 2nd law of thermodynamics either!" do think about it twice. Any and all disruption of the laws of our universe would require a practically infinite amount of energy, and thus state of order. Thus actually validating the concept of an open universe, and ipso facto negating the application of the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics to our universe. You can't have it both ways.

- You assume

everything left in a closed system goes from order to disorder

Where did you get that idea? Everything? Absolutely everything? Are you 100% certain of that?

This is another of the creationist favourite misrepresentation of the laws of thermo-dynamics. But clearly it is not true. The law says that in total the tendency is for a degradation from order to chaos. From higher forms of energy to lesser. But that is on a whole. Like the sum total if you wish. However within systems of the system, exchanges can and do happen that locally hightens the order/energy of a given subsystem. And life itself is such a subsystem. A pretty tiny element of the universe, and seeing as life (as far as we know) only exist in places abundand with energy that can increase the state of order in a smaller subsystem, the entire creationist argument becomes mute. And all the time whilst the sun got the ability to generate heat and thus energy by means of radiation by its process of degradation from one form of order to a lower form of order, it feeds the earth, and life, with plentifull energy to reach any degree of order evolution pushes life towards. Yes, the earth is bathed in sunshine from the *open* system we call our dear home and solarsystem.

Was that understandable?

So to be short. You haven't given any passable proof of your creationist theory. You have though tried to disrepute evolution by means of incorrect understanding of scientific results and method.

You still haven't given me any reference to a study that claims observation of starlight older than the universe either. I'm still waiting for that one.

[hazyskies]

Arguing over evolution is like watching man turn back into the ape from whence he came. eventually it denegrates into nothing but loud noises and chest thumping. Nothing is certain because man is inherently fallible. This isnt an invitation to doubt everything all the time, but it makes me think that instead of trying to prove evolution did exist, i should be trying to prove it still does by moving on to new trains of thought.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

You twisted my words cottons, i said that water couldn't cause mountains and trenches in less than 10,000 years.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

You twisted my words cottons, i said that water couldn't cause mountains and trenches in less than 10,000 years.

I did nothing of the sort. I just said you don't understand what that much water could do. We're not talking about a river or lake flooding... We're talking about a major global catastrophe with water ruptureing out from 10 miles under the earth. Think of what could happen with that much pressure, with about half the water that's currently in our oceans, as well as all the moisture that's in the air raining down - all happening at once.

Imagine the crack from where it first ruptured from underground.... It would spread like a crack in a windshield (these would be the fault lines we have today). Now... once the crust is all broken up in to plates (wouldn't take long with that much pressure, water, and erosion going on), these plates begin to slide around as there's still some water underneath of them. They could reach rapid speeds as they have lubrication under them.... These collisions would have formed the major mountain chains and the trenches that parallel them.

Zylark... Maybe you should check the title of this thread again.... It's not a "Why Creation is Right" thread... What would you expect to find in a thread that says "Why Evolution is Wrong?" I know, personally, I'd expect to find someone trying to show the major problems with evolution.

As for your last post... I'll respond when I have more time/patience.

[thccrystals]

No matter what you argue against creationism, they can just play the 'magic' card and we can't formulate a response that could possibly shut that down. Besides maybe 'magic isn't real children.'

[cybo3288]

Natural selection is the very basis of evolution. What one has to understand is that the evolutionary theory is based on the idea that there were millions upon millions of species existent at the time of earths conception. These species were slowly strained out, until the ones with the ideal deformities for their living conditions were left alive. Thus, as living conditions changed, so did the deformities ideal for living in them. Evolution took so long because it does take a long time for an entire species to die off. Furthermore, deformities occur because of an error in a dna strand. These deformities occur in every living species, apparent or not, but it takes thousands of years for a deformity ideal for a certain living condition to become dominant in a given species. Whatever, i tried explaining why evolution is a natural occurence. Say what u will.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Once again you show your true ignorance of what science portrays. Evolution does not explain how life started, it desribes the process of evolution of life into diverse and ever more advanced species after the first self replicating organism came to be.

Just as Astro-Physics doesn't explain how the universe started, but the process of how the universe evolves and behaves after the singularity that caused the Big Bang.

True ignorance? Is not the origin of life a <b>part</b> of evolution? Did unliving compounds not have to "evolve" from the soup and become living?

I'm not using evolution as a means to describe the origin of life - I'm attacking the fact that scientists have never been able to re-create life, or observe it forming from nothing. If this simple step can't be re-created in an extremely controlled laboratory - what makes you think it could happen in nature by accident?

Originally Posted by Zylark

And you're still skirting the issue here. You haven't given any proof of Creationism. You've merely tried to discredit Evolution. And did you ever stop to think that even if by some miracle you managed to disprove evolution, that that would make creationism the one only truth by default? By disproving the one, you do not automatically prove another. You've merely ruled out the possibility for the one.

Really? If you rule out evolution - how else did we get here? Either an intelligent being created the universe and all matter - or it appeared out of no-where creating itself. There's only really 2 possible explainations for how the universe began. If you have any other theories - I'd love to hear them.

Originally Posted by Zylark

But let's start the rebuttal

Don't you realize we've seen evolution happen countless times? What do you think the common cold, AIDS virus or Ebola is doing when new forms occur constantly that proves immune to previous treatment and vaccinations? It evolves. To ensure it's survival as the enviroment changes. Virus are quick to evolve and adapt, since they are simple creatures. More complex creatures obviously take longer to evolve and adapt, if for no other reason than that the generational cycle is much longer. We've even seen speciation in lab-experiments. Hell, here's an excerpt from a creationist site that you might find interesting:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp

(Notice the clever half-acceptance of observed speciation by the way. In one sentence they admit to it beeing true. Then follows an assertion of Creationist belief, and then the restriction of that belief projected onto the first sentence as well as the second.)

And your assertion that net-gain of DNA material have not been observed, is just flat out wrong. Quite often actually do genes make double copies of themselves, instead of just the one that is normal in a cell-division. Thus increasing the DNA that goes into a cell, facilitating that cell's ancestors to inherit even more advanced features due to it's rizing complexity given the extra "DNA-memory-space".

[/quote]

Ok, I haven't gone to that article yet as I'm more interested in talking about your viruses and whatnot... When a bacteria "evolves" so to say, it doesn't change what kind of virus it is. Specific traits that the virus has may change (ie becoming immune to antibiotics), but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a virus, and still the same type of virus as before. This is ADAPTATION not EVOLUTION.

Evolution in the sense that I'm arguing is something progressing from 1 species to another completely different - more advanced species. This requires additional DNA structure. Not just a change in existing genes - or duplicate genes produced as the cell divides.

To go from a bacteria to ultimately a human being requires additional pairs of chromosomes, and much more genetic complexity and information. This does not occure in nature. Infact, genetic information is generally lost during a mutation.

Originally Posted by Zylark

And no halfway-fossils? Inaccurate dating techniques? Abusing and misunderstanding the second law of thermo-dynamics. Can you even recite the second law of dynamics for me?

Where do you get your information from? Not scientific papers at least.

There are tons of "half-way" fossils. Overwhelming amounts of it. I'll provide a few links for your enjoyment:

***Between Fish and Amphibian***
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/U...i/140.860.html

***Between Amphibian and Reptile***
http://encarta.msn.com/media_4615514...Seymouria.html

***Between Reptile and Mammal***
http://www.prehistory.com/dimetrod.htm
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/U...a/410.300.html
http://digimorph.org/specimens/Probainognathus_sp/

***Between Reptile and Birds***
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

Archaeoptreryx was 100% bird (as some birds, although very few, do have teeth). This has been proven LONG ago. Do some research. The other fossils I don't know a whole lot about - and haven't checked them all out as of yet - but the one's I've seen appear to be 100% of whatever it was (mammal, reptile, whatever). No where do I see a lizard with wings and arms or any of that.

And how can you take a fossil of a skull and say that it's a half-way fossil? Wouldn't you need the complete skeleton?

Originally Posted by Zylark

Moving on to dating techniques beeing flawed: No they're not. But each dating technique got their own set of application. You dragged up an example of C14 testing beeing done on a living entity, showing it was several thousand years old. Well duh! Anyone with half a clue on C14 dating knows that it cannot be used on living tissue for the very simple fact that only at death does the intake of new carbon stop, and the process of C14 decay can be accurately measured. Using C14 dating on living tissue is just as wrong as using mercury thermometers to measure temperatures above the boiling point of mercury. No matter how hot it would get, the mercury would not rize above 356'C. But for measurements below 356'C mercury thermometers are entirely accurate (assuming constant atmospheric pressure). Same with C14 dating on dead things younger than 50.000 years. But yet Creationists love to flaunt this argument to an unsuspecting public, eventhough it's been pointed out to them the error of their ways ever since they started to use this argument. But this is business as usual for Creationist.

It is worth noting also that the maximum error in C14 dating is only a few thousand years. Since the experimental limit on carbon-14 dating is 50.000 years, even the worst kind of error on samples in the older range does not leave room for the 6.000 year-old earth desired by young-earth creationists.

Hmm... I may have missed that living organism example (and if so, I apoligize) - but I still stick to the fact that carbon dating is inaccurate. You so conveinently forgot to mention the examples of coral found on sunken ships of known age being dated to thousands of years older than the known date. Also, what about the frozen mammoth that tested to be 2 totally different dates that were thousands and thousands of years apart. I think you should go back and re-read my post on the inaccuracy of the dating methods before you try and argue this one.

Originally Posted by Zylark

Geology for one thing absolutely ensures an old earth. And absolutely no part of established geology even hints about a global flood. Claiming that is just a lie against all better knowledge. Please do lead me to an actual, serious scientific geology article that concludes with a young earth and global flood beeing probable and supported with actual evidence. I'd love to see it.

Really? What about the sedimentary deposits that cover whole continents, and could only have been formed by mixing the type of rock with water and a cementing agent? Why is it that these rocks are no longer being produced today? If evolution happened and the geologic strata was layed down according to a uniformitarian view, these rocks would still be produced today, but they're not. This means something had to have formed these rocks that's not occuring today.

I can return with more details as to exactly what kind of rocks they are and where the deposits are located if you wish.

Also, the geologic strata and fossil record can just as easily be explained by a flood as it can be by evolution. I've explained how the fossils would have settled in the event of a flood, which would be the same as they're found now. From the simplest, most hydrodynamic organisms, to the most advanced, least hydrodynamic organisms.

A flood also explains the rapid formation of the mountains (because believe it or not, there's rocks out there in Cali that could only have formed by being rapidly thrust outward, not over millions of years), and tectonic plates.

It would also explain why fossils are generally found in groups. This suggests that whatever fossilized these creatures happened rapidly - killing and fossilizing them almost instantly, not over millions of years.

Originally Posted by Zylark

And again with the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics regurgitation. Please read up on thermo-dynamics. Maybe then you'll appreciate what it says. And more importantly what it doesn't say. Don't just copy paste some crap from a Creationist site, but try to read it and understand it. I've tried to explain it to you before, but obviously I did not do a good enough job. I'll give it a last shot though.

And I do have to arrest you on a couple of unfounded assumptions and obvious contradictions in your belief system when abusing the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics.:

-You assume ...

Do you know that for a fact? I sure don't. Neither does science provide an answer. What scientists have done though is theorize on the probability of the universe beeing a closed system or not, and thus far, the jury is still out. No evidence really points to or denies the one or the other.

What beyond the universe is powerful enough to supply our decaying universe with enough energy to counteract the entropy... I'd sure like to know.

Originally Posted by Zylark

Secondly, and this is a bit ironic. If you truly believe the universe is a closed system, you cannot possibly believe in god. A closed system is a system without *any* outside influence and transfer of energy into it. But what is then god, if not an "out of this universe" external entity that is supposed to have an influence on all that is existence in that universe? hmm? To be a theist is by definition the same as believing in a universe beeing part of an open system, with outside influence from a supernatural beeing not bound by the laws of the universe. That Creationists use the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics with the assertion that the universe is a closed system therefore boggles my mind.

And before you refute with "Exactly, God isn't bound by the laws of the universe, and thus not bound by the 2nd law of thermodynamics either!" do think about it twice. Any and all disruption of the laws of our universe would require a practically infinite amount of energy, and thus state of order. Thus actually validating the concept of an open universe, and ipso facto negating the application of the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics to our universe. You can't have it both ways.

So I can't believe in God and a closed universe? What if God doesn't change the energy flow or entropy amounts? If God created the universe, and left it to do it's own thing - then the universe would still be a closed system (without interference). God can work in people's lives, and work here on earth without interfering with the energy flows of the universe.

Originally Posted by Zylark

- You assume

Where did you get that idea? Everything? Absolutely everything? Are you 100% certain of that?

"Second Law Of Thermodynamics

n : a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; <b>any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy</b>" - dictionary.com

"Any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy." So yeah... I'm pretty sure.

Originally Posted by Zylark

This is another of the creationist favourite misrepresentation of the laws of thermo-dynamics. But clearly it is not true. The law says that in total the tendency is for a degradation from order to chaos. From higher forms of energy to lesser. But that is on a whole. Like the sum total if you wish. However within systems of the system, exchanges can and do happen that locally hightens the order/energy of a given subsystem. And life itself is such a subsystem. A pretty tiny element of the universe, and seeing as life (as far as we know) only exist in places abundand with energy that can increase the state of order in a smaller subsystem, the entire creationist argument becomes mute. And all the time whilst the sun got the ability to generate heat and thus energy by means of radiation by its process of degradation from one form of order to a lower form of order, it feeds the earth, and life, with plentifull energy to reach any degree of order evolution pushes life towards. Yes, the earth is bathed in sunshine from the *open* system we call our dear home and solarsystem.

Was that understandable?

It was understandable, but sounded more like you were talking in circles. The whole (lump sum if you will) moves toward disorder, but yet the sun provides energy, and this feeds life, and this is what makes the universe not decay - even though the whole time the entire lump sum is still moving toward disorder? Might make sense in your head... but when you put it in basic terms - you can see that what you just said makes no sense.

Just because there may be pockets which temporarily experience a gain in energy, doesn't mean that their entropy levels aren't dropping.

"Any process" increases entropy, remember? So the sun feeding life here on earth at the same time is killing it. The radiation is breaking down cellular structure and this "feeding" is also destroying - thus giving a GAIN in entropy to those being fed.

Originally Posted by Zylark

So to be short. You haven't given any passable proof of your creationist theory. You have though tried to disrepute evolution by means of incorrect understanding of scientific results and method.

You still haven't given me any reference to a study that claims observation of starlight older than the universe either. I'm still waiting for that one.

Actually, I've given quite a bit of good proof that you twist around or just flat out ignore.

Quasars are generally estimated to be 40-60 billion years old. How is this so if the universe is generally estimated to be 13 billion years old? There's your stars that are older than the universe itself.

So yeah - Try again.

[Opivy]

Seeing as some of my favorite posters are still here and active I would really like to see what anyone has to think about this theory. www.atlan.org I came across this recently I forget how, but this theory matches perfectly with many dates and cultures stories along with religions around the world. Please take the time to read at least the FAQ if not the scientific facts as well.

This theory explains would explain alot that others fail to explain too. The cataclysmic demise of atlantis could have been "The Flood" which many religions at least have one story about. This also explains the end to the Pleistocene Ice Age. A cataclysmic event of that size would be sure to do just that.

Also for anyone who hasn't read it, here is the complete Critias. http://www.greece.com/library/plato/critias_01.html

This is all I have time for now but i'll be back later.

[IGotTheCottons]

Sounds kinda interesting... I'll read more into it when I get more time.

[Zylark]

I'll get back to you cottons on your other misconceptions, but I'll just shot off this one thing first:

Quasars are generally estimated to be 40-60 billion years old. How is this so if the universe is generally estimated to be 13 billion years old? There's your stars that are older than the universe itself.

Oh really? You've failed miserably in providing me with a link to a serious scientific study claiming anything, quasars included, beeing older than the universe itself. Yet you blurb out this apparent falsehood without any reference that I can check up on. Not unexpected, seeing as there are no studies claiming quasars are 40 to 60 billion lightyears away.

Let me update you a bit upon what actual science can tell us about quasars (quazi stellar radio source) since i got this sneaking suspicion you don't know what quasars even is, but just use them as an example of something since they sound esoteric and mysterious:

Quasars are active galaxies in their formative years. The radiation we observe from quasars is a function of them (or more correctly, the gases that quasars consist of) interacting with a supermassive black hole in the center of the quasar-pre-galaxy. Much evidence points to the milkyway itself once went through a quasar stage. The only thing differentiating quasars from say, blazars and radio-galaxies is the angle from which we observe the