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

[Stuu]

Dr. Walt Brown's book is full of facts that describe in scientific details what caused the flood and its effects.

It has facts. One I particularly appreciate is that he mentioned that if you put a Crook's radiometer in the freezer, it goes backwards. Haven't tried it with mine yet, but interesting science. Next, it contains some scientific details well explained, but it also contains models that are poorly constructed, for example his estimation of the forces acting on the end of a tectonic plate are so poor as to being useless because his model is essentially a straw man. But most importantly, his writing does not establish there was actually a flood.

If you read it carefully, everything about the alleged flood starts with the assertion that <something> happened, but he has not established the fact of it happening. Anyone can write that all comets and asteroid zoomed off the surface of the earth, but we have discussed here the evidence that shows that asteroids were never on the earth. Anyone can write that there were massive chambers full of water, but he gives no evidence that unambiguously shows they ever existed. Anyone can write that radioactive elements were produced a few thousand years ago, but his mechanism does not have the required energies, and we can see those same elements being formed in stars, which do have the required energy.

Mr. Brown has a nice story to sooth christian fundamentalists, and there are some good moments of science education in it, but if you want to take it as a whole, it's not true, it's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis actually, and the premise of what his flood can do is not directly supported by any evidence at all, so I would recommend being quite careful about calling it your truth, because it's not truth in any honest sense.

The kindest thing you could call Mr. Brown's hydroplates is science fiction.

That you continue to ignore everything that you don't like is your own problem.

I don't 'like' evolution by natural selection. You don't see me ignoring that.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

It has facts. One I particularly appreciate is that he mentioned that if you put a Crook's radiometer in the freezer, it goes backwards. Haven't tried it with mine yet, but interesting science. Next, it contains some scientific details well explained, but it also contains models that are poorly constructed, for example his estimation of the forces acting on the end of a tectonic plate are so poor as to being useless because his model is essentially a straw man. But most importantly, his writing does not establish there was actually a flood.

What's wrong with his careful calculations? I think that your evaluation of his work is a straw-man.

If you read it carefully, everything about the alleged flood starts with the assertion that <something> happened, but he has not established the fact of it happening.

His starting point is far better than your "dust cloud".

Anyone can write that all comets and asteroid zoomed off the surface of the earth, but we have discussed here the evidence that shows that asteroids were never on the earth.

You made some claims to that effect. I think that his evidence is supported by actual facts.

Anyone can write that there were massive chambers full of water, but he gives no evidence that unambiguously shows they ever existed.

"Dust cloud"?

His theory is supported by evidence of water deep below the surface of the earth. Something that your theory cannot support.

Anyone can write that radioactive elements were produced a few thousand years ago, but his mechanism does not have the required energies, and we can see those same elements being formed in stars, which do have the required energy.

False

Mr. Brown has a nice story to sooth christian fundamentalists, and there are some good moments of science education in it, but if you want to take it as a whole, it's not true, it's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis actually, and the premise of what his flood can do is not directly supported by any evidence at all, so I would recommend being quite careful about calling it your truth, because it's not truth in any honest sense.

The kindest thing you could call Mr. Brown's hydroplates is science fiction.

You've failed as a 'scientist' so many times. Dr Brown's work is solid.

I don't 'like' evolution by natural selection. You don't see me ignoring that.

Stuart

You believe in a myth, whether you "like it" or not.

 

[7djengo7]

Well, I would have thought you were able to work out which of the two options given was my one.

Stuart

So you, once again, meant absolutely nothing by your words. Why are you so keen on saying things meaninglessly?

 

[7djengo7]

I don't 'like' evolution by natural selection. You don't see me ignoring that.

Stuart

Since, by your phrase, "evolution by natural selection", you are referring to nothing but sheer nonsense, I beg to differ with you: indeed, you obviously do like, nay, love, nonsense--especially the nonsense you call "evolution by natural selection". Of course, what you are consistently ignoring is the fact that you are deluded into pretending that you're not talking nonsense.

 

[7djengo7]

Your facts are the alt-facts. They are not the science facts.


What, you mean that because there is no shred of empirical evidence whatever that supports the story of a global flood within the past few thousand years, I should conclude something other than the fact no such thing ever happened?

Stuart

Why do you continue to use the word, "evidence", meaninglessly, in light of your persistently-showcased incompetence to deal with the fundamental questions I have been asking you concerning the nature of evidence? What do you imagine you get out of such irrational behavior as you have been displaying, here?

 

[7djengo7]

Observe Stuu's hypocrisy:

If you read it carefully, everything about the alleged flood starts with the assertion that <something> happened, but he has not established the fact of it happening. Anyone can write that all comets and asteroid zoomed off the surface of the earth, but we have discussed here the evidence that shows that asteroids were never on the earth. Anyone can write that there were massive chambers full of water, but he gives no evidence that unambiguously shows they ever existed. Anyone can write that radioactive elements were produced a few thousand years ago, but his mechanism does not have the required energies, and we can see those same elements being formed in stars, which do have the required energy.

Stuu, whenever you call something "the evidence", or "the evidence that shows....", you're starting with your assertion that what you are calling "the evidence", is evidence. Anyone can write "the evidence shows...", as you write, and all you're doing, in so writing, is starting with your assertion, "the evidence shows..." But you have not established that what you call "the evidence" is evidence. Stuu, why do you write, calling something "the evidence", starting with your assertion that what you are calling "the evidence" is evidence, despite the fact that you have not established that what you call "the evidence" is evidence?

Why do you so love to remain the hypocrite that you are, Stuu?

 

[Stuu]

What's wrong with his careful calculations?

Wrong coefficient of friction for crust on mantle, wrong model of plate end jamming into mantle (it melts in). It's a cartoon model for the amusement of christians, it is not physics.

His starting point is far better than your "dust cloud".

We have photographs of gas and dust nebulas forming exoplanets. Do you have photographs of chambers, or video of comets flying off the earth?

Does Mr. Brown have a model of how the solar system came to be that doesn't involve magic? Remember he is very keen on not discussing religion, so how did the solar system come to be?

You made some claims to what effect. I think that his evidence is support by actual facts.

Mr. Brown should have meteorites containing the same uranium content as the earth's crust, with no Widmanstatten crystals. It fails on both points. You might also have noticed a discussion between JR and me about interstellar meteors, which would be examples of bodies that cannot have come from the surface of earth. And hopefully they would not hit the surface of earth, because that would be very bad for us indeed.

His theory is supported by evidence of water deep below the surface of the earth. Something that your theory cannot support.

The fact that there is water there could indicate all sorts of ways of it getting there. It is not unambiguous. If you want to show there were 'chambers' you really need evidence of chambers, not of water.

There is water below the crust because it is dragged down there with subducting tectonic plates. A lot of it comes back out via the arc volcanos, but not all. I understand there is quite a lot of water dragged down through the Mariana trench (which is a subduction zone, contrary to the claims of Mr. Brown).

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

The fact that there is water there could indicate all sorts of ways

​

​

of it getting there. It is not unambiguous.

There you go in continuance of your war against truth and logic.

You are claiming that the fact--the true proposition--'There is water there', could entail not only the true proposition, 'The water got there by the way, W', but also, its contradictory--the false proposition, 'The water did not get there by the way, W'. You are claiming that a fact can entail falsehood. What stupidity from you! What a worse-than-useless mindset you have regarding the nature of evidence. According to your stupidity--your irrationally-held, false doctrine concerning the nature of evidence--were one to "Follow the evidence wherever it leads", he must, having been led by the evidence, end up accepting both truth and falsehood--end up accepting mutually-contradictory propositions. If evidence leads both to truth and to falsehood, one is not following the evidence wherever it leads where one refuses to accept the falsehood to which it leads. But, you're a dyed-in-the-wool irrationalist, so you'd have not qualm one about whether or not you believe both sides of a pair of contradictories. I'd not even be surprised to hear you claim to embrace, with relish, both sides of a pair of contradictories.

Of course, you've thus far hid yourself away from all the questions I've asked you concerning the particular stupidity embodied in your phrases, "ambiguous evidence" and "unambiguous evidence".

Oh, also George Orwell says that what you wrote--"It is not unambiguous"--is bad usage and debased language.

 

[Right Divider]

Wrong coefficient of friction for crust on mantle, wrong model of plate end jamming into mantle (it melts in). It's a cartoon model for the amusement of christians, it is not physics.

I don't believe you.

We have photographs of gas and dust nebulas forming exoplanets.

This process supposedly takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years and you have a video of this happening?

This is more bluff and bluster that we are NOT falling for.

Do you have photographs of chambers, or video of comets flying off the earth?

The bursting of the great deep was a ONE time event in the distance PAST. This is something that evolutionists seem to lack the understanding to handle. You did NOT see the solar system "evolve" into being either. Your "model" lacks scientific integrity and yet you continue on with it as if it did.

Does Mr. Brown have a model of how the solar system came to be that doesn't involve magic?

Neither DOCTOR Brown nor I need magic (i.e., a magic dust cloud).

Remember he is very keen on not discussing religion, so how did the solar system come to be?

You're confused about the debate. Your "magic dust cloud" is NOT science.

Mr. Brown should have meteorites containing the same uranium content as the earth's crust, with no Widmanstatten crystals. It fails on both points. You might also have noticed a discussion between JR and me about interstellar meteors, which would be examples of bodies that cannot have come from the surface of earth. And hopefully they would not hit the surface of earth, because that would be very bad for us indeed.

You're sadly mistaken once again.

The fact that there is water there could indicate all sorts of ways of it getting there. It is not unambiguous.

And YET you will not even mention one of them. You're full of hot air.

If you want to show there were 'chambers' you really need evidence of chambers, not of water.

Your ignorance is amazing.

There is water below the crust because it is dragged down there with subducting tectonic plates.

More anti-science.

A lot of it comes back out via the arc volcanos, but not all. I understand there is quite a lot of water dragged down through the Mariana trench (which is a subduction zone, contrary to the claims of Mr. Brown).

More anti-science.

 

[Stuu]

[On Mr. Brown's cartoon subduction modelling] I don't believe you.

You shouldn't take my word for it. You should read for yourself the page of Mr. Brown's calculation on frictional forces on tectonic plates. Check out his mathematical expressions and the values he substitutes. You will see the two large wrong assumptions that invalidate everything he claims on that page.

Stuu: We have photographs of gas and dust nebulas forming exoplanets.

This process supposedly takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years and you have a video of this happening?

I recommend reading what I wrote. And the process of planetary accretion takes not quite 100 million years. That's a small fraction of the age of the solar system.

The bursting of the great deep was a ONE time event in the distance PAST. This is something that evolutionists seems to lack the understanding to handle.

What bursting of the great deep? There is not a scrap of evidence for any kind of event like that. It's part of Mr. Brown's shtick that he tells you a wide-eyed story then goes on about science for a bit, in a way that makes you think he has an evidence-based model for the story. He doesn't.

Do you not recall conversations about knowing how life started from chemistry, a one time event in the distant past? What is special about your one time past event?

You did NOT see the solar system "evolve" into being either. Your "model" lacks scientific integrity and yet you continue on with it as if it did.

That is exactly what we are seeing in other solar systems.

You're sadly mistaken once again.

Widmanstatten patterns? Uranium content of meteorites? These are killers for Mr. Brown's story.

And YET you will not even mention one of them. You're full of hot air.

Stuu: There is water below the crust because it is dragged down there with subducting tectonic plates.

Your ignorance is amazing.

Evidence of chambers? There isn't any, is there.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

I believe that the majority of TOL would agree with you. :french:

:chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

The supposed global flood of a few thousand years ago is already disproved beyond doubt. So how can someone like RD, already committed to such a presupposition be of any use as part of a scientific discussion, as you put it? Is the flood open to falsification or not? If it is then it's falsified already.

I don't know what point you're trying to make.

With a rational scientific approach, it does not matter what idea people hold as long as they toss it out when it is shown impossible.

Of course, the idea of a global flood has not been falsified. It is far too broad of a concept to even warrant pretending that it could. What you want to falsify is the necessary conditions of a global flood.

Science doesn't think...

Which, properly, expressed, should read: "I don't think."

I think RD perhaps might not have thought much about the type of claim that a scientific theory, or the scientific consensus is, compared with the nature of the knowledge claimed to be written in scripture. In terms of epistemology, they are not equivalent, and are barely comparable. Perhaps he doesn't know, and that's understandable, but I hope you would be one who would tell him to keep an open mind and learn about such things.

Consensus has no validity when it comes to assessing the veracity of an idea.

I think you should tell RD that.

I think he agreed with what I said already.

My point with these videos is not about theology or brand of creationist view or arrogance, it's about a relationship with science:

If you want to argue with homos, go ahead.

I never claimed there was head counting involved. There isn't.

It looks like you don't even know what consensus means. :idunno:

Do you need to hear a second scientist talking about consensus, or a third?

I don't need to hear any. :up:

Yes, they will spin some money for NZC but they must give the wrong idea about test cricket.

Taiwan Cricket? :shocked:

Did a quick lookup of Taiwan Cricket. Looks like the Japanese inserted baseball at a critical moment in history, but you still have the expats from the subcontinent (and other former colonies of the British Empire) keen to play. Must be a bit of a pain for them not necessarily being able to walk into a sports shop and try out a bat.

Heh. Yeah.

It looks to me like club cricket in New Zealand is increasingly reliant on subcontinental expats too. The New Zealand team probably doesn't represent the nature of the grassroots as much as it used to. I guess the international players are mostly fast-tracked from school teams by the side-alley.

That and infrastructure concerns would be the first things to fix. :up:

 

[Right Divider]

You shouldn't take my word for it. You should read for yourself the page of Mr. Brown's calculation on frictional forces on tectonic plates. Check out his mathematical expressions and the values he substitutes. You will see the two large wrong assumptions that invalidate everything he claims on that page.

So you cannot show us?

Stuu: We have photographs of gas and dust nebulas forming exoplanets.

I recommend reading what I wrote. And the process of planetary accretion takes not quite 100 million years.

The point was that you have not been around for "not quite 100 million years" to observe a process that takes "not quite 100 million years".

That's a small fraction of the age of the solar system.

More unprovable speculation.

What bursting of the great deep? There is not a scrap of evidence for any kind of event like that. It's part of Mr. Brown's shtick that he tells you a wide-eyed story then goes on about science for a bit, in a way that makes you think he has an evidence-based model for the story. He doesn't.

This makes me laugh.

Do you not recall conversations about knowing how life started from chemistry, a one time event in the distant past? What is special about your one time past event?

I don't get the question. Chemicals do not come to life on their own. We have complete scientific proof of that.

That is exactly what we are seeing in other solar systems.

No, it's not.

Widmanstatten patterns? Uranium content of meteorites? These are killers for Mr. Brown's story.

No, they are not.

Evidence of chambers? There isn't any, is there.

Yes, there is.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Taiwan Cricket? :shocked:



Heh. Yeah.



That and infrastructure concerns would be the first things to fix. :up:

Could we take this sports discussion to a different thread, please? This thread is for a science discussion.

 

[Stuu]

With a rational scientific approach, it does not matter what idea people hold as long as they toss it out when it is shown impossible.

Well said.

Of course, the idea of a global flood has not been falsified. It is far too broad of a concept to even warrant pretending that it could.

So now you are specially pleading for it on the grounds of breadth?

A global flood in the past few thousand years is disproved by dendrochronology and dated ice core data, and disproved at any time in millions of years by fossil evidence, the composition of limestone, the continuity of species of freshwater fish susceptible to brackish water and radioisotope dating of strata, to give just six areas of science. With a rational scientific approach, it does not matter what idea people hold as long as they toss it out when it is shown impossible.

What you want to falsify is the necessary conditions of a global flood.

That the surface of the earth was once entirely covered in water?!

Consensus has no validity when it comes to assessing the veracity of an idea.

What is veracity in a scientific context, would you say? Does it have any relevance as a specialist term when considering hypotheses, theories or evidence?

If you want to argue with homos, go ahead.

I wouldn't call gay and lesbian people homos. I'm not a small-minded bigot. Is sexuality relevant to veracity?

It looks like you don't even know what consensus means.

Did you understand what the scientist in the video was saying about consensus in his work? I'm sure you will reconsider now it has been shown to you that consensus is an important aspect of establishing a robust theory. It is not about veracity, which would be an impossible concept in science. With a rational scientific approach, it does not matter what idea people hold as long as they toss it out when it is shown impossible.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

So you cannot show us [the problems with Mr. Brown's cartoon tectonic plate calculation]?

I can show you. But I assumed, given the tone of your responses that you would be quite capable of checking it out for yourself and getting back to us to confirm.

The point was that you have not been around for "not quite 100 million years" to observe a process that takes "not quite 100 million years".

So much for a global flood then. Have you been around for 4000 years?

This makes me laugh.

Yes Mr. Brown's sci-fi cartoons make me laugh as well.

I don't get the question.

No, it's not.

No, they are not.

Yes, there is.

Fascinating.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

So now you are specially pleading for it on the grounds of breadth?

Nope.

It's just too broad a concept. There are numerous ideas about how one might have happened, but you're lumping all of them together and just declaring them void. That's not necessarily an invalid approach, but you have to systematize the myriad ideas and list necessary results that would apply to them all.

However, you've shown that you don't even understand the one we promote, so a rigorous analysis of all flood models is not going to come from you.

A global flood in the past few thousand years is disproved by dendrochronology and dated ice core data, and disproved at any time in millions of years by fossil evidence, the composition of limestone, the continuity of species of freshwater fish susceptible to brackish water and radioisotope dating of strata, to give just six areas of science. With a rational scientific approach, it does not matter what idea people hold as long as they toss it out when it is shown impossible.

No, it's not. It's falsified under the assumption that your idea of what fossils are is true. You need to take a step back and see what the explanation for those data points are under a competing model, not assert the primacy of the "consensus."

That the surface of the earth was once entirely covered in water?!

That would be one. However, it wouldn't be the one with the most potential. You'd be better to go along the lines of a global effect on the biosphere or geology.

What is veracity in a scientific context, would you say? Does it have any relevance as a specialist term when considering hypotheses, theories or evidence?

It's just a word. Look it up.

I wouldn't call gay and lesbian people homos. I'm not a small-minded bigot. Is sexuality relevant to veracity?

I don't know.

You're the one who wants to argue with one.

Did you understand what the scientist in the video was saying about consensus in his work?

Yes. I watched the video and responded to it.

It doesn't matter how many people you dredge up to talk about how important consensus is — it never is.

 

[Right Divider]

So much for a global flood then. Have you been around for 4000 years?

Comparing apples with walruses again.

YOU are the one that claimed that we have visual proof of something that takes ~100 million years to happen.

Not to mention that your "visual evidence" takes place at a HUGE distance from the "observer". With the global flood, we have TONS of evidence within reach, like fossils.

 

[Stuu]

It's just too broad a concept. There are numerous ideas about how one might have happened, but you're lumping all of them together and just declaring them void.

What makes you claim a global flood happened?

That's not necessarily an invalid approach, but you have to systematize the myriad ideas and list necessary results that would apply to them all.

Isn't that exactly the wrong way round to do science? Occam's razor is pretty clear: the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is the best. You're assuming a flood and then choosing what fits that, or rather denying everything because nothing fits.

66 million years ago something global happened. We know this because there is a thin layer of iridium all the way round the earth in that stratum. This demands an explanation, and iridium is easily enough evidence to indicate meteorite impact. There are many global events that have left their marks like this. We know that global events leave global evidence.

If we had ice cores with massive deposits of sediments and frozen animal and plant remains 4000 layers down, no bristlecone pine had more than about 4000 annual rings, and that all species of plant and animal showed the genetic evidence of a severe recent population bottleneck, that would demand investigation of some 4000 year old global catastrophe.

There is nothing global from 4000 years ago that demands an explanation. Over to you.

However, you've shown that you don't even understand the one we promote, so a rigorous analysis of all flood models is not going to come from you.

I've given you a rigorous analysis of all fundamentalist christian global flood models: they are all alt-knowledge for the alt-worldview. They have nothing to do with science. Mr. Brown's story has nothing to do with science. It is science in reverse, a kind of alt-science. Mr. Brown appears to be very resistant to discussing religion in his 'debates'. You might say this is a scientific attitude, but it is motivated by the creationist ideal: get creationism recognised as science in the United States. Then there are would be no constitutional limits on its application. It would present another opportunity for religious fundamentalists to tell lies to children in schools. Now, tell me what is wrong with that legally-supported, evidence-based analysis.

No, it's not. It's falsified under the assumption that your idea of what fossils are is true.

My idea of what fossils are is irrelevant.

You need to take a step back and see what the explanation for those data points are under a competing model, not assert the primacy of the "consensus."

I don't know what you mean by primacy, but consensus is not the arbitration. Evidence is the arbitration. Consensus is the agreement on the best explanation for the evidence. New contrary evidence will overturn the consensus, as I have explained several times in this thread.

I appreciate that this is why you are so intensely opposed to the concept of consensus: the consensus disagrees with creationist views. I bet if the consensus agreed with your view you would trumpet your enthusiasm for scientific consensus.

But there is no single creationist view. So, which of the creationist explanations would you like to put forward to see what the explanation for those data points are under a competing model? And can you say what exactly excludes other creationist models?

However, it wouldn't be the one with the most potential. You'd be better to go along the lines of a global effect on the biosphere or geology.

I went with both already. No flood.

It's just a word. Look it up.

What is veracity in a scientific context, would you say?

It doesn't matter how many people you dredge up to talk about how important consensus is — it never is.

It might matter to religious enthusiasts here, but it doesn't matter to any scientist how many times you repeat this mistaken idea about how science works.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Comparing apples with walruses again. YOU are the one that claimed that we have visual proof of something that takes ~100 million years to happen.

We do. I'd call it evidence though.

Not to mention that your "visual evidence" takes place at a HUGE distance from the "observer". With the global flood, we have TONS of evidence within reach, like fossils.

Yes indeed it is a huge distance, about 27,000 light years, the light taking that many years to reach earth.

What was that about fossils?

Stuart