If Evolution

[Stuu]

Notice how you have no interest in the science, just in venting?

Science is when you have an hypothesis that can be tested by seeking evidence. Hydroplate is when you have a dogma to justify and you invent a myth to go along with it. Hydroplate is not a theory because there is no evidence to support it and it makes no testable predictions.

It's just that in a discussion about physics, one would expect you to steer clear of theology.

Physics can be useful in dispelling religious fantasies, but in this case hydroplate is not an application of physics, so it must be only an incidental relationship. Theology is much more appropriate, as it is a nothing discipline, best applied to a nothing concept.

And speaking about physics, do you know why taps become calcified?

Yes, but I'd call that chemistry.

Evolutionism is religious fantasy, and rational, scientific questions are appropriate.

You never ask any kind of questions about evolution. You only ever transmit platitudes on that topic.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Notice how in one post, Stuu-pid is wailing about the lack of religious content in Dr Walt Brown's book (available in its entirety online at www.creationscience.com ), but in another post rants that the Hydroplate theory is entirely religious in nature.

He's so worked up, he can't think straight. :chuckle:

Are you talking to yourself there?

Just watching for the second time that 10 minute video on the landing page of creationscience.com and I can't decide if Walt Brown is a crackpot or a fraud. I swapped between the two conclusions as the video went on. For someone who claims to have scientific training, his claims about mid-oceanic ridges rising and plates moving at tens of kilometres per hour are crackpot, but his claim that this could possibly build mountains through sliding plates is fraudulent. It is obviously ridiculous that plates sliding off some ridge could form the Himalayas and keep them in place.

This is religious fantasy, not science, in the same way that making a human from a rib could be claimed as a scentific claim but isn't, and a talking snake could be rationalised in 'scientific' language but isn't scientific.

Help me here, Stripe, is Walt Brown a fraud or a crackpot? I can't decide.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Science is when you have an hypothesis that can be tested by seeking evidence. Hydroplate is when you have a dogma to justify and you invent a myth to go along with it. Hydroplate is not a theory because there is no evidence to support it and it makes no testable predictions.

:darwinsm:

Except you made an appeal to science in a failed attempt to undermine it.

Oh dear, Stuu. You're really put out over all this, aren't you? No matter what aspect of geology you turn to, the Hydroplate theory has an explanation for it.

Yes.

Excellent!

Then you should be able to explain why your salt problem is not so terminal.

Or are you just going to cut and run like when you saw how fruitless the heat objection was?

 

[Stripe]

Is Walt Brown a fraud or a crackpot?

:darwinsm:

Neither.

I love the easy questions. Keep them coming. :up:

 

[Stuu]

Except you made an appeal to science in a failed attempt to undermine it.

In one thread you say evolution is 'only a theory', and in another you advocate for something you call 'hydroplate theory'. But it's only a theory, right Stripe?

Hydroplate is not a theory because it makes no testable predictions. But all creationists, including the crackpot / fraud Walt Brown love bothering real science with their religious fantasies because they know that science is deeply respected, and they like to try and bask in the reflected success of science by dressing up their fantasies as science. Well, the lipstick is dripping off this pig of a fantasy, Stripe.

Oh dear, Stuu. You're really put out over all this, aren't you? No matter what aspect of geology you turn to, the Hydroplate theory has an explanation for it.

It doesn't explain anything. It tries to explain phenomena that never happened!

Then you should be able to explain why your salt problem is not so terminal.

Or are you just going to cut and run like when you saw how fruitless the heat objection was?

I don't have a salt problem. You have a salt problem. The flood never happened, so it isn't a problem that humans couldn't eat because plant life had been ruined by salt. This is a problem that one of your religious fantasies generates for another of your religious fantasies.

That's why the theological questions are completely relevant: all of these questions are theological.

In Genesis, the Judeo-christian god makes it rain, and in Walt Brown's version no action is required on the part of the god. No explanation is given for how the fantasy hydroplates and caverns of water come to be there, certainly no geological process would sort material like that, so all we are left with is that the Judeo-christian god built the earth thinking that at some point it might become necessary to destroy all of it. And that was called 'good'. You must be a little bit disgusted at that suggestion, surely?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

:darwinsm:

Neither.

I love the easy questions. Keep them coming. :up:

But he must be one of the two, or maybe you mean he is neither more of one than of the other.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

In one thread you say evolution is 'only a theory', and in another you advocate for something you call 'hydroplate theory'. But it's only a theory, right Stripe?

:yawn:

It's the Hydroplate theory.

Hydroplate is not a theory because it makes no testable predictions.

:darwinsm:

I don't have a salt problem. You have a salt problem. The flood never happened, so it isn't a problem that humans couldn't eat because plant life had been ruined by salt. This is a problem that one of your religious fantasies generates for another of your religious fantasies.

At even the hint of a discussion over the evidence, the Darwinists run for the hills. :dog:

In Genesis, the Judeo-christian god makes it rain, and in Walt Brown's version no action is required on the part of the god. No explanation is given for how the fantasy hydroplates and caverns of water come to be there, certainly no geological process would sort material like that, so all we are left with is that the Judeo-christian god built the earth thinking that at some point it might become necessary to destroy all of it. And that was called 'good'. You must be a little bit disgusted at that suggestion, surely?

My, but you're desperate. :chuckle:

Wake us up when you're ready to engage sensibly.

But he must be one of the two.

Nope. It's just you who is a complete retard. :wave2:

 

[Stuu]

It's the Hydroplate theory.

Is that what they told you.

Stuart

 

[CherubRam]

 

[CherubRam]

...

 

[CherubRam]

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...PnZAhVJxGMKHdcqADsQMwhAKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

[Stuu]

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...PnZAhVJxGMKHdcqADsQMwhAKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

If you think there is any merit or satire in that, then you will continue to suffer shooting deaths of kids in schools.

Had you considered trying a different attitude in order to achieve a different outcome? The guns 'n' religion crew seem to be dedicated to the status quo, continued death of the innocents as a price to pay for their god-given right to pack heat as a defense against their bogeymen.

Stuart

 

[CherubRam]

If you think there is any merit or satire in that, then you will continue to suffer shooting deaths of kids in schools.

Had you considered trying a different attitude in order to achieve a different outcome? The guns 'n' religion crew seem to be dedicated to the status quo, continued death of the innocents as a price to pay for their god-given right to pack heat as a defense against their bogeymen.

Stuart

Auto mobiles also kill.

 

[Stuu]

Auto mobiles also kill.

But see how the attitude has changed in that case.

Stuart

 

[Tambora]

He didn't. Your religion is based upon offering up human blood sacrifice(s) to the god(s) as a payment.

GOD offering Himself.
Man did not sacrifice Christ to gods or anyone.
Christ gave His own life.

 

[The Barbarian]

Technically, electricity is a fact. We can observe electrons (albeit indirectly) moving in a conductor. There is a theory of electricity which explains this phenomenon.

Technically, evolution is a fact. We can directly observe changes in allele frequencies in a population. There is a theory of evolution which explains the phenomenon.

 

[ok doser]

Technically, electricity is a fact. We can observe electrons (albeit indirectly) moving in a conductor. There is a theory of electricity which explains this phenomenon.

Technically, evolution is a fact. We can directly observe changes in allele frequencies in a population. There is a theory of evolution which explains the phenomenon.

so if I pass a current through a wire, it will assemble itself into a smart phone or a tesla?

cool!

 

[The Barbarian]

so if I pass a current through a wire, it will assemble itself into a smart phone or a tesla?

If you put a population or organisms into a somewhat different environment, over several generations, the allele frequency will change to make them more fit for the new environment. The longer this happens, the more the population will change.

cool!

Yep.

 

[ok doser]

so if I pass a current through a wire, it will assemble itself into a smart phone or a tesla?

cool!

Yep.

:thumb:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Technically, electricity is a fact. We can observe electrons (albeit indirectly) moving in a conductor. There is a theory of electricity which explains this phenomenon.

Technically, evolution is a fact. We can directly observe changes in allele frequencies in a population. There is a theory of evolution which explains the phenomenon.

Redefining evolution to support your position is called dishonest, Barbie.

Google -

Evolution 1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. 2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Merriam-Webster -

Definition of evolution 1 a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality. —Stephen Jay Gould also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization) Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution. —Nature In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive. —Pamela Weintraub b : the historical development of a biological group (such as a race or species) : phylogeny

Oxford -

1 The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin towards a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology​

I see nothing about "allele frequencies" in any of those definitions.