Hydroplate oxygen prediction validated

[Stripe]

From dictionary.com.

Oh, so now the dictionary definition is good enough, huh? :chuckle:

Are you entirely unaware of the meaning of the word when used in scientific contexts?

It's called a discussion. Your misunderstanding and the clarity of my contributions has been established. Feel free to catch up any time you like. :up:

Finding molecular oxygen on a comet is not remotely related to the isotopes found.

Nobody said it was. In fact, it was made very clear that the prediction has not been fulfilled. Perhaps you'd like to read the prediction, put it alongside what we have just discovered and contribute something sensible instead of barging in and demanding that nothing of value can come from a competing hypothesis.

Oxygen is ubiquitous.

Which is why we are studying its form, rather than being amazed that it is there.

Is your sole contribution going to be to declare the bleedingly obvious?

Does the presence of oxygen molecules ... shift the balance of evidence from the scientific consensus towards Walt's [ideas]?

Yes. Because Dr Brown's model provides a pathway for molecular oxygen to be part of comets, while this discovery forces evolutionists to re-evaluate their entire understanding of the solar system's origins.

You could start by answering the question you're desperate to avoid:

Why can molecular oxygen not be formed from Oxygen-18?

I'm wondering why this is in the Religion forum?

Because we know the evolutionists will be here.

 

[gcthomas]

The scientists said they were surprised by the quantity of oxygen molecules, not by their presence which was expected. What concentration did Walt's theory predict? What?! Walt doesn't make quantitative predictions? Any didn't you day6 so?

See, Walt only does rhetoric, not science, just as you do emoticons and childlike insults instead of discussions. You can't even respond to questions. What sort of foolish troll are you?

 

[Stripe]

The scientists said they were surprised by the quantity of oxygen molecules, not by their presence which was expected. What concentration did Walt's theory predict? What?! Walt doesn't make quantitative predictions? Any didn't you day6 so? See, Walt only does rhetoric, not science, just as you do emoticons and childlike insults instead of discussions. You can't even respond to questions. What sort of foolish troll are you?

Your desperation aside, do you have an answer to the question?

Why can molecular oxygen not be formed from Oxygen-18?

 

[Wick Stick]

Because we know the evolutionists will be here.

I'm not even sure such a group exists. :dizzy:

The people with the little fish-with-legs things on the back of their car... they aren't really "evolutionists." They're just making fun of you.

I saw one the other day that was squid-shaped and said "Chthulu" in the middle. Do you suppose they are really offering sacrifices to chthulu?

Perhaps we should rail against chthulu-ism.

Jarrod

 

[Stripe]

Idiots... For your info, dictionaries are not good sources of technical definitions, only for finding common usage.

From dictionary.com, the first relevent definition is:

a*:to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis<experiments designed to*validate*the hypothesis>

Are you entirely unaware of the meaning of the word when used in scientific contexts?

Classic. :darwinsm:

 

[Stripe]

I'm not even sure such a group exists.

You'll have to get out more.

 

[Desert Reign]

PREDICTION 46: Comets will be found to be rich in Oxygen-18.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity4.html#wp9547089

Scientists shocked by molecular oxygen on comet.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/S...irst_detection_of_molecular_oxygen_at_a_comet

I'm not falling on either side of this debate, however, I should point out that predicting that something will be found is not a scientific test of a hypothesis. This is because the prediction isn't falsifiable - you can never prove that you haven't found what you are looking for. Predicting that something will be found by a certain date is indeed falsifiable. But of course you wouldn't do that would you?

I did say I wasn't on either side of the debate. My point works in the opposite direction. I have heard of geologists predicting that certain fossils will be found in certain strata. And then when they find them, they say that this proves the theory of evolution and their own geological theories. But it of course doesn't. Because it is not a falsifiable test as not finding them would not disprove the theory.

 

[Stripe]

When a prediction is made and it is shown true, it lends credibility to the explanation presented that led to the prediction. Thus when a model says free oxygen should not be found, that counts against it, which is why the evolutionists are rethinking their ideas.

Of course, we will have to wait on closer examination of the comet to find out whether Dr Brown's prediction is successful.

However, a prediction is different from a means of falsification. That a prediction does not bear out is not terminal to a theory.

 

[User Name]

I'm wondering why this is in the Religion forum?

This thread was posted in the Religion forum because it allegedly supports the OP's religious beliefs about Bible-based young-earth creationism.

 

[gcthomas]

When a prediction is made and it is shown true, it lends credibility to the explanation presented that led to the prediction. Thus when a model says free oxygen should not be found, that counts against it, which is why the evolutionists are rethinking their ideas.

Of course, we will have to wait on closer examination of the comet to find out whether Dr Brown's prediction is successful.

However, a prediction is different from a means of falsification. That a prediction does not bear out is not terminal to a theory.

And if there is O-18 the as he and all planetary scientists believe, how does that advance his theory?

Measurements are only useful in supporting specific hypotheses if they have different predictions from the mainstream theories.

(And where do you get the idea that free oxygen wasn't expected at all by the scientists? Can't you read your own OP links?)

 

[gcthomas]

Your desperation aside, do you have an answer to the question?

Why can molecular oxygen not be formed from Oxygen-18?

You tell me. :carryon:

 

[Derf]

Your desperation aside, do you have an answer to the question?

Why can molecular oxygen not be formed from Oxygen-18?

I probably shouldn't step in on such a lovers' quarrel, but I think I can answer the question with some succinctness.

Molecular oxygen means oxygen by itself in a molecule. And from the context of the 2nd link, it is apparent they are talking about molecules with 2 oxygen atoms, not 3.

Oxygen-18 can form molecules. And they would reasonably be called "molecular oxygen". If such were found in some measure of abundance, it would validate Walt's prediction, perhaps.

But the presence of molecular oxygen found on the comet is not in any way related to Walt's prediction, as he specifically stated that "water in and near thick salt deposits is rich in ¹⁸O." (emphasis mine).

So, since Walt was looking for water with ¹⁸O, and ESA found O₂, which is specifically NOT in water, they aren't talking about the same category of thing.

 

[Jose Fly]

Time to close the thread. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

I probably shouldn't step in on such a lovers' quarrel, but I think I can answer the question with some succinctness.

Molecular oxygen means oxygen by itself in a molecule. And from the context of the 2nd link, it is apparent they are talking about molecules with 2 oxygen atoms, not 3.

Oxygen-18 can form molecules. And they would reasonably be called "molecular oxygen". If such were found in some measure of abundance, it would validate Walt's prediction, perhaps.

But the presence of molecular oxygen found on the comet is not in any way related to Walt's prediction, as he specifically stated that "water in and near thick salt deposits is rich in ¹⁸O." (emphasis mine).

So, since Walt was looking for water with ¹⁸O, and ESA found O₂, which is specifically NOT in water, they aren't talking about the same category of thing.

Sounds about right.

However, it has been made clear that the prediction has not been confirmed.

 

[chair]

Well done. :up:

It's about time for Stripe to lock the thread, isn't it? :chuckle:

He could admit an error.

 

[gcthomas]

He could admit an error.

Never. The most you'll get is a childish insult and the thread locked.

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

The search for truth does not hinge on one rarified find. To do so would be the same Lyell-Darwin mistake of making too much of a declaration based on too small of a basis. That's why I made the post today on Creation-Evolution.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94434&page=907

 

[ok doser]

allow me to make a prediction

Jose Fly will never post again on tol

would you accept that the evidence that he has been banned validates (or supports) my statement, based on the definition of "validate"?

val·i·date

demonstrate or support the truth or value of.

 

[Stripe]

Feel free to point out the error I've made. I've been good enough to correct gcthomas. :up:

 

[chair]

PREDICTION 46: Comets will be found to be rich in Oxygen-18.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity4.html#wp9547089

Scientists shocked by molecular oxygen on comet.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/S...irst_detection_of_molecular_oxygen_at_a_comet

The error is here. And in the title.

The find in the comets (molecular oxygen) doesn't have anything to do with them being "rich in Oxygen 18".

It is an error. And you should admit it.

Strange as it may seem, you will actually gain credibility if you admit your error.