My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[The Righterzpen]

Are you really this ignorant? Do you post without knowing a single thing about which you write? I have a hard time believing otherwise.

Space craft have flown close enough to comets to observe the nucleus up close:

Giotto (spacecraft) - Wikipedia

Deep Space 1 - Wikipedia

and collected samples of dust

Stardust (spacecraft) - Wikipedia

and collided with a comet (intentionally)

Deep Impact (spacecraft) - Wikipedia

and orbited a comet

Rosetta (spacecraft) - Wikipedia





Oh boy, you messed this one up. The "ice and dust" have been measured in situ and returned to Earth. Not to mention all the spectroscopic measurements. (And it's not only ice and dust, it is primarily ice and dust. It is an observational fact.)

You should really stop while you're behind.

How do you know what they are telling you is the truth? You assume it's the truth because you believe them.

But you have no way of proving that this stuff is actually true!

Like I said many posts ago - We all know the "scientists" lie. (Look at Anthony Fauci and this whole Covid debacle. And how many "scientists" are trying to convince us that someone with a Y chromosome can be a woman?

You really should quit while you are behind.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it isn't. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework that is well tested and supported by evidence.

Is that why there's about ten theories as to how we got our moon?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm still not convinced that the Grand Canyon was solely flood water. I agree that the rock layer deposits were likely the result of Noah's flood. But it seems most logical to me that the canyon itself was formed by earthquakes. (And likely a degree of wind erosion and plain old gravity). Much of the canyon is filled with debris from upper layers falling on lower layers. It just seems to be too much debris for it to just have been water.

I know you didn't ask, but I think the Grand Canyon appeared when God broke the landmass up in Peleg's time.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Facts are not theories and theories are not facts. That's why we have two different names for them.

The surface gravity of Earth is 9.81 m/s^2

That is a fact.

Gravitational force between two objects is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

That is a theory. Newton's theory of gravitation.

The gravitational facts about Earth are only valid for Earth. The theory of gravitation provides a framework to explain the motion of the planets, the cohesion of the planets and the Sun into bound bodies, and to plan the orbits and flight paths of spacecraft. A theory is far more useful and more powerful than a mere fact.

Yes, you make my points very well. They make an assumption of something based on what they observe on earth; but they can't prove it; outside of the consistency of a known environment.

The orbits of space craft and flight paths are assumed by certain factors observed on earth; yet NASA can't explain why they can't seem to get outside of the Van Allen Belts to send a manned craft to Mars? (Well, allegedly you went to the moon; how'd you get there?) NASA - Err; we lost all flight data and accidentally erased all the tapes.

(And a "conspiracy theory" is born!)

How do they get analogue signals from spacecraft launched in the 60's through earth's atmosphere?

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do you know what they are telling you is the truth? You assume it's the truth because you believe them.

The data is openly available. It's part of the standard practice in science.

But you have no way of proving that this stuff is actually true!

Any one with a telescope and a spectrograph can observe the composition of a comet tail.

Like I said many posts ago - We all know the "scientists" lie.

So now you're just going to cast aspersions at us?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Is that why there's about ten theories as to how we got our moon?

Are there that many now?

 

[The Righterzpen]

I know you didn't ask, but I think the Grand Canyon appeared when God broke the landmass up in Peleg's time.

Yes, obviously earthquakes and volcanic activity caused the continents to break up and move.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The data is openly available. It's part of the standard practice in science.

Like.... gain of function research is available?

Any one with a telescope and a spectrograph can observe the composition of a comet tail.

Anyone with a telescope and spectrograph can observe the same phenomena; but mere observation doesn't tell you what the composition of the comet's tail is.

So now you're just going to cast aspersions at us?

But Anthony Fauci "is the science" - right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are there that many now?

I think they have it down to five now.

Moon formation theories.

 

[Gene2memE]

Like.... gain of function research is available?

Yep

22,000 papers referencing 'gain of function' have been published in 2023 alone.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com.au

Here's an example of a study on gain of function in cancer research:

Impairment of rigidity sensing caused by mutant TP53 gain of function in osteosarcoma - Bone Research

Osteosarcoma (OS) is the most common primary malignant pediatric bone tumor and is characterized by high heterogeneity. Studies have revealed a wide range of phenotypic differences among OS cell lines in terms of their in vivo tumorigenicity and in vitro colony-forming abilities. However, the...

www.nature.com

But Anthony Fauci "is the science" - right?

Given Dr Fauci is semi-retired, I doubt he's conducting primary research.

However, when he held the role of NIAID director he could be said to speak authoritatively on the conclusions drawn from the work of other scientists.

No individual in the sciences is infallible though. Any pronouncement, even by eminent scientists, is open to challenge.

Science is often an adversarial processes. The idea is that through critical review, the best ideas get reinforced and supported by more testing and evidence. Those that fail to stand up to examination and testing get winnowed out and discounted.

 

[JohnEmmett]

The idea is that through critical review,

The vaccine for the recent plague was a disaster

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A theory (doesn't matter what field it is) is still someone's opinion.

Yeah, you clearly don't understand or know what a theory is. Hint: it's not an opinion.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Yeah, you clearly don't understand or know what a theory is. Hint: it's not an opinion.

If it's not a fact and it's not an opinion; then what is it?

 

[Gene2memE]

The vaccine for the recent plague was a disaster

Given that the COVID-19 vaccines* undoubtedly saved millions of lives and were developed and deployed in an unprecedentedly small amount of time, I'd like to know your definition of "disaster" here.

*There were multiple, independently developed vaccines of (at least) four different types. Can you tell me which was more, or less, disastrous than the others?

Also, plague is a bacterial contagion, not a viral one, so calling COVID-19 a "plague" is just wrong.

 

[Gene2memE]

If it's not a fact and it's not an opinion; then what is it?

A Theory in the sciences is the explanation for the observations (the facts). A theory is testable and falsifiable (as in, it has survived repeated attempts to overturn it), has explanatory power and is useful in making future predictions.

Cell Theory is an example. So is the Germ Theory of Disease. So is Mendel's Theory of Genetic Inheritance.

 

[JohnEmmett]

I'd like to know your definition of "disaster" here.

I’d like you to know, but… not yet

 

[Lost4words]

The flood did happen.

Noah's Ark was real.

My ancestors, 2 Corgis, were on board!

 

[JohnEmmett]

My ancestors, 2 Corgis, were on board!

you may become a cow

 

[JohnEmmett]

calling COVID-19 a "plague" is just wrong.

Definition of PLAGUE (noun): any serious disease that spreads quickly

Macmillan Dictionary

 

[Lost4words]

you may become a cow

Woof!!!!