Wander1963

Actually, it IS true about scientists agreeing on climate change.



So how does the "hydroplate theory" meet this criterion of "observable and repeatable" in any way whatsoever? When even other young Earth creationists like Answers in Genesis reject this wacky idea?



Really? Who are they? Because I'm still waiting for you to name a single respectable geologist who subscribes to this "theory". Feel free to throw in any respected mathematicians, geneticists, and astrophysicists who support it.

And I'm also waiting for you to back up your assertion that "Lucy" and other hominid fossils were "proven" to be fraudulent. But I'm not holding my breath, because you can't prove anything.

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

This in not a competition for me, you have already proven to everyone that you are firmly indoctrinated and invested in your worship of man and yourself. If you are too smart or to proud to hear a MIT PhD Air Force Colonel yet still believe the side caught lying, committing frauds, and atrocities over and over again, then I would be a fool to waste any more time arguing with you, especially through text where people tend to sound cocky and there isn't the threat of the next level.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused. Who said life came from rocks?

Wander1963

Wasn't me. MauiMoto keeps saying things that he has decided I believe.

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

Think about it, evolutionist keep skipping over the fact that they teach after the earth cooled, water (oceans of it, mind you) by some unknown process rained on the rocks for millions of years and by some miracle the first single cell organism more complex than the space shuttle created itself by some mysterious unobservable process that we, as smart as we think we are, cannot repeat.

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

https://youtu.be/sejWOXkA4pQ
Pieces were also found in different locations along with fully human remains. Not that I would trust anything government funded anyway.

Wander1963

Do you really think anything on youtube is acceptable as source material? Really? You can find fifty things for and fifty things against any position you choose. And all it offers is an assertion, "Lucy is an ape." No proof. Not even a respectable attempt at pseudoscience.

You'll need to do better than that.

And the government had nothing to do with the studies of Lucy. Which, even if it did, hardly backs your accusations of fraud.

Do you have even the first inkling of research procesures? Do you know what primary source material is? And if so, do you have any?

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells/
Here you go, rocks, just like I said. You should get a refund if you paid for your education.

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

And if these vents have been venting for millions of years, wouldn't that mean that all of the water was once under ground? Which also means that the pressure would have been immense and could have broke open and formed the oceans in a year, and all these vents we are finding on the ocean floor are just the remnants of the flood.

Wander1963

First, I will give you credit for finally finding an objective and scientifically respectable source. That said, the article you cited describes the earliest protolife reactions as originating from chemicals AMONG rocks in hydrothermal vents, not FROM rocks. And it specifically says that this is one of many ideas as to how it may have happened.

In effect, you still have no basis for saying that I believe we evolved from rocks.

And in answer to your second assertion, NO, nothing it that article means that "all the water was once underground," any more than the fact that hydrothermal vents are currently venting water means that all the water is now underground. Just because there is SOME water underground in no way implies that it was all underground. There is no logical chain from A to B there.

Again, find me ANY respectable geologist who will support that. And don't say Walter Brown. He's NOT a geologist, and his MIT degree in mechanical engineering doesn't make him one. And his ideas (which don't rise to the level of evidence to be called a scientific theory) aren't even supported by Answers in Genesis, much less any scientists.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

It seems much of the discussion you're having revolves around Dr. Brown's credentials as a geologist. Since my knowledge of geology is extraordinary limited, I'm not qualified to make judgments on this subject one way or the other. What would give his book more credibility, I suppose, would be citations from accredited geologists supporting his claims. Can you supply reviews or references from other geologists who agree with Dr. Brown's research?

Anyone can write a book on any subject and make any claims they want. Unfortunately, that in itself does not make the conclusions drawn by the author accurate. If, for example, somebody researched, wrote, and published a new version of the Bible that differed significantly from the scriptures we grew up with, I assume you wouldn't just accept it as truth without the approval of religious leaders, and religious writers and researchers, who you trust. I certainly wouldn't. So, if you can provide some expert references from other geologists, that would go a long way in confirming Dr. Brown's research results.