Geologists are evaluating whether to identify a new geological epoch here on Earth, the Anthropocene (supplanting the Holocene, which started with the end of the previous major Ice Age 11K years ago). Given the geological changes (from concrete to sea and land formations, not to mention plastic deposits, radioactive material deposits, and other persistent changes), mass extinction, and, of course, atmospheric / climatic alterations, it's a pretty persuasive argument.
For the second time, we are witnessing a new geological epoch | Ars Technica
Welcome to the Anthropocene.
118 view(s)
BS geology.
+Antonio DeAguiar How so?
+Dave Hill
What is Science? Definition of Science?
Do you realize science is only a word synonymous with knowledge?
A word doesn't have abilities, or cognizance. To give a word such abilities is known as the reification fallacy.
Knowledge/science is a good thing if it is truthful; otherwise, it is not a good thing or beneficial or real science.
It is humans who are made in the image of God with God given sensory organs/abilities/intelligence in a world of order that GOD created that allows fallible humans to investigate God's creation i.e. acquire knowledge/science on many aspects using the Scientific Method, a tool established by Creationist Christian Scientists using repeated testing of a testable repeating observable phenomenon.
Warning! Theories are not FACT otherwise they would not be theories and would be Scientific Laws! Many so called theories/sciences have been wrong. In fact most of the time the hypothesis/theories are wrong and thus are abandoned or modified based on new evidence. To worship this endeavour with its faults/errors/and Lies is called Scientism.
SCIENCE noun:
"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
"systematized knowledge in general."
"[C14: etymology via Old French from Latin scientia knowledge, from scīre to know] "
from: dictionary.reference.com/brow
Therefore, science must be experiential i.e. one must see, and repeatedly test a testable repeating phenomenon. This is why the imagined Pond Scum to all Evolution can't be a bona-fide scientific working hypothesis, or theory or even a Science with Scientists studying it.
youtube.com/watch?v=Pi1Foiz6kqE [the scientific method explained with an example]
To know something one must have seen it happen in real time to be able to describe/document what was experienced with one's God given senses and memorized in a chronological order of what was seen transpiring with one's God given brain/mind as an eyewitness.
One can also claim some knowledge/science if one can investigate repeating testable phenomena to again document what is experimentally/experientially discernible. Finally, one has ample or complete knowledge/science if one can reproduce the phenomenon or if one is the creator of the phenomena like God Himself who has divulged what He did for our Science/Knowledge with His Word i.e. the Bible. This is Historical Knowledge provided by eyewitness narrative which can be treated as testable predictions such that Real Science can confirm. Most of the Bible's narrative about peoples, places and events are vindicated by Archaeologists evidence and Real Science.
What can you have Science/Truthful Knowledge about – anything?
It is impossible to have science, which is truthful knowledge, about anything that never happened historically, about things which are only imagined, about things that are not experiential, or about things which defy scientific laws and principles and that cannot be reproduced.
Now let's pick one phenomena okay. Abiogenesis is not a phenomena that was observed happening historically or now and thus is not available for observation and repeated testing as required by the scientific method to understand its working mechanisms etc. Therefore, there is ZERO knowledge about such an event. Hence abiogenesis is only a necessary element of the fairy tale/atheistic lie of Evolutionism. Thus, so called evolutionists concocted possible ways [LIES] that abiogenesis "could/may" have happened to promote this atheistic pseudoscience with a beginning that gullible fools accepts i.e. baffle the brains of fools with malarkey.
The same is true with every fairy tale aspect [LIE] of the GTE.
Whereas, all of the predictions, claims, fraudulent artifacts, and hijacked evidence etc. about Pond Scum to All that ever lived Biological Evolutionism are exposed as atheistic pseudoscience/LIES and not a confirmation of alleged historical events i.e. historical science/knowledge.
Creationists do not claim science is a religion. They know better. After all it was Creationist Christian Scientists that founded the scientific method and many of the scientific laws and principles in use today.
+Dave Hill I think perhaps one of the most important implications is that once we acknolwedge being a force of nature, we may no longer claim to be powerless bystanders but, by our own action or inaction, are in large part responsible for our own future and the world in which we live.
If only this would encourage some sense of personal responsibility in people.
I love it when people randomly let you know to block them.
+Antonio DeAguiar Ask a silly question …
Your page is becoming a wacko magnet.
+Scott Randel I must be doing something right then.
+Dave Hill +Scott Randel +Gary Roth
I said it's BS Geology and explained why with my comment explaining what science is and is not.
It is impossible to have science i.e. truthful knowledge about what is historical and not repeating. It is impossible to have science i.e. truthful knowledge about anything unless it is experiential/experimental.
The GC does not exist anywhere or everywhere on the planet as illustrated. The Illustration is bogus atheistic science using circular reasoning, begging the question fallacies.
All dating methods are bogus and extremely wrong and with discordant/conflicting results using different methods.
Bye, Antonio …
+Antonio DeAguiar I don't know you, and I wasn't talking to you. Moreover, the material you were copying and pasting was clearly not your own (ie: plagiarizing). Since you won't give the original author [or good scientific practice] respect, I have no respect for you.
Come back when you can form your own argument, or at least give credit to the people you're ripping off.