[
Replying to post 1234 by DrNoGods]
Initial conditions must be valid ... not pulled out of thin air and asserted without any evidence or support. The Theory of Evolution started out as a hypothesis based on observations in the real world.
Far from it. Evolution's initial condition is that life was already existing. And that from one organism all the phyla that we see today came into existence. And according to Neatras evolution is assuming that at least 1000 organisms came into existence all at the same time with different DNA make up, so as not to produce a genetic load which would cause them to become extinct. And each successive new trait would have to have at least 1000 in the population have that same mutation. That is what evolution is assuming. Might as well say that the hand of God was directing it. But if you say that God was directing evolution then there would be no reason why He could not have just created all the organisms we see ex nihilo.
The Theory of Relativity started out as an idea, it was then formulated into a mathematical structure, and it made predictions (eg. on the deviations in apparent positions of stars due to bending of light by a massive body) that could be confirmed (or not) by observation.
That is correct that those same observations indicate that at one point in the past there was no such thing as the fabric of space - time. The equations of quantum mechanics need both space and time cause the the universe in which we exist. With the fabric of space-time then there would be no place for the fictitious quantum flux to happen.
So the first assumption that current cosmology makes is that there was a quantum flux. The second is that there was an expansion event what cosmologist call inflation. Inflation was not discovered by observation it was invented as a need to solve a problem with the big bang model. Big Bang theory would never predict inflation but it has to have some type of inflation to be a viable theory. No inflation no big bang. The third assumption is that there has to be an eternal universe. Again this would not be a prediction from big bang theory it is a solution to a problem that would make the big bang theory a nonviable theory.
There is observational evidence of a quantum flux creating our universe. There is no observational evidence of an eternal universe. Some say there is observational evidence of inflation but that evidence can be easily accounted form by other phenomenon.
There is a huge difference in the approach of testing hypotheses via observation (ie. the scientific method), and what Humphreys and Brown did which is to completely make up some initial conditions that have never been confirmed to be valid (actually, in both cases, they've been shown conclusively to NOT be valid ... do you really think all of the planets in our solar system started out as balls of H2O with all the H atom nuclear spins aligned?).
[/quote]
Yes, that is why they are called assumptions. Look at the list above of the assumptions in both evolution and the big bang theory. Even Einsteins theory of relativity starts out with two basic assumption.
Quote:
So when you want to have a Theory of origins let me know.
Moving the goal posts again? There's no discussion here about a theory of origins. But since the mechanism for how the first life forms came to exist on earth is not known yet, there is no "Theory of Origins." There are only hypotheses, none of which have been sufficiently supported by evidence to reach the status of "theory." That pesky scientific method again.
Yes, this means your first assumption is that life was already here. That is a huge assumption. Besides that which "hypothesis" are you speaking of some sort of chemical to man type of world. You do not mention them because you know they are not viable and there is no hope of some sort of viable theory. Because in the conditions needed to make amino acids destroys proteins or visa versa I am not taking the time to look up the process. Add that to the homochirality of the molecules of life and again you might as well believe that God made life. Because that is what you have to believe to make a molecule to man theory a viable theory. God directed it.
He claims that the tallest mountains on earth were about 6,000'. We know for a fact that a measly 4,300 years ago the configuration of mountain ranges on this planet were essentially the same as they are now. Nanga Parbat in the Himalayas is the fastest growing mountain on earth right now at 7 mm/year (Everest is about 4 mm/yr). So 4,300 years ago Nanga Parbat would have been about 30 meters shorter, and it is 8125m above sea level now. That's 26,657 feet, some 20,000 feet taller than Brown claims (the 30m lower height 4,300 year ago is negligible).
Your assumption here is that the tectonic forces that folded the plates into mountains were constant over the past 4300 years. Walt theory says it was not constant. So according to his theory this increase in the height of the mountains is would be totally consistent. This amount of folding and vaulting would also cause a great deal of melt. Which is also observed on the Tibetan plateau a huge amount of melt. Same is also true on the Colorado plateau.
There is lots of H2O tied up in ringwoodite, but that is between about 500 and 700 km below the surface ... far below the crust/mantle interface. The quote above is inconsistent with itself. In the first sentence you mention a water layer between the crust and the mantle, then in the next sentence talk about water in the mantle. Brown made up an imaginary source of water so that he could then formulate the rest of his tall tale.
Water in the ringwood is not the only place there is water. At the bottom of the deepest bore holes ever drill salt water was found to be twice the salinity of today's oceans. Water was found under mountains chains as predicted.
Besides current plate tectonic theory explains the water in the mantle because of subducting plates.
For many years, scientists have attempted to establish exactly how much water may be cycling between the Earth’s surface and interior reservoirs through the action of plate tectonics. Northwestern University geophysicist Steve Jacobsen and University of New Mexico seismologist Brandon Schmandt have found deep pockets of magma around 400 miles beneath North America — a strong indicator of the presence of H₂O stored in the crystal structure of high-pressure minerals at these depths.
https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive ... hs-mantle/
Quote:
Supercontinent that is what current plate tectonic theory says.
Yeah ... Pangaea which started breaking up about 175 million years ago was the last one. How does that in any way relate to Brown's imaginary supercontinent that existed (so he claims) only 4,300 years ago? He just made that up like his source of underground water. There was no supercontinent 4,300 years ago.
That is the assumption made by plate tectonics which assumes that the current plate movement rate has been taking place for billions of years. But as outlined before how could old tectonic plates be found at the mantle core boundary if this is true. Thermal equilibrium would have been reached long before. The plates reached the core mantle boundary.
Quote:
Bible told Noah to build the boat.
The bible told him to build the boat? And all this time I thought it was some sort of god being.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Sorry to hear that. There are actual scientific explanations that don't require creating bogus initial conditions.
When you hear of some let me know I will be happy to discuss it with you.
