Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
    Whoever wrote this nonsense has no clue what they are talking about. Someone needs to be taught to use "Google" and "Wikipedia".

    We don't "fell" trees to count the rings--we take core samples so as not to kill the tree.
    Usually, but not always: cf Prometheus.

    But it is certainly possible to count the rings of a tree that has been felled, despite Hans's assertions to the contrary.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
      Whoever wrote this nonsense has no clue what they are talking about. Someone needs to be taught to use "Google" and "Wikipedia".

      We don't "fell" trees to count the rings--we take core samples so as not to kill the tree.

      For a simple explanation of tree rings by a YEC (one of the rare YECs who actually understands radiocarbon dating), see this article by Aardsma.
      Even "Creation Scientist" John Woodmorappe (a.k.a. Jan Peczkis, a High School teacher) has confirmed the problem that dendrochronology poses for the YEC model

      Source: Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology


      A literal understanding of the biblical chronologies places the Flood no earlier than about 2,500 B.C. and the creation no earlier than about 6,000 B.C. (Allowance for unlisted names in the biblical chronologies pushes back these dates, but not much). Yet the Bristlecone Pine (hereafter BCP) long chronology, comprised of hundreds of live and dead trees, is over 8,000 years long. The presence of fossiliferous sediment under the BCPs rules out any of them being pre-Flood. So, unless we choose to push the Flood back many thousands of years, effectively disregarding biblical chronologies, how can the conflicting chronologies be reconciled? I have studied this question for many years.

      ...

      While doing field work in the BCP forest (Woodmorappe 2003a), and earlier, I had the privilege of meeting many BCP specialists, some of whom had been monitoring BCP growth for nearly fifty years. They were unanimous in encountering not one BCP that ever produced more than one ring per year.

      Could the weather patterns right after the Flood, probably quite different from those of recent decades, have triggered flushes of multiple ring growth in the BCPs of the White Mountains, California—the ones that form the inferred 8,000 year chronology? This seems unlikely, as BCPs already grow in a variety of montane environments in the western U.S., yet none of them is known to have ever produced more than one ring per year.



      Source

      © Copyright Original Source



      "Woodmorappe" concludes

      Source: ibid


      The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Although he holds out hope that maybe in the future someone will somehow be able to collapse the chronology.

      "Woodmorappe" recognizes for some trees such as Bristlecone Pine, Ponderosa Pine and Douglass Fir multiple rings are exceedingly rare and are in fact extremely easy to spot for anyone with a little training. As C. W. Ferguson noted in a paper published in the prestigious journal Science published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):

      Source: Bristlecone Pine: Science and Esthetics


      In certain species of conifers, especially those at lower elevations or in southern latitudes, one season's growth increment may be composed of two or more flushes of growth, each of which may strongly resemble an annual ring. Such multiple growth rings are extremely rare in bristlecone pines, however, and they are especially infrequent at the elevation and latitude (37° 20' N) of the sites being studied. In the growth-ring analyses of approximately one thousand trees in the White Mountains, we have, in fact, found no more than three or four occurrences of even incipient multiple growth layers.

      © Copyright Original Source



      The real problem is missing rings. Research on Bristlecones has shown that up to 5% of its rings are missing meaning that they are actually older than what counting the rings reveal.

      And it should be noted that the oldest unbroken string of tree ring records go back over 11,750 years as research published in Nature by Bernd Becker, Bernd Kromer and Peter Trimborn (A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the late glacial Holocene boundary) discloses and if you want to include clonal trees, the root system of the Quaking Aspen known as Pando has been dated at being at least 80,000 years old although some scientists contend that it is actually many times older than that.
      Last edited by rogue06; 02-15-2017, 12:00 PM.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
        Usually, but not always: cf Prometheus.
        IIRC Prometheus wasn't cut down in order to count its tree rings but for other reasons.

        Originally posted by Roy View Post
        But it is certainly possible to count the rings of a tree that has been felled, despite Hans's assertions to the contrary.
        Indeed

        Dendrochronology-Definition-For-Kids.jpg
        Last edited by rogue06; 02-15-2017, 11:13 AM.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
          Here's a picture of people doing what you consider to be impossible:

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]20908[/ATTACH]

          That took ~5 seconds to find. It takes less time to refute your idiocy than it does to read it.
          Since he is max. 2 meters, the tree is max 4 or 5 meters thick.

          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          Well, now that hasgeorg is face to face with his own ineptitude
          I am face to face with Roy's.
          Last edited by hansgeorg; 02-15-2017, 12:21 PM.
          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
            We don't "fell" trees to count the rings--we take core samples so as not to kill the tree.
            Fine, now you show me someone taking a core sample from a tree which is 12 to 15 meters thick.

            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Well, now that hasgeorg is face to face with his own ineptitude
            I am face to face with Kbertsche's, or might soon be so.
            Last edited by hansgeorg; 02-15-2017, 12:21 PM.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              It's hansgeorg citing himself from the comments section of one the 36 blogs (no kidding) he maintains.
              More specifically the one relevant to this topic : Creation vs Evolution. That is why I keep many blogs (and some for archiving older works).

              And why exactly would it be from the comments section?

              There are no comments on this one.
              Last edited by hansgeorg; 02-15-2017, 12:28 PM.
              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                Usually, but not always: cf Prometheus.

                But it is certainly possible to count the rings of a tree that has been felled, despite Hans's assertions to the contrary.
                That has NOT been felled, I wrote.

                When you take samples to check thickness of rings, you are counting on the tree being originally one and therefore having original single core in the middle. For one.

                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                Well, now that hasgeorg is face to face with his own ineptitude
                I am face to face with Roy's as a reader. Unless it was just sloppiness, as a writer, omitting the "not".
                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Even "Creation Scientist" John Woodmorappe (a.k.a. Jan Peczkis, a High School teacher) has confirmed the problem that dendrochronology poses for the YEC model

                  ....
                  Citing your link:

                  Yet the Bristlecone Pine (hereafter BCP) long chronology, comprised of hundreds of live and dead trees, is over 8,000 years long.
                  I'd like to know how close the matches are all along, saw a bit much of lose matches on an European series, when researching.
                  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                  Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                    Fine, now you show me someone taking a core sample from a tree which is 12 to 15 meters thick.



                    I am face to face with Kbertsche's, or might soon be so.
                    Again, you need to learn to use "Google" and "Wikipedia", and also to read and understand the information that people have referred you to.

                    Here is a step-by-step guide:

                    Step 1: read and understand the Aardsma article that I recommended and the Woodmorappe/Peczkis information that Rogue cited. If you do this, you will find that Bristlecone Pine and Irish Oak are the main species used for dendrochronology.

                    Step 2: search for Bristlecone Pine in Wikipedia. You will find that the species Pinus longaeva is the one used for dendrochronology. From the article, you will find that Pinus longaeva has "a trunk diameter of up to 2.5 to 3.6 m (8 ft 2 in to 11 ft 10 in)".

                    Step 3: search for Irish Oak in Wikipedia. You will find the species Quercus petraea. In the links at the end of the article, you will find reference to the "Pontfadog Oak" which was "one of the largest oaks in the U.K." with a "girth of 42ft 5in" (i.e. a diameter of 13.5 feet).

                    Step 4: search for "tree boring tools" or "dendrochronology corers" with Google. You will find the site BenMeadows.com which sells coring devices up to 8 feet in length. This is more than enough to reach the center of any of the trees mentioned above.
                    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • I did have time to read that link Roy gave about fine particles settling. Unfortunately, it appears to conclusively debunk Roy's use of it, and in fact I predicted the mechanism they proposed there as it turns out. Not only do they show strong evidence that the YE view DOES fit the chalk, they also appear to conclusively disprove the OE being able to explain it!

                      (Note that they also contrast an obscure class of "hidden" Flood models with the main one. I won't waste my time on that as I've read enough before to be convinced that isn't plausible. They conclude the same in this case.)

                      Okay, from my notes (written as I read through it, and before checking back here, plus a bit first about another source):

                      I noticed that in my notes from my Morton research earlier I had a CMI article about chalk. Unfortunately, while it persuasively deals with most of the problems raised about chalk, it only mentions and does not solve the one Roy brought up. Specifically, they showed a small time of sinking needed (10 days) for the largest chalk particles, but only vaguely added that for smaller ones it would be longer. Major red flags earned there; how smaller? How much longer?

                      So, glad you did bring it up, Roy. It's a fair point that needs to be investigated. CMI also pointed out we're dealing with much less depth than today's oceans, so less distance for the calcation, which is fair, but they made no clear attempt to justify the depth they chose.

                      Probably the best argument there, and what they focused on, is that the evidence is strong that algal blooms and the like happen under conditions the Flood would provide in abundance, especially around day 150 (at some point after the inrush was complete), and that the amount of chalk is actually conservative for what could be expected from this period.

                      So, notes from the AiG article, and quotes of interest:

                      Early on they raise a good point -- that the OE and YE/GF views have two major similarities (mass extinctions and yet survivals of some), but the OE view, without apparently realizing it, has created a much less plausible situation of at least four mass extinctions with little to no thought given to how survival worked.

                      To that I would add that it may be much worse, in light of the main issue this topic is focused on; the global, many-layers lack of surface erosion as pervasive as we find on Earth's surface today. The only OE options so far brought up (and only by me; OEs haven't even touched the issue, as I've pointed out several times now) are radically different geological processes for most of history than today, and (much more likely) MANY global geological leveling events (erasing most of the surface erosion). The latter would also explain the global relatively good fossilization.

                      There seems to be a problematic attitude that anything hard to understand about the YE history is taken as evidence if an OE, yet understanding the OE view in the same sense -- of looking for difficulties and requiring they be solved, is rarely done, and these major difficulties are simply allowed to pile up and be ignored. And this is looking like an extremely absurd case of it.

                      The familiarity with the ark may have conditioned people to think of global extinctions as automatically survivable, but that is obviously not the case.

                      That said, obviously SOME survival is very possible, so this doesn't prove a YE. But it's a very good point that should not be ignored; it should be adequately dealt with before the OE can be valid.

                      Since many of these extinctions could simply be due to evolutionary outcompetition, the problem does lessen to an extent, but then we just create another.

                      It isn't just that the layers are mostly flat, it's that the extinctions are topped by such layer boundaries, yet similar layer boundaries at other depths seem to have no effect on life at all, or very little. It's very strange.

                      All of this is explained in one giant Ockham's Razor fell swoop if all these layers (Cambrian to Cretaceous, the article clarifies) are from the Flood and what did survive needed only ONE method; the Ark itself, and then the extinctions simply came later due to more normal processes like unsuitability to the Ice Age or permanent changes to climate, overhunting, etc.

                      There is complete agreement on the point uniformitarian geologists are making regarding tectonic sedimentation and the Bible once the timescales are taken out of the discussion. However, there is an additional point in favour of the biblical record. Rarely in uniformitarian geology is paleo-reconstruction described. Without this the provenance of the sediments cannot be ascertained. The Bible, however, describes the fountains of the great deep as being active during the Flood, and to that extent, those mineral rich waters (coming from high temperature and pressure regions in the earth) would have supplied the essential sedimentary materials, either by precipitation as they emerged from the deep, or as carriers of slurries, or pulverized rock materials.
                      What is of interest in this mapping assumption is that the late Professor Jake Hancock, an expert on the “Cretaceous,” emphasized in his lectures how little land there was at the end of the “Cretaceous” period. This clearly puzzled his audience, though not this author. People commented on how wet and damp the world would have been. Geologists, if they have a phobia about answers in Genesis, have to postulate “some land” during the later “Cretaceous” period, because without it no air breathing creatures could have survived. It is circular reasoning.
                      if we first look more closely at the details and then consider certain specific aspects of “chalk,” then all objections to the declaration that “chalk,” and the bulk of the “Upper Cretaceous” are part of the Flood deposits disappear.
                      (A bold claim! We'll see if it holds up.)

                      An aside: they say that the OE literature has a fairly strong focus apparently on the Permian extinction. This and other mass extinctions during a long period of mostly complete submersion are curious too. What would cause that? Many global extinctions on the surface are easy to explain with asteroid strikes or huge volcanic events. In the water? Unclear. Possible, but puzzling.

                      Kidner (1967) suggests that geology and archaeology are the only ways to understand the story of the Flood. His argument is that until secular geologists accept that the earth is young, and the Flood real in the way Whitcomb and Morris (1961) describe, he cannot recommend putting a grammatico-historical interpretation on the first few chapters of Genesis. This suggestion suffers from the problem noted above, namely if the bulk of geologists are theophobic, they have no interest in the Noachian Flood that judged the world.9
                      To put it mildly!

                      I've encountered many theists in general, and even Christians in particular, who are open to BOTH an old Earth and a young Earth. This is true among scientists AND others.

                      To date, I have never, not even once, encountered an atheist who accepts a YE.

                      You can't help but wonder if maybe, just maybe, the fact that a young Earth seems to be incompatible with atheism is really what's driving the rejection.

                      The same could be said for evolution, with exactly the same descriptions of the groups. Not that this proves anything, of course -- it could still be old anyway. But the point is, relying on secularists to be honest judges on this is... erm... very questionable. Especially since these same secularists will leap at the chance to accuse YEs of similar bias due to the factor of (apparent or real) biblical teaching. And that's a fair point; don't get me wrong. But still, even Christians like me who are convinced God's Word is true are open to an old Earth, because the premise of the Bible being true, by itself, doesn't prove what it intended to say. I do think the case is pretty solid for certain details like the fossil record (or the majority of it), but the rest is not so solid from what I've seen.

                      The point is, it's basically 100% correlation for only one of these combinations -- atheist, OE, evolutionist. So everyone should be HIGHLY suspicious of bias on their part.

                      By the way, atheism COULD work with a young Earth. Not by the old traditional arguments that depend on a purely in-this-universe definition of "naturalism", but prominent atheists now accept a multiverse, and this does include the idea of different physics in different universes; something in one crossing over into another could be on the table. And yet no atheists that I've interviewed have ever confessed to being accepting of this. Chance to be the first, atheists reading...

                      (Why haven't they? My guess is that an emotional "phobia" or whatever you want to call it of "supernatural" has led them to shy away from anything that feels like that, even though it would be consistent with what they have conceded. Logical consistency isn't one of their strong suits either, so it really isn't surprising.)

                      In still water coccoliths need 30 years to reach the bottom of sea bed 200 m down (Hancock 1983). Stokes’ law11 reminds us that the terminal velocity of a sphere falling through an undisturbed fluid decreases with size, and this gives us a physical understanding of what is happening.12 Minor convection currents, turbulence due to surface wind, movement of other marine life, dissolution, tides, and even being swallowed prevent the coccoliths reaching the bottom. So, the uniformitarian geologist is without a mechanism for sedimentation of chalk. This is freely admitted by Hancock, Rawson, Kennedy, and others.
                      Apparently Roy misrepresented this as saying this is a pro-OE evidence, but here they are saying it does not work for the OE, while admitting it is also a challenge to the YE. But the Flood provides a good reason for differences to normal procedures -- many more than just one difference. Finding the relevant difference(s) may be a challenge, but right off the bat this appears to be a PRO-young-Earth evidence.

                      To allow coccoliths to form a sediment, we have to move away from the concept of an open ocean environment where nothing is perfectly still and propose a dramatic alternative. The biblical story of the Noachian Flood provides a way forward. We need a closing ocean environment whereby existing coccoliths are trapped, and the remaining water drains away by Darcy flow13 through lower strata,
                      This IS one of the possibilities I mentioned, yet Roy claimed they did not use it! Roy! You've already failed the test before I've even looked at your reply to my previous!

                      [Update: I may have been too harsh here. I found it hard to believe he could get something that wrong, so I looked up his wording.

                      It looks more like he may have simply not yet read that part of my post yet when he said that, so he might have meant something else by "different from yours". My mention of this possibility he quoted immediately after that statemet, so that's possible. But to that, he only remarked vaguely words to the effect of "these would leave traces", with no awareness shown that he had read the very article he was linking to (so that he would naturally have said something like "that second possibility is the one they used in that article" or the like).

                      I wasn't going to ask , but that's got me wondering... DID you read it, Roy? I was assuming you did; I don't want to assume the worst. (Even though experience has taught me that is usually true with atheists LOL.) Maybe you didn't mean to imply you did, but your braggart latest reply... well, seems to imply you would have. So... puzzling.

                      And more to the point, even more puzzling that you did not comment on the fact that the article you linked DID show evidence of such traces left by the mechanism both I and they proposed! Your "would leave traces" comment gives the impression that the article you'd just cited was admitting that there are none.

                      This appears to be very misleading, Roy... Your boasting of "honest" is looking very suspicious in light of this... Can you explain?

                      As to what he meant by "different from yours", I'm guessing it was probably my talking about footprints in layers said to be Cretaceous as late- or post-inrush. But this article talks about the chalk deposition as early recession. However, this article also argues against layer assignments being reliable (their argument to this point was unclear to me, though). If that is correct, "Cretaceous" where dinosaur footprints are found would actually be lower than the chalk, and this would still be consistent with my earlier description. Another possibility the article did not discuss is lowering water level after the inrush due to massive evaporation, so the chalk could be post-inrush but before the main total submersion.]

                      The emergence of land after the destructive phase of the Flood provides the opportunity for this process.
                      Indeed!

                      As further points, there can be a multiplicity of basins, and even minor basins that form within larger basins. There can also be temporary regressions and transgressions within parts of the basins.
                      Note that both major tectonic Flood models would naturally explain this procedure on the continents. Both have the oceanic plates temporarily higher. These could easily lift the outer edges of the continents, and as they go down, provide enough room for some slow drainage through the sediments, then later go down enough that channels could break open, releasing most of the drainage (and not leaving Dead Sea equivalents).

                      In particular areas of the North Sea, the coccoliths are coated with smectite, a clay which cannot survive transport other than by short distances (Hancock 1983). This seems to add credence to the local and rapid trapping of the coccoliths. Drifting around for years (as per Tyler’s timescale) or millions of years (as uniformitarianism requires) would have destroyed the smectite.
                      This would certainly seem to clinch things for the YE view.

                      Where did the smectite come from? As a result of tectonic fracturing of the basin as the margins lift, and possibly also in the centre, further volumes of mineral-rich magmatic water could have been released into the ocean at selected positions, and by precipitation coated the coccoliths. In terms of the timescale for the Flood, this would have happened up to the period of time when the fountains of the great deep were closed, namely, up to day 150 (see Genesis 8:2). Without discharges of mineral-rich waters from the fountains of the great deep there is no ready explanation for the smectite, since there was no localized place for the storage of the material from a previous geological event or “weathering” of a metamorphic high.
                      Another pro-YE/F evidence.

                      Flow of water downwards through the chalk as parts of the basin lift, because it is passing through recently sedimented chalk which is not fully consolidated, would have carried fines away downwards, creating voids which were then filled with a variety of “younger” material. These voids will have exacerbated the flow paths, thus preferentially enlarging the voids. Dish structures will have formed, as will drainage pipes.

                      Illustrating how progressive erosion of the cliff
                      reveals different pipes (or funnels)
                      Click to enlarge

                      Fig. 8. Illustrating how progressive erosion of the cliff reveals different pipes (or funnels).
                      Dish structures. There are many dish structures in the Dorset and Hampshire areas. The highest concentration is in the west (100/km2, Goudie 1990), whilst away from the margins of the basin the concentration drops to around 0.1/km2. This is, of course, consistent with the hypothesis for basin formation shown in Fig. 3, because the major uplift (and hence the greater propensity for groundwater flow) was at the margins.
                      Fig. 9c shows a “pipe” reaching almost to beach level and still containing brown Eocene material. In our schematic diagram, this is represented by “pipe” C2. However, the Eocene fill that was originally present in the yellow area has not yet been washed away. What is particularly of interest is the fact that part of the fill is banded. If Eocene material had slumped slowly into the “pipe” as it developed over millions of years we might have expected a jumbled mass of sediment. Instead, the banding suggests that the formation of the “pipe” was rapid, and the entry of the material and its settlement controlled by Stokes’ law which allows the larger sized material to fall faster in this watery environment.
                      A further comment is appropriate about the rate of erosion of the cliff. Various geologists have noted that the retreat typically exceeds a decimeter per year (though it is episodic, as the explanation for fig. 9 shows). With the stubs of the Jurassic rock only 200 meters offshore, the cliffs have completed their retreat to their present position in 2,000 years, not millions.
                      The fact that coccoliths do not settle naturally, and that diagenesis does not always occur in deep chalk, rules out a uniformitarian model of deposition. It similarly rules out a post-Flood deposition, except of timescales that are reminiscent of the Flood. We are left with the only reasonable choice that the thick chalk sequences seen in the strata were produced around the end of the phase when activity changed from open fountains of the great deep to closed fountains of the great deep during the Noachian Flood.

                      Admittedly, this raises other questions. Why do the fossils show some semblance of being ordered; what caused the warping at the basin edges; where did the coccoliths come from; why are there hardgrounds within the chalk; and what do they mean for the timescale estimates?
                      (They then go on to answer these things. Order is rarely a good OE argument as shown previously, and that is easily dispensed, with obvious depth-habitation reasons for the general order and that in fact the order is not universal. Hardgrounds are trickier. Note that I also found another CMI article discussing them and it cites even an OE admitting at least one site of hardgrounds is actually fragments torn up from a seafloor and later deposited, rather than an in situ hardground. This AiG article also discusses some possible explanations for them. The other two have already been shown above to be expected.)

                      One further quote:

                      A typical view of the coccolith population is that they occupy depths of 60–100 m (Pettijohn 1975, p. 379). No formal identification of the origin of the coccoliths that undergo trapping as shown in Fig. 3 is possible. However, there had been almost 2,000 years of earth’s history prior to the Flood during which the coccolith population originally created by God could have expanded to provide the required volume. Remember that there is no opportunity for them to settle either before the Flood, or during the early phases of the Flood. So in principle, there is no problem with the coccolith supply.
                      This is different from the reasoning used in the CMI article, which assumed the supply formed during the Flood, and gave reasons to expect that.

                      Comment


                      • ox:

                        Humphrey's model solves all the major problems with YE implicated by astronomy by reserving only a very local portion of the universe as corresponding to the YE interpreted <10,000 years of real age. And so His theory conflicts with Sarfati's evidence
                        Okay, but why? Your post really didn't make it clear where a conflict is. It depends on what his model would have the apparent age as. If it has Day 4's light showing things as they are pretty close to the start, they would have appeared close to of no age at that point. 6000 Earth years later, they would appear 6000 years older than they did on Day 4. Right?

                        I can see where what you're saying would be the case, but I can also see the possibility that it wouldn't, and offhand I don't recall his model specifying one way or the other. If anything I would expect it to be consistent with young apparent age (since the more distant the object is, the more time its light took to reach us).


                        Also, it would be helpful if when speaking of time dilation models you always specified which reference frame you're talking about. You mentioned age of the universe, but his model requires us to be more specific if we're going to be clear. So not sure what you were saying there.


                        Kb:

                        Keyword bolded! You acknowledge that there will be a slight difference in this case? Yes or no?
                        It all depends on the local gravitational environment. A clock which is in a gravitational potential well will run slightly slower than one which is not.
                        And a galaxy creates its own gravity well. No? Are you really going to deny this??

                        Thus a clock inside our galaxy and far from any massive object will actually run slightly faster than a clock outside our galaxy but near a massive object.
                        Obviously. Which is why I clearly asked you about a case not like that. Stop dodging. Yes or no?

                        If you say it's no, then how far away does gravity stop having any effect at all no matter how slight? AKA, what's "local"?




                        Shun:

                        Well, you really aren't a trustworthy source, from past discussions, so you'll pardon my not... well, trusting you. You've given similar assurances before that have been debunked, and have shown that you will deny clear logic even when it's laid out step by step in front of you. And I've seen many cases of such claims being debunked about channels. But even if that's all true (and to be fair, your claims to have expertise in this subject do put your claims on the table reasonably, but all your work would need checked, and I've done that in other cases so often and found OE work to have failed that I no longer expect much from that), you didn't deal with the point that there could have been contact with ice in the YE model.




                        Roy:

                        A link to one of the "many detailed scenarios described" that you claimed existed.

                        So far your behaviour is entirely consistent with you having made that up.
                        Roy, you didn't specify anything here. I asked you what kind of detail you're looking for that you think isn't specified. If you're asking for an unreasonable amount, because you really have read everything and you know what detail not to settle for if you're biased, then you already know you won't find it, squeaky goalposter. And that's equivocation; I said reasonable amounts of detail seem to be offered from what I've seen. That isn't the same definition of "detail" you apparently want.

                        Besides, I already answered you the first time that "few the workers" does mean you should expect less from YEs right now. If the tide changes and YEs make up the majority of scientists, we would expect casual articles filled with details to increase (your replies after this have consistently ignored this point).

                        [More about links below, but basically, nothing I'm citing is hard for you to find on your own. If I go off of the main sites for citations and have them handy I will provide them. Keep in mind I'm working in a lot of this from memory so I don't necessarily have links handy. But if you really want to know, you can search for yourself. And the general advice I give on this would solve this automatically so no further help is needed; just read everything on the main creationist sites that's posted on the front page over a reasonable period of time like a year. The only reason I haven't repeated this recently here is that I presume from how you're presenting yourself that you already do that. A whole site review might be worth it too, or if you want something specific, send in a question, though you can expect mixed results there as discussed earlier...]

                        Obviously. But since the same is true for standard geology, I don't see a problem.
                        Except OE geology doesn't need to deal with abnormal global conditions at every site. They can posit them on a smaller scale, and in limited time periods, though. But like I said, they do need to deal with more time, so yeah, not sure which is more difficult. Anyway, a fair answer.

                        I suspect that the "ordinary weather" scenario you refer to is actually atypical, in that most geological strata are deposited underwater, with subaerial deposits being rarer.
                        Also fair.

                        Correct. But this isn't a problem for standard geology. Why is it a problem for flood geology?
                        It's a "problem" in the sense of a math problem for any view. My point is, to get the full details for any one site, we must also have the full details of all sites. This is not feasible (really under any view), so you must have in mind some level of detail less than full, yet you still aren't specifying.

                        I think you don't actually have any examples of detailed geological analysis under a YEC framework
                        Look, maybe this makes sense somehow in your head, but this is contrary to normal English. Details are discussed all the time. You even linked to an article that had a lot of detail, though that one wasn't about one particular site. I've read others that are. Have you?

                        that you don't have a coherent flood model
                        Ah.... I see what you're driving at. But Roy, science is a process of discovery. "Discussion of details at a site" is very different from ONE "coherent" model. There are at least two models, one more coherent than the other (and of course, the old canopy model but virtually nobody gives that one any credence anymore). Neither has solved every problem. You should have already understood that up front. It has been discussed frankly all throughout this discussion.

                        Both also include admissions of the points in the geological succession where there is uncertainty of the exact processes involved.
                        You realize you're contradicting yourself here?

                        questions such as this one:
                        You have claimed that all deposits from the Cambrian to the Upper Cretaceous were deposited in a year-long event that started with an upwelling at the mid-ocean ridges.
                        Huh? First of all, I wasn't sure if you were being literal about this "claimed" business, but it looks like given the above, you were. There are models, and I've discussed some of the evidence for the model I currently favor. That's not the same as "claiming this is what happened." If you've been reading my posts you know I'm not even sure Earth is young to begin with, let alone which model is correct.

                        And I don't recall any Flood model that I discussed fitting what you say here. Maybe Oard's uplift-only model? Or maybe you don't mean "started" literally. Obviously those ridges would rise earlier as the new plates form, so I guess you could put it that way, but it's strange wording.

                        Most of the rest of the details you cited look pretty much okay, although to be clear, "inrush" is probably a misleading term for much of the later water level rise. I used in in the sense of a summary describing mainly the earlier part. Later it would probably be more of a slow rise.

                        You also give the impression of demanding I be a geologist. I'm just telling people some of what I've read over the years as a layman. Honestly, the OE side has botched this discussion so badly I'm getting tired of it. But some of you have shown surprising levels of unawareness of what I've read so I feel somewhat obligated to share it, time allowing.

                        Anyway, I don't know how to answer a "you refuse to give details correct?" question, which won't even specify why the details already offered aren't details -- but that aside, I like seeking truth, so there's no refusal. It's a pointless question. If you ask something I can't provide for now, if it's interesting enough or looks like it could be productive enough I'll probably dive into research on it. But if you want a level of detail way beyond a reasonable discussion, you really should invest your own time in that search. It is sufficient to search a subject enough to determine whether it has telling evidence, and over and over again so far that has been the YE side winning out, even from the source YOU linked to. I still have issues with the YE view, but the OE now has many more that look unsolveable.


                        rather than avoiding them.
                        Sorry I didn't answer in detail before. I didn't have time. And you gave the impression of asking unnecessarily (spammily).



                        Why?
                        Because throwing a massive article at somebody without giving an overview of its thesis (at least) looks like a delaying tactic. And because I wanted to test you to see if all your "big talk" was just that...

                        I linked to it purely to support my statement that fine particles take too long to settle through water for them to be deposited during a one-year event.
                        Huh? And how do you think it does that? The article argued the exact opposite and seems to have made a persuasive case (one I predicted!). Furthermore, it argued that this is an unsolveable problem for your view.

                        Yet despite repeated requests for an example, you have yet to produce one despite it requiring, if what you said was true, only a quick search on Google.
                        Because the ones I've read were not difficult to find on the main sites, so presumably you must mean something other than those. Hence my asking you to explain and justify what you want that isn't provided...

                        That said, thanks for the link. But you did it again -- you still did not define what it is you want, rather than arguing by link. Dishonest?

                        But I'll read the link anyway and eventually report back on it, and whether your complaint holds water.


                        In all my years of discussing origins I've yet to find a YEC advocate who wasn't dishonest, or hypocritical, or both. I'm not at all surprised that you're proving no different.
                        Or you aren't a reliable judge of these things. Atheist. In all my years of interviewing atheists, virtually all have exposed horrible reasoning methods of some kind or another. Theistic OEs in general are a bit better, though.

                        And if you really wanted to be honest, you should have leaped at the opportunity to do as I asked, for the sake of all reading along. You claim you do research sufficiently, so this should have been easy for you. Having now read the article, I can't help but wondered if you hoped I wouldn't... And you yourself tried a "you refuse" challenge. Then you do it yourself. Typical!


                        Let's ask you again. What in your view are some of the biggest weaknesses with the OE view? Show me some of that honesty you claim to have. I have done this myself in the reverse. Is it not fair to ask you to show the same?



                        hans:

                        So you are basically saying Andes and Himalaya were above Flood waters?
                        Again, that depends on the model and whether those mountains were formed (or that high) at the time. Himalayas in the model I prefer, as I already said, apparently did not exist at all. And the Andes and Rockies appear to be crumple zones from the spreading out of the continental plates, so also probably weren't there. I'm talking about whatever hills or mountains already existed pre-Flood.



                        We must be clear that the narrator's perspective, in any historic book, is the word of God.

                        This means that if Noah had been for instance ignorant of Himalayas or Andes, this would have put the word of God in error, if they weren't covered too.
                        Not if the narrative is giving Noah's perspective (and/or his sons), as I have already shown is actually apparently made clear in the account! A statement that means "so far as the Ark passengers could tell, all mountains were covered" is not inaccurate if one isn't covered that they could not possibly have seen. It would simply be their equivalent for the modern phrase "as far as the eye can see". And the evidence is strong that Hebrew could use the language in that way.


                        Your point about the book of Job citing a fallible speaker is fair. But I was simply saying that the Bible includes some poetic language; that the speaker obviously did not intend that literally, and that mainstream YECs are well aware of this, which is why they generally resist the label of "literalist". You do realize that poetic language does not equal error, right?



                        Ensuing discussion is having a lot of rehashes of bad OE arguments repeated that were already dealt with in prior discussion. I'm not going to repeat at this point. And it's kind of hard to feel motivated when it's all directed at someone as nutty as hans. (No offense, hans... just observeable...) But some reality is being thrown away with the bathwater there.

                        Example, rogue's repeat of the stock fundy argument that creationist organizations require ignoring evidence. It's true that you have to be convinced of YEC to join those organizations, but if in fact YEC is true, then it obviously does not follow that they will need to ignore anything, and they make persuasive cases that in fact it is -- often citing evidence that OEs ignore or hide. And they also frequently cite evidence claimed to be opposed to their view, usually dealing with it adequately, based on generally the priority of how often OEs cite it. And a few times I've even seen them cite some without rebuttal, relying on other arguments to justify faith that it will probably fail upon further testing.

                        That said, there IS a valid version of this criticism. I was really hoping I could praise rogue for actually using it, but he botched it midway through with the ignore evidence claim. That is that somebody like me who still isn't fully convinced of the YE could not choose to work there. (Or they would have to be like Morton and evidently hide their doubts.) But I don't fault them there; this applies to the scientists who would presumably know enough via formal training to not have this issue. Given how frequently organizations fall to corruption over time, their safeguards are more than reasonable, and being open and honest about them is very good. (Note that many OE organizations are not so honest.)

                        Rogue, you do go on to post a seemingly very good argument about tree rings. I was unaware of that AiG article. I've read articles saying that some trees do show multiple rings per year, though, IIRC. So not sure why that would be impossible (maybe I'm remembering that wrong, though). Still, it's a big red flag that there is no present-day evidence of this, and pretty "convenient" if the process just stopped before we started measuring it.

                        (That said, this is still at best inconclusive. A good OE argument as far as I can see right now, but not proof...)

                        Incidentally, that article contradicts your own claim, rogue, that contrary (apparent) evidence is not allowed...

                        Kb:

                        Could you clarify your advice to use Wikipedia?

                        There is a good answer here, just checking whether you're using it... I would never recommend it without serious qualification, and you didn't include any...
                        Last edited by logician bones; 02-15-2017, 06:56 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by logician bones View Post
                          I did have time to read that link Roy gave about fine particles settling. Unfortunately, it appears to conclusively debunk Roy's use of it, and in fact I predicted the mechanism they proposed there as it turns out. Not only do they show strong evidence that the YE view DOES fit the chalk, they also appear to conclusively disprove the OE being able to explain it!

                          (Note that they also contrast an obscure class of "hidden" Flood models with the main one. I won't waste my time on that as I've read enough before to be convinced that isn't plausible. They conclude the same in this case.)

                          Okay, from my notes (written as I read through it, and before checking back here, plus a bit first about another source):

                          I noticed that in my notes from my Morton research earlier I had a CMI article about chalk. Unfortunately, while it persuasively deals with most of the problems raised about chalk, it only mentions and does not solve the one Roy brought up. Specifically, they showed a small time of sinking needed (10 days) for the largest chalk particles, but only vaguely added that for smaller ones it would be longer. Major red flags earned there; how smaller? How much longer?

                          So, glad you did bring it up, Roy. It's a fair point that needs to be investigated. CMI also pointed out we're dealing with much less depth than today's oceans, so less distance for the calcation, which is fair, but they made no clear attempt to justify the depth they chose.

                          Probably the best argument there, and what they focused on, is that the evidence is strong that algal blooms and the like happen under conditions the Flood would provide in abundance, especially around day 150 (at some point after the inrush was complete), and that the amount of chalk is actually conservative for what could be expected from this period.

                          So, notes from the AiG article, and quotes of interest:

                          Early on they raise a good point -- that the OE and YE/GF views have two major similarities (mass extinctions and yet survivals of some), but the OE view, without apparently realizing it, has created a much less plausible situation of at least four mass extinctions with little to no thought given to how survival worked.

                          To that I would add that it may be much worse, in light of the main issue this topic is focused on; the global, many-layers lack of surface erosion as pervasive as we find on Earth's surface today. The only OE options so far brought up (and only by me; OEs haven't even touched the issue, as I've pointed out several times now) are radically different geological processes for most of history than today, and (much more likely) MANY global geological leveling events (erasing most of the surface erosion). The latter would also explain the global relatively good fossilization.

                          There seems to be a problematic attitude that anything hard to understand about the YE history is taken as evidence if an OE, yet understanding the OE view in the same sense -- of looking for difficulties and requiring they be solved, is rarely done, and these major difficulties are simply allowed to pile up and be ignored. And this is looking like an extremely absurd case of it.

                          The familiarity with the ark may have conditioned people to think of global extinctions as automatically survivable, but that is obviously not the case.

                          That said, obviously SOME survival is very possible, so this doesn't prove a YE. But it's a very good point that should not be ignored; it should be adequately dealt with before the OE can be valid.

                          Since many of these extinctions could simply be due to evolutionary outcompetition, the problem does lessen to an extent, but then we just create another.

                          It isn't just that the layers are mostly flat, it's that the extinctions are topped by such layer boundaries, yet similar layer boundaries at other depths seem to have no effect on life at all, or very little. It's very strange.

                          All of this is explained in one giant Ockham's Razor fell swoop if all these layers (Cambrian to Cretaceous, the article clarifies) are from the Flood and what did survive needed only ONE method; the Ark itself, and then the extinctions simply came later due to more normal processes like unsuitability to the Ice Age or permanent changes to climate, overhunting, etc.







                          (A bold claim! We'll see if it holds up.)

                          An aside: they say that the OE literature has a fairly strong focus apparently on the Permian extinction. This and other mass extinctions during a long period of mostly complete submersion are curious too. What would cause that? Many global extinctions on the surface are easy to explain with asteroid strikes or huge volcanic events. In the water? Unclear. Possible, but puzzling.



                          To put it mildly!

                          I've encountered many theists in general, and even Christians in particular, who are open to BOTH an old Earth and a young Earth. This is true among scientists AND others.

                          To date, I have never, not even once, encountered an atheist who accepts a YE.

                          You can't help but wonder if maybe, just maybe, the fact that a young Earth seems to be incompatible with atheism is really what's driving the rejection.

                          The same could be said for evolution, with exactly the same descriptions of the groups. Not that this proves anything, of course -- it could still be old anyway. But the point is, relying on secularists to be honest judges on this is... erm... very questionable. Especially since these same secularists will leap at the chance to accuse YEs of similar bias due to the factor of (apparent or real) biblical teaching. And that's a fair point; don't get me wrong. But still, even Christians like me who are convinced God's Word is true are open to an old Earth, because the premise of the Bible being true, by itself, doesn't prove what it intended to say. I do think the case is pretty solid for certain details like the fossil record (or the majority of it), but the rest is not so solid from what I've seen.

                          The point is, it's basically 100% correlation for only one of these combinations -- atheist, OE, evolutionist. So everyone should be HIGHLY suspicious of bias on their part.

                          By the way, atheism COULD work with a young Earth. Not by the old traditional arguments that depend on a purely in-this-universe definition of "naturalism", but prominent atheists now accept a multiverse, and this does include the idea of different physics in different universes; something in one crossing over into another could be on the table. And yet no atheists that I've interviewed have ever confessed to being accepting of this. Chance to be the first, atheists reading...

                          (Why haven't they? My guess is that an emotional "phobia" or whatever you want to call it of "supernatural" has led them to shy away from anything that feels like that, even though it would be consistent with what they have conceded. Logical consistency isn't one of their strong suits either, so it really isn't surprising.)



                          Apparently Roy misrepresented this as saying this is a pro-OE evidence, but here they are saying it does not work for the OE, while admitting it is also a challenge to the YE. But the Flood provides a good reason for differences to normal procedures -- many more than just one difference. Finding the relevant difference(s) may be a challenge, but right off the bat this appears to be a PRO-young-Earth evidence.



                          This IS one of the possibilities I mentioned, yet Roy claimed they did not use it! Roy! You've already failed the test before I've even looked at your reply to my previous!

                          [Update: I may have been too harsh here. I found it hard to believe he could get something that wrong, so I looked up his wording.

                          It looks more like he may have simply not yet read that part of my post yet when he said that, so he might have meant something else by "different from yours". My mention of this possibility he quoted immediately after that statemet, so that's possible. But to that, he only remarked vaguely words to the effect of "these would leave traces", with no awareness shown that he had read the very article he was linking to (so that he would naturally have said something like "that second possibility is the one they used in that article" or the like).

                          I wasn't going to ask , but that's got me wondering... DID you read it, Roy? I was assuming you did; I don't want to assume the worst. (Even though experience has taught me that is usually true with atheists LOL.) Maybe you didn't mean to imply you did, but your braggart latest reply... well, seems to imply you would have. So... puzzling.

                          And more to the point, even more puzzling that you did not comment on the fact that the article you linked DID show evidence of such traces left by the mechanism both I and they proposed! Your "would leave traces" comment gives the impression that the article you'd just cited was admitting that there are none.

                          This appears to be very misleading, Roy... Your boasting of "honest" is looking very suspicious in light of this... Can you explain?

                          As to what he meant by "different from yours", I'm guessing it was probably my talking about footprints in layers said to be Cretaceous as late- or post-inrush. But this article talks about the chalk deposition as early recession. However, this article also argues against layer assignments being reliable (their argument to this point was unclear to me, though). If that is correct, "Cretaceous" where dinosaur footprints are found would actually be lower than the chalk, and this would still be consistent with my earlier description. Another possibility the article did not discuss is lowering water level after the inrush due to massive evaporation, so the chalk could be post-inrush but before the main total submersion.]



                          Indeed!



                          Note that both major tectonic Flood models would naturally explain this procedure on the continents. Both have the oceanic plates temporarily higher. These could easily lift the outer edges of the continents, and as they go down, provide enough room for some slow drainage through the sediments, then later go down enough that channels could break open, releasing most of the drainage (and not leaving Dead Sea equivalents).



                          This would certainly seem to clinch things for the YE view.



                          Another pro-YE/F evidence.









                          (They then go on to answer these things. Order is rarely a good OE argument as shown previously, and that is easily dispensed, with obvious depth-habitation reasons for the general order and that in fact the order is not universal. Hardgrounds are trickier. Note that I also found another CMI article discussing them and it cites even an OE admitting at least one site of hardgrounds is actually fragments torn up from a seafloor and later deposited, rather than an in situ hardground. This AiG article also discusses some possible explanations for them. The other two have already been shown above to be expected.)

                          One further quote:



                          This is different from the reasoning used in the CMI article, which assumed the supply formed during the Flood, and gave reasons to expect that.
                          You have so thoroughly mixed what roy said with your unnamed source your post is impossible to follow.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                            Since he is max. 2 meters, the tree is max 4 or 5 meters thick.
                            I'll just remind you of your own words quoted above:

                            "This means the diameter of the tree is 3 to 5 meter thick. Try to fell that and count the tree rings?"

                            Are you graduating from unawareness to unscrupulousness?
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              You have so thoroughly mixed what roy said with your unnamed source your post is impossible to follow.
                              Not mixed at all. Despite him repeatedly referring to my words, he didn't [quote] a single one of them.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by logician bones View Post
                                ox:



                                Okay, but why? Your post really didn't make it clear where a conflict is. It depends on what his model would have the apparent age as. If it has Day 4's light showing things as they are pretty close to the start, they would have appeared close to of no age at that point. 6000 Earth years later, they would appear 6000 years older than they did on Day 4. Right?

                                I can see where what you're saying would be the case, but I can also see the possibility that it wouldn't, and offhand I don't recall his model specifying one way or the other. If anything I would expect it to be consistent with young apparent age (since the more distant the object is, the more time its light took to reach us).


                                Also, it would be helpful if when speaking of time dilation models you always specified which reference frame you're talking about. You mentioned age of the universe, but his model requires us to be more specific if we're going to be clear. So not sure what you were saying there.

                                The problems Humphrey's model solves is not just how starlight gets to us. It is why is there so much obvious history in that same observable universe. So it's not say the galaxy we see at 2.5 million light years is 2.5 million + 10,000 years old, it is saying that galaxy is say 10 billion years old. That is what he is resolving. So, for example, the large magellenic clouds are about 168,000 light years from here, but that contain objects that clearly exhibit histories of millions and billions of years. Humphreys theory allows the universe 'out there' to be billions of years old.

                                I had the opportunity to ask him directly once my question about the white dwarf that is billions of years old but 8 light years from here (Sirius B).

                                He did NOT say the white dwarf was really only 10,008 years old. He acknowledged the problem for his 'theory'. But his answer was maybe God created some things closer to us that looked old 'for variety'.

                                So he clearly intends to account for, at great distances, the reality of the billion year old universe 'out there'. He want's to explain things like the shockwaves in the Andromeda galaxy from the colliscion with its satellite galaxy m32 over 200 million years ago. Or large tidal tails between interacting galaxies that span 10's or 100's of thousands of light years and would require hundreds of million to billions of years just to form.

                                But that conflicts then with Sarfati who is trying to say the fact we can't find (not true BTW) SNR's with apparent ages >10,000 years is because the UNIVERSE 'out there' is <10,000 years old EVERYWHERE. They are completely conflicting views. They can't both be correct. Yet YECdom doesn't really care, or, as in your case, doesn't understand that the ideas that solve one problem are completely incompatible with the ideas that solve another.


                                That is not science. Not at the level of incompatibility we are looking at. Each of these predicts completely different overlapping observations*, both of which are NOT born out by the actual observations. First of all, we do, in fact, observe some SNR's that are a much greater apparent age than 10,000 years (nullifying the proposal a lack of such SNR's shows the universe <10,000 years old). And secondarily, we do, in fact, observe many objects, including the Earth BTW, that have records of histories in them much much greater than 10,000 years (nullifying the white hole cosmology). And so both ideas actually only explain a small fraction of the data they attempt to explain, UNLIKE what we call science, where a hypothesis is shown false or at best incomplete by a single counter example (where we know the counter example is not measurement error) And their success is grounded in the ignorance of their target audience NOT to understand why what they do not explain kills them before they ever really get started.


                                Jim

                                *Your best bet at a counter-example would be Einsteins Theory of Relativity and Quantum theory. Here the predictions of the theories occupy essentially non-overlapping scales, and the scientific world is not only fully aware of the general conflicting nature of the theories, are and have been for quite some time working on larger theories that predict the known observations at both the sub atomic and universal scales.
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-16-2017, 06:49 AM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X