/sci/ - Science & Math

This huge apparent Plesiosaur washed up on Moore's Beach in Monterey Bay, California in 1925. What a long neck, huh! No, it is not a painted Giraffe! And he had been dead only a week or so! The neck was described as being about 7 meters, or about 20 feet long.
No credible explanation has ever been made to explain it, other than Plesiosaurs still living in the Pacific Ocean. The sardine fishermen often reported seeing creatures like this in the 1920-40 era. It was hardly reported in the media. No explanation wsas ever given by "scientists" about this 4 billion year extinct creature! And there is no other explanation than that Plesiosaurs are still living in the Pacific Ocean this century and did not become extinct 4 billion years ago or how long was it?
Who knows! Soon you may either see misinformation sites or official scientific statements spring up on the web, to tell us that "actually a few plesiosauri may have survived the famous Asteroid!" just to pacify and diffuse the issue. We shall see!

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/tpz-monsters/
>For you see, this so-called “Santa Cruz Monster” was identified almost immediately. The carcass was a decomposed Baird’s beaked whale, or Baird’s fourtooth whale, Berardius bairdii. It is not stored in some hidden basement, but at the California Academy of Sciences. Thomas J. Gehling took images (one below) of the skull and shared them with Naish.

>>5439252

I like how photographs and videos of cryptids are never in focus and always ambiguous

ah I was looking for an excuse to post this picture

>>5439268
If they were in focus it would be trivial to determine what they actually are.

>>5439268
no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you

its not a beaked whale im looking at both of them side by side

What would be the purpose of hiding the existence of animals we once thought were extinct? It's not like the person who fist fished up a West Indian Ocean coelacanth was found dead after spreading word that they are still around.

>>5439247
>4 billion year extinct creature
>almost as old as the earth
oh wow

http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/cse/cse_moores_beach_plesiosaur.htm

>>5439290
LOL they had to take off part of his neck in the picture they cropped

>>5439283
I'm just saying, we need more evidence than ambiguous decaying blobs of flesh

>>5439293
well its kind of hard when theres a huge conspiracy
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Can mutations create new information?
creation.com/mutations-new-information

Kent Hovind Defeats an Entire Room of Evolutionists
youtube.com/watch?v=BREWm54e0NU

Peer reviewed scientific paper shows there hasn't been enough time in the history of the universe for evolution to take place.

Journal BIO-Complexity, "Time and Information in Evolution," Winston Ewert, Ann Gauger, William Dembski, and Robert J. Marks, II once again show that a mathematical simulation of evolution doesn't model biologically realistic processes of Darwinian evolution at all.

bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.4

A Scientific Critique Of Evolution
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

Sorry, but that looks like a dolphin's head to me.

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

Now the number of human fossils found is nothing like one would expect if this ‘Stone Age’ scenario were correct. The number found is more consistent with a ‘Stone Age’ of a few hundred years,

http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

>>5439283
>thinking an untrained eye can call species differences between horribly distorted decayed flesh and anatomical references

>>5439312
>HURR THERE SHOULD BE A BAZILLION HUMAN SKELETONS EVERYWHERE!
There should also be about 6 million jew skeletons in Eastern Europe but they're having a hard time finding those
:3333

>>5439320
no it takes common sense

anyone can decide for themselves

the picture clearly has a neck and beaked whales dont

>"scientsts"
>their duty
>misinformation
>a huge conspiracy
>Evolutionists
crackpottery

>>5439341
>the picture clearly has a neck
When most of your internal organs have rotted away and fallen out and all that's left is skin and everything collapses together (like what happens when a whale corpse decays), yeah, it'll look like a neck.

That doesn't mean it is a neck, though.

Lol. Kent hovind is a radical young earth creationist currently in federal prison. His doctoral thesis was from a christian degree mill and is available on wikileaks if you want a good chuckle.

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable.

But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’.

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice.

We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

The important question is not ‘Is it science?’ We can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that we don’t like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’1
Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

i actually just wanted to post that picture >>5439415

>>5439300
>youtube.com/watch?v=BREWm54e0NU
19/10

would rage again.

>>5439419
There was so much going on in that word salad I almost choked. Ill address one of your points: that to be falsifiable something must be directly observed.

This is untrue and you stating it does not magically believe it is what science proposes. Nobody neees to see, or to see the lack of a magic ark that housed millions of species of insects, animals, dragins, and by the way every disease ever known (unless the evolved by chance afterwards) to know it is on its face wholly impossible. A ship that size made entitely of wood would collapse under its own weight in the slightest breeze or current. Where did the wood come from? The great michael, a scottish ship half the length of the ark which was built in the 1500s consumed all the trees in fife, a county known for its ship building. Since when does iraq have that much wood? How did Noah purchase the huge quantity of wood? What about penguins and bonobos? Did the plants all die? Where did the water come from?

Your theory is shit if it crumbles under the slightest critical inquiry. I actually wrote a paper on how the flood is 100% impossible and would love to discues it more if you disagree

bump for Nessy

>>5439461
Heres answers to all your questions
http://creation.com/noahs-ark-questions-and-answers

>>5439474
Since you seem to be so knowledgeable about creationist theories, why dont you just answer my questions yourself? Do you not truly believe what you claim? Do you not fully understand it perhaps? of course the purposeis to of faith is to make you feel safe and happy and not question little things like magical floods and hydrologic sorting.

Kent hovind states in his video (number 4 I believe) that the flood waters came from an ice comet. Do you believe this explanation?

>>5439498
because you asked a lot of things

no i think the flood waters came from inside the earth

Gensis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

>>5439504

tsunami?

i mean its not like they had sky news 24.

>>5439517

or a series of massive earthquakes that caused multiple tsunami's.
its less likely though.

maybe it was climate change.

>>5439517
no
>the “fountains of the great deep” are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water

>There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record—layers that were obviously deposited during Noah’s flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 percent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.

>>5439504
Ok now we have something to work with. That claim, even if we cant directly observe, can be evaluated and pootentially falsified. I shall attempt to do so now. If you are taking the bible as a reference, I would point you to the verse that says the waters covered the highest mountains.

So you believe that there was aworldwide flood, whose waters covered the earth and mountains, and its source was some form of underground wells or caves, correct?

Am I on /sci/ or /x/ ?

>>5439529
ya indeed

heres an article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

>>5439536

Okay. No need to involve other sources or info just yet. Lets do some science and math and evaluate your claim. Id like to know a rough ballpark figure for how much water would be required to cover the earth. Using your modern, intelligent brain and what you remember from physics class, can you propose to me a simple forumla to calculate this quantity?

>>5439557
well evolution doesnt have enough time mathematically to happen see the study i posted >>5439300

not dodging i dont know physics

>>5439517
>>5439520
>>5439526

It was none of those, because the Old Testament was a fictional story like The Odyssey or The Great Gatsby. It didn't happen.

>>5439599
a fiction written by people hundreds of years apart

hmmmmmm

>>5439601

Yes, that's how folk tales are made.

>>5439610
>>5439610
name one book like the bible in the world

>>5439613

The Silmarillion.

>>5439618
fantasy. not claiming to be the word of god

Okay. To find out how much space is enclosed by an object, we find its Volume. The volume of a sphere is (4/3) pi×r^3. To find put how much water covered the earth, I propose a simple calculation.

All we need to do is calculate the volume of water needed to fill a sphere with the radius of the Earth plus Mount Everest (the highest mountain), then subtract the volume of a sphere with the radius of the Earth. Not a perfect number, but a good ballpark estimate. Volume=4/3piR3. The diameter of the Earth is 12,756.8km, so V=(4/3)(pi)(6387.25^3), which is 1.09151x10^12km3. With the Earth at sea level, V=(4/3)(pi)(6378.4^3), which is 1.08698x10^12km3.The difference, or volume of water needed to cover the Earth, 4.525x10^9, or 4,525,000,000,000 cubickilometers. Is this an agreeable calculation?

>>5439582

>this entire thread

>>5439613
The Epic of Gilgamesh

>>5439628
it also rained for 40 days and "the windows of heaven were opened" whatever that means

We need to remember that nearly 70 percent of the earth's surface is still covered by water.

>>5439613
The Egyptian Book of the Dead

>>5439613
Mormon Texts

>>5439613
Sikh Texts

>>5439613
Avesta

>>5439613
Chun Boo Kyung

>>5439653
>>5439663
>>5439669
>>5439670
>>5439671
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/false_religions.htm

>>5439613
Dianetics

>>5439653
>>5439663
>>5439670

Pagan myths, not the same as the Bible.

>>5439669

The writings of a convicted con-man.

>>5439613
Vachana sahitya

>>5439613
Upanishads

>>5439613
Old Testament

>>5439613
Bhagavad Gita

>>5439613
Koran

>>5439613
Talmud

>>5439613
Midrash

>>5439656

Not concerned with anything else at this point except reaching an estimate of how much water supposedly covered the earth that has a scientific basis (ie reached by accurate formulas) and that those who believr in it can accept as a ballpark figure. I have a figure of 4.5 trillion cubic kilometers of water covering the earths crust during a supposed noachian flood a few thousand years ago. Are there any disagreements to this claim as a hypothetical proposition? (ie if thi contradicts biblical accounts or if I messed up the math then we are in the process of falsifying said theory)

>>5439613
Adi Granth

>>5439613
Hadith

>>5439613
TOLD STATUS:
[ ] NOT TOLD
[ ] TOLD
[x] FUCKING TOLD
[x] CASH4TOLD.COM
[x] KNIGHTS OF THE TOLD REPUBLIC
[x] TOLDERONE
[x] STONE TOLD STEVE AUSTIN
[x] CURE FOR THE COMMON TOLD
[x] BEN TOLDS
[x] THE 40 YEAR TOLD VIRGIN
[x] 007: TOLDENEYE
[x] TEXAS TOLD’EM
[x] AUSTIN POWERS IN TOLDMEMBER
[x] PTERODACTOLD
[x] TOLDTINO’S PIZZA ROLLS
[x] NO COUNTRY FOR TOLD MEN
[x] 24 CARAT TOLD
[x] ONLY SHOOTING STARS BREAKTHE TOLD
[x] GOING ONCE… GOING TWICE… TOLD
[x] GARY TOLDMAN
[x] TOLD SPICE
[x] TOLD STONE CREAMERY
[x] BABY IT’S TOLD OUTSIDE
[x] POKEMON TOLD AND SILVER
[x] TOLD YELLER
[x] EL DORADO: THE LOST CITY OF TOLD
[x] TOLDPLAY
[x] THE TOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL
[x] DANNY DEVITOLD
[x] TOLDEN SUN
[x] FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLDS
[x] CAN’T TEACH A TOLD DOG NEW TRICKS
[x] I AIN’T SAYIN SHE A TOLD DIGGER
[x] TOLDING CHAIR
[x] TOLDIER OF FORTUNE
[x] THE TOLDEN COMPASS
[x] TOLDEN AXE
[x] TOLD MACDONALD HAD A FARM
[x] ROCKIN TO THE TOLDIES
[x] BATTLETOLDS
[x] YE TOLDE PUB
[x] TOLDEN CAULFIELD
[x] THE TOLD MAN AND THE SEA
[x] TOLD MEDAL WINNER AT THE OLYMPICS
[x] ALL OF THE ABOVE

>>5439714
hey its your eternal salvation

if you want to think Thor has the same chance of being true as the bible with billions of adherents thousands of years later
then theres something wrong

>>5439714

[x] THE TOLD TESTAMENT

>>5439717

Faith is not a popularity contest. Examine your thoughts.

>>5439717
>appeal to popularity
more people like the twilight series than blade, does that mean vampires now sparkle?

>>5439721
>>5439723
no im not appealing to popularity
i posted a dinosaur in the OP, that proves evolution is wrong

and we have a book that claims to be the word of god that people still take seriously today that has a creation story wouldnt that be logical to go to since theres no other possible way?

>>5439678
>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/false_religions.htm
my eyes are bleeding.

>>5439241

>using Kent Hovind as a resource

Kent Hovind is a well known liar and con man. Using him as a resource automatically renders everything you say false.

>>5439725
>thinks vampires sparkel