A scientific theory for creation

Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------
Science doesn't work this way. One does not propose a theory according to personal inclination and then hold it until falsified. One instead builds a theory around bodies of evidence. In the case of your theory, it appears to have been constructed in the absence of evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------My 'body' of evidence is the same as used by mainstream science. You will have to read my book to see that this is true. There was no need for me to gather further evidence. Its only the interpretation of the evidence that is perhaps different from current mainstream science thinking.Quote
_____________________________________________________________________
I think you just got taken regarding your "continents can only get smaller" theory, you've just chosen to ignore it.
__________________________________________________________________I am not aware of any of the existing continents having become larger in the last 200 million years or new continents (not volcanic tops or islands)having been formed. Perhaps I ought to consult a more modern atlas.

So in other words, you have no new evidence, you're just ignoring already existing evidence. Perhaps you can explain for us why you're ignoring the radiometric data. The North American continent has grown significantly during this period due to accretion on the western coast where the Pacific plate subducts under the North American plate. I mentioned this in the earlier post (Message 23).Also, I was not arguing that continents only grow larger. You were arguing that continents can only grow smaller, and I provided examples of processes which contribute to continental growth. I mentioned the Mississippi delta in my earlier post - it's important to keep in mind that the constant erosion of the interior is delivered to the margins by rivers.Whether in an overall worldwide sense the continents are growing or shrinking I do not know, but the contention that they can only shrink is clearly false. Your example of your own eroding coastline made several false assumptions, among them that your local situation was the general case everywhere, that the process's rate had been and would always be at its current rate, and that the direction of the process would never reverse. A similar bad example would be to say that mountains are only eroding and can only get shorter, ignoring uplift. In fact, we can now measure mountain growth. For example, we know that the Himalayas continue to elevate at about 2.5 inches/year (No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.extremescience.com/HighestElevation.htm).--Percy

I think we are perhaps making too much about shrinking/growing continents. I know the principles and assumptions of radometric dating but what I do not understand is how this can help to time an event.
Maybe you can explain this to me.Thanks

Hey, you brought it up! It was part of your evidence for a young earth. You said erosion had not changed the shapes of the continents sufficiently for 200 million years to have passed. If you look at a world map you'll see the shapes of the continents match in broad view, but when you start comparing specific shapes it is clear the coastlines have changed significantly. Just from visual inspection it is difficult to tell whether the net is an increase or decrease in continental area. I have a series of maps showing the evolution of the continents since before Gondawana, and it appears from these maps that there is more continental area now than then. ????Let me get this straight - you understand "the principles and assumptions of radiometric dating," but you want me to explain to you how it works? How does that make any sense? That's like saying, "I know the way to your house, can you tell me how to get there?"I can explain radiometric dating to you if that's what you want (so can any number of other people here, plus there are plenty of websites and the library), but what I'd like to know first is, if you didn't already understand how radiometric dating works, then how could you consider yourself sufficiently informed to reject radiometric dating, let alone write a book?--Percy

I have a series of maps showing the evolution of the continents since before Gondawana, and it appears from these maps that there is more continental area now than then.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entirely as expected because in my opinion the continents are simply flattening out as a result of weathering and erosion.---------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight - you understand "the principles and assumptions of radiometric dating," but you want me to explain to you how it works? How does that make any sense? That's like saying, "I know the way to your house, can you tell me how to get there?"
----------------------------------------------------------------No you have not got it straight. I asked you to tell me how it
helps to time an EVENT not give an age of a rock! The event being the drifting apart of the continents.

Well, that's a nice opinion, but to be scientific it has to explain the evidence. The evidence we have says there have been many cycles of mountain building and erosion over millions of years. You say your evidence is the same as the mainstream evidence, so can you explain how you fit this evidence into a young earth scenario? I'd be glad to explain this, but something still doesn't quite add up here. Back in Message 22 you said: Sounds like you've got a pretty good handle on it to me. You're so familiar with it, in fact, that you were able to identify "a lot of assumptions."In light of such comments your current questions don't make sense. Either you don't understand it, in which case your prior comments lent a false impression, or you do understand it, in which case your current questions make no sense. In any case, I don't see how you could have arrived at an informed opinion if you didn't already know the answers to the questions you're now asking.--Percy

What you are really saying is that I should only agree with the existing mainstream science theories but am not allowed to fit the same evidence in a different theory. Well I am a free thinker who considers all the evidence and assumptions of all theories and I make up my own mind irrespective of what others may think.You dont really know the start and end of 'my theory' having not read my book.
You also may not be familiar with what the Bible says
probably because you may have not spent much time on trying to understand it. Free thinkers like Isaac Newton knew there was more in the Bible than meets the eye and spent years of his life in trying to break the code. Its only in the last five years or so that with the aid of computers the coded messages in the Bible are becoming crystal clear. Quite independently but at the same time of the publication of the first edition of my book another book came out (not written by creationist or a religious person) on these coded messages. We are in complete agreement with regards to the dangers of extinction by asteroid impact-my book explains the origin of these asteroids.But you have still evaded my question.
The real answer is a circular arguement-I wanted you you show me the way out of that arguement. Until I can get a satisfactory answer from anyone I will stick to what the Bible tells me in very plain
words-the continents moved apart with human life on board.
Give me evidence (not theory) to show this is a lie and I will weigh up that evidence with the same scale I use for any other evidence.The Bible also tells us that 'in the last days there will be scoffers' .... I would hate to think you are one of them (I used to be one myself until by the grace of God alone he opened my eyes)

quote:

---

I am sure if 'somebody' said to you that a date in the Qur'an was wrong by several thousands of years you would recheck both
dates and if you were sure about the date in the Qur'an you would
seriously doubt the 'somebody' and may feel strongly enough about it to tell him so. I have had some correspondence with someone in Turkey who runs a Turkish Creation or Anti Evolution group based on the Qur'an. So there are people in other religions who also feel strongly about the sacredness of their scriptures. But I do take your point that we must tread very cautiously in sensitive grounds for fear of doing more harm than good if the aim is to get others to take our scriptures seriously.

---

FYI, no dates were specifically described for the timeline of creation in the Qur'an. It speaks of seven yaum of creation, but nobody seriously interprets it as six literal days, or six ages. The Qur'an does not mention the sequence of creation either.Anyway, you mention that you had some correspondence with the Harun Yahya co. (the Turkish creationists). May I know your opinion about them?

I think you're reading more into my question than was there. To repeat, how do you fit the available evidence into your theory? Are you trying to sell books or have a discussion? Is that why you're being so close-lipped, you're hoping people will become curious and buy your book? This certainly makes things clear for me! No, I avoided wasting my time answering a question for which there was strong evidence you already knew the answer. And what do you know, you *did* already know the answer to your question! So tell us, why is science is wrong about the age and motion of the continents?--Percy

quote:

---

Its only in the last five years or so that with the aid of computers the coded messages in the Bible are becoming crystal clear.

---

Ah, yes, the Bible Code! See
Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick
for an alternative: the Moby Dick Code.

Re The Bible CodeThanks for the website on the Bible Code.
I only finished reading Drosnin's book late last night and must confess to have been taken in by it. I had no idea that it had received the refutation it has. I wished I had not mentioned it on this site. Its good to know that many of those who oppose Drosnins book still believe that the Bible has a Divine origin and that remains my view. But perhaps its best for me to make no further contributions to this site.

Thanks for your interest and comments these past few days. But in view of the clanger I dropped earlier on this morning I am sure you will understand that the only decent thing for me to do now is to retire from this site.

Hey, I dropped a clanger over at the New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02 in Message 43 when I was dead wrong about Michael Denton. Let he who is perfect bonk the clangers among us.Why not just answer the questions? You've obviously got a point of view, but after your first couple messages you became extremely coy. I believe that the person who comes out on top in discussion will be the one who best marshalled the evidence in support of his position, and not he who was best at playing sly debate games, since after all it quickly becomes obvious to everyone that that's what's happening.So if you think you've found a circularity in the argument and/or evidence for the movement of continents why don't you tell us what it is?--Percy

Thanks very much for your encouraging words. I certainly have learnt a lesson of putting too much blind faith in something (Drosnins book in this case) only because it seemed to support my faith in the Bible.I am sorry if it appears that I do not want to answer your questions. The problem is simply that my model for start of the solar system, the formation of the earth and its oceans and continents etc is substantially different from the mainstream science models. For me to answer your questions fully would mean rewriting my book almost completely on this site. For this reason in my very first message of this discussion I offered to send a free copy to members of this site who want to see what I have to say. This offer is still open and only requuires an e mail with a fowarding address. As you live in the States it will take about a week to come if I send it by air mail.
So you have absolutely nothing to lose by flicking through the relevant pages that deal with the questions you ask. Obviusly if you
dont agree with what I am saying or if what I have said is untrue or unclear then I will be more than happy to retract/change/expand etc.Leander

Just out of interest - who published your book? Did they pay you, or is it a vanity publisher?Just wondering.