A massive cover up uncovered ?

[Enoch2021]

Geology is not "Science".  ?????

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geology

 

 

I don't care what it says.

 

To be "something" it has to exhibit characteristics/traits of that something. Bananas grow on trees: they are green and yellow, contain complex/simple Carbs chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6.  That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries.  It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast.  It's the same with "Science"...

"Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, The "Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science".  Science without TESTING/Experiment (Hypotheses/Theories) is like Water without Hydrogen....it's painfully Non-Sequitur.

 

To refute, it's quite simple...

 

1.  Show A Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Theory resulting from the "discipline" ?   OR

2.  Show how "Science" can Operate without Hypotheses and Theories.....?

Go ahead....?

[Enoch2021]

Enoch2021,

   If I toss out all reasonable extrapolations which means the weather yesterday couldnt possibly be the same today I might agree with you. Summer might not be hot and winter might not be cold. That Assumptions and theories are required by all disciplines or 'sciences' of established and doctor recommended assumptions and form the basis with which to test hypotheses is agreed. If certain physical laws were not in place and our trust in them not misplaced these assumptions would be entirely invalid.  I don't live in a lawless universe I live in Creation. Science is and always will be a derivative. If you want to take a ..your own.. derivative of words and compare it to another derivative then they are on equal footing of being manmade.

 

Haven't the first clue what you're talking about or how this has anything to do with...."Geology is not Science"; It just plain isn't.

 

To refute, it's quite simple...

1.  Show A Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Theory resulting from the "discipline" ?   OR

2.  Show how "Science" can Operate without Hypotheses and Theories.....?

 

Go ahead....?

 

This may help lift the fog....What is a Formal Scientific Hypothesis?  List the tenets please...?

 

regards

[Uncertain]

Geology is not "Science".  ?????

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geology

 

 

I don't care what it says.

 

To be "something" it has to exhibit characteristics/traits of that something. Bananas grow on trees: they are green and yellow, contain complex/simple Carbs chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6.  That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries.  It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast.  It's the same with "Science"...

"Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, The "Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science".  Science without TESTING/Experiment (Hypotheses/Theories) is like Water without Hydrogen....it's painfully Non-Sequitur.

 

To refute, it's quite simple...

 

1.  Show A Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Theory resulting from the "discipline" ?   OR

2.  Show how "Science" can Operate without Hypotheses and Theories.....?

Go ahead....?

While you are certainly entitled to reject any definition you choose, it really does not amount to anything when your personal definition is in opposition to the rest of the scientific community.

I would also point out there are scarlet bananas, pink bananas, as well as purple and ones with stripes. Some have bright orange fruit and taste more like a strawberry. I bring this up to highlight the inherent dangers of using such narrow definitions, they rarely are meaningful. Your definition of a banana above would exclude all the banana types I listed.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/anthropocene/cgi-bin/wordpress/essay-the-crazy-history-of-3-ridiculous-geological-theories/

http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2011/01/from-contractional-theory-to-modern.html

[FresnoJoe]

Geology is not "Science"....

 

 

Physical Geology Is Indeed Science And Directly Observable Today

 

For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. Hebrews 3:4 (NIV)

 

And Testable Today And Repeatable In The Labs Of Today

 

“Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. Romans 11:35-36 (NIV)

 

Whereas Historical Geology Is The Earth's Story

 

All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. Genesis 7:21-23 (NASB)

 

Yet The Religion Of Scientism Ignores It

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20 (NIV)

 

Very Unwise Because The Creator

 

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.  Genesis 6:5 (NASB)

 

Of Geology Is Coming Back

 

and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:5 (NASB)

 

Soon

 

The LORD has taken away His judgments against you,

            He has cleared away your enemies.

            The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst;

            You will fear disaster no more.

 

In that day it will be said to Jerusalem:

            “Do not be afraid, O Zion;

            Do not let your hands fall limp.

 

“The LORD your God is in your midst,

            A victorious warrior.

            He will exult over you with joy,

            He will be quiet in His love,

            He will rejoice over you with shouts of joy. Zephaniah 3:15-17

 

~

 

Forever, O LORD,

Your word is settled in heaven.

 

Your faithfulness continues throughout all generations;

You established the earth, and it stands.

 

They stand this day according to Your ordinances,

For all things are Your servants.  Psalms 119:89-91 (NASB)

 

True scientists welcome any and all challenges to an hypothesis or theory.  This is not true with most evolutionists.  They threaten and/or file lawsuits if a teacher attempts to mention some of the difficulties with evolution – even if the teacher makes no comments about creation or intelligent design.  Any critique of evolution is an attack on their religious convictions. http://www.midwestapologetics.org/articles/creation/scientism.htm

 

~

 

Be Blessed

 

I lift up my eyes to the mountains— where does my help come from?

My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth. Psalms 121:1-2 (NIV)

 

Beloved Of The KING

 

The LORD bless you, and keep you;

      The LORD make His face shine on you,

            And be gracious to you;

      The LORD lift up His countenance on you,

            And give you peace.’

 

“So they shall invoke My name on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them.” Numbers 6:24-27 (NASB)

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Uncertain]

Amen Fresno! !!

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Geology is not "Science".  ?????

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geology

 

 

I don't care what it says.

 

To be "something" it has to exhibit characteristics/traits of that something. Bananas grow on trees: they are green and yellow, contain complex/simple Carbs chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6.  That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries.  It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast.  It's the same with "Science"...

"Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, The "Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science".  Science without TESTING/Experiment (Hypotheses/Theories) is like Water without Hydrogen....it's painfully Non-Sequitur.

 

To refute, it's quite simple...

 

1.  Show A Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Theory resulting from the "discipline" ?   OR

2.  Show how "Science" can Operate without Hypotheses and Theories.....?

Go ahead....?

While you are certainly entitled to reject any definition you choose, it really does not amount to anything when your personal definition is in opposition to the rest of the scientific community.

I would also point out there are scarlet bananas, pink bananas, as well as purple and ones with stripes. Some have bright orange fruit and taste more like a strawberry. I bring this up to highlight the inherent dangers of using such narrow definitions, they rarely are meaningful. Your definition of a banana above would exclude all the banana types I listed.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/anthropocene/cgi-bin/wordpress/essay-the-crazy-history-of-3-ridiculous-geological-theories/

http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2011/01/from-contractional-theory-to-modern.html

 

 

 

 

 

========================================================================================

 

While you are certainly entitled to reject any definition you choose, it really does not amount to anything when your personal definition is in opposition to the rest of the scientific community.

 

 

Factually Incorrect.  I don't just "reject" it...... I can "SUPPORT It" down to the last micron in the period @ the end of the sentence.  And by the mere fact that you haven't "SUPPORTED" your position, other than a simple definition... which under the slightest of scrutiny is an Equivocation Fallacy, after I posted the criteria to refute it TWICE.

 

"Actual" Science is in the business of ascertaining CAUSATION of OBSERVED PHENOMENA through Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.

 

A Formal Hypothesis is...

 

"The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables.

 

Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.

If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.

Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis.

 

Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.

The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.

Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment.  An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion." {Emphasis Mine}

http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

 

Ergo (For the 3rd Time) :

 

To refute, it's quite simple...

 

1.  Show A Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Theory resulting from the "discipline" ?   OR

2.  Show how "Science" can Operate without Hypotheses and Theories.....?

If you can do neither, then you're left with "Vapor".

 

Savvy?

 

 

I would also point out there are scarlet bananas, pink bananas, as well as purple and ones with stripes.

 

 

Good to know

[dprprb]

Enoch2021,  

If in the same river system I observe the action of forces on rocks in the stream bed, taking measurements and making observations of different structures at the surface and cut sections thru the structures to understand the inner structure and do the same to other rivers of various magnitudes and during various flow rates day and night and thru all current season variations and I spare no expense to exhaustive detail then there is the body of knowledge with which to withdraw common features and establish strong correlations as to causation in order to predict that rivers act on rocks in particular manners and cause rounding, today right now clacking them together chipping off little pieces  ...then theoretically (= beyond anyone's ability to observe) extend that body of understanding onto observations of rock deposits that have no flowing water in them and hypothesize that the rounded rock formation strongly correlates to a river deposit and predict that there was once a river in that location. Anomalous data might indicate the prediction is incorrect but its value is weighed versus the body of corroborating evidence. If it is too strong a signal (thus lowering the strength of the correlation) then it must be dealt with and an explanation for the anomalous data (which does not fit the predictive model) generated as to why it occurs otherwise different types of corroborating evidence for the river hypothesis must be sought (and developed in currently observable equivalencies that can extrapolate to the hypothesis specific site conditions) in order to restrengthen the original correlation  otherwise results of the hypothetical river location must be published at the level of confidence resulting from the anomalous influence.

.when I say there are laws it means... I know God and trust that God will make the sun rise and the Jordan river flow-- until his work is complete and it might be tonight but if not it will rise because He promised to do other things in the mean time.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch2021,  

If in the same river system I observe the action of forces on rocks in the stream bed, taking measurements and making observations of different structures at the surface and cut sections thru the structures to understand the inner structure and do the same to other rivers of various magnitudes and during various flow rates day and night and thru all current season variations and I spare no expense to exhaustive detail then there is the body of knowledge with which to withdraw common features and establish strong correlations as to causation in order to predict that rivers act on rocks in particular manners and cause rounding, today right now clacking them together chipping off little pieces  ...then theoretically (= beyond anyone's ability to observe) extend that body of understanding onto observations of rock deposits that have no flowing water in them and hypothesize that the rounded rock formation strongly correlates to a river deposit and predict that there was once a river in that location. Anomalous data might indicate the prediction is incorrect but its value is weighed versus the body of corroborating evidence. If it is too strong a signal (thus lowering the strength of the correlation) then it must be dealt with and an explanation for the anomalous data (which does not fit the predictive model) generated as to why it occurs otherwise different types of corroborating evidence for the river hypothesis must be sought (and developed in currently observable equivalencies that can extrapolate to the hypothesis specific site conditions) in order to restrengthen the original correlation  otherwise results of the hypothetical river location must be published at the level of confidence resulting from the anomalous influence.

.when I say there are laws it means... I know God and trust that God will make the sun rise and the Jordan river flow-- until his work is complete and it might be tonight but if not it will rise because He promised to do other things in the mean time.

 

 

 

Please simply post a Formal Hypothesis......?  It's merely a simple statement with "IF and "THEN".

 

"Correlations", "Similarities" ect, aren't Science either.

 

regards

[FresnoJoe]

Please simply post a Formal Hypothesis......?  It's merely a simple statement with "IF and "THEN".

 

"Correlations", "Similarities" ect, aren't Science either.

 

 

If Jesus

 

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. Psalms 119:160 (NIV)

 

Is Truly LORD Of The Cosmos

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11 (KJV)

 

Then His Holy Word

 

Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. Psalms 119:89 (NASB)

 

Will Come To Pass

 

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Matthew 24:35 (NIV)

 

~

 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum (QED = "Which Had To Be Demonstrated")

 

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/prophesy.html

 

"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it." Zechariah 12:2-3

 

"... Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel" Ezekiel 17:11

[dprprb]

 If rounded (as opposed to other surface types) pebbles are related to multiple collisons with other rocks then rivers etc will produce them. Where to from here as it seems obvious your position begins at the top of the process?