Expanding earth theory

[sdowney717]

watch this and see how even the Pacific rim nations fit together

They make the point the continents are very old and the ocean basins relatively new.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

[MadCow108]

welcome to the internet, the world where people can make nice videos of whatever comes to their mind and people will believe it...

here is a slightly more rational video on your video (while still quite amusing):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8&feature=related

[Gremlinzzz]

Go get your protective tin foil hat, because you’re going to need it. German scientists have been trying to understand why their equipment that measures gravitational waves has been picking up a particular sound. One possible answer that they’ve come up with is that the entire universe is a holographic illusion::popcorn:

[Copper Bezel]

Definitely watch the suggested video response and read the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth). All the features noted in the video are explained by continental drift and subduction, except for the symmetry between opposing landmasses across the Pacific and the north pole, which just doesn't exist instead and is made up in the video.

For instance, the ocean-bottom rifts referred to are very real phenomena, and they're what cause the oceanic crust to recycle itself in the first place.

The number of fallacious arguments made in that video is so mind-boggling that it's really not productive to list them all. I do like the bit about how all rocky planets must behave the same way regarding subduction, even when they don't have the plastic mantle that makes it happen, but that's not my favorite. It isn't even where the rapidly expanding mass of the Earth* comes from. It's where the hell the water comes from. = )

* Since land mass is 29% of the surface and volume scales with the cube of the radius, while surface area scales by only the square, the mass (or at least the volume) of the Earth expands by 6.37 times in that video, ostensibly over a few dozen millions of years. Chyeah.

[matt_symes]

.... and now we live in the age of the Internet, where wacky ideas can be spread by anybody with a pulse and a keyboard...:popcorn:

[sdowney717]

It is interesting. BUT where does the ocean water come from?
Coming at this from a young earth creationist viewpoint, It could have been underground water that welled up during Noah's world wide flood. And it does talk about the earth being divided in Genesis. Of course, that viewpoint is a whole nother ball game.

[Gremlinzzz]

:popcorn:

Don't blame the reader i knew tin hat's didn't work years ago i switched to aluminum:popcorn:

Scientific Evidence that the Entire Universe Is a Holographic Projection around the Earth

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/02/07/scientific-evidence-that-the-entire-universe-is-a-holographic-projection-around-the-earth/

[3Miro]

Don't blame the reader i knew tin hat's didn't work years ago i switched to aluminum:popcorn:

Scientific Evidence that the Entire Universe Is a Holographic Projection around the Earth

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/02/07/scientific-evidence-that-the-entire-universe-is-a-holographic-projection-around-the-earth/

Well, if it is one possible answer, then we can be certain beyond any doubt that it is absolutely true.

Guys, don't waste your time!

[Lucradia]

"3,987 likes, 2,667 dislikes"

March 2nd, 2007.

[lisati]

Guys, don't waste your time!
^^^This.

Coming up with an explanation that fits the available evidence can be a bit challenging at times. Now where can I borrow a Tardis, a suitably configured flux capacitor, or some other similar device that would allow me to produce my own clip based on actual history?

[matt_symes]

^^^This.

and again

[Gremlinzzz]

^^^This.

Coming up with an explanation that fits the available evidence can be a bit challenging at times. Now where can I borrow a Tardis, a suitably configured flux capacitor, or some other similar device that would allow me to produce my own clip based on actual history?

where can I borrow a Tardis

perhaps you can borrow one from The Doctor:popcorn:

[Copper Bezel]

Scientific Evidence that the Entire Universe Is a Holographic Projection around the Earth
You're missreading the word "hologram" (although the article doesn't make it clear.) See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle).

[Gremlinzzz]

You're missreading the word "hologram" (although the article doesn't make it clear.) See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle).

seen it on T.V.sci channel last night was interesting:popcorn:

[sdowney717]

Scientific Evidence that the Entire Universe Is a Holographic Projection around the Earth

Well that does not bother me a bit. In a way the Earth being the center of the universe means a cosmic creator's hands at work and then tightly focused in on what we do. As opposed to random chaos and chance which to me makes no sense.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I have watched the video four times and still can't determine what it has to do with an expanding earth or universe.

Please explain.

[sdowney717]

the video shows the earth long ago as mostly land, smaller and no oceans.
The inexplicably, the earth cracks, splits and starts enlarging, think of a balloon. So the continental land masses begin to spread apart. Perhaps as it spins on it axis it starts to fall apart. anyway, new matter wells up along the cracks forming the ocean basins. The land masses continue to get further apart as the earth circumference enlarges

[Copper Bezel]

Well that does not bother me a bit. In a way the Earth being the center of the universe means a cosmic creator's hands at work and then tightly focused in on what we do. As opposed to random chaos and chance which to me makes no sense.

....

That's because Gremlinzzz misread the word "holographic," which is explained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle).

Don't make me use italics. = P

[matt_symes]

the video shows the earth long ago as mostly land, smaller and no oceans.
Then inexplicably, the earth cracks, splits and starts enlarging, think of a balloon. So the continental land masses begin to spread apart. Perhaps as it spins on it axis it starts to fall apart. anyway, new matter wells up along the cracks forming the ocean basins. The land masses continue to get further apart as the earth circumference enlarges

That is a role of science; to attempt to explain the inexplicable by repeated measurement and observation. Using this method we can postulate new ideas and test them against what we can observe.

It's like democracy; it's not perfect but it's the best method we have.

[Rubykuby]

So what this yokel is saying is that magma becomes water, and because water takes more space than magma, the water masses become bigger and the landmasses are pushed aside?

I don't dig this. Thank you, internet, for your oceans of untrue wisdom.

[sdowney717]

Actually it is proven that magma contains a large amount of water.
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/volcan&magma.htm

And of course magma contains large amounts of other dissolved gases. Water vapor like steam and other gasses when they get super hot would have super high pressures, perhaps enough to cause an expansion effect. Water vapors in magma cause volcanic explosions.

Heat up the gasses in a balloon and the balloon expands


Gases in Magmas

At depth in the Earth nearly all magmas contain gas dissolved in the liquid, but the gas forms a separate vapor phase when pressure is decreased as magma rises toward the surface of the Earth. This is similar to carbonated beverages which are bottled at high pressure. The high pressure keeps the gas in solution in the liquid, but when pressure is decreased, like when you open the can or bottle, the gas comes out of solution and forms a separate gas phase that you see as bubbles. Gas gives magmas their explosive character, because volume of gas expands as pressure is reduced. The composition of the gases in magma are:
Mostly H2O (water vapor) & some CO2 (carbon dioxide)
Minor amounts of Sulfur, Chlorine, and Fluorine gases
The amount of gas in a magma is also related to the chemical composition of the magma. Rhyolitic magmas usually have higher gas contents than basaltic magmas.

[Bandit]

Expanding Earth people need to battle it out to the death with those other Hallow Earth people.. Will call it Idiots -vs- Idiots!:popcorn:



Now as far as the ocean bottom having "newer" earth. Well DUH! The "older" earth on the continents is being pushed in on and some of it down back into the earths crust. Hence the reason behind earthquakes and mountains.. /picardfacepalm

[Bandit]

where can I borrow a Tardis

perhaps you can borrow one from The Doctor:popcorn:

Since Gallifrey was destroyed your gonna have to borrow the doctors tardis or fight the master over his..

[sanderella]

What an amusing thread. :P

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

What an amusing thread. :P

+1

There could be some scientific debate on the forum regarding the expanding earth theory; however, I feel that such debate would result in receiving infractions for not being politically correct or expressing opinions that cause argument.

[Gremlinzzz]

Since Gallifrey was destroyed your gonna have to borrow the doctors tardis or fight the master over his..

Gallifrey was destroyed!!!!:popcorn:

Hallow Earth people, very nice people

[Bandit]

Gallifrey was destroyed!!!!:popcorn:



Yep it was destroyed in major battle to stop the Daleks IIRC. Which is why the doctor says he is the last of his kind for so long now. I am sure the story plot will have a twist though, Romona is still in E-Space so thats something.:guitar:

[cgroza]

Expanding Earth people need to battle it out to the death with those other Hallow Earth people.. Will call it Idiots -vs- Idiots!:popcorn:
As ridiculous that theory may seem, calling its supporters idiots is wrong.
Imagine if scientist would call each other idiots every time there would a debate on some subject.
That would no longer be science, but monkeys trying to look smart.

[Copper Bezel]

Hollow Earth and expanding Earth supporters aren't arguing based on science, though. You have to be able to make a distinction between a legitimate scientific hypothesis based in an attempt to describe observed phenomena and this weird mix of trolling, conspiracy theory, and zealotry that surrounds these pet theories that can't work without making up a lot of stretches and excuses.

Say I have a pink Post-It note. If under certain conditions, it behaves exactly like an anteater - say, if I leave it in a room with an ant hill and shut out the lights, and when I come back in the morning the ants are gone and there are tracks everywhere, then I have reason to hypothesize that pink Post-It notes have special properties that resemble those of an anteater under certain conditions, and I might hypothesize that pink Post-It notes are in fact anteaters. The more likely explanations that there is in fact an anteater hiding in the room, or that I'm being punked by an anteater enthusiast, will need to be rigorously disproven before I can move forward with that hypothesis.

However, if instead I've begun with no observation of anteater-like behaviors at all, and still want to claim that pink Post-It notes are an expression of anteaters under all conditions, and want to make excuses for every case in which pink Post-It notes do not in fact act as anteaters (which is, of course, all cases), then that's not a scientific hypothesis anymore. At best, it's philosophical performance art.

To deny the existence of something like tectonic plate subduction or general relativity, which we can observe and predict and so on as easily as anything, you still have to explain all of those visible phenomena. More importantly, though, you need to start with an observation that existing theories don't explain in a more elegant way.

The expanding Earth theory has traction in some small sectors on the internet, where it's been put forward by a comic book artist whose attraction to the unlikely and the unexplained has made up the bulk of his career. But if his theory had some meat to it, there's no reason to believe that interested scientists wouldn't be interested in following it up. Science is built on systematic doubt; you shouldn't imagine that we're just going on defending a bunch of assumptions and preconceptions for nothing here. But something like the current* expanding Earth model doesn't start from doubting in the first place; it starts with someone saying, "hey, wouldn't this be cool?", and moves from there into an attempt to defend it as an assumption itself.

* I say current because the original expanding Earth model was indeed proposed on the basis of an observation - the one that was eventually explained by plate tectonics in the middle of the last century.

[Gremlinzzz]

Hollow Earth sound,s like a good idea.when we get done destroying are atmosphere.we can build under ground city's.then we will be the Hollow Earth people:popcorn:

[3Miro]

Hollow Earth sound,s like a good idea.when we get done destroying are atmosphere.we can build under ground city's.then we will be the Hollow Earth people:popcorn:

Except if Earth is hollow, we would be living under 0-G (i.e. no gravity, or maybe very low gravity).

Those "theories" don't deserve the name. They are at best hypothesis, but even that is more of a scientific title than what those deserve. Those ideas are nothing more than fantasies proposed by cargo-cult-scientists or frauds that can sell movies/DVDs about the subject or trolls that get off on fooling people. Most of those fantasies can be disproven by any scientifically literate person with the aid of pen and paper.

It is unfortunate that many people don't have the required scientific literacy or even bullsh-filters in their head and hence would rather take the word of a random person on the Internet over that from a person who has dedicated an entire life to rigorous study of that subject. Many people really believe that the the true scientists are engaged in a some sort of conspiracy to cover up the truth about the very thing that they have dedicated their lives to.

[Gremlinzzz]

Except if Earth is hollow, we would be living under 0-G (i.e. no gravity, or maybe very low gravity).

Those "theories" don't deserve the name. They are at best hypothesis, but even that is more of a scientific title than what those deserve. Those ideas are nothing more than fantasies proposed by cargo-cult-scientists or frauds that can sell movies/DVDs about the subject or trolls that get off on fooling people. Most of those fantasies can be disproven by any scientifically literate person with the aid of pen and paper.

It is unfortunate that many people don't have the required scientific literacy or even bullsh-filters in their head and hence would rather take the word of a random person on the Internet over that from a person who has dedicated an entire life to rigorous study of that subject. Many people really believe that the the true scientists are engaged in a some sort of conspiracy to cover up the truth about the very thing that they have dedicated their lives to.


"Me thinks he doth protest too much" unless your covering up something
:popcorn:

[Paqman]

Actually IIRC the Earth actually is expanding very slightly. It keeps accumulating mass from objects that whunk into it. That accounts for something like 100,000-10,000,000 tonnes of extra mass per year, but the actual effect would be pretty negligible.

[ikt]

Coming at this from a young earth creationist viewpoint

In case some of you guys aren't aware, a "young earth creationist" is someone who believes the world is 4000 years old.

In which case I don't know why you'd bother arguing with them because by default they are irrational.

[cgroza]

In case some of you guys aren't aware, a "young earth creationist" is someone who believes the world is 4000 years old.

I think it is more like 6000 years. At least this is the number I hear most often regarding this theory.

[forrestcupp]

But if his theory had some meat to it, there's no reason to believe that interested scientists wouldn't be interested in following it up.I agree with almost everything you said. The problem is that scientists have often shown a stubbornness against accepting anything that proves their old findings wrong. The biggest example of this today is the whole deal with neutrinos being faster than light. I'm not saying they are, but there are a lot of scientists just dismissing it because they don't want it to be true. How scientific is that?


In case some of you guys aren't aware, a "young earth creationist" is someone who believes the world is 4000 years old.

In which case I don't know why you'd bother arguing with them because by default they are irrational.
Please don't talk about things that you obviously know absolutely nothing about.

[grimslider75]

Not such a bad idea for a fantasy novel however :D

[3Miro]

I agree with almost everything you said. The problem is that scientists have often shown a stubbornness against accepting anything that proves their old findings wrong. The biggest example of this today is the whole deal with neutrinos being faster than light. I'm not saying they are, but there are a lot of scientists just dismissing it because they don't want it to be true. How scientific is that?


The problem of faster than light travel isn't new at all. Theoretical Quantum Mechanics has suggested that long time ago, the significance is that now it seems that there is something that we can measure. There is a huge difference in scientists arguing with scientists via the use of math and experiments and the ideas proposed by some conspiracy guy on the net who's best "proof" is a 3D animation. If scientists are sometimes wrong, this doesn't mean that every nutty idea out there is right.

[forrestcupp]

The problem of faster than light travel isn't new at all. Theoretical Quantum Mechanics has suggested that long time ago, the significance is that now it seems that there is something that we can measure. There is a huge difference in scientists arguing with scientists via the use of math and experiments and the ideas proposed by some conspiracy guy on the net who's best "proof" is a 3D animation. If scientists are sometimes wrong, this doesn't mean that every nutty idea out there is right.

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that ideas aren't necessarily nutty just because scientists dismiss it. Throughout the history of science, they've been known to unjustifiably dismiss things just because they don't want it to be true. Scientists don't like to be proved wrong, even if science is the one proving them wrong.

[lisati]

Please don't talk about things that you obviously know absolutely nothing about.
I have an idea of where the "4000 years" idea comes from. We need to be careful where we go with that idea so that we don't end up violating the CoC.

[3Miro]

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that ideas aren't necessarily nutty just because scientists dismiss it. Throughout the history of science, they've been known to unjustifiably dismiss things just because they don't want it to be true. Scientists don't like to be proved wrong, even if science is the one proving them wrong.

Scientist are people and prone to all human failings. The reason why science works isn't because scientists are somehow better than the rest of us, but because the methodology has self-correcting mechanisms that compensate for the unreliable human nature.

It bothers me when people make the fallacious thinking that somehow a flaw of a scientist (or a group of scientists) validates some random guy's so called "theory". I understand that you are not making such claims, I just want to point out that science corrects science and not some random guy on YouTube.

[forrestcupp]

I have an idea of where the "4000 years" idea comes from. We need to be careful where we go with that idea so that we don't end up violating the CoC.
I know where it comes from, too, but it's an incorrect figure. The general number of accepted years is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years, and there are other theories that go along with it that can allow that time period to fit within scientific findings.

I won't be going into any more detail on here. I was just pointing out that people shouldn't vocally trash something they obviously don't even know about.

I do think that it's not right that people can post on here their theories about how the universe was formed, but all sides can't be represented. That should be an all or nothing type of subject.

[beesthorpe]

hmmm - if those videos are to be believed wouldn't the sun rise in the west? - or am I missing something important about his presentation...

[F.G.]

beesthorpe, you're quite right, the earth is spinning the other way (maybe this is proof that it changed direction once the continents had split?).

i'm impressed that this thread has managed to keep going.

as someone with a pulse and a keyboard, i believe that egoism is a very necessary drive, which is what motivates scientists, theologians and philosophers all the forward thinkers of history. such self belief does also drive conspiracy theories, cultism and other kinds of psudo-scientific crackpotterey.

there is the old undisprovable logical loop [citation: "South Park - A History Channel Thanksgiving"] which actual scientists (by that i mean people who explicitly avoid undisprovable theories and
recursive arguments) are supposed to avoid (and stick to induction OR deduction for specific statements).

Enter: Russell's 'the barber paradox', or the one about 'Epimenides the Cretan' (the liar paradox) or 'the set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves', so they can't avoid it altogether. as has been pointed out science isn't perfect but it's the best we got.

It would seem that the hollow earth theory is pretty disprovable (seismic waves, gravity etc). expanding earth i'm having some difficulty actually understanding (positrons inside electrons?).
anyway, i haven't noticed it expanding, the horizon is just there, where it's always been.

edit -> according to some scientists evolution does not count as an actual scientific theory as it is in principle un-disprovable.

[Chronon]

edit -> according to some scientists evolution does not count as an actual scientific theory as it is in principle un-disprovable.

You are correct that the modern philosophical mechanism used by science is falsification. However, falsification must come through measurement and comparison with theory. I am amazed that a successful theory like thermodynamics gets thrown aside so quickly by a random internet video. A (physical) theory cannot falsify a (physical) theory. Only data can do that.

[F.G.]

You are correct that the modern philosophical mechanism used by science is falsification. However, falsification must come through measurement and comparison with theory. I am amazed that a successful theory like thermodynamics gets thrown aside so quickly by a random internet video. A (physical) theory cannot falsify a (physical) theory. Only data can do that.
sorry, i forgot to reply to this.

the point about evolution and the scientific method is that there is no way to collect data on whether it actually happens naturally as any animal in any state can either be 'evolved' or 'needing to evolve' (you can't contrast it with the 'inverse' of evolution). evolution is almost a logical truth.

personally the fact that animals can be bred for characteristics is proof enough for me. Also there is the pepper moth (changed colour during the industrial revolution apparently as a result of the dirt on the trees), similarly the high amount of sickle cell anemia in africa (carrying a recessive allele gives an immunity to malaria), both look like physical data to me, however they still aren't falsification methods.

[3Miro]

sorry, i forgot to reply to this.

the point about evolution and the scientific method is that there is no way to collect data on whether it actually happens naturally as any animal in any state can either be 'evolved' or 'needing to evolve' (you can't contrast it with the 'inverse' of evolution). evolution is almost a logical truth.

personally the fact that animals can be bred for characteristics is proof enough for me. Also there is the pepper moth (changed colour during the industrial revolution apparently as a result of the dirt on the trees), similarly the high amount of sickle cell anemia in africa (carrying a recessive allele gives an immunity to malaria), both look like physical data to me, however they still aren't falsification methods.

Evolution doesn't have a measure by which you can say that one species is more or less evolved than another. The concept of 'evolved' or 'needing to evolve' does not exist.

You can take the two components of Evolution as random mutation and natural selection and take the expected resulting common ancestry. Common ancestry can be falsified, but it has been proven via both the fossil record and more importantly the DNA. Random mutation has been observed and the combination of random mutation and natural selection has been experimentally shown to produce the change.

Each individual component of Evolution can be falsified, therefore, the entire theory can be falsified. Am I missing something here or are you talking about something else.

[Chronon]

We're getting a bit off track now. There is plenty of support for evolution and it has even produced predictions that have been subsequently borne out. However, I'm interested in why people are so quick to toss thermodynamics out (conservation of energy) without a shred of physical evidence to the contrary.

[forrestcupp]

The recent conversation should be in the Homo Sapiens+1 thread. Evolution doesn't have much to do with the Expanding earth theory.

[DZ*]

The general number of accepted years is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years, and there are other theories that go along with it that can allow that time period to fit within scientific findings.

I won't be going into any more detail on here.

Why is that? If it fit within scientific findings, there must be scientific peer-reviewed literature in support of these views, and it would be quite appropriate to post the references. I really want to know, because there is a Nobel Prize waiting for someone there. Perhaps you're underestimating how desperate many scientists are to part with their comforting theories in exchange for truth (and recognition).

[lisati]

IMO one of the challenges is that of being able to collect sufficient evidence of such a quality that the possibility of arguments based on wildly divergent interpretations is rendered largely irrelevant.

[DZ*]

IMO one of the challenges is that of being able to collect sufficient evidence of such a quality that the possibility of arguments based on wildly divergent interpretations is rendered largely irrelevant.

Where are all these divergent interpretations in peer reviewed literature? Outside of it, strength of evidence has little to do with existence of arguments. From "HIV is harmless", to "Earth is flat", it is all still there.

There are people who are uncritically partial to their particular theory for one reason or another. Then there are Alice in Wonderland types, to them everything is both possible, and equiprobable ... And I forgot what the third one is.

[neu5eeCh]

I'm incredibly impressed. First, because I think didn't think of this, and second because I totally don't believe that he believes himself. I think he decided to throw this out there and see who would believe him.

Personally, I would have reversed the cause and effect.

I would have insisted that when the earth shrank (going backwards in time) it was the shape of the oceans that shaped the continents. In other words, as the earth gets smaller and smaller, the continents shrink and the oceans meet until there is nothing but water. The clincher is that the shape of the shorelines match.

My hypothesis is unassailable.

[forrestcupp]

Why is that? If it fit within scientific findings, there must be scientific peer-reviewed literature in support of these views, and it would be quite appropriate to post the references. I really want to know, because there is a Nobel Prize waiting for someone there. Perhaps you're underestimating how desperate many scientists are to part with their comforting theories in exchange for truth (and recognition).

Don't misunderstand what I said. I said that there are theories that allow that time period to fit within scientific findings, not that scientific findings can fit within that time period. These are theological theories, not scientific theories.

If you really are interested, you can do a search for Gap Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism) or Gap Theory. I could probably explain things way better than that Wikipedia article, but that wouldn't be allowed here. So I'll just give you that starting point.

[3Miro]

Don't misunderstand what I said. I said that there are theories that allow that time period to fit within scientific findings, not that scientific findings can fit within that time period. These are theological theories, not scientific theories.

If you really are interested, you can do a search for Gap Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism) or Gap Theory. I could probably explain things way better than that Wikipedia article, but that wouldn't be allowed here. So I'll just give you that starting point.

forrestcupp: when it comes to things like the age of the Earth or the age of the Universe, there are scientific Theories that are supported by huge amounts of evidence and can produce measurable predictions. There are scientific Hypothesis that are nothing more than educated guesses that are usually wrong or at best incomplete. Then there are misnomers that cause confusion between theory and hypothesis. And then there is everything else that is complete ********. By BS I mean something based solely on logical fallacies, some sort of emotional manipulation or bold-faced-lies (or combinations of those).

Unless a "theory" is capable of producing an identifiable prediction of a part of reality that is unknown at the present AND IT CAN THEN BE TESTED, then it is at best useless and usually complete garbage (at worst it can be harmful).

[DZ*]

These are theological theories, not scientific theories.

If you really are interested, you can do a search for Gap Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism)

If there are two conflicting theological theories, how do you decide which one is to be taken with a higher degree of confidence? If you choose one of them based on rational grounds, (like in the case of "Gap" vs. "Young Earth" creationism), you immediately venture into the scientific theory domain, and should scrutinize every other aspect of the theory in exactly the same way.

[matt_symes]

forrestcupp: when it comes to things like the age of the Earth or the age of the Universe, there are scientific Theories that are supported by huge amounts of evidence and can produce measurable predictions. There are scientific Hypothesis that are nothing more than educated guesses that are usually wrong or at best incomplete. Then there are misnomers that cause confusion between theory and hypothesis. And then there is everything else that is complete ********. By BS I mean something based solely on logical fallacies, some sort of emotional manipulation or bold-faced-lies (or combinations of those).

Unless a "theory" is capable of producing an identifiable prediction of a part of reality that is unknown at the present AND IT CAN THEN BE TESTED, then it is at best useless and usually complete garbage at worst it can be harmful.

ftfy.

I will bow out now i think. :D

[forrestcupp]

If there are two conflicting theological theories, how do you decide which one is to be taken with a higher degree of confidence? If you choose one of them based on rational grounds, (like in the case of "Gap" vs. "Young Earth" creationism), you immediately venture into the scientific theory domain, and should scrutinize every other aspect of the theory in exactly the same way.

I wasn't intending for people to be hung up on the technical definition of the word "theory". I was just pointing out that there are possible explanations on how creationism can be reconciled with scientific findings. They don't have to be separate. It's just that a lot of people from both sides aren't willing to think outside the box.

[3Miro]

I wasn't intending for people to be hung up on the technical definition of the word "theory". I was just pointing out that there are possible explanations on how creationism can be reconciled with scientific findings. They don't have to be separate. It's just that a lot of people from both sides aren't willing to think outside the box.

What is your definition of "creationism"? If it is the simple "god did it", then there is nothing to reconcile. The overwhelming majority of Christians uphold both science and theology and see no problem with either. There is no conflict there.

The conflict occurs with those that take a literal interpretation (i.e. 6000 - 10000 years). Then you have once side that would only take a position that is supported by evidence and the other side would never change their position regardless of evidence (blind faith). There can be no compromise in the face of the irrational. We either uphold reason (like the majority of religious people in the western world) or buckle to the nutty minority and devolve into a Medieval (i.e. Amish) society.

[forrestcupp]

The conflict occurs with those that take a literal interpretation (i.e. 6000 - 10000 years). Then you have once side that would only take a position that is supported by evidence and the other side would never change their position regardless of evidence (blind faith). There can be no compromise in the face of the irrational. We either uphold reason (like the majority of religious people in the western world) or buckle to the nutty minority and devolve into a Medieval (i.e. Amish) society.

Unless you go with Gap Creationism, which says the creation account in Genesis was actually a re-creation and that there is a gap of possibly millions of years between verses 2 & 3. This belief is supported by putting a lot of other clues from the Bible together.

I won't go into all of the details because we're on shaky ground here. But it's very interesting when you put it all together and see how a lot of individual things can be reconciled with scientific findings, even with a literal interpretation.

[Ms. Daisy]

Pardon the necromancy, but I just stumbled upon this thread. I think it's my Geology degree that won't let me not comment.

Neal Adams (the video creator) never made the argument to explain why (as he says) "subsidence is a totally unsupportable scientific theory." The age of the sea floor is young because there's a divergent plate boundary in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, that part's true. But he's wrong that the whole earth is expanding because of it. Rather the earth is pushed out of the boundary in the pacific & then subsides beneath the land masses on both sides of the Pacific.

Scientists have actually observed the plates moving. They've observed them expanding, subsiding, and colliding. Subsidence in particular is responsible for earthquakes (in Japan & California), volcanic activity (Mt. St. Helens), and mountain creation (Rocky Mountains). It's such a pedestrian set of facts that I can link to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)with great confidence. But Neal Adams decided to completely ignore those facts, he didn't even present a counter argument. How boring.

I do like his style, though. It's quite convenient to cherry-pick some scientific facts while ignoring others, then mold them into whatever theory you can dream up. Kudos to your tunnel vision, Neal Adams!

[Gremlinzzz]

The universe is expanding why not the earth too:popcorn:

[Elfy]

back to sleep