Meldrum Takes it Up a Notch - Revolutionizes Science Itself

[thesometimesaint]

Whether I like or HATE any given scientist is irrelevant to the science. Proving them wrong using their science is how it is done.

[ERayR]

I am not endorsing this and not accepting it but would just like to comment that I am totally amazed and encouraged by the open minded approach this thread has taken.  It is amazing that without even reading it such clear open minded and scientific rebuttal as this is forwarded.

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The UM is pure bunkum.

 

 

On 11/27/2016 at 8:31 AM, thesometimesaint said:

La Sigh.

 

On 11/27/2016 at 7:21 AM, Marmonboy said:

Chauncey Riddle endorsed this nonsense?? He's dead now, I believe, but I always thought he was smarter than that.

 

On 11/26/2016 at 5:24 PM, The Nehor said:

I first started reading and assumed this was a joke post.

I learned otherwise.

I am now sad.

All the above are great examples of the scientific method of disproving him.  Very impressive folks.

Edited November 28, 2016 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

Let's just start with the UM myth that some 4,000 years ago the entire globe was covered by water. There is definitive evidence that this is an scientific impossibility.

SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[ERayR]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Let's just start with the UM myth that some 4,000 years ago the entire globe was covered by water. There is definitive evidence that this is an scientific impossibility.

SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Much better than this " The UM is pure bunkum. "

[thesometimesaint]

Interjecting nonsense into a discussion of what science actual says is by definition bunkum

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Learn this one trick to revolutionize science. Scientists HATE him!

I think you meant scienticians.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ERayR said:

I am not endorsing this and not accepting it but would just like to comment that I am totally amazed and encouraged by the open minded approach this thread has taken.  It is amazing that without even reading it such clear open minded and scientific rebuttal as this is forwarded.

 

 

 

 

All the above are great examples of the scientific method of disproving him.  Very impressive folks.

Climate change deniers got professionals to fight them and all it did was convince people that it is still an open question and we get endless pointless debates about it. When quack science is this far fetched mockery is the better antidote. You do not want to convey legitimacy. Same thing happened with Creationism in some areas.

Meldrum is not presenting science to challenge the mainstream or he would choose a better distribution method to ensure that happened. Instead he is marketing and selling a product to a limited audience with itching ears eager to be told what they want to believe.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

When quack science is this far fetched mockery is the better antidote. You do not want to convey legitimacy.

Au contraire, simply mocking others makes the mocker look illegitimate.  You don't want to be like Donald Trump who simply mocks the "quack science" of climate change do you?  I don't buy into what this guy is saying (without having read it), but I don't find it productive to mock, especially if you haven't read it.

Edited November 28, 2016 by pogi

[strappinglad]

To be clear, " science " doesn't  'say'  jack . Scientists, on the other hand , say quite a bit. Often two equally qualified scientists will look at the same data/ evidence and come out with two different theories or conclusions which are sometimes poles apart. Then a third scientist will enter the fray with a completely different proposal. It takes a lot of back and forth to hammer out 'truth' and I use that word  with trepidation . What happened to the cosmos and the earth over the mostly undocumented past is open to much speculation and continued study  and new observations and analysis add to knowledge and either fine tune or demolish past theories. Today, catastrophism is showing itself as a better idea for some of earth's events than gradualism . The power of natural forces to drastically rearrange the surface of a planet beyond what was accepted in the past has become clearer even as probes to the edge of the solar system broaden the knowledge and views of scientists. New questions about what to me was ' settled science ' concerning the make up of the earth's core should make us all leery about brushing aside some ideas like, oh I don't know... continental drift and plate tectonics , quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang , etc. which were all initially dismissed by reputable scientists and their societies but which proved to have staying power. Worldview and bias have just as much influence on scientists as ' regular ' folks. That said, the subject of the OP will have much more work to do to convince most of the validity of their case. Much more !

[Calm]

"New questions about what to me was ' settled science ' concerning the make up of the earth's core"

Cfr please.

[ERayR]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Climate change deniers got professionals to fight them and all it did was convince people that it is still an open question and we get endless pointless debates about it. When quack science is this far fetched mockery is the better antidote. You do not want to convey legitimacy. Same thing happened with Creationism in some areas.

Meldrum is not presenting science to challenge the mainstream or he would choose a better distribution method to ensure that happened. Instead he is marketing and selling a product to a limited audience with itching ears eager to be told what they want to believe.

And your examples of scholarly rebuttal, impressive as it is, is really no rebuttal at all.

Edited November 29, 2016 by ERayR

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"New questions about what to me was ' settled science ' concerning the make up of the earth's core"

Cfr please.

 a quick read of this general article will show that while the basics of the earth's construction are reasonably understood, there is much yet to comprehend .Note how often words like ' believed to be, thought to be , possibly, etc ' are used and that some areas of evidence are/were controversial. Settled Science is rare, especially when looking into the past or into places where we have difficulty getting a good view, like a few thousand miles below the earth's surface. Unfortunately, once info gets into school texts it becomes written in stone and few asterixs (sic) are attached to indicate the concepts are subject to further study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

[ERayR]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Interjecting nonsense into a discussion of what science actual says is by definition bunkum

 

But you haven't shown it to be nonsense and by definition, bunkum but have only declared it so which in itself is by definition "bunkum".

Edited November 29, 2016 by ERayR

[Marmonboy]

Having actually studied geology, I would like to comment that, while catastrophism is pretty much a fact on a small scale, (think Hurricane Katrina), catastrophism on a global scale pretty much wipes out the planet.

[katherine the great]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Meldrum is not presenting science to challenge the mainstream or he would choose a better distribution method to ensure that happened. Instead he is marketing and selling a product to a limited audience with itching ears eager to be told what they want to believe.

I agree.  I am a scientist and I'm very open minded to theories that go against the mainstream (if I have a chance to read them and look at their evidence.)  Heck, I recently read a theory by an expert in genetics (specifically hybrids) that claims humans are the result of an ancient mating between a pig and a chimpanzee.  I am not kidding.  The man is truly an expert in hybridization and he made this claim.  His arguments were compelling on several levels, but it was obvious that he did not understand convergent evolution.  The difference between that scientist and Meldrum is that Meldrum does not make his theory available to the public for less than 80 dollars.  So until he does, I will just say that this book looks like some kind of a scam.

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, Marmonboy said:

Having actually studied geology, I would like to comment that, while catastrophism is pretty much a fact on a small scale, (think Hurricane Katrina), catastrophism on a global scale pretty much wipes out the planet.

And from my reading, scientists present the idea that there have been several such ' extinction events ' over the past. I think at least a couple were quick on a geologic time scale. That big comet about 65 million years ago wasn't a gradual event.

  Just for fun, read about the Lewis Overthrust in the NW Rockies region and focus on the interface layer. What ' ism ' if any best explains it?

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Au contraire, simply mocking others makes the mocker look illegitimate.  You don't want to be like Donald Trump who simply mocks the "quack science" of climate change do you?  I don't buy into what this guy is saying (without having read it), but I don't find it productive to mock, especially if you haven't read it.

Poor Elijah really had egg on his face after mocking Baal and his priests. Such an unproductive use of his time.

 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, ERayR said:

And your examples of scholarly rebuttal, impressive as it is, is really no rebuttal at all.

To give a scholarly rebuttal (if I felt the urge to give one or was qualified to give one which I do not and am not except in an amateur capacity) I would first need something scholarly to rebut. So far we have a mass-market 800 page ebook selling for the low low price of $79. That certainly sounds like a scholarly approach to promulgating a new understanding of science and is definitely not a huckster shilling something.

I am told that it contains the answers to exciting questions like why planets and moons are round, one of the great mysteries that has stumped all our greatest astrophysicists who haven't taken Astronomy 101.

"While we have seen technology advance by leaps and bounds in our modern world, technology and science are not the same thing; The UM presents evidence that for more than a century, there exists a Scientific Dark Age, in which resides the determination to suppress Truth and the discovery of natural law, which is the driving reason behind the imminent Scientific Revolution."

So while science has been going bonkers in a massive conspiracy to suppress the truth, a conspiracy most scientists have stood behind for a century without anyone breaking ranks, technology based on science has flourished. It reminds me of the guy using his GPS while claiming quantum theory is bunk. GPS devices wouldn't work if it were. 

"The Magma Pseudotheory chapter explains that there is no magma in the Earth’s center, and that unanswered mysteries abound in modern geology, such as the origin of lava and the heat that drives it."

First off, magma is not in the earth's center. According to current understanding magma exists in the Earth's crust or just below it. No wonder they think there are unanswered mysteries in geology. Have they considered asking High School students to clarify these deep hidden mysteries of geology?

We learn how water "animates planets and moons" and how it links craters everywhere and explains where meteorites come from. Who knew moons needed animating?

It exposes the "Dark Age of Science errors in the Living System" whatever that means.

We also learn that water is the "Universe's most ubiquitous substance". Move over Hydrogen, there is a new boss in town. It is true that water MIGHT be the most common compound in the Universe but that is guesswork and I doubt this scholarly treatise is going to reveal some brilliant new evidence that it is definitely so.

"The Universal Model includes the introduction of more natural law and scientific truth in these three volumes than in any other scientific work ever published."

Modesty is definitely not their strong point. This is particularly arrogant as two of the volumes are not finished yet. 

 

That work for a rebuttal and that was just from their own summary? So yeah, this is scientific trash. They didn't even take the time to understand the theories they are trying to refute. They promulgate a massive century long conspiracy about as likely to be true as your average Illuminati website. They promise to rewrite science entirely and make it "easy to understand" is laughable. Reality is complicated. Deal with it.

People are probably going to hell for this book unless they can get off on violations of the "do not lie" commandment on the basis of being deeply stupid. Again, I kind of wish I had no soul or conscience. If I didn't I could peddle much better drivel then this and make money.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, ERayR said:

But you haven't shown it to be nonsense and by definition, bunkum but have only declared it so which in itself is by definition "bunkum".

No, it isn't.

[Marmonboy]

11 hours ago, strappinglad said:

And from my reading, scientists present the idea that there have been several such ' extinction events ' over the past. I think at least a couple were quick on a geologic time scale. That big comet about 65 million years ago wasn't a gradual event.

  Just for fun, read about the Lewis Overthrust in the NW Rockies region and focus on the interface layer. What ' ism ' if any best explains it?

Nobody ever said that catastrophism never happens--I was thinking specifically of the dinosaur extinction when I said what I said. But to cite catastrophism as the cause of each and every thing that we see in the geological record is as incorrect and as simplistic as stating the opposite. Change happens-- sometimes, if not most times, slowly over long periods of time, and other times very suddenly.

[ERayR]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it isn't.

Another pronouncement.  I have one , tss has one and you have one. 

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, strappinglad said:

To be clear, " science " doesn't  'say'  jack . Scientists, on the other hand , say quite a bit. Often two equally qualified scientists will look at the same data/ evidence and come out with two different theories or conclusions which are sometimes poles apart. Then a third scientist will enter the fray with a completely different proposal. It takes a lot of back and forth to hammer out 'truth' and I use that word  with trepidation . What happened to the cosmos and the earth over the mostly undocumented past is open to much speculation and continued study  and new observations and analysis add to knowledge and either fine tune or demolish past theories. Today, catastrophism is showing itself as a better idea for some of earth's events than gradualism . The power of natural forces to drastically rearrange the surface of a planet beyond what was accepted in the past has become clearer even as probes to the edge of the solar system broaden the knowledge and views of scientists. New questions about what to me was ' settled science ' concerning the make up of the earth's core should make us all leery about brushing aside some ideas like, oh I don't know... continental drift and plate tectonics , quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang , etc. which were all initially dismissed by reputable scientists and their societies but which proved to have staying power. Worldview and bias have just as much influence on scientists as ' regular ' folks. That said, the subject of the OP will have much more work to do to convince most of the validity of their case. Much more !

For better or worse one scientist can not make scientific theory. It takes repeated testing by different individuals with the same results that produce a scientific theory.

SEE https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

SEE

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

Another pronouncement.  I have one , tss has one and you have one. 

And all pronouncements are equally valid?

[ERayR]

Just now, The Nehor said:

And all pronouncements are equally valid?

Not to the pronouncer but perhaps to one who hasn't any other information but the pronouncements.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And all pronouncements are equally valid?

But but I read it on the internets, it must be true.