Which grain of salt? How do you know which grain to choose?
Which people?
Imagine? Philistinians?
I don't think he would. He would merely claim that the steering wheel was turned half a degree to the right or left.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Some Einstein sh..tuff, science discussion
- Thread starter Daniel DeLuca
- Start date
You see, this is what the Plate Tectonic theorists do. When the theory runs into trouble, they just add more plates. Sort of like how physicists have come up with this concept of dark matter and dark energy, which are nothing but vain efforts to keep Big Bang Theory propped up. They are fudge factors; just another example of Platonian epicycles.
EDIT: If you don't want to accept Dr Walt Brown's argument, at least check out the source he cites! Do a quick search on the book Tectonic Globaloney! Once again you pop in here with a hasty answer, without doing an ounce of research!
Last edited:
Anyone who believes in convection currents, ought to at least be honest with themselves and ask the question, what causes the convection currents and why are they moving in so many erratic directions?
I want to post this from the Biblical Families website, since this notion has been called into question:
It is unconscionable that anyone here would challenge the authority of Scripture. I realize that some of you come here because you like the idea of being part of a plural family, but if we do not have Scripture as the basis for our authority, why do we even exist? You can find other pro-poly sites out there, that will endorse whatever behavior you wish to engage in! Now we can disagree about how to interpret the original text, but we dare not challenge the validity of "Thus saith the Lord"! That is not who we are. That is not what we are about! To push forward this notion that God chose men who were unreliable in transmitting His Word to humanity, means it is anybody's guess as to what God really said. If this is the case, who needs a Biblical defense of Biblical marriage?
And your point is? Because I don't argue that the Bible is God's inspired Word. To the contrary, I hold this to be abundantly true.
Yet you are ignoring the fact that faulty men translated that Word, they erred in their understandings, they erred in their biases, and the proof of this is your own myriad arguments with other people on this site over this or that shade of meaning in a particular verse or chapter.
If you reserve the right to shut down any dissent about Biblical understanding then you may have missed this first part of the Doctrinal Statement:
Since our public ministry is inclusive of Christ-followers from all backgrounds (evangelical, Pentecostal, fundamental, charismatic, Messianic, mainstream denominations, nondenominational, and more) we simply state that we are in agreement with the Apostles Creed of the early church, and are happy to fellowship as brothers and sisters with those who worship the one true God, our Creator; acknowledge the deity of Christ, His death and resurrection, and His redemptive work for us on the Cross; and make an effort to walk in their lives like they are redeemed by Him.
(Emphasis mine)
Gee, no where in that statement does it say I have to subscribe to the Prophet Colonel Doctor Chief Scientist and His Glorious Eminence Walt Brown and his Church of the Inerrant Hydroplate.
Wait...let me check again...nope, it's not in there.
You're confusing a theory with an inflexible religious dogma. Theories are not facts in and of themselves. They are hypotheses supported by facts and they are subject to change as new facts are uncovered and old facts are sometimes disproved.
It does not disprove a theory when new information is applied to it. The theory changes to incorporate the new information.
In rare circumstances new facts can render a theory or dogma obsolete.
In other rare circumstances new facts can render a theory into an established fact.
Germ Theory for instance now goes by the names of microbiology and virology.
Like the theory/dogma that the sun orbits the earth which is itself firmly set in the universe eternally immobile.
Turns out that this just isn't true.
You're the one who invited my scrutiny of Mr. Brown:
You invited me and everyone else to investigate the Hydroplate Theory and that would include investigating the single person behind this pronouncement.
That’s me! Mr. Charitable!
Mostly reasonable, Megan, but this is NOT true:
Additional facts SUPPORT the validity of a theory, but - to a real scientist - there is NO SUCH THING as "settled science."
You hold that it is God's inspired Word filtered by human minds,. That is quite different from what was stated in teh Doctrinal Beliefs statement.
Indeed, if we were debating over different translations, this would be a valid claim. I don't hold to the inerrancy of any translation, but I DO hold to the inerrancy of the original text that was written by men, whom Scripture clearly indicates were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21). So yes one guy over here claims that the earth cannot be moved, whilst the mainstream young earth community has argued that this does not necessarily mean that it is rigidly fixed in a certain location in space, with no movement whatsoever, but that it very well could mean that it is not moved from its course.
I don't shut down dissent about Biblical understanding. We are all trying to understand Scripture. What goes against the core beliefs of this ministry, is attempting to discredit that what was given for our understanding, was flawed at its very outset, and that it is basically anybody's guess as to what God actually revealed!
I didn't miss anything. I fail to see where that gives us the license to say that the Word of God, in its original form, is in any way, shape or form, unreliable.
Dr Walt Brown is higly recommended as his theory is a plausible explanation for how, what was written about the Flood of Noah, in the original text, can be shown to have been accurately recorded for us.
Plate Tectonic Theory has so many holes, as has been exposed in Dr Walt Brown's book, as to be hopeless to be clung to. Some theories are supported by facts and some evidence, but we are weighing these two theories side by side. You chose to address the second part of his response while completely ignoring the first part of his response:Wait...let me check again...nope, it's not in there.
You're confusing a theory with an inflexible religious dogma. Theories are not facts in and of themselves. They are hypotheses supported by facts and they are subject to change as new facts are uncovered and old facts are sometimes disproved.
Actually, most volcanoes are not above Benioff zones. If this theory were correct, the sediments (shown above in yellow) would hide a cliff face that is at least 30 miles high and the trench axis should be a straight line.
Right. We do accommodate our theories to fit the new evidence, but at some point, so have to question whether the theory itself continues to hold water, when you consider the vast number of different directions that we have plates moving in. To my knowledge Plate Tectonic Theory still holds this notion of convection currents. Has that portion of the theory changed at all, given the evidence that we can clearly see?
And that is the point of posting the link. I could have posted all the facts here. It is quite extensive.
And that is the other point of posting the link, to show the facts that ought to render Hydroplate theory as an established fact.
That theory apparently originated with Ptolemaic thought.
You have hardly scrutenized the theory.
So your scruitny is a claim that since he is a young earth creationist, he is not neutral in his investigation, but you have yet to even assert that he did not originate from your camp. You instead want to argue about whether his military service is as distinguished as he purports it to be. From personal experience I can confidently assert that I myself was in the US Army Reserve in 1989 and was given a general discharge, but I am unable to gain a DoD Security clearance, because I have misplaced my DD214 form, and I have made multiple efforts to get a replacement, which apparently is not possible. I have not been able to track down anyone who I was in the service with either, despite many google searches on key terms. All i have, is a photo taken, and I can produce family members that can attest that I left for St. Louis, MO for basic training, and returned a few months later, and that I had gone through the entire recruiting process, and had spent a few weekends away from home. None of that proves that I was in the US military in that time period. OK, so in spite of my assurances that I was there at Ft Leonardwood, I could understand the skepticism that could possibly arise. Now in the case of Dr. Walt Brown, this is an entirely different individual, and I have yet to see where he has posted proof of his service, nor have I spent the time to investigate this claim, but this is a Red Herring! What case are you making, that he has always believed in a young earth. If you want to discredit him, expressing skepticism about his purported military career, is barking up the wrong tree!
More evidence to digest:
75. Calculations are sometimes put forth in an attempt to show that plumes can rise through the mantle. Usually assumed are unrealistically low values for the mantle’s viscosity and density or unrealistically high values for the plume’s initial temperature and volume. These claims take the position, “We know flood basalts came from the outer core (where most magma resides), so here is how it must have happened.” Others, looking at the physics involved and using the most reasonable numbers, admit they don’t understand how enormous volumes of flood basalts could rise through the mantle. My calculations show that a magma plume rising buoyantly and melting its way up from the core-mantle boundary would initially have to exceed the Earth’s volume for just one drop of magma to reach the Earth’s surface. Others, cited below, have reached similar conclusions.
This is referenced in the Evidence to be explained section:
Flood Basalts. Vast amounts of melted basalt rapidly erupted onto the (solid) Earth’s surface, especially in and surrounding the western Pacific. How did this happen, and why was it so rapid?
7. Hydroplate Theory explanation
Magma outpourings resulted from the following chain of events:
This explanation answers all the questions in the “Volcanoes and Lava” and “Geothermal Heat” discussions, beginning on page 122. Because these deep faults often intersect the Earth’s surface as linear features, we have many linear island chains, but with different orientations.
Magma rises to the Earth’s surface along deep faults, not in plumes. Rising as plumes presents “severe thermal and mechanical problems.” Magma can rise along faults a million times faster.73
8. Plate Tectonic Theory explanation:
Over millions of years, plumes of magma can rise from the liquid outer core.
[Response: As explained on page 166, below the crossover depth of 220 miles, magma is too dense to rise. This also means that mantle circulation is a fiction.
This mistaken idea arises because seismic tomography has found more than two dozen examples of magma paths joining the outer core to the Earth’s surface.74 However, as we have shown, magma (produced by friction along faults that extend from the Earth’s surface to the outer core) drains down below the crossover depth and rises above the crossover depth. Therefore, a magma path does join the core with the Earth’s surface, but magma never rose from the core as a plume.
Even if a hot plume of magma could slowly rise through the entire mantle, the plume would lose heat to colder, overlying rock. This heat loss would exceed the excess heat in the plume. Calculations show that hot plumes cannot rise from the outer core and produce flood basalts.75 Nor will current processes open cracks in the mantle so a plume can rise. Confining pressures under the crust are simply too great.
An old, now discredited,76 idea used in popularizing plate tectonics was that fixed “hotspots” exist inside the Earth. Supposedly, plumes of hot, melted rock continually rise from the Earth’s core upward through the mantle. Over millions of years, as a plate somehow slid over a hotspot, the plate melted along a line and produced volcanoes and flood basalts. Yellowstone National park is frequently given as one example.
The Hawaiian Islands were considered the best example of this.77 Not explained were the long chains of submarine volcanoes that intersected the Hawaiian chain—some at large angles. It is now recognized that if hotspots exist, they must move.78 Other volcanic chains, such as the Bermuda Rise, are almost perpendicular to the claimed movements of their plates.79
If the mantle circulates enough to move a plate, why is a hotspot’s plume in that moving mantle fixed? If a chain of volcanoes means its plate is drifting, does an isolated volcano mean that its plate is not drifting? Faster moving plates should have fewer volcanic cones “burned” through them than slower plates. Just the opposite is the case.80 Also, the chemistry of rocks comprising these “hotspot” chains indicates that the magma originated from the upper mantle, not the lower mantle boundary as claimed by plate tectonics.81 Endnote 75 explains the most compelling objection to the hotspot idea—the absence of a physical mechanism.]
75. Calculations are sometimes put forth in an attempt to show that plumes can rise through the mantle. Usually assumed are unrealistically low values for the mantle’s viscosity and density or unrealistically high values for the plume’s initial temperature and volume. These claims take the position, “We know flood basalts came from the outer core (where most magma resides), so here is how it must have happened.” Others, looking at the physics involved and using the most reasonable numbers, admit they don’t understand how enormous volumes of flood basalts could rise through the mantle. My calculations show that a magma plume rising buoyantly and melting its way up from the core-mantle boundary would initially have to exceed the Earth’s volume for just one drop of magma to reach the Earth’s surface. Others, cited below, have reached similar conclusions.
- “A simple calculation shows that if ascent is governed by Stoke’s law, then the great viscosity of the lithosphere (about 10 25 poise, if it is viscous at all) ensures that the ascent velocity will be about ten thousand times smaller than that necessary to prevent solidification. A successful ascent could be made only by unrealistically large bodies of magma.” Bruce D. Marsh, “Island-Arc Volcanism,” Earth’s History, Structure and Materials, editor Brian J. Skinner (Los Altos, California: William Kaufman, Inc., 1980), p. 108.
- “The question of where the magma comes from and how it is generated are the most speculative in all of volcanology.” Gordon A. Macdonald, Volcanoes (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 399.
- “All the evidence that has been used so far to support the plume model—geochemical, petrological, thermal, topographic—is equivocal at best, if indeed not contrary. The plume idea is ad hoc, artificial, unnecessary, inadequate, and in some cases even self-defeating, and should be abandoned.” H. C. Sheth, “Flood Basalts and Large Igneous Provinces from Deep Mantle Plumes: Fact, Fiction, and Fallacy,” Tectonophysics, Vol. 311, 30 September, 1999, p. 23.
- “There are no chemical or isotopic data that require deep-plume origins or anomalously high temperatures, and no reliable seismic-tomography results have ever revealed a plume.” Gillian R. Foulger and Warren B. Hamilton, “Plume Hypothesis Challenged,” Nature, Vol. 505, 30 January 2014, p. 618.
- “Deep narrow thermal plumes are unnecessary and are precluded by uplift and subsidence data. The locations and volumes of ‘midplate’ volcanism appear to be controlled by lithospheric architecture, stress and cracks.” Don L. Anderson, “The Thermal State of the Upper Mantle; No Role for Mantle Plumes,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, 15 November 2000, p. 3623.
This is referenced in the Evidence to be explained section:
Flood Basalts. Vast amounts of melted basalt rapidly erupted onto the (solid) Earth’s surface, especially in and surrounding the western Pacific. How did this happen, and why was it so rapid?
7. Hydroplate Theory explanation
Magma outpourings resulted from the following chain of events:
- the bulging of the chamber floor in what was to become the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, this bulging produced movements deep within the Earth that resulted in deep faulting (shearing), frictional heat, and melting,
- the contraction of magma below the crossover depth, and the eruption of magma above the crossover depth,
- the resulting subsidence of the Pacific plate, and
- the accelerating of hydroplates away from the rapidly rising Atlantic floor and toward the subsiding Pacific.
This explanation answers all the questions in the “Volcanoes and Lava” and “Geothermal Heat” discussions, beginning on page 122. Because these deep faults often intersect the Earth’s surface as linear features, we have many linear island chains, but with different orientations.
Magma rises to the Earth’s surface along deep faults, not in plumes. Rising as plumes presents “severe thermal and mechanical problems.” Magma can rise along faults a million times faster.73
8. Plate Tectonic Theory explanation:
Over millions of years, plumes of magma can rise from the liquid outer core.
[Response: As explained on page 166, below the crossover depth of 220 miles, magma is too dense to rise. This also means that mantle circulation is a fiction.
This mistaken idea arises because seismic tomography has found more than two dozen examples of magma paths joining the outer core to the Earth’s surface.74 However, as we have shown, magma (produced by friction along faults that extend from the Earth’s surface to the outer core) drains down below the crossover depth and rises above the crossover depth. Therefore, a magma path does join the core with the Earth’s surface, but magma never rose from the core as a plume.
Even if a hot plume of magma could slowly rise through the entire mantle, the plume would lose heat to colder, overlying rock. This heat loss would exceed the excess heat in the plume. Calculations show that hot plumes cannot rise from the outer core and produce flood basalts.75 Nor will current processes open cracks in the mantle so a plume can rise. Confining pressures under the crust are simply too great.
An old, now discredited,76 idea used in popularizing plate tectonics was that fixed “hotspots” exist inside the Earth. Supposedly, plumes of hot, melted rock continually rise from the Earth’s core upward through the mantle. Over millions of years, as a plate somehow slid over a hotspot, the plate melted along a line and produced volcanoes and flood basalts. Yellowstone National park is frequently given as one example.
The Hawaiian Islands were considered the best example of this.77 Not explained were the long chains of submarine volcanoes that intersected the Hawaiian chain—some at large angles. It is now recognized that if hotspots exist, they must move.78 Other volcanic chains, such as the Bermuda Rise, are almost perpendicular to the claimed movements of their plates.79
If the mantle circulates enough to move a plate, why is a hotspot’s plume in that moving mantle fixed? If a chain of volcanoes means its plate is drifting, does an isolated volcano mean that its plate is not drifting? Faster moving plates should have fewer volcanic cones “burned” through them than slower plates. Just the opposite is the case.80 Also, the chemistry of rocks comprising these “hotspot” chains indicates that the magma originated from the upper mantle, not the lower mantle boundary as claimed by plate tectonics.81 Endnote 75 explains the most compelling objection to the hotspot idea—the absence of a physical mechanism.]
Sometimes there is settled science but when it is no longer the source of controversy then no one recognizes it as settled science, it just is.
Air travel being one of those things close to my heart the subject was the source of mainstream ridicule and mockery into the early 1900's when the fact of air travel was accepted. Even then there were still misconceptions like the sound barrier which wasn't a barrier at all. It was just a technological challenge.
You accept the settled science of air travel every time you travel by air. You don't even think about it. Yet just 122 years ago this was anything but a settled subject. It was the host of many theories both pro and con.
Washing your hands as a way to prevent infection was the source of massive controversy when the idea was first introduced in the 1860's. Yet you and I both accept this as settled science and I doubt that either of us sees a need to put this to the test.
Likewise, I think you and I agree that Biblical wisdom on avoiding sin and the positive outcomes of avoiding sin are also a kind of settled science. Are they not?
Earthquake Driving Mechanism. What provides the energy and forces that cause earthquakes?
33. Hydroplate Theory explanation
The flood produced huge mass imbalances on Earth. Gravity, acting on those imbalances, accelerated the water-lubricated hydroplates downhill. All this movement resulted in many faults that now pass through the entire mantle, as explained on pages 166–167.
The slightest movements along those faults generate frictional heat and melting. Mantle rock that melts above the crossover depth (about 220 miles below the Earth’s surface) expands slightly and attempts to escape buoyantly upward to the surface of the Earth, producing volcanoes and flood basalts. Magma produced below the crossover depth increases in density, so it slowly drains downward along those faults, into the outer core. These movements produce earthquakes, especially along the major faults that formed trenches.
34. Plate Tectonic Theory explanation:
Radioactive heating deep in the Earth sets up circulating cells within the mantle which drives crustal plates over the surface of the Earth. The leading edges of those plates are sometimes forced down into the mantle—a process called subduction—that forms trenches. Earthquakes occur when plates get stuck and suddenly break loose.
[Response: There is no evidence that radioactive material is in the mantle. The deepest magma and rocks ejected from volcanoes do not contain radioactive material. Furthermore, it has been known for almost a century that radioactivity is concentrated in the Earth’s crust. See “Where Is Earth’s Radioactivity” beginning on page 395.
Even if the mantle were circulating like a liquid, viscous drag acting on the bottom of a plate would apply only a constant force, just as a flowing river applies a constant force on an anchored boat. So, whatever force drives earthquakes must increase with time, because nearby rock stretches weeks and months before an earthquake, much as a rubber band stretches before it snaps.
Is the mantle circulating or shifting? If it is circulating, as the plate tectonic theory claims, some unknown energy source must drive the circulation. Adding energy, such as heat, to the mantle would not make the Earth more compact, as happens during all large earthquakes.8, 55 Besides, billions of years of movement should make the Earth about as compact as it could become.
However, shifting, driven by gravity, would make the Earth increasingly more compact and round. If the Earth’s mass became unbalanced during a global flood only about 5,000 years ago, shifts might still occur. Indeed, the global positioning system (involving at least 24 Earth-orbiting satellites that can measure crustal movements with millimeter precision) shows that in Asia and perhaps elsewhere, gravity drives crustal movements generally toward the Pacific.102 See Figure 12.]
33. Hydroplate Theory explanation
The flood produced huge mass imbalances on Earth. Gravity, acting on those imbalances, accelerated the water-lubricated hydroplates downhill. All this movement resulted in many faults that now pass through the entire mantle, as explained on pages 166–167.
The slightest movements along those faults generate frictional heat and melting. Mantle rock that melts above the crossover depth (about 220 miles below the Earth’s surface) expands slightly and attempts to escape buoyantly upward to the surface of the Earth, producing volcanoes and flood basalts. Magma produced below the crossover depth increases in density, so it slowly drains downward along those faults, into the outer core. These movements produce earthquakes, especially along the major faults that formed trenches.
34. Plate Tectonic Theory explanation:
Radioactive heating deep in the Earth sets up circulating cells within the mantle which drives crustal plates over the surface of the Earth. The leading edges of those plates are sometimes forced down into the mantle—a process called subduction—that forms trenches. Earthquakes occur when plates get stuck and suddenly break loose.
[Response: There is no evidence that radioactive material is in the mantle. The deepest magma and rocks ejected from volcanoes do not contain radioactive material. Furthermore, it has been known for almost a century that radioactivity is concentrated in the Earth’s crust. See “Where Is Earth’s Radioactivity” beginning on page 395.
Even if the mantle were circulating like a liquid, viscous drag acting on the bottom of a plate would apply only a constant force, just as a flowing river applies a constant force on an anchored boat. So, whatever force drives earthquakes must increase with time, because nearby rock stretches weeks and months before an earthquake, much as a rubber band stretches before it snaps.
Is the mantle circulating or shifting? If it is circulating, as the plate tectonic theory claims, some unknown energy source must drive the circulation. Adding energy, such as heat, to the mantle would not make the Earth more compact, as happens during all large earthquakes.8, 55 Besides, billions of years of movement should make the Earth about as compact as it could become.
However, shifting, driven by gravity, would make the Earth increasingly more compact and round. If the Earth’s mass became unbalanced during a global flood only about 5,000 years ago, shifts might still occur. Indeed, the global positioning system (involving at least 24 Earth-orbiting satellites that can measure crustal movements with millimeter precision) shows that in Asia and perhaps elsewhere, gravity drives crustal movements generally toward the Pacific.102 See Figure 12.]
That is one thing we all agree on, albeit, even here some people have one idea of what sin is, that we don't all agree on, and not necessarily because of what we have learned from science.
EDIT: Science can never tell us what God will do on Judgment Day, nor which things He will deem as worhty of either punishment, or loss of reward. I of course am not speaking of the science of hermeneutics or interpretation, which apart from Scripture, is meaningless for this purpose.
Last edited:
Sorry, you won't hear a "Real Scientist" ever say that. But the Fakes do - all the time, primarily about [non-existent, man-made] Global
Addendum: I suggest your misunderstanding comes from the word "science" itself. There are "Laws" - but even those are not "settled." Just never observed to be contradicted.
Examples abound: The "aether". The atom - "indivisible" by definition. Newtonian physics, F=MA, etc. Maybe even "viruses."
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still called a "theory."
Real Science often - even mostly - happens when sharp people reject what is 'settled.'
“Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, from "the Notebooks of Lazarus Long;Time Enough for Love
There is a difference in meaning between inspired and literal. You should perhaps avail yourself of this thing called the internet and investigate what these two words mean. They are not synonymous.
And you have access to of all of these original texts?
No, you're upset because I don't think Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory holds any water.
By who?
Walt Brown would be famous were this true.
And it is no longer a theory. It's just wrong.
I have scrutinized the theory.
He starts with the non-scientific assumption that the description of creation in Genesis is a literal truth and then reverse engineers selected facts to support his predetermined assumption.
And instead of publishing his findings for peer review with people like the engineers he knew at MIT instead he publishes his work to likeminded people who use his 'work' to support their own predetermined assumptions.
Case in point is he did not publish a paper on Hydroplate Theory, no... he published In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.
And he sells this to people who suffer from confirmation bias and who dearly desire fodder to substantiate their views in public.
He very cleverly cities religious dogma in his page and then contradicts these citations by saying:
"Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 31 years: the debate should be limited to scientific evidence."
On that same page he posts a question that betrays his bias and it also betrays that he put the cart before the horse:
"How can the study of creation be scientific?"
In this published question he admits that he is veering from science to evangelism. He is not performing science, he is studying Creation.
And that's fine. He is welcome to do so.
And I am free to disregard his claims of performing science when he simultaneously admits that he is studying Creation.
As to his theory I'm reading through his citations on his website and he makes a lot of claims and a lot of statements like we see here:
He asks a particular question as if there's no answer:
"Where did all the dirt go—2,800 cubic miles of it?"
The answer is simple in that the sediment from the Grand Canyon ended up in the alluvial plain of the Colorado River.
He says there is no evidence of a river delta at the mouth of the Colorado yet he neglects the fact that the entirety of the Imperial Valley is nothing but alluvial soil. The Imperial Valley is the river delta he's looking for.
Just an aside here is Brown writes like he's writing for an audience with a limited vocabulary and about an high school level of literacy. This too reinforces my perception that Brown's 'work' was intended for a niche audience and not a broader audience.
Then go clean a toilet and afterwards go eat a sandwich without first washing your hands.
That's not an argument. It's flatulence. And it's, quite frankly, beneath you.
It's not an argument. It's a troll.
Seriously, I pointed out that washing your hands was once very controversial and now it is accepted. And you're saying that a Real Scientist™ would never say that.
Fine, then do an experiment and test the hypothesis that washing your hands does nothing to prevent infection.
My point is that some things are simply accepted. There's no controversy, no one is challenging the notion, they moved on to other things.
No kidding, even Real Scientists™ do lots of things and accept lots of things that don't require further study. They brush their teeth with stannous fluoride toothpaste because it's good for their teeth. Also, Real Scientists™ know to reject sodium fluoride and aluminum fluoride as the toxins they are.
Some things are simply accepted.
You conveniently ignored the part about written revelation. I think a revelation is pretty much literal, but you may have another definition.
You have access to them. It's this thing called, oh let's see, what did you call it? Oh yeah, "the internet".
Well you haven't said anything that discredits the theory, but go ahead. We can examine it!
That's where you have to do your homework: https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Endorsements.html
He is.
That theory has nothing to do with the Hydroplate Theory.
No. You have done Ad Hominem
There you go again, assuming that you know what his initial assumption was.
And there have been numerous attempts to discredit his theory, but every attempt that I have encountered, distorts what his theory states, and in many cases assumes a lot of things that this theory has already refuted.
He sells the book to anyone who wants to buy it. Just because people who have confirmation bias are more likely to buy it, does not mean that it is unavailable to anyone else. The contents are freely available online.
Give an example of him cleverly citing religious dogma.
That is a legitimate question. The events that occurred in the first week of Creation, are not repeatable.
No. This is a legitimate question, because in this question he is highlighting the dillemma that all young earth creationists have to grapple with, when it comes to accepting something that cannot be observable and repeatable. Neither Creationism nor Drawinianism are repeatable or observable. Differentiation of species is observable and repeatable, ergo scientific, but that is not up for debate, since both young earthers and old earthers agree that this occurs!
Well, to be more accurate, he is highlighting the dillemmas that non-Creationists have yet to resolve.
But he does answer it! He also cites many who have studied the question and have been perplexed by it. Some have in fact come around to the same conclusion he himself has reached.
The imperial valley looks nothing like the sort of delta that we see at the base of major rivers like the Mississippi, the Amazon, the Yangtze, the Danube, or the Nile. The Delta that exists, where all the dirt went, is submerged within the Gulf of California.
Wasn't it you who admitted that when these science shows indicate a plane that bends around an object of mass, that this is intended for small minded people. Yes Dr. Brown's work is intended for nearly everyone to be able to grasp, and it still takes quite a bit of investigating to wrap your head around it. Bryan Nickle's video have good illustrations that help ordinary individuals grasp the concepts explained in his book as well. The beauty of the gospel message itself, is its simplicity. The message of the gospel, is not only for people who have studied and earned a Ph.D.
Once again, the Imperial Valley is the alluvial plain of the Colorado River.
The Sacramento Valley is the alluvial plain of the Sacramento, Feather, and American rivers.
The San Joaquin Valley is the alluvial plain of the San Joaquin river.
All three valleys are similar to each other.
The Mississippi Valley is the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River and is very similar to the Colorado River's alluvial plain in the Imperial Valley.
It's not my theory. I don't have to discredit it. Brown has to do a lot more to substantiate it.
Oh? Are you proposing that the Apostles, the Prophets, and etc. all posted their work on the internet? Really?