The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

Hi Shraf,First of all, let's make sure we have a conversation and not a shouting match.I don't know everything about the hydroplate theory and you know less than I do. I can provide the HP theory viewpoint. You can ask questions and I can attempt to answer, and perhaps we can both learn something. I'll refrain from dogmatic statements about the ToE and the HPT if you refrain from doing so as well.I think the problem comes with the misconception that "creation science" says, "God made everything and that is the explanation. Don't question it.". In reality anyone can easily draw the conclusion that a worldwide flood happened about 5000 years ago without ever reading the Bible.Let me give you a few examples of the scientific reasons why I think a flood happened about 4800- 5000 years ago.Practically ever culture worldwide has a legend that there was a worldwide flood in which only a few people survived in a boat.Several processes indicate a worldwide flood or change about 5000 years ago. For example, the Mississippi has been observed to increase the size of the river delta at a rate of about 262 feet per year for the last 100 years or so. If this rate has been constant, it would take about 4500 years for the river to lay down the delta as it currently exists. Growth rates of coral indicate that no coral reef need be older than about 3800 years. Recorded history begins about 5000 years ago, and these oldest languages are fully complex and in some ways even more complex than today's languages. The Chinese, Hebrew, Mayan, and Inca (I think) callendars have year 0 as somewhere around 5000 to 6000 years.The world's land mass is mostly covered with sandstone sedimentary layers. These layers are often thin and parallel exhibiting alternating different texture, color, and mineral content. Many places (I have a picture. BTW how do you paste pictures in here?) exhibit bended and folded sandstone layers, which could only be contorted in such a manner and maintain their internal structure if they were wet when bent.I think that's enough to start with. I've got to go. Please ask questions about these things as they come to your mind and I will attempt to answer.

Thanks for the help.This is the picture I tried to put on here before: Sandstone cracks and crumbles when compressed and contorted. Many places such as this exhibit such smooth curves and no cracks indicating that these layers were compressed when wet. Of course I am lacking in knowledge of geology, but this makes a lot of sense to me.

You got me. I'll humbly resign my statement to the status of an opinion. From a legend of inner China's Miao tribe: After God created the world, the Earth became evil, and he resolved to destroy humanity... Tim Lahaye and John D. Morris have compiled a list of over 200 cultures that have a similar tale of a great flood.In 1847, H.R. Schoolcraft wrote after a study of native Americans commisioned by congress: A summary from from James Perloff's book Tornado in a Junk Yard: No. I don't think ancient cultures are very good at predicting the future or science. But they can preserve historical events to some degree in legends. I think most legends have SOME basis in reality. Especially when such legends are shared by so many separate cultures. I believe only one of them is true as a matter of faith. However, I have not claimed that only one is true in this thread. I have only stated that so many VERY similar stories from so many separate cultures all over the world indicates that these stories are tied to an actual event. I'm sure there are many legends of local floods as there would be many local floods in subsequent centuries after the great flood as naturally formed lakes burst their dams. The indians native to the Grand Canyon area (forgot their names) have such a legend about how the Grand Canyon was formed from this local flood. Again, I have not stated that I assume the flood story in Genesis is the one true story or the most true story. I am merely stating that these widespread similar stories may indicate a tie to an actual event.

Thank you for your reply. Right. Perhaps I'm not prepared to back up "practically EVERY" but certainly many world wide. I addressed this in my response to Loudmouth.

Oops looks like I've been the victim of bad science again. I checked it out and the evidence so far is very dubious.However, I have been told dogmatically that it takes hundreds of millions of years for stalgtites and stalagmites to form, yet I know they can form in a matter of decades, so I am still skeptical of the dogmatic statements about ages of coral reefs.

Can you please provide some backup info for me to check it out? This growth rate is well known. The state of Louisiana gets visibly larger every year. Secondly, the silt may be washed away, but it would still remain in the gulf. Thirdly, where are the Mississippi's other deltas that it left when changing course? What would you consider evidence? BTW I'd appreciate it if you asked questions or provided more information to the debate rather than making dogmatic statements such as these which do not help at all.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-20-2004 01:18 AM

Sorry to have ditched the debate. Right. I don't doubt that evolution is a very good plausible scientific theory. However, the possibility of it has not been proven as fact, and due to the nature of the evidence, it very well may never be proven.There have been fossil falsifications of the evolutionary theory found, but once found they somehow no longer become falsifications or are explained away. It's as if the evolutionary theory itself evolves and adapts to fill the niche that exists in everyone's mind: the need to understand our origins.I realize this may be a very inflammatory sentence, but let's move on. Yes. A teacher of a geography may tell his class that there is a country named england. The students accept his word as truth. Later they may encounter evidence that supports this as true. It is the same way with creation science. Although I think I already know the truth, this does not make it impossible to objectively evaluate facts.For example, in the biological evolution debate on common pseudo genes, I freely admitted that with the given explanations, evolution from a common ancestor is the best explanation assuming such evolution is possible. However, I cannot rule out the possibility of another explanation that I have not yet discovered.This is how science should work. Search for ALL possible explanations of the facts. My belief that eventually explanations consistent with and supportive of a recent creation and flood will surface is no different than your belief that the same will happen for the TOE.Since I am biased left and you are biased right, and both of us are basically capable of looking at and honestly evaluating evidence, there will be a competition between our two interpretations of the evidence. Competition is always good for bringing out the truth, which is why we have courts. Right now the Judge and Jury are all biased towards the prosecution and there is no one willing and able to step up to the defense. I recognize that much evidence exists that is interpreted to support the evolutionary theory. Those who believe it is true are not morons. But facts can be interpreted in different ways. Right now, everyone interprets facts to fit the evolutionary model. Scientists, being so sure that evolution is true, have forgotten that many things are still unproven assumptions. It is still an unproven assumption that all strata is the result of billions of years of deposition. Some evidence that would confirm this as fact is also based on assumptions. For some evidence that would confirm this, an alternative explanation has never been sought. It is my desire as a creation scientist to explore plausible alternative explanations of the evidence. Give me time. I'll be working on the HP theory. I know what you mean by cherry picking, but I think it is unfair to imply that evolutionists do not also do this. Agreed to a certain extent. I think there are many well meaning but misguided people who round up every bit of evidence no matter how dubious and add their interpretation to use as a tool of evangelism. I don't think it's ever good to witness to people by being dishonest. I'm sure I'm probably guilty of this myself, however, participating in this site has been a good experience, and I will try to be completely open and honest about all evidence in the future.

Basically. You might say the meat of my hypothesis is that there was a flood that covered the whole pre-flood earth. The pre-flood earth had a roughly 10 mile thick uppermost crust separated by a chamber of water from the mostly basalt floor. The water pressure was increasing. A rupture in the crust caused a subsequent chain of events to occur. The sea floor should be mostly basalt and that the continents should have a mostly granite base covered with layered sedimentary strata. There should be evidence of liquefaction. Basement rock should exhibit mostly vertical activity, while sedimentary rock should exhibit mostly horizontal activity. Mountains and volcanoes would form where plates first ground to a halt. Some water may still be found deep under mountain ranges. Edges of hyroplates should show more evidence of erosion and 'flutter'. Most major unconformities should be mostly at the bottom and top of the geologic column. Due to liquefaction lenses certain anomalies will likely form within the column. The removal of enough HP material should cause underlying material to spring up beneath the original crack in the hydroplates and the other side of the world should be slightly sunken.And I could go on repeating my basic understanding of the theory, but you get the idea.I think Brown has made about 30 or so unique and much more specific predictions of what future investigation should find. Some of these have been verified recently. Proof that the original water chamber could not exist. Proof that atomic decay rates have been constant. Etc.

Yes, yes... I know my theory is drastically incomplete. After all, I'm 19 and a sophomore in college with very little background in this stuff. I'm more or less tossing ideas around and seeing what fits, and seeing what the evo reaction is. I only wish that everyone would do the same. It seems like the evolutionary theory is the only one that gets tossed around in anyone's head, so it's not surprising that the evolutionary theory is the best developed theory. I am not saying it is wrong or should not be considered by scientists as a valid theory. I am just saying it would be nice if there was some competition. I have not been able to research and hypothesize and calculate all the explanations to every detail. I mean evos have had millions and millions of man-hours put into their theory, so I cannot hope to compete, but if I find that I have a good reason to research the HP theory, I just might do it and eventually attempt to provide some competition. Then again, I may never find a good reason.So, no, we don't have to re-open the thread.

BTW, I'm sorry to all others for not replying, I just don't feel like continuing in this debate.