30
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,034:
Line 1,034: + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 17:02, October 24, 2011
, 17:02, October 24, 2011→Taking your logic from the opening paragraph and running with it...: new section
::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
== Taking your logic from the opening paragraph and running with it... ==
I can prove that gravity doesn't exist. Just because something hasn't been explained or there are contradictions doesn't mean that the theory is incorrect. For instance, problems with gravity include: a discrepancy between the models at a macro level and quantum level, Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern, and of course the fact that no one has discovered a graviton. In short, according to your logic, since all of these cast doubt on gravity, it doesn't exist. Yet I'm still being held to the ground aren't I? Perhaps you should rethink your logic. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 13:02, 24 October 2011 (EDT)