If God created...

[Stuu]

Wrong according to whom? You?

Wrong according to bristlecone pine dendrochronology that goes back over 11,000 years, and ice cores that allow counting annual layers back over 160,000 years with other dating methods showing ice at 800,000 years old, and the general lack of DNA in fossils, and stalactite growth in limestone caves that typically takes a century per centimetre, and the Green River formation of varves in Utah that show twenty million years worth of annual sedimentary layers including annual pollen deposition, and the existence of over 100 asteroid impact craters of over 1km diameter caused by collisions that have a likelihood of one every 313,000 years based on probability calculations of asteroid impacts.

Stuart

 

[gcthomas]

(People who are interested can Google "Hydroplate Theory")

No wonder you are confused on these issues if you are taking that piece of money-making nonsense as your source material. The Hydroplate "Theory" is a mechanism for making Young-Earthers feel better about having a conception of the world that is at odds with observable reality — you will never persuade a thinking person with Hydroplate lunacy as that is not its purpose. It is preaching to the choir.

 

[gcthomas]

Hunh, catastrophic flooding at the end of the ice age. How long ago was that?

Hey, I have experienced catastrophic flooding myself. It is quite common. It took ages for my bathroom floor to dry out. (Hmm, OK, not particularly global catastrophism, but there you are. 6D loves to leave out the 'global' part to allow him to paint any flood of any size as evidence of global flood.)

 

[Jonahdog]

The question you asked was about Darwin being wrong.
From Wiki "He (Darwin) was wrong. The expedition (The Beagle) ended due to fast water and turned around, had they gone a bit further they would have discovered the true cause of the river valley to be a glacial lake at the foot of the mountain" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_River_(Argentina)

I did not ask a question about Darwin being wrong, I know he was not 100% accurate on details. My question was based on your example of Darwin being "wrong" based on a misunderstanding of the mouth of the Santa Cruz, I asked for a time frame for the ice age you claim caused that feature. In addition, if you can, tell me how you know that.

 

[Jonahdog]

Your 'ad absurdo' argument is not welcome here.
Please stop with your fallacious arguments and actually debate the point.



There is plenty of extra-biblical evidence available.

For example, you'd think that if the earth was billions of years old, that it would be relatively stable, yet just within the past 7 days in Mexico, there have been a total of 115 earthquakes. You'd expect that the weather patterns would have stabilized as well, yet Harvey through Maria? Earth doesn't seem very stable for a planet that's existed for the past couple billion years. Yet these weather patterns make sense if there was an earth shaking event that happened only a few thousand years ago.

(People who are interested can Google "Hydroplate Theory")

What do you mean by the weather being stabilized? How would that look? Please explain.

 

[Stuu]

Hey, I have experienced catastrophic flooding myself. It is quite common. It took ages for my bathroom floor to dry out. (Hmm, OK, not particularly global catastrophism, but there you are. 6D loves to leave out the 'global' part to allow him to paint any flood of any size as evidence of global flood.)

Does water rush up from fissures in the hydroplate flooring causing the temperature in your bathroom to reach 1700 Celcius, and can you see in the distance frozen blobs of that water starting their impressively fast journey as comets to the Oort Cloud in order to complete a next pass-by outside your window in perhaps only a few thousand years if they're long-period comets?

Is that all visible through the extreme rain falling at thousands of degrees above the boiling point of water, also melting the crust?

Have you noticed your bathroom floor traveling at 45 mph towards the North Downs, colliding with bits of Kent to form the High Weald?

I think you must have, surely.

Stuart

 

[gcthomas]

Does water rush up from fissures in the hydroplate flooring causing the temperature in your bathroom to reach 1700 Celcius, and can you see in the distance frozen blobs of that water starting their impressively fast journey as comets to the Oort Cloud in order to complete a next pass-by outside your window in perhaps only a few thousand years if they're long-period comets?

Is that all visible through the extreme rain falling at thousands of degrees above the boiling point of water, also melting the crust?

Have you noticed your bathroom floor traveling at 45 mph towards the North Downs, colliding with bits of Kent to form the High Weald?

I think you must have, surely.

Stuart

The High Weald is just too beautiful to have formed naturally. The only plausible answer is that God created the Hundred Acre Wood and Eyore's lonely place. And the evidence of Catastrophism is everywhere - just look at how Pooh got stuck in his own heffalump trap! A catastrophe.

 

[Rosenritter]

Hunh, catastrophic flooding at the end of the ice age. How long ago was that?

About 4000 years ago.

 

[Rosenritter]

Wrong according to bristlecone pine dendrochronology that goes back over 11,000 years, and ice cores that allow counting annual layers back over 160,000 years with other dating methods showing ice at 800,000 years old, and the general lack of DNA in fossils, and stalactite growth in limestone caves that typically takes a century per centimetre, and the Green River formation of varves in Utah that show twenty million years worth of annual sedimentary layers including annual pollen deposition, and the existence of over 100 asteroid impact craters of over 1km diameter caused by collisions that have a likelihood of one every 313,000 years based on probability calculations of asteroid impacts.

Stuart

Those bristlecone pine trees don't have a single sample going back more than the approximate 5000 year mark. The way they get 10000 is by stacking a couple of them beside each other and supposing that they make a link.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No wonder you are confused on these issues if you are taking that piece of money-making nonsense as your source material. The Hydroplate "Theory" is a mechanism for making Young-Earthers feel better about having a conception of the world that is at odds with observable reality — you will never persuade a thinking person with Hydroplate lunacy as that is not its purpose. It is preaching to the choir.

GC, is science based on predictions?

And if so, if a theory makes a prediction, and it is confirmed, would that lend credibility to the theory?

And what if it makes more predictions, and most of them are confirmed, how much more credibility could the be given?

 

[gcthomas]

GC, is science based on predictions?

And if so, if a theory makes a prediction, and it is confirmed, would that lend credibility to the theory?

And what if it makes more predictions, and most of them are confirmed, how much more credibility could the be given?

If the predictions are quantitative, and of the observations fall within the confidence intervals of the predictions, and if the predictions are more precise and accurate than alternative theories, then yes. But Brown's efforts fail on all of this.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If the predictions are quantitative, and of the observations fall within the confidence intervals of the predictions, and if the predictions are more precise and accurate than alternative theories, then yes. But Brown's Epirus fail on all of this.

There are 56 predictions listed on http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ122.html#wp4593915. (This site is the home of the Hydroplate theory.)

Of them, most have been neither confirmed nor denied, most likely because no research has been done or there has not yet been enough research done to confirm or deny the predictions, but there are 7 that have been confirmed, and only one "partially missed" prediction.

Yet so many of the predictions made by secular scientists who base their predictions on the Big Bang and Darwinism have failed,

Such as:

• Failed expectation that predator populations would increase with prey

• 22 fundamental Darwinian predictions that failed

• failed politically correct science predictions made by scientists

• failed predictions of the big bang theory

And let's not forget that atheists do not even HAVE a theory of origins on which to make predictions.

Yet here some Christian talk show host is making scientific predictions about the universe that would put most secular scientists to shame, and some of them have even been confirmed.

GC, I think it would be dishonest to say that Dr. Brown's theory fails based on it's predictions, because of the 56 made, only one has been a "partial miss", while there have been 7 confirmed so far, and none have completely failed. That's a pretty good track record for a theory that's been around since at least 1995 (the beginning copyright date for his book In the Beginning, which the 9th edition of will be printed in 2019).

 

[Stuu]

Those bristlecone pine trees don't have a single sample going back more than the approximate 5000 year mark. The way they get 10000 is by stacking a couple of them beside each other and supposing that they make a link.

Are you going to be honest and explain exactly what 'they' do? It's not stacking, and it's not supposing, is it. My challenge to you is to explain this fully, or retract your weasel words.

Stuart

 

[gcthomas]

There are 56 predictions listed on http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ122.html#wp4593915. (This site is the home of the Hydroplate theory.)

Of them, most have been neither confirmed nor denied, most likely because no research has been done or there has not yet been enough research done to confirm or deny the predictions, but there are 7 that have been confirmed, and only one "partially missed" prediction.

Yet so many of the predictions made by secular scientists who base their predictions on the Big Bang and Darwinism have failed,

Such as:

• Failed expectation that predator populations would increase with prey

• 22 fundamental Darwinian predictions that failed

• failed politically correct science predictions made by scientists

• failed predictions of the big bang theory

And let's not forget that atheists do not even HAVE a theory of origins on which to make predictions.

Yet here some Christian talk show host is making scientific predictions about the universe that would put most secular scientists to shame, and some of them have even been confirmed.

GC, I think it would be dishonest to say that Dr. Brown's theory fails based on it's predictions, because of the 56 made, only one has been a "partial miss", while there have been 7 confirmed so far, and none have completely failed. That's a pretty good track record for a theory that's been around since at least 1995 (the beginning copyright date for his book In the Beginning, which the 9th edition of will be printed in 2019).

Prediction 2 is falsely claimed as confirmed. Brown thinks that there is pooled water in large caverns with "water remaining under the plates tended to fill the voids formed." What was found was wet rock, not volumes of pooled water. That makes the first claimed 'confirmation' false.

The rest of the 'confirmed' predictions are, as far as a quick glance shows, the same as has been expected by scientists. Except for Pred 38, which is just a laughable claim of confirmation. Claim: loosely bound rock pile stuck together with ice. Obs: gravitationally differentiated small planet with core and mantle. Not the same at all, but enough for Bob to claim he was correct, since the word 'ice' was used.

There are still a dearth of quantitative predictions. Saying C14 would be found in bones is silly, since there are radioactive processes that can generate C14 in bones, just as C14 is generated in the upper atmosphere. What would have been usefully scientific is a set of calculations giving the range of concentrations of C14 that would have been expected in his model. A statistical derivation of the predicted properties of asteroid and comet orbits based solely on his model would have helped. Some explanation of how the fountains of the deep could have accelerated to hypersonic speeds including explaining how the problem of nozzle choking could have been avoided, which would otherwise have restricted the jets to much lower speeds (he's an engineer by training, so why didn't he spot that obvious problem?)

The thing is, the entire theory is unrestrained by reality, and is primarily a literary description, not a quantitative scientific one. Until he has numerical models for his ideas he will continue to be a laughing stock for the few scientists who are even aware of him.

 

[Jonahdog]

About 4000 years ago.

What is the evidence for that?

 

[Jonahdog]

Such as:

• Failed expectation that predator populations would increase with prey

This paper is interesting. Have you read the paper? If so, can you explain it?

 

[Jonahdog]

Judge Rightly or anyone else. Please feel free to check my math.
the mid-ocean ridge is 40,000 miles long. Brown claims that the energy of 5,000 trillion hydrogen bombs was released (note 3 p 611)
How many H-bomb/mile
5.0x10^15 / 4.0x10^4 = 1.25x10^11 h-bombs worth of H-bomb energy per mile of the mid ocean ridge

How many H-bomb/foot
1.25x10^11 / 5.280x10^3 = 2.3x10^7--- 23,000,000 H-bombs/foot.

Can that be correct? Been a long time since I dealt with big #s and scientific notation. Someone please check.

If I am close to correct, is no one concerned about the heat?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Prediction 2 is falsely claimed as confirmed. Brown thinks that there is pooled water in large caverns with "water remaining under the plates tended to fill the voids formed."

What voids are you talking about?

What was found was wet rock, not volumes of pooled water. That makes the first claimed 'confirmation' false.

I'm not sure I understand your argument here...

Could you explain further please?

The rest of the 'confirmed' predictions are, as far as a quick glance shows, the same as has been expected by scientists. Except for Pred 38, which is just a laughable claim of confirmation. Claim: loosely bound rock pile stuck together with ice. Obs: gravitationally differentiated small planet with core and mantle. Not the same at all, but enough for Bob to claim he was correct, since the word 'ice' was used.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets.html

There are still a dearth of quantitative predictions. Saying C14 would be found in bones is silly, since there are radioactive processes that can generate C14 in bones, just as C14 is generated in the upper atmosphere. What would have been usefully scientific is a set of calculations giving the range of concentrations of C14 that would have been expected in his model.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ232.html#wp16501034

A statistical derivation of the predicted properties of asteroid and comet orbits based solely on his model would have helped.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets.html

Again, this chapter should be of value to you.

Some explanation of how the fountains of the deep could have accelerated to hypersonic speeds including explaining how the problem of nozzle choking could have been avoided, which would otherwise have restricted the jets to much lower speeds (he's an engineer by training, so why didn't he spot that obvious problem?)

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html

The thing is, the entire theory is unrestrained by reality, and is primarily a literary description, not a quantitative scientific one.

Sure, it's more geared towards a layman's view of reality, and not aimed at scientists.

That doesn't make the theory any less valid, however.

Until he has numerical models for his ideas he will continue to be a laughing stock for the few scientists who are even aware of him.

Your point?

 

[JudgeRightly]

What is the evidence for that?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ27.html#wp12928577

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ28.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ29.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ210.html

 

[gcthomas]

What voids are you talking about?



I'm not sure I understand your argument here...

Could you explain further please?

Sorry - I thought you were familiar with the book. The part I quoted was, well, a quote. Brown predicted pools of water in voids beneath the mountains, and when wet rock was found he immediately claimed that matched his predictions. And that is not honest or accurate. He should be ashamed of the shallowness of his analyses, unless, as I suspect, he knows his ideas are rubbish and he is just trying to shore up YEC support amongst the gullible and uneducated.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets.html



http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ232.html#wp16501034



http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets.html

Again, this chapter should be of value to you.



http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html

No value at all. I have read the whole section before and it is devoid of any useful model. There are no calculations beyond plotting graphs without axes, and no comparison of the observations to any hydroplate model derived numbers.

Sure, it's more geared towards a layman's view of reality, and not aimed at scientists.

That doesn't make the theory any less valid, however.

Well, yes it does. The science model allows detailed calculations for comparison with observations. Browns waffle doesn't.

Your point?

Hydroplate Theory has nothing to offer, no predictive power given that it is impossible to derive numerical predictions from it due to the lack of organising principles or data that matches such a model. It is purely descriptive, and not vary accurate at that. Only useful to persuade the gullible members amongst his followers.