Why don't you apply the same science you just described in debunking the contrail conspiracy theory with fountains of the deep? Hmmmm?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why don't you apply the same science you just described in debunking the contrail conspiracy theory with fountains of the deep? Hmmmm?The next time you see contrails in the sky, recognize that escaping, hot, high-pressure gases (primarily water vapor) from a jet aircraft expand downstream so much that they cool, condense and sometimes freeze. The fountains of the great deep experienced much greater expansion and cooling in an environment a few hundred degrees colder than where jet aircraft fly. Recall that billions upon billions of tons of supercold ice crystals suddenly fell from the fountains and buried and froze many mammoths—and much of Alaska and Siberia, and, no doubt, other places (at least temporarily).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes6.html#wp14800338
Discussing the individual is not off limits, criticizing the individual on a personal basis is.
For example, because Walt Brown possesses a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, the creation science community presents his credentials in such a manner as to suggest he is an expert in Geophysics, which nothing could be further from the truth. This is what is known as the "logical fallacy" Appeal to Authority. Much of what is seen in the creation science literature is what is termed as "Intellectual Dishonesty". That of course does not specifically mean that the person being described is a dishonest person, though he/she may or may not be. What "Intellectual Dishonesty" refers to is the method(s) applied to the research and conclusions performed, not the individual. Intellectual Dishonesty in practice utilizes what the person(s) wish for their research to show while ignoring all the research and evidence that shows their results to be invalid. From my professional point of view, I would view Dr. Brown's presentation of the Hydroplate Theory as "Intellectual Dishonesty". Why, he ignores or incorrectly manipulates some information he definitely, as an Engineer would know, Thermodynamics, completely invalidates his argument of the Hydroplate Theory. And never mind all the well known and physically documented Geophysics that is not included (ignored) as well in the theory.
Personally, as a Christian and physical science professional (retired), I am appalled at the "creation science literature", not so much that it is produced through "Intellectual Dishonesty", but rather, its intended audience; the non-scientific Christian public, who are hearing what they want to hear, and could not even verify the validity of it even if they wanted to.
Why don't you apply the same science you just described in debunking the contrail conspiracy theory with fountains of the deep? Hmmmm?
Scientific consensus is not based on opinion or popularity. Scientific consensus of a specific topic (theory) is base on what the majority of published peer review research shows. Do you understand the concept and difference between the two?
The energy required to move the plates would melt the earth. Furthermore Earth's tectonic plates did not and have never or never will "float" on water.What specifically about thermodynamics as it relates to the Hydroplate Theory do you object to?
Do you know what Dr. Brown's theory says about the cause of the hydroplates? Did you read the calculations made to support the claims? Or do you object simply on religious grounds?
Nothing, you are the one who mentioned them in a manner to explained how they formed. Are you not familiar with the idiotic contrail conspiracy theory? I was just asking why the physical sciences works debunking that conspiracy theory but don't seem to apply the same physics to the hydroplate theory.The energy required to move the plates would melt the earth. Furthermore Earth's tectonic plates did not and have never or never will "float" on water.
I am not a geologist, and my opinion regarding matters of geology are of no greater worth than my opinions regarding brain surgery. For the former I rely upon the expertise of geologists, and for the latter I rely upon the expertise of brain surgeons.
If you needed brain surgery, would you want it undertaken by a mechanical engineer or a brain surgeon?
From a religious point of view, it would bother me not at all if Genesis 1-3 was history, but it isn't, and I am fairly contemptuous of creationism's intellectual dishonesty.
Nothing, you are the one who mentioned them in a manner to explained how they formed. Are you not familiar with the idiotic contrail conspiracy theory? I was just asking why the physical sciences works debunking that conspiracy theory but don't seem to apply the same physics to the hydroplate theory.
Here are some interesting calculations about Brown's theory for the origins of the asteroid belt. See if you can find fault with them.What specifically about thermodynamics as it relates to the Hydroplate Theory do you object to?
Do you know what Dr. Brown's theory says about the cause of the hydroplates? Did you read the calculations made to support the claims? Or do you object simply on religious grounds?
Aha!That's a strawman question. The difference in surgery and engineering is extreme but the sciences of geology and engineering are often combined.
I also contend that it would "bother you" immensely if Genesis were true because you would have to give an account of yourself to God. By the way, it is true.
The energy required to move the plates would melt the earth. Furthermore Earth's tectonic plates did not and have never or never will "float" on water.
That's a strawman question. The difference in surgery and engineering is extreme but the sciences of geology and engineering are often combined.
I also contend that it would "bother you" immensely if Genesis were true because you would have to give an account of yourself to God. By the way, it is true.
Here are some interesting calculations about Brown's theory for the origins of the asteroid belt. See if you can find fault with them.
http://csharp.com/creationism.html.
Aha!
The ultimate YEC slander.
You are aware, I hope, that this forum is limited to Christian participation. All of us here--YECs or otherwise--are Christians who are fully aware of our accountability to God.
Not resivoirs in the sense you are probably thinking. They are describing water inclusions in rock, not open resivoirs. There is only one published paper on that that I am aware of and I have read it. Perhaps you should too, and I don't mean reviews of it, I mean the actual paper. Furthermore, the water is described not as water in the form we see on the surface, rather as "hydroxide ions". I suggest reading the actual science you think supports hydroplate theory and avoid misrepresented it.After decades of theorizing and searching, scientists are reporting that they’ve finally found a massive reservoir of water in the Earth’s mantle — a reservoir so vast that could fill the Earth’s oceans three times over. This discovery suggests that Earth’s surface water actually came from within, as part of a “whole-Earth water cycle,” rather than the prevailing theory of icy comets striking Earth billions of years ago. As always, the more we understand about how the Earth formed, and how its multitude of interior layers continue to function, the more accurately we can predict the future. Weather, sea levels, climate change — these are all closely linked to the tectonic activity that endlessly churns away beneath our feet.
This new study, authored by a range of geophysicists and scientists from across the US, leverages data from the USArray — an array of hundreds of seismographs located throughout the US that are constantly listening to movements in the Earth’s mantle and core. After listening for a few years, and carrying out lots of complex calculations, the researchers believe that they’ve found a huge reserve of water that’s located in the transition zone between the upper and lower mantle — a region that occupies between 400 and 660 kilometers (250-410 miles) below our feet. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1253358 – “Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle”]
Did I slander you? I question your belief in God based on your rejection of Genesis.
No, I don't think He did. But never mind; that a person of your beliefs questions the authenticity of my faith I take as a testimonial to it.Did I slander you? I question your belief in God based on your rejection of Genesis. A "Christian" is someone that believes in Yeshua/Jesus and His teachings. And He believed that Genesis was literal and true. So if you don't believe in what Yeshua believed and taught can you really say that you are a Christian? I believe this is a valid question and not one of slander.
Rick, we only get it from evolutionary scientist themselves. The following are from scientific websites:All of the physical sciences have contributed and continue to contribute to the Theory of Evolution. ToE does not contribute to the age of the earth. And frankly Commander, I could care less if you accept or deny ToE. My only concern is the "intellectually dishonest" science we see in the "creation science" literature.
Wow! Science can't answer all of our questions? I guess there is nothing for us to do but abandon it in favor of a magical interpretation of an ancient Hebrew text.Rick, we only get it from evolutionary scientist themselves. The following are from scientific websites:
http://mappingignorance.org/2014/01/17/open-questions-in-geoscience/
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-biggest-unsolved-problems-in-paleontology
https://scientiaandveritas.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/paleontology-and-the-species-problem/
http://www.icr.org/article/never-ending-problems-evolutionary-biology/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_048281.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_biology
http://www.realclearscience.com/lists/unsolved_problems_in_biology/
http://www.discovery.org/a/24041
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry
http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
If you need me to list more, I would be more than happy to.
Yeah, Rick science cannot answer the simple question: How did non-living chemical compounds generate self-replicating, complex life forms?
Yeah, Rick science cannot answer the simple question: How did non-living chemical compounds generate self-replicating, complex life forms?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?