Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Polymath257]

----------------
Still I wouldn´t say that "the appel idea" is a model but rather a mathematical equation of weight, force and motion - which, in your own opinion, "is not the heart of science". But when asked into this, you STILL refers to mathematical equations as the holy grail answer to everything. Well, never mind.

About ad hoc assumptions:
1. Scientists assumed a falling apple to be the result of gravitational attraction from the Earth.
2. Then they assumed this gravitational attraction to work over infinite distances. in spite weightlessness for a spacecraft and persons in it, is reached when leaving the Earth´atmosphere.
3. Then they assumed this gravity idea to work all over in cosmos. When contradicted in this, they assumed "dark matter" was the cause.
Edit
4. In spite that it is generally accepted in cosmological science that the Newtonian/Keplerian "laws of celestial motion" doesn´t count on larger cosmological scales, lots of scientists STILL assumes gravity to rule everything in the entire Universe.

In my opinion there are lots of assumptions right from the beginning and more are added along this path i.e. ad hoc assumptions.

And they put these assumptions into a mathematical model that then worked to *correctly* predict the motion of planets (as well as ordinary things on Earth). It even served to *predict* the existence and location of a previously undetected planet.

Yes, that is exactly how science is supposed to work.

Wow. You really think there is no gravity in space? Because astronauts are weightless? Really?

 

[Native]

You haven’t heard that natural philosophy has been outdated since the mid-19th century?

--------------
Even some decades before I think. At the same time cosmologists became more and more stupid.

 

[Native]

And they put these assumptions into a mathematical model that then worked to *correctly* predict the motion of planets (as well as ordinary things on Earth). It even served to *predict* the existence and location of a previously undetected planet.

Yes, that is exactly how science is supposed to work.

Wow. You really think there is no gravity in space? Because astronauts are weightless? Really?

-----------------
The big issue here is that they put MORE assumptions in even after the first assumption was contradicted and so on in the ad hoc assumption method. Modern science must have the Guiness World Record in assumptions and STILL they call this science.

The scientific method is to revise or discard a theory when it is contradicted or unexplained. This NEVER happens in the modern cosmology.

Just think about it. When a spacecraft have overcome the assumed gravity of the Earth, this force disappears in the blue Sky when the spacecraft leaves the atmosphere. Suddenly there is NO gravitational force working at all.

 

[Polymath257]

-----------------
The big issue here is that they put MORE assumptions in even after the first assumption was contradicted and so on in the ad hoc assumption method. Modern science must have the Guiness World Record in assumptions and STILL they call this science.

The scientific method is to revise or discard a theory when it is contradicted or unexplained. This NEVER happens in the modern cosmology.

Just think about it. When a spacecraft have overcome the assumed gravity of the Earth, this force disappears in the blue Sky when the spacecraft leaves the atmosphere. Suddenly there is NO gravitational force working at all.

What???? This is so far wrong I don't know even where to start.

First, gravity doesn't disappear once a probe or spacecraft is above the atmosphere. In fact, it is gravity that keeps a satellite in orbit. It is gravity from the sun that determines the path of a probe and gravity from the planets it passes that changes its direction. Except for a very few times when thrusters are required to speed up or slow down a spacecraft to get into a better orbit, it is gravity that dominates its motion.

So, yes, there most definitely *is* gravity working once we go above the atmosphere. And, I suspect you will bring up the example of weightless astronauts, which only shows how little of the physics you really comprehend. The weightlessness is because the gravity on the astronauts and on the spacecraft makes them follow almost the same orbit, which is why they move together--giving weightlessness while there is still gravity.

WOW.

I am scared to ask, but why do you think the astronauts were able to walk on the moon if there was no gravity?

 

[gnostic]

Even some decades before I think. At the same time cosmologists became more and more stupid.

Say the one who wrote the above. It should be for you, like looking in the mirror.

You have your own version of cosmology, which make you a “cosmologist”.

The example of stupidity:

-----------------
The big issue here is that they put MORE assumptions in even after the first assumption was contradicted and so on in the ad hoc assumption method. Modern science must have the Guiness World Record in assumptions and STILL they call this science.

The scientific method is to revise or discard a theory when it is contradicted or unexplained. This NEVER happens in the modern cosmology.

Just think about it. When a spacecraft have overcome the assumed gravity of the Earth, this force disappears in the blue Sky when the spacecraft leaves the atmosphere. Suddenly there is NO gravitational force working at all.

 

[Native]

What???? This is so far wrong I don't know even where to start.

-------------
You can start off with thinking of your "Newtonian Apple Convention":

Here a REAL scientist and natural philosopher would have thought of by what natural forces the apple was made up in the three branch in the first place and what causes it to fall down on the ground.

Then you can think of why it is that a spacecraft on it´s return shall hit the Earth´s atmosphere on the correct angle to prevent it from skidding pass the Earth and be lost in Space.

This should get you on the right track to understand - that is IF you begin to think at all.

 

[Native]

Say the one who wrote the above. It should be for you, like looking in the mirror.

You have your own version of cosmology, which make you a “cosmologist”.

The example of stupidity:

------------------
I cannot find any cosmological or scientific comments or arguments which demands or deserves a serious reply in this emotional post

 

[Subduction Zone]

-------------
You can start off with thinking of your "Newtonian Apple Convention":

Here a REAL scientist and natural philosopher would have thought of by what natural forces the apple was made up in the three branch in the first place and what causes it to fall down on the ground.

Then you can think of why it is that a spacecraft on it´s return shall hit the Earth´s atmosphere on the correct angle to prevent it from skidding pass the Earth and be lost in Space.

This should get you on the right track to understand - that is IF you begin to think at all.

Seriously, quit while you are behind. You can't defeat a person with at least a master's degree in physics with less than an eighth grade level understanding of the sciences.

 

[wellwisher]

You couldn't be more wrong. Have you not seen the plots of temperatures from ice cores? Those go back over two hundred thousand years.

If you look at the data from 1 billion year ago to the present, the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling, even without humans. Some of these cycles have the CO2 falling as the temperature goes up and some have the CO2 rise with temperature.

When the media reports, it is second hottest day on record, they are only talking about data collected since about 1880. They are not talking about the ice core data since 1 billion years ago. It was much warmer many times in earth's history, compared to today.

The second hottest day on record, since 1880, is about the millionth hottest day since 1 billion years ago. The millionth hottest day does not sell as well, as second hottest day on record, so they stick to the new earth data, where weather records started in 1880. Genesis does the same thing in that they do not look backwards, before their own story begins 6000 year ago. It is the same principle in terms of foundation premises; use the new world data.

If we believe that the earth is 5 billion years old then that how does the second hottest day on record; 1880, compare to all the days since 5 billion years ago? Why limit the data to since 1880, if the earth is much older? The reason is the core data is not as reliable, as direct data, since core data works under assumptions that may or may not be true. In Genesis, the authors only knew of their time. There was no written records before their time to corroborate that data, since writing was just invented. It was not scientific to use data that was here say and not officially recorded. New earth only was official data.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you look at the data from 1 billion year ago to the present, the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling, even without humans. Some of these cycles have the CO2 falling as the temperature goes up and some have the CO2 rise with temperature.

You do not appear to know what the word "cycle" means since you used it improperly. And yes, there have been changes unrelated to carbon dioxide levels. Your poor quality graph from an unknown source simply does not explain those. You should always link your sources.

When the media reports, it is second hottest day on record, they are only talking about data collected since about 1880. They are not talking about the ice core data since 1 billion years ago. It was much warmer many times in earth's history, compared to today.

The second hottest day on record, since 1880, is about the millionth hottest day since 1 billion years ago. The millionth hottest day does not sell as well, as second hottest day on record, so they stick to the new earth data, where weather records started in 1880. Genesis does the same thing in that they do not look backwards, before their own story begins 6000 year ago. It is the same principle in terms of foundation premises; use the new world data.

If we believe that the earth is 5 billion years old then that how does the second hottest day on record; 1880, compare to all the days since 5 billion years ago? Why limit the data to since 1880, if the earth is much older? The reason is the core data is not as reliable, as direct data, since core data works under assumptions that may or may not be true. In Genesis, the authors only knew of their time. There was no written records before their time to corroborate that data, since writing was just invented. It was not scientific to use data that was here say and not officially recorded. New earth only was official data.

Now you are conflating climate and weather. The ice cores are a record of climate. They show average change in temperature over a broad area over an extended period of time. That record does go back over hundreds of thousands of years. It does show a tie between climate and carbon dioxide. High local temperatures can show climate change too, but one has to have a proper approach. One must look at all record high temperatures worldwide and all record cold temperatures worldwide. What one will see is that the new record highs greatly out number the new record lows. That indicates warming, not staying the same, those numbers would be roughly equivalent if that were the case. Or cooling, in that case record lows would outnumber record highs.


Edit: Why did you post a global warming post in this thread?

 

[wellwisher]

Another problem, with respect to new and old earth is connected to a profound discovery published in 2004 by scientists from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Using 18 years of seismic evidence, they found that the core of the earth is rotating faster than the surface of the earth. The core is dragging the surface of the earth, along, through viscoelastic friction in the lower mantle and outer core.

What this discovery means, is everything we currently assume about the earth is no longer so certain. Nobody predicted this observation about the core. Everything, we currently assume needs out be revised since this new rotating core is now the heart of earth dynamics.

Earth science has become mythology, overnight, since it is not retooling based on this important new data. It is similar to when the earth was thought to be flat, and suddenly data appears that shows the earth was round. There was a lot of foot dragging and an effort to keep the new data under raps so the flat earth could go on. The reason has to do with vanity, prestige and research resources. Those who now sit at the big table, may have to move to a smaller table and are avoiding this until retirement. Truth is not always paramount in science, if it messes with the status quo of prestige and money.

How does the massive engine that drives the earth's core rotation, impact climate on the surface? How do the computer models take the massive friction heat into account?

Earth's core spinning faster than its crust

 

[wellwisher]

You do not appear to know what the word "cycle" means since you used it improperly. And yes, there have been changes unrelated to carbon dioxide levels. Your poor quality graph from an unknown source simply does not explain those. You should always link your sources.




Now you are conflating climate and weather. The ice cores are a record of climate. They show average change in temperature over a broad area over an extended period of time. That record does go back over hundreds of thousands of years. It does show a tie between climate and carbon dioxide. High local temperatures can show climate change too, but one has to have a proper approach. One must look at all record high temperatures worldwide and all record cold temperatures worldwide. What one will see is that the new record highs greatly out number the new record lows. That indicates warming, not staying the same, those numbers would be roughly equivalent if that were the case. Or cooling, in that case record lows would outnumber record highs.


Edit: Why did you post a global warming post in this thread?

I posted a globe warming post as an example of new and old earth data. The records we set each day, somewhere on earth, is based on data collected since 1880 or so. This is new earth data. The record sort of assumes the earth began in 1880 and nothing before counts. Like you said, ice core samples show averages and can't be used to give an exact temperature for a given day of the year. The record heat is based on a manmade starting day in 1880 when hard data was being collected.

Genesis works the same way in the sense it starts the record at 6000 year ago and does not use earlier data, since this data was before the invention of writing and was not reliable. Instead of comparing to 1880 it compares to 6000 year ago. This is the same thing.

Just as many have a problem with ancient theory starting the earth 6000 years ago, I have a problem with science and media stating world records, based on an earth that is 150 years old. This makes that a type of religion, if we wish to be consistent, and not use a dual standard.

Say you were born 6000 year ago and there is no published record of anything. Writing is then invented and humans start to collect and record earth and universe data from crude tools. It would be unscientific to go before the written record. You need to base all theory on just the gathered and published data that has been peer reviewed. This limits the curves you can draw.

The confusion is new and old earth is a dig at Creationism. I was showing an area of science that uses the same approach but is protected by the dual standard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another problem, with respect to new and old earth is connected to a profound discovery published in 2004 by scientists from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Using 18 years of seismic evidence, they found that the core of the earth is rotating faster than the surface of the earth. The core is dragging the surface of the earth, along, through viscoelastic friction in the lower mantle and outer core.

What this discovery means, is everything we currently assume about the earth is no longer so certain. Nobody predicted this observation about the core. Everything, we currently assume needs out be revised since this new rotating core is now the heart of earth dynamics.

Earth science has become mythology, overnight, since it is not retooling based on this important new data. It is similar to when the earth was thought to be flat, and suddenly data appears that shows the earth was round. There was a lot of foot dragging and an effort to keep the new data under raps so the flat earth could go on. The reason has to do with vanity, prestige and research resources. Those who now sit at the big table, may have to move to a smaller table and are avoiding this until retirement. Truth is not always paramount in science, if it messes with the status quo of prestige and money.

How does the massive engine that drives the earth's core rotation, impact climate on the surface? How do the computer models take the massive friction heat into account?

Earth's core spinning faster than its crust

Just because you did not understand an article that you probably did not read does not support that scientists accept the mythological. That article does not support a young Earth at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I posted a globe warming post as an example of new and old earth data. The records we set each day, somewhere on earth, is based on data collected since 1880 or so. This is new earth data. The record sort of assumes the earth began in 1880 and nothing before counts. Like you said, ice core samples show averages and can't be used to give an exact temperature for a given day of the year. The record heat is based on a manmade starting day in 1880 when hard data was being collected.

Genesis works the same way in the sense it starts the record at 6000 year ago and does not use earlier data, since this data was before the invention of writing and was not reliable. Instead of comparing to 1880 it compares to 6000 year ago. This is the same thing.

Just as many have a problem with ancient theory starting the earth 6000 years ago, I have a problem with science and media stating world records, based on an earth that is 150 years old. This makes that a type of religion, if we wish to be consistent, and not use a dual standard.

Say you were born 6000 year ago and there is no published record of anything. Writing is then invented and humans start to collect and record earth and universe data from crude tools. It would be unscientific to go before the written record. You need to base all theory on just the gathered and published data that has been peer reviewed. This limits the curves you can draw.

The confusion is new and old earth is a dig at Creationism. I was showing an area of science that uses the same approach but is protected by the dual standard.

this doesn't address your errors at all.

 

[Audie]

I posted a globe warming post as an example of new and old earth data. The records we set each day, somewhere on earth, is based on data collected since 1880 or so. This is new earth data. The record sort of assumes the earth began in 1880 and nothing before counts. Like you said, ice core samples show averages and can't be used to give an exact temperature for a given day of the year. The record heat is based on a manmade starting day in 1880 when hard data was being collected.

Genesis works the same way in the sense it starts the record at 6000 year ago and does not use earlier data, since this data was before the invention of writing and was not reliable. Instead of comparing to 1880 it compares to 6000 year ago. This is the same thing.

Just as many have a problem with ancient theory starting the earth 6000 years ago, I have a problem with science and media stating world records, based on an earth that is 150 years old. This makes that a type of religion, if we wish to be consistent, and not use a dual standard.

Say you were born 6000 year ago and there is no published record of anything. Writing is then invented and humans start to collect and record earth and universe data from crude tools. It would be unscientific to go before the written record. You need to base all theory on just the gathered and published data that has been peer reviewed. This limits the curves you can draw.

The confusion is new and old earth is a dig at Creationism. I was showing an area of science that uses the same approach but is protected by the dual standard.

You actually believe that historical geology actually
exists in order to "take a dig" at creationism?

And no, you have not remotely found a dual standard.

 

[Native]

Seriously, quit while you are behind. You can't defeat a person with at least a master's degree in physics with less than an eighth grade level understanding of the sciences.

--------------
You assume something about my education, but then again: Assumptions and ad hoc assumptions are the royal trade mark of modern cosmological physicists

I apparently defeated you since you cannot answer my question. Try again:
----------------------

You can start off with thinking of your "Newtonian Apple Convention":

Here a REAL scientist and natural philosopher would have thought of by what natural forces the apple was made up in the three branch in the first place and what causes it to fall down on the ground.

Then you can think of why it is that a spacecraft on it´s return shall hit the Earth´s atmosphere on the correct angle to prevent it from skidding pass the Earth and be lost in Space.

This should get you on the right track to understand - that is IF you begin to think at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

--------------
You assume something about my education, but then again: Assumptions and ad hoc assumptions are the royal trade mark of modern cosmological physicists

I apparently defeated you since you cannot answer my question. Try again:
----------------------

Wrong again. I drew a conclusion from the evidence given in your posts. You continually demonstrate a less than high school level of scientific literacy. For example your belief that gravity does not exist in space. No assumptions of ad hoc explanations on my part.

 

[Native]

Wrong again. I drew a conclusion from the evidence given in your posts. You continually demonstrate a less than high school level of scientific literacy. For example your belief that gravity does not exist in space. No assumptions of ad hoc explanations on my part.

------------------
I constantly demonstrate a critical sense and asks into the logics in modern cosmology. Something that everyone should have learned in school, hig school and Universities, but this doesn´t take place. Assumptions and doctrines are just accepted without any questions and this just keep on and on - also in the discussions here.

I don´t deny an attractive force in the Universe. But I reject that this is caused by the "gravitational spooky action at distances between two or more bodies".

If you are that wise, why don´t you take on these issues and questions which I have posted 3 times now?
----------------
You can start off with thinking of your "Newtonian Apple Convention":

Here a REAL scientist and natural philosopher would have thought of by what natural forces the apple was made up in the three branch in the first place and what causes it to fall down on the ground.

Then you can think of why it is that a spacecraft on it´s return shall hit the Earth´s atmosphere on the correct angle to prevent it from skidding pass the Earth and be lost in Space.

This should get you on the right track to understand - that is IF you begin to think at all.

--------------------
What do you conclude from this?

 

[Polymath257]

------------------
--------------------
What do you conclude from this?

That you understand absolutely no physics at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

------------------
I constantly demonstrate a critical sense and asks into the logics in modern cosmology. Something that everyone should have learned in school, hig school and Universities, but this doesn´t take place. Assumptions and doctrines are just accepted without any questions and this just keep on and on - also in the discussions here.

I don´t deny an attractive force in the Universe. But I reject that this is caused by the "gravitational spooky action at distances between two or more bodies".

If you are that wise, why don´t you take on these issues and questions which I have posted 3 times now?
----------------
You can start off with thinking of your "Newtonian Apple Convention":

Here a REAL scientist and natural philosopher would have thought of by what natural forces the apple was made up in the three branch in the first place and what causes it to fall down on the ground.

Then you can think of why it is that a spacecraft on it´s return shall hit the Earth´s atmosphere on the correct angle to prevent it from skidding pass the Earth and be lost in Space.

This should get you on the right track to understand - that is IF you begin to think at all.

--------------------
What do you conclude from this?

No, you should only show a lack of understanding and refuse to even try to learn. Forget the ignorant "gotcha" questions , they only further demonstrate your ignorance.