don findlay wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger?

Why are you picking and choosing among which refutations you will
accept? A refutation is a refutation, whether you like it or not.

Again, it's a question of what comes first, isn't it? .the data or the
theory. If the geological facts permit an allowable conclusion, for
example, that life evolves, .. then why not use a creationist argument
to refute it. If the conclusion is in the facts, then so should be the
refutation.

One problem with creationism is that it to the extent it is
falsifiable, it has been falsified. ID has no theory at all. And
neither has been able to refute evolutionary science with facts.

So too: the evidence does not support an expanding Earth.

And there is much that refutes it. Some problems:
No conceivable mechanism.
No other planets are seen to be expanding.
No changes in the length of day or the orbit that we would expect.
No geological data that is supported by this "hypothesis", and much
that is incompatible with it. There is no data that you idea supports
better than plate tectonics. I use scare quotes around the word
"hypothesis" because it's not an hypothesis unless it's comptible with
the known facts.
The more knowledge people have in physics or geology, the more they
seem to have specific arguments at hand refuting you.




snip continuation of rant

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Kermit