rationalskepticism.org

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:
So, not particularly interested in the fundamentals of science.

However, it is not contrary to the fundamentals of science to not produce explanatory theories. Measuring and describing are more fundamental, because they represent the methodological acquisition of data from which hypotheses and theories can be built.

Yes, measuring and describing is fundamental to science, but in the absence of testable explanations (i.e. theories) these activities fall short of being science.

If that's your view of how science must work, then you're quite naive about both the philosophy and the practicality of the scientific method.

Hermit wrote:What makes science science is the process of making broad generalisations from specific observations. Those generalisations need to have an air of plausibility to say the least. Proposing an expanding earth without accounting where the mass for the earth's increased volume comes from makes the hypothesis profoundly implausible.

You are correct that new hypotheses should have prior plausibility, and not a single mechanism proposed for EE has any prior plausibility. This is why most people dismiss it out of hand; and they are not wrong for doing so.

However, in this loooong discussion, I have found demand for a mechanism to be both unproductive, and personally boring. I am a geologist and palaeontologist. I know a shit ton about these topics, and therefore want to see EE proponents show me the evidence they use to support their hypothesis in the first place.

And that's my fundamental point: there is literally no point in discussing a mechanism for a process, if the evidence that that process is even happening does not exist. At this point, EE proponents have yet to proffer a single scrap of geological or palaeontological evidence that cannot be explained better by Plate Tectonic theory.

Hermit wrote:In the absence of showing any interest in explaining the mechanics of how such an event can come about - in fact seeing no need to come up with one - Gincko's support for the expanding earth proposal is fundamentally unscientific.

See above.

Also, see my history on here, and you would know I do not support EE