Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Stuu]

Sorry Stuu... but the WHOLE philosophy behind ANY form of radiometric dating is based on the HOW the radioactive elements came to be in the first place.

How is it relevant how they came to be there? That's not one of the variables in any radioisotope dating method.

Dr. Walt Brown's hydro-plate theory gives solid scientific evidence for how those elements come to be during the time of the flood.

Does he give a better account than nucleogenic processes in supernovas, one that explains the evidence more efficiently?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Ah... that uniformitarianism hard at work again.

Well you must be suggesting that something about the way both tree ring formation and seasonal snowfall cycles have changed. The orbital period of the earth, perhaps? Or are you claiming that all the layers of ice were laid down in a global flood and that something cycling back and forth during that time caused apparently thousands of years old trees to grow their thousands of seasonal rings within a matter of days or weeks?

Anyway, maybe you're right and it's not uniform at all. Perhaps we have vastly underestimated the actual ages of things. Maybe the earth is closer to 10 billion years old. That would be possible, right, if 'uniformitarianism' is wrong? The 'scientists' at Answers in Genesis should get onto this at once. They might do the actual job of a scientist and try to prove themselves wrong.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

How is it relevant how they came to be there? That's not one of the variables in any radioisotope dating method.

This just shows how little you know about the method and how easily you can believe a myth.

The assumptions are that the ratio of the elements can "measure" the age of the rock. The first assumption is the starting condition. If the starting condition is within the crust of the already created earth (and it is), then your method is invalidated from the start.

Does he give a better account than nucleogenic processes in supernovas, one that explains the evidence more efficiently?

You cannot verify that hypothesis in any meaningful way (the idea that those elements are what "created" the earth).

 

[Right Divider]

Well you must be suggesting that something about the way both tree ring formation and seasonal snowfall cycles have changed. The orbital period of the earth, perhaps? Or are you claiming that all the layers of ice were laid down in a global flood and that something cycling back and forth during that time caused apparently thousands of years old trees to grow their thousands of seasonal rings within a matter of days or weeks?

Anyway, maybe you're right and it's not uniform at all. Perhaps we have vastly underestimated the actual ages of things. Maybe the earth is closer to 10 billion years old. That would be possible, right, if 'uniformitarianism' is wrong? The 'scientists' at Answers in Genesis should get onto this at once. They might do the actual job of a scientist and try to prove themselves wrong.

Stuart

Since you know absolutely nothing about the hydro-plate theory, I cannot discuss details with you.

Your insults for people who believe differently than you, but are much smarter than you, continues to show your childish foolishness.

 

[Stuu]

Since you know absolutely nothing about the hydro-plate theory, I cannot discuss details with you.

My ignorance leaves you mute. You will give up this opportunity to showcase the hydroplate hypothesis to me and the guests reading here.

I agree, I think it deserves to remain obscure.

Your insults for people who believe differently than you, but are much smarter than you, continues to show your childish foolishness.

I haven't insulted you personally. Meantime I have been called all sorts of things myself.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

My ignorance leaves you mute. You will give up this opportunity to showcase the hydroplate hypothesis to me and the guests reading here.

I agree, I think it deserves to remain obscure.

Your babbling is so amusing to you. It's the hydro-plate THEORY, you dishonest troll.

Unlike your nebular HYPOTHESIS.

I haven't insulted you personally. Meantime I have been called all sorts of things myself.

You can try to take us down that road, but it does nothing to support your unscientific ramblings.

That you reject the hydro-plate theory without understanding a single thing about it shows your immense hypocrisy.

 

[Stuu]

Your babbling is so amusing to you. It's the hydro-plate THEORY, you dishonest troll.

There are some quite dodgy theories in science, waiting for enough evidence to either give them some credibility or else finish them off. One example is 'string theory' which is not really a theory at all although people give it that honour.

The particular problem with hydroplates is that that area of science was already covered by a modern synthesis of geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology. And creation science wasn't even invented until the 1960s, and I understand Mr. Brown's hydroplates appeared about 1980, so both are latecomers to areas already explained by evidence-derived theories. So, to become a theory, hydroplates would need to displace one or more of the established theories, and to do that it would have to, say, explain how the Himalayas stay up, and how the Widmanstatten patterns have been able to grow in terrestrially-based meteorites, or why meteorites don't have the same uranium content as either the oceanic crust or the continental crust, to give three of many examples. Explain all those better than plate tectonics and planetary accretion, and perhaps the word theory would be deserved.

I am relieved to see at least one creationist prepared to deny that it is fair to call evolution 'only a theory'.

Unlike your nebular HYPOTHESIS.

I think that once you have a photograph of nebulae making explanets you've gone a bit past hypothesis at that point.

That you reject the hydro-plate theory without understanding a single thing about it shows your immense hypocrisy.

Educate me.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

You can try to take us down that road, but it does nothing to support your unscientific ramblings.

I agree that personal abuse does not advance the conversation, and I avoid doing it and generally ignore it when directed at me. But since you responded to my point about it, may I remind you about these (post numbers in this thread given)?

Are you just playing stupid or are you really that stupid?#479
Still playing stupid? #481
You must be too dense for this conversation#481
you dishonest troll. #546

You might have observed that I do direct this kind of language myself at figures who put themselves out widely in public as creationists. They are stupid, and trolls and cowards and liars, and I feel the evidence backs up that position. One of them, Kent Hovind, has even served time for lying, although it was about his taxes more than about his creationism. I think the creationist lies are more damaging than the tax evasion. But that's how justice works I guess. Maybe his god will have a view.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

There are some quite dodgy theories in science, waiting for enough evidence to either give them some credibility or else finish them off. One example is 'string theory' which is not really a theory at all although people give it that honour.

You can include the "theory of evolution" in there with the dodgy "theories".

The particular problem with hydroplates is that that area of science was already covered by a modern synthesis of geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology.

You clearly know nothing about any of those things, especially the hydro-plate theory.

And creation science wasn't even invented until the 1960s, and I understand Mr. Brown's hydroplates appeared about 1980, so both are latecomers to areas already explained by evidence-derived theories.

Creation science was not invented, it was discovered.

So, to become a theory, hydroplates would need to displace one or more of the established theories, and to do that it would have to, say, explain how the Himalayas stay up, and how the Widmanstatten patterns have been able to grow in terrestrially-based meteorites, or why meteorites don't have the same uranium content as either the oceanic crust or the continental crust, to give three of many examples. Explain all those better than plate tectonics and planetary accretion, and perhaps the word theory would be deserved.

You're all over the road there. Again you show your complete ignorance of even the simplest details of the hydro-plate theory. And the hydro-plate theory explains them far better than existing theories.

I am relieved to see at least one creationist prepared to deny that it is fair to call evolution 'only a theory'.

It's not even close to a theory.

I think that once you have a photograph of nebulae making explanets you've gone a bit past hypothesis at that point.

I guess that you need to get in touch with all of the major science organizations still calling it a hypothesis.

Educate me.

Educate yourself.... it's right there on the Internet: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

 

[Right Divider]

I agree that personal abuse does not advance the conversation, and I avoid doing it and generally ignore it when directed at me. But since you responded to my point about it, may I remind you about these (post numbers in this thread given)?

Are you just playing stupid or are you really that stupid?#479
Still playing stupid? #481
You must be too dense for this conversation#481
you dishonest troll. #546

They're all true. Cry if you like.

 

[Stuu]

You can include the "theory of evolution" in there with the dodgy "theories".

But not for any reason you have given. What would you say is the single most devastating argument against the idea that an original population of single-celled organisms is the common ancestor of all life today?

Creation science was not invented, it was discovered.

I disagree, science was obviously invented. That doesn't really change the point though, does it. Like all good science, the main point is that a latecomer is going to have to be convincing. There are plenty of examples of resistance from the scientific establishment hanging on to the old view as a radical new hypothesis disrupted that to become the recognised better explanation, and therefore a scientific theory. I am sure you would agree with this, and perhaps you would apply it to creationism as the new disruption.

Except the example I have in mind is that of Alfred Wegener who upended geology with his ideas of continental drift. He came up with the concept of continental drift in 1915 but was generally ignored because he couldn't give the mechanism for it. It wasn't until the 1940s when Arthur Holmes (already mentioned in a thread here recently in regard to the age of the earth) worked out how convection happens in the mantle and by the 1950s the new idea of plate tectonics was essentially the accepted explanation, consistent with all observed evidence. Plate tectonics is what you might hope that hydroplates can, in turn, disruptively displace.

Think too of the Piltdown hoax, 'discovered' in 1912 and, although suspected from the start of fraud, not actually proved false until 1953 when the techniques required were developed. We are talking about a timescale of 30 to 40 years from radical suggestion to confirmation or disproval in science in those two examples. Now, since creation science has been around since the 1960s, you would expect at least some part of it to be mainstream science by now, but I can't think of one example. Then, take the hydroplates. If it's so right, how is none of it mainstream, now it's 40 years later?

The answer is that it's not convincing. It has never come up with anything predictive. Although I don't actually think any creationist is really that motivated to make creationism the accepted body of theory. Its point is to be the alt-facts for the reason that 'scientific facts' are perceived as powerful and convincing. As I mentioned earlier, if as a religious person a believer can pull out the 'miracle' card, why not just do that any time science appears to contradict Genesis? The reason is that it's not actually about science, it's about the 'altness' of creation science. It's the alt-facts for the alt-world view, and thence lies the power, and to hell with the rest of it whatever the out-group claims, quite literally.

You're all over the road there. Again you show your complete ignorance of even the simplest details of the hydro-plate theory. And the hydro-plate theory explains them far better than existing theories.

But you haven't answered any of those points.

I guess that you need to get in touch with all of the major science organizations still calling it a hypothesis.

The photograph is less than two years old. We might still have 38 years left to go, if the above is correct!

Educate yourself.... it right there on the Internet

Thanks for the reference.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

But not for any reason you have given. What would you say is the single most devastating argument against the idea that an original population of single-celled organisms is the common ancestor of all life today?

Let's start from the beginning. How did that "original population of single-celled organisms" come into being in the first place? Nothing can "evolve" that does not exist.

I disagree, science was obviously invented. That doesn't really change the point though, does it. Like all good science, the main point is that a latecomer is going to have to be convincing. There are plenty of examples of resistance from the scientific establishment hanging on to the old view as a radical new hypothesis disrupted that to become the recognised better explanation, and therefore a scientific theory. I am sure you would agree with this, and perhaps you would apply it to creationism as the new disruption.

The creationist view is far more consistent with the evidence than is your atheistic materialistic view.

Except the example I have in mind is that of Alfred Wegener who upended geology with his ideas of continental drift. He came up with the concept of continental drift in 1915 but was generally ignored because he couldn't give the mechanism for it. It wasn't until the 1940s when Arthur Holmes (already mentioned in a thread here recently in regard to the age of the earth) worked out how convection happens in the mantle and by the 1950s the new idea of plate tectonics was essentially the accepted explanation, consistent with all observed evidence. Plate tectonics is what you might hope that hydroplates can, in turn, disruptively displace.

Mantle convection is FULL of problems that get ignored in order to keep it around. So NO is it NOT consistent with all observed evidence.

Think too of the Piltdown hoax, 'discovered' in 1912 and, although suspected from the start of fraud, not actually proved false until 1953 when the techniques required were developed. We are talking about a timescale of 30 to 40 years from radical suggestion to confirmation or disproval in science in those two examples. Now, since creation science has been around since the 1960s, you would expect at least some part of it to be mainstream science by now, but I can't think of one example. Then, take the hydroplates. If it's so right, how is none of it mainstream, now it's 40 years later?

Your false analogies are cute.

Perhaps you do not know how entrenched the current paradigm is even though it's false. Atheist materialists like you cannot accept the truth, so you must cling to the current falsehood.

The answer is that it's not convincing. It has never come up with anything predictive.

That is COMPLETELY and TOTALLY wrong. There are already been MANY confirmed predictions, like water deep under the crust of the earth.

Although I don't actually think any creationist is really that motivated to make creationism the accepted body of theory. Its point is to be the alt-facts for the reason that 'scientific facts' are perceived as powerful and convincing. As I mentioned earlier, if as a religious person a believer can pull out the 'miracle' card, why not just do that any time science appears to contradict Genesis? The reason is that it's not actually about science, it's about the 'altness' of creation science. It's the alt-facts for the alt-world view, and thence lies the power, and to hell with the rest of it whatever the out-group claims, quite literally.

That's hilarious since YOU "pull out the 'miracle' card" for your creation of life story.

But you haven't answered any of those points.

The theory is solid and you've shown not a single problem with it (except, of course, your complete ignorance of it).

The photograph is less than two years old. We might still have 38 years left to go, if the above is correct!

I was talking about the NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS.

Thanks for the reference.

You're welcome.

 

[Right Divider]

You'd have to give more than a bogus claim of bogus. What is bogus? Is it bogus because a mechanical engineer says it is?

BTW .... this "mechanical engineer" that you're insulting has a great deal of knowledge in many areas of science, unlike you.

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science.

 

[Stripe]

Stuu seems to think that when an idea was presented has some sort of bearing on its veracity.

 

[Stuu]

Let's start from the beginning. How did that "original population of single-celled organisms" come into being in the first place? Nothing can "evolve" that does not exist.

No, let's start with my question. Single cells to humans: what's the most devastating argument against that?

The creationist view is far more consistent with the evidence than is your atheistic materialistic view.

How are 55,000 years of countable Vostok ice core layers and 12,000 years of countable tree rings more consistent with Young Earth Creationism? I don't think you have said how, yet. I do remember a denial that there are layers, but I did post a photograph of them, and they sure look like layers to me. In the case of the GISP2 ice core, I could count for myself the layers that appear 40,000 layers down.

Mantle convection is FULL of problems that get ignored in order to keep it around. So NO is it NOT consistent with all observed evidence.

Tell me what, in your own opinion, is the most problematic aspect of plate tectonics based on convection in the mantle? Or in other words, convince me that hydroplates is a better explanation for the evidence we currently explain by plate tectnoics.

Your false analogies are cute.

Thank you. Why are hydroplates not mainstream science after 40 years, in your opinion?

Perhaps you do not know how entrenched the current paradigm is even though it's false. Atheist materialists like you cannot accept the truth, so you must cling to the current falsehood.

Can you explain the difference between this statement and an unsupported conspiracy theory? Perhaps you would care to critique this diagram, which also proposes a conspiracy:

That is COMPLETELY and TOTALLY wrong. There are already been MANY confirmed predictions, like water deep under the crust of the earth.

Please cite references.

That hilarious since YOU "pull out the 'miracle' card" for your creation of life story.

I haven't given you a creation of life story. How would you say, mechanistically, life was created?

The theory is solid and you've shown not a single problem with it (except, of course, your complete ignorance of it).

I've given you the problem of the difference between the uranium content of meteorites and of the different crustal areas of the earth. I've asked you to explain how the Himalayas can stay up, which I think is a major problem also because the height of the mid-oceanic ridges that supposedly the plates slid down does not match the height of the Himalayan range that they 'slid up'. More recently, I've also mentioned the problem of Widmanstatten crystal patterns in meteorites being impossible without millions of years of imperceptibly slow cooling, which did not involve either the materials or conditions on the earth, and especially not if you are going to insist on the catastrophism you apparently claim.

Now, I wouldn't want to be accused of a Gish Gallop, so I'll avoid giving you another 40 examples until you have had a fair opportunity to respond to those three.

I was talking about the NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS.

Yes, I did mean the photograph I posted of planetary accretion happening around another star, giving it the kind of smoking gun that warrants the word theory.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuu seems to think that when an idea was presented has some sort of bearing on its veracity.

You would find that the correlation on average is an increase in veracity with time, but that's not necessarily a causal relationship. What I'm saying is, of course, that Wegener challenged the old paradigm, and the old masters were not convinced for 30 or 40 years but eventually continental drift on convecting magma became too powerful an explanation for the increasing body of evidence.

So, now, I imagine that creationists are expecting the same will happen again, that although all the 'atheistic materialists' will be stubborn, eventually the materialistic hypothesis of Mr. Brown will become the mainstream.

So, why hasn't it, given 40 years of promotion in churches throughout the globe? And, are you relieved that it hasn't?

Stuart


Hope you're not also a fan of cricket, or else I hope you are bearing up well.

 

[Stuu]

BTW .... this "mechanical engineer" that you're insulting has a great deal of knowledge in many areas of science, unlike you.

You would expect him to have a great deal of knowledge of some specialised aspect of mechanical engineering, hopefully. But, unfortunately, his qualification does not allow you to assume he is an authority on anything else. And, I would have expected that if I insisted that Richard Dawkins should be listened to as one who is knowlegable in science, you would rightly accuse me of appealing to authority, and I imagine so would Richard Dawkins. So, Dr. Brown's mechanical engineering, and Mr. Brown's hydroplates both ride on the evidence for and against, and not on any claims for his knowledge, and I assume you would agree.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: How is it relevant how they came to be there? That's not one of the variables in any radioisotope dating method.

This just shows how little you know about the method and how easily you can believe a myth. The assumptions are that the ratio of the elements can "measure" the age of the rock. The first assumption is the starting condition. If the starting condition is within the crust of the already created earth (and it is), then your method is invalidated from the start.

That's far too vague to mean anything to me, sorry. It's not an assumption that the ratio of the isotopes can measure age, it is a calibrated measurement, especially well established in principle with the shorter half-life techniques like 14-carbon, where you can calibrate the method by dating objects that are known independently as a matter of historical record. Of course you have to get the sampling right, but it works no problem for each technique's appropriate range.

If you think the source of the rock being tested is only terrestrial to begin with, maybe we should look for rock that no one thinks was ever part of the earth. Wouldn't it be great if we could have a go at dating the bedrock on Mars?

It's been done, and you can read about it here.

You cannot verify that hypothesis in any meaningful way (the idea that those elements are what "created" the earth).

Does Mr. Brown give a better account than nucleogenic processes in supernovas, one that explains the evidence more efficiently?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

You would expect him to have a great deal of knowledge of some specialised aspect of mechanical engineering, hopefully. But, unfortunately, his qualification does not allow you to assume he is an authority on anything else.

He is an authority on many things and not just mechanical engineering. To receive a PhD from MIT in any field in science requires knowledge in many others.

And, I would have expected that if I insisted that Richard Dawkins should be listened to as one who is knowlegable in science, you would rightly accuse me of appealing to authority, and I imagine so would Richard Dawkins.

I never "appealed to authority". You just felt the opportunity to mock him due to the field of his PhD from MIT.

So, Dr. Brown's mechanical engineering, and Mr. Brown's hydroplates both ride on the evidence for and against, and not on any claims for his knowledge, and I assume you would agree.

Yes, so why did you feel the need to mock his credentials?

 

[Right Divider]

No, let's start with my question. Single cells to humans: what's the most devastating argument against that?

You don't get to "jump start" the beginning. You have NO explanation for the beginning of life... so therefore, no evolution.

How are 55,000 years of countable Vostok ice core layers and 12,000 years of countable tree rings more consistent with Young Earth Creationism? I don't think you have said how, yet. I do remember a denial that there are layers, but I did post a photograph of them, and they sure look like layers to me. In the case of the GISP2 ice core, I could count for myself the layers that appear 40,000 layers down.

I never deny "that there were layers". Just not all the "annual" layers that you claim.

Tell me what, in your own opinion, is the most problematic aspect of plate tectonics based on convection in the mantle? Or in other words, convince me that hydroplates is a better explanation for the evidence we currently explain by plate tectnoics.

The hydro-plate theory gives a scientifically viable mechanism.... plate tectonics does not.

Thank you. Why are hydroplates not mainstream science after 40 years, in your opinion?

At least a couple of reasons:

• Atheist scientists will never accept an earth theory that supports the Bible and creation.
• Many people simply hate to move from the "consensus" no matter how wrong it is.

Please cite references.

Look it up yourself. I'm not writing a peer reviewed science paper here.

I haven't given you a creation of life story. How would you say, mechanistically, life was created?

Of course you have, unless you have a new theory that is different from the typical atheist postition.

It wasn't "mechanistically" created. It was supernaturally created.

I've given you the problem of the difference between the uranium content of meteorites and of the different crustal areas of the earth.

How, exactly, would this be a problem? Since the radioactive elements on earth were not created in some magic star dust cloud.... this is not problem for me.

I've asked you to explain how the Himalayas can stay up, which I think is a major problem also because the height of the mid-oceanic ridges that supposedly the plates slid down does not match the height of the Himalayan range that they 'slid up'.

Not seeing your problem here. You clearly have not read the actual theory. Perhaps you've read some atheist "critique" of it.

More recently, I've also mentioned the problem of Widmanstatten crystal patterns in meteorites being impossible without millions of years of imperceptibly slow cooling, which did not involve either the materials or conditions on the earth, and especially not if you are going to insist on the catastrophism you apparently claim.

So... just how does someone prove that a process takes "millions of years of imperceptibly slow cooling"?

There is NO SUCH thing as "imperceptibly slow cooling" in space. That's actually quite laughable.

Yes, I did mean the photograph I posted of planetary accretion happening around another star, giving it the kind of smoking gun that warrants the word theory.

Like I said... you need to revolutionize the scientific community by getting this changed.... they still call it a hypothesis.