Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Where can we find papers where these hypotheses are tested through the scientific method?

Here is a history of exploration of the question. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/scientific-origins-universe.html

Do you want specific papers for the varying models proposed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your point?

We do know when the Earth first started forming. It was 4.5 billion years ago.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that the Earth is older than the Sun?

Did you read my post?

 

[Jan Volkes]

It certainly can be accomplished. Is there any scientific evidence that the universe came from breaking into two parts from a cosmic egg?

The Universe is here.

Is there any scientific evidence to support for what comes next by the growth of a giant whose limbs eventually form the observable world?

The Universe is here.

Is there any scientific evidence that the universe came into being because a supernatural being spoke it into existence?

The Universe is here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is a history of exploration of the question. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/scientific-origins-universe.html

Do you want specific papers for the varying models proposed?

I want scientific papers, peer reviewed ones with original research. Have any?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We do know when the Earth first started forming. It was 4.5 billion years ago.

What are providing for evidence for this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you read my post?

I didn't see any posts with evidence that the Earth was older than the Sun.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The Universe is here.
The Universe is here.

Is there any scientific evidence that the universe came into being because a supernatural being spoke it into existence?

The Universe is here.

The universe is here is scientific in what way?

 

[Loudmouth]

What are providing for evidence for this?

The meteorites provide evidence for this. They date the point in our solar systems history when liquid rock started solidifying and forming into clumps. The oldest bits of Earth's crust that we have date to 4.4 billion years old which is really close to this date.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140224-oldest-crust-australia-zircon-science/

 

[bhsmte]

You seem to be agreeing with me all of a sudden.

Are you going Stockholm now so you can avoid answering Post 898?

Science can't justify what it can't observe and test AV.

Your own mind can though, so you have that going for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence that provides falsification to the earth being in existence first.

Then it's not science, is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science can't justify what it can't observe and test AV.

Then it can get lost, as far as creationism is concerned.

 

[bhsmte]

Then it can get lost, as far as creationism is concerned.

No, for biblical creationist, it MUST get lost, there really is no choice for them.

Far too much cognitive dissonance for a biblical creationist to deal with, if they acknowledge science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then it can get lost, as far as creationism is concerned.

All you are demonstrating is that the God you believe in is not trustworthy. If we can't trust the Creation to tell us how it was formed, then we can't trust the Word either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The meteorites provide evidence for this. They date the point in our solar systems history when liquid rock started solidifying and forming into clumps. The oldest bits of Earth's crust that we have date to 4.4 billion years old which is really close to this date.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140224-oldest-crust-australia-zircon-science/

Yes, the point is that they are the oldest we have to date. In this article it says that earth could be 4.5 billion years old and that is still unsubstantiated and could be refined if we could find the oldest crust. We know we don't have the oldest possible because no rocks have been found that have not been altered by the Earth's tectonic plates.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, the point is that they are the oldest we have to date. In this article it says that earth could be 4.5 billion years old and that is still unsubstantiated and could be refined if we could find the oldest crust. We know we don't have the oldest possible because no rocks have been found that have not been altered by the Earth's tectonic plates.

That is where the meteorites come in. Time and again, meteorites have the same age. This is clearly evidence for the beginning of planet formation in our solar system.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then it's not science, is it?

Yes. Science is only interpretation of data. There is information that we don't have and Science only provides information on what we do have.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is where the meteorites come in. Time and again, meteorites have the same age. This is clearly evidence for the beginning of planet formation in our solar system.

How do you equate meteorites and the beginning of planet formation?

 

[bhsmte]

All you are demonstrating is that the God you believe in is not trustworthy. If we can't trust the Creation to tell us how it was formed, then we can't trust the Word either.

Some have the ability to reconcile this issue though. A little psychological gymnastics and the problem goes away.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. Science is only interpretation of data. There is information that we don't have and Science only provides information on what we do have.

IOW, you ignore the real evidence in preference for things that you imagine.