29 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is clear in that one regard he is not using science to make new knowledge, he is using science as a weapon to force a point of view, in short, an agenda. I don't know about his other scientific work. I am only speaking as to his agenda in creationism.
It is unfair to just accuse someone of not being a serious scientist becasue of his religious belief. That is prejudice in action on your part. You need to come up with a better reason than that. I really believe it is the scientists on the evolutionary side that have the agenda and are more apt to googlefudge the facts.
He clearly does not want to learn something new here, but to DESTROY something new.
29 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are the narrow minded one who does not want to learn something new - an old dog. Ha ha 😀
It is clear in that one regard he is not using science to make new knowledge, he is using science as a weapon to force a point of view, in short, an agenda. I don't know about his other scientific work. I am only speaking as to his agenda in creationism.
He clearly does not want to learn something new here, but to DESTROY something new.
29 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you seriously think your pet Phd wants to learn something new? By definition, he wants to prove creationism to be a fact. By definition, that is someone with an agenda.
You are the narrow minded one who does not want to learn something new - an old dog. Ha ha 😀
He does not want to even find out if creationism needs to be modified somehow, he wants to prove the biblical myth. An agenda, pure and simple.
Exactly what is there being presented as something new, pray tell?
30 May 12
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseHe is being open-minded enough to also look at the evidence from a biblical point of view. That is something evolutionist fail to do, since they are so narrow-minded and that makes them stupid fools.
Do you seriously think your pet Phd wants to learn something new? By definition, he wants to prove creationism to be a fact. By definition, that is someone with an agenda.
He does not want to even find out if creationism needs to be modified somehow, he wants to prove the biblical myth. An agenda, pure and simple.
Exactly what is there being presented as something new, pray tell?
Nobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
(The Double Helix, p. 14).
As stated by Nobel laureate Dr. Robert A. Millikan: “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove” (Bowden, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud..., p. 216-218).
Where is the proof that geologist deny that the oceans once covered the land, since rocks containing marine fossils may be found at elevations above sea level today anywhere from one to five miles (1.6 to 8 km), as he said?
Is any PHD Geoplogist saying that no marine fossils have been found high above seal levels in the mountains?
30 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyactually my original assertion was taken from a book lent to me by a geologist. I am
Ye, but I am still waiting for them....
will robbie carrobie ever respond?
not in possession of that book anymore, never the less, he confirmed the fact. I have
posted in oceanography forums asking for any references which will confirm the
details, for example,
http://www.topix.com/forum/science/oceanography
when i get a reply, you'll be the first to know.
30 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually my original assertion was taken from a book lent to me by a geologist. I am
not in possession of that book anymore, never the less, he confirmed the fact. I have
posted in oceanography forums asking for any references which will confirm the
details, for example,
http://www.topix.com/forum/science/oceanography
when i get a reply, you'll be the first to know.
actually my original assertion was taken from a book lent to me by a geologist. I am
not in possession of that book anymore, never the less, he confirmed the fact.
then, unless you have either misremembered or misunderstood what was said, he must not know real geology and the book cannot be a credible book about geology.
If your assertion is correct the it should be extremely easy to just google it and find links about the scientific facts about it. So why cannot you do this?
http://www.topix.com/forum/science/oceanography
when i get a reply, you'll be the first to know.
LOL.
If you get a replay from any credible geologist, he would just tell you the equivalent to what I told you i.e. there is no such mechanism.
I hope you DO get a reply; but you might not.
30 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by humythere is a mechanism, i discussed it with my geologist friend at length, he stated that it
actually my original assertion was taken from a book lent to me by a geologist. I am
not in possession of that book anymore, never the less, he confirmed the fact.
then, unless you have either misremembered or misunderstood what was said, he must not know real geology and the book cannot be a credible book about geology.
If your asse what I told you i.e. there is no such mechanism.
I hope you DO get a reply; but you might not.
takes a long time, but that it exists is without doubt.. Who or what have you consulted,
nothing but your own dogma pontificated from your room full of mirrors. Must not
know real geology? really, despite the fact that he was employed by an oil company to
produce geological data and evaluations, perhaps he made it up? You dont know
anything and you call yourself a scientist? what scientific evidence do you have that
such a mechanism does not exist? indeed what do you think happens to the pollutants
that are forced into the hydrothermal vents?
30 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is a mechanism, i discussed it with my geologist friend at length, he stated that it
takes a long time, but that it exists is without doubt.. Who or what have you consulted,
nothing but your own dogma pontificated from your room full of mirrors. Must not
know real geology? really, despite the fact that he was employed by an oil company ...[text shortened]... ndeed what do you think happens to the pollutants
that are forced into the hydrothermal vents?
there is a mechanism, i discussed it with my geologist friend at length, he stated that it
takes a long time,
the mechanism you speak of doesn't exist.
And, even if it did exist, “ a long time” would presumably be many millions of years because geological processes would typically take that long. Do you by any chance believe in a young-Earth?
Who or what have you consulted,
I have done numerous science university courses and studied most areas of science including some basic geology and physics.
I have intensely studied science for most of my life.
what scientific evidence do you have that
such a mechanism does not exist?
I have rational REASON to believe that mechanism does not exist -that is “evidence” enough.
That reason comes from my own knowledge about geology:
Oceanic vents do “filter” out anything! They just EXPEL out hot gasses and water.
Just try Googling “"Oceanic vents filter" and you get just “ No results found for "Oceanic vents filter". “!
What scientific evidence do you have that such a mechanism DOES exist?
If your assertion is correct the it should be extremely easy to just google it and find links about the scientific facts about it for it would be just common knowledge in geology. So, I repeat my question, why cannot you do this? ( implies answer; because it isn't known in geology )
indeed what do you think happens to the pollutants
that are forced into the hydrothermal vents?
what is the premise for the belief that they are?
And, even if some tiny amount of pollution is ( and it would have to be a “tiny” amount because the water is generally quite clean down there compared to the surface water ) , it would just be thrown out again via the black smokers.
And what is stopping any particulate matter ( including pollutant one's ) in the ocean simply settling on the bottom where it would just accommodate into sedimentary rock or just mud at the bottom and simply just stay there? That's what normally happens to particulate matter in/around the ocean bottom!
30 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by humywhere is your evidence, you have produced no empirical evidence. why not? are wethere is a mechanism, i discussed it with my geologist friend at length, he stated that it
takes a long time,
the mechanism you speak of doesn't exist.
And, even if it did exist, “ a long time” would presumably be many millions of years because geological processes would typically take that long. Do you by any chance believe in a young-Ear ay there? That's what normally happens to particulate matter in/around the ocean bottom!
asked to believe you on the basis that simply because you state that it doesn't exist,
that it actually doesn't exist? very unscientific indeed, are you sure you were present at
scientific lectures and not a cookery course, even then, the participants could point to a
recipe book.
30 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyActually they do take in sea water, heat it up, then spit it back out.
Oceanic vents do not take in anything let alone “filter” out anything!
There are presumably chemical reactions going on and depending on the pollutants in question, some may be changed into a different chemical compound in the process. But at the same time, new pollutants are being produced though I am somewhat sceptical of calling anything a 'pollutant' in theses circumstances.
30 May 12
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
where is your evidence, you have produced no empirical evidence. why not? are we
asked to believe you on the basis that simply because you state that it doesn't exist,
that it actually doesn't exist? very unscientific indeed, are you sure you were present at
scientific lectures and not a cookery course, even then, the participants could point to a
recipe book.
you have produced no empirical evidence. why not?
Because that is not how rational scientific method works;
you generally should NOT assume a theory to be probably CORRECT UNTIL you have found empirical evidence AGAINST it ( unless you have good evidence for it ) but rather you SHOULD assume a theory to be probably FALSE UNTIL you have found empirical evidence FOR it.
To make matters worse, I have actual reasons to believe that the claim in this case is false.
Where is your empirical evidence that your claim is true?
30 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I know.
Actually they do take in sea water, heat it up, then spit it back out.
There are presumably chemical reactions going on and depending on the pollutants in question, some may be changed into a different chemical compound in the process. But at the same time, new pollutants are being produced though I am somewhat sceptical of calling anything a 'pollutant' in theses circumstances.
That was a misprint. Note that I have since corrected it.
Actually he is claiming the vents FILTER-OUT particulate pollution that originated in the atmosphere as was specifically taken out of the atmosphere by salty sea spray.
What do you think the chances of all that being true!
30 May 12
5 edits
Originally posted by humySorry the question was 'why you have no empirical data for your assertion', you haveyou have produced no empirical evidence. why not?
Because that is not how rational scientific method works;
you generally should NOT assume a theory to be probably CORRECT UNTIL you have found empirical evidence AGAINST it but rather you SHOULD assume a theory to be probably FALSE UNTIL you have found empirical evidence FOR it.
stated and I quote, 'the process does not exist'. How do you know that it does not
exist? You have NOT stated that it is incorrect, you have stated that 'it does not exist',
without a smidgen of evidence. Either my geologist friend and his book are imaginary or i
should be nominated for a nobel prize for having discovered single-handedly despite
having no geological training or background a mechanism whereby pollutants which
were originally airborne and in suspension, combine with salts from the ocean through
ocean spray, making the particles heavy enough to be carried by water droplets into
ocean depositories, eventually after a period of time reaching the ocean floor where
they are carried through hydrothermal vents to be vitrified at high temperatures
resulting in a purification process. In fact, i must be a genius!