Really Pahu, until you link something other than creationscience.com or similar sites, and present your data and interpretations that contradict the scientific consensus, you're not going to get anywhere with this crowd. You have to either do science the way science is done, or prove that the scientific method is flawed.There is no flaw in the scientific method. The information I am sharing from creationscience.com uses the scientific method and is confirmed by scientists, such as: Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc. The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals: American journal of science Astronomical journal Astrophysics and space science Astrophysical journal Bioscience Geology Icarus Journal of Geology Journal of Theoretical Biology Nature New scientist Physics Today Physical review Physical review d Physical review letters Science Space science reviews The American Journal of Science and Arts
Quotes can be taken out of context, and credentials are valuable, but must be used correctly. All you gave me here is a list. I could list 1,000 people named “Larry” and it would have about as much meaning. The scientific consensus is derived from many years and is arrived at when the best people in the field can’t find new data that refutes the conclusions. It’s more complicated than that, but I’m not going to do all the work for you.
Your link contained two sentences. Not really much to go on.
Quotes can be taken out of context, and credentials are valuable, but must be used correctly. All you gave me here is a list. I could list 1,000 people named "Larry" and it would have about as much meaning. The scientific consensus is derived from many years and is arrived at when the best people in the field can't find new data that refutes the conclusions. It's more complicated than that, but I'm not going to do all the work for you. Your link contained two sentences. Not really much to go on.But Lausten, look at that list of names he can muster. :wow: ________________________________________________________________ Oh and Pahu, you say they follow the scientific method, prove it:
Rapid Cooling If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth. The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences45.html#wp1350743]Please present your (their) calculations.
Has anyone noticed that the OP question *Science disproves Evolution* has been totally corrupted. In the last 6 pages the discussion has become about the accuracy of Biblical scripture as an Historical document, which has nothing to do with Science, but is being used as the basis for *The Bible disproving Evolution*, in spite that the highest authority of Biblical scholars have declared "Evolution to be True" The fact is that not a single argument from scientific sources has been made to disprove evolution. How on earth did that happen?Good catch Well it looks that we are going to speed up evolution. This little lecture explains we are on the verge of creating entirely new species. This may be of interest to the topic.
Gene editing can now change an entire species forever http://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_kahn_gene_editing_can_now_change_an_entire_species_forever?check this out, really. This is going to change chemical biology forever. :gulp: WOW - That's a profound game changer. Just what people need, more god like powers. As they say: What could go wrong
Quotes can be taken out of context, and credentials are valuable, but must be used correctly. All you gave me here is a list. I could list 1,000 people named "Larry" and it would have about as much meaning. The scientific consensus is derived from many years and is arrived at when the best people in the field can't find new data that refutes the conclusions. It's more complicated than that, but I'm not going to do all the work for you. Your link contained two sentences. Not really much to go on.If you would like to check out those names and link them with the subject, go here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningIX3.html
________________________________________________________________ Oh and Pahu, you say they follow the scientific method, prove it:The proof is in the information. Perhaps you can show us where the scientific method has not been used. If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth. The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences45.html#wp1350743]
Please present your (their) calculations.Go here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes32.html http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes33.html http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes34.html
________________________________________________________________ Oh and Pahu, you say they follow the scientific method, prove it:The proof is in the information. Perhaps you can show us where the scientific method has not been used. If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth. The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences45.html#wp1350743]
Please present your (their) calculations.Go here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes32.html http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes33.html http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes34.html In any rational society morons like these would be locked away for their own protection.
________________________________________________________________ Oh and Pahu, you say they follow the scientific method, prove it:The proof is in the information. Perhaps you can show us where the scientific method has not been used. If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth. The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences45.html#wp1350743]
Please present your (their) calculations.Go here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes32.html http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes33.html http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes34.html Do you actually understand any of that? Here's where it went wrong for me: " These coefficients were selected to satisfy the following constraints:"
The Fountains of the Great Deep > The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire ] The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire SUMMARY: Ocean trenches, some thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie on the floor of the western Pacific, directly opposite the center of the Atlantic. The plate tectonic theory claims that plates, drifting on the earth’s surface, dive into the earth and form trenches. Seventeen reasons will be given why this idea is incorrect. The flood began with a rupture of the earth’s crust that encircled the globe in about 2 hours. For months, escaping subterranean water eroded the rupture to an average width of about 1,400 miles all along its 46,000 mile path—even on earth’s Pacific side. The hydroplates were no longer prevented from moving at least a few hundred miles toward the Pacific side of the earth. Near the end of the flood, a “tipping point" was reached. So much mass had been removed from the Atlantic side of the earth that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge started to buckle up. Hydroplates began sliding on the remaining subterranean water, away from the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge.It's all story telling, where is the evidence used to define these stories? What I like about science is that the evidence defines the story and drives the story as more evidence refines our understanding.
________________________________________________________________ Oh and Pahu, you say they follow the scientific method, prove it:The proof is in the information. Perhaps you can show us where the scientific method has not been used. If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth. The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences45.html#wp1350743]
Please present your (their) calculations.Go here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes32.html http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes33.html http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes34.html Do you actually understand any of that? Here's where it went wrong for me: " These coefficients were selected to satisfy the following constraints:" Admittedly I understand very little of it, but it does lay out the calculations, which those smarter than me can understand. Walt Brown is far better educated than i am, which is why I believe he presents the truth.
This is part of the hypothesis Brown puts forth to better explain the evidence. It you will examine the whole hypothesis you will be better equipped to comment.The Fountains of the Great Deep > The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire ] The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire SUMMARY: Ocean trenches, some thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie on the floor of the western Pacific, directly opposite the center of the Atlantic. The plate tectonic theory claims that plates, drifting on the earth’s surface, dive into the earth and form trenches. Seventeen reasons will be given why this idea is incorrect. The flood began with a rupture of the earth’s crust that encircled the globe in about 2 hours. For months, escaping subterranean water eroded the rupture to an average width of about 1,400 miles all along its 46,000 mile path—even on earth’s Pacific side. The hydroplates were no longer prevented from moving at least a few hundred miles toward the Pacific side of the earth. Near the end of the flood, a “tipping point" was reached. So much mass had been removed from the Atlantic side of the earth that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge started to buckle up. Hydroplates began sliding on the remaining subterranean water, away from the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge.It's all story telling, where is the evidence used to define these stories? What I like about science is that the evidence defines the story and drives the story as more evidence refines our understanding.
This is part of the hypothesis Brown puts forth to better explain the evidence. It you will examine the whole hypothesis you will be better equipped to comment.We're here to discuss ideas not follow link trails. If you understand the subject you will be able explain it in your own words.
This is part of the hypothesis Brown puts forth to better explain the evidence. It you will examine the whole hypothesis you will be better equipped to comment.We're here to discuss ideas not follow link trails. If you understand the subject you will be able toput it in your own words and explain it to us. Don't the links lead you to the ideas?
This is part of the hypothesis Brown puts forth to better explain the evidence. It you will examine the whole hypothesis you will be better equipped to comment.We're here to discuss ideas not follow link trails. If you understand the subject you will be able toput it in your own words and explain it to us. Don't the links lead you to the ideas? This is discussion forum. We'e here to discuss ideas. If you have any ideas put them in your own words and discuss them. That's what we do around here.
This is part of the hypothesis Brown puts forth to better explain the evidence. It you will examine the whole hypothesis you will be better equipped to comment.We're here to discuss ideas not follow link trails. If you understand the subject you will be able toput it in your own words and explain it to us. Don't the links lead you to the ideas? This is discussion forum. We'e here to discuss ideas. If you have any ideas put them in your own words and discuss them. That's what we do around here. I prefer the words of those who know the subject better that I do. I am not interested in trading evidence free opinions.
I prefer the words of those who know the subject better that I do.If you cannot explain it yourself you do not understand the subject.
I am not interested in trading evidence free opinions.You will never, ever, see the irony in that statement.
I prefer the words of those who know the subject better that I do.If you cannot explain it yourself you do not understand the subject.
I am not interested in trading evidence free opinions.You will never, ever, see the irony in that statement. Boy I'd say. Evidence free opinion. That about says it all, don't it. Pahu, geology really isn't that difficult a subject to wrap your head around, way way way easier than evolution. If you spent any time reading this stuff, one would think you'd absorb some of it. Or are you used just taking the word of your authority figures? How about if I share my admittedly undereducated, yet thoughtful, question regarding that quote I shared and why it seems like a bunch of stinking bunkum to me. Perhaps you can help clarify.
This is part of the hypothesis Brown puts forth to better explain the evidence. It you will examine the whole hypothesis you will be better equipped to comment. that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge started to buckle up.{You know that goes for you too. And you're the one that seems to believe this shit, so how about it...}[ The Fountains of the Great Deep > The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire ] SUMMARY: Ocean trenches, some thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie on the floor of the western Pacific, directly opposite the center of the Atlantic. {Take a look at a global and look at what lies opposite the Mid-Atlantic Trench, hint it is not the Pacific ocean. If they can't even get that right?...} The plate tectonic theory claims that plates, drifting on the earth’s surface, dive into the earth and form trenches. Seventeen reasons will be given why this idea is incorrect. {So all the seismic imaging geologists have that actually shows this occurring are… are what?} The flood began with a rupture of the earth’s crust that encircled the globe in about 2 hours. {a rupture, (er earthquake?) that travel across the globe at 12,000 MPH - Oh Please do show how such a thing is imaginable.} For months, escaping subterranean water eroded the rupture to an average width of about 1,400 miles all along its 46,000 mile path—even on earth’s Pacific side. The hydroplanes {Oh and what the hell is a water plate/} were no longer prevented from moving at least a few hundred miles toward the Pacific side of the earth. Near the end of the flood, a “tipping point" was reached. So much mass had been removed from the Atlantic side of the earth {Meaning that the laws of gravity were also suspended?} that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge started to buckle up.{Where can we find the model that demonstrates how all this occurred} Hydroplates began sliding on the remaining subterranean water, away from the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge.{again, how is all this elevation change driven, any physical mechanism in mind?}It's all story telling, where is the evidence used to define these stories? What I like about science is that the evidence defines the story and drives the story as more evidence refines our understanding.
I prefer the words of those who know the subject better that I do.If you cannot explain it yourself you do not understand the subject.
I am not interested in trading evidence free opinions.You will never, ever, see the irony in that statement. Boy I'd say. Evidence free opinion. That about says it all, don't it. Pahu, geology really isn't that difficult a subject to wrap your head around, way way way easier than evolution. If you spent any time reading this stuff, one would think you'd absorb some of it. Or are you used just taking the word of your authority figures? How about if I share my admittedly undereducated, yet thoughtful, question regarding that quote I shared and why it seems like a bunch of stinking bunkum to me. Perhaps you can help clarify.
This is part of the hypothesis Brown puts forth to better explain the evidence. It you will examine the whole hypothesis you will be better equipped to comment. that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge started to buckle up.{You know that goes for you too. And you're the one that seems to believe this shit, so how about it...} If you will start here http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html and examine all the following pages on the subject, all your questions will be answered.[ The Fountains of the Great Deep > The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire ] SUMMARY: Ocean trenches, some thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie on the floor of the western Pacific, directly opposite the center of the Atlantic. {Take a look at a global and look at what lies opposite the Mid-Atlantic Trench, hint it is not the Pacific ocean. If they can't even get that right?...} The plate tectonic theory claims that plates, drifting on the earth’s surface, dive into the earth and form trenches. Seventeen reasons will be given why this idea is incorrect. {So all the seismic imaging geologists have that actually shows this occurring are… are what?} The flood began with a rupture of the earth’s crust that encircled the globe in about 2 hours. {a rupture, (er earthquake?) that travel across the globe at 12,000 MPH - Oh Please do show how such a thing is imaginable.} For months, escaping subterranean water eroded the rupture to an average width of about 1,400 miles all along its 46,000 mile path—even on earth’s Pacific side. The hydroplanes {Oh and what the hell is a water plate/} were no longer prevented from moving at least a few hundred miles toward the Pacific side of the earth. Near the end of the flood, a “tipping point" was reached. So much mass had been removed from the Atlantic side of the earth {Meaning that the laws of gravity were also suspended?} that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge started to buckle up.{Where can we find the model that demonstrates how all this occurred} Hydroplates began sliding on the remaining subterranean water, away from the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge.{again, how is all this elevation change driven, any physical mechanism in mind?}It's all story telling, where is the evidence used to define these stories? What I like about science is that the evidence defines the story and drives the story as more evidence refines our understanding.
If you will start here http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html and examine all the following pages on the subject, all your questions will be answered.Why do you refuse to express ideas in your own words? Are unable? Can you think for yourself*? *That's rhetorical question.
If you will start here http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html and examine all the following pages on the subject, all your questions will be answered.Why do you refuse to express ideas in your own words? Are unable? Can you think for yourself*? *That's rhetorical question. I prefer the words of those who know the subject better that I do. I am not interested in trading evidence free opinions. I am mainly interested in sharing information. By the way, those are my own words.